Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Article: What's There to Say About Ehire?


 

My issue is going to be strictly fundamental. 

 

But that didn't really answer my question.  .750 OPS players, especially those who can play SS and 2B, are scarce.  I'm not even sure that's a debatable contention.

 

I understand your point about utilization, I don't think I disagree.  But that doesn't seem to address the scarcity issue and your response to that.  Maybe you did mean something entirely different?  Should that be my takeaway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that didn't really answer my question. .750 OPS players, especially those who can play SS and 2B, are scarce. I'm not even sure that's a debatable contention.

 

I understand your point about utilization, I don't think I disagree. But that doesn't seem to address the scarcity issue and your response to that. Maybe you did mean something entirely different? Should that be my takeaway?

We are probably talking past each other. My point is pretty simple.

 

I believe they wouldn’t be scarce with better utilization.

 

if they are scarce... it’s only because teams settle for a lower bar.... therefore making them seem scarce when in reality they are not.

 

Teams can start fixing this decades long problem by simply not signing a player with the intention of only limited duty if everything goes perfect. Sign players to compete. Promise them playing time if they perform... take away playing time if they don’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't believe in backups. I only believe in 25 players on a roster, all with the ability to win the majority of playing time based on actual performance. 

 

I'm not asking for 25 all-stars on a roster. I'm simply asking for 25 players who are able to provide competition with the other 24 players on the roster for playing time. Jake Cave is not an all-star but he was able to provide competition for Kepler's playing time.

 

If Adrianza is signed as a part-time role player.. his role has been established as someone who play's part time. His signing is only justified by saying... "He won't play much". 

 

I'm sure players would love to come to a team and be promised an every day job with no consequences if they don't perform. I'm saying, fine don't come.

 

I'll sign the players who will come to the team with the promise that they will play if they out-play the person next to them.  

 

I don't believe in backups. I don't believe in a starting 9 come hell or high water. I believe that you sing for your supper. Morrison should have seen a reduction in playing time. If Molitor wouldn't play LaMarre, he shouldn't have been on the roster. We should have been able to identify a player who could have out produced what Morrison produced. 

 

I don't believe in backups. 

 

That's all fine and good in a vacuum, but the FO has to deal in reality. Most proven, starting quality players aren't going to sign somewhere if they don't see a job opening. So what are we talking about here?

 

A manager problem who kept going to the well with a vet like Morrison who sucked? That manager got fired.

 

You're not going to have a roster with 25 starters on it. And you're going to have a problem if every guy on the roster thinks they should be starting and isn't willing to fill a role. You have to have guys on your roster that fill roles, not just for pitching but for the lineup, especially when you only get 12-13 spots for the guys in the field. Adrianza fills a role: positional flexibility with at least adequate defense and hitting that's respectable for middle infield.

 

You bring up Jake Cave and suggest he competed for Kepler's playing time, but the reality is, with Buxton hurt/ineffective there was an opening for a guy to get some OF playing time. He didn't take away any time from Kepler, who had a career high in games played and plate appearances. Cave's a useful player, but he also had a BABIP of .363 which probably isn't sustainable. He's still a useful player because he can't be an effective CF for you if Buxton repeats last year and be a nice defensive replacement in the corners. but he's not pushing Kepler out of RF. The problem the Twins have right now in the OF is they don't know if Kepler can hit enough to be an every day RF or Buxton can hit enough to be an every day CF.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We are probably talking past each other. My point is pretty simple.

I believe they wouldn’t be scarce with better utilization.

if they are scarce... it’s only because teams settle for a lower bar.... therefore making them seem scarce when in reality they are not.

Teams can start fixing this decades long problem by simply not signing a player with the intention of only limited duty if everything goes perfect. Sign players to compete. Promise them playing time if they perform... take away playing time if they don’t.

 

I don't believe every baseball player should be playing at SS and 2B.  I think that position group will always have a scarcity of good hitters that can capably field those positions at the level required in the big leagues.  

