Article: 4 Creative Tweaks the Twins Can Make to Get Better

[Craig Arko]

Simplifying my thoughts leads me to point out that I was responding to Nick's proposal to have Kepler split time between RF and 1B, not simply fill in for a game or two.

 

Do you envision Jake Cave in RF when Kepler's at first? Perhaps you like Cave's outfield defense better. That would lead to a different conclusion than I draw.

 

Otherwise, I suggest that positional flexibility should not be a one-way street and should not apply to Kepler alone.

Cave in LF, Rosario to 3B, Kepler to 1B, Sano to RF. What could go wrong?

[Vanimal46]

Cave in LF, Rosario to 3B, Kepler to 1B, Sano to RF. What could go wrong?

Sounds like a better Sunday afternoon lineup than we've seen the last 3 years.

[Tomj14]

 

 

Otherwise, I suggest that positional flexibility should not be a one-way street and should not apply to Kepler alone.

Positional flexibility is a myth, players that hit well will play, players that don't, shouldn't.

What made Eduardo Escobar a really good player the last two years wasn't positional flexibility,it was his ability to hit.

Being able to play multiple positions is a good thing and can help the team if other really good hitters need a place to play, but if you can play multiple positions but can't hit a lick, you just move around a weakness from one position to another.

[ashbury]

Cave in LF, Rosario to 3B, Kepler to 1B, Sano to RF. What could go wrong?

Answer is highlighted.

[ashbury]

 

Positional flexibility is a myth, players that hit well will play, players that don't, shouldn't.

What made Eduardo Escobar a really good player the last two years wasn't positional flexibility,it was his ability to hit.

Being able to play multiple positions is a good thing and can help the team if other really good hitters need a place to play, but if you can play multiple positions but can't hit a lick, you just move around a weakness from one position to another.

I wouldn't call it a myth, but among the five tools, hitting for average remains key, and power isn't far behind.

 

As I suggested/implied, if Kepler's offensive output doesn't start to increase, all the defense he is capable of won't matter, regardless of the position. He's not a good enough CFer to make his offense be a plus there, and the converse is true everywhere else he can play.

[Mike Sixel]

What is Chicago would have taken that position with Chris Sale. This would be the year to experiment. What an incredible impact if you could get 180 innings for the next 4 years of anywhere near the dominance he had last year out of the BP. It's whole lot easier to find dominant RPs than to find an ace, a LH ace to boot. Where creative ideas are concerned, this one has the potential to be a huge plus.

He was not a good starter in the minors. He's finally succeeding, and people want to change that. I don't agree.

[mlhouse]

 

If you need a LHP starter for some reason, you have Mejia.....I wouldn't move Rogers in a million years. He's doing what he should be.

 

A quality left handed starter is worth way more than a good left handed relief pitcher.   IT isn't even close and attempting to make turn him back into a starter doesn't preclude him going back in the pen.

[Vanimal46]

A quality left handed starter is worth way more than a good left handed relief pitcher. IT isn't even close and attempting to make turn him back into a starter doesn't preclude him going back in the pen.

Did people forget that Rogers was a starter at one point and couldn't separate himself from the crowd of worse starting pitching options than we have today?

 

He tops out at 91-92 in the pen. If he goes back to starting he'll go back to being an 88-90 MPH pitcher to conserve energy. This is a bad idea.

[Mike Sixel]

According to one of the fangraphs writers, some teams don't think you don't need a left handed starter at all. Advanced teams

[Major League Ready]

 

He was not a good starter in the minors. He's finally succeeding, and people want to change that. I don't agree.

 

I really don't have a position here. The changes he made seem to have turned him into a different pitcher. I don't have the same capacity to evaluate those changes as the people who get paid for that sort of thing. If those people made that decision, I would be very happy they believe that potential to be present and would welcome the experiment.

[Riverbrian]

Simplifying my thoughts leads me to point out that I was responding to Nick's proposal to have Kepler split time between RF and 1B, not simply fill in for a game or two

 

Do you envision Jake Cave in RF when Kepler's at first? Perhaps you like Cave's outfield defense better. That would lead to a different conclusion than I draw.

