Notebook: Arraez to LF?

If simmons goes down for a lengthy time... You will see Royce Lewis playing SS. I'd like to see the fwar comparison of every subtraction and every addition. That tweet is meaningless.

If simmons goes down for a lengthy time... You will see Royce Lewis playing SS. I'd like to see the fwar comparison of every subtraction and every addition. That tweet is meaningless.

Remember that Polanco got a 5-game taste of the Majors at age 20. We don't know exactly what the team thinks about Lewis but I could see him getting some appearances this season. (He'll be 22 in June.)

What about Broxton? Celestino is said to be ready defensively so they could use him if really needed. I also disagree that Kepler is not a suitable back up. He might not be quite as good as a pure CF but they are not going to get a back up with Kepler's bat. Assuming Buxton is not injured right out of the gate, they could use Kepler in CF while auditioning Kirilloff / Larnach / Rooker or use it to get ABs for Arraez.

 

Kirilloff is not going to be here opening day. He has not proven to be ready and they have plenty of options. There is not a GM in this league (IMO) who would bring him up in this scenario. To lose a year in his prime for 3 weeks now would be short-sighted to the point of incompetence. 

Lots I disagree with - I love having a debate like this.  Broxton is not better than what we have.  Why would I want him to play ahead of our rookies?  When Kepler moves over it weakens RF - what is the advantage of that.  As I have said many times, if a young player is really good he gets extended before the end of his period of servitude so the game we play at the beginning of their career is really silly and if the GM does not know that he really is incompetent.

Lots I disagree with - I love having a debate like this.  Broxton is not better than what we have.  Why would I want him to play ahead of our rookies?  When Kepler moves over it weakens RF - what is the advantage of that.  As I have said many times, if a young player is really good he gets extended before the end of his period of servitude so the game we play at the beginning of their career is really silly and if the GM does not know that he really is incompetent.

Apparently you have a superior understanding to all MLB GMs because they definitely follow the practice you suggest is incompetent. I guess we will see if Falvey agrees with you in a couple months.

Arraez will get a little time in LF but he is the only 2B/SS/3B option on the bench! All three starters have had chronic, nagging injuries the past two years. I'm surprised the Twins haven't added a 2nd utility player. Gonzalez and Adrianza were both needed in the IF many times the past two years.

Nick Gordon and Travis Blankenhorn 

I like to see guys playing in their best, with the most experience, positions. Polanco at ss? Noy if he is a better 2b.

Arraez in left? Is that his best position? No.

Quit putting guys out there that are not in their best positions.

Apparently you have a superior understanding to all MLB GMs because they definitely follow the practice you suggest is incompetent. I guess we will see if Falvey agrees with you in a couple months.

I am not anticipating that the GM will give me a call, but I will stay with my take anyway.

On the contrary, playing "the game" as you call it, so that the player is an extra year older before free agency can be attained under the CBA, can be either 1) what helps nudge him toward signing the long-term contract, and/or 2) what helps lower the cost of that contract to the team by a few million.

 

It's not the pleasantest part of a player's life, but the owners and players union hammered out all the details, and we shouldn't call it silly for either side to then work within those rules to their perceived benefit.

 

"Baseball has become a business" is the constant lament since professional leagues were first formed in the 19th century. "Nobody plays for the love of the sport anymore." Nope, they don't.
 

It has always been a business, even in the Negro Leagues where it was actually the best business for African American entrepreneurs.  But the new CBA has to address the Bryant rule - it is one of the silliest things in sports.  No other professional sport has anything similar. 

I am not anticipating that the GM will give me a call, but I will stay with my take anyway.

I am sure you will. Fans are fanatical. It's not exactly logical for someone to ignore the fact that all of the people that have achieved the highest position in baseball have a different take. Therefore, it's not surprising you would not change your mind regardless of what facts are presented. Lots of fans actually believe they know how to run the team better than the people who have actual credentials.

I am sure you will. Fans are fanatical. It's not exactly logical for someone to ignore the fact that all of the people that have achieved the highest position in baseball have a different take. Therefore, it's not surprising you would not change your mind regardless of what facts are presented. Lots of fans actually believe they know how to run the team better than the people who have actual credentials.

And amazingly the prevalent theories change over time.  

And amazingly the prevalent theories change over time.  

Yes, Some do. This conversation however is specifically about trading 3 weeks now for a year of an experienced and hopefully accomplished guy in his prime. It's a fanatical position that is exceptionally short-sighted. This particular player has a very high ceiling but has not played an inning of AAA and his performance at AA was certainly not dominant. Electing to exchange a few weeks of an unproven player for a year of an experienced player in his prime is the antithesis of good critical thinking and leadership and this "theory" is not going to change in time.

