Dear Derek Falvey...Two things happened last night.

[Riverbrian]

 

I agree that most any SS or 2nd baseman can stand out in LF and catch fly balls.

The question is...why? What is gained?

 

It allows you to get your best bats in the lineup. 

 

In 2016... We tried to force Sano into RF, We moved Danny Santana into CF just to cover for struggling and injured Buxton. We signed Robbie Grossman just to fill OF space.

 

Meanwhile we had Dozier, Escobar, Nunez and Polanco as infield options so we ended up with more IF options than we had space for and less OF options than we needed. During a year where we ended up with the #1 draft pick due to our ineptitude. 

 

That is what is gained... We can get our best bats in the lineup. 

 

The other thing gained is value... Dozier with LF experience becomes more valuable on the trade market and probably would end up with a bigger free agent contract next year with more teams opened up for his possible services. 

[Riverbrian]

 

Haven't we had a few infielders in the outfield the last few years that solidly debunked that idea?

 

I mean, it was a running joke around here.

 

That's the point I've been making about the Twins. We have been so bad at our assessments and execution that it looks like a horrible idea when looking through the Twins lens. 

 

Widen the view out to the Dodgers, Cubs and Brewers and it isn't such a running joke. 

 

I've always had plenty of benefit of the doubt for our organization but the more I look into this... the more blind and stuck in our ways the Twins seem to have been. 

 

How does an organization year after year, fail at a high percentage with #1 draft picks, fail to develop superstars from the system, fail to have trade chips that are serious "I'll give you the best prospect I have" types, fail to find diamonds in the rough despite having an unusual amount of terrible seasons from regulars, lock players into position and still be average defensively and award every day playing time to players who are average at best overall? 

 

The Twins have failed to pay attention to new ideas and spent Pre-Falvey, Lavine still operating like this was 1980. 

[Riverbrian]

 

Sometimes it seems personnel people invest so much into a players position they can't or won't adapt. Also, a player who can hit seems to have excuses made for his lack of defensive chops. It didn't take a MLB level scout to see that Plouffe EE, Dozier, weren't MLB caliber SS. All suffered from range issues, and Dozier suffered from lack of arm strength. Garver is another example. If I can sees his hands of steel on TV in 3 games, what in the world is the coaching staff looking at it. There is a difference between sitting behind the plate with gear on, and being a catcher. And if you don't have 'soft' hands you can't frame pitches. And you cannot teach soft hands. Brian's analysis is pretty spot on. While I am sure other teams have some same sort of issues, we do seem to excell at wishful thinking in our scouting departments.

 

Wishful thinking is pretty kind of you. 

 

I'm declaring that it has been a long continued string of horrible missed assessments with blinders on.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

That's the point I've been making about the Twins. We have been so bad at our assessments and execution that it looks like a horrible idea when looking through the Twins lens. 

 

Widen the view out to the Dodgers, Cubs and Brewers and it isn't such a running joke. 

 

I've always had plenty of benefit of the doubt for our organization but the more I look into this... the more blind and stuck in our ways the Twins seem to have been. 

 

How does an organization year after year, fail at a high percentage with #1 draft picks, fail to develop superstars from the system, fail to have trade chips that are serious "I'll give you the best prospect I have" types, fail to find diamonds in the rough despite having an unusual amount of terrible seasons from regulars, lock players into position and still be average defensively and award every day playing time to players who are average at best overall? 

 

The Twins have failed to pay attention to new ideas and spent Pre-Falvey, Lavine still operating like this was 1980. 

 

Maybe, I think we need more (and better) defensive data on this. 

 

While we might say "athletes should be flexible", there is also something to the fact that it's hard to get truly great at something if you're bouncing around the field.  

 

Maybe it can work for some players, but I'm hesitant to say more than that at this point.

[Riverbrian]

 

Maybe, I think we need more (and better) defensive data on this. 

 

While we might say "athletes should be flexible", there is also something to the fact that it's hard to get truly great at something if you're bouncing around the field.  

