cmathewson

You don't get better by putting in an inferior player. Escobar is the proverbial back-up quarterback. When the starter doesn't excel, he's the guy every "first-time caller, long-time listener" wants to get the job. Most back-ups are in that role for a reason, because they're not as good as the stater. Same thing here. If anyone is going to push Florimon, it will be Santana. I fully expect that to happen this year, but not out of spring training. Santana has superior tools. He just needs to file off some rough edges in AAA before they give him a shot.

Pedro Florimon: Minor League OPS: .675; Major League OPS: .601 Eduardo Escobar: Minor League OPS: .675; Major League OPS: .587 They had a competition last spring. Florimon won, based mostly on his superior defense. He did nothing to lose that job last summer, by some measures he was in the top 5 in the MLB in SS defense. Why change?

Great thread. For his next act: he'll complain about wind-aided ground balls. As we said all winter, the pitching surplus will work itself out in spring training. This guy's toast. Deduno is trying to pitch with an ice pack strapped to his shoulder. Diamond is struggling with command. And Gibson just keeps throwing bullets.

I think he could be a useful bench bat if we had room for a right-handed DH/PH/back-up 1B. Well, not if he hits like he did last year, but if he makes adjustments. He has an unorthodox hitting style with huge holes in his swing. In AAA, pitchers struggle to exploit those holes. In the majors, not so much. The trouble is, the kind of adjustment he needs to make requires daily at bats, typically. It is tough to do as a PH and occasional DH. Also, I don't know if the roster will accommodate such a player. I continue to hear talk of 13 pitchers, which means three back-ups, including a catcher, an infielder and an outfielder. The infielder needs to be able to play every infield position and the outfielder needs to play every outfield position. That doesn't leave much room for a guy like Colabello. If they go north with 12 pitchers, maybe. Even then, they might prefer Kubel in the bench bat role assuming the corners are manned by Parmelee, Arcia and Willingham with the DH rotating among them. If they take 13 pitchers, the bench will have Pinto, Bartlett and Presley, assuming Hicks starts in center and Suzuki starts at catcher. Lots of people think the infielder will be Escobar, but I just don't see him being able to play first base. Bartlett has been working out there a lot. Lots of people prefer Fryer at catcher. I just don't understand that. What does Pinto need to do to earn a job? Some people think Hicks should go to AAA. I don't get that either. He proved he could handle it up here in May and June last year, at least as well as Presley.

He might be sub-par, but he's the best guy on the roster at that position. He proved that amply last year. If they had a better option, I doubt Gardy would make such a proclamation.

Nice take John. To me, it points out how little we know when we project players and how much of our opinions are dependent on the experts (scouts). We can use PitChFX data to test Gibson's claims. He did indeed pitch up more in his later starts. Why? My hypothesis is he wasn't getting the low strike. I watched several games early after his call up and the umps just didn't call the sinker at the knees. It reminded me of Hicks' debut. He had strikes called on him that were in the other batters' box. After that, he expanded the zone and got himself out. In Gibson's case, he would fall behind when they didn't call the knee-high sinker, and bring it up a few inches, where it would get hit.

I don't get the Escobar love. He's a decent bench option. But he has never hit better than Florimon over a full season. And his range and arm can't compete with Florimon. As soon as Florimon is ready, he's the starter. Then the question is, does Escobar have enough versatility to be the utility guy? According to reports, no. His work at third leaves a lot to be desired. His work around the bag at second has also been questioned. My money's on Bartlett, who is the better bench bat.

Interesting that 2.0 isn't much different than 1.0. I can't say I like it much more. 1. Fifth starter: Antony didn't seem pleased with Diamond's command or control, which is tough if you're a command and control pitcher. Worley is the second coming of Nick Blackburn. Good guy, but his elbow is not right. Sinkers have a way of shredding elbows. Deduno needs to come back slowly; I don't understand the rush. Put him on the 60-day DL and let him rehab until he's ready. That leaves Gibson, who's the best of the four anyway. 2. Center field: I just can't see bringing inferior talent north. Hicks is the guy until Buxton. Let Mastro, Wilkin and Press battle for the fourth outfielder job. 3. Utility player: Esco has played almost exclusively at short this spring. Bartlett has played everywhere, including first base. I think that means they see Bartlett as the heir apparent to Carroll. Esco makes the team if Florimon can't go yet or they decide to take two back-up infielders. Santana is intriguing, but he needs more seasoning. 4. Catcher: Gardy has basically said they brought Suzuki in to mentor Pinto. He can't do that if Pinto is in AAA. I look for a fairly even split this year, with Suzuki getting more starts early and Pinto getting more starts late. Fryer only makes the team if they decide to take three catchers or in the event of an injury. Hermann is a AAAA player. 5. Right field/DH: Gardy has been effusive about Parmelee. He might get that third shot. But don't count out Arcia making the team as the left fielder with Willingham sliding into DH. Kubel's bat looks S-L-O-W. He might be D-O-N-E. 6. Bullpen: Both Antony and Anderson have spoken of Guerrier as a possibility for opening day. That's the only surprise. Otherwise, I don't see a reason to change it from August last year.

