Article: Tyler Austin Traded to San Francisco

[Doomtints]

 

Pretty sure it is two years of control for Cron.

I don’t care about that though. I care about which guy helps most in 2019. I think Cron is the better all around hitter and defender this year.

 

So 2019 is "the year"?

[Riverbrian]

I’m sorry but UGH.

 

Kepler got to try again because he didn’t suck in the field and can actually play an up the middle position.

 

Everyone here needs to hit the pause button and take a second to remember that hitters also have to take the field. There’s a reason why teams give good defenders five chances to succeed and marginal corner defenders one or two chances at most.

Brock I get that. I get projections, defense and team context are reasons Kepler gets more of a chance then Austin does.

 

The discussion was on left/right splits. Kepler 1400 to 1500 AB’s. Austin is still a small sample size. That was my point.

 

If anyone wants to label Tyler Austin right now based on his 400 AB’s... go ahead but I’m not buying it.

 

It’s all about opportunity and Austin hasn’t really had the same opportunity as others. And I absolute understand the reasons why.

[prouster]

Brock I get that. I get projections, defense and team context are reasons Kepler gets more of a chance then Austin does.

 

The discussion was on left/right splits. Kepler 1400 to 1500 AB’s. Austin is still a small sample size. That was my point.

 

If anyone wants to label Tyler Austin right now based on his 400 AB’s... go ahead but I’m not buying it.

 

It’s all about opportunity and Austin hasn’t really had the same opportunity as others. And I absolute understand the reasons why.

I think you’re dismissing the role of scouting and projecting way too easily.

 

Kepler, to use your example, is extremely athletic, can play a premium defensive position well, has little mileage relative to other guys his age, and actually showed how flashy his tools can be in real minor league (and now Major League!) games. Austin has shown he can hit the ball a mile, but he has also shown his extreme defensive limitations and an alarming tendency to strike out.

 

In other words, Kepler has proven he can do many things at the highest level; Austin has proven that he can sometimes do one thing at the highest level.

 

Is Austin destined to fail? No. But there’s a much greater chance a guy like him will fail than a guy like Kepler. It’s not all about opportunity.

[Dman]

 

It's not moot to me. My biggest criticism of the situation is that they signed Cron instead of letting Austin have the job for a full season.

 

I think a lot of us on this site wanted to see Austin get a chance at 1st base and I agree I don't see a huge difference in the players when it comes to OPS.  The main differences appear to be K rate about 10% less for Cron in MLB if IIRC.  Also the lefty righty splits are in Crons favor as well.  If you feel the quality of at bats are an important indicator for future performance then I think you go with Cron.  If you go with gut and hope a player improves on some known weaknesses then you probably go with Austin.  

 

The other thing you fail to mention is why is it that only Austin can improve?  Why can't Cron improve as well?  It just feels like there is some bias in your analysis to me. 

 

I like Austin and have said I believe he can make it in MLB but he has a number of warts and right now I would rather develop Raley or Rooker for that role as they are not that much different than Austin and they have Options remaining.

 

 

[yarnivek1972]

It’s worth pointing out that a healthy and productive Miguel Sano could drop Cron to 6th (maybe even 7th if Rocco rolls with Willians 3rd) in the lineup.

[Mr. Brooks]

I think a lot of us on this site wanted to see Austin get a chance at 1st base and I agree I don't see a huge difference in the players when it comes to OPS. The main differences appear to be K rate about 10% less for Cron in MLB if IIRC. Also the lefty righty splits are in Crons favor as well. If you feel the quality of at bats are an important indicator for future performance then I think you go with Cron. If you go with gut and hope a player improves on some known weaknesses then you probably go with Austin.

 

The other thing you fail to mention is why is it that only Austin can improve? Why can't Cron improve as well? It just feels like there is some bias in your analysis to me.

 

I like Austin and have said I believe he can make it in MLB but he has a number of warts and right now I would rather develop Raley or Rooker for that role as they are not that much different than Austin and they have Options remaining.