 

It's a rare skill set to handle 2B/SS and be a good major league hitter.  Hence the scarcity.  No amount of rational belief in flexibility should lead you to a different conclusion.  This is an example of when you start to veer away from something I can agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't believe every baseball player should be playing at SS and 2B.  I think that position group will always have a scarcity of good hitters that can capably field those positions at the level required in the big leagues.  

 

It's a rare skill set to handle 2B/SS and be a good major league hitter.  Hence the scarcity.  No amount of rational belief in flexibility should lead you to a different conclusion.  This is an example of when you start to veer away from something I can agree with.

 

SS... I agree with you. It's like the Catcher position where they sacrifice some offense for the defensive skill. 

 

2B less and less... Reports on Adrianza is that he isn't off the charts defensively... not that I always believe the defensive metrics presented. 

 

Thanks for saying my flexibility points are rational but, this isn't a flexibility point I'm making.  :)

 

It's a depth point... It's a 25 man roster limitation discussion. Can Adrianza fill in for Schoop if Schoop hits like he did last year or would we be better off with Torreyes or could we trade a couple of low level players for Brock Holt and do even better? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It's a depth point... It's a 25 man roster limitation discussion. Can Adrianza fill in for Schoop if Schoop hits like he did last year or would we be better off with Torreyes or could we trade a couple of low level players for Brock Holt and do even better? 

 

It's not clear to me that any of these guys will be better than Adrianza next year.  Probably Holt, but maybe not.  And that's sorta my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's not clear to me that any of these guys will be better than Adrianza next year.  Probably Holt, but maybe not.  And that's sorta my point.

 

You might be in lock step with the front office. They obviously see something in him. I won't knock you for liking a player more than I do.  

 

I don't hate him... I believe he should have played a lot more than he did last year but that was based upon what his peers were doing last year. There were times when he was our best hitter last year. 

 

Although, I admit I'm not comfortable with Adrianza being the replacement for a Sano meltdown in 2019. But that personal issue of mine is probably more of Cron/Austin discussion because I had the hope that the Twins would find a 3B that would challenge Sano directly instead of two 1B's taking up the roster space. Cron/Austin on the same roster would limit any 3B acquisition possibility. Bring me Castellanos or Moustakas and I'll be happy.  :)  

 

Basically... I see no reason why the Twins couldn't start the season with Polanco, Schoop AND pick a reasonably priced middle infielder with some talent. Asdrubal or whoever. And let them dictate the playing time allocation based on performance. If all are performing... a decent manager will figure it out. He doesn't have to pick two and let the other collect dust.  A decent GM will figure out how to turn the excess into something else if Nick Gordon hits the stage a running. And if someone isn't performing... you have another option to turn to. 

 

The Twins have rode the same horses into the ground over and over again. It has to stop.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's all fine and good in a vacuum, but the FO has to deal in reality. Most proven, starting quality players aren't going to sign somewhere if they don't see a job opening. So what are we talking about here?

 

A manager problem who kept going to the well with a vet like Morrison who sucked? That manager got fired.

 

You're not going to have a roster with 25 starters on it. And you're going to have a problem if every guy on the roster thinks they should be starting and isn't willing to fill a role. You have to have guys on your roster that fill roles, not just for pitching but for the lineup, especially when you only get 12-13 spots for the guys in the field. Adrianza fills a role: positional flexibility with at least adequate defense and hitting that's respectable for middle infield.

 

You bring up Jake Cave and suggest he competed for Kepler's playing time, but the reality is, with Buxton hurt/ineffective there was an opening for a guy to get some OF playing time. He didn't take away any time from Kepler, who had a career high in games played and plate appearances. Cave's a useful player, but he also had a BABIP of .363 which probably isn't sustainable. He's still a useful player because he can't be an effective CF for you if Buxton repeats last year and be a nice defensive replacement in the corners. but he's not pushing Kepler out of RF. The problem the Twins have right now in the OF is they don't know if Kepler can hit enough to be an every day RF or Buxton can hit enough to be an every day CF.

