Article: What to do: Eduardo Escobar

[ashbury]

However, it would be as the 8/9 hitter and someone that would be replaceable i.e. not a building block.

We're pretty close.  I like him.  I was on the bandwagon to give him PA over Florimon a year ago.  I just see him a half-grade lower.  (C instead of C+, or whatever.)

[kab21]

At least a few people like having depth on the team.  If Santana is the starter then Escobar will still play since he backs up 3 positions.  Players don't stay healthy and they all need a day here and there.  It's a good problem to have.

 

Escobar still carries very little trade value additionally.  I would be shocked if other teams viewed him as anything but a good utility player despite his nice season.  This isn't a case of trading to fix a problem elsewhere.  It would be a case of trading for depth elsewhere.

 

I think people are prematurely penciling Sano in a 3B.  My odds are well below 50% that he plays >150 games at 3B in the majors.  Because of that I wouldn't consider trading Plouffe until Sano actually is ready (if ever) to take over at 3B.  My guess is that Sano ends up in the OF for a few seasons before heading to 1B. 

[jokin]

I am not diminishing Vargas's power potential, I am just saying Ortiz had better numbers in the minors. No doubt my timeline was off.  But Vargas had a high of 19 HR a year, Ortiz had 30 or more twice.  I am simply suggesting that Vargas "little papi" or whatever it is, is more body type related than that he is a future HOF player.  The media gets carried away with these comps, especially based on appearance.

 

 

I think you are missing a key point, in that it's difficult to compare their numbers due to Vargas being held back in his development in the minors for many years running. But to compare them more fairly suggests that Vargas has both the hit tool and the power tool to possibly outperform his minor league ratings and the long-term predictions about him.  

 

First off, 2013 was Vargas' first year of playing full-time pro ball, while at the same age, Ortiz had already played 4 years of full-time pro ball.  Comparing oranges to oranges, Ortiz his 18 HRs in his first full-time year, while Kennys hit 19.  

 

Secondly, going on to 2014, Vargas hit 26 HRs- with 9 of those at the major league level.  By contrast, Ortiz hit 31 HRs in his second year across three minor league levels, including 4 in the homer-friendly PCL.  

 

Perhaps I'm more optimistic than some, but this kid seems eager to learn, appears unflappable after striking out, has no built-in biases against RF in TF, has a great attitude about the game, perhaps a little chip on his shoulder, and he looks like a late bloomer, as well.  I'm certainly not predicting a HoF career, but I think he easily could have a breakout year this year, if given the opportunity, and perhaps gets some decent plate protection behind him in the order in the form of Arcia/Plouffe/Sano.

[jokin]

 

 

Escobar still carries very little trade value additionally.  I would be shocked if other teams viewed him as anything but a good utility player despite his nice season.  This isn't a case of trading to fix a problem elsewhere.  It would be a case of trading for depth elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

Very true, all you would get in return would be another guy not quite good enough to be a starter, or another Tommy Milone-type SP.

[jorgenswest]

At the time if the trade, Escobar projected to a Nick Punto type career. If Santana's glove is not solid at SS, he could have a Bonifacio type career. Great to have both players on the roster.

Edited November 7, 2014 by jorgenswest

[stringer bell]

We're pretty close.  I like him.  I was on the bandwagon to give him PA over Florimon a year ago.  I just see him a half-grade lower.  (C instead of C+, or whatever.)

To further illustrate my point about starting, Greg Gagne was the SS for both the '87 and '91 Twins. He never put up a single-season OPS+ of 100 in his career. His lifetime OPS+ was 83. Escobar (only 700 PAs) is a lifetime 85 OPS+ and in over 450 PAs this year put up a 102 OPS+. Gags was probably a superior glove to Esco, but not by much. I would say Escobar is "good enough". However, Santana and a couple of other minor league shortstops have a chance to be much better than good enough. Edited November 7, 2014 by stringer bell

[tobi0040]

I think you are missing a key point, in that it's difficult to compare their numbers due to Vargas being held back in his development in the minors for many years running. But to compare them more fairly suggests that Vargas has both the hit tool and the power tool to possibly outperform his minor league ratings and the long-term predictions about him.  

 

First off, 2013 was Vargas' first year of playing full-time pro ball, while at the same age, Ortiz had already played 4 years of full-time pro ball.  Comparing oranges to oranges, Ortiz his 18 HRs in his first full-time year, while Kennys hit 19.  

 

Secondly, going on to 2014, Vargas hit 26 HRs- with 9 of those at the major league level.  By contrast, Ortiz hit 31 HRs in his second year across three minor league levels, including 4 in the homer-friendly PCL.  

