Riverbrian

Spot On! Spot On!

The right pitcher or player is always the question but at pure face value? 10 million is the investment that you set and the choice is depth or a single pitcher. I’ll take the depth. We have been suffering through Taylor Motter types for too long. Pitching we’ve spent the 10 million on arms and ended up Sorry that we did. I’m not saying that we should stop trying but depth is a safe guard against that sort of thing. I’ll take the depth... I’m crying and praying for depth. I can’t handle another Logan Morrison. Ultimately I’d rather the club developed that Super Utility Player on their own at league minimum prices and spent 10 million on the pitcher but since they haven’t addressed depth for decades we got to pay it now. Astudillo could be that cheap super utility guy I’m talking about.

That's fine but yeah we are going to disagree on this and that happens. I've been on the depth and flexibility kick for quite some time now and I've had a bunch of discussions with the fine folks at Twinsdaily on the subject. I understand that other have a different view point but I'm pretty locked in on mine. A couple of things: 1. You and I have a different assessment of Marwin Gonzalez. When you say we don't need Marwin because we have Adrianza, I am simply not going to meet at the location for that same opinion. It is my personal opinion that Marwin is a significantly better hitter than Ehire is and when I say that... it is not intended to slam Adrianza in any sense. I just think Marwin is a better hitter and I think he can play more positions capably. I could be wrong but that is my opinion. Despite his month long lack of production... I still believe that Marwin will get it going and when he gets it going his production will be equal to the production that we get from most of our "Designated Starters". I am only mentioning this because I don't want our difference in opinion on Marwin to cloud the next points. 2. A super utility guy is a guy who can play multiple positions at a level that is similar to a starter (Yes we disagree on if Marwin is at that level). A super utility guy can give Schoop a day off and the team doesn't suffer an enormous drop off in talent and then Polanco and then Sano and then Rosario and then Kepler a day off and then Cron. None of the starters will have to absorb the bulk of bench time to get this 10th player into the lineup because the super utility guy can be moved around and therefore spread the playing time around to include a 10th guy and now you starting to build actual honest to god depth on your roster. 3. If you go into a season saying that I've got the starting 9... now let's grab 3-4 guys who will play only occasionally... You have to grab a lesser player to take one those roles because the team can't justify signing or trading for Tommy Pham to be a 4th OF because you will have to bench talent frequently to accommodate. So... Locking into a starting 9 and saying you are covered, you are nearly forced to grab a lesser player for one of those 3-4 guys who will play only occasionally. These players don't get regualr reps until we are Forced to throw them into the lineup. Every year it happens... Logan Morrison is horrible and we only have Ryan LaMarre to replace him and so they keep playing the horrible player without adequate replacement. Miguel Sano gets hurt and we are forced to give Ehire Adrianza 400 AB's at 3B while we sign Taylor Motter pff the waiver wire to take over Adrianza's role. 4. Not signing depth... only legitimately counting on the starting 9 is a fatal error that most GM's make every single year and they get burned often... and they don't have to. In my opinion, this is the primary reason that teams pinball from 85 wins to 65 wins after making honest effort to improve the club in the off-season. By not providing depth... They have forced fate to determine the the outcome of the season through health and good performance. Yes, health and good performance is tough to overcome even with depth but if you staff the team 25 strong... you have a better chance of controlling that fate instead of just laying down and dying. 5. When you have depth... 12 to 13 players who can play at a high level. Flexibility has to occur. You have no choice... It's a natural by-product of depth. All 12 to 13 have to be worked into the lineup and in order to do that, somebody will have to learn a new position... For example, If you have Polanco and Tatis Jr on the same roster... somebody has to learn another position like 3B, 2B or LF in order for both to get playing time. So if you have honest to God depth... you have to adopt flexibility or it's pointless to have depth. 6. Signing Super Utility guys is flexibility right from the get go. You don't have to wait for depth to force it. You don't have to develop it... It has been developed for you... You don't have to train Mookie Betts to play 2B at the last minute to cover for an injury to Pedroia. You can either develop flexibility or acquire it. The Twins have not been developing it so they have to acquire it. 7. The Twins like most clubs have not attempted to develop super utility and are behind those that have (Dodgers and Cubs). They simply take lesser players who can't compete at the starter level, turned them into utility players and played them sparingly and then we all get pissed when the player has to play every day. You can't win without depth unless you get lucky, you can't have true depth without flexibility. You can't have flexibility unless you develop it or sign already developed flexible players. It is my opinion that super utility guys have been neglected by most teams and super utility guys are critical to the long term health of an organization. Now... how we each feel about Marwin is a different matter. I think he fits the "Super" part of utility... you think he's just utility.

