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

[DocBauer]

I can absolutely see Romero ending up as a RP, and probably a very good one, whether in the traditional sense or in a new age, multiple IP way as discussed. And I want the best STAFF we can put together.

 

But right now, still developing and with the potential he has...and let's be honest, since getting healthy has been promoted fairly aggressively...I'd still begin 2019 with him in the rotation.

 

With or without an opener, I want a little more time to see if he can build on what he flashed last season.

[bird]

 

Your flex plan needs a 30 man roster. 

 

 

I demand a recount.

[ashbury]

This. The question isn’t where to play Kepler, it’s should we play Kepler much at all. His OPS last year was .727, .737 in 2017 and .734 in 2016. 4th or even 5th OF numbers unless hes Byron Buxton in CF. He’s not. Cave us a better CF and he’s average there. Rosario and Cave hit better than Kepler last year and Buxton needs a shot because if his upside and glove. Kepler needs to play some 1B to make the lineup more than a couple of days a week. The assumption people seem to have that Kepler should start in the OF boggles my mind. He has to show he can hit better than the last 3 years of consistent ABs before he can start for anybody.

We're in agreement that Kepler needs to improve his offense or he's in danger of losing time in the lineup. Where we may disagree is where he should be stationed on defense on any given day he is in the lineup - say, against a tough righty where we don't like our two 1B options.

 

If you think Kepler is our fourth most skillful outfielder on the defensive side of the ball, after Buxton/Rosario/Cave, then putting Kepler at first base does make sense.

 

But I don't care for Cave's judgement in the OF nor his read on the ball. I don't think his range is better, and his arm is worse. So I consider Kepler the better outfielder of the two. Probably I'd put Kepler slightly ahead of Rosario overall, too.

 

I don't mean to exaggerate Cave's ineptitude. On a simple scale, as outfielders I'd rate Buxton a 10, Kepler a 7, Cave and Rosario about a 6^*. As center fielders, where the bar is higher, that puts everyone except Buxton at average or slightly below - there are some good CFers out there, and Kepler doesn't rank with those, and certainly not Cave, to me. But, I do see a difference among our non-Buxton guys, and Kepler ranks #2 for me.

 

Maybe that's where the disconnect in all of this is.

 

 

^{* _{For context, I suppose Grossman's about a 3 or a 4, and JD Martinez in the World Series looks like he's degraded to about a 1.}}

 

[Riverbrian]

We're in agreement that Kepler needs to improve his offense or he's in danger of losing time in the lineup. Where we may disagree is where he should be stationed on defense on any given day he is in the lineup - say, against a tough righty where we don't like our two 1B options.

 

If you think Kepler is our fourth most skillful outfielder on the defensive side of the ball, after Buxton/Rosario/Cave, then putting Kepler at first base does make sense.

 

But I don't care for Cave's judgement in the OF nor his read on the ball. I don't think his range is better, and his arm is worse. So I consider Kepler the better outfielder of the two. Probably I'd put Kepler slightly ahead of Rosario overall, too.

 

I don't mean to exaggerate Cave's ineptitude. On a simple scale, as outfielders I'd rank Buxton a 10, Kepler a 7, Cave and Rosario about a 6^*. As center fielders, where the bar is higher, that puts everyone except Buxton at average or slightly below - there are some good CFers out there, and not even Kepler ranks with those, and certainly not Cave, to me. But, I do see a difference among our non-Buxton guys, and Kepler ranks #2 for me.

 

Maybe that's where the disconnect in all of this is.

 

 

^{* _{For context, I suppose Grossman's about a 3 or a 4, and JD Martinez in the World Series looks like he's degraded to about a 1.}}

I believe you are saying that if Kepler isn’t hitting moving him to 1B takes away the only thing he is good at.

 

If that is what you are saying. I agree 100%.

 

Maybe I can connect my point with that agreed upon conclusion.

