Article: Eddie Rosario Promoted To Twins; Arcia Placed On DL

[drivlikejehu]

Rosario not starting against A's right-hander Chavez.

 

Looking more and more like a motivational play by management to get Rosario hungry once he is back in AAA.

[bird]

 

It can't be the only thing, but performance (as reflected in the box score) has to be part of the decision process.

I don't like signing Pelfrey because he's a good guy, I don't like bringing up Rosario so he can get a taste of big league room service.

 

 

I agree with all of these points Chief. Where I see things a bit differently is 1) I think performance as reflected in box scores WAS part of the decision process; 2) Pelfrey wasn't signed solely because he's a good guy; and 3) Rosario has shown flashes, as Molitor articulated well, and it's not some act of benevolence here.

[bird]

 

I think it is possible, only slightly, that if Rosario is good on O, and great on D, that they send Arcia down to AAA. It wouldn't be the first time they do that (see, Hunter, Torii).

 

I could see this. Molitor is starting to give us some hints by virtue of his choice of words when he talks about his young players, and he appears to be insistent about staying engaged, a trait in limited supply with Mr. Arcia lately.

[howieramone2]

I could see this. Molitor is starting to give us some hints by virtue of his choice of words when he talks about his young players, and he appears to be insistent about staying engaged, a trait in limited supply with Mr. Arcia lately.

I can't see sending Arcia down, but I can see him spending more time as the DH. What I saw with the move, is Molly is looking for better defense and base running.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don't like signing Pelfrey because he's a good guy

I think that's really unfair to the front office. Pelfrey wasn't signed because he's a good guy. He was signed because he has the capability of being a pretty good pitcher when he's healthy (as evidenced by the second half of 2013). He's a good pitcher again this season and this is closer to what the Twins thought they were getting when they signed him two offseasons ago.

 

Now, with that said... It's fair to criticize the Twins' thinking with Pelfrey, whether he had any business getting a two year deal and the likelihood of his performance being above average in either 2014 or 2015 based on his recent performances. Those are fair criticisms and they show blindspots in the Twins' evaluations of players, particularly pitchers in recent seasons.

 

But to accuse the Twins of signing a guy because they like him? Nah, that's not fair. Pelfrey has shown flashes of competence on multiple occasions. He deserves better than that.

 

As much as Mike Pelfrey drives me nuts, the thinking that went behind his signing is better than the thinking that went behind the Correia signing. At least Mike Pelfrey had some upside, as meager as that upside may be.

[Craig Arko]

If the premise is that the next callup for Hicks should be the last callup for Hicks, then giving him a few more weeks of confidence building makes perfect sense, and I'm a fan of good sense.

 

Hopefully we get a chance to see what Rosario can actually do with this opportunity pretty soon.

[stringer bell]

Molitor mentioned more than once that he liked the way Rosario hung in against LH pitching.  It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Eddie R in left field today or tomorrow, maybe even both.

[USAFChief]

I think that's really unfair to the front office. Pelfrey wasn't signed because he's a good guy. He was signed because he has the capability of being a pretty good pitcher when he's healthy (as evidenced by the second half of 2013). He's a good pitcher again this season and this is closer to what the Twins thought they were getting when they signed him two offseasons ago.

 

Now, with that said... It's fair to criticize the Twins' thinking with Pelfrey, whether he had any business getting a two year deal and the likelihood of his performance being above average in either 2014 or 2015 based on his recent performances. Those are fair criticisms and they show blindspots in the Twins' evaluations of players, particularly pitchers in recent seasons.

 

But to accuse the Twins of signing a guy because they like him? Nah, that's not fair. Pelfrey has shown flashes of competence on multiple occasions. He deserves better than that.

 

As much as Mike Pelfrey drives me nuts, the thinking that went behind his signing is better than the thinking that went behind the Correia signing. At least Mike Pelfrey had some upside, as meager as that upside may be.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/64705280/

 

Are you really going to contend that factors other than pure on field talent don't often overly influence Twins personnel decisions?

 

For Pete's sake, the article discussing the Twins thought process in calling up Rosario hardly mentions winning games.

 

Meanwhile, Rosario sits against a RHer last night while a utility infielder plays LF and Schafer plays CF, presumably because Molitor needed to give Rosario a day to get used to all those tall buildings beyond RF.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/64705280/

Are you really going to contend that factors other than pure on field talent don't often overly influence Twins personnel decisions?

For Pete's sake, the article discussing the Twins thought process in calling up Rosario hardly mentions winning games.