Those are mostly examples of simple Utility players. When Punto was moving around to different positions he was a bench player. Once he became a starter they locked him into a position. Cuddyer was always a starter who they moved to different permanent positions based on need. He’s a 2B this year because we need a 2B all of a sudden. Super utility guys like Marwin and Bellinger and Bryant will play the majority of days like a starter does but will be in different positions each day according to what the manager wants to accomplish each day.

That's what I'm talking about! I went ahead and reserved a room at the Marriott for October 22nd to October 30th. I was forced to reserve the entire 8 days because I wasn't sure if we would have 4 games at home or 3 games at home for the World Series and what dates. I'll ask Glunn if I can stay at his house for the other games in L.A. Now I hope that the front office starts preparing for the World Series as well by getting Nelson Cruz some reps in the outfield when they can't use the DH.

Marwin needed that for BABIP improvement. Looks like a line drive in the box score.

Agreed And this is coming from the guy who was more than willing to banish either Astudillo or Garver to Rochester to start the season to preserve that depth knowing they were a phone call away. I just never saw all 3 of them on the roster and especially not this long. And I really didn't see Garver improving so much defensively and hitting two home runs every AB.

I'm not convinced either but Cave on the roster would be less superflous than Adrianza would be when Marwin returns to the every day utility role and therefore SS, 2B and 3B.

It goes hand in hand with the original question but it is a deviation from the original question. The original question is quite simple in itself... If they are both in the lineup. Why Marwin at 3B and Astudillo in RF. It makes more sense to me defensively to reverse that. I just added a bunch of side points that piggy backed off the thought but my intention was simply that question. To your question... which I also think about... Yeah... Why indeed? The way Astudillo is hitting and looking at 3B. I know that I'd have Astudillo as my primary 3B until Sano gets healthy in 2022. Therefore returning Marwin to the every day utility guy he was signed to be, playing 3B, SS, 2B, 1B and OF. Especially when the difference between Astudillo and Marwin has been so striking in April. Plus pulling Astudillo out of the catcher mix would give Garver and Castro more playing time and then we'd have that great pitch framer and the guy hitting a home run every 2 AB's in the lineup more often. To me this is a no-brainer but apparently not by the actual deployment. Instead... we clog it all up with Marwin playing 3B exclusively which is not what we paid for and he isn't hitting to make the clog really hard to explain and it is costing Astudillo and Garver AB's and they have been productive while Marwin hasn't. In the end... these are just questions... the team is winning... This ain't my Logan Morrison diatribe.

I can buy that if that is what they think... but, I'm not seeing the bad defense at 3B from Astudillo to support it but if that is what they think... I can buy it. But right now... Astudillo (pre-injury) is showing that he can contribute so to me it looks like they are really downgrading one position in order to not slightly downgrade two positions.

It's my fault because I make multiple side points to make my main point which leads to debate on the side points and ends up leaving my main point completely trampled on. My fascination with Austin probably stems from the idea that he isn't Logan Morrison. When Austin came to town... he was the guy who offically ended the Logan Morrison night mare. And I think his power is legit. But... trust me... He's gone and I'm OK with it. 1B only Power guys are a dime a dozen... However, Power guys like Austin who can play 1B and OF are little more valuable. But, Austin was just side point to: If Cave can be sent down because Astudillo can cover OF in his absence... I assume we have compromised OF defense. If you are willing to compromise OF defense... this compromise could have happened earlier to keep Austin around or play Cruz in NL parks. And like I mentioned in the post above... If Astudillo can play 3B... Marwin can keep his super utility role and we can cut Adrianza instead of sending Cave down when we need that 13th pitcher. So I'm back to the original question... Why is Astudillo in RF and Marwin at 3B if both are in the lineup? I'll try to leave Austin out from here on out.

