Article: What's There to Say About Ehire?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Not true at all and the first step to flooding the market with capable talent is to simply stop thinking of "Starter" and "Bench" when constructing your roster. I am honestly surprised that I get a ton of push back on this. I'm simply asking for 25 guys who push each other for playing time and to give the playing time to the players who are playing better.

 

It's easy enough and should be easily agreed upon by everyone... Fill your entire roster with talent... who could possibly be against that but I get so much push back on it? I'm starting to realize it's because most people can't relate to anything but a "Starter" and "Bench" mentality because it's been all we've been looking at for decades and they can't let that mentality go long enough to realize that... WE REALLY DON"T NEED ANY PLAYERS that ONLY PLAY ON GETAWAY DAYS.

 

Teams actually create those type of players by only playing players that way. They are self created on purpose by the "Starter" "Bench" mentality and it ends up handicapping the team in the end and this creates the perceived shortage of talent across baseball but it is self created and all you have to do is stop thinking "Starter" "Bench" bench when constructing your roster. The Dodgers and Cubs don't do this and they are light years ahead of the rest of the baseball as a result.

 

The Mike Trout's... Those guys are going to play every day... Nobody is going to be able to push them for playing time because they are playing on another level than the majority of baseball players.

 

But... there are only a handful of those Trout guys and The TWINS haven't had any Trout guys. We can't afford those guys, we haven't traded for any of those guys and we haven't drafted/developed any of those guys but because we deploy our starting 9 every year like they are all Trout guys, it does two things.

 

1. It locks in a "Real" disparity between an actual Mike Trout type on the other team and the Trevor Plouffe guy that we play like he is Mike Trout on our team.

 

2. It shuts the door and makes it nearly impossible to find the next Mike Trout guy by pure accident or development because the Trevor Plouffe guy is played like Mike Trout and ends up hogging all of the playing/development/discovery time. They are not all born like Mike Trout, identified in the minors as the greatest ever and simply promoted to "God Like Status" like everyone expected. There are also the Justin Turner and JD Martinez types who were released by other teams and the Jose Ramirez types who were 20th ranked prospects who exploded once they got regular playing time and every year... we have less roster space to find these type of Trout guys because of the "Starter" "Bench" mentality. In the off-season, this unnecessary of locking into a "Mediocre Starter" like Plouffe and a "Fine because he doesn't have to play much" Adrianza killing two roster spots with the best expectation you can have is average is ultimately retarding the overall development of a functional complete roster of talent and prolonging the rebuild we are waiting on and results in the ping-pong seasons of good years and bad years that the majority of teams go through. The teams that are consistently in the playoffs don't buy it with money... they make the playoffs consistently because they have options to turn to in case it all goes wrong with a "designated starter". The Dodgers have the money to spend... they don't need to find Max Muncy or Kike Hernandez or Chris Taylor, they can just buy it but the Dodgers are finding these guys and playing them. It's the Twins who can't buy it and need to find Max Muncy or Kike Hernandez or Chris Taylor but they can't find it because they settle for Trevor Plouffe and "Fine as long as they don't play that much".

 

 

So you just perpetuate a broken cycle like we have been doing over and over again for decades. Just hoping the front office gets it right in the off-season. Pure finger crossing hope, that the front office through skill or dumb luck, got the right 9 guys identified, pure finger crossing hope that those 9 guys stay healthy and actually perform like they were projected. Because the other 3 or 4 players who round out the roster, are only "Fine" as long as "they don't play much" and offered contracts knowing that they are not as good as the pre-identified "9" guys who may end up on the 60 day DL.

 

Now, if the starting 9 works great we got a great season... if it doesn't (like 2016 and 2018) we get to hear excuses like "we really thought we would get more production out Sano, Buxton and Dozier: or... "We had this one year contract team chemistry issue" or insert the excuse du jour and the team just ping-pong balls up and down each year based on if those starting 9 do their job.

 

I'm sure the front office hates having to make excuses like that and all they have to do to stop having to make excuses like that... TREAT EACH ROSTER SPOT like you might need that player to contribute significantly.

 

 

We take all of our limited investment capital (playing time) and spend it on single stocks that have proven time and time again to be volatile and unpredictable, instead of diversifying in multiple stocks to increase the odds of a stock going through the roof while protecting yourself against the failure of the other stock.

