Next Roster Move: Pitcher for Batter, but Whom?

[drjim]

 

Too bad. This roster isn't a winning roster. The sooner they get guys up who have a chance to be part of a winning team, the better. IMO, of course. Playing from fear seems odd, when you have 13 pitchers, and at least 4 or 5 that could come up now and be as effective as what they have at the back end.

 

But they don't have 4 or 5 at this moment, it is closer to 0, maybe 1. That's kind of the point I've been suggesting. If that was true they likely would have made a move by now.

[USAFChief]

 

But they don't have 4 or 5 at this moment, it is closer to 0, maybe 1. That's kind of the point I've been suggesting. If that was true they likely would have made a move by now.

I don't understand your argument...they can't go to 12 pitchers because they have no other pitchers?

 

That makes no sense, and in any case it's not really true.

 

Boshers and Chargois are on the 40 man, as are Melotakis and ORourke.  If they end up needing a pitcher at some point, that's a decent start on a replacement, not to mention whoever they drop from the 25 man might still be in Rochester.

 

They need to provide the major league manager with a better bench.  That's more important than preserving "depth" when the depth isn't an issue anyway, and in fact it's the "depth" that is costing your team at the big league level.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

They need to provide the major league manager with a better bench.  That's more important than preserving "depth" when the depth isn't an issue anyway, and in fact it's the "depth" that is costing your team at the big league level.

Yeah, this. The Twins simply don't need 13 pitchers.

 

And should they find themselves in the position where they need 13 pitchers, it's not likely to last longer than a few weeks.

 

And you can patchwork a solution for a few weeks. Give Haley a more prominent role and call up "Random Pitcher X Whose Name I Won't Even Bother to Mention Because It Doesn't Matter" and work with that for a short period of time.

 

But in the meantime, while this hasn't been an actual problem, the Twins are leaving runs on the table because the back of the bench is Santana and a catcher who can't hit.

[drjim]

 

I don't understand your argument...they can't go to 12 pitchers because they have no other pitchers?

 

That makes no sense, and in any case it's not really true.

 

Boshers and Chargois are on the 40 man, as are Melotakis and ORourke.  If they end up needing a pitcher at some point, that's a decent start on a replacement, not to mention whoever they drop from the 25 man might still be in Rochester.

 

They need to provide the major league manager with a better bench.  That's more important than preserving "depth" when the depth isn't an issue anyway, and in fact it's the "depth" that is costing your team at the big league level.

 

Chargois and O'Rourke are literally not options right now. They aren't going to put Melotakis or Burdi in the bigs in the short term (but perhaps soon). And Boshers is only on the 40 man because they haven't needed to remove him yet, he's terrible.

 

The 40 man roster construction and lack of ready prospects (partially due to injury) leaves them in a depth bind. It is relatively short term, but it is real. They would rather ride out a short bench a little longer instead of taking the risk with pitching depth. I don't blame them.

[drjim]

Yeah, this. The Twins simply don't need 13 pitchers.

 

And should they find themselves in the position where they need 13 pitchers, it's not likely to last longer than a few weeks.

 

And you can patchwork a solution for a few weeks. Give Haley a more prominent role and call up "Random Pitcher X Whose Name I Won't Even Bother to Mention Because It Doesn't Matter" and work with that for a short period of time.

 

But in the meantime, while this hasn't been an actual problem, the Twins are leaving runs on the table because the back of the bench is Santana and a catcher who can't hit.

I'm not as concinced as you are that random pitcher x would not matter. I also think it would be a bigger problem than a short bench.

[USAFChief]

 

I'm not as concinced as you are that random pitcher x would not matter. I also think it would be a bigger problem than a short bench.

The short bench, and Santana in the OF, has already impacted multiple games.  

 

Giving priority to what you worry might develop into a minor problem, over what already is a major problem, is...stupid.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm not as concinced as you are that random pitcher x would not matter. I also think it would be a bigger problem than a short bench.

I think you're giving too much weight to the guy who pitches 3 innings in a laugher.

 

Say that guy is on the roster for three weeks. How many times does he pitch? Four games, tops. Probably more like 2-3 games.

 

And remember that the Twins have played 10% of the season without this actually happening.

 

You're hedging against an unlikely event and a player who doesn't matter much in favor of a competent hitter who can influence 3-4 games a week.

[drjim]

 

The short bench, and Santana in the OF, has already impacted multiple games.  

 

Giving priority to what you worry might develop into a minor problem, over what already is a major problem, is...stupid.

 

I don't think pitching depth is a minor problem. Ever.

 

And if the front office really thought this way, they could easily DFA Santana and bring up a different player.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The short bench, and Santana in the OF, has already impacted multiple games.  