I was always here... I've never been willy nilly flexibility. I still consider defense to be rather important. Where we disagreed if I recall was my belief that there are a lot of players who are capable of playing multiple positions but we don't know who they are because they have been specialized to the point of rarity.

I imagine that Marwin will slide back to that every day utility role when Sano comes back and along with it the bacon that we paid for. However... in the meantime... the more relevant question that you list is the crux of what I'm asking. Why Astudillo in RF and Marwin at 3B when both are in the lineup. I don't know know what Astudillo can do in the OF... Maybe he is amazing but I have seen Marwin play the OF quite capably and do assume that Marwin is much better... and I have seen both Astudillo and Marwin play 3B and believe that Marwin is better but the difference in defensive ability is much less striking. Marwin was signed for a "every day utility role". I don't know the answer to that question and I'm not sure that I'll like the answer... especially when Astudillo is clearly outplaying Marwin in the month of April... Now let's take it a step further. If Astudillo who is out playing Gonzalez at the moment can play 3B capably while Sano takes his time getting ready to join the team, Marwin can remain in the every day utility role he was signed to handle. If Gonzalez can play the every day utility role... We wouldn't need Adrianza on the roster and could therefore keep Cave on the roster when we needed to call up a 13th pitcher and then we will have an actual outfielder to play RF when Buxton fouls a ball of his leg. You see what I mean... the Twins have unnecessarily rostered themselves into Astudillo playing RF when they didn't have to. All they needed to do was keep Marwin in the role he was originally signed (big money) to play. All they had to do was keep the bacon on the burger.

Here's why the Twins had to pay that money to acquire Gonzalez. Neglect Decades long Neglect. The Twins along with most of the other teams in baseball have neglected this type of player for decades and have never tried to create their own super-utility player and they are still reluctant for some unknown reason to create their own to this day despite a need for them. So they have to buy the ones created by other teams. The Astros didn't neglect the concept and I have heard and read AJ Hinch say multiple times that he is really going to miss Marwin Gonzalez but the Astros don't need to pay that kind of money for a Marwin type player with Marwin type production because they know that they can create their own. They have been here before and done it. They broke through the wall and they are not going to pay that kind of money for this rarity. They have Yuli Gurriel who can play multiple positions so they can slide Tyler White into the lineup when Tyler White shows AJ Hinch that he is worth putting into the lineup at 1B. They signed Aledmys Diaz to replace Marwin because they believe that they can create another Marwin in Diaz. I was for the signing of Marwin and the cost to acquire him because we have neglected this type of player, failed to create our own and are therefore behind the Dodgers, Cubs, Rays, Astros and Brewers and I think we need to catch up yesterday. The Dodgers, Cubs, Astros, Brewers and the Rays on a cheaper scale know that depth is important and are not rostering Adrianza for getaway days. I would have rather we created our own for cost efficiency but they showed me no indication that they were going to try do that with our existing roster.