 

Maybe it can work for some players, but I'm hesitant to say more than that at this point.

 

Agreed, we do need defensive data to help answer the questions I have posed. 

 

Like I mentioned in the original post. I think it is quite possible that position flexibility overkill may have cost Metheny his Job in St. Louis or maybe it was a case of the front office bringing in too many sub-par defenders in total. 

 

I've been looking at this very hard for the past month and I'm bringing it to everyone's attention to take a look at. I'm at the point that I believe that if everyone was looking at what I'm running across, they would be converted. 

 

I'm not a UZR defensive metric guy so I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking at the metrics. That is for others more capable than I to hopefully contribute to the discussion.

 

Lacking the defensive data, the one thing that we can look at are the standings. It doesn't appear to be hurting in the standings. 

 

[mikelink45]

 

There is still an old school versus new school.

 

Dave Roberts is playing Cody Bellinger at both 1B and CF.

 

Cody Bellinger had 473 Innings of OF work in the minors prior to his arrival in LA. His first two years in the minors were exclusively at 1B and he spent a total of 2362 innings total at 1B in the minors. When Bellinger was called up to the Dodgers he was one of the top prospects in all the land. 

 

Regardless Bellinger was called up April 2017 when OF Joc Pederson was placed on the DL. He made his MLB debut not where he was most comfortable at 1B with 2362 innings but in LF where he had spent a total of 110 innings because that is where the Dodgers needed him. As Adrian Gonzalez continued to struggle with a .642 OPS (Which is a lot like what we saw this year from our players). Bellinger started playing more and more 1B. Bellinger was added as an OF and eventually finished 2017 with 93 games at 1B as the Dodgers phased out A-Gon. Also playing 48 games in the OF (Primarily LF). 

 

Fast Forward to 2018... A Gon is gone. Bellinger has the 1B position to himself and he has started there 77 times but has also played CF 35 times and OF 40 times. Which has allowed Max Muncy and his newly found bat to play 1B 41 times. 

 

Max Muncy has also played 3B 36 times, OF 6 times and 2B 11 times. Max Muncy of course was released by the Oakland A's and acquired by the Dodgers for free and had a total of 96 innings at 2B in the minors prior to coming to the Dodgers. He has now played more 2B with the Dodgers then he did in 7 years of minor league play. 

 

Muncy had been playing some 2B despite the presence of Logan Forsythe, Chase Utley, Kike Hernandez, Chris Taylor and Catcher Austin Barnes on the Dodgers roster. All 5 of those players have more experience playing the 2B position than Max Muncy. 

 

Utley 15040 Innings at 2B

Forsythe 5824 Innings at 2B

Hernandez 3776 Innings at 2B

Barnes 1662 Innings at 2B

Taylor 892 Innings at 2B

 

All of this is happening during a time when the Dodgers Starting Pitching has had as many as 4 starters on the DL at the same time. They have lost Corey Seager with a season ending injury and Justin Turner missed the first 40 games of the season due to injury. 

 

The Dodgers are currently in 1st place despite such shenanigans. There is definitely a new school and an old school.

 

Did the Dodgers seek out these type of players or did they just do it against old school conventions.

 

Has it hurt them defensively?

 

Has it hurt them in the standings?

 

Would the Twins ever try something like the Dodgers are doing? Or like the Cubs are doing? Or like the Brewers are doing? All competing for playoff spots as we speak. 

 

The Brewers just moved Travis Shaw to 2B after the acquisition of Mike Moustakas. Travis Shaw has 0 innings of 2B experience in the minors and majors so it is anybody's guess the last time he turned a double play. 

I will still argue that the NY Yankees of Berra/Mantle/Maris really did this as part of their dominance.  But you saw with Sano that you have to have elite athletes to do this.  I saw in the recent trades that we got some smaller guys.  Maybe agility is now a prerequisite. 