 

Giving priority to what you worry might develop into a minor problem, over what already is a major problem, is...stupid.

 

this, so much this.

 

Tonkin is literally not used in games that matter. Chief could fill that role. Dan San could fill that role. Tepesch could. Boshers could. Anyone could, in an emergency.

 

But avoiding fixing a known problem, to avoid possibly creating a short term problem (which I'd argue isn't real, Chargoi or others are as ready as tonkin or Breslow are, right now), is a bad way to steer a ship.

[drjim]

 

I think you're giving too much weight to the guy who pitches 3 innings in a laugher.

 

Say that guy is on the roster for three weeks. How many times does he pitch? Four games, tops. Probably more like 2-3 games.

 

And remember that the Twins have now played 10% of the season without this actually happening.

 

You're hedging against an unlikely event and a player who doesn't matter much in favor of a competent hitter who can influence 3-4 games a week.

 

I agree with you that it isn't a big issue of that specific pitcher when there are clear options behind him in the minors.

 

I'm thinking of a situation where Tonkin is cut to bring up Vargas, then a day or two later Pressly has a sore shoulder. That would cause a problem.

[drjim]

 

this, so much this.

 

Tonkin is literally not used in games that matter. Chief could fill that role. Dan San could fill that role. Tepesch could. Boshers could. Anyone could, in an emergency.

 

But avoiding fixing a known problem, to avoid possibly creating a short term problem (which I'd argue isn't real, Chargoi or others are as ready as tonkin or Breslow are, right now), is a bad way to steer a ship.

 

Chargois hasn't pitched a game yet. He's not as ready as they are at the moment.

 

Again, I think this is relatively short term, but there is a reason they are waiting.

[drjim]

Plus, this is all an effort to get Vargas to the bigs, right? I like Vargas, think he should get another shot, would even like him up now, and have some hope he might do ok, but it's not like he's a surefire solution to any of the problems that have arisen.

 

I have a little skepticism that the current arrangement has cost the team even one game, much less multiple.

[USAFChief]

 

this, so much this.

 

Tonkin is literally not used in games that matter. Chief could fill that role. Dan San could fill that role. Tepesch could. Boshers could. Anyone could, in an emergency.

 

But avoiding fixing a known problem, to avoid possibly creating a short term problem (which I'd argue isn't real, Chargoi or others are as ready as tonkin or Breslow are, right now), is a bad way to steer a ship.

Sure I'd listen if the Twins called.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I agree with you that it isn't a big issue of that specific pitcher when there are clear options behind him in the minors.

 

I'm thinking of a situation where Tonkin is cut to bring up Vargas, then a day or two later Pressly has a sore shoulder. That would cause a problem.

 

I don't agree that would cause a problem. Call up a random guy, and put him at the end of the bullpen. It's not likely he's worse than Tonkin, is it? Even if you didn't call up a guy, you can go 3 games with 11 arms if needed. 

 

But, we know with certainty that having Dan San as your OF option, or PH option, does hurt the team. Now. today. In the future. 

 

We have no idea if Vargas or Palka is the answer, but it's kind of hard to tell while they are in AAA.

[drjim]

 

I don't agree that would cause a problem. Call up a random guy, and put him at the end of the bullpen. It's not likely he's worse than Tonkin, is it? Even if you didn't call up a guy, you can go 3 games with 11 arms if needed. 

 

But, we know with certainty that having Dan San as your OF option, or PH option, does hurt the team. Now. today. In the future. 

 

We have no idea if Vargas or Palka is the answer, but it's kind of hard to tell while they are in AAA.

 

I support getting rid of Santana at this point.

[USAFChief]

 

Plus, this is all an effort to get Vargas to the bigs, right? I like Vargas, think he should get another shot, would even like him up now, and have some hope he might do ok, but it's not like he's a surefire solution to any of the problems that have arisen.

 

I have a little skepticism that the current arrangement has cost the team even one game, much less multiple.

I would say DanSan in RF has already cost them an extra inning loss.

 

And they have several close losses, where one additional hitter might have had a positive impact.

 

How has 13 pitchers helped them win any?

[drjim]

 

I would say DanSan in RF has already cost them an extra inning loss.

 

And that loss would have still happened if they had 12 pitchers and Vargas on the roster.

 

I absolutely, 100% support replacing Danny Santana at this point. I thought he was worth an initial look, but I don't think it is going to work out.

[TheLeviathan]

The problem is that Santana supposed versatility is allowing the Twins to run a short bench. Swapping Santana for Vargas doesn't solve the problem.

 

We need another bat.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The problem is that Santana supposed versatility is allowing the Twins to run a short bench. Swapping Santana for Vargas doesn't solve the problem.

We need another bat.

 

right.