 

Perhaps I'm more optimistic than some, but this kid seems eager to learn, appears unflappable after striking out, has no built-in biases against RF in TF, has a great attitude about the game, perhaps a little chip on his shoulder, and he looks like a late bloomer, as well.  I'm certainly not predicting a HoF career, but I think he easily could have a breakout year this year, if given the opportunity, and perhaps gets some decent plate protection behind him in the order in the form of Arcia/Plouffe/Sano.

 

Vargas made his debut on his 24th birthday.  Ages 21-23, Oritz had a total of 400 at bats at the big league level.  15 games as a 21 year old, 86 as a 22 year old, and 10 as a 23 year old.  I will concede he was farther along the development curve that Vargas, but that is a far cry from four full MLB years.

 

I am not saying Vargas does not have potential. I am not saying he won't exceed his MILB production. I am actually optimistic about the kid.  My point is we should not compare him to a hall of fame player because of those things. I think we tend to do this based on appearance often times.

[Mike Sixel]

So it is Vargas that is a future HoF? Ok, I'll buy you dinner if he's a HoF. Or am I still missing the point about not trading a possible HoF for a second time? I admit it, I'm confused right now. Maybe I should go back to bed, and just not work today.

 

On the topic.........I don't think we know with any certainty at all that Esco has a significantly better glove than Santana. And no, he's not close to Gagne. Not. Close.

[Dantes929]

I didn't really mean to start a side discussion on Vargas and Arcia.   It was only a suggestion that IF Rosario, Buxton and Hicks flourish we would have an elite outfield.   From where we are standing today that is a big IF.    It really shouldn't be a debate at this point if we would be losing an Ortiz in Arcia or Vargas since there is room for both right now and by the time a decision needs to be made we will have much more data on both.     Vargas appears more polished right now but I think if Arcia can fall in love with batting average more than home runs he is the guy with more upside.    HIS minor league numbers were great.  This is related to Escobar in that we need a speedier outfield and Santana still fits the bill for making 2015 outfield a lot faster.    As long as Escobar can hold the position at short it just makes sense.   Long term I don't see him as the answer but we have done worse.   Don't trade him unless it is for the value of a .280 batting good fielding every day shortstop with decent power which is a fairly rare commodity.   If you don't get that kind of value then keep him for SS now, depth and utility later.   He has already given us way more than I thought he would when we traded Liriano for him.

[tobi0040]

So it is Vargas that is a future HoF? Ok, I'll buy you dinner if he's a HoF. Or am I still missing the point about not trading a possible HoF for a second time? I admit it, I'm confused right now. Maybe I should go back to bed, and just not work today.

 

On the topic.........I don't think we know with any certainty at all that Esco has a significantly better glove than Santana. And no, he's not close to Gagne. Not. Close.

 

I was talking about his nickname little papi or whatever it is. and replying to the comment that we should not trade David Ortiz for the second time (which was a reference to the comparison).

 

I just think we should cool it on the comp to a HOF player. That's all, back to the topic...

Edited November 7, 2014 by tobi0040

[jokin]

So it is Vargas that is a future HoF? Ok, I'll buy you dinner if he's a HoF. Or am I still missing the point about not trading a possible HoF for a second time? I admit it, I'm confused right now. Maybe I should go back to bed, and just not work today.

 

On the topic.........I don't think we know with any certainty at all that Esco has a significantly better glove than Santana. And no, he's not close to Gagne. Not. Close.

 

Yeah, Mike... better go back to bed... you're overthinking this one by a wide degree, and still missing the point.    Perhaps you've reached the life stage where "cantankerous old coot  " fights for control with "reasoned and seasoned middle-ager"  ?  You're still my guy, though. 

[Mike Sixel]

As long as I keep getting older....and can still hike, ski, bike, golf, whatever....I'm willing to get more cootier, as it were.

[jokin]

I was talking about his nickname little papi or whatever it is. and replying to the comment that we should not trade David Ortiz for the second time (which was a reference to the comparison).

 

I just think we should cool it on the comp to a HOF player. That's all, back to the topic...

 

This happens every time, and every time comps are made, the person doing the comparing is NOT saying the prospect is going to the Hall, just exploring potential career arcs.  No one said Vargas is destined for the HoF, no one.  What was said was it would be extremely premature to look to move Vargas out already, based on his current perceived value- reminiscent to what happened with Ortiz- the HoF reference in relation to Vargas, was of course, tongue in cheek, and related to their physical and statistically similar profiles- and just as he's getting his career established and shown glimpses of what's possible.

[tobi0040]

This happens every time, and every time comps are made, the person doing the comparing is NOT saying the prospect is going to the Hall, just exploring potential career arcs.  No one said Vargas is destined for the HoF, no one.  What was said was it would be extremely premature to look to move Vargas out already, based on his current perceived value- reminiscent to what happened with Ortiz- the HoF reference in relation to Vargas, was of course, tongue in cheek, and related to their physical and statistically similar profiles- and just as he's getting his career established and shown glimpses of what's possible.