 

Seriously, The closest guy we've had to one of those Trout guys was? Mauer 2009?

 

Guys who actually play like they should play every day instead of the guys we play every day but don't play well enough to play every day.

 

The majority of our "Starters" who play every day... are Trevor Plouffe types.

 

On the Twins and across baseball,. Trevor Plouffe and his ilk prevent teams from finding the Max Muncy types (even Astudillo, Cave types) every year because of the "starter" "back-up" mentality and the playing of Trevor Plouffe like he is Mike Trout.

 

This how off-seasons screw us over! Time and time again.

 

1. We have Trevor Plouffe.

2. 3B is therefore covered every single day.

3. No sense even thinking about someone else of at least equal or greater value to add to the roster.

4. Whatever Trevor Plouffe gives... is what we get. The Die is cast.

5. Now we must go find a player who isn't as good as Trevor Plouffe and call him a "back-up".

5. Give this back-up one of only 25 roster spots.

6. This player won't play much.

 

I'm saying that whenever anyone claims that Adrianza is "good enough" because "He won't play much", you are just perpetuating a mentality that has existed in baseball for decades "Starter" "Bench" and you have committed yourself to the painful fate of asking Trevor Plouffe to be Mike Trout or die because there is no remedy for Trevor Plouffe hitting .200.

 

It is the yearly declaration that nothing will happen to Polanco, Schoop or Sano so we can comfortably seek out lesser players to fill out the rest of the roster, while history shows time and time again that something will happen to at least one of Polanco, Schoop or Sano to blow the "He won't play much" part of the equation right out of the water and usually before May rolls around.

 

All the Twins have to do right now is go sign Asdrubal Cabrera or trade for Brandon Crawford or whoever. It doesn't have to be a Machado type (although Machado would be nice) but get a player who can compete with Polanco and Schoop, add him to the roster and then let the players inform the manager who should play more often by how THEY PLAY. I don't understand how anybody could be against this idea? Unless they really enjoy admonishing Logan Morrison for his crappy play and want to ensure that there is a Logan Morrison available to admonish.

 

Now, if the front office believes that Adrianza or Torreyes could be this Cabrera or Crawford type that can push and compete with Polanco and Schoop. Never mind... I'm cool. If the front office believes this, even if Adrianza or Torreyes fails to be Cabreara or Crawford-esque, I'll give the front office the benefit of my doubt and blessing.

 

But... I'll know. If we see Adrianza consistently sitting on the bench in 2019 watching Schoop hit .186 as an everyday player. I will know that the front office signed a lesser player on purpose and was blinded by the concept of "Starter" "Bench" like many are and couldn't figure out how to get out of it when it all went wrong. Whatever happens will be their fault and I will not listen to any excuses like "We really thought that Schoop would do better".

 

If the Manager doesn't want to play Gergorio Petit or a Motter like talent. Right now is when that decision is being made.

 

Rosters are built in the off-season! The shopping is done and the supply is exhausted in the off-season. Once the season starts... the choices become extremely limited... like Motter type limited.

 

Right Now... STAFF THE 25 Man to the hilt. All you have to do is get rid of the "Starter" "Bench" Mentality and get to work and then make the players compete for every roster spot.

 

No more Logan Morrison walking past the lineup card and knowing he is on the lineup card despite producing at a "should be selling cars" level because we got Gregorio Petit and Taylor Motter challenging him.

 

This is why I've been a broken record on this... People can't get past "Starter" "Bench". This isn't my flexibility diatribe... Flexibility is a by-product of having too much talent on your roster and the necessity of finding playing time for that too much talent.

 

You got to get the talent first for every precious roster spot.

 

This simple change in mindset is guaranteed (By ME) to speed up the rebuild tenfold.

I think the market for Marwin Gonzalez could be a barometer to the league following suit with the Dodgers. The play every day utility guy could have more value to the market than the only Twins player (coming off a down year) not named Killebrew to have a 40 homer season.

 

Maybe Cron, Schoop, and Austin are money ball type signings; while Ehire and Big Toe are ways to keep flexibility without breaking the bank on a play every day guy flexible guy.

