Santana....what the....

[Kwak]

Yesterday on 1500 Ryan said they still view him as a SS. Therefore, imo, their handling of him is all wrong. Can anyone explain it?

Santana was "deemed unready to play SS", so it's logical that he would be banished to the OF.  As long as he hits like this, people will forget about the CF snafu at the start of the season.

[DocBauer]

I think "banish" is harsh and in-accurate.

 

The kid was signed and developed as a SS. He's been regarded as a top 10/20 prospect in one of the top milb talent lists.

 

His future is still very fluid. But whether he is a SS, CF, LF, super utility player, bat boy or bubblegum supervisor, he's clearly a talented and explosive athlete. The question is harnessing that talent on a consistent basis, regardless of position. He was thrust in to a mostly unfamiliar position due to ridiculous necessity, not because the Twins suddenly decided he couldn't play SS.

 

He's outperformed anything any one of us could have expected, probably the Twins as well. But nobody has ever said he can't play SS or has been banished to the OF as a result. But I tell you what, many players end up excelling at different positions than originally expected. And that's OK.

[Oxtung]

They tried Escobar in left field but he was a Bartlett out there. Nunez hasn't been much better. No way should either be put in CF IMO.

 

With Santana, I think it all goes back to the Presley DFA and the repeat mistake of counting on Aaron Hicks out of ST. They did pick up Fuld in April when it became clear Hicks was going to stink again but Gardy wanted 13 pitchers and Santana's dual capacity as infielder/outfielder helped him do that. I also think Gardy wants Santana in the lineup as a switch hitter, speedy, buntable guy. So I think the FO let him keep his guy instead of telling him to go with 12 pitchers and use Fuld in CF.

 

On top of that, Escobar is nearly as young as Santana, a switch hitter, etc - another Gardy piranha basically. So Gardy wants both guys playing, with the better glove at SS (Escobar)

 

Do we know that Escobar is the better glove?  His defensive metrics at SS (admittedly with a SSS) are ok but nothing special.  Some actually consider him below average.  They all seem to agree that he makes the routine plays well but he doesn't seem to make many of the difficult plays.  Even if Escobar is currently the better defender, is he long term?  Santana was frequently the defensive player of the year coming through the minors.  How could we know after only 16 innings of Santana at SS?

 

If the Twins view Santana's future at SS then what difference does it make who is manning the OF in a lost season?  At this point the decisions being made should be about what makes this team the best in 2015 and beyond.  If that means Escobar plays CF for a month before he's replaced there, so be it.  We can always pick up a FA this offseason. 

 

To be clear, I think this problem does stem from the FO decisions early this season w/r to CF and Gardy coaching for his job probably has something to do with the playing time distribution, but I think those are both poor excuses at this point.  The Twins finally have some pieces of the future arriving and they should be maximizing those opportunities.

[stringer bell]

What I saw in Spring Training was far short of major league defense from Santana.  The hands didn't look particularly soft, the throwing demonstrated a strong, but not accurate arm.  I think there were concentration lapses and issues with fundamentals. 

 

I don't know if that could all click much as his hitting has, but there was more than one issue to clean up with Santana.  OTOH, Escobar is definitely not the most "rangy" shortstop.  He seems fundamentally sound, has a strong and accurate arm and good hands. 

[70charger]

Do we know that Escobar is the better glove?  His defensive metrics at SS (admittedly with a SSS) are ok but nothing special.  Some actually consider him below average.  They all seem to agree that he makes the routine plays well but he doesn't seem to make many of the difficult plays.  Even if Escobar is currently the better defender, is he long term?  Santana was frequently the defensive player of the year coming through the minors.  How could we know after only 16 innings of Santana at SS?

 

If the Twins view Santana's future at SS then what difference does it make who is manning the OF in a lost season?  At this point the decisions being made should be about what makes this team the best in 2015 and beyond.  If that means Escobar plays CF for a month before he's replaced there, so be it.  We can always pick up a FA this offseason. 

 

To be clear, I think this problem does stem from the FO decisions early this season w/r to CF and Gardy coaching for his job probably has something to do with the playing time distribution, but I think those are both poor excuses at this point.  The Twins finally have some pieces of the future arriving and they should be maximizing those opportunities.

 

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.

[kab21]

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.

You are only focused on 2015 and have limited your options to Escobar and Santana at SS/CF.  The important thing for next season is to focus on 2016-2018 and get Santana ready to be the SS when there are hopefully other better options in CF and Santana gets bumped to LF where his bat is not great (or even good).

stringer bell, on 17 Aug 2014 - 04:01 AM, said:

    What I saw in Spring Training was far short of major league defense from Santana.  The hands didn't look particularly soft, the throwing demonstrated a strong, but not accurate arm.  I think there were concentration lapses and issues with fundamentals.

    I don't know if that could all click much as his hitting has, but there was more than one issue to clean up with Santana.  OTOH, Escobar is definitely not the most "rangy" shortstop.  He seems fundamentally sound, has a strong and accurate arm and good hands.

 

Do you think it's entirely fair to judge a player this harshly based on spring training when they are likely still a little rusty?

[stringer bell]

I would dispute that Escobar was "basically a Bartlett" in LF.  I thought he did OK there the couple of times he played, however he did not do well in center the one game he played there.  Three games is much too small a sample. 

 

Santana has looked adequate in center, despite playing a single into a triple yesterday and almost doing the same thing again tonight.  It wouldn't be the end of the world if he started 2015 in CF, waiting for the CF prospects to earn their spot in Minnesota. 

[Oxtung]

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.

I'll second what kab said. I'm not worried about 2014 anymore except for how it translates into returning the twins to respectability and the playoffs in the future. As such I wouldnt care if the twins brought Bartlett back and tossed him in CF. If the twins think Santana is their SS of the mid term then that's where he should be playing.

 

I can see that you're more concerned about how the lineup looks today, and that's entirely valid, I just don't have the same viewpoint and as such we disagree.