 

Vargas and Palka. It's not like Palka is some prized prospect whose future they will ruin if he's not ready yet. 

 

The fact they are this thin is part of why the old FO needed to go, imo. They should not be in a position, this far into the rebuild, where DanSan looks good, and they have no hitter in AAA that is ready at all.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The problem is that Santana supposed versatility is allowing the Twins to run a short bench. Swapping Santana for Vargas doesn't solve the problem.

We need another bat.

While I'd like to see Santana go as well, this is the real problem in my eyes.

 

The team can survive with Santana as the 25th man. The problem I see is that the 24th man should be a hitter and is currently a pitcher instead.

[USAFChief]

 

While I'd like to see Santana go as well, this is the real problem in my eyes.

 

The team can survive with Santana as the 25th man. The problem I see is that the 24th man should be a hitter and is currently a pitcher instead.

I disagree.  Whether 13 pitchers or 12, every position player on the roster is going to play, and play enough to have an effect.  Instead of "surviving" Santana, they should be looking for 24th and 25th men that actually help you win games (or at least not lose them).

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I disagree.  Whether 13 pitchers or 12, every position player on the roster is going to play, and play enough to have an effect.  Instead of "surviving" Santana, they should be looking for 24th and 25th men that actually help you win games (or at least not lose them).

 

I think Brock said the same thing. I think. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I think Brock said the same thing. I think. 

Pretty much. Santana can be useful in a relative sense if you have a 24th man who is competent at something.

 

In an ideal world, both players would be competent. In no way am I suggesting Santana should be on the roster, only that this roster would be far less frustrating if there was another guy to rely on not named Danny Santana.

[Brock Beauchamp]

To elaborate a bit, I wouldn't have Santana on the roster. But if you add Vargas to replace Tonkin, then you have a situation where Grossman is your fourth outfielder. That's not a big problem in my eyes but should an in-game disaster situation arise, you might need Santana to play a few innings because Grossman is DH or another guy is banged up. Or Danny can pinch-run a few times a week. Or pinch-hit infrequently when the rest of your hand is played.

 

In that situation and role, Santana is not killing you. He has a few tools, none of them very good, but they're tools none-the-less.

 

Because because you also have Vargas and more flexibility with Grossman/Mauer, Santana in that role isn't nearly the irritant he is today with a 13 man pitching staff.

[USAFChief]

 

Pretty much. Santana can be useful in a relative sense if you have a 24th man who is competent at something.

 

In an ideal world, both players would be competent. In no way am I suggesting Santana should be on the roster, only that this roster would be far less frustrating if there was another guy to rely on not named Danny Santana.

In my eyes, if Santana's on the roster, you're still down a player, because you're only playing with 24.

 

 

[yarnivek1972]

 

So you want to cut a 25 year old center field-caliber defender with a career 95 OPS+ because he had a bad month to start the season. And you want to replace this player with... Ben Paulsen?

Utter madness.

(fun fact for you kids at home: Eddie Rosario has both a higher career WAR and OPS+ than Ben Paulsen)

Rosario is trending the wrong way in terms of production.  You can show me all the metrics in the world.  If it doesn't eventually result in some hits and actual productivity at the plate, what good are they?  I certainly don't consider Paulsen (or Palka or anyone else playing OF in AAA) a long term solution.  I consider Rosario a long term problem.  And it isn't just because of the first 2 1/2 weeks of this year.  It's about the 6 months of nothingness last year too.  It is worth noting that he has two hits in his last two games.  If he keeps that up, great.  That's why I'm willing to wait 3-4 more weeks.  To get that larger sample size.

[Twodogs]

Wow, I havent see you in awhile Kevin.  Anyway I think I'd bring up Vargas also, he has had stretches where he looked really good.  I'd like to see the Twins give him an opportunity to get some regular at bats at DH and spelling Mauer over at 1B.  Problem is that Grossman has been hitting really well in the DH spot, but how long will that last?  As far as dropping someone, probably Tonkin.  If Vargas is DHing more often then Grossman can get on the field more in the OF, that in essence would keep Santana off the field except for emergency situations.  Just my thoughts

 

Obviously, Park is available if this scenario doesn't work out.  Park has more long term value.  So in a couple of years from now when Mauer is done.  If Vargas hits well then Park would eventually be 1B and Vargas DH.  That is obviously only if Vargas and Park do well.  We will have to wait and see.

[TheLeviathan]

It's fine to say replace Santana, I'm good with that, but that doesn't fix the issue this thread is about does it?

[70charger]

 

 

Tonkin is literally not used in games that matter. Chief could fill that role. Dan San could fill that role. Tepesch could. Boshers could. Anyone could, in an emergency.

 

I volunteer as tribute!

[Mike Sixel]

 

I volunteer as tribute!

 

Nicely done.