 

I’d prefer a whole team full of positionally flexible every day hitting types, but that player is en vogue. If your model is As and Rays, and not Dodgers, market inefficiencies are where you live. It probably makes the margins of the roster that much more important, just gotta get more creative finding the next MGs.

Edited December 26, 2018 by Sconnie

[Riverbrian]

 

I think the market for Marwin Gonzalez could be a barometer to the league following suit with the Dodgers. The play every day utility guy could have more value to the market than the only Twins player (coming off a down year) not named Killebrew to have a 40 homer season.

Maybe Cron, Schoop, and Austin are money ball type signings; while Ehire and Big Toe are ways to keep flexibility without breaking the bank on a play every day guy flexible guy.

I’d prefer a whole team full of positionally flexible every day hitting types, but that player is en vogue. If your model is As and Rays, and not Dodgers, market inefficiencies are where you live. It probably makes the margins of the roster that much more important, just gotta get more creative finding the next MGs.

 

The concepts employed by the Dodgers and Cubs are even more necessary for the A's and Rays because the A's and Rays can't play in the same financial sandbox. The Dodgers can not only buy it... but they can also develop it cheaply and it makes them bullet proof. 

 

I contend that if you can't afford to buy the Marwin's anymore because now everybody wants one... Then you have to build your own. Can Schoop play SS or 3B? Can Austin play OF? Can Rosario play 2B or 3B? Can Kepler play 1B? I don't know... but if they can... Why wouldn't you let them... it increases their value for them and for the organization because they are now valued. 

 

Marwin Gonzalez is going to be an excellent barometer of what you are talking about. 

 

However... another barometer is already hanging on the garage wall and waiting for some actual baseball barometric pressure... I've been patiently waiting for Brian Dozier to sign so I can directly compare the contract he got with Eduardo Escobar's contract. (I wish Escobar would have waited and played out the market for a true weather check). 

 

Granted Dozier is a little older but I believe it is possible that Escobar will get the better contract because of this shift in sensibility.

 

It has been contended by me, that supply and demand can trump actual historical production.

 

I contend that demand for Escobar or Marwin increases by making them options for any team needing a 3B, SS or 2B instead of one single position (plus OF and 1B in the case of Marwin) while supply is still light for a player who can play all those positions.They will be in play for more teams with different needs and so value increases. 

 

I also contend because Dozier can only fill a hole at 2B where supply is over running the market...  his contract will disappoint him and the year he had in 2019 isn't the main reason why. 

 

Look at how difficult is was to trade him the year before. Talented 2B all over the place so nobody needed to pay a high price for him. We lose a Dozier... we stumble across a Schoop who was released by the Brewers because they know they can just throw Shaw over there. When we finally dealt Dozier off... we got it take Forsythe back just to get a Raley. 2B are all over the place and the trade becomes about moving money to get a prospect. 

 

The Twins organization needs to realize immediately that playing a 2nd position... increases the value of that player because of the simple laws of supply and demand. The Twins organization needs to realize immediately that locking Brian Dozier into 2B and Trevor Plouffe into 3B didn't help them win games and it cost them value for trade possibilities and it cost Dozier a lot of money and it cost Plouffe a career. 

 

If players don't grow in value... you have nothing of decent value to trade and average value to compete with after you can't trade them for anything of value and this is the sharp object that the Twins have been stabbing themselves in the head with for over a decade now and I contend this is why we have been waiting and screaming for the rebuild to be done.

 

It should be obvious to anyone that once a team is out of contention that moving expiring contracts for Farm depth is necessary or the club is standing still... We seem to have a front office moving that direction. 

 

It should also be obvious that once a team is out of contention that not playing Austin in the OF is also a form of standing still.

 

Playing Austin in the OF will increase his value to not only the Twins but other teams that may want to give up something for him. Increasing value is GOOD.  Locking them into a position where they are just going to get run over by a train is NOT GOOD. 

 

I also contend that another barometer of the changing weather should be clear to all by the General Manager and Manager candidates who interviewed for the open jobs.  A Cub or Dodger or Ray were either hired or interviewed for every open position. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

The concepts employed by the Dodgers and Cubs are even more necessary for the A's and Rays because the A's and Rays can't play in the same financial sandbox. The Dodgers can not only buy it... but they can also develop it cheaply and it makes them bullet proof.