 

Otherwise, I suggest that positional flexibility should not be a one-way street and should not apply to Kepler alone.

A game or two or ten. Whenever the need arises due to rest, health, poor performance or great performance or specific matchups.

 

Cave? Yeah sure if Cave is on the roster and hitting balls into the gap and over the limestone in CF but what I really envision is signing Cutch or Brantley and needing an escape hatch in case all 4 OF’s are performing.

 

What I don’t want and am frankly scared to death of is this: we can’t or won’t sign Cutch or Brantley because the organization or Manager cant figure out what to do with 4 quality outfielders. If they stop themselves because Kepler is too good defensively then we got the same nightmare potential in 2019 that we had in 2018, Buxton and Kepler playing everyday and playing at or below replacement level with Michael Reed to turn to and the manager won’t turn to him because he isn’t Cutch or Brantley.

 

This brings me back to my original point. If you get 25 players who can play... teams will be forced to adopt flexibility to accommodate and any fear of flexibility will stop teams from adding that 4th OF because they don’t have a place to play the other 3 and therefore don’t sign that 4th OF.

 

Ultimately if Cave can play 1B... it makes sense to keep Kepler in RF for his plus defense. I want a manager who can make common sense decisions like that. Flexibility shouldn’t be willy nilly but it has to be more than a single utility guy who became the utility guy because he didn’t win a starting job.

 

The Dodgers and Cubs have figured this out. The rest of the league has to catch up.

 

I only mention Kepler as an example. It could be anybody but my true poster boy is Tyler Austin with the addition of Cron. If anybody needs some OF time for career survival it is him. If I’m Austin I’m calling Baldelli everyday and telling him that I’ll play any where and work day and night at it. And if I’m Baldelli... I’m letting him.

[mlhouse]

 

Did people forget that Rogers was a starter at one point and couldn't separate himself from the crowd of worse starting pitching options than we have today?

He tops out at 91-92 in the pen. If he goes back to starting he'll go back to being an 88-90 MPH pitcher to conserve energy. This is a bad idea.

 

The whole point of this is that he has apparently added a the slider to his pitch mix.  WIht a 3-4 pitch selection and much improved command from earlier in hsi career this isn't a "bad idea" given that hte Twins lack a quality rotation and do not have a left handed starter.

[Dr. Evil]

Rosario, a former middle infielder = primary first baseman with offensive numbers that more closely profile what you would hope to get from that position. Thoughts?

 

May remains in the pen. Romero to long reliever who graduates to the rotation. Willians, love him. Kepler, average in my mind. Stays in OF but don't cement him as a starter yet.

 

Irresponsible to go in to the season banking on Buxton and Sano as legit starters.

 

Those are my thoughts FWIW.

 

[h2oface]

May and Romero can go long from the pen. I like that. Perhaps either could close, too.

Never impressed with May as a starter, and Romero can still be moved to start, ala Johan Santana.

 

It would be great to use Kepler for versatility. Especially if he hits for average and OPS.

 

Totally ambivalent about A-stud. Time will tell, if he gets the chance. 

 

 

[Aerodeliria]

Love it!! I especially like the Astudillo line of thinking. I am not crazy about moving May, but I think the balance of the remaining choices sounds very exciting.

 

I know that Astudillo will not likely keep his BA where it was at the end of last year, but we need a little Kirbyism in the line up to bring excitement back to the Twins. You don't think with promotion that Astudillo could bring in fans? That alone should be enough to get Astudillo in a Twins uniform and on the field as much as possible.

[Nick Nelson]

 

Why would you want to take a player who has the potential to be a #2 - #3 in a rotation and move him into a significantly less valuable role when he's still 23 years old? 

Because...

 

A: This "potential" is not as blatant as you suggest. For all his obvious ability, the fact is that at age 24, Romero still has yet to dominate any higher level. He has an 8.6 K/9 & 1.35 WHIP at Double-A, and a 6.8 K/9 & 1.29 WHIP at Triple-A. He excelled for his first three starts in the majors and then he got shelled. He had a 9% swinging strike rate in the second half of his outings (Triple-A included). NINE PERCENT! With his stuff! That's lower than Tyler Duffey. I love Romero too but we can't stay blinded by his theoretical upside and ignore what's in front of us.