 

I’m saying if there is danger that Kepler doesn’t hit and I believe there is a real danger. Along with Buxton. Then we need a 4th OF but then if you have a 4th OF. Kepler or one of the OFs need to be able to play a different position in case they all hit.

 

In that scenario... Kepler at 1B or another OF somewhere else on occasion won’t hurt at all because the OF is covered in their repositioning or absence.

 

And perhaps most importantly. If you have a fear of playing Kep at 1B for the reasons we may agree upon. You won’t get the 4th OF.

 

And even more important still. If you don’t get the 4th OF. Now Kepler has to hit because the team can’t replace him and the team dies with him.

[ashbury]

Kepler or one of the OFs need to be able to play a different position in case they all hit.

 

In that scenario... Kepler at 1B or another OF somewhere else on occasion won’t hurt at all because the OF is covered in their repositioning or absence.

It's probably the laser-beam focus on Kepler being positionally flexible that bothers me. If you feel comfortable saying "Cave or one of the OFs need to be able to play a different position" or "Rosario or one of the OFs need to be able to play a different position" now and then, I'll feel like the Positional Flexibility Club truly is inclusive. Cave is about the last guy I'd like to see locked to one position.

[Riverbrian]

It's probably the laser-beam focus on Kepler being positionally flexible that bothers me. If you feel comfortable saying "Cave or one of the OFs need to be able to play a different position" or "Rosario or one of the OFs need to be able to play a different position" now and then, I'll feel like the Positional Flexibility Club truly is inclusive. Cave is about the last guy I'd like to see locked to one position.

I only use Kepler as an example and he becomes an example because of past experience at the position.

 

The Dodgers and Cubs have some players locked into positions. Not everybody has to learn a new position. Like your point about Kepler. Playing Buxton anywhere else but CF would be stupid.

 

My point is that someone has to be able to shift on occasion. It doesn’t have to be Kepler.

 

If I’m Cave... If I’m Austin... I’m asking... begging pleading for the chance to play a different position just in case the team needs it.

 

The front office can hire 100 analysts and the 100 analysts can all agree and make awesome projections but the simple truth is this. The front office with the 100 analysts won’t be able to predict what the team needs until the team actually needs it.

[Jim Hahn]

You have been preaching positional flexibility and i get it. But keep in mind there are only 2 types of true utility guys. The true glove first guys who can truly play almost any position well. These guys might not help you much with the bat but seldom lose games with the glove. The other is the so called super utility guys who can win games with their bats and you hope their defensive short comings won't hurt you too much when you play them somewhere other than their best position.

 

I think trying to get too flexible with a lot of these guys is a mistake. Sure if somebody gets hurt or sick or late in a game when you need to pinch hit to try to win a game, yah then throw Astudillo or Austin out into the outfield. But you shouldn't go out of your way looking to put guys like that out of position. They are barely passable at their primary positions. It also isn't very likely that their bats are good enough or at least that much better than the alternatives, that they should be forced into the lineup at a position they aren't good at.

 

I agree that Kepler should bring his 1b glove along. I also think that plan works a lot better if both his bat and Cave's are forcing them both into the lineup.

[Mike Sixel]

Kepler put up 2.6 WAR last year, and people aren't sure he should be playing, but they love the Cron signing. My head hurts.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Kepler put up 2.6 WAR last year, and people aren't sure he should be playing, but they love the Cron signing. My head hurts.

 

Kepler was pretty much the same as last year, which is likely a flaw in WAR... now that said, I don't have a problem with Max getting some reps at 1st, but yes, his offense needs to improve...

 

I will say this though, he's shown flashes of being an impact player offensively... and well more than what can simply be written off as a hot week or two. I think he's going to have a break out season eventually (though to be fair, the clock is definitely ticking). Hopefully we will see it in 2019, at which point him playing some 1st on occasion to minimize handedness issues with Cron/Austin will make a lot of sense. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Kepler was pretty much the same as last year, which is likely a flaw in WAR... now that said, I don't have a problem with Max getting some reps at 1st, but yes, his offense needs to improve...