 

I contend that if you can't afford to buy the Marwin's anymore because now everybody wants one... Then you have to build your own. Can Schoop play SS or 3B? Can Austin play OF? Can Rosario play 2B or 3B? Can Kepler play 1B? I don't know... but if they can... Why wouldn't you let them... it increases their value for them and for the organization because they are now valued.

 

Marwin Gonzalez is going to be an excellent barometer of what you are talking about.

 

However... another barometer is already hanging on the garage wall and waiting for some actual baseball barometric pressure... I've been patiently waiting for Brian Dozier to sign so I can directly compare the contract he got with Eduardo Escobar's contract. (I wish Escobar would have waited and played out the market for a true weather check).

 

Granted Dozier is a little older but I believe it is possible that Escobar will get the better contract because of this shift in sensibility.

 

It has been contended by me, that supply and demand can trump actual historical production.

 

I contend that demand for Escobar or Marwin increases by making them options for any team needing a 3B, SS or 2B instead of one single position (plus OF and 1B in the case of Marwin) while supply is still light for a player who can play all those positions.They will be in play for more teams with different needs and so value increases.

 

I also contend because Dozier can only fill a hole at 2B where supply is over running the market... his contract will disappoint him and the year he had in 2019 isn't the main reason why.

 

Look at how difficult is was to trade him the year before. Talented 2B all over the place so nobody needed to pay a high price for him. We lose a Dozier... we stumble across a Schoop who was released by the Brewers because they know they can just throw Shaw over there. By the time we deal him off... we got it take Forsythe back just to get a Raley.

 

The Twins organization needs to realize immediately that playing a 2nd position... increases the value of that player because of the simple laws of supply and demand. The Twins organization needs to realize immediately that locking Brian Dozier into 2B and Trevor Plouffe into 3B didn't help them win games and it cost them value for trade possibilities and it cost Dozier a lot of money and it cost Plouffe a career.

 

If players don't grow in value... you have nothing of decent value to trade and average value to compete with after you can't trade them for anything of value and this is the sharp object that the Twins have been stabbing themselves in the head with... for over a decade now and I contend this is why we have been waiting and screaming waiting for the rebuild to be done.

 

It should be obvious to anyone that once a team is out of contention that moving expiring contracts for Farm depth is necessary or the club is standing still... We seem to have a front office moving that direction.

 

It should also be obvious that once a team is out of contention that not playing Austin in the OF is also a form of standing still.

 

Playing Austin in the OF will increase his value to not only the Twins but other teams that may want to give up something for him. Increasing value is GOOD. Locking them into a position where they are just going to get run over by a train is NOT GOOD.

 

I also contend that another barometer of the changing weather should be clear to all by the General Manager and Manager candidates who interviewed for the open jobs. A Cub or Dodger or Ray were either hired or interviewed for every open position.

the opener was tested in the minors last year before being deployed in the bigs, would we see the same with the proposed shift in position player utilization, or would it start in MLB ST?

[Riverbrian]

 

the opener was tested in the minors last year before being deployed in the bigs, would we see the same with the proposed shift in position player utilization, or would it start in MLB ST?

 

I believe they are going to run into walls before breaking through. The analytics are probably telling the new GM types some things that very few want to hear. 

 

There will be resistance because the traditional model is burned into the fabric of the game in the form of compensation, coaching, scouting, you name it.  

 

Everybody should have been testing the opener and bullpenning in the minors but not everyone did. 

 

Everybody should be trying to build their own Andrew Miller or Josh Hader but not everyone is. 

 

Everybody should be watching the Dodgers and Cubs but not everyone is. 

 

Nobody should throw away a players positional flexibility for consistency at one position but nearly everyone is. 

 

Working in Baseball or Working at Starbucks. Everybody resists change. 

[DocBauer]

Brian, the one are I might argue with you on probably comes down to just semantics. If we don't like "starter" vs "bench", then how about "starter" vs "reserve"? But it really is just semantics. A player doesn't have to be Trout to be an every day player. For instance, a healthy Rosario will play almost daily. As would a healthy Sano, Buxton, etc. Some guys are just better and will play almost daily. But really, we're just talking semantics, and building a roster should be way beyond that kind of thinking, and we're on the same page there.