 

I am the one that brought up the HOF, because his nickname and a poster made a comp to David Ortiz.  I guess I don't see how a comp to a guy that is going to the hall of fame is not a reference to Vargas potentially being a HOF player. 

 

The career arc discussion is fairly vague.  All you have to do is find a HOF player that did not rip up the minors and compare them to a guy in the minors not doing that well.

 

just my pet peeve about comparisons.

Edited November 7, 2014 by tobi0040

[jokin]

Vargas made his debut on his 24th birthday.  Ages 21-23, Oritz had a total of 400 at bats at the big league level.  15 games as a 21 year old, 86 as a 22 year old, and 10 as a 23 year old.  I will concede he was farther along the development curve that Vargas, but that is a far cry from four full MLB years.

 

I am not saying Vargas does not have potential. I am not saying he won't exceed his MILB production. I am actually optimistic about the kid.  My point is we should not compare him to a hall of fame player because of those things. I think we tend to do this based on appearance often times.

 

Again, please re-read what I said carefully.... I said absolutely nothing about "four full MLB years", what I did say was the number of years playing full-time professionally at the same age was "Four", and that his professional PAs was some 1100 more than Vargas at the same age.

[ashbury]

To further illustrate my point about starting, Greg Gagne was the SS for both the '87 and '91 Twins. He never put up a single-season OPS+ of 100 in his career. His lifetime OPS+ was 83. Escobar (only 700 PAs) is a lifetime 85 OPS+ and in over 450 PAs this year put up a 102 OPS+. Gags was probably a superior glove to Esco, but not by much. I would say Escobar is "good enough". However, Santana and a couple of other minor league shortstops have a chance to be much better than good enough.

Gagne was a very underrated part of those championship teams, so it's flattering to most players to even be mentioned in the same breath, and it appeals to me, no doubt.  A point in favor of Escobar, one that I don't think I ever heard with regard to the Flori-monster.  (A nickname that was applied hopefully at one point, but now is just emblematic of a sad era.)

 

I think Esco's 102 was built on an abnormally high BABIP, and he also hasn't yet been thrown into the fire as an everyday player, where I worry that he will both wear down and no longer benefit from any possible cherry-picking of opportunity by his manager.¹ 

 

As for his defense, I'll admit to a certain bit of sample bias, because in one of the few games I've ever watched him in person, he had a terrible night and messed up I think it was 4 plays (not all charged as errors, obviously) where an out wasn't registered that should have.  I'm not on-board with him being a Steady Eddie type, quite yet.

 

If he gets the chance to be a regular, and reaches a truly Gagne-esque level of production, it would be a great thing.  It's possible he has that ceiling, though I still doubt it.  And he might not get that chance, if TPTB decide he doesn't have the capability to do it, which will have some circularity and be unfair to the young man - but that's baseball.

 

_{¹ Maybe there's none of that picking-of-his-spots happening.  I'd have to go back and see whether in his part-time play he was the guy held out against the tough pitchers or if he was the guy thrown to the wolves, or just luck of the draw.  That's one problem with assessing part-timers, it's just not quite the same as going out there every day, and of course you don't know until you try it with him.}

[tobi0040]

Again, please re-read what I said carefully.... I said absolutely nothing about "four full MLB years", what I did say was the number of years playing full-time professionally at the same age was "Four", and that his professional PAs was some 1100 more than Vargas at the same age.

 

I guess I thought "four years of full time pro ball" and "four full MLB years" were the same thing.

Edited November 7, 2014 by tobi0040

[ashbury]

As long as I keep getting older....and can still hike, ski, bike, golf, whatever....I'm willing to get more cootier, as it were.

Approves:

 

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/pics/coot_veal_autograph.jpg

[jokin]

I am the one that brought up the HOF, because his nickname and a poster made a comp to David Ortiz.  I guess I don't see how a comp to a guy that is going to the hall of fame is not a reference to Vargas potentially being a HOF player. 

 

The career arc discussion is fairly vague.  All you have to do is find a HOF player that did not rip up the minors and compare them to a guy in the minors not doing that well.

 

just my pet peeve about comparisons.

 

Again, the comment I made was tongue in cheek in response to a poster that suggested it might already be time to move Vargas, when IMO, it clearly is not.  I appreciate and can understand your pet peeves in comparing HOFers to prospects.  But is comparing a HOF to a prospect now completely disallowed as another "unwritten rule" of baseball, even when it's tongue in cheek?

[jokin]

I guess I thought "four years of full time pro ball" and "four full MLB years" were the same thing.