 

Hank Aaron was a 2B player in the minors, then came up and in his second year in MLB he played 27 at 2B, 30 LF, 104 in RF.  He played 2B in five more seasons - not a lot, but this is old school playing a player where he was needed.  Aaron also played 7 games at 3B, 210 at 1B and in all three OF positions.   https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/aaronha01.shtml#all_appearances

 

I am not against your premise that players who can adapt and play with versatility and do it well are extremely valuable.  What I debate is that we have this new ball versus old ball situation and those old teams did not know how to do such creative things.  Maybe new ball is discovering what old ball already knew.

 

[mikelink45]

 

It allows you to get your best bats in the lineup. 

 

In 2016... We tried to force Sano into RF, We moved Danny Santana into CF just to cover for struggling and injured Buxton. We signed Robbie Grossman just to fill OF space.

 

Meanwhile we had Dozier, Escobar, Nunez and Polanco as infield options so we ended up with more IF options than we had space for and less OF options than we needed. During a year where we ended up with the #1 draft pick due to our ineptitude. 

 

That is what is gained... We can get our best bats in the lineup. 

 

The other thing gained is value... Dozier with LF experience becomes more valuable on the trade market and probably would end up with a bigger free agent contract next year with more teams opened up for his possible services. 

Dozier would be more valuable if he hit the ball again.  A few HRs, some singles and doubles - a batting average that got up to 250.  The other teams can see the same thing we see and if we put him in LF it would only mean was not not that good at second base and that would really take his value down - as if he hasn't already done that himself.

[rv78]

Well, Gardenhire was all for playing catchers in the outfield and that didn't work very well. Sure, a middle infielder is usually more athletic than a catcher. Sano to RF was a disaster. I often wondered why they didn't try Plouffe to RF instead. He was definitely more mobile than Sano, but was was never tried. 

 

One could take the argument of different positions in the Twins organization 1 step farther....

Why is it when they move a Starting Pitcher to the bullpen they never give him the chance to be a Starter again? Are they THAT SURE the move to the bullpen is correct forever? Just like they are THAT SURE that moving players on the field is correct forever?

Oh, and by the way, Dozier "could" have been good enough at 3B. It is a shorter throw than from SS, but of course we will never know since they never tried him there.

[nicksaviking]

I agree that most any SS or 2nd baseman can stand out in LF and catch fly balls.

The question is...why? What is gained?

Well with the team's current make up, probably not a lot, but this team gave a ton of OF at bats to guys LaMarre, Grossman and Motter. Had the Twins had Dozier, Escobar and a Polanco available to them all year perhaps they wouldn't have had to.

[Platoon]

Wishful thinking is pretty kind of you. 

 

I'm declaring that it has been a long continued string of horrible missed assessments with blinders on.  

I was trying to extrapolate some GT suggestions on nice behavior someone had written.

[Riverbrian]

 

Dozier would be more valuable if he hit the ball again.  A few HRs, some singles and doubles - a batting average that got up to 250.  The other teams can see the same thing we see and if we put him in LF it would only mean was not not that good at second base and that would really take his value down - as if he hasn't already done that himself.

 

Dozier is for example purposes and not really anything to focus on but I disagree that adding LF or 3B to his resume would lower his value. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

That's the point I've been making about the Twins. We have been so bad at our assessments and execution that it looks like a horrible idea when looking through the Twins lens. 

 

Widen the view out to the Dodgers, Cubs and Brewers and it isn't such a running joke. 

 

I've always had plenty of benefit of the doubt for our organization but the more I look into this... the more blind and stuck in our ways the Twins seem to have been. 

 

How does an organization year after year, fail at a high percentage with #1 draft picks, fail to develop superstars from the system, fail to have trade chips that are serious "I'll give you the best prospect I have" types, fail to find diamonds in the rough despite having an unusual amount of terrible seasons from regulars, lock players into position and still be average defensively and award every day playing time to players who are average at best overall? 

 

The Twins have failed to pay attention to new ideas and spent Pre-Falvey, Lavine still operating like this was 1980. 

