Twins DFA Byungho Park

[KirbyDome89]

 

Fair questions, I'll give it a go

 

1. By my count, Santana is #3 on the infield depth chart. I wish they had better options but they don't. It might also be the case that Santana would more likely be claimed than Park, in which case DFA-ing Park is the less risky move.

 

2. See Brock's post above. 

 

3. In the off chance they actually lose Park, then either the FO misjudged the demand for RH power or they are content to trade Park for the $9m it would free up. Perhaps a bit of both.

If they aren't into Park then i can understand it but I disagree. 

 

If Dantana is more likely to be claimed I would gladly let another team pay him. I feel like you can find his clone fairly easily either within the organization or on the waiver wire. 

 

[jimmer]

It gets a little old hearing defense of bad moves by using the word hindsight. The Park signing was easy to criticize when it happened and it was, by a lot of people.  A lot of them on this site.  

[KirbyDome89]

I don't see the addition of a potential slugger to a group filled with question marks as a bad move. Before Park was signed how comfortable could anybody really be with the given options? We've seen Sano struggle defensively and Vargas bounced back. None of that had played out at the time of the signing. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

At that point, what do you do with Grossman?

 

I don't mind Grossman as an occasional fourth outfielder but I'm not in love with him as the fourth outfielder.

 

To me, it comes down to this:

 

The team can't field a rounded roster with Grossman, Park, Vargas, Sano, and Mauer on the roster. Remove Santana and the same problem exists so Santana isn't the problem here.

 

Mauer isn't going be waived.

 

Vargas, outside of Sano, has the most potential of the bunch and is the youngest. He's not going to be waived.

 

Sano is a beast but may not stick at third.

 

That leaves Grossman and Park. Park is a better defender but only at a position that literally everyone else can play. Grossman is younger and coming off an outlier season.

 

Waive one. Waive both. I don't care. Waive Santana. I don't care. Waive them all. I don't care.

 

What I don't want is all of them staying on the roster and Santana is the only guy out of the group who has a remote possibility of being a defensive asset somewhere that isn't first base.

 

And I still want to see Santana gone by April unless he's an absolute beast in Spring Training and has shown the coaching staff he's serious about playing the outfield and infield. At the very least, the guy has the ability to play those positions. The athleticism is absolutely there to do it.

 

Grossman is a 4th OF at best (and I'm being generous), and I'd argue you can replace him with a better option for not much more money.  That's a separate transaction in and of itself. I'd like to think you could get a passable bat or low hit/avg CF def type guy for reasonably cheap at this point. I haven't scanned the FA list, so perhaps there isn't one out there, but I'd argue that Grossman is in his own category..

 

As is DanSan. I get he's young and cheap, but he isn't good at much of anything minus that impressive 2014 where the stars aligned. He's shown no ability since then, or even flashes of being able to repeat that in the following 2 seasons. His minor league career is pretty meh as well.  Again, he can be upgraded cheaply, and I'd add with in house options if needed.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I don't see the addition of a potential slugger to a group filled with question marks as a bad move. Before Park was signed how comfortable could anybody really be with the given options? We've seen Sano struggle defensively and Vargas bounced back. None of that had played out at the time of the signing. 

 

Yeah, Park wasn't a bad signing. We had questions there. The mistake was keeping Plouffe, but that ship has sailed.

 

I'm never going to fault the org for adding potential talent, especially in non-traditional ways... never...

[USAFChief]

While I agree a 12 man pitching staff gives the lineup a lot more flexibility, this team will not have a 12 man pitching staff most of the season.

 

One needs good pitchers to field a 12 man pitching staff. The Twins do not have good pitchers. They have a boatload of question marks and it's likely at least half the pitching staff sees significant turnover this season.

 

A team simply can't field a 12 man staff in this era when a "good night" is your starter pitching 6 IP with 4 ER allowed.

 

Going from memory, the last time anyone on the Twins staff pitched 200 innings was Phil Hughes in 2014 and that guy's shoulder fell off last season. That doesn't instill faith in the rotation.

It wasn't that long ago a 12 man pitching staff was considered ridiculously bloated. Now a team "simply can't field a 12 man staff?"

 

Do not concur.

[Thrylos]

 

 

Why not use Vargas's 4th option year?

 

That would not clear his 40-man spot

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It wasn't that long ago a 12 man pitching staff was considered ridiculously bloated. Now a team "simply can't field a 12 man staff?"

