http://www.startribune.com/byungho-park-s-demotion-doesn-t-inspire-confidence-in-the-twins/417731593/

 

Souhan was less kind than Reusse on the Park demotion. 

 

"The bosses sent ByungHo Park to the minors, to convene with one of the team’s most promising relievers this spring, Alex Wimmers. Park will star for the Rochester Red Wings in April while Twins manager Paul Molitor tries not to use the pitcher who replaced Park on the big-league roster."

 

That's a fair point about Wimmers.  Sure, he's also not on the 40 man but I bet he ends up a bigger bullpen piece than Haley.

That's an artful line by Souhan, but I don't see how Haley displaced Park at all. Do you?

 

You typically have 13 position players and 12 pitchers. In terms of whittling down the roster to 25 at the end of spring, I see those two groups as separate. If there is something intriguing or compelling that forces your hand, then maybe you go to 11 or 13 pitchers, otherwise 12 is just about right for MLB these days, even for teams carrying a Rule 5 pitcher, which is uncommon but not that uncommon. It would be nice to see data.

My bad - I think I got that confused.

 

I don't have a problem with keeping Haley or keeping Park down. With Vargas hurt, seems like putting Park back on the roster would be logical regardless of how low their opinion of him is. We know Park can play first base and hit homers and apparently he's popular in the clubhouse (actually liked by the players, that is).

 

As it is, without Park, the Twins lineup is unnecessarily constricted and inflexible. There is guaranteed to be games those first 10 days where a little more flexibility would make a difference. Makes no sense.

 

That's an artful line by Souhan, but I don't see how Haley displaced Park at all. Do you?

You typically have 13 position players and 12 pitchers. In terms of whittling down the roster to 25 at the end of spring, I see those two groups as separate. If there is something intriguing or compelling that forces your hand, then maybe you go to 11 or 13 pitchers, otherwise 12 is just about right for MLB these days, even for teams carrying a Rule 5 pitcher, which is uncommon but not that uncommon. It would be nice to see data.

As I see it, DanSan kept his spot over Park. Park could probably play SS about as well as DanSan, but apparently hitting dingers isn't enough.

 

See, I can say outlandish nonsense just like Souhan

Edited March 31, 20179 yr by Sconnie

Haley was never in the bubble.  The pitcher who took "Park's spot" is Tonkin.

Twins had to keep 13 pitchers to keep Molitor from using his 1 inning pitchers for more than 1 inning.  With the offdays Molly should have one of Duffey or Haley available every day.

Haley was never in the bubble.  The pitcher who took "Park's spot" is Tonkin.

I would say Duffey. Or any of them not named Pressly.

 

Twins had to keep 13 pitchers to keep Molitor from using his 1 inning pitchers for more than 1 inning.  With the offdays Molly should have one of Duffey or Haley available every day.

well, that and the rotation is very, very bad.

I'm sure Molitor would prefer to have 12 pitchers. But the state of the pitching really is this bad.

Molly probably(or certainly) did not want Haley.  That was an FO decision.  So they gave Molly most of the rest of what he wanted(and that included DanSan). 

They can play Sano at first and Escobar at 3rd, with DanSan as the backup some of the time(against lefties).   The multiple positions does help in this instance. 

It all was a compromise with the wins going with whom Molly wanted.  When this fails, it will be much easlier for the front office to construct the reason for firing him.

I don't get the FO's infatuation with Haley.  I don't get it.

Both Molitor and the FO are to blame. They're each obsessed with holding onto fringe players and they're each willing to do so at the expense of the 25 man roster. Its infuriating. 

If they like Haley so much, send something to Boston so you don't have to keep him on the roster.  

 

If they like Haley so much, send something to Boston so you don't have to keep him on the roster.  

 

right, isn't some low A flyer and cash less valuable than the 25th roster spot? I mean, that 25th spot is a very valuable asset, and should not be wasted. It's either worth having Haley here, in which you case you make a trade, or its not....

 

Molly probably(or certainly) did not want Haley.  That was an FO decision.  So they gave Molly most of the rest of what he wanted(and that included DanSan). 

They can play Sano at first and Escobar at 3rd, with DanSan as the backup some of the time(against lefties).   The multiple positions does help in this instance. 

It all was a compromise with the wins going with whom Molly wanted.  When this fails, it will be much easlier for the front office to construct the reason for firing him.