I think the question I would ask is whether or not your examples are being cherry picked to an extent. It's easy to point out Bellinger, who has done well for LA... Question would be is whether or not teams doing this have similar failures as we have had...

 

I do think flexibility is the right answer long term. Rosario benefited from it as a 2B/OF in the minors. I'd argue though that the skills needed to be a good IF don't always translate to OF. You have to get people doing all of it to an extent to keep those skills fresh. Bottom line though, you're right in that we should have a few people identified who can play that role. That is more critical than ever in our 3 man benches.

[Riverbrian]

 

Well, Gardenhire was all for playing catchers in the outfield and that didn't work very well. Sure, a middle infielder is usually more athletic than a catcher. Sano to RF was a disaster. I often wondered why they didn't try Plouffe to RF instead. He was definitely more mobile than Sano, but was was never tried. 

 

One could take the argument of different positions in the Twins organization 1 step farther....

Why is it when they move a Starting Pitcher to the bullpen they never give him the chance to be a Starter again? Are they THAT SURE the move to the bullpen is correct forever? Just like they are THAT SURE that moving players on the field is correct forever?

Oh, and by the way, Dozier "could" have been good enough at 3B. It is a shorter throw than from SS, but of course we will never know since they never tried him there.

 

It's a matter of footwork. He can make a throw across the diamond. He's no more an arm risk at 3B as he would be turning the double play at 2B. 

[Platoon]

I think the single biggest argument for Brian's call for flexibility is simply the shifting. No one plays a "position" anymore. Even 1B end up wandering hither and yon. Add a few more 4 man OF shifts, and it's complete. BD no longer gets to toss softly to first base, and Sano could end up back at SS. In a 4 man OF, admittedly not yet that common, an IF will become an OF. I am old school, I am sure a surprise to many. But even I have abandoned the call for an elite defensive SS. Less and less they play the area that requires those specific skills. Just because I don't necessarily enjoy all the current changes, doesn't mean I don't see the need to adapt to them. It's quite possible the only thing harder to do than get the Twins to think outside the box, is to get that genie back into that bottle.

[Riverbrian]

 

I think the question I would ask is whether or not your examples are being cherry picked to an extent. It's easy to point out Bellinger, who has done well for LA... Question would be is whether or not teams doing this have similar failures as we have had...

 

I do think flexibility is the right answer long term. Rosario benefited from it as a 2B/OF in the minors. I'd argue though that the skills needed to be a good IF don't always translate to OF. You have to get people doing all of it to an extent to keep those skills fresh. Bottom line though, you're right in that we should have a few people identified who can play that role. That is more critical than ever in our 3 man benches.

 

In fairness they are cherry picked to an extent because I'm not listing everybody for brevity but during this thread I have listed everybody on the Dodgers roster who is playing multiple positions and the positions that they have started throughout the year. 

 

I have also brought up the Cardinals twice as an example of it going wrong. They have been a defensive mess for awhile. 

 

Now Bellinger may be special because playing 1B and CF is an extreme combo but there are plenty of Dodger examples that are a little more natural for lack of a better word. 

 

 

[mikelink45]

 

Dozier is for example purposes and not really anything to focus on but I disagree that adding LF or 3B to his resume would lower his value. 

How would his statistics match up with a Left fielder? Or a third baseman?  

Right now Dozier has stats that do not play well at any position.

 

[Riverbrian]

 

How would his statistics match up with a Left fielder? Or a third baseman?  

Right now Dozier has stats that do not play well at any position.

 

He's hit over 100 home runs in the past 3 years. Yes he has had a down year but over 100 home runs will play at any position. 

 

Whatever he is currently hitting. Additional positions opens up more teams that could put him to use. 

 

If he has no trade value because of his bat... it doesn't matter where he plays. 

 

But again... Dozier is just an example. 

[Riverbrian]

By the Way... Blake Swihart started at 3B today for the Red Sox. 

 

That is the first time that he has started a game at 3B in his career. 