BTW ... We heard the same indignant remarks here about Berrios. Fans assuming to better understand when a player is ready than the staff and leadership working with him every day. Of course, he struggled at first. There was even some of this type of talk about Burdi. 

And amazingly the prevalent theories change over time.  

In some areas. In something as basic as this, no, they don't. Given the same incentives, the ancient Greeks would have made the exact same decision to start prospects in AAA that MLB clubs do in 2021. It's simple, inarguable logic. 

And, even if the topic was something where ideas could change, the chances that a random fan is smarter than all 30 clubs is very, very low. So low that the idea should be disregarded unless backed up by a very detailed and well-supported argument (i.e., the exact opposite of making a baseless claim without any support whatsoever, as you did).

Yes, Some do. This conversation however is specifically about trading 3 weeks now for a year of an experienced and hopefully accomplished guy in his prime. It's a fanatical position that is exceptionally short-sighted. This particular player has a very high ceiling but has not played an inning of AAA and his performance at AA was certainly not dominant. Electing to exchange a few weeks of an unproven player for a year of an experienced player in his prime is the antithesis of good critical thinking and leadership and this "theory" is not going to change in time.

 

BTW ... We heard the same indignant remarks here about Berrios. Fans assuming to better understand when a player is ready than the staff and leadership working with him every day. Of course, he struggled at first. There was even some of this type of talk about Burdi. 

Some good points, but then there is the White Sox signing Luis Robert's to an extension before he played in the majors.  Also Eloy Jimenez - White Sox.  Guess the WS didn't read the rules about what teams are supposed to do.  https://www.mlb.com/news/earliest-contract-extensions-in-mlb-history-c269677352

In some areas. In something as basic as this, no, they don't. Given the same incentives, the ancient Greeks would have made the exact same decision to start prospects in AAA that MLB clubs do in 2021. It's simple, inarguable logic. 

 

And, even if the topic was something where ideas could change, the chances that a random fan is smarter than all 30 clubs is very, very low. So low that the idea should be disregarded unless backed up by a very detailed and well-supported argument (i.e., the exact opposite of making a baseless claim without any support whatsoever, as you did).

Wow, how insulting - I guess I will send your response to the White Sox who extended Luis Robert's and Eloy Jiminez before they played in the Majors.  https://www.mlb.com/news/earliest-contract-extensions-in-mlb-history-c269677352  Guess they did not know the rules. 

Wow, how insulting - I guess I will send your response to the White Sox who extended Luis Robert's and Eloy Jiminez before they played in the Majors.  https://www.mlb.com/news/earliest-contract-extensions-in-mlb-history-c269677352  Guess they did not know the rules. 

Except Kirilloff's agent doesn't go for deals like those. Even if you advocated that the Twins hire a hitman to take care of Boras, the mere fact that Kirilloff hired him indicates that he's not looking for that kind of contract. So, no dice, sorry.

Some good points, but then there is the White Sox signing Luis Robert's to an extension before he played in the majors.  Also Eloy Jimenez - White Sox.  Guess the WS didn't read the rules about what teams are supposed to do.  https://www.mlb.com/news/earliest-contract-extensions-in-mlb-history-c269677352

OK, it's not completely unprecedented but you are talking about an extreme rarity.  Then there is the point Drivlikejehu makes which is a crucial point ... The player and his agent must be willing. Luis Robert and Alex Kirilloff are not the same.

Additionally, these players are not equivalent cases. They both played at the AAA level and dominated. Also, Robert is an absolute elite athlete who plays a premium position. His defensive value was assured. Jiminez also played at AAA and dominated. He had a 996 OPS.

Even if we ignore the likelihood Boras would never allow an extension at this point, these scenarios are most certainly not equivalent scenarios. Why is it so important that a guy who has still not proven himself above A ball be on the opening day roster? Is it really going to matter if the team waits for him to show 1 month of dominance above A+ ball?

Except Kirilloff's agent doesn't go for deals like those. Even if you advocated that the Twins hire a hitman to take care of Boras, the mere fact that Kirilloff hired him indicates that he's not looking for that kind of contract. So, no dice, sorry.

Boras is the best counterpoint to my premise.  Good job. 

OK, it's not completely unprecedented but you are talking about an extreme rarity.  Then there is the point Drivlikejehu makes which is a crucial point ... The player and his agent must be willing. Luis Robert and Alex Kirilloff are not the same.