 

Paragraph one: If you have to promise a free agent that the team will faithfully tank along with him if he tanks and his playing time won't ever be questioned... we shouldn't sign a free agent ever again. When you sign a free agent... you pay the money it takes to sign him. You outbid the other teams and no team is going to outbid other teams for limited playing time. Simply outbidding other teams is expressed expectation that he won't be benched IF and I mean IF he is performing. If you are trading to acquire the acquisition... you have his rights.You have all the leverage you need to demand results. If you want to extend your own player to a new deal... he is performing and therefore playing... If he isn't... you don't want to sign him to an extension anyway.

 

If I'm a player... and I have competition for my services... I am strongly considering the talent next to me. I'm not signing with the Twins because they have players hitting .160 playing every day in the same lineup. If I don't have confidence in my talent that I need an assurance of playing time. Yeah... Sign me up Twins. I'd love a sweet deal like that. Get paid millions and produce whatever you like. 

 

Paragraph Two: Yep... and do it again if you have to. 

 

Paragraph Three: The only role they need to fill is the role of performing when given a spot in the lineup. If you are in the lineup as a 2B, you are in the lineup as a 2B. That is your role. The backup role will take care of itself by who isn't getting the job done. It will happen naturally by letting the players decide who gets that role based on who is less deserving. Don't go into the season... "Hey... You are my backup". That's all the expectation I have of you and then give him a million dollars for his willingness to put the uniform on and watch others play. 

 

Paragraph Four: I used Cave as an example and I used Kepler as an example. Don't get lost making the examples specific. They were "For example" but go ahead and insert any names you want for the example. Let's just take your final sentence. "The problem the Twins have right now in the OF is they don't know if Kepler can hit enough to be an every day RF or Buxton can hit enough to be an every day CF". 

 

I agree with that last sentence 1000%... So if you don't know... and I don't know (I don't)... the front office doesn't know... Even Chief doesn't know... Why on earth would you sign a back up who isn't good enough to deserve a starting job and say... he won't play much even if you don't know what is going to happen with Kepler and Buxton. Are we afraid that if Kepler and Buxton figure it out and actually perform, that a 4th outfielder who is also performing is going to be a problem? 

 

Same point for the middle infield... We got Polanco and now we got Schoop. Schoop has major question marks based on last year... just like the question marks we have Kepler, Buxton and Sano... does the team punt the 2B position if Schoop doesn't right the ship. Was he was promised an every day job no matter what to get him here and the season ticket holders are just going to have to take it, if it happens or does Schoop play every day because Adrianza was only signed as a back up to play on getaway days and not signed with the intention of him being needed to play full time? 

 

Just get a player who can compete with Polanco and Schoop. Trade, Waivers, IFA, FA... I don't care. We got money, we got trade chips and we got a weak AL Central. This isn't hard... and it's necessary.

 

All the front office has to do is not sign a player with the attitude that he isn't going to play much. 

 

I don't hate Adrianza... He's got some value. I take issue with any comment that states "He's fine for a backup". 

 

I don't believe in backups. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't believe in backups. 

 

I agree with 90% of what you're saying here. Really, it feels that we're just debating the meaning of a word, which I don't understand because it's already defined by the dictionary.

 

Anyway, I like Ehire. I'll end my piece there because otherwise we're just going in circles and it seems like we mostly agree.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What's there to say about Ehire?

 

I think the Front Office just made a little statement in picking up Torreyes...nothing like a little

 

C-O-M-P-E-T-I-T-I-O-N

 

(especially when if it works out only costs $800k and if it doesn't $0K)

I fully expect the Twins to carry two backup infielders. They have every year as long as I can remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This was sarcasm right?  Not that I mind Schoop...but Torryes has a .664 OPS.  And the Yankees thanked him on his way out.

 

But that's the talent landscape in the MI.  It's sorta bad.