 

I will say this though, he's shown flashes of being an impact player offensively... and well more than what can simply be written off as a hot week or two. I think he's going to have a break out season eventually (though to be fair, the clock is definitely ticking). Hopefully we will see it in 2019, at which point him playing some 1st on occasion to minimize handedness issues with Cron/Austin will make a lot of sense. 

 

Or, he just played more CF and played better defense in RF last year, than the year before.....He was league median offensively for CF, probably better, since Harper, Pham, and a few others played a couple games in CF, skewing the rankings. So, I'm not sure it is a WAR flaw, so much as he was used differently and played better defense. Neither of which is predictive.....

[Kelly Vance]

The way I look at it, we have Keps, Cave, Austin and Cron for 1b/DH.  Of those, Keps is the only plus fielder in RF.  Cron and Austin and Cave are candidates for DH.  Cron and Austin for 1b (does Cave play 1b?).

 

So Cave can force playing time if he is hot, or at least hotter than Cron or Austin. If Keps is in a slump, Cave can fill in at RF. Between Austin and Cron, whichever is the better fielder at 1b gets more time there.

I don't see Keps playing 1b, except rarely. We lose too much defense in RF, unless I undervalue Cave. 

 

But I think all 4 have places on the 2019 roster, unless they brought in Cron to compete with Austin with the intent that the loser for starter at 1b gets DFAed. I don't think they intend to do that. This appears to be a transition year over there and Austin/Cron are deemed good fill ins for Joe while we wait for Rooker or someone else to take over eventually.

 

[Riverbrian]

The way I look at it, we have Keps, Cave, Austin and Cron for 1b/DH. Of those, Keps is the only plus fielder in RF. Cron and Austin and Cave are candidates for DH. Cron and Austin for 1b (does Cave play 1b?).

 

So Cave can force playing time if he is hot, or at least hotter than Cron or Austin. If Keps is in a slump, Cave can fill in at RF. Between Austin and Cron, whichever is the better fielder at 1b gets more time there.

I don't see Keps playing 1b, except rarely. We lose too much defense in RF, unless I undervalue Cave.

 

But I think all 4 have places on the 2019 roster, unless they brought in Cron to compete with Austin with the intent that the loser for starter at 1b gets DFAed. I don't think they intend to do that. This appears to be a transition year over there and Austin/Cron are deemed good fill ins for Joe while we wait for Rooker or someone else to take over eventually.

Bingo

 

I have never advocated the forcing of moves. I want the manager to DH the lesser of defensive choices when constructing lineups but and I mean but... the door must be opened (it hasn’t been) for the eventual deployment of certain players in other positions in anticipation of circumstances that can’t be predicted such as injury, match ups, poor performance or honest to God logjams created by multiple players actually kicking ass at the same position. Having two 1B’s cranking homers and a .500 OPS RF is handled if one of those 1B can play RF decent enough and vice versa.

 

The alternative is to sit one of the homer cranking 1B’s while the .500 OPS RF plays and this is how the Twins and a majority of teams have operated for decades.

 

Considering the possibility of flexibility where it makes sense is preparing for the unpredictable success and failure at the same time. Having an outlet for overflow allows teams to staff the entire 25 man roster and allow for competition for playing time across the diamond.

 

Having an outlet for overflow allows teams to call up the most deserving candidate from the minors when injuries occur. For example let say Nick Gordon is tearing up AAA and the team has an injury to Eddie Rosario. Without a little flexibility, Nick Gordon will not get the call. It will be Wade with his average numbers in Rochester as the team just does a position to position thing. With a little flexibility... Nick Gordon can play 2B while Marwin Gonzalez plays LF.

 

All a team needs to do is prepare for it in advance like the Dodgers and Cubs have been doing for years instead of waiting for the team to start bleeding before forcing a move mid-season.