 

Additionally, these players are not equivalent cases. They both played at the AAA level and dominated. Also, Robert is an absolute elite athlete who plays a premium position. His defensive value was assured. Jiminez also played at AAA and dominated. He had a 996 OPS.

 

Even if we ignore the likelihood Boras would never allow an extension at this point, these scenarios are most certainly not equivalent scenarios. Why is it so important that a guy who has still not proven himself above A ball be on the opening day roster? Is it really going to matter if the team waits for him to show 1 month of dominance above A+ ball?

Good points, I love a debate like this.  Boras is really the sticking point.  I want Kiriloff on the team if he is considered the best at the position.  I am all for having the best player at each position.  Too many things happen - injury, agents, trades, failures, pandemics, CBAs - for me to worry about six years away.  When a team is in position to win I want to go for it and not worry about six or seven years down the line.  

Since every publication including this one has said Kiriloff will be the LF then I am ready to put in him. 

Good points, I love a debate like this.  Boras is really the sticking point.  I want Kiriloff on the team if he is considered the best at the position.  I am all for having the best player at each position.  Too many things happen - injury, agents, trades, failures, pandemics, CBAs - for me to worry about six years away.  When a team is in position to win I want to go for it and not worry about six or seven years down the line.  

 

Since every publication including this one has said Kiriloff will be the LF then I am ready to put in him. 

Please see Explaining Alex Kirilloff’s Service Time to Your Child

Feb 19 2021 07:15 AM | RandBalls Stu in The Lighter Side on this same site for more insights.

Good points, I love a debate like this.  Boras is really the sticking point.  I want Kiriloff on the team if he is considered the best at the position.  I am all for having the best player at each position.  Too many things happen - injury, agents, trades, failures, pandemics, CBAs - for me to worry about six years away.  When a team is in position to win I want to go for it and not worry about six or seven years down the line.  

 

Since every publication including this one has said Kiriloff will be the LF then I am ready to put in him. 

I think I must turn over my debate to

Explaining Alex Kirilloff’s Service Time to Your Child

Feb 19 2021 07:15 AM | RandBalls Stu in The Lighter Side

on today's site. 

Good points, I love a debate like this.  Boras is really the sticking point.  I want Kiriloff on the team if he is considered the best at the position.  I am all for having the best player at each position.  Too many things happen - injury, agents, trades, failures, pandemics, CBAs - for me to worry about six years away.  When a team is in position to win I want to go for it and not worry about six or seven years down the line.  

 

Since every publication including this one has said Kiriloff will be the LF then I am ready to put in him. 

I see it differently. Boras is the reason extending is not a solution to the service time issue. The reasons it does not make sense to start the season with Kirilloff in LF are as stated earlier. I ask again, why is so important to have an unproven rookie in LF for 3 weeks?

You said it yourself ... you are not worried about the future. That's really where we differ greatly. You are no different than many fans. Many only care about the present. That's fine as a fan. It's absolute incompetence as a GM. If I offered you 3 weeks pay no or an entire years pay six years from now when your productivity and therefore income is higher which would you take?

I see it differently. Boras is the reason extending is not a solution to the service time issue. The reasons it does not make sense to start the season with Kirilloff in LF are as stated earlier. I ask again, why is so important to have an unproven rookie in LF for 3 weeks?

 

You said it yourself ... you are not worried about the future. That's really where we differ greatly. You are no different than many fans. Many only care about the present. That's fine as a fan. It's absolute incompetence as a GM. If I offered you 3 weeks pay no or an entire years pay six years from now when your productivity and therefore income is higher which would you take?

Once again we differ - yes the teams plan for the future where they can, but when a WS is possible the team jumps at that, signs players it might not sign otherwise and makes moves like the A's just did with Rosenthal and Moreland.  That is why we see the angst in July for a team to make a trade and get that one piece that can get them over the hump.  

As someone who loves prospects more than FA I am often frustrated and we seem to be having a discussion where our parallel lines just won't merge.  I do like a lot of what you say, but I also remember a run of playoff appearances from 2002 - 2010 when we were eliminated in six playoffs and the fans were going nuts. Just like our 18 game losing streak that six time losing in the ALCS made such frustration and people wanted something that would put us over the top - right now. 

Once again we differ - yes the teams plan for the future where they can, but when a WS is possible the team jumps at that, signs players it might not sign otherwise and makes moves like the A's just did with Rosenthal and Moreland.  That is why we see the angst in July for a team to make a trade and get that one piece that can get them over the hump.  