 

B: This is his quickest path to making an impact in the majors. The Twins can't really count on him for a rotation spot with the way he looked in the second half. 

 

C: It's not permanent. In the Jesse Chavez comparison I pointed to, Passan envisioned a 100-120 IP multi-inning fireman role. That would keep Romero's arm conditioned for a return to starting. Heck, Adam Wainwright threw 75 innings as a shutdown reliever at age 24 and then threw 200 innings over 32 starts the following year. 

[USAFChief]

I’m some cases it may be ability and some cases it is about the quickest access but the majority of cases (in my opinion) its because of an arcane sense of specialization.

It’s because playing infield is miles more difficult than outfield. Converting fly balls into outs is child’s play compared to ground balls.

[Riverbrian]

 

It’s because playing infield is miles more difficult than outfield. Converting fly balls into outs is child’s play compared to ground balls.

 

Need more Child's Play I suppose. 

[SF Twins Fan]

 

Because...

 

A: This "potential" is not as blatant as you suggest. For all his obvious ability, the fact is that at age 24, Romero still has yet to dominate any higher level. He has an 8.6 K/9 & 1.35 WHIP at Double-A, and a 6.8 K/9 & 1.29 WHIP at Triple-A. He excelled for his first three starts in the majors and then he got shelled. He had a 9% swinging strike rate in the second half of his outings (Triple-A included). NINE PERCENT! With his stuff! That's lower than Tyler Duffey. I love Romero too but we can't stay blinded by his theoretical upside and ignore what's in front of us.

 

B: This is his quickest path to making an impact in the majors. The Twins can't really count on him for a rotation spot with the way he looked in the second half. 

 

C: It's not permanent. In the Jesse Chavez comparison I pointed to, Passan envisioned a 100-120 IP multi-inning fireman role. That would keep Romero's arm conditioned for a return to starting. Heck, Adam Wainwright threw 75 innings as a shutdown reliever at age 24 and then threw 200 innings over 32 starts the following year. 

 

 

First off he doesn't turn 24 for a few more weeks, so he's yet to play his age 24 season. Second off he missed two full seasons so he's had two less seasons to pitch compared to other players his age. Also, because he missed two full seasons he hasn't yet been able to repeat any league, which would allow him to potentially dominate that league. Not every player is going to be lights out the first time they go through a league.

 

Also, 6 of his first 7 starts in the MLB were very good. He got blasted in his 6th start and then came back with another good start.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It’s because playing infield is miles more difficult than outfield. Converting fly balls into outs is child’s play compared to ground balls.

 

And the range of skill-set needed varies much more widely at the various IF positions than the OF ones.  

 

I like Nick's fourth point, if taken as "Let Austidillo play"  I agree, let him play and see if you might have something pretty nifty.

[Doctor Wu]

 

I get that Austudillo is a fun guy to have around.  So was Mickey Hatcher.  Coincidence that we won a World Series AFTER Hatcher left?

Gotta defend Mickey! Well sure, Hatcher was a bit of a goofball, but a talented one. Maybe not gold glove caliber in the outfield, but that guy could always hit. Plus, he was a vital piece for the Dodgers the following year in 1988, and his homers helped them win the World Series.

[ChrisKnutson]

Astudillo may be fun to watch, but what about Garver?? The man’s got a good inside out swing (like Mauer); Really curious to see if he develops power and what kind numbers he’d put up with 400-500 at-bats.

[killertwinfan]

It's pretty hard to keep reading with your first suggestion. I am not sure that it makes any sense to put Kepler at first.  You have Austin, Cron and Sano already vying for AB's over there.  That aside, I agree with your other comments, but not willing to concede they are creative.  You should have opened with Astudillo.  

[Kelly Vance]

Nick, I wouldn't mind these tweaks, but I would not take one of the best defensive outfielders in baseball and stick him at first base. Doesn't make sense, except maybe on a rare day when you want to get Cave playing time. 