Cron already has 5 years and 2000 mlb plate appearances, so while improvement is always possible, I'd say it's less likely for him.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Cron already has 5 years and 2000 mlb plate appearances, so while improvement is always possible, I'd say it's less likely for him.

Yeah, say what you will about either player but Cron is who he is at this point.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yeah, say what you will about either player but Cron is who he is at this point.

 

Most likely, but the launch angle revolution and the ball change(s) might make some difference, but ya, I'm thinking 1.5-2 WAR really......

[jorgenswest]

So 2019 is "the year"?

It is the current year. I think he is the better player. Are you arguing that they should have chosen Austin over Cron because 2021 might be the year?

[Riverbrian]

 

I think you’re dismissing the role of scouting and projecting way too easily.

Kepler, to use your example, is extremely athletic, can play a premium defensive position well, has little mileage relative to other guys his age, and actually showed how flashy his tools can be in real minor league (and now Major League!) games. Austin has shown he can hit the ball a mile, but he has also shown his extreme defensive limitations and an alarming tendency to strike out.

In other words, Kepler has proven he can do many things at the highest level; Austin has proven that he can sometimes do one thing at the highest level.

Is Austin destined to fail? No. But there’s a much greater chance a guy like him will fail than a guy like Kepler. It’s not all about opportunity.

 

I'm sorry you've formed that impression that I dismiss the role of scouting and projecting. My posts are already too long and too frequent but apparently not long enough or frequent enough for complete clarity. 

 

The only thing I can say is that "I don't dismiss these things". I want my front office to have every tool available... I want my front office to staff the 25 and 40 man rosters to the max. I want talent overflowing out of every corner of diamond. I want my manager to sit down at his desk and throw his hands up in the air because he has too much talent to work with and he can't decide who to play today because they all deserve playing time. 

 

I want my front office to project and be good at it... The GM must project forward if they don't they are no doing their job. I will trust them when they sign Max Kepler to a 7 year deal because I want to assume that they are using all the tools available to them, tools and information that isn't available to me. 

 

I recognize the limitations of a 25 and 40 man roster and I am rock solid in my belief that being a GM of a major league team is nothing like running a fantasy baseball team. 

 

I only got involved in the Kepler/Austin discussion to say: 400 scattered AB's is not a sufficient sample size to even discuss lefty/righty splits concerning Tyler Austin. I didn't introduce Kepler to the discussion but I did make the mistake of trying to participate in this already introduced side discussion. 

 

But Yeah... I am guilty of recognizing that the same projection system that identifies Ronald Acuna will also identify Logan Morrison and ultimately I want my front office to realize that they get it wrong from time to time because the margins are incredibly thin and that's why I want Plan B, C and D in place when Logan Morrison isn't what they projected him to be.

 

I also want my front office to realize that players can render their past meaningless with a simple off-season adjustment and when a player starts kicking it into gear, I want them to get out of the way, put the damn projections down when a player confounds them and play the player. 

 

I believe if the front office would just let the players make their decisions for them via actual performance: They will end up with that roster I dream of, 25 guys who can play and a manager who is losing his hair trying to decide which talented player to play and which ones to sit, which leads to a front office that can take the extra players and trade them for more talent. 

 

But again... I just wanted to say that 1500 AB's and 400 AB's are not comparable. It was not my intention to denigrate Kepler in order to praise Austin.  

[prouster]

I'm sorry you've formed that impression that I dismiss the role of scouting and projecting. My posts are already too long and too frequent but apparently not long enough or frequent enough for complete clarity.

 

The only thing I can say is that "I don't dismiss these things". I want my front office to have every tool available... I want my front office to staff the 25 and 40 man rosters to the max. I want talent overflowing out of every corner of diamond. I want my manager to sit down at his desk and throw his hands up in the air because he has too much talent to work with and he can't decide who to play today because they all deserve playing time.