 

Has Sano played 1B at all this Spring? I'm not sure why people think that is an option at this point.  Eventually, no doubt.  

 

 

I think Park earned the right to be on the team. If you flat out ask Falvine, I'm sure they'd agree (if speaking candidly).

 

In the end, Park could be sent down and retained. A few of these other position players cannot be, without going through waivers.

 

Park will be up in the near future. The guy is just too good, despite what some seem to believe. He was the Twins' best player for a month last year before he was derailed by that nagging wrist injury.

 

The Twins need the fireworks he can provide. Sano is the only other guy in the system who is capable of putting the fear of God into an opposing pitcher (in terms of taking a perfect pitch and putting it in the seats).

 

If I'm in charge, he's in the lineup at DH/1B regularly from opening day going forward. I get the sense that they're hesitant to cut a more versatile Santana (defensive Swiss-army knife, late inning runner) or Vargas (switch hitter on a team short on lefties with power) loose.

 

If I'm in charge, he's in the lineup at DH/1B regularly from opening day going forward. I get the sense that they're hesitant to cut a more versatile Santana (defensive Swiss-army knife, late inning runner) or Vargas (switch hitter on a team short on lefties with power) loose.

 

They don't have to cut either loose (But if they cut Santana loose, who cares). They could remove Boshers from the 40 man, add Park. And have a 12 man pitching staff like every other team

Edited March 31, 20179 yr by alarp33

Uh, Wimmers is a 28-year-old career minor leaguer who they threw a bone last year and he pitched only decently. 

 

Let's not pretend he's anything more than that. His future in the big leagues is as a long guy. He's 373 days OLDER than Michael Tonkin. 

Uh, Wimmers is a 28-year-old career minor leaguer who they threw a bone last year and he pitched only decently.

 

Let's not pretend he's anything more than that. His future in the big leagues is as a long guy. He's 373 days OLDER than Michael Tonkin.

Yeah, I don't get the Wimmers over Tonkin thing.

 

A new face is not the same as a better face. Wimmers' newness to MLB doesn't mean he's good.

 

If someone wants to bitch about Chargois, have at it. But Wimmers? Nah, man.

Souhan should go back to writing about the outdoors, his baseball knowledge sucks to put it nicely.

The more I think about it, the more this FO has been at least partially hamstrung by the old FO. Signing Park last year gave us an abundance of 1B/DH types. That was a problem this FO had to try to resolve.

• No front office would cut Mauer at this point, even if he is a shadow of his former self. His former self still sells a lot of jerseys and milk.
• Vargas is still young - coming into his age 26 season - with a minor league OPS  of .849, and showing flashes of power and hitting that we'd all love to see in the lineup daily if he can put it together.
• Park had a terrible year last year. The Park Bangs, when he connected, were fantastic. But other than some ooh and aah home runs, he was very Tim Laudner. And he has a significantly larger contract than Vargas.

The new FO, in a fit of trying to fix a mess from the old FO, decided that we couldn't keep three 1B/DHs on the roster. They can't let Mauer go. That leaves Vargas and Park. They calculated (correctly), that no team would grab Park (and his contract) after hitting .191 last year. After that, there was very little chance that the team would go north with Park, even if he hit Park Bangs every other at bat.

 

I'm not sure how 40 man rosters are assembled. I don't know if they know exactly how many hitters they want vs pitchers, or how much flexibility there is. Personally, I don't get the dance they did on Rule V day to get Haley, and I don't get why they are willing to keep him on the roster now, unless Boston is just playing crazy hardball with their trade requests. I don't get why Tonkin has been kept. Or at least why both Haley and Tonkin are kept.

 

But why Park isn't on the roster? It was an attempt to fix a 2016 problem. Park surprised everyone this spring, you know? That's a good thing. I hope he keeps it up in the minors and the FO is forced to make another move, and/or that they are already trying to make another move.

Do we have a concept that Vargas isn't going to be back soon? He was getting at bats in the Rochester vs. Twins exhibition game yesterday. If Vargas is going to be back after the first series of the season, then we're framing this wrong. The Twins ultimately chose Vargas over Park - they're carrying 13 pitchers for the first series because they're rigthly worried about a few starters but once Vargas is ready, he'll be back up and likely take the place of Duffey, who will head to AAA to start.