 

Just open the door. That’s all. Once the door is open. The manager gets to earn his money by putting the best lineup on the field every day.

[Riverbrian]

You have been preaching positional flexibility and i get it. But keep in mind there are only 2 types of true utility guys. The true glove first guys who can truly play almost any position well. These guys might not help you much with the bat but seldom lose games with the glove. The other is the so called super utility guys who can win games with their bats and you hope their defensive short comings won't hurt you too much when you play them somewhere other than their best position.

 

I think trying to get too flexible with a lot of these guys is a mistake. Sure if somebody gets hurt or sick or late in a game when you need to pinch hit to try to win a game, yah then throw Astudillo or Austin out into the outfield. But you shouldn't go out of your way looking to put guys like that out of position. They are barely passable at their primary positions. It also isn't very likely that their bats are good enough or at least that much better than the alternatives, that they should be forced into the lineup at a position they aren't good at.

 

I agree that Kepler should bring his 1b glove along. I also think that plan works a lot better if both his bat and Cave's are forcing them both into the lineup.

If there are indeed only two types of true utility players. You have just put your finger on the problem. Baseball has trapped itself in specialization so severely that only two types exist in what should be an infinite amount of possibilities.

 

Baseball needs to stop placing players in boxes and locking the box.

 

What is Nick Castellanos? He was a 3B. The Tigers acquire a new 3B from the Cubs and now Castellanos is a RF forever all of a sudden. Old school Gardenhire and Old School Avila will never play Castellanos at 3B again. If Candelario gets hurt... I’ll bet you money right now that Castellanos remains in RF while the “True Utility” guy Goodrum plays 3B and the Tigers will do this regardless if JaCoby Jones is DH’ing for consistency I guess.

 

 

This two true types of utility thing is handicapping teams. If Maddon was managing the Tigers. Castellanos would play whatever position he could best help the Cubs on a given day.

 

The Tigers are throwing away a flexibility advantage for specilization/consistency because that’s the way baseball has done it for years.

 

Baseball has been wrong!

[Riverbrian]

I'm going to ask two questions for everyone who reads this. I believe that if everyone truly thinks about the questions I'm about to ask, any concerns will float away but I ask that everyone truly thinks about both questions. (I apologize for answering the questions... which I will but please consider the questions anyway). 

 

1. Why do Joe Maddon and Dave Roberts move players around? Additional question to this question (still the same question)... Why did the Brewers move Shaw to 2B and Why did the Indians move Ramirez to 2B and Kipnis to CF? 

 

2. Did it hurt them? 

 

Think about those questions. 

 

Here are the answers.

 

1. It allows them to put the best possible lineup together every single day. Cody Bellinger is most likely better at one position or the other. The odds that he is exactly equal as a 1B or CF defensively is pretty low yet he plays both positions frequently and the reason is that it allows the team to move Muncy to 1B or Taylor to CF based on match-ups, slumps or whatever. 

 

The response I get back is usually... "Yeah but the Twins don't have Ian Happ, Javier Baez, Ben Zobrist, Kris Bryant, David Bote, Cody Bellinger, Chris Taylor, Austin Barnes or Kike Hernandez. 

 

My response to that would be... And we never will if we continue to be paralyzed by slight defensive differences and fail to adopt the concept. And I'd follow that response with... It is the off-season, this is the time to acquire players like this and if you can't acquire them because everybody wants them now... then you do like every business in America does when they can't find qualified applicants. They create their own.

 

2. Obviously not. The Dodgers and Cubs have been ahead of the curve for years, they have been acquiring and creating as many of these players as they can while everybody else stood still. They possess a tactical advantage over every other team as a result. The other teams have to catch up or become dinosaurs. 

 

Sometime I get a response saying, the Twins and Tigers have utility players. They really don't especially in comparison... they have one guy who didn't win a starting job and became that one designated guy... just like teams have been doing for decades... one utility guy who plays on Sundays. 