I think that is a matter of two things: 1. Johnson has done a much better job with the draft than Radcliff; 2. They have had better draft position the last two years. I don't know how much of their current talent has to do with Antony. Maybe some of the free agents. Maybe some of the trade acquisitions. Not much of the farm system.

I don't think the stat is all that important. It sows potential, nothing more. But I do think he has a chance to be special if he gets the opportunity. As special as he is, he won't hold the position for long, because Buxton has Hicks' instincts and Revere's quickness and more speed than either of them.

Revere is quicker. Revere would beat Hicks in a 40-yard dash. Hicks would catch up at 50 yards or so. I've seen Revere get some awful jumps on balls and make "spectacular" plays simply by outrunning the ball. Hicks doesn't have that kind of acceleration. If he gets a bad jump on a ball, he usually doesn't get to it. So, he has to get a good jump. And my eyes say he gets better jumps than Revere overall. Neither is as consistent in his jumps as Span or Hunter.

When the president of the company started out in PR, it starts to look like a trend.

No. That was Radcliffe, with Antony on contracts and Ryan as a special advisor.

Interesting, 'cause Antony only said negative things about Diamond in this interview. When a command and control pitcher "needs to work on his command and control" it's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

It's particularly conspicuous because BP has him at 56, between Stewart (54) and Rosario (60). FWIW, I like BP's list better.

I agree. Dozier crashed and burned in 2012. They not only inked him in at the top of the order last year, they made him change positions. That turned out OK. I think they'll treat Hicks in much the same way. He's too valuable to be in AAA at this point, given the other options.

Gibson, Meyer, and May are close. Though Gibson is not technically a prospect because of his time on the team last year, he has yet to receive a full shot. When we talk about prospects, I think we mean those guys primarily. The thing I agree with about Pelfrey as a head scratcher is an Antony quote. To paraphrase, they didn't want to just pay for his rehab. They wanted to get more out of that investment with a fully healthy guy. That is an example of the sunk cost fallacy. If he's not as good as, say, Gibson, why sign him? I have a bigger problem with the Pelfrey signing this year than the Correia signing last year. Last year they were desperate for an innings eater. A two-year deal was the cost of entry. This year they are not desperate. In another thread, Antony was recently interviewed about spring training results. Much of it was devoted to the fifth starter spot. He did mention the possibility of making a trade if necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if something happens towards the end of spring.

Yeah, we get it. Lack of foresight. Unforgivable decision. Blah, blah, blah. They kept Blackburn in AAA for two years while paying him the exact amount as Correia's contract. I'm pretty sure the field staff will ask for the best pitchers regardless of contract status. The rest will either play their way on the team or off the team. Based on Anderson's comments, I'm pretty sure that includes Gibson making the team on opening day regardless. I'm not worried about it.

Nobody seems to remember just how bad the staff was last year. The reality was far worse than anyone thought. Here is a list of the starters who had a 5 ERA or worse with their ERA+, starts and innings totals: Mike Pelfrey: 78/29/152 Scott Diamond: 75/24/131 Pedro Hernandez: 59/12/56 Kyle Gibson: 62/10/51 Vance Worley: 56/10/48 Liam Hndriks: 59/8/47 PJ Walters: 68/8/39 Cole DeVries: 38/2/15 Four of those guys are gone, with their rotation spots replaced by Nolasco and Hughes. We can expect some improvement from Pelfrey and Gibson. We won't need the services of Diamond or Worley unless they're substantially improved. The result: This year's rotation should be twice as good as last year's. Not that it means they'll double the wins. But 10 more wins is within reach, methinks.

By all accounts, the Twins tried to get this done. Ultimately, it's Santana's decision, and dollars are not the only part of that. I can't blame them for not getting it done. It's his choice.

If I'm Santana, I'd be very wary of the Twins pitching depth. They've got three starters locked in for the next two years or more. They've got three other starters out of options. They've got three other top prospects waiting for opportunities. And that doesn't count the guy who was their de facto top starter last year. That's a lot of competition for opportunities.

This. No one has successfully recovered from two surgeries of this type. Harden tried to recover from the first one last year and just never developed the velocity. It's extremely likely Santana would be in the same boat or worse. I hope he does, but I am not all that disappointed that he will get that chance with another organization.

I can't wait to see him. He sounds a lot like Guzman at the same age. I hope he hits a bit more, though.

I read this article, and I am a data scientist. But I don't understand how this is different from what we already have. Does it introduce new data (like the much needed batted-ball vector info.)? Or is it just a new way of presenting existing data to the audience? The article didn't make this clear.

Question: How common is it for partial tears to heal? I'm not aware of a case. Anybody?