 

Tom Kelly, IMO, was ahead of his time, even though it was a different era. Randy Bush played a lot at DH, but he also played 1B and both OF corners. My goodness, Denny Hocking played 7 positions, including 1B once in a while!

 

You still need, and hopefully have, "primary" players you can count on for a daily basis. But over the years, just as a fan, when I write out rosters on a piece of paper or napkin, I've always looked at the best 13 players I could come up with.

 

Let's look again at our current roster and possible additions. What if the Twins add a veteran bat? I'd be ecstatic if Cruz was brought on board for 2 years, though it might cause us to lose Austin. But the lineup could be impacted for 2 years, and have a positive influence on the young players around him. Presumably, Khirilloff and Rooker and others would be ready within that next 2 years. Don't like That? How about Lowrie to still provide a veteran bat and play 2B and 3B?

 

I know you agree with this, but no matter how good of a defensive OF Kepler may be, why can't he play 1B against tough RHP and let Cave play the OF? For that matter, why can't Cave just TRY 1B in ST to see if he could play there? Why can't the talented Rosario at least TRY to play some 2B, which he did in the minors, or 3B, which he did one game in 2018 and made a great play, just to see if he's an option there, at least in emergencies.

 

Lowrie or not, unless I've just missed a bunch of signings somewhere, there are a number of guys out there still available to compete with Adrianza, who I actually like, and Astudillo, who I love, to play a role and fill in here and there.

 

In the next 2 years, the Twins could easily have Rosario, Buxton, Kepler, Cave, Khirilloff and Rooker all available for OF/DH/1B, not to mention a guy like Wade and maybe another option or two. Yes, you could also trade from depth/strength, but can't you also find room on a rotational basis to play most of those guys daily?

 

Your viewpoint is one I echo. Build the best and deepest team you can and let the manager figure out how to use them. Does anyone feel sorry for Vikings coach Zimmer for having a DL so deep he can rotate up to 8 guys in to the game, with a couple reserves on the PS or IR who might compete next season?

 

There needs to be an evaluation and re-evaluation of how to build your 13 man player roster. One way to be forward thinking and cutting edge, like our new FO is supposed to be, is making the moves to make that 13 man group as deep as it can be. Go ahead and sign Cruz, as an example, and add that big bat to produce and show some of the kids how it's done. But then go sign someone like Solarte, just as an example, who could fill in almost anywhere with a solid bat.

 

With all due respect to Trout, or Machado, or Harper, they still come to the plate 4 or 5 times a game. They can't produce a winning lineup on their own. It has always frustrated me, and intrigued me, that the best way to win is by putting the best 9 man lineup together you could on any given day.

 

There is nothing wrong with having star players! They make a difference. But Kirby Puckett never single handedly won a WS. When you think about TK's best teams, or Gardenhire's, there were guys who set the table, power guys, a couple solid hitter and good contact guys, and a couple guys at the bottom of the order who could still help and produce. TK teams were always excellent PH teams. And it wasn't always because a guy had a knack for it. He stated, more than once I'm sure, that he believed guys should play often to stay sharp. That it would be foolish for a guy who hadn't played in a week to come up with a big hit.

 

Forgive my terminology, but screw me having a couple 40HR guys in the heart of my lineup if there is nobody getting OB before them or any decent hitters behind them. Give me a mix of hitting, power, OB, LH/RH/switch hitting 1-9 and I'll run with that all day long.

 

What intrigues me and frustrates me is the Twins are so damn close to having that! YES, we have a collection of 25yo's that we are waiting on with baited breath to at least come close to their potential! But even if the magic 8 ball could tell us that will begin to happen in 2019, guys get dinged. Guys slump. Guys just need a day off. Why wouldn't you just bring in a couple smart acquisitions to compensate for that?

Edited December 27, 2018 by DocBauer

[DocBauer]

I think the market for Marwin Gonzalez could be a barometer to the league following suit with the Dodgers. The play every day utility guy could have more value to the market than the only Twins player (coming off a down year) not named Killebrew to have a 40 homer season.

Maybe Cron, Schoop, and Austin are money ball type signings; while Ehire and Big Toe are ways to keep flexibility without breaking the bank on a play every day guy flexible guy.