 

Adopting this concept is more important and will do more for the Twins than acquiring Harper or Machado.

 

Besides we can't acquire Harper because we have no place to put him with Kepler, Buxton and Rosario locking down the OF spots and un-moveable to a different position. 

 

 

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

If this team marches into the year with Austin and Cron on the roster, you can just about raise the white flag on the season.

[dxpavelka]

 

Pretty wild idea's. You may be able to sell me on 2 and 4.  IMHP Kepler doesn't have any value at 1st and May is already a failed starter, so I can't go along with 1 and 3.

May has 26 career starts and has started ONE game in the last 3 seasons.  MIGHT be a stretch to call him a failed starter. 

[Jim Hahn]

I'm going to ask two questions for everyone who reads this. I believe that if everyone truly thinks about the questions I'm about to ask, any concerns will float away but I ask that everyone truly thinks about both questions. (I apologize for answering the questions... which I will but please consider the questions anyway).

 

1. Why do Joe Maddon and Dave Roberts move players around? Additional question to this question (still the same question)... Why did the Brewers move Shaw to 2B and Why did the Indians move Ramirez to 2B and Kipnis to CF?

 

2. Did it hurt them?

 

Think about those questions.

 

Here are the answers.

 

1. It allows them to put the best possible lineup together every single day. Cody Bellinger is most likely better at one position or the other. The odds that he is exactly equal as a 1B or CF defensively is pretty low yet he plays both positions frequently and the reason is that it allows the team to move Muncy to 1B or Taylor to CF based on match-ups, slumps or whatever.

 

The response I get back is usually... "Yeah but the Twins don't have Ian Happ, Javier Baez, Ben Zobrist, Kris Bryant, David Bote, Cody Bellinger, Chris Taylor, Austin Barnes or Kike Hernandez.

 

My response to that would be... And we never will if we continue to be paralyzed by slight defensive differences and fail to adopt the concept. And I'd follow that response with... It is the off-season, this is the time to acquire players like this and if you can't acquire them because everybody wants them now... then you do like every business in America does when they can't find qualified applicants. They create their own.

 

2. Obviously not. The Dodgers and Cubs have been ahead of the curve for years, they have been acquiring and creating as many of these players as they can while everybody else stood still. They possess a tactical advantage over every other team as a result. The other teams have to catch up or become dinosaurs.

 

Sometime I get a response saying, the Twins and Tigers have utility players. They really don't especially in comparison... they have one guy who didn't win a starting job and became that one designated guy... just like teams have been doing for decades... one utility guy who plays on Sundays.

 

Adopting this concept is more important and will do more for the Twins than acquiring Harper or Machado.

 

Besides we can't acquire Harper because we have no place to put him with Kepler, Buxton and Rosario locking down the OF spots and un-moveable to a different position.

Number 2 isn't really true. Go back and look at lineup construction in the 50's and 60's. Harmon Killebrew played 3b, of, and 1b almost equally during the 1st half of his Twins career. He did it to help get the best possible bats into the lineups. The Twins did much the same with Tovar. Stengel did the same with the Yankees. He was famous for playing his catchers in left field. Ken Boyer was a gold glove, all star 3rd baseman who one year played over a hundred games in cf. He also played ss a lot.

 

 

Now, the question is why this practice died out. Some it may of been expansion. Not having an excess of good players you were trying to get into the lineup seemed to be part of it. The other part of it was having a bunch of players who hit but often didn't field very well didn't really help you win. That was the reason the Giants traded Cepeda rather than trying to continue to play him and McCovey at the same time.

 

I also think that teams feel that not having to platoon is better. They would rather have their depth at AAA rather than moving too many people around. The Dodgers are different maybe, or maybe they just have so much money that they can afford to have 2 former all star 2nd basemen sitting on the bench.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Jim Hahn

[Riverbrian]

 

Number 2 isn't really true. Go back and look at lineup construction in the 50's and 60's. Harmon Killebrew played 3b, of, and 1b almost equally during the 1st half of his Twins career. He did it to help get the best possible bats into the lineups. The Twins did much the same with Tovar. Stengel did the same with the Yankees. He was famous for playing his catchers in left field. Ken Boyer was a gold glove, all star 3rd baseman who one year played over a hundred games in cf. He also played ss a lot.