 

This also means Astudillo is blocked, but the Twins will hold that carrot out through spring training anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

jkcarew came up with .750.  I simply said there are not that many guys better than Ehire and his .700ish OPS.

Adrinza's career OPS is 658 in about 900 PA...it was 680 last year.  The Twins just got Torreyes to go with Schoop.  Torreyes is at 685 OPS in a little over 600 MLB PA.  Would I bet that Torreyes will be better offensively than Adrianza next year?  Nope.

 

But I appreciate the effort (small that it was).  There is at least some reason to hope that Torreyes can be an upgrade offensively based on his minor league track record relative to Adrianza's. If nothing else it's a little competition or another option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adrinza's career OPS is 658 in about 900 PA...it was 680 last year.  The Twins just got Torreyes to go with Schoop.  Torreyes is at 685 OPS in a little over 600 MLB PA.  Would I bet that Torreyes will be better offensively than Adrianza next year?  Nope.

 

But I appreciate the effort (small that it was).  There is at least some reason to hope that Torreyes can be an upgrade offensively based on his minor league track record relative to Adrianza's. If nothing else it's a little competition or another option.

Im more concerned about recent production than minor league production and Adrianza beats him there the last three years. If you just count Adrianza's last two years he beats Torreyes in BB% and ISO. Torreyes gets him on avg and K%, though Adrianza is average at worst in striking out.

 

Torreyes may be better eventually because of his track record but he hasn't shown to be the last two years (even three if you count Adrianza as a Giant for one year) on the MLB field. At least he's not in my eyes because I'll take the more patient hitter with more power. Their defense is probably equal, but that I admit, I haven't looked at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im more concerned about recent production than minor league production and Adrianza beats him there the last three years. If you just count Adrianza's last two years he beats Torreyes in BB% and ISO. Torreyes gets him on avg and K%, though Adrianza is average at worst in striking out.

 

Torreyes may be better eventually because of his track record but he hasn't shown to be the last two years (even three if you count Adrianza as a Giant for one year) on the MLB field. At least he's not in my eyes because I'll take the more patient hitter with more power. Their defense is probably equal, but that I admit, I haven't looked at.

Both still kinda qualify as small sample sizes in my eyes so I wonder about the benefit of any statistical comparisons.

 

They have some years under their belt but neither have a ton of extended action.

 

Who knows but I’m hesitant to close the book a couple of pages in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both still kinda qualify as small sample sizes in my eyes so I wonder about the benefit of any statistical comparisons.

They have some years under their belt but neither have a ton of extended action.

Who knows but I’m hesitant to close the book a couple of pages in.

True, it is smaller sample sizes but neither of these guys are going to be starters on this team (knock on wood) so sample size issues will always be a problem for them.

 

Right now I'd go Adrianza and it's not even close for me. Devil you know, I guess, plus stats back it up for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, it is smaller sample sizes but neither of these guys are going to be starters on this team (knock on wood) so sample size issues will always be a problem for them.

 

Right now I'd go Adrianza and it's not even close for me. Devil you know, I guess, plus stats back it up for me.

Don’t get me started on the word “starter”. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to use analytics such as defensive measures, then I guess I would take issue with calling him a replacement level player, another analytics term. He's above that, but below average, earning a below-average salary. If he were replacement level, they would, you know, replace him, with someone earning MLB minimum instead of above that. As you go on to note, there is a place in the majors for someone "blah" like that.

 

Grossman by contrast was in a similar boat performance-wise but at an even higher price point around MLB average, and out he goes.

with the signing of Big Toe he might be replaced.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Shouldn't play more than 60-70 games because they're not good enough to play 100+"?

To add: Adrianza plays league average for a shortstop which is fine and the minimum bar I want from him, but I prefer Polanco getting most of those reps.

 

Cool... I don't have a major problem with Adrianza (other than the odd spelling of his name). 