 

I want my front office to project and be good at it... The GM must project forward if they don't they are no doing their job. I will trust them when they sign Max Kepler to a 7 year deal because I want to assume that they are using all the tools available to them, tools and information that isn't available to me.

 

I recognize the limitations of a 25 and 40 man roster and I am rock solid in my belief that being a GM of a major league team is nothing like running a fantasy baseball team.

 

I only got involved in the Kepler/Austin discussion to say: 400 scattered AB's is not a sufficient sample size to even discuss lefty/righty splits concerning Tyler Austin. I didn't introduce Kepler to the discussion but I did make the mistake of trying to participate in this already introduced side discussion.

 

But Yeah... I am guilty of recognizing that the same projection system that identifies Ronald Acuna will also identify Logan Morrison and ultimately I want my front office to realize that they get it wrong from time to time because the margins are incredibly thin and that's why I want Plan B, C and D in place when Logan Morrison isn't what they projected him to be.

 

I also want my front office to realize that players can render their past meaningless with a simple off-season adjustment and when a player starts kicking it into gear, I want them to get out of the way, put the damn projections down when a player confounds them and play the player.

 

I believe if the front office would just let the players make their decisions for them via actual performance: They will end up with that roster I dream of, 25 guys who can play and a manager who is losing his hair trying to decide which talented player to play and which ones to sit, which leads to a front office that can take the extra players and trade them for more talent.

 

But again... I just wanted to say that 1500 AB's and 400 AB's are not comparable. It was not my intention to denigrate Kepler in order to praise Austin.

I think you and I agree on more things than we disagree on. My main point is that none of these guys are fighting for a roster spot in a vacuum. There’s already a lot of information about every one of them available publicly, and I’d imagine a great deal more that the clubs keep in house. And that’s before they ever sniff the 40 man.

 

I’m not saying that no one ever does something unexpected, or that the projection systems get things right every time (I’m actually pretty skeptical of the way people tend to use projections for these and other reasons).

 

But, I think the odds are a lot better than not that Austin won’t do a whole lot in the majors, simply because there’s a lot of information about him already, and a million other guys like him have flamed out. I don’t think he necessarily needs 1000 at bats for the front office to feel relatively confident about this.

 

As for depth, I agree with others who have said there are a number of guys in the minors we could reasonably expect to replicate Austin’s performance if needed.

[jkcarew]

Austin riding pine tonight against a right-handed starter. (His first two game with SF were both vs lefty starters.) Belt at 1B, Gerardo Parra in LF.

[Dman]

Cron already has 5 years and 2000 mlb plate appearances, so while improvement is always possible, I'd say it's less likely for him.

Good point. I never loved the Cron move but am OK with it. I guess I just see the future differently than you do. I think Raley, ROOKER, or possibly Kiriloff end up at first base with as much or more potential than Austin. I don't like Austin's K rate making 30 to 40 percent automatic outs does not bode well for his future success. If his K rate was lower I would be on your side.

[Riverbrian]

 

I think you and I agree on more things than we disagree on. My main point is that none of these guys are fighting for a roster spot in a vacuum. There’s already a lot of information about every one of them available publicly, and I’d imagine a great deal more that the clubs keep in house. And that’s before they ever sniff the 40 man.

I’m not saying that no one ever does something unexpected, or that the projection systems get things right every time (I’m actually pretty skeptical of the way people tend to use projections for these and other reasons).

But, I think the odds are a lot better than not that Austin won’t do a whole lot in the majors, simply because there’s a lot of information about him already, and a million other guys like him have flamed out. I don’t think he necessarily needs 1000 at bats for the front office to feel relatively confident about this.

As for depth, I agree with others who have said there are a number of guys in the minors we could reasonably expect to replicate Austin’s performance if needed.

 

I think we got some middle ground. 

 

I was one of those others. Big Power Hitting 1B/DH only types are all over the place. 