Now, the question is why this practice died out. Some it may of been expansion. Not having an excess of good players you were trying to get into the lineup seemed to be part of it. The other part of it was having a bunch of players who hit but often didn't field very well didn't really help you win. That was the reason the Giants traded Cepeda rather than trying to continue to play him and McCovey at the same time.

I also think that teams feel that not having to platoon is better. They would rather have their depth at AAA rather than moving too many people around. The Dodgers are different maybe, or maybe they just have so much money that they can afford to have 2 former all star 2nd basemen sitting on the bench.

 

Yep... And fast forward to today and we have controversy if someone should play a different position. 

 

Back then they had to... We didn't have the DH for Harmon to slide into. The Manager would look at his choices and say... Got Don Mincher or Rich Reese at 1B... Harmon go play 3B. 

 

Cesar Tovar became a utility player because he wasn't a starter in 1965 or 1966... had to play wherever the manager asked him to and he performed well so he became a plus. 

 

I also remember one of the best defensive 3B in history starting out as an OF for our Minnesota Twins. Mr. Nettles. 

 

Anyway... No DH plus double switches and that's why flexibility has become more of a necessity in the National League. However, it's still necessary in the AL. It just got misplaced over the decades because the game lost it's mind over specialization. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

Speaking of creative....anyone want to buy low on Kyle Seager?  

[Mike Sixel]

Speaking of creative....anyone want to buy low on Kyle Seager?

Yes. Once he's healthy again, he's a three or four win player.

 

Then trade Sano and Kepler and random pitcher for Thor and a low A prospect. Then sign mccutchen. But no idea who the Mariners would want.

[tvagle]

 

Yes. Once he's healthy again, he's a three or four win player.

Then trade Sano and Kepler and random pitcher for Thor and a low A prospect. Then sign mccutchen. But no idea who the Mariners would want.

 

All the M's trades are looking for the same player

and they are finding him with each deal

 

He's a little green but fits well in most teams plans

 

That player?  Mr. $100 Benjamin Franklin

[Mike Sixel]

All the M's trades are looking for the same player

and they are finding him with each deal

 

He's a little green but fits well in most teams plans

 

That player? Mr. $100 Benjamin Franklin

And near MLB ready players. Twins have plenty of both.

[tvagle]

 

Speaking of creative....anyone want to buy low on Kyle Seager?  

 

Only way I buy low on Seager is if they include Marco Gonzales in the deal

 

Would even take DeeGee-Cinco in a deal if it helps

 

As for what they are looking for other than taking their bad contracts

 

Garver (RH platoon with their other new catcher)

Reed (Gotta send money back to them)

Stewart/Gonsalves/Mejia (their pick)

 

for

 

Seager

Gonzales

Gordon, Dee

$21M 

 

This would be taking on $70M in salary from the M's

[Jim Hahn]

Yep... And fast forward to today and we have controversy if someone should play a different position. 

 

Back then they had to... We didn't have the DH for Harmon to slide into. The Manager would look at his choices and say... Got Don Mincher or Rich Reese at 1B... Harmon go play 3B. 

 

Cesar Tovar became a utility player because he wasn't a starter in 1965 or 1966... had to play wherever the manager asked him to and he performed well so he became a plus. 

 

I also remember one of the best defensive 3B in history starting out as an OF for our Minnesota Twins. Mr. Nettles. 

 

Anyway... No DH plus double switches and that's why flexibility has become more of a necessity in the National League. However, it's still necessary in the AL. It just got misplaced over the decades because the game lost it's mind over specialization.