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

They are terrible examples of position flexibility and were used to show how terrible the Twins are at identifying talent, developing it and creating flexibility.

 

However... you have raised even more concerns.

 

If they are keeping players at SS and CF as long as possible to increase value, that would explain why we have produced so many top quality SS's and CF's.

 

OK... so here is where we now stand.

 

1. In 2016 Wilfredo Tovar was our SS at Rochester and Jorge Polanco was our 2B. Tovar was signed to a minor league deal after being cleared out of the Mets organization and Jorge Polanco was rated our 4th best prospect.

 

2. At the Major league level in 2016. Brian Dozier was locked down at 2B playing 151 games while the Twins were rolling with the Eduardo's at SS. Escobar was the opening day starter. SS would have to be identified by anybody as the quickest path to the majors for our 4th rated prospect whose bat was nearly MLB ready during one of our worst seasons ever.

 

3. Despite your statement that they try to keep prospects at SS for as long as possible, despite his bat being nearly MLB ready, despite the bigger need at SS at the MLB level. The Twins move him to 2B right before he is called up as our everyday SS and he has remained at SS since.

 

4. December 9, 2010 the Twins trade JJ Hardy and Brendan Harris(both of whom played more innings at SS in MLB than any other position) to the Orioles for pitching.

 

5. December 17, 2010 the Twins sign Tsuyoshi Nishioka to a 3 year contract

 

6. During spring training 2011, Gardenhire announces that Alexi Casilla will be the opening day SS moving him from 2B as Nishioka signed as the SS replacement for Hardy is moved to 2B.

 

7. In Early May, Casilla is shifted back to 2B to make room for rookie Trevor Plouffe who had logged over 5,000 innings at SS in the Minor Leagues. Trevor plays 27 games at SS before Ron Gardenhire or someone discovers that he has a lack of range and issues at SS which wasn't discovered in 5,000 innings at SS in the minor leagues and he is replaced at SS by Tsuyoshi Nishioka who has now recovered from a leg injury suffered while demonstrating horrible technique turning a double play at 2B.

 

8. Trevor Plouffe is sent back down to Rochester and all of sudden is no longer a SS moving into a utility type role. He spends 9 games at 2B, 7 games in the OF, 7 games at 1B and 1 game at 3B. When he returns to the big club... he is still no longer a SS but finishes off his rookie season with starting 15 games at 2B and 11 games in the OF playing no games at 3B.

 

9. In 2012, Trevor Plouffe makes the team in a Utility role. Danny Valencia breaks camp the starting 3B and light hitting 38 year old Jamey Carroll is our starting SS. In early May, Valencia hitting .190 is demoted to Rochester, Trevor Plouffe moves to 3B (he played a total of 1 game at 3B in 2011 prior to the shift) and he shares time with Jamey Carroll while Brian Dozier is called up to play SS. Brian Dozier has logged 2486 innings at SS in the minors prior to his call up.

 

10. Brian Dozier starts 81 games at SS commits 15 errors and is sent down to AAA replaced by Pedro Florimon.

 

11. In 2013... Despite only 393 innings at 2B... Brian Dozier is magically named our opening day starting 2B and Trevor Plouffe is named our starting 3B.

 

12. Trevor Plouffe who was being groomed as a utility player then plays everyday at the position despite average to below average production. He becomes so entrenched at the position that Miguel Sano is forced to move to RF to accomodate the average play of Trevor Plouffe.

 

13. Brian Dozier is still the everyday 2B he has developed into one of the best 2B in the majors despite minimal experience at the position prior to claiming the full time job. While, the Twins groom Jorge Polanco to be our current SS by playing him at 2B in Rochester which places him directly behind Brian Dozier the one player who appears to be working out.

 

My question is this: Just how bad are we at this?

If you want to criticize the last front office and Gardenhire for their infield management, you’ll get no arguments from me.

 

But I don’t really see how that applies to the situation at hand.

[Riverbrian]

 

If you want to criticize the last front office and Gardenhire for their infield management, you’ll get no arguments from me.