 

I'm just absolutely serious about every roster spot utilized on players that will push the other players and therefore I don't start with labels like starter or backup.  :)

 

I know most people use starter and backup... I'll wait for everyone to join me. It'll probably be a long wait but I'm patient.  :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? As recently as 2016, the Twins extra infielder OPS’d 758. An if Polanco had been designated the extra that year...he OPS’d 730. They won 83 games. I want a guy with a better offensive upside in that role. They exist. So I guess ignorance would be bliss in my case.

If your talking Caballo yes it happens but once it does the player expects to get paid like a starter and the team has a valuable trade chip. Eddie had some stretches before that year but then somebody gets hurt he gets more paying time and puts it all together. Now he's a starter and getting paid like one. Starting caliber players are very valuable in MLB and when a team has an extra one they also invariably have a hole they need to fill with that chip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool... I don't have a major problem with Adrianza (other than the odd spelling of his name). 

 

I'm just absolutely serious about every roster spot utilized on players that will push the other players and therefore I don't start with labels like starter or backup.  :)

 

I know most people use starter and backup... I'll wait for everyone to join me. It'll probably be a long wait but I'm patient.  :)

I can see that, but not sure that's possible. There are a lot of good players in MLB but there is not enough players in the league to have multiple guys on one team who can provide legit competition to the players who play more. Usually, obviously not always, the better player gets most of the playing time and the other guy sits more because he has less talent. Plus, most of the good players want to play 140+ games a year (assumption). Like at this point no one is going to be good enough to have Mike Trout play less. Mike Trout is a no doubt "starter" unless he's hurt.

 

I think in order for what you want to happen, you'd probably have to eliminate 5-10 teams from the league so you'd weed out the really bad players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I can see that, but not sure that's possible. There are a lot of good players in MLB but there is not enough players in the league to have multiple guys on one team who can provide legit competition to the players who play more. Usually, obviously not always, the better player gets most of the playing time and the other guy sits more because he has less talent. Plus, most of the good players want to play 140+ games a year (assumption). Like at this point no one is going to be good enough to have Mike Trout play less. Mike Trout is a no doubt "starter" unless he's hurt.

I think in order for what you want to happen, you'd probably have to eliminate 5-10 teams from the league so you'd weed out the really bad players.

 

Not true at all and the first step to flooding the market with capable talent is to simply stop thinking of "Starter" and "Bench" when constructing your roster. I am honestly surprised that I get a ton of push back on this. I'm simply asking for 25 guys who push each other for playing time and to give the playing time to the players who are playing better.

 

It's easy enough and should be easily agreed upon by everyone... Fill your entire roster with talent... who could possibly be against that but I get so much push back on it? I'm starting to realize it's because most people can't relate to anything but a "Starter" and "Bench" mentality because it's been all we've been looking at for decades and they can't let that mentality go long enough to realize that... WE REALLY DON"T NEED ANY PLAYERS that ONLY PLAY ON GETAWAY DAYS. 

 

Teams actually create those type of players by only playing players that way. They are self created on purpose by the "Starter" "Bench" mentality and it ends up handicapping the team in the end and this creates the perceived shortage of talent across baseball but it is self created and all you have to do is stop thinking "Starter" "Bench" bench when constructing your roster.  The Dodgers and Cubs don't do this and they are light years ahead of the rest of the baseball as a result. 

 

The Mike Trout's... Those guys are going to play every day... Nobody is going to be able to push them for playing time because they are playing on another level than the majority of baseball players. 

 

But... there are only a handful of those Trout guys and The TWINS haven't had any Trout guys. We can't afford those guys, we haven't traded for any of those guys and we haven't drafted/developed any of those guys but because we deploy our starting 9 every year like they are all Trout guys, it does two things. 

 

1. It locks in a "Real" disparity between an actual Mike Trout type on the other team and the Trevor Plouffe guy that we play like he is Mike Trout on our team.