 

I don't mind a Cron/Austin platoon at 1B and DH.  Keps doesn't necessarily hit RH pitchers better than Cron. So the move weakens the defense without really improving the offense. I could be wrong about this and Cave is not a Grossman defensively. So switching it up and going with a hot bat (if Cave is on a good streak) is an ok move.

 

We have openings at DH and 1B. If Austin can hold up his end, I think this will work, as is. For me, the better fielder between the two should play more 1b obviously, assuming the hitting is semi equal between them. The other guy DHes.   

 

I don't understand not putting Jake Reed on the 40 man. Its not like we have an impressive BP coming back and we have a spot on the 40 man. We have two or three openings in the BP and I submit Jake is a top candidate to fill in. I mean, he stayed down while we used Belisle and Busnitz?  Come on. He deserved a shot last year and is a character guy. Looking for a Rule 5 that is probably not as good and having to keep them on the 25 man all year doesn't make sense to me, unless we are going to add a catcher or ss or some position of need. But it is rare to find a starter in a Rule 5 bargain bin. 

[Kelly Vance]

 

I don't have strong opinions about how I'd deploy players. I just know I resonate to the whole flex concept, both with pitching and positional players.

 

I especially like the idea of flexibility of usage with strong-armed pitchers with dominating stuff like Romero and May, and with the notion of knowing how to guard against the damage that can be done against guys like Over Easy and Mejia and maybe Stewart and others. I'm warming up to this new age.

 

And I love the concept of a grouping of complimentary players to handle RF/1B/DH and the 5-7 slots. Especially if it addresses matchup opportunities and involves players who don't create a deficit defensively. 

 

If I had a Luger pressed to my temple and was told to make the call:

 

I'd cut a check for McCutcheon or Brantley, cut a check for Lowrie or similar placeholder for 2019, live with Polanco for another year at SS. Be fine with Turtle and Adrianza as bench players, along with, more often than not, Austin and Cave. Kepler gets time at1B against righties with Cron shifting "down" to DH or to the bench. Basically, I'd hand out gloves to Kepler, Cave, Kirilloff, Rooker, Larnach, and anyone else who profiles as a member of that grouping and look to upgrade as fast as possible from Austin, Cron, and maybe even Cave.

 

I'd pick up one more front line starter via trade or FA, and two of the Robertson/Familia tier RP's via FA. That lets me shift Mejia and Romero to the BP to join the new guys and May and Rogers, maybe Hildenberger (now fixed and used correctly?). Over Easy, Pineda, and Stewart become primaries, most of the time. Or they get moved, who knows? Short leashes. Speaking of which, I'm always a potential seller from surplus at the deadline, and always a shopper too, opportunistically.

 

None of these decisions are worth squat without performance to expectation from BOTH Sano and Buxton in 2019. Additionally, my status as a genius is equally dependent on running the table with Lewis, Kirilloff, Larnach, and Graterol. My flops have to be from prospects further down the list, guys like Rooker, Gordon, and Gonsalves.

 

In short, my whole "flex plan" philosophy and strategy has to extend to every area: between the lines, development, trades, deadline decisions, all decisions. Opportunistic, flexible in thought and action, nimble, rigorous calculation of risks as an alternative to simply experimenting.

 

Anyway, I love the thinking Nick has offered, and love the many terrific thoughts others have posted. Great morning read.

Your flex plan needs a 30 man roster. 

[DocBauer]

A game or two or ten. Whenever the need arises due to rest, health, poor performance or great performance or specific matchups.

 

Cave? Yeah sure if Cave is on the roster and hitting balls into the gap and over the limestone in CF but what I really envision is signing Cutch or Brantley and needing an escape hatch in case all 4 OF’s are performing.

 

What I don’t want and am frankly scared to death of is this: we can’t or won’t sign Cutch or Brantley because the organization or Manager cant figure out what to do with 4 quality outfielders. If they stop themselves because Kepler is too good defensively then we got the same nightmare potential in 2019 that we had in 2018, Buxton and Kepler playing everyday and playing at or below replacement level with Michael Reed to turn to and the manager won’t turn to him because he isn’t Cutch or Brantley.