I am also biased so I'll join your club from the opposite door. I was for the signing of Marwin and I still am despite his month long slump. My bias stems from the oft-stated (by me) contention that super utility guys are not only necessary but critical. The cost to acquire Marwin surpassed what a player with his numbers would typically get because he is near the top of a very small pile of super utility guys. The pile is very small because baseball has been reluctant to create these guys (still seem reluctant in most cases) despite a growing need for them due to pitch counts and the need for larger bullpens as a result. The utility guy was created out of necessity and they are a dime a dozen all over baseball. The utility guy is necessary because there are 8 starting positions and only 4 bench spots. Due to roster limitation, you can't roster 8 backups for each of the 8 starting positions so guys on the bench have to be able to play multiple positions. Decades long standard practice is to take your 10th and 11th ranked players who are not good enough to start and turn them into utility out of a necessity that can't be avoided. Each one of these utility players have positions that they are probably best at but they need to be able to back up multiple positions out of necessity so they are not afforded the luxury of staying at one position like the starters are. The utility guy because of their 10th or 11th or 12th ranking on the depth chart will typically play on getaway days, injuries or when a starter pissed off the manager for not running out a ground ball. They don't play that much and can be picked up on a minor league contract because they are all over the place. The super-utility guy is very very rare. He is a guy who can play multiple positions, is allowed to play multiple positions and is given increased playing time because he can produce at the starter level. The Astros chose to keep Marwin as a super-utility guy and they chose to play him and he produced, which makes him a super-utility guy. For some strange reason, very few teams do this... this leaves Marwin near the top of a very small pile of super-utility players. As a result, he gets the bigger contract because Baseball has changed, pitch counts and other factors have led to larger bullpens which shrinks the size of the bench. So now baseball has decided that they want these guys but for some strange reason have been reluctant to create their own versions and end up signing the Marwin guys that other teams create. There are three major reasons why the super-utility guy is very very rare. 1. It is standard practice to lock starters into static every day roles. Once a utility player becomes starter like productive and he moves up the depth chart from 10th to (1st through 8th). Almost every (not all) baseball team will then lock him into a static position and throw away his previous utility abilities like it never happened. Jose Ramirez is good example of this. They then return to the old formula of taking a 10th, 11th or 12th guy on the depth chart and make him the simple utility guy who doesn't play that often. 2. Most teams do not make the effort to create super-utility guys if they have none. Only the Dodgers and Cubs have committed to either seek out these players or create their own. On a smaller scale the Astros and Rays also seem fearless when it comes to players playing multiple positions but quite to the scale of the Dodgers and Cubs. Bellinger, Baez, Bryant, Zobrist, Gurriel, Bregman and Marwin. The rest of the teams just don't do it. The rest of the teams will move players from position to position but once they move to a new position... the old position disappears like it never existed. Castellanos, Jose Ramirez, Ian Desmond off the top of my head. 3. Once designated a utility player, that player will need an extraordinary set of circumstances to remove that designation. Specifically, a designated utility player isn't supposed to do well... so when they do well, it isn't believed. A designated starter is supposed to do well... so when they don't do well, it isn't believed. Therefore no matter what is actually happens on the field. The starter will get chance after chance and the utility guy will not get the chance. Fates were already sealed by simply human hubris. It's only April and I anticipate Marwin will play different positions throughout the year. But so far in April, We have paid a lot of money for a player with flexibility, put him on the roster and then removed the flexibility by locking him in at 3B. Therefore neglecting the very reason he cost as much money as he did. Which leads to the question... If Marwin and Astudillo are both in the lineup... Why Astudillo in RF and Marwin at 3B. Anyway... Yeah... I'm biased... but it has been my oft-stated contention that teams need to create depth and then flexibility will naturally happen as a result of that depth. Only the old school organizations will purposely stop depth by focusing on the pre-picked 9 players, only the old school organizations will remove flexibility off the resume of and not know how to keep it and utilize it for their benefit. We have a lot of old school organizations who self inflict themselves unnecessarily. The Dodgers and Cubs are ahead of all of us because they embrace it. Anyway... that's why Marwin cost more than he produces. Not playing Marwin at multiple positions is like paying 25 bucks for a hamburger because it had bacon on it. Then throwing away the bacon and eating the plain hamburger that was also available for 10 bucks.

I won't argue any of your points. You could be absolutely right. However, Cave was sent down to make room for a pitcher. That option was also there when Austin was cut. I'm only throwing the thought out there since Astudillo has landed in RF since Cave was sent down. Since Astudillo playing a corner OF position is questionable and I agree with that assessment without enough information to make that assessment. If Astudillo can cover the position when Cave was sent down... Why couldn't Cave be sent down instead of cutting Austin. Why Couldn't Nelson Cruz play some OF to get his bat in the lineup in Philadelphia and at Citi Field?