 

It still happens in the American League. Look at what Gardenhire did with Cuddyer. After he became a right fielder, he played a bunch of games at 2nd. He was also switched to 1st a lot some years. He at times appeared at 2nd, 3rd or cf well after he was established as the regular rf. Teams do what they have to. The thing is that when Cuddyer was playing out of his regular position it was a sign of injuries or bad performances than any grand plan.

 

The Twins actually tried a bit of flexibility when they tried Sano in rf one year. We know how that worked. I am not against flexibility, with big bullpens and short benches it is a necessity. Too much flexibility, however,probably means something has gone wrong.

[nicksaviking]

 

Number 2 isn't really true. Go back and look at lineup construction in the 50's and 60's. Harmon Killebrew played 3b, of, and 1b almost equally during the 1st half of his Twins career. He did it to help get the best possible bats into the lineups. The Twins did much the same with Tovar. Stengel did the same with the Yankees. He was famous for playing his catchers in left field. Ken Boyer was a gold glove, all star 3rd baseman who one year played over a hundred games in cf. He also played ss a lot.


Now, the question is why this practice died out. Some it may of been expansion. Not having an excess of good players you were trying to get into the lineup seemed to be part of it. The other part of it was having a bunch of players who hit but often didn't field very well didn't really help you win. That was the reason the Giants traded Cepeda rather than trying to continue to play him and McCovey at the same time.

I also think that teams feel that not having to platoon is better. They would rather have their depth at AAA rather than moving too many people around. The Dodgers are different maybe, or maybe they just have so much money that they can afford to have 2 former all star 2nd basemen sitting on the bench.

 

Harmon was a unique case, he sure did move around a lot, so did Carew. I don't know that guys changed positions too greatly back in the day, but I'd say the advent of the DH caused a lot less need for flexibility. With the DH the team didn't need to scramble to plug someone into RF when Oliva's knee was acting up for a month because he had already been penciled into the DH role from the get go. So instead the more flexible player became the "utility" player and "utility" was just a fancy term for bench player. No one wants to be a bench player, everyone wants to be starting.

 

But I'd guess it's not a turn off to many players anymore, they'd have to see how playing multiple positions will increase their value in today's game. My guess is the only thing stopping most players from playing multiple positions (aside from physical limitations of course) is a manger who hasn't asked them to do so.

[Riverbrian]

 

It still happens in the American League. Look at what Gardenhire did with Cuddyer. After he became a right fielder, he played a bunch of games at 2nd. He was also switched to 1st a lot some years. He at times appeared at 2nd, 3rd or cf well after he was established as the regular rf. Teams do what they have to. The thing is that when Cuddyer was playing out of his regular position it was a sign of injuries or bad performances than any grand plan.

The Twins actually tried a bit of flexibility when they tried Sano in rf one year. We know how that worked. I am not against flexibility, with big bullpens and short benches it is a necessity. Too much flexibility, however,probably means something has gone wrong.

 

Exactly... Cuddyer was created out of necessity. The Twins didn't plan for it... it just had to happen due to circumstance. I'd rather they just plan for it. Seek these type of players out and if they can't find them... start creating them. 

 

The single utility guy on every roster has been around for decades. What the Dodgers and Cubs are doing right now is different and I've been sold on it since Friedman and Maddon started doing it in Tampa. 

 

Depth and Flexibility could have mitigated some of the disaster that happened last year with Buxton, Sano, Morrison, Dozier and the like.

 

2018 was the last year that i'm going to put up with horrible play getting rewarded with every day playing time. I have invested a lot of time in my Twins, every single summer and I'm just not going to invest that amount of time if Morrison type performance keeps getting shoved down my throat. Either the front office or manager has another option to try or I'm not going to try.

 

I've been studying the solution and I've come to the conclusion that the only way you can avoid 2018 is through depth and flexibility or everybody performing to expectation.  Everybody performing to expectation is such a rare thing... so rare that I've decided that depth and flexibility is the only reasonable approach.