 

As for the odds that Austin won't do a lot in the majors. He won't without playing time. If he only plays 1B... he won't get the playing time. 

 

 

[prouster]

 

As for the odds that Austin won't do a lot in the majors. He won't without playing time. If he only plays 1B... he won't get the playing time. 

 

This is the rub. At what point to projections turn into self-fulfilling prophecies?

[Mr. Brooks]

Good point. I never loved the Cron move but am OK with it. I guess I just see the future differently than you do. I think Raley, ROOKER, or possibly Kiriloff end up at first base with as much or more potential than Austin. I don't like Austin's K rate making 30 to 40 percent automatic outs does not bode well for his future success. If his K rate was lower I would be on your side.

Raley and Kiriloff are athletic enough to play in the OF. I'm very much opposed to wasting their tools at first base.

 

As for Rooker, what do you expect his milb k rate to translate into in the majors? I don't see it being better than Austin's.

 

Finally, which of those guys do you think the FO would call up today if needed? I'd be much less irked by this if we actually waited until we had a replacement, rather than dumping him because someday we will.

[Riverbrian]

This is the rub. At what point to projections turn into self-fulfilling prophecies?

Never Mind Finding Middle Ground between us.

 

This comment is right in my kitchen. We might as well share eggs this morning for breakfast.

 

It is always about opportunity... Who gets it and who doesn't.

 

Whose 2 month stretch of .900 OPS do you ignore and whose 2 month stretch of .900 OPS is the corner finally turned.

 

It's like trying to teach a bear to ride a unicycle... you work at it for YEARS.. you focus on it until the bear can find finally ride the unicycle 5 years later.

 

During those 5 years... You never paid attention to the monkey riding the unicycle... because everyone has a monkey who can ride a unicycle.

 

Ultimately... we just need something to ride the unicycles.

[Dman]

 

Raley and Kiriloff are athletic enough to play in the OF. I'm very much opposed to wasting their tools at first base.

As for Rooker, what do you expect his milb k rate to translate into in the majors? I don't see it being better than Austin's.

Finally, which of those guys do you think the FO would call up today if needed? I'd be much less irked by this if we actually waited until we had a replacement, rather than dumping him because someday we will.

 

I agree both Raley and Kiriloff can play in the outfield but on this team who would they replace? Maybe if Kepler continues to struggle or Rosario gets injured they could replace them but their bats and defense would still play at 1st base.  They could be rotated into the outfield as they have that ability but the guys that are there right now I think are pretty set as they are good offensively and defensively.  

 

You could argue that both Raley and Kiriloff can easily play the corners and they could trade one or two of the four corner outfielders for pitching if they wanted to, but I think if they can find another place where their bat would play why not use them there.

 

As to your statement about which of those they would call up today probably none of them are ready right now.  Raley might be but that is more of a guess than a statement.  Rookers K rate and just plain swing and miss rate make him not ready and Kiriloff though talented could use more challenges\seasoning before making that kind of commitment to him.

 

With Austudillo improving at catcher, Garver could play 1st right now as it looks like his bat would play at that position as well as catcher.  Sano could also play first with Marwin or Austudillo playing third. So even with the lose of Austin I think we still have in house options.    If all those fail there is always some grizzled vet out there that could be plugged in.  

 

We agree on a lot of things, even Cron to some degree.  I just can't see Austin as that valuable with the K rate he has and you see him likely getting over the hump with more at bats.  We will have to see how his season goes and then can find out which of us was more right or wrong.  Fun discussion.  Thanks!

[Brock Beauchamp]

I agree both Raley and Kiriloff can play in the outfield but on this team who would they replace? Maybe if Kepler continues to struggle or Rosario gets injured they could replace them but their bats and defense would still play at 1st base. They could be rotated into the outfield as they have that ability but the guys that are there right now I think are pretty set as they are good offensively and defensively.

