I think it's more about comparative advantage. Let's assume for the sake of argument that while Escobar is "good," Santana is "very good" at shortstop. I've seen Santana be competent at center, and with his speed, I might even call him "good." Escobar would be flat "bad" at center field given what we've seen of him elsewhere in the OF. So the question is whether you'd rather have the best glove at shortstop and damn the rest of the positions, or if you'd rather your shortstop-center combo be "good" and "very good" versus the alternative of "very good" and "bad." Personally, I'm fine with the way the lineup is right now. Things will probably change in September, and then probably change again next year, so there isn't much of a reason to get all in a twist about who's actually the best if it means getting both bats in the lineup with at least good defense at both positions.