 

2. It shuts the door and makes it nearly impossible to find the next Mike Trout guy by pure accident or development because the Trevor Plouffe guy is played like Mike Trout and ends up hogging all of the playing/development/discovery time. They are not all born like Mike Trout, identified in the minors as the greatest ever and simply promoted to "God Like Status" like everyone expected. There are also the Justin Turner and JD Martinez types who were released by other teams and the Jose Ramirez types who were 20th ranked prospects who exploded once they got regular playing time and every year... we have less roster space to find these type of Trout guys because of the "Starter" "Bench" mentality. In the off-season, this unnecessary of locking into a "Mediocre Starter" like Plouffe and a "Fine because he doesn't have to play much" Adrianza killing two roster spots with the best expectation you can have is average is ultimately retarding the overall development of a functional complete roster of talent and prolonging the rebuild we are waiting on and results in the ping-pong seasons of good years and bad years that the majority of teams go through. The teams that are consistently in the playoffs don't buy it with money... they make the playoffs consistently because they have options to turn to in case it all goes wrong with a "designated starter". The Dodgers have the money to spend... they don't need to find Max Muncy or Kike Hernandez or Chris Taylor, they can just buy it but the Dodgers are finding these guys and playing them. It's the Twins who can't buy it and need to find Max Muncy or Kike Hernandez or Chris Taylor but they can't find it because they settle for Trevor Plouffe and "Fine as long as they don't play that much".  

 

 

So you just perpetuate a broken cycle like we have been doing over and over again for decades. Just hoping the front office gets it right in the off-season. Pure finger crossing hope, that the front office through skill or dumb luck, got the right 9 guys identified, pure finger crossing hope that those 9 guys stay healthy and actually perform like they were projected. Because the other 3 or 4 players who round out the roster, are only "Fine" as long as "they don't play much" and offered contracts knowing that they are not as good as the pre-identified "9" guys who may end up on the 60 day DL. 

 

Now, if the starting 9 works great we got a great season... if it doesn't (like 2016 and 2018) we get to hear excuses like "we really thought we would get more production out Sano, Buxton and Dozier: or... "We had this one year contract team chemistry issue" or insert the excuse du jour and the team just ping-pong balls up and down each year based on if those starting 9 do their job.  

 

I'm sure the front office hates having to make excuses like that and all they have to do to stop having to make excuses like that... TREAT EACH ROSTER SPOT like you might need that player to contribute significantly. 

 

 

We take all of our limited investment capital (playing time) and spend it on single stocks that have proven time and time again to be volatile and unpredictable, instead of diversifying in multiple stocks to increase the odds of a stock going through the roof while protecting yourself against the failure of the other stock.

 

Seriously, The closest guy we've had to one of those Trout guys was? Mauer 2009?

 

Guys who actually play like they should play every day instead of the guys we play every day but don't play well enough to play every day. 

 

The majority of our "Starters" who play every day... are Trevor Plouffe types.

 

On the Twins and across baseball,. Trevor Plouffe and his ilk prevent teams from finding the Max Muncy types (even Astudillo, Cave types) every year because of the "starter" "back-up" mentality and the playing of Trevor Plouffe like he is Mike Trout.

 

This how off-seasons screw us over! Time and time again. 

 

1. We have Trevor Plouffe.

2. 3B is therefore covered every single day.

3. No sense even thinking about someone else of at least equal or greater value to add to the roster. 

4. Whatever Trevor Plouffe gives... is what we get. The Die is cast. 

5. Now we must go find a player who isn't as good as Trevor Plouffe and call him a "back-up".  

5. Give this back-up one of only 25 roster spots.  

6. This player won't play much.

 

I'm saying that whenever anyone claims that Adrianza is "good enough" because "He won't play much", you are just perpetuating a mentality that has existed in baseball for decades "Starter" "Bench" and you have committed yourself to the painful fate of asking Trevor Plouffe to be Mike Trout or die because there is no remedy for Trevor Plouffe hitting .200.   