 

You could argue that both Raley and Kiriloff can easily play the corners and they could trade one or two of the four corner outfielders for pitching if they wanted to, but I think if they can find another place where their bat would play why not use them there.

 

As to your statement about which of those they would call up today probably none of them are ready right now. Raley might be but that is more of a guess than a statement. Rookers K rate and just plain swing and miss rate make him not ready and Kiriloff though talented could use more challenges\seasoning before making that kind of commitment to him.

 

With Austudillo improving at catcher, Garver could play 1st right now as it looks like his bat would play at that position as well as catcher. Sano could also play first with Marwin or Austudillo playing third. So even with the lose of Austin I think we still have in house options. If all those fail there is always some grizzled vet out there that could be plugged in.

 

We agree on a lot of things, even Cron to some degree. I just can't see Austin as that valuable with the K rate he has and you see him likely getting over the hump with more at bats. We will have to see how his season goes and then can find out which of us was more right or wrong. Fun discussion. Thanks!

I don’t think it will be much of a problem, actually. Raley might reach Minnesota late this year but possibly at the expense of Cave... and that’s assuming everyone stays healthy, hardly a given in any outfield that contains the Wall Crasher.

 

Kirilloff isn’t even in the picture yet. By the time he’s ready, Rosario might have one foot out the door.

[Jim Hahn]

Part of the problem for Austin is that during his option years he received little big league opportunity until traded to the Twins. While with the Twins, he showed off his strength(ability to hit home runs at a good rate). He also revealed some weaknesses, strike zone judgement, poor contact skills and weak defensive ability at 1b. Hence Cron, who is at marginally better in all those areas except home run rate.

 

Now, i agree with Riverbrian, that Austin hasn't had sufficient opportunity to prove himself at the major league level. Maybe he will get that chance in San Francisco. But for the Twins he was not a particularly good fit. Even before Cron. There is plenty of right handed power in this lineup, even before Sano. There is a shortage of on base skills and contact skills, hence Austudillo's increased playing time.

 

I don't know how much Cron improves the lineup's weaknesses, but he is likely going to do better in those areas than Austin, in 2019. After this year who knows, but there should/could be other options by then.

 

Austin's lack of options hurt his chances of remaining a Twin, but it wasn't the only factor.

[Mike Sixel]

Raley and Kiriloff are athletic enough to play in the OF. I'm very much opposed to wasting their tools at first base.

 

As for Rooker, what do you expect his milb k rate to translate into in the majors? I don't see it being better than Austin's.

 

Finally, which of those guys do you think the FO would call up today if needed? I'd be much less irked by this if we actually waited until we had a replacement, rather than dumping him because someday we will.

Rosario, Buxton, Kepler, Cave, Wade, Kirilloff, Rooker, Lanarch, and more.... One will move to first, one will DH and backup first and the OF. It's better to waste their speed and get their bat in the lineup, than keep them around adding no value to the major league team. Frankly, given their dearth of pitching,I think they are going to have to make a trade.... But we'll see

[Mr. Brooks]

Rosario, Buxton, Kepler, Cave, Wade, Kirilloff, Rooker, Lanarch, and more.... One will move to first, one will DH and backup first and the OF. It's better to waste their speed and get their bat in the lineup, than keep them around adding no value to the major league team. Frankly, given their dearth of pitching,I think they are going to have to make a trade.... But we'll see

Wade and Cave are 4th outfielders, not starters.

The odds say only one of Rooker, Larnach and Kiriloff will develop into a starting caliber player.

 

We (as well as Dman and I) have a fundamental disagreement regarding putting players capable of playing other positions at 1B or DH. I'd never do it. Teams on a budget have to maximize their players talents. Because of that fundamental disagreement, we'll never agree on this topic. And that's fine.

[Mr. Brooks]

I agree both Raley and Kiriloff can play in the outfield but on this team who would they replace? Maybe if Kepler continues to struggle or Rosario gets injured they could replace them but their bats and defense would still play at 1st base. They could be rotated into the outfield as they have that ability but the guys that are there right now I think are pretty set as they are good offensively and defensively.