Do not concur.

I agree that teams can and should field 12 man pitching staffs.

 

But, again, you need good pitchers to do it, particularly good starters.

 

The Twins have neither good pitchers nor good starting pitchers.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Grossman is a 4th OF at best (and I'm being generous), and I'd argue you can replace him with a better option for not much more money.  That's a separate transaction in and of itself. I'd like to think you could get a passable bat or low hit/avg CF def type guy for reasonably cheap at this point. I haven't scanned the FA list, so perhaps there isn't one out there, but I'd argue that Grossman is in his own category..

 

As is DanSan. I get he's young and cheap, but he isn't good at much of anything minus that impressive 2014 where the stars aligned. He's shown no ability since then, or even flashes of being able to repeat that in the following 2 seasons. His minor league career is pretty meh as well.  Again, he can be upgraded cheaply, and I'd add with in house options if needed.

I agree Danny Santana should probably be off this roster but he's not going to fix the DH/1B situation, as he's not even a part of that situation.

 

My point is that, at large, the Twins have a slew of bad fielders and guys who shouldn't be wearing a glove at all.

 

And I don't really care which one of those guys gets the boot, but at least one of them needed to get the boot.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't get too upset if all of them got the boot.

 

Well, Vargas would upset me. A little.

 

As far as I'm concerned, close to 50% of the 40 man roster could be liquidated and I wouldn't get too upset about it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Thats a lot to tackle.

 

In hindsight the signing is easier to criticize but at the time Vargas was coming off a poor season, Sano wasn't considered the defensive liability he is now (though not sure I'm ready to call him that at 3B yet,) Plouffe was supposed to be a "trade chip," and Arcia was basically the 4th "OFer,"/DH (in quotes b/c yeah the guy was a butcher). Given that I didn't really have a problem with the Twins signing a potential impact bat like Park to a cheap contract. If it didn't pan out then fine they move on and if it did then they no longer had to worry about the revolving door that has been that position. None of those guys was a sure bet to stick so throwing another name into the hat wasn't an issue for me.

 

I agree, they are facing the same issue that plagued them in 2016, but I don't think that is a reason to just send guys away when they have the potential to actually help this team down the line. Its still a terrible roster. They aren't going to be competitive this year. I'm not defending the defensive deficiencies of these guys but I would much rather they gain clarity on the situation by actually evaluating the play of Park and Vargas on the field rather than just pick one to boot and say "ok, situation solved." That is especially true when there are a number of players on the 40 man that have no business being there. It would be another thing if they were fighting for the last true spot on the roster. I'm not in favor of giving up potential talent on a team this bad in favor of having flexibility for another season of 90+ losses. 

 

People are upset because there are clearly other players on the 40 man to DFA or option. 

 

I would have much preferred they rolled with the rotation you mentioned above. If players showed they couldn't hack it then absolutely move on. The only player I can think who has had 2-3 years of opportunities is the one player the rest of us can't believe wasn't DFA'd. That is a major source of the frustration. 

To be clear, I'm not criticizing the Park acquisition as much as I'm criticizing all the decisions as a whole. If you acquire Park, then Plouffe and/or Arcia need to go. If you plan to keep them both, then don't sign Park.

 

My point is that this roster is loaded with terrible defenders and guys who can't even wear a glove at all.

 

I don't really care in what order they leave the organization. I hope Santana follows Park at some point but I understand why he's higher up the pecking order than guys who shouldn't have a glove on their hand at all. Seeing how the Twins had three of those guys (Grossman, Park, Vargas), trimming one of them off the roster makes a lot of sense, particularly if the front office believes Park is the least likely to be claimed.

 

Or maybe they have zero faith in Park and hope he gets claimed so $9m comes off the books.

[USAFChief]

To be clear, I'm not criticizing the Park acquisition as much as I'm criticizing all the decisions as a whole. If you acquire Park, then Plouffe and/or Arcia need to go. If you plan to keep them both, then don't sign Park.

 

My point is that this roster is loaded with terrible defenders and guys who can't even wear a glove at all.

 

I don't really care in what order they leave the organization. I hope Santana follows Park at some point but I understand why he's higher up the pecking order than guys who shouldn't have a glove on their hand at all. Seeing how the Twins had three of those guys (Grossman, Park, Vargas), trimming one of them off the roster makes a lot of sense, particularly if the front office believes Park is the least likely to be claimed.