But I don’t really see how that applies to the situation at hand.

 

Brock, you just responded to my response which was a response to your response. 

 

I used Brian Dozier and Trevor Plouffe as examples of how the Twins have been terrible in assessing talent in my original post. 

 

You responded with a statement that prospects are kept at SS and CF as long as possible for value purposes and defending Plouffe and Dozier as shortstops upon arrival.  

 

I responded to that with an example of our current SS being moved to 2B in the minors just before becoming our SS  as a contradiction to the SS as long as possible theory and then showed how quickly  and completely that Dozier and Plouffe were removed from SS after arrival as SS's. 

 

Now you've gone from defending Dozier and Plouffe development to saying you'll get no arguments from me that the previous regime is worthy of criticism but saying it doesn't apply. 

 

I'm not sure where to go next but... It applies because The Twins don't have depth or trade value right now because they have consistently missed assessment after assessment and doubled down on those assessments. While the Dodgers have perhaps identified or created more value off the scrap heap than the Twins have in total the past decade by moving players around. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Brock, you just responded to my response which was a response to your response. 

 

I used Brian Dozier and Trevor Plouffe as examples of how the Twins have been terrible in assessing talent in my original post. 

 

You responded with a statement that prospects are kept at SS and CF as long as possible for value purposes and defending Plouffe and Dozier as shortstops upon arrival.  

 

I responded to that with an example of our current SS being moved to 2B in the minors just before becoming our SS  as a contradiction to the SS as long as possible theory and then showed how quickly  and completely that Dozier and Plouffe were removed from SS after arrival as SS's. 

 

Now you've gone from defending Dozier and Plouffe development to saying you'll get no arguments from me that the previous regime is worthy of criticism but saying it doesn't apply. 

 

I'm not sure where to go next but... It applies because The Twins don't have depth or trade value right now because they have consistently missed assessment after assessment and doubled down on those assessments. While the Dodgers have perhaps identified or created more value off the scrap heap than the Twins have in the past decade by moving players around. 

My point is that you're using old moves to craft an argument. My point was not that the infield has been handled well, it's that some of the examples you used were very defensible.

 

If you want to make a point about how the front office should do things moving forward, highlighting your post with Dozier and Plouffe is not a good way to make said point, as both of them were pretty straightforward, with little to no fallback positions available to either player (Plouffe had some options, none of them optimal).

 

I said in my original response that I think you're looking at this a bit backwards; you can't just make a player flexible. You need to find flexible players and mold them into what you need them to be. That means you draft and develop these players, you don't inherit them.

[Riverbrian]

 

My point is that you're using old moves to craft an argument. My point was not that the infield has been handled well, it's that some of the examples you used were very defensible.

 

If you want to make a point about how the front office should do things moving forward, highlighting your post with Dozier and Plouffe is not a good way to make said point, as both of them were pretty straightforward, with little to no fallback positions available to either player (Plouffe had some options, none of them optimal).

 

I said in my original response that I think you're looking at this a bit backwards; you can't just make a player flexible. You need to find flexible players and mold them into what you need them to be. That means you draft and develop these players, you don't inherit them.

 

Alright... You don't see it. 

 

Let's try this... Trevor Plouffe and Brian Dozier being quickly removed away SS after an entire minor league career at SS is an example of bad assessment and many of those assessors are still in the room. 

 

Trevor Plouffe and Brian Dozier being quickly moved to other positions is also an example of how quickly these two particular players adapted to a 2nd position. Which shows that you can make a player flexible. 

 

Trevor Plouffe and Brian Dozier instead of becoming flexible were then locked down and Trevor Plouffe went on to be the very definition of average and his presence was enough to move Sano into RF and this was another bad assessment by assessors who are still in the room. 