 

This brings me back to my original point. If you get 25 players who can play... teams will be forced to adopt flexibility to accommodate and any fear of flexibility will stop teams from adding that 4th OF because they don’t have a place to play the other 3 and therefore don’t sign that 4th OF.

 

Ultimately if Cave can play 1B... it makes sense to keep Kepler in RF for his plus defense. I want a manager who can make common sense decisions like that. Flexibility shouldn’t be willy nilly but it has to be more than a single utility guy who became the utility guy because he didn’t win a starting job.

 

The Dodgers and Cubs have figured this out. The rest of the league has to catch up.

 

I only mention Kepler as an example. It could be anybody but my true poster boy is Tyler Austin with the addition of Cron. If anybody needs some OF time for career survival it is him. If I’m Austin I’m calling Baldelli everyday and telling him that I’ll play any where and work day and night at it. And if I’m Baldelli... I’m letting him.

THIS 100%. And something I've been arguing for as well. What's wrong with 5 good OF? Play the guys that deserve to play. Move guys around to get your best players on the field and in the lineup.

 

5 man OF too much? Not if Austin doesn't cut it, or Astudillo begins 2019 in the minors, or someone is hurt, etc.

[RatherBeGolfing]

Everything but number 4

[Nick Nelson]

 

First off he doesn't turn 24 for a few more weeks, so he's yet to play his age 24 season. Second off he missed two full seasons so he's had two less seasons to pitch compared to other players his age. Also, because he missed two full seasons he hasn't yet been able to repeat any league, which would allow him to potentially dominate that league. Not every player is going to be lights out the first time they go through a league.

 

Also, 6 of his first 7 starts in the MLB were very good. He got blasted in his 6th start and then came back with another good start.

You can rearrange and slice up the numbers all you want. The bottom line is that his overall results as a starter don't match up to the quality of his stuff or his perceived upside. You can keep talking about "potential" and what he might do repeating a level, but that's all very theoretical and subjective. 

 

I'll add that Romero is gonna be out of options in 2020 (assuming they use one this year). So while I understand what you're saying about his missed time setting him back, they're not working with some infinite clock to bring him along and get him into a workable major-league role.  

[SF Twins Fan]

 

You can rearrange and slice up the numbers all you want. The bottom line is that his overall results as a starter don't match up to the quality of his stuff or his perceived upside. You can keep talking about "potential" and what he might do repeating a level, but that's all very theoretical and subjective. 

 

I'll add that Romero is gonna be out of options in 2020 (assuming they use one this year). So while I understand what you're saying about his missed time setting him back, they're not working with some infinite clock to bring him along and get him into a workable major-league role.  

 

Since this is potentially his last option year it makes even less sense to move him to the bullpen. Use this year to determine if he can be a starter and if he sucks this year then move him to the bullpen next season.

 

If the Twins were a potential World Series contender I could understand moving Romero to the bullpen because he has the potential to be a dominate reliever or closer but the Twins aren't anywhere close. If they end the offseason and have added a legit #1 or #2 to the rotation and have added a good 2nd basemen and at least 2 other pieces to the bullpen I'm all for moving Romero to the bullpen. Unless they do that though it doesn't make sense to move him.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Since this is potentially his last option year it makes even less sense to move him to the bullpen. Use this year to determine if he can be a starter and if he sucks this year then move him to the bullpen next season.

 

If the Twins were a potential World Series contender I could understand moving Romero to the bullpen because he has the potential to be a dominate reliever or closer but the Twins aren't anywhere close. If they end the offseason and have added a legit #1 or #2 to the rotation and have added a good 2nd basemen and at least 2 other pieces to the bullpen I'm all for moving Romero to the bullpen. Unless they do that though it doesn't make sense to move him.

 

Other than you could get actual MLB value out of him more likely, as opposed to continuing to hope. 

 

I don't know what I'd do in this particular case, but this team, and other teams, try so hard to make starters out of guys that will never be that, they lose out on a lot of good RPs, imo. Oh, and those players lose out on money, since they have failed careers.