 

Or maybe they have zero faith in Park and hope he gets claimed so $9m comes off the books.

Park isn't a defensive liability. He's limited to first base, but he can play defense, both by reputation and by the eye test.

 

Point two: Park doesn't compete for a position with either Arcia or Plouffe, except at DH, so I don't know why signing him depends on whether or not those two are around. Arcia is an outfielder, Plouffe a 3rd baseman.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Park isn't a defensive liability. He's limited to first base, but he can play defense, both by reputation and by the eye test.

Point two: Park doesn't compete for a position with either Arcia or Plouffe, except at DH, so I don't know why signing him depends on whether or not those two are around. Arcia is an outfielder, Plouffe a 3rd baseman.

A guy who can only play first when you have a $23m first baseman on the roster (who is pretty decent with the leather) is a defensive liability. He's not a liability when he's wearing a first baseman's glove but he becomes a liability when you already have a guy wearing a first baseman's glove. The problem is compounded when you have a third guy who also could be wearing a first baseman's glove part time. And a fourth guy, too...

 

Park absolutely competed for a position with Arcia and Plouffe. Arcia is a defensive albatross and retaining Plouffe forced you to put your best young hitter in the big green part of the field wearing a glove he'd never worn in his career.

 

These decisions don't happen in isolation. There is a domino effect that happens throughout the roster.

 

Arcia shouldn't have been in the outfield because he's absolutely horrible out there but Park taking DH reps forced him into left field.

 

Sano probably shouldn't have been in the field at all but keeping both Park and Plouffe forced him not only into the field but into a position he'd never played before.

[gil4]

 

.That leaves Grossman and Park. Park is a better defender but only at a position that literally everyone else can play. Grossman and coming off an outlier season.

 

Grossman is coming off an outlier of a season, but I think it was an outlier both with the bat and in the field.  I didn't see as many games as I would have liked, but then they didn't win as many games as I would have liked, either.  Did his D look as bad as the numbers?  The numbers have never been that bad before.  His OBP last year was great for a 4th OF and it almost matched his MiLB OBP.  He's only 27, so the improvement with the bat may have been real, not just an outlier.

 

I understand the desire to just fire them all, but I'd rather replace them with someone better first.  Cleaning house completely and losing 120 games would mean even fewer butts in the seats and less merchandise sold and, ultimately, fewer $$ available to turn this mess around.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I understand the desire to just fire them all, but I'd rather replace them with someone better first.

Sure. I wouldn't fire them all at once, just saying I don't really care who goes or if, ultimately, they all go.

 

I want to see more of Vargas but wouldn't give him much of a leash.

 

I was interested to see more of Park but won't be too upset if I don't.

 

I was interested to see more of Grossman but won't be too upset if I don't.

 

I have little interest in ever seeing Danny Santana play anywhere ever again but understand why he's still on the roster as of February 4th, 2017. My hope is that changes before April 1st, 2017.

[KirbyDome89]

 

That would not clear his 40-man spot

No but it would clear up some of the 1B/DH logjam which was one of the reasons given for DFAing Park. 

[Doomtints]

 

How does Danny Santana survive over Park?

 

How many player can 1B/DH on this team? There's your answer.

[Doomtints]

Park should have never been signed. Nothing against him, there just isn't room for him on this team.

[KirbyDome89]

 

To be clear, I'm not criticizing the Park acquisition as much as I'm criticizing all the decisions as a whole. If you acquire Park, then Plouffe and/or Arcia need to go. If you plan to keep them both, then don't sign Park.

 

My point is that this roster is loaded with terrible defenders and guys who can't even wear a glove at all.

 

I don't really care in what order they leave the organization. I hope Santana follows Park at some point but I understand why he's higher up the pecking order than guys who shouldn't have a glove on their hand at all. Seeing how the Twins had three of those guys (Grossman, Park, Vargas), trimming one of them off the roster makes a lot of sense, particularly if the front office believes Park is the least likely to be claimed.

 

Or maybe they have zero faith in Park and hope he gets claimed so $9m comes off the books.

Yeah I agree, as a whole the situation is a mess. I think a lot of people look at the Park signing and see it as the cause of the logjam but I feel that is ignoring where they were at the time of the signing and the subsequent moves they failed to make following it. 

 

For sure, the D is a hot mess. 