 

The Twins were not paying attention to the Rays or the Cubs or Dodgers and if they had maybe we wouldn't be playing Astundillo in CF. Just one example: We may not have had to trade Hicks because the manager may have considered moving Rosario to IF position on occasion to fit Hicks in. Maybe we wouldn't had to sign Robbie Grossman to a contract if Dozier could have played an occasion LF or Plouffe an occasional RF. We created or own depth problems by being rigid and we are still experiencing the effect of that today. 

 

I would like the Twins to start looking at the Dodgers, Cubs and Brewers and stop being the 2010 Twins in approach. 

 

I don't know the answers but I'm asking the questions. Did the Dodgers identify special talent and focus on the acquisition of or did they create special talent by giving it a shot? 

[mikelink45]

 

He's hit over 100 home runs in the past 3 years. Yes he has had a down year but over 100 home runs will play at any position. 

 

Whatever he is currently hitting. Additional positions opens up more teams that could put him to use. 

 

If he has no trade value because of his bat... it doesn't matter where he plays. 

 

But again... Dozier is just an example. 

And I will be anxious to see which team look beyond his current stats.  If he is with us in a week it is really a shame, but one he brought on himself. 

[Ultima Ratio]

Doumit in RF was an example of getting a "bat" in the lineup vis-a-vis position flexibility.  I'm choking as I say that.  

 

OTOH, I agree that given these bad experiments of the past, it would be nice to have players with real flexibility and defensive talent in the future.

[TheLeviathan]

RB....do you not remember how brutal Plouffe was at shortstop?  Dozier wasn't much better.

[Riverbrian]

RB....do you not remember how brutal Plouffe was at shortstop? Dozier wasn't much better.

I do and that is part of my point. It’s my fault because I put too much information in making my point.

 

Let me simplify by asking two questions.

 

1. Could Eddie play LF and let’s say 3B during the course of a season?

 

2. What is the purpose of Kris Bryant playing both 3B and RF for the Cubs?

[TheLeviathan]

 

I do and that is part of my point. Itd my fault I put too much information in making my point.

Let me simplify by asking two questions.

1. Could Eddie play LF and let’s say 3B during the course of a season?

2. What is the purpose of Kris Bryant playing both 3B and RF for the Cubs?

 

I don't know that Eddie could.  

 

I feel like one of the best ways to trainwreck your season is to march out bad defenses.

[Riverbrian]

I don't know that Eddie could.

 

I feel like one of the best ways to trainwreck your season is to march out bad defenses.

I don’t know either but I’m not trusting the same guys who decided that Dozier and Plouffe would make MLB debuts at SS.

 

Rosario played just as much 2B as OF in the minors. Was he moved because he was terrible at 2B or was he moved because Dozier was calcifying at 2B?

 

If it was because they didn’t think he was very good at 2B then I’ll say it again. I don’t trust the people who made that decision even if they are right.

 

If Rosario could play some 3B or 2B doesn’t that clear space to keep Hicks around.

 

If Dozier was tried in LF does it open up a different role for Eddie that he could still be executing today.

 

We’ve killed our potential depth by being static for over a decade and we are suffering for it today is my thought.

[Riverbrian]

I don't know that Eddie could.

 

I feel like one of the best ways to trainwreck your season is to march out bad defenses.

Also I’m not implying that we be Willy Nilly and just throw people around for the hell of it but if we look at the past we have already used Grossman, Sano, Doumit, Delmon and Willingham in the OF along with Plouffe and Dozier and Nishioka at SS so it’s not like we have been defensively stellar being static and there are times when the club has made defensive concessions to get a bat in the lineup.

[Jham]

I don't know that Eddie could.

 

I feel like one of the best ways to trainwreck your season is to march out bad defenses.

I think what he's saying is that if Plouffe and Dozier were bad enough SS that they would submarine a season playing there, then why were they played almost exclusively there in the minors? Then if they could so easily transition to 3rd and 2nd, why not left or right? Why waste their entire Minor league experiences at positions they're not good at rather than embracing that truth earlier on and finding multiple positions they might not suck as badly at. Basically, unless you're an elite defender, you should be a utility player because you're not that good anyway.