Article: Tyler Austin Traded to San Francisco

[Brock Beauchamp]

Everybody here realizes that Kirilloff doesn't have to only play first or OF, right? Given the makeup of this team and how the front office seems to value flexibility, he could easily slot into a transitional role in 2020, playing first a few times a week, the OF a few times a week, and maybe DH occasionally if he's hitting.

 

Besides... it feels like I say this a thousand times a season but:

 

These things have a way of just working themselves out. I'm not going to put much thought into where a AA hitter with a wrist injury might fit into this roster whenever he gets here, which might not even be until the middle of 2020.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Everybody here realizes that Kirilloff doesn't have to only play first or OF, right? Given the makeup of this team and how the front office seems to value flexibility, he could easily slot into a transitional role in 2020, playing first a few times a week, the OF a few times a week, and maybe DH occasionally if he's hitting.

 

Besides... it feels like I say this a thousand times a season but:

 

These things have a way of just working themselves out. I'm not going to put much thought into where a AA hitter with a wrist injury might fit into this roster whenever he gets here, which might not even be until the middle of 2020.

 

Kiriloff comes up because I listed about 6-10 players that are younger than Austin ..... one of which will end up at 1B over time. For me, this isn't about him specifically, but the talent in the system, reminding us that bat only 1B are not hard to find/replace.....

 

But, I do think Kiriloff has a good chance to outhit Austin as soon as he's up. Hopefully later this year, but I'm guessing next.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Kiriloff comes up because I listed about 6-10 players that are younger than Austin ..... one of which will end up at 1B over time. For me, this isn't about him specifically, but the talent in the system, reminding us that bat only 1B are not hard to find/replace.....

 

But, I do think Kiriloff has a good chance to outhit Austin as soon as he's up. Hopefully later this year, but I'm guessing next.

Fair enough. There are a slew of guys in the upper minors who will be entering the conversation soon. But, as with most prospect discussions of this kind, enough will likely flame out that the logjam will disappear in a hurry.

[Jim Hahn]

Uh, no, I'm never trading Kiriloff. I meant I'd trade Rosario or Kepler to open a spot for him.

Ok, and that might happen. But Brock is right. He could easily break in moving around from outfield to 1b to DH. Eventually somebody likely gets traded. Just who doesn't have to be decided now. It would be better to decide that when you actually have too many players for not enough positions.

[Dman]

 

And trading is the path I'd take, every single time.
Even if Kiriloff's bat plays at 1B, it plays even better in RF. I just don't think a team on a budget can afford to throw away that difference in value between Kiriloff at RF, and Kiriloff at 1B or DH.

 

When you have a surplus of talent at one position and a weakness at another I agree pretty much every GM is going to trade that surplus talent for talent that can potentially make the team better as a whole right now.  So I agree with you on that.

 

While I think most GM's would agree with your thoughts on position player value ( i.e. right fielder more valuable than 1st base)  it seems short sighted to me in some ways. Let's say for the sake of argument we believe that our weakness is 1st base and we have a player who plays in the outfield but his bat and defense will play at 1st base.  Why wouldn't we use them there if he makes the team stronger as a whole? Even though that player has more value in right or left field they still provide more value at your current weak 1st base position.  I just think there are more ways to think about a players positional value when they have the flexibility to play multiple roles.  They can still make your team stronger even if they aren't maximizing their skill set at their strongest position.

 

While I understand your position and it makes sense to me I just think that being more flexible about defining player value can be valuable as well.

[Doomtints]

 

Uh, no, I'm never trading Kiriloff. I meant I'd trade Rosario or Kepler to open a spot for him.

 

Buxton put up similar numbers at the levels Kiriloff has played at so far.  We all remember the Buxton hype, too.

 

I don't think it's smart to trade anybody to get someone like him on the roster. It takes some players years to perform in the MLB. Let him ease in to the role.

 

Heck, this is a moot point anyway. Either Kepler or Rosario will probably be gone anyway by the time Kiriloff comes up.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Doomtints

[Riverbrian]

 

 

 

While I think most GM's would agree with your thoughts on position player value ( i.e. right fielder more valuable than 1st base)  it seems short sighted to me in some ways. Let's say for the sake of argument we believe that our weakness is 1st base and we have a player who plays in the outfield but his bat and defense will play at 1st base.  Why wouldn't we use them there if he makes the team stronger as a whole? Even though that player has more value in right or left field they still provide more value at your current weak 1st base position.  I just think there are more ways to think about a players positional value when they have the flexibility to play multiple roles.  They can still make your team stronger even if they aren't maximizing their skill set at their strongest position.

 

 

 

My personal opinion (I know nothing about his defensive ability)... I believe that Kiriloff should playing both OF and 1B in Pensecola right now and do the same in Rochester if he moves up a level. 