 

It is the yearly declaration that nothing will happen to Polanco, Schoop or Sano so we can comfortably seek out lesser players to fill out the rest of the roster, while history shows time and time again that something will happen to at least one of Polanco, Schoop or Sano to blow the "He won't play much" part of the equation right out of the water and usually before May rolls around. 

 

All the Twins have to do right now is go sign Asdrubal Cabrera or trade for Brandon Crawford or whoever. It doesn't have to be a Machado type (although Machado would be nice) but get a player who can compete with Polanco and Schoop, add him to the roster and then let the players inform the manager who should play more often by how THEY PLAY. I don't understand how anybody could be against this idea? Unless they really enjoy admonishing Logan Morrison for his crappy play and want to ensure that there is a Logan Morrison available to admonish. 

 

Now, if the front office believes that Adrianza or Torreyes could be this Cabrera or Crawford type that can push and compete with Polanco and Schoop. Never mind... I'm cool. If the front office believes this, even if Adrianza or Torreyes fails to be Cabreara or Crawford-esque, I'll give the front office the benefit of my doubt and blessing. 

 

But... I'll know. If we see Adrianza consistently sitting on the bench in 2019 watching Schoop hit .186 as an everyday player. I will know that the front office signed a lesser player on purpose and was blinded by the concept of "Starter" "Bench" like many are and couldn't figure out how to get out of it when it all went wrong. Whatever happens will be their fault and I will not listen to any excuses like "We really thought that Schoop would do better".

 

If the Manager doesn't want to play Gergorio Petit or a Motter like talent. Right now is when that decision is being made.

 

Rosters are built in the off-season! The shopping is done and the supply is exhausted in the off-season. Once the season starts... the choices become extremely limited... like Motter type limited. 

 

Right Now... STAFF THE 25 Man to the hilt. All you have to do is get rid of the "Starter" "Bench" Mentality and get to work and then make the players compete for every roster spot. 

 

No more Logan Morrison walking past the lineup card and knowing he is on the lineup card despite producing at a "should be selling cars" level because we got Gregorio Petit and Taylor Motter challenging him.  

 

This is why I've been a broken record on this... People can't get past "Starter" "Bench". This isn't my flexibility diatribe... Flexibility is a by-product of having too much talent on your roster and the necessity of finding playing time for that too much talent. 

 

You got to get the talent first for every precious roster spot. 

 

This simple change in mindset is guaranteed (By ME) to speed up the rebuild tenfold.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've brought this way off topic, so I'll end with this. I don't think there's enough players in MLB to provide 2+ WAR consistently every season, which was my main point which I probably said poorly. That would be what you'd need for true constant competition. There's backups because there's not enough talent across MLB. There were a little less than 100 hitters to provide 2 WAR or better this year according to fangraphs. Maybe some of those bench guys would do better if they got to play more but would they easily be able to provide 2 WAR all the time? No and 100 hitters isn't enough for 30 teams to split between them.

 

I agree there should be competition for every player, unless you're Trout or some others. I agree that players who are bombing like Dozier last year should not just get to keep playing. That's always been ridiculous to me. I agree that you should find upgrades everywhere as much as you possibly can. I don't think too many people argue against much of that. The owners and their wallet, sure, but I'm guessing most fans want all the teams players to be good.

 

I don't agree that it's easy to do because of the lack of talent across MLB. The Ryan Lamarre's of the world are always going to have a spot on the bench on teams because there's not 200 Max Kepler or Eddie Rosario's lying around. I'd love to have their clones sitting on the bench ready to go in case something happens to the originals but it's not realistic.

 

The Twins would need nearly a whole new team if they were to do that kind of thing at every position. I'd be perfectly fine if the Twins upgrade on a whole ton of positions, but where are you going to find 15 new players from? Let alone all of them be potential competition/upgrades? You can and should add a couple a year, but then it'd still take 5+ years to rebuild it. There's just no way to get rid of 100s of bad players unless you start eliminating teams because not ever player has the talent to provide true competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

Featured Video

×
×
  • Create New...