 

As someone who loves prospects more than FA I am often frustrated and we seem to be having a discussion where our parallel lines just won't merge.  I do like a lot of what you say, but I also remember a run of playoff appearances from 2002 - 2010 when we were eliminated in six playoffs and the fans were going nuts. Just like our 18 game losing streak that six time losing in the ALCS made such frustration and people wanted something that would put us over the top - right now. 

You have completely changed the topic. If you want to discuss a specific move that might make us more formidable in the playoffs .... great! 

Whether Kirilloff  has earned a spot having never played an inning at AAA and a modest showing at AA is a different topic. Whether forfeiting a years control for 3 weeks of an unproven player is a different topic. Whether 3 weeks of Kirilloff is essential to our success in a different topic.

You have completely changed the topic. If you want to discuss a specific move that might make us more formidable in the playoffs .... great! 

 

Whether Kirilloff  has earned a spot having never played an inning at AAA and a modest showing at AA is a different topic. Whether forfeiting a years control for 3 weeks of an unproven player is a different topic. Whether 3 weeks of Kirilloff is essential to our success in a different topic.

Every wee is essential in a tight race

Every wee is essential in a tight race

I agree. However, the plan with the highest likelihood of success is not at all clear. Remember when so many here insisted we bring up Berrios because he would be our best pitcher. I remember that chatter with Burdi too. None of us has seen him play for an entire year with the exception of one game. So, for anyone outside the organization to claim to know his readiness is hard to take serious.

I have not heard one person make their case based on performance. Kirilloff has an unspectacular stint at AA and he has never played a single inning at AAA. That s not the resume of a player that has proven to be ready. If we are really concerned about every win we would engage a different plan. We have a spot open and fans want to see the highly anticipated prospect. However, Rooker clearly has better Milb credentials. We could even make a case for the best way to start the season would be to platoon Cave and Broxton while waiting a month for Kirilloff is ready. 

I agree. However, the plan with the highest likelihood of success is not at all clear. Remember when so many here insisted we bring up Berrios because he would be our best pitcher. I remember that chatter with Burdi too. None of us has seen him play for an entire year with the exception of one game. So, for anyone outside the organization to claim to know his readiness is hard to take serious.

 

I have not heard one person make their case based on performance. Kirilloff has an unspectacular stint at AA and he has never played a single inning at AAA. That s not the resume of a player that has proven to be ready. If we are really concerned about every win we would engage a different plan. We have a spot open and fans want to see the highly anticipated prospect. However, Rooker clearly has better Milb credentials. We could even make a case for the best way to start the season would be to platoon Cave and Broxton while waiting a month for Kirilloff is ready. 

I listened to John Bonnes on the last Off Season Live make his choice for the person to start the year in LF and I was pleased that he not only chose Kiriloff, but made many similar arguments to mine.  I do remember and I was wrong about Berrios, but that does not make the case against every other player - look at Soto and Acuna, Tatis, and Graterol all making their jump to MLB before they were 21.  

Kiriloff gets ratings that Berrios never had and when the Twins put him on their playoff roster I think they told us that he is ready. 

I listened to John Bonnes on the last Off Season Live make his choice for the person to start the year in LF and I was pleased that he not only chose Kiriloff, but made many similar arguments to mine.  I do remember and I was wrong about Berrios, but that does not make the case against every other player - look at Soto and Acuna, Tatis, and Graterol all making their jump to MLB before they were 21.  

Kiriloff gets ratings that Berrios never had and when the Twins put him on their playoff roster I think they told us that he is ready. 

So your argument is that a couple of absolute superstars were ready at 19-20 years of age. How about if we look at their performance. You know … the evidence they were ready to play. Tell us how his performance demonstrates he is ready for MLB. Of course, you will ignore this because there is no way to conclude his performance demonstrates he is ready to perform at the highest level. 

The anecdote that he started a playoff 1 playoff game is a desperate reach to come up with validation when his track record won’t provide it. The Twins started Polanco in 5 games at age 20. Did that mean he was ready for the ML level?

Acuna is actually a counterargument to your position. He had an 895 OPS at AAA vs 756 for Kirilloff. Yet, he was sent to AAA. He proved he was ready with an OPS of 940 over 54 games. (almost identical to Rooker) So, if you are advocating Acuna’s path who performed much better than Kirilloff at AA, Kirilloff should go to AAA for a couple months. 

Sota had an OPS of 1218 at age 19 before they brought him up in 2018. To compare Kirilloff and Soto is ridiculous.

Not one person is making a case for him based on performance. It’s all anecdotal. What I really would like to know is how anyone has an informed opinion outside the organization when he has not played competitive BB in a year. The arguments are self-indulgent. How is it not a perfectly acceptable strategy to start him at AAA and allow him to prove he is ready for MLB?