 

Here's Why: We don't know what our needs will be when it's time to make that phone call. 

 

For example:

Let's assume that Kiriloff is what is being reported by some "The 2nd Best hitter in the minor leagues behind Vlad Jr".

Let's assume that Kiriloff rakes down in the minor leagues like Vlad Jr did last year. 

Let's assume the Twins are in playoff contention come July and August. 

 

What we don't know on April 12th, 2019 is this: Will Kepler, Rosario, Buxton or Cron be healthy in July and August or even September?

 

Will Kepler, Rosario, Buxton or Cron be performing at a major league level in July, August or even September? 

 

We also don't know is who will be available to acquire in a trade come July? And August? 

 

In short... it is nearly impossible to anticipate and plan for our future needs until the future arrives.  

 

Choosing a position for Kiriloff on April 12th and locking him into that position may work out by luck however... it also contains a probability that it will force a clumsy move to a position that he hasn't been playing at the major league level to get his bat into the lineup. Making that clumsy move at the major league level while the team is in contention for a playoff spot could be labeled as simple lack of foresight and easily planned for on April 12th by playing Kiriloff at both 1B and OF in the minors until it's time to make that phone call based upon who get hurt or who is playing terrible and who we could possibly acquire.  

 

Just to prepare for the possibility that his special bat can help us during a playoff chase. Play him at both 1B and OF. 

 

 

[Mr. Brooks]

It would be better to decide that when you actually have too many players for not enough positions.

That's my entire argument against dumping Austin right now.

[Mr. Brooks]

When you have a surplus of talent at one position and a weakness at another I agree pretty much every GM is going to trade that surplus talent for talent that can potentially make the team better as a whole right now. So I agree with you on that.

 

While I think most GM's would agree with your thoughts on position player value ( i.e. right fielder more valuable than 1st base) it seems short sighted to me in some ways. Let's say for the sake of argument we believe that our weakness is 1st base and we have a player who plays in the outfield but his bat and defense will play at 1st base. Why wouldn't we use them there if he makes the team stronger as a whole? Even though that player has more value in right or left field they still provide more value at your current weak 1st base position. I just think there are more ways to think about a players positional value when they have the flexibility to play multiple roles. They can still make your team stronger even if they aren't maximizing their skill set at their strongest position.

 

While I understand your position and it makes sense to me I just think that being more flexible about defining player value can be valuable as well.

Sure, I'm not saying it's possible to play 162 games with every player maximized perfectly.

 

For me though, my plan would be that Kiriloff is an outfielder, and if circumstances dictate that I MUST play him at 1B to get him in the lineup, then I will.

I won't plan for Kiriloff (one example, could be Raley,etc) to be a 1B though. When Mike says dump Austin because Kiriloff can play 1B, that to me is planning for Kiriloff to play 1B.

 

It's the same argument I have for Astudillo and Garver. I'd rather have them at 1B or DH than on the bench, but I'd really rather have them at 3B or C, where their bat actually gives you an edge over the league.

[Mike Sixel]

Sure, I'm not saying it's possible to play 162 games with every player maximized perfectly.

 

For me though, my plan would be that Kiriloff is an outfielder, and if circumstances dictate that I MUST play him at 1B to get him in the lineup, then I will.

I won't plan for Kiriloff (one example, could be Raley,etc) to be a 1B though. When Mike says dump Austin because Kiriloff can play 1B, that to me is planning for Kiriloff to play 1B.

 

It's the same argument I have for Astudillo and Garver. I'd rather have them at 1B or DH than on the bench, but I'd really rather have them at 3B or C, where their bat actually gives you an edge over the league.

Where did I say that, ever? I never did. I said once they signed Cron and Cruz, the writing was on the wall. I also said at the time, I'd have rolled with Austin, and used the money on pitching.

[Dman]

 

Sure, I'm not saying it's possible to play 162 games with every player maximized perfectly.

For me though, my plan would be that Kiriloff is an outfielder, and if circumstances dictate that I MUST play him at 1B to get him in the lineup, then I will.
I won't plan for Kiriloff (one example, could be Raley,etc) to be a 1B though. When Mike says dump Austin because Kiriloff can play 1B, that to me is planning for Kiriloff to play 1B.

It's the same argument I have for Astudillo and Garver. I'd rather have them at 1B or DH than on the bench, but I'd really rather have them at 3B or C, where their bat actually gives you an edge over the league.

 

Yeah we pretty much agree then.  I want to maximize value as much as possible as well but will sacrifice where it makes sense.  

 

I hope Austin decreases his K rate and does well.  Maybe he will prove me wrong but at the same time I think we will be just fine without him.

[Mr. Brooks]

Where did I say that, ever? I never did. I said once they signed Cron and Cruz, the writing was on the wall. I also said at the time, I'd have rolled with Austin, and used the money on pitching.