I’d prefer a whole team full of positionally flexible every day hitting types, but that player is en vogue. If your model is As and Rays, and not Dodgers, market inefficiencies are where you live. It probably makes the margins of the roster that much more important, just gotta get more creative finding the next MGs.

Just wanted to expand on this a bit.

 

100% with you on flexibility and always believed in that. As I just rambled about in my previous post, LOL. Gonzalez should be a great "get" for any team. I'm actually surprised he hasn't been snatched up yet. Danny Santana was supposed to be that guy for the Twins. It didn't work out. Honestly, he is one of the biggest bummer of a Twins prospect I have seen the past few years. I really felt the Twins blew it by not keeping Goodrum. Maybe he just saw a better chance in Detroit. And he's not a star players but wouldn't he have been a nice part for the 2018 team?

 

There is nothing wrong with Adrianza for this club, the original topic, LOL. He has done nothing to prove he is deserving of a "starter" spot. But he has shown that used on a regular basis...nkt lingering on the bench...that he can hit some, provide occasional pop, and play solid defense at multiple positions. I think he is just fine as my 13th man. But between OF, INF, C,there is room for one more addition. Marwin would be perfect! But if not him, there are still some very interesting options out there as a secondary choice. I honestly believe Astudillo is the real deal. He is just one of those guys who doesn't "fit" the description or archetype of what most feel he should be, or what most think they are looking for. The Twins got lucky. And even they almost blew it until finally figuring out late in the year. But would I just bank on him or the solid Adrianza? Absolutely not! I'd still be looking for another solid bat, versatile player to compete and challenge. And they are out there, even if you don't comit to Gonzalez.

[Riverbrian]

 

Brian, the one are I might argue with you on probably comes down to just semantics. If we don't like "starter" vs "bench", then how about "starter" vs "reserve"? But it really is just semantics. A player doesn't have to be Trout to be an every day player. For instance, a healthy Rosario will play almost daily. As would a healthy Sano, Buxton, etc. Some guys are just better and will play almost daily. But really, we're just talking semantics, and building a roster should be way beyond that kind of thinking, and we're on the same page there.

Tom Kelly, IMO, was ahead of his time, even though it was a different era. Randy Bush played a lot at DH, but he also played 1B and both OF corners. My goodness, Denny Hocking played 7 positions, including 1B once in a while!

You still need, and hopefully have, "primary" players you can count on for a daily basis. But over the years, just as a fan, when I write out rosters on a piece of paper or napkin, I've always looked at the best 13 players I could come up with.

Let's look again at our current roster and possible additions. What if the Twins add a veteran bat? I'd be ecstatic if Cruz was brought on board for 2 years, though it might cause us to lose Austin. But the lineup could be impacted for 2 years, and have a positive influence on the young players around him. Presumably, Khirilloff and Rooker and others would be ready within that next 2 years. Don't like That? How about Lowrie to still provide a veteran bat and play 2B and 3B?

I know you agree with this, but no matter how good of a defensive OF Kepler may be, why can't he play 1B against tough RHP and let Cave play the OF? For that matter, why can't Cave just TRY 1B in ST to see if he could play there? Why can't the talented Rosario at least TRY to play some 2B, which he did in the minors, or 3B, which he did one game in 2018 and made a great play, just to see if he's an option there, at least in emergencies.

Lowrie or not, unless I've just missed a bunch of signings somewhere, there are a number of guys out there still available to compete with Adrianza, who I actually like, and Astudillo, who I love, to play a role and fill in here and there.

In the next 2 years, the Twins could easily have Rosario, Buxton, Kepler, Cave, Khirilloff and Rooker all available for OF/DH/1B, not to mention a guy like Wade and maybe another option or two. Yes, you could also trade from depth/strength, but can't you also find room on a rotational basis to play most of those guys daily?

Your viewpoint is one I echo. Build the best and deepest team you can and let the manager figure out how to use them. Does anyone feel sorry for Vikings coach Zimmer for having a DL so deep he can rotate up to 8 guys in to the game, with a couple reserves on the PS or IR who might compete next season?

There needs to be an evaluation and re-evaluation of how to build your 13 man player roster. One way to be forward thinking and cutting edge, like our new FO is supposed to be, is making the moves to make that 13 man group as deep as it can be. Go ahead and sign Cruz, as an example, and add that big bat to produce and show some of the kids how it's done. But then go sign someone like Solarte, just as an example, who could fill in almost anywhere with a solid bat.