 

I'm with you on Santana being shown the door but I would stop at saying he should wear a glove. If we're getting rid of one of that trio based on their defense its Grossman but they need a 4th OFer. Hanging onto all 3 long term makes no sense, you're right. But, neither does throwing out potential long term talent to have roster flexibility on a 90+ loss team; especially when they're holding onto players that have no business being on the 40 man. That is what is frustrating for me.

 

I would assume they're hoping to sneak him through waivers but who really knows right now....

[Platoon]

This roster has been out of balance for how many years 5-6? It's been bloated with too many large, defensively decrepit players. Whether or not Park was going to fit into MLB, his acquisition made no sense on THIS roster. And that is the only criteria on which to judge signing, or keeping Park, or if one prefers Vargas, Plouffe, Morneau, et al. It's frankly not about a particular player. This team had reached the point of a NBA team with 6 centers and a point guard. While I was not at all in favor of signing Park in the first place, and had doubts he would be able to catch up to MLB pitching, I also realize that he never ended up with the chance to do so. Any chance there was the injury took care of. But that doesn't mean the Twins should not move on from him, if he makes it great for him. But someone of that ilk had to go.

[spinowner]

I just reviewed the 40-man to see if there was a non-pitcher I would have DFA'd instead of Park. And there was nobody. As almost everyone else here seems to think, the next on my list would be Grossman and Dantana. I think Falvine will DFA them before opening day too, it's just that Park's name came up first. I'm sure that there will be pitchers cut loose in the next couple months as well, but that's a separate matter.

[beckmt]

Why is Tonkin still on the roster???

[jorgenswest]

 

Why is Tonkin still on the roster???

I wonder if having a K% second on the team (behind) May and an xFIP of 3.93 (8% better than league) could contribute to the reason. Belisle xFIP was .06 better but that was in an NL park. When adjusted for league, Tonkin had an xFIP- of 92 and Belisle 94.

 

ERA and FIP for a reliever have little meaning. Both take too many innings to be meaningful. ERA because of all of the other factors that contribute and FIP because it uses HR rate which is unreliable in a reliever size sample.

[beckmt]

Pitching in multi innings low leverage situations. (Tonkin).  We can have Haley do that.

[jorgenswest]

 

Pitching in multi innings low leverage situations. (Tonkin).  We can have Haley do that.

The leverage index entering the game was virtually the same as Belisle (.80 vs .83) in spite of the fact that there were fewer high leverage opportunities in Minnesota.

 

Belisle may not be an upgrade. Certainly not enough of an upgrade to drop Park.

 

Maybe Belisle brings something to the clubhouse that goes unmeasured.

[D.C Twins]

Is it possible that DanSan somehow came into possession of "a dossier" concerning the Pohlads?!

 

Otherwise...good clubhouse stand-up routine....I'm at a loss

[Richie the Rally Goat]

It wasn't that long ago a 12 man pitching staff was considered ridiculously bloated. Now a team "simply can't field a 12 man staff?"

 

Do not concur.

they could field a 12 man pitching staff

 

If 6 of the pitchers on said staff were significantly better than what they have today

[USAFChief]

they could field a 12 man pitching staff

If 6 of the pitchers on said staff were significantly better than what they have today

I'll wager a beverage of choice the Twins have a 12 man staff for most* of the season.

 

*no more than 30 days with 13, not including after Sep 1

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Park isn't a defensive liability. He's limited to first base, but he can play defense, both by reputation and by the eye test.

 

Point two: Park doesn't compete for a position with either Arcia or Plouffe, except at DH, so I don't know why signing him depends on whether or not those two are around. Arcia is an outfielder, Plouffe a 3rd baseman.

If you are keeping Plouffe then Mauer and Sano become first and DH by default. In which case why do you need 3 or 4 fallbacks to first base and/or DH?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I'll wager a beverage of choice the Twins have a 12 man staff for most* of the season.

 

*no more than 30 days with 13, not including after Sep 1

I'll take that, and I really appreciate the lively discussion in a pretty dull off-season

[Doomtints]

 

Yeah I agree, as a whole the situation is a mess. I think a lot of people look at the Park signing and see it as the cause of the logjam but I feel that is ignoring where they were at the time of the signing

 

It really doesn't ignore that. There was no room for Park when he was signed. Vargas and Sano had already sat at the DH spot for considerable time. 3B and 1B were both manned.

 

The Twins had big holes in the OF and P but signed a guy where they had no room for him to play.