I get it. In the end, I'm not against Marwin Gonzalez... whatever is happening right now... I don't expect it continue all year because I think he will also get hot at some point. There are ups and downs throughout the year. I'm absolutely not suggesting complete banishment from the lineup and I really appreciate the data you provided. But I am suggesting that he could play a little less right now and I am suggesting it's possible that being locked down as the every day 3B is not the ideal use of Marwin in consideration of his skill set and I am suggesting that if Astudillo is getting limited starts while Marwin plays every day in considration of current production, it potentially compromises the team at the moment (a compromise no one will feel if we hit 5 home runs a game) and is also unfair to Astudillo who is really trying to win a major league job. But under no circumstances am I calling for a complete benching of Marwin or some sort of getaway day type deployment.

Thanks... that is good stuff. How do Astudillo's exit velocity, hard hit%, barrels compare with Marwin's?

You have touched on something that I have been standing on the soapbox as against for quite some time now. The toleration of sub-par play from players who are not supposed to be sub-par. It is my opinion that teams (most teams) will tolerate sub-par play from players they have a different expectation from until they get the expected play. So the expected talent Marwin will be giving boat loads of playing time until he turns it around while the unexpected talent Astudillo will be put in the lineup occasionally and will only get every day privileges if a player is injured. In the meantime, the team will compromise itself because of the sub-par play at the position. In other words... it may be defensive as you suggest but it is also possible that they have picked a starting 9 before the season started and are sticking with it and not adjusting according to what is actually happening. If Astudillo is a defensive issue at 3B... Is it possible that he is not a defensive issue in RF. Right now... I'd say our lone current major issue in the every day lineup is 3B based on the current performance of Marwin. I have no problem with Astudillo in the OF if he get under flyballs and hit the cuts and I was 100% behind the signing of Marwin for his talent at multiple positions but he is starting awfully slow and Astudillo is producing so I'm wondering why Marwin isn't the guy moving around and wondering why Astudillo isn't getting more playing time at 3B.

Not sure about "we" but the reason "I" care is: 1. A simple curiosity Why? 2. The simple question: Is this best defensive lineup if both are in the lineup? 3. Is leaving Marwin at 3B the best use of Marwin? He was signed for multiple positions. 4. Is Astudillo a defensive compromise in the OF? I Don't know if he is but I'm assuming he won't be covering a bunch of ground. 5. If Astudillo is a defensive compromise in the OF could they have compromised earlier. With other players. Free Agents like Matt Adams? Trades like Mancini or Castellanos? Hanging on to Tyler Austin or Lucas Duda? If they are willing to compromose defense to get Astudillo's bat into the lineup... couldn't they compromise to get Nelson Cruz's bat into the lineup against the Phillies and Mets in National League Parks. 6. Is 3B so much more important than RF defensively? 7. Is Astudillo's 3B defense an issue? 8. Is Marwin as valuable playing only 3B compared to other postitions? 9. Is this another example of players locking into a position in the name of consistency? I don't have a problem with Astudillo playing in the OF... I encourage it because flexiblity is helpful and increases player value. I'm just wondering why not Marwin instead and any of the 9 points above are hopefully worthy of discussion.

And so ends the conversation.

According to that winning percentage data. It's all Garver's Fault.

Yeah but we still get those Royals. And Tigers and White Sox. Winning against the bad teams is what separates 1st and 2nd place teams in the end. Everything is hunky dory so far.

We had to finish the season 11-3 to get to 78-82. We may not have been exactly terrible... but I wouldn't have tried to correct anyone who used the adjective "terrible" to describe it.

As a hitter for a catcher... I have no issues with Jason Castro at all. He hits like a Catcher. Bobby Wilson couldn't even hit like a catcher so I had issues with Wilson. Now if you compare how Garver and Astudillo are hitting "For a Catcher". No matter how good Castro is defensively. The offensive numbers have to be strong consideration for surpassing the defensive benefits. But again... I'm not moving Castro... we are not deep enough behind the plate to move him.