With all due respect to Trout, or Machado, or Harper, they still come to the plate 4 or 5 times a game. They can't produce a winning lineup on their own. It has always frustrated me, and intrigued me, that the best way to win is by putting the best 9 man lineup together you could on any given day.

There is nothing wrong with having star players! They make a difference. But Kirby Puckett never single handedly won a WS. When you think about TK's best teams, or Gardenhire's, there were guys who set the table, power guys, a couple solid hitter and good contact guys, and a couple guys at the bottom of the order who could still help and produce. TK teams were always excellent PH teams. And it wasn't always because a guy had a knack for it. He stated, more than once I'm sure, that he believed guys should play often to stay sharp. That it would be foolish for a guy who hadn't played in a week to come up with a big hit.

Forgive my terminology, but screw me having a couple 40HR guys in the heart of my lineup if there is nobody getting OB before them or any decent hitters behind them. Give me a mix of hitting, power, OB, LH/RH/switch hitting 1-9 and I'll run with that all day long.

What intrigues me and frustrates me is the Twins are so damn close to having that! YES, we have a collection of 25yo's that we are waiting on with baited breath to at least come close to their potential! But even if the magic 8 ball could tell us that will begin to happen in 2019, guys get dinged. Guys slump. Guys just need a day off. Why wouldn't you just bring in a couple smart acquisitions to compensate for that?

 

It probably is semantics.

 

You will end up with Starters and a Bench based on play but the front office shouldn't be staffing the roster (in the off-season) saying this guy is a starter... now let's go get some bench guys because you'll end up with Morrison playing every day while LaMarre wastes a precious roster spot. 

 

I also understand that not everybody plays like Trout and I understand that Rosario is probably going to play every day... but what do you do... if Rosario is hitting. 180 in June. Does he still play every day? 

 

If the front office believes that Adrianza can compete with Polanco and Schoop for playing time, be an adequate replacement for either of them... Then I fully support the front office and their belief in Adrianza. 

 

If the front office signed Adrianza because he will only play X amount of games and he is good enough for that amount only. They have already blown it. 

 

If the front office didn't try to trade for Profar because they thought Adrianza is better... I fully support the front office. 

 

If the front office didn't try to trade for Profar because they have Schoop and Polanco with Adrianza to play X amount of games and the manager could never figure out what to do with Schoop, Polanco and Profar on the same roster. They have already blown it. 

 

I don't know the answer to how the front office feels but I will know after context is formed around Adrianza and watching how he is deployed. 

 

You mention a "13 man playing roster". I think you and I need to be ready for "12". 

 

I'm pretty sure that the front office is looking at analytics that make some pretty strong suggestions that fly in the face of past baseball standard pitching usage. I'm willing to bet, they have data that suggests that starters shouldn't go as long as they do for both Health and Performance reasons... I.E. Increased injury risk correlation with increased innings, numbers getting progressively worse each time through the order.

 

These things will point to 13 pitchers on the roster.  

 

 

You mention Danny Santana in another post. Danny Santana is an example of so many things. 

 

Danny Santana was never really utility. Danny Santana was consistently one or the other, static at either SS or CF.

 

Came up as a SS in 2014, Promptly moved to CF out of necessity because Aaron Hicks crashed and burned without a safety net. Enter Santana as the emergency parachute CF. 

 

He performs well and they name him the staring SS in 2015 and he performs horribly, In 2016... He back to the OF still performing bad. 

 

Santana is a primary example of how most teams specialize. Starters don't play different positions... Starters start at the same position... period. 

 

Santana is also a reason no one should be confident that Cave or Astudillo will repeat or improve their performance in 2019.  

 

Santana is an example of forcing a move in the middle of the season by getting caught with your pants down instead of planning for a move, getting a belt to hold your pants up.  

 

 

[USNMCPO]

Damn, I am enjoying this thread. Great conversations guys!

[DocBauer]

I should have been more clear when I mentioned Danny Santana. While it's true they concentrated him, primarily, at a single position, I was attempting to use him as an example of a guy who they should have, could have, developed as a multi-position player. As you once stated, Brian, if you aren't going to sign them, you should be developing them.