 

At that point, this gnashing of teeth over Park is going to seem pretty overwrought. Choosing Vargas over Park is eminently defensible, especially if you look at Spring Training with a skeptical eye like you should. Park looks good but Vargas is younger, a switch hitter and showed promise in actual regular season games last year. 

 

Let's give the FO a break on this for a week or so. And Souhan is generally a moron, we should remember that.

That's a good point about Vargas. If he misses 3-5 games, this is much ado about nothing.

 

If it's 10+ games, I have a problem with the decision.

Chatter is that Vargas will be back pretty quick. Probably woild have broke camp if not for WBC or fouling ball off foot.

Souhan should go back to writing about the outdoors, his baseball knowledge sucks to put it nicely.

maybe the outdoors blogs were saying "Souhan should write about baseball, he doesn't know anything about outdoors"

The more I think about it, the more this FO has been at least partially hamstrung by the old FO. Signing Park last year gave us an abundance of 1B/DH types. That was a problem this FO had to try to resolve.

• No front office would cut Mauer at this point, even if he is a shadow of his former self. His former self still sells a lot of jerseys and milk.
• Vargas is still young - coming into his age 26 season - with a minor league OPS of .849, and showing flashes of power and hitting that we'd all love to see in the lineup daily if he can put it together.
• Park had a terrible year last year. The Park Bangs, when he connected, were fantastic. But other than some ooh and aah home runs, he was very Tim Laudner. And he has a significantly larger contract than Vargas.

The new FO, in a fit of trying to fix a mess from the old FO, decided that we couldn't keep three 1B/DHs on the roster. They can't let Mauer go. That leaves Vargas and Park. They calculated (correctly), that no team would grab Park (and his contract) after hitting .191 last year. After that, there was very little chance that the team would go north with Park, even if he hit Park Bangs every other at bat.

 

I'm not sure how 40 man rosters are assembled. I don't know if they know exactly how many hitters they want vs pitchers, or how much flexibility there is. Personally, I don't get the dance they did on Rule V day to get Haley, and I don't get why they are willing to keep him on the roster now, unless Boston is just playing crazy hardball with their trade requests. I don't get why Tonkin has been kept. Or at least why both Haley and Tonkin are kept.

 

But why Park isn't on the roster? It was an attempt to fix a 2016 problem. Park surprised everyone this spring, you know? That's a good thing. I hope he keeps it up in the minors and the FO is forced to make another move, and/or that they are already trying to make another move.

Not sure I agree. They tried to sign another DH.

I think you all are forgetting something...isn't Adrianza going to take DanSan's spot, as soon as he's healthy? That's what I think is going on there.  Regarding Park, This may also be an attempt to take some pressure off of him.  You've read about the pressure the Korean players experience in their leagues; he certainly felt that last year.  If you bring him up in 2-4 weeks, he'll just slip in and it won't be quite the same pressure as being the regular DH out of the gate.  Also, by then, something will happen to clarify the spot on that 40-man roster that they need.  It could be that Wimmers is in the same position; something will happen to open up a spot for him shortly.  I too wish they'd make a deal with the Red Sox so they can put Haley in the minors.

Not sure I agree. They tried to sign another DH.

Just saw this. Yeah, I thought of that, too. But we don't know how hard they tried, right? (If we are talking about Alvarez.) Did they call his agent and say "here's a contract we're offering"? We don't know (I don't think). And if they signed Alvarez, they may well have traded Vargas or tried to slip him through waivers, too. I don't know. Not that I don't think they are capable of making their own logjams. I'm just not ready to hang them.

 

Just saw this. Yeah, I thought of that, too. But we don't know how hard they tried, right? (If we are talking about Alvarez.) Did they call his agent and say "here's a contract we're offering"? We don't know (I don't think). And if they signed Alvarez, they may well have traded Vargas or tried to slip him through waivers, too. I don't know. Not that I don't think they are capable of making their own logjams. I'm just not ready to hang them.

 

Supposedly they offered the most money to Napoli, but he went to TX.

 

Supposedly even a two year deal....wow.

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/mike-napoli

 

 

Uh, Wimmers is a 28-year-old career minor leaguer who they threw a bone last year and he pitched only decently. 

 

Let's not pretend he's anything more than that. His future in the big leagues is as a long guy. He's 373 days OLDER than Michael Tonkin. 

 

You know he missed a year due to Tommy John surgery, right?