Meanwhile, Rosario sits against a RHer last night while a utility infielder plays LF and Schafer plays CF, presumably because Molitor needed to give Rosario a day to get used to all those tall buildings beyond RF.

I'm not suggesting the Twins don't factor in off-field attitude and work ethic, nor should they ignore it.

 

But to claim that because Gardenhire "loved" Pelfrey - let's remember here that Ron Gardenhire did not have final authority over free agent acquisitions - is the reason the Twins signed him to a two year deal is quite a leap.

 

Mike Pelfrey had a pretty good second half of 2013. I wouldn't have signed him to a two-year deal - I'm not sure I would have signed him to a one year deal - but assuming that was the main reason the Twins retained him after the 2013 season because the manager really liked him ignores quite a few things, including Pelfrey's performance and the fact that Gardenhire doesn't get to make that decision in the first place.

[USAFChief]

I'm not claiming it was Gardenhire, alone. But his quote about the clubhouse seems to me to portray a corporate attitude.

 

I'm claiming the Twins, under Ryan, often let other factors OVERLY influence personnel decisions.

 

Again, the article that discusses Rosario's recall seems to confirm that opinion, no?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm not claiming it was Gardenhire, alone. But his quote about the clubhouse seems to me to portray a corporate attitude.

I'm claiming the Twins, under Ryan, often let other factors OVERLY influence personnel decisions.

Again, the article that discusses Rosario's recall seems to confirm that opinion, no?

It depends on personal perspective, I think. The Twins are obviously high on Rosario, as they were Polanco and Santana last season. There's something about those kids the Twins really like. In the case of Santana, it was obviously warranted and worked out wonderfully.

 

Inversely, the Twins are extremely skeptical of Hicks, and for good reason. My personal feeling about that is "Well, no ****, Sherlock. Why didn't you recognize that in 2013?" but I'm happy they finally got on board with what seemed like a no-brainer decision to me.

 

Do the Twins let work ethic and attitude influence their decisions, particularly with prospects? Yeah, I think they factor it in quite a bit and that's probably the right decision. Coming to the big leagues and playing every day is about a lot more than talent. All one has to do is look at Delmon Young to see that in action.

 

Do the Twins let attitude and work ethic influence their decision-making too much? Well, that depends on your view of the situation... But I don't think Rosario's call-up is much of an indication of anything. The Twins all but said "we need an outfielder for a brief stint; he's here for two weeks and then goes back to the minors". Some disagree with me but I think the Twins' call-up of Rosario has equal parts "we don't want to mess with Aaron while he's rolling" and "we like Eddie quite a bit".

[Mike Sixel]

How the heck does Rosario sit, and someone NOT PART OF THE FUTURE, plays?

 

So.

 

Dang,

 

Disappointing.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Pelfrey's multiple Twins contracts reminded me a bit of Nick Blackburn -- Oklahoma born favorite of Gardenhire (although Pelfrey moved from OK at a young age -- he was also born on an air force base, like Gardy).

 

Both decent MLB pitchers for awhile, but I suspect the Twins were more willing to seek/sign these guys and give larger guarantees than other teams.

 

(Not sure I remember why this is in Eddie Rosario thread, a move I generally endorse assuming he starts playing.)

[Jham]

http://m.twins.mlb.com/min/video/topic/70087564/v104150183/oakmin-rosario-hits-a-homer-in-first-career-atbat

 

Compare with:

 

I do find it odd that this forum supports Hicks who many view as a failed prospect with maybe Shane Robinson upside, over Rosario who was tagged by many as a bona fide prospect.  I really thought there'd be more celebration over him getting a chance over the more experienced Hicks.  Alas the Twinsdaily forum is a tough audience to please...  which I love.  The Tommy Milone clip is just included for fun.

[ashbury]

I do find it odd that this forum supports Hicks who many view as a failed prospect with maybe Shane Robinson upside, over Rosario who was tagged by many as a bona fide prospect. .

It's hard to say what "this forum" says about any player, particularly Hicks. You can find opinion all over the map. Indeed, you are on this forum, and seem to be implying you lean toward the failed prospect camp.

 

I don't get this comparative assessment at all, as to who is a bona fide prospect. Compare their age 20-22 seasons (different calendar years of course), as a measure of their stature as prospects. They both were in single-A at 20, and had nearly equal OPS. At 21, Rosario had a better year split between high-A and AA than Hicks did at high-A. At age 22 the reverse happened at AA for both, with Hicks having the much better OPS. I don't know how their defenses were viewed at these steps in their progression, but as prospects, they seem to me actually pretty closely matched, all in all. I don't see why you would laud one and flush the other.