You keep listing outfielders and catchers as reasons they don't need Austin. That's literally planning for his replacement with an outfielder.

[Mr. Brooks]

Yeah we pretty much agree then. I want to maximize value as much as possible as well but will sacrifice where it makes sense.

 

I hope Austin decreases his K rate and does well. Maybe he will prove me wrong but at the same time I think we will be just fine without him.

We most likely will be fine without him.

I just don't like dumping assets until/unless you absolutely have to.

The FO and many posters obviously disagree with me, either by thinking he's not an asset, or that they had no other choice. I don't agree on either count. I think he is an asset, one that could have either given value or netted a real return later. And I think they could have found a way to keep him.

Those are just my opinions though. Doesn't mean they are right, and ultimately, of course, the FO's opinion trumps mine.

[Dman]

 

We most likely will be fine without him.
I just don't like dumping assets until/unless you absolutely have to.
The FO and many posters obviously disagree with me, either by thinking he's not an asset, or that they had no other choice. I don't agree on either count. I think he is an asset, one that could have either given value or netted a real return later. And I think they could have found a way to keep him.
Those are just my opinions though. Doesn't mean they are right, and ultimately, of course, the FO's opinion trumps mine

 

I think a lot of us were hoping they would hang onto Austin longer but I am not sure I ever felt he would be a long term fit for this team.  I agree there was a decent chance for his value to increase if we kept him longer and I think the Giants got themselves a deal.  If he does make progress they might be able to flip him for something decent or hang onto him and have a nice power hitter on the cheap for a while.  IMO I think he makes it but I question how good he will be based on K rate.  I mean he just needs to hit around 250 or 260 with his slugging that will be a good deal for the team he is on.  He is close to that right now but pitchers will adjust and can he adjust back I just don't have the confidence he will.  

 

If 30% to 35% of your outs are automatic (i.e. K's) and the BABIP average is 300 you are losing 30 to 40 points of batting average to the average hitter and the average hitter has trouble hitting 300 because they likely have a 10 to 15% K rate or higher.  So if Austin does manage to hit the BABIP average of 300 the best his batting average can be is something like .240 and it will most likely be less than that if continues to strike out at those rates.  He has to bring that down to put more balls in play so that he can bring up his average and OPS and create more value.  I hope he does and like you said we only have a small sample size.  He hasn't been given much time to adjust but looking back at his MiLB numbers he looks kind of like the same strike out prone player to me.  Palka made it why not Austin?  I just question how good either of them will be in the end.

[Mike Sixel]

You keep listing outfielders and catchers as reasons they don't need Austin. That's literally planning for his replacement with an outfielder.

At some point next year, one of those guys will be ready, if they don't re-sign Cron and Cruz, yes. In the context of this team, they can't afford Austin and those two. I'm sure they look at the minors and feel someone can take his place. But they aren't cutting Austin because of any one of them, they are cutting Austin because of Cron and Cruz.

[Mr. Brooks]

At some point next year, one of those guys will be ready, if they don't re-sign Cron and Cruz, yes. In the context of this team, they can't afford Austin and those two. I'm sure they look at the minors and feel someone can take his place. But they aren't cutting Austin because of any one of them, they are cutting Austin because of Cron and Cruz.

And my concern is that Cron gets injured (or ineffective) before one of those guys is ready. Now who plays 1B? Someone whose bat doesn't really play there. Which is interesting considering how you felt about Mauer's bat playing there.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Mr. Brooks

[Mike Sixel]

And my concern is that Cron gets injured (or ineffective) before one of those guys is ready. Now who plays 1B? Someone whose bat doesn't really play there. Which is interesting considering how you felt about Mauer's bat playing there.

I worry about the starters first. IMO, no team can carry three DH / 1B types on a 25 man roster. You can't live in fear of injury to the detriment of the people that will actually play.

 

So, sure, if Garver and Astudillo and Cron all get hurt, that would weaken the position. But you can't carry a guy that never plays just in case three guys so get hurt. IMO.

[Mr. Brooks]

I worry about the starters first. IMO, no team can carry three DH / 1B types on a 25 man roster. You can't live in fear of injury to the detriment of the people that will actually play.

 

So, sure, if Garver and Astudillo and Cron all get hurt, that would weaken the position. But you can't carry a guy that never plays just in case three guys so get hurt. IMO.

Again, I don't want catchers and third basemen playing first base. Fundamental disagreement. That's fine, but no point banging our heads against a wall.

[Mike Sixel]

Again, I don't want catchers and third basemen playing first base. Fundamental disagreement. That's fine, but no point banging our heads against a wall.

No one does. But you really think they should carry Cron and Cruz and Austin? Because those first two aren't going anywhere at this point, even if some of us would have used the Cron money as part of a payment on pitching....

