Otto von Ballpark

Please don't make these things personal. I don't think it helps advance the discussion. I am really trying to discuss in good faith here, as I was yesterday too. I thought we were specifically talking about backup plans for starters, as in, taking over a starting job. Gonzalez has a solid chance to do that for Sano in 2019, regardless of Sano's health. Maybe a bit for Cron or Buxton, perhaps indirectly. The others? Not so much. Obviously Gonzalez can spell everyone on the field (well, almost everybody -- he's no Tortuga) and provide value that way too. I was just looking at the narrow consideration of replacing one of our projected starters.

Come to think of it, I've never seen Escobar and Gonzalez in the same place, at the same time....

How a player performs in a random 130 PA sample isn't their "floor." Also, Milwaukee had multiple better options when they acquired Schoop -- Shaw and Moustakas, chiefly. They didn't bench Schoop, so much as acquired him for their bench / left him on their bench. I wouldn't read too much into 130 PAs of a bench player, especially as they even tried to use him at a new position (shortstop). And I'm not saying Schoop's salary will guarantee him playing time -- I'm saying the Twins wouldn't have committed those resources to him, if they suspected they would need to bench him in the first half of the season.

I don't know exactly what we're going to get from all of them either -- but I also don't realistically see a scenario where we bench Rosario, Polanco, or Kepler in 2019. No guarantee, but they project with pretty good health too. Similar for Cruz at DH, although health could be a bigger factor there at his age. Another failed drug test would be a lightning strike event, not an issue of reliability. I doubt they are overly concerned with Schoop's last 130 PA, especially since they came when he was mostly parked on Milwaukee's bench. Cron I could see benched or cut, but I don't think he actually had much flash in his pan! He was 2 WAR last year, and looks like a 1-2 WAR guy. Maybe he's already Sano/Cruz insurance. Buxton and Sano really stick out compared to this group, and especially the latter, since Buxton should at least be able to handle CF if he's healthy, and we can always slide Kepler over if he's not. But Sano's pretty shaky even if he is healthy, and there wasn't even a cursory backup plan for him before Gonzalez.

Sano at 3B really stands out, though. Nothing is ever guaranteed, but the non-Sano and non-Buxton projected starters all have a pretty high floor -- you normally wouldn't worry about having a starting alternative for them (that is, something more than a backup or occasional sub) on the MLB opening day roster.

Schoop's floor is fairly high, though. Last year was his worst, and he was still worth 1.4 bWAR. And he's only 27 years old, and guaranteed $7.5 mil. If he's healthy, I have a hard time seeing him cut or going to the bench, even if his production isn't very exciting. He could lose some reps to Gonzalez, but not too many. Sano, on the other hand...

I agree with the underlying sentiment -- I love Twins Daily too. But this line of thought is a little dangerous -- it often gets invoked here as a discussion killer: "the front office knows better than you do." I'd suggest that most of us aren't bringing things up here because we think the front office hasn't considered them. We bring them up simply because we're interested, and we want to learn and understand more about them. The front office decision making process takes place behind closed doors. Sound bites and newspaper quotes barely scratch the surface about why they made a move, and what the implications of the move are -- and of course, how a move eventually turns out.

I just posted in the other thread that, by far, Gonzalez's biggest value to the Twins looks like 3B alternative to Sano. That's the spot where there is the most uncertainty and potential for terrible performance. And it's not hard to imagine whole games or even stretches of games where the team doesn't want Sano at 3B, even in the early going, and they're probably going to want another "real" infielder on the roster. So I suspect Adrianza and his arbitration salary are relatively safe for now, although Torreyes has an option left and can be stashed at AAA. I hope you're right that Astudillo still has a chance, though.

The elephant in the room is probably Sano (no size joke intended ). Sano's grasp on 3B has always been fairly tenuous, and after last year, I think they would have been justified moving him to 1B/DH. But, if they want to give him another shot at 3B in 2019, they need a better backup plan than Adrianza, and they probably need it available well before trading season heats up in July. And once you've got Schoop installed at second base, getting Gonzalez is really your best option for a Plan B third baseman right now. Yeah, there are some other potential benefits with Gonzalez's versatility -- but the one that really stands out on this roster is taking over 3B from Sano. Dude was a big negative both defensively AND offensively last year. Can't risk that again this year, without an Escobar or a prospect ready to take over. Like I said, I don't mind Gonzalez on this contract, and given Sano's situation, I understand it -- although that comes from a place of frustration about Sano, as much as any appreciation for Gonzalez. (It also calls into question how long Sano's leash will be, and if he's going to wind up redundant with Cron rather quickly.)

Again, standard disclaimer: Gonzalez is a player of value, and this isn't a bad deal. I'm just skeptical that we can net good value from it here, given the circumstances.