 

You could argue that both Raley and Kiriloff can easily play the corners and they could trade one or two of the four corner outfielders for pitching if they wanted to, but I think if they can find another place where their bat would play why not use them there.

 

As to your statement about which of those they would call up today probably none of them are ready right now. Raley might be but that is more of a guess than a statement. Rookers K rate and just plain swing and miss rate make him not ready and Kiriloff though talented could use more challenges\seasoning before making that kind of commitment to him.

 

With Austudillo improving at catcher, Garver could play 1st right now as it looks like his bat would play at that position as well as catcher. Sano could also play first with Marwin or Austudillo playing third. So even with the lose of Austin I think we still have in house options. If all those fail there is always some grizzled vet out there that could be plugged in.

 

We agree on a lot of things, even Cron to some degree. I just can't see Austin as that valuable with the K rate he has and you see him likely getting over the hump with more at bats. We will have to see how his season goes and then can find out which of us was more right or wrong. Fun discussion. Thanks!

See my reply to Mike, it's more or less redundant to how I would have responded to this.

[Mike Sixel]

Wade and Cave are 4th outfielders, not starters.

The odds say only one of Rooker, Larnach and Kiriloff will develop into a starting caliber player.

 

We (as well as Dman and I) have a fundamental disagreement regarding putting players capable of playing other positions at 1B or DH. I'd never do it. Teams on a budget have to maximize their players talents. Because of that fundamental disagreement, we'll never agree on this topic. And that's fine.

The other option is to trade some.... But if Kirilloff can hit like some think, he's better at first base than AAA, when ready.... Not to mention Sano moving at some point.

[Mr. Brooks]

The other option is to trade some.... But if Kirilloff can hit like some think, he's better at first base than AAA, when ready.... Not to mention Sano moving at some point.

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.

[Mike Sixel]

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.

. What if he's a great hitter, would you trade that for a mediocre pitcher? Because that may be your only other option. Would you trade five years of a great hitter for two of a good pitcher? Because that's probably the best you'll get.

[Jim Hahn]

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.

I don't agree/understand this. If Kiriloff turns out to be as good a major league hitter as it appears he might, you can certainly afford to play him at first rather than OF because he will be as good or better than any 1b you are likely to develop or be able to find.

 

The other problem is If you refuse to play him at first before he has proved he is that hitter, you will have to trade him for less than he probably going to be worth. It can go either way, but trading minor leaguers who have a good chance to be impact players, does not often turn out for teams who can't buy their way out of that kind of mistake.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Jim Hahn

[Doomtints]

If Kiriloff can play in the OF, that's where he should play. 

[twinkiesfan11]

I don't agree/understand this. If Kiriloff turns out to be as good a major league hitter as it appears he might, you can certainly afford to play him at first rather than OF because he will be as good or better than any 1b you are likely to develop or be able to find.

 

The other problem is If you refuse to play him at first before he has proved he is that hitter, you will have to trade him for less than he probably going to be worth. It can go either way, but trading minor leaguers who have a good chance to be impact players, does not often turn out for teams who can't buy their way out of that kind of mistake.

100% Agree. You don’t trade away a bat like Kirilloff’s just because he’s a capable corner outfielder and you don’t want to “waste” that at 1B. I seem to remember draft scouting reports noting that he played a lot of 1B in high school and was regarded as a potential asset there as opposed to projecting as merely a solid corner OF.

 

Falvine and Baldelli seem to really value positional flexibility and giving players regular rest. They have already mentioned intent to break Kirilloff in at 1B in 2019. It would seem to make a lot of sense to have him splitting time between 1B and the outfield similar to the way the Dodgers have deployed Cody Bellinger. The more ways to get his bat in the lineup the better.

[Mr. Brooks]

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