[ken]

This is getting to Oswaldo Arcia level of concern.

Edited April 12, 2019 by ken

[Mr. Brooks]

No one does. But you really think they should carry Cron and Cruz and Austin? Because those first two aren't going anywhere at this point, even if some of us would have used the Cron money as part of a payment on pitching....

If I'm building a roster, no I'm not trying to carry an extra 1B/DH. But once that's the case, yes I am finding a way not to throw away an asset for essentially nothing.

Maybe Austin will never make any improvements and I'll be wrong. That's fine, I don't shy away from being wrong.

Sometimes when you hear a guy speak about his craft though, you just get a gut feeling that he has what it takes to make those improvements. That's where I'm at with Austin.

What's done is done now though, we'll just have to kick back and see who Austin becomes.

[Mr. Brooks]

This is getting to Oswaldo Arcia level of concern.

Arcia was given 1000 PA's to see if he could turn the corner. He didn't. Maybe Austin wouldn't have either, we'll see.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Again, I don't want catchers and third basemen playing first base. Fundamental disagreement. That's fine, but no point banging our heads against a wall.

But that’s ignoring today’s bullpens. Teams simply cannot carry multiple first basemen for an entire season unless one of them is also the DH... which runs right back into your problem of “if one gets injured, you replace him with a bat that can’t carry that position”.

[Mr. Brooks]

But that’s ignoring today’s bullpens. Teams simply cannot carry multiple first basemen for an entire season unless one of them is also the DH... which runs right back into your problem of “if one gets injured, you replace him with a bat that can’t carry that position”.

I think with a guy like Gonzalez, who can back up both infield and corner outfield, and two starting corner outfielders both capable of backing up centerfield, that the Twins could have carried Austin this year.

[yarnivek1972]

I think with a guy like Gonzalez, who can back up both infield and corner outfield, and two starting corner outfielders both capable of backing up centerfield, that the Twins could have carried Austin this year.

Obviously they could not. Because they dropped him to add a pitcher. Also, if Sano is healthy from day one, Austin probably never makes the opening day roster.

[Mr. Brooks]

Obviously they could not. Because they dropped him to add a pitcher. Also, if Sano is healthy from day one, Austin probably never makes the opening day roster.

They could have, they chose not to. Big difference.

[jorgenswest]

They chose to keep Adrianza and his infield glove instead of Austin. I would agree.

 

They chose to roster Cave and his ability to play across the OF though they could have optioned him. I would agree.

 

They chose to roster both Garver and Astudillo with their bats and versatility instead of optioning one of them. I would agree.

 

They chose to keep Castro. I would agree.

 

I don’t see enough at bats for a third right handed DH/1B and any of those at bats are best given to Garver or Astudillo to keep them sharp.

[Mr. Brooks]

They chose to keep Adrianza and his infield glove instead of Austin. I would agree.

 

They chose to roster Cave and his ability to play across the OF though they could have optioned him. I would agree.

 

They chose to roster both Garver and Astudillo with their bats and versatility instead of optioning one of them. I would agree.

 

They chose to keep Castro. I would agree.

 

I don’t see enough at bats for a third right handed DH/1B and any of those at bats are best given to Garver or Astudillo to keep them sharp.

I understand the FO's and other posters reasons. I just don't agree with them. Difference of opinion.

Great thing about sports is we get to find out if they were right or wrong.

[USAFChief]

And my concern is that Cron gets injured (or ineffective) before one of those guys is ready. Now who plays 1B? Someone whose bat doesn't really play there. Which is interesting considering how you felt about Mauer's bat playing there.

So let's say they keep Austin and cut Cron. What happens if Austin gets injured (or ineffective) before one of those guys is ready?

 

If you think Austin is a better player than Cron in 2019, fine. But concerns over who plays first base if the one they keep can't play isn't a valid argument. The situation would be exactly the same.

 

BTW, Cron will be the better player in 2019.

[Riverbrian]

 

So let's say they keep Austin and cut Cron. What happens if Austin gets injured (or ineffective) before one of those guys is ready?

 

If you think Austin is a better player than Cron in 2019, fine. But concerns over who plays first base if the one they keep can't play isn't a valid argument. The situation would be exactly the same.

 

BTW, Cron will be the better player in 2019.

 

Right now... We have Astudillo and Marwin who can play 1B and we will be adding Sano down the line. 

 

It makes no sense to plug up two roster spots on 1B only players... One of them had to go. The front office did a good job creating depth and flexibility this off-season. 

 

As for Cron being the better player in 2019...  I'd bet on that.

 

But only because Cron is basically guaranteed playing time where Austin might....  get some...might...  let's see how the Giants use him. 

 

BTW... Poor Tyler Austin... Gets traded and has a manager that wants to use him out of the gate. And he gets hurt during a throwing drill. Baseball can be a cruel game.