But, even "failure" for many of these questions is not necessarily worse than Gonzalez's own performance expectations. Buxton -- he could hit at the mendoza line, but still be worth roughly 1.5-2 WAR just like Gonzalez usually has been, and perhaps warrant continued playing time. Sano -- even if he fails at 3B, we may still want to give his bat more time Schoop -- even in 2018, he was worth 1.4 bWAR, not appreciably worse than Gonzalez has been outside of 2017 Cron -- again, Gonzalez has not been an appreciably better hitter than Cron outside of 2017 Rosario -- inconsistency wouldn't necessarily make him a worse option than Gonzalez Kepler -- doesn't need a breakout to be better than Gonzalez, and his contract gives him plenty of tine Polanco -- likewise his contract should afford him plenty of time to lock down SS, especially compared to Gonzalez's likely limitations at the position I know Gonzalez's expected performance still has value, and somewhere in here, there will likely be an opportunity for Gonzalez to contribute. But it's not necessarily simple to decide where, or when -- for example, pull the plug on Schoop or Cron in favor of Gonzalez too early, and Gonzalez is no longer a spare resource who can cover for an injured Sano or Buxton at any time.

Remember, WAR is a counting stat / an opportunity stat. I just posted that to illustrate, in numerical form, that in order for Gonzalez to contribute, he will have to take some opportunity from others who are already considered capable of similar contributions at their respective positions. Now, due to injury and under-performance, there will definitely be some opportunity available for Gonzalez. Although it's not always so easy to know when and where it should be -- for example, last April, Rosario was one of our worst hitters. If he does that again, and the rest of the lineup is healthy, should he start to lose more playing time to Gonzalez? (Rosario turned out to be our best hitter in May and June.) Sano and Buxton look like easy candidates to cede playing time -- but at the same time, we still want to give them some leash to hopefully improve themselves as assets. Perhaps even Kepler deserves some leash vs LHP? If most of our starting 9 deserves a leash of a few months, would we be better off forgoing Gonzalez for now, save the money, use the roster spot for someone else (Astudillo? or a pitcher?) and re-evauating in June? It's also worth remembering that while Gonzalez provides nice insurance, the unpredictable nature of injuries and underperformance caps that benefit somewhat. If any combination of injuries or underperformance happens to overlap, while we're still better off with Gonzalez than without him in that scenario, he's not necessarily able to insure against all cases, perhaps not even most. (Gonzalez himself is not immune to injury or streaks either.) Also, how will the presence of Gonzalez affect our decision-making? Could the presence of Gonzalez, and the desire to play him everyday, make us less likely to give appropriate leashes to players, or less likely to look at, say, Rooker or Gordon in a timely fashion? Or delay us from better addressing an issue quickly? Again, it's easy to say we're simply better off with Gonzalez as an option than without him, but in practice it's not always that simple to actually view him and use him optimally among all of your resources. If Cron struggles or gets hurt, it could be awfully tempting to plug in Gonzalez at 1B rather than perhaps adding an intriguing Rooker to the 40-man roster for a look before the trade deadline. Or if Polanco hits the DL and Gonzalez cover SS for a week -- but then Polanco's absence drags on, and after awhile, we realize that we'd probably have been no worse off (offense plus defense) if we would have simply replaced Polanco with a more traditional SS option right away. Again, this is not to deny Gonzalez his value. These are just factors that illustrate how this is more complicated than simply adding a comparable value player to fill an open spot. Of course, you are right that Gonzalez has some upside himself -- if he posts another 4 WAR season, we probably won't worry too much about who is replacing along the way!

Levi: if you want to argue with me about projections, quote my post about projections and we'll go from there. Quit quoting my posts about the platoon issue unless you specifically want to discuss the platoon issue, thank you.

Am I going crazy? Is the site filtering the word "platoon" from my posts? I was responding to another poster who said to me: "you simply are not accounting for the very real benefit in platoon splits that Gonzalez permits." A 104 (or 103) wRC+ can be valuable. A guy who can fill in at a lot of positions can be valuable too. I wasn't saying anything to the contrary in that post. I just can't give that guy *bonus credit* for a platoon benefit, beyond the value of his 103 (or 104) wRC+ and versatility, when I don't see a strong case for it.

I am really confused now. Did I not make clear that my post was specifically about extra platoon benefits? I don't know what anything I said has to do with Bryce Harper or utility players. A 104 wRC+ split isn't particularly strong if you're trying to argue it provides extra platoon value on this Twins roster. That was the context of my post. I said the word "platoon" repeatedly. The post I quoted said platoon repeatedly (specifically saying that I was "not accounting for the very real benefit in platoon splits that Gonzalez permits"). The 104 figure isn't even Gonzalez's overall batting line -- it is one of Gonzalez's platoon splits. (Overall, he's a much worse 103 ) If there are other posters generally complaining that he's not Harper, or that he's a utility player, please respond to them.