 

And we both now are on the same page is acknowledging that they're not the same thing, right?

Edited November 7, 2014 by jokin

[tobi0040]

Again, the comment I made was tongue in cheek in response to a poster that suggested it might already be time to move Vargas, when IMO, it clearly is not.  I appreciate and can understand your pet peeves in comparing HOFers to prospects.  But is comparing a HOF to a prospect now completely disallowed as another "unwritten rule" of baseball, even when it's tongue in cheek?

 

When we started I did not realize it was a tongue and cheeck comment.

 

I also don't think we should trade the guy.

[jokin]

Approves:

 

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/pics/coot_veal_autograph.jpg

 

That is awesome!

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

Approves:

 

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/pics/coot_veal_autograph.jpg

 

"hey buddy, what's your name?"

"Orville."

"Oh. Sorry man."

"Don't worry, my friends call me 'Coot'!"

" . . . "

[jokin]

When we started I did not realize it was a tongue and cheeck comment.

 

I also don't think we should trade the guy.

 

From this point forward, I'm going to use a slash and some sort of tongue in cheek smiley... such as /

[tobi0040]

And we both now are on the same page is acknowledging that they're not the same thing, right?

 

I know what you mean now.

[jokin]

I know what you mean now.

 

[Molitor4manager]

Good comments from everyone.  My opinion:  If we can package Escobar and get a Gee or Niese from the Mets it's time to sell high on EE. We have Polanco, Gorden, and others in the pipeline.  Santana at SS with Schafer and Hicks in CF until we square away the timetable for Buxton and Sano is fine with me.  You can NEVER have too many pitching options...EVER.  And the wild card in this is Rosario.  He could be the LF'er sooner than we think.  I also don't mind the idea of Joe Mauer in LF either even if he was rated the 2nd best defensive 1B-man in the A.L. using advanced metrics.

[Sam Morley]

This is a pretty balanced article, but it has convinced me that Escobar should be the everyday SS at the beginning of the 2015 season.

 

The estimation that his 2014 performance was fluke-ish (as mentioned in comments, not the article) is weakly conceived (a guess without significant statistical or historic support). At age 25, entering his third major league season, a better guess is that his best performance lies ahead (a guess based on the historic trend of players having breakout seasons around the ages of 26 and 27). Steamer projections (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=6153&position=3B/SS) for 2015 do anticipate a drop in production, seemingly along with a return to a utility role, but the drop is not dramatic and would not be enough to classify 2014 as a fluke. Do you guys think it's even worth trying to guess that a player will perform worse and subsequently adjust his role with the team based on that guess? Obviously players are given opportunities to play based on hopes and/or projections of improvement in performance, but how often is the reverse attempted (aside from aging veterans)? In the case of Escobar, anyway, I think that he has earned the job.

 

As for Santana, I think that he has earned the season opening CF job. It would be nice to put him at SS, but that job is Escobar's to lose, I think, and there really is not an alternative in CF until Buxton is ready. I like Hicks, and I would like to see him get another solid opportunity, but I think Santana's offensive emergence and ability to hold down CF eliminates Hicks. When you have one player successfully performing in a position, how can you justify replacing him with a player with a track record like Hicks' based on a hope that he will improve? (what a horribly constructed sentence- sorry).

 

So does that push Hicks over to LF? Between Hicks and Santana, does it make a difference who plays LF and who plays CF? Hicks is obviously better in CF, but Santana is more used to CF than to LF, and if Hicks does get it together at the plate, wouldn't he be facing a move to LF with the arrival of Buxton? And then there is this notion of Mauer in LF, which horrified me the first time I heard it, but I seem to be warming to it now- maybe under the effect of repetition. I think my initial cringe was due to how poorly Mauer's bat profiles in LF, not that it profiles any better at 1B- and then I had to acknowledge I was just discussing Hicks in LF, so you can have a three time batting champ or a two time sub mendoza champ. And as others have said, Mauer should be able to handle LF. As we all know, anybody can play LF, just ask Travis Ishikawa.

 

The last thing I wanted to respond to here, is the possibility that Sano makes the team out of spring training. In this case, I think that he should start at 3B and Plouffe should move to LF and Mauer can stay in his 1B/DH role with Vargas. This probably undermines what I've already said about ousting a successful player from his position based on hopes for another, but Sano is special, right? He warrants exception, and should get the chance to stick at third.

 

One thing I hope to see, eventually, from Molitor, in contrast to Gardy, is an ability to figure out these roles and lineup places earlier in the season. I always felt that even in the Twins' successful seasons under Gardy, it often took him until near the all star break to settle on a consistent lineup. Obviously, with the team in rebuild mode, much experimenting lies yet ahead.