 

Their paths diverged at age 23, of course, with Hicks being rushed to major league duty and floundering horribly, while Rosario at age 23 in AAA hasn't done so hot himself (OPS in the .600s) but was out of the glare of the spotlight and apparently is getting a pass on that. Eddie got an outstanding introduction to major league pitching of course, the other night. But right now I believe he's at 2-for-7 overall, nearly the ultimate in Small Sample Size; he's one Ofer from the Mendoza line, one multi-hit night from Hurricane Hazle. Hicks meanwhile is putting up highly acceptable numbers in AAA.

 

We know Hicks did not make good use of his age-24 season. That's not a mark in his favor. But his good performance so far this year isn't suddenly out of character with the first part of his progression through the minors. We may well look back and decide 2013-14 were the aberration.

 

And I say that as someone who was thoroughly disgusted with Hicks's performance this Spring (particularly on defense) and wanted to see him spend time in Rochester. There's a chance both Hicks and Rosario will have significant major league careers.

 

 

[glunn]

I see sound arguments and insights on both sides of this debate.  

[Jham]

 

It's hard to say what "this forum" says about any player, particularly Hicks. You can find opinion all over the map. Indeed, you are on this forum, and seem to be implying you lean toward the failed prospect camp.

 

I don't get this comparative assessment at all, as to who is a bona fide prospect. Compare their age 20-22 seasons (different calendar years of course), as a measure of their stature as prospects. They both were in single-A at 20, and had nearly equal OPS. At 21, Rosario had a better year split between high-A and AA than Hicks did at high-A. At age 22 the reverse happened at AA for both, with Hicks having the much better OPS. I don't know how their defenses were viewed at these steps in their progression, but as prospects, they seem to me actually pretty closely matched, all in all. I don't see why you would laud one and flush the other.

 

Their paths diverged at age 23, of course, with Hicks being rushed to major league duty and floundering horribly, while Rosario at age 23 in AAA hasn't done so hot himself (OPS in the .600s) but was out of the glare of the spotlight and apparently is getting a pass on that. Eddie got an outstanding introduction to major league pitching of course, the other night. But right now I believe he's at 2-for-7 overall, nearly the ultimate in Small Sample Size; he's one Ofer from the Mendoza line, one multi-hit night from Hurricane Hazle. Hicks meanwhile is putting up highly acceptable numbers in AAA.

 

We know Hicks did not make good use of his age-24 season. That's not a mark in his favor. But his good performance so far this year isn't suddenly out of character with the first part of his progression through the minors. We may well look back and decide 2013-14 were the aberration.

 

And I say that as someone who was thoroughly disgusted with Hicks's performance this Spring (particularly on defense) and wanted to see him spend time in Rochester. There's a chance both Hicks and Rosario will have significant major league careers.

 

Agree completely.  When I talked about Hicks as a failed prospect, I wasn't trying to generalize the feeling of the entire forum.  All I meant is that Hicks has been passed by Rosario on pretty much every single prospect list I've seen.  As such, I thought this move was more aggressive than typical for a front office oft criticized for being overly-conservative.  I thought it was a positive sign that they are willing to take some risks and go with higher upside guys over the obvious choice.  Of course, as others have stated, it could just be that the organization had other reasons for holding Hicks back.  

 

Hicks has impressed me with the season he's putting together in Rochester.  What a pleasant surprise it would be if he could turn his career around and live up to the expectations of a high draft pick!  Even if he never hits, I think he can be a good defensive replacement on a major league bench.

 

[laloesch]

 

Agree completely.  When I talked about Hicks as a failed prospect, I wasn't trying to generalize the feeling of the entire forum.  All I meant is that Hicks has been passed by Rosario on pretty much every single prospect list I've seen.  As such, I thought this move was more aggressive than typical for a front office oft criticized for being overly-conservative.  I thought it was a positive sign that they are willing to take some risks and go with higher upside guys over the obvious choice.  Of course, as others have stated, it could just be that the organization had other reasons for holding Hicks back.  

 

Hicks has impressed me with the season he's putting together in Rochester.  What a pleasant surprise it would be if he could turn his career around and live up to the expectations of a high draft pick!  Even if he never hits, I think he can be a good defensive replacement on a major league bench.

 

 

I've moved on from Hicks.  If he ends up turning things around and has a respectable major league career as a corner outfielder i'd be happy, but at this point i'm looking at Buxton and Rosario.  We've seen this smoke and mirror show from Hicks before.