Those are too small of samples to conclude anything. Although his career UZR/150 numbers suggest somewhat similar conclusions -- below average at 2B, SS, and 3B, average at 1B, and above average in LF. I likewise get the feeling that Marwin Gonzalez could start most days at a different corner spot for us, and Adrianza could still be on the team too.

Your butcher's name is Sudoku?

I never remotely said or implied that a 104 wRC+ is "a point against him", much less that it was "garbage" or rendered him a utility player. The context of my post was that I was specifically responding to another poster who claimed that Gonzalez offered significant *platoon* value to the Twins, *above* what his projection suggests he might otherwise contribute. Plenty of valuable players have a 104 wRC+, but it's not easy to provide extra platoon value with a 104 wRC+ split, especially given the Twins current roster.

If Gonzalez displaces Adrianza, but not Astudillo, then I like this deal more. But I suspect Adrianza could stick around as the "true" utility infielder, while Gonzalez is the everyday supersub, and Astudillo is hidden away from us at Rochester.

Who's Randy Ballstew?

I don't think anyone here is saying it's not a fair market deal. (Or at least, very few are saying it -- there's always that "one guy" and I should know because sometimes it's me ) But you don't think this team might hesitate about adding a player this summer, with $10-20 mil less room to spend? You don't think they might put themselves in a position where they have to choose between needed reinforcements at 2-3 spots, when they could have potentially added them all with $10-20 mil extra to spend? With $3-4 mil like Perez is guaranteed, yeah it's not a likely concern -- but there seems to be ample evidence that $10-20 mil can have an effect on how this franchise operates. And you have to weigh that against whether the Twins necessarily needed to add a likely average corner player right now, even on a fair market deal.

Kepler's career platoon split was primarily compiled over age 23-24, in his first two years in the league. I would hope he is better at age 26-27 than that (and his age 25 split and contract extension suggest that is a possibility). Gonzalez could also easily be worse at age 30-31 than his previous career marks, further narrowing the gap. Plus, Kepler's contract extension suggests we will give him some leash toward achieving that goal of improving vs LHP -- I'd be surprised if they benched him aggressively vs LHP, especially early in the season. (Kepler has also graded well defensively in RF, and he's probably our top Buxton alternative in CF, further limiting the potential benefits.) And that's all the factors complicating Gonzalez's supposed best platoon value opportunity here. It gets even murkier when you compare Rosario's .711 OPS or Schoop's .693 vs LHP to Gonzalez's .740, especially with Schoop's 2B defense. And we only faced 46 LH starters all last season. From the other side, as previously mentioned, Cron has no platoon split and is actually better for his career vs RHP than Gonzalez. I'm still not seeing a strong case that Gonzalez's platoon advantages mean more than his overall projection suggests, in terms of value to this Twins team.

It's not impossible to find replacements at Gonzalez's projected performance level. The Twins did it just last season in the outfield with Jake Cave. They did it in the infield in 2014 with Eduardo Nunez, etc. You wouldn't necessarily project that fill-in to continue that performance indefinitely, but they can still provide for the term it is needed. Teams can also add corner players in midseason trades for less than 2/21. Signing Gonzalez takes some uncertainty out of that, but my chief concern about the 2019 Twins is not necessarily the confidence I have in their fill-ins on opening day.

As this thread's resident skeptic, I want to say I don't think this is a bad deal. I don't think there's an appreciably better player than Gonzalez available right now at this price. I don't think Gonzalez is going to collapse this year or anything. Gonzalez does a lot of little things nicely -- he's a steady bat from both sides, he can capably fill in at a variety of positions. But there's also a lot of little negatives about this deal. No, not necessarily with Gonzalez himself or his performance, but his context within this team. His clearest path to playing time is in a corner spot -- but we already have starters for those corner spots right now, and corner players are pretty cheap and not hard to acquire if we decide we need one down the road. I don't think he's overpaid at 2/21, or that it's going to prevent us from landing a superstar down the line or anything, but it's definitely a resource that could matter for this club. If we are in the race in June again and need a reliever, are we going to hesitate if an expensive one comes available? Will we have to prioritize a SP acquisition over a RP midsummer? Will our needs unfold this season, such that they could be better met by a different mix of players, in part utilizing the $21 mil we guaranteed Gonzalez now? Again, don't hate it. But like the Kepler extension, which had pro's and con's and I felt, on balance, I'd rather sign it than not -- this Gonzalez deal, on balance, I think I'd rather not sign it. That's all.

"Astudilli"? We have more than one now?