Castillo and Free Agency

by Flip27 on Jun 13, 2007 5:57 PM EDT

The more I think about it, the more I think the Twins should re-sign Lius Castillo. It has been sort of a forgone conclusion in the Twins blogosphere that Castillo will not be a Twin come 2008. He's a free agent, and there's a young speedster named Alexi Casilla that will be ready to take his place next season.

But should we dismiss him so easily? He's been one of the best leadoff hitters in baseball as a Twin. He draws walks, he works deep into counts, he can steal bases, and he gets more infield hits then Ichiro on caffeine pills. He's the one "piranha" who you can count on to use the piranha attack consistently and effectively.

Then there's his defense. His 143 game errorless streak that just ended a week ago was a Major League Record for second basemen. Go back and read that last sentence again. How he didn't win a Gold Glove again last season, I'll never understand. When you consider both sides of his play, it should be obvious that he is one of the best and most valuable second basemen in all of baseball.

It's not re-signing like Castillo would break the bank either. A 2-year, $11 million contract could probably keep him. Perhaps even a 1-year, $6 million contract would. If you are counting Hunter as gone in 2008, the Twins could afford to work out a contract with Castillo.

Granted, Alexi Casilla's ability is going to eventually demand a full time spot in the lineup. -But there's no reason that his position couldn't be shortstop. We really don't know if Bartlett is good enough to deserve to start in the long term. Yes, he had a good offensive season last year, but that was only one good season. You know who else has had exactly one good season at the plate? Nick Punto and Lew Ford. I wouldn't and don't think either of them should be playing on an everyday basis.

So far this season, Bartlett is reminding me of Luis Rivas's futility at the plate as a middle infielder. OK, maybe not that terrible, but he's certainly been bad. Bad enough to allow Casilla to challenge his job next spring? Maybe. Perhaps the two of them could even platoon. At the very least, keeping Castillo would provide insurance that you will likely get good production from BOTH of your middle infielders in 2008.

Obviously if Bartlett turns it around in the second half, things could change. Castillo is getting older, and his batting average and on-base percentage will begin to dip as he is less able to beat out infield hits. However, he's not yet past his prime. For what he gives the Twins at the cost of his salary, there's no reason to think that the Twins should just let him walk away.

Tweet Comment 37 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I agree,

to a point. It is going to hurt us when he leaves next season, he has been a very consistant performer in a Twins uniform. But with his leg issues it has always been my impression that both Castillo and the Twins management know that it would benefit Castillo to not play on turf for more than half of the games on the schedule. And because of this, I'm not sure he'd even consider resigning here, or given the injury risk, if the twins would try very hard to resign him.

by JP @ Twinkie Town on Jun 13, 2007 6:34 PM EDT reply actions

The Good Luis

I loves me some Castillo, and I'd say that on balance he's been an absolutely brilliant signing for the Twins. But I really don't see that the (total guess alert) 7 mil he'll be making next year is going to give us our money's worth in increased performance over Casilla (though his ML stint earlier this year was brutal to be sure).

Bartlett, in my opinion, has a worst-case scenario of being a super-cheap replacement-level stopgap at short until we can figure something else out. Given the dearth of other minor-league options at 2B (and that is one thin position around the majors), I don't see Casilla moving to short as much of a viable option.

I guess my money's on the conventional wisdom that we have more effective places to spend our money than on retaining the services of Mr. Castillo for another year.

by ravenfly on Jun 13, 2007 7:15 PM EDT reply actions

1- or 2-year deal?

I don't think I agree that Castillo would be very likely to sign a 1- or 2-year contract, especially at the numbers you mentioned - his option this year was for $5.75 million, and if he keeps up his current performance, he'll easily get more than the $5.5-6 million/year range you mentioned. Besides the annual salary issues, he's 32 at the end of this year, and this is probably his last chance to get any sort of long-term deal. Add that to the turf issues that have been mentioned, and I don't think he'll be champing at the bit to stay here.

Anyway, it's been nice getting to see the second really good Twins second baseman of the last twenty years (although I have a soft spot for Steve Lombardozzi, since he was in RBI Baseball and also once hit an in-the-parker at a game I was at). Hopefully Casilla can make performance at that spot into a trend.

by BeefMaster on Jun 14, 2007 9:48 AM EDT reply actions

Castillo's future

A lot of GMs make the mistake of signing aging veterans who are playing at the peak of their abilities in a contract year. Castillo fits this mold. He's playing great, and he's the main reason why the three middle hitters are having career years for RBI. I understand the temptation. But I hope TR resists it. And I think he will, given his history.

As Beef pointed out, Luis's legs continue to hurt him, and I for one have often thought we were living on borrowed time with him. Just when you think he's headed for the DL, he comes on strong. But that can't last forever. Second basemen are notorious for falling off a cliff in effectiveness at age 32. So it's likely the Twins will pay for something they will not get if they sign him to the requisite 3-year deal.

You don't need a long memory as a Twins fan to see a case in point. Shannon Stewart carried this team to the playoffs in a contract year. After signing him to a three-year, $20 million contract, the Twins got one good year and two injury-riddled years from him. I wonder what the Twins could have done with that $20 million. Use your imagination.

And that's the cost here. If you sign Castillo to a three-year contract, who do you have to not sign to make it work? Hunter for sure. Possibly Santana. Possibly Nathan. Those are not easy parts to replace. Castillo won't be easy to replace either, but the Twins at least have two decent candidates in AAA (Casilla and Tolbert). It's tough, I know. But it's a matter of choosing the lesser of evils.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 14, 2007 10:11 AM EDT reply actions

Hey, Shannon was great.......

The Shannon Stewart signing did good. Allowed us to see Kubel, play Tyner, and let Ford do his thing. ALways ncie to have a few little salaries backing up one big one. If someone regular had been out there, the above three would have probably disappeared to Mike Restovich-land.

Luver of Twins history, cards and the minor leagues.

by twintown on Jun 14, 2007 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions

Hmmmm...

I don't see how Tyner and Ford disappearing in lieu of a functional, productive outfielder is a bad outcome.

by eahnpurato on Jun 14, 2007 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions

Kubel...

...is too good to be relegated to the fate of Mike Restovich. In 2004, he had arguably the best minor league season by a Twins prospect in decades. And that was no one-year fluke. He often out-hit Mauer at similar levels in the minors. Losing Ford or Tyner is nothing. Replacement-level outfielders are easily replaceable.

I still don't see how it's a good thing to pay a guy $6 million a year for two years to sit on the DL. If you don't sign him, then Ford and Kubel get more opportunities, not less. And you can use his money on a slugging DH or third baseman.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 14, 2007 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Kubel in the minors

starts to sound alot like Kyle Loshe once won 14 games, I know he missed a year with an awful injury but so far he's had 1 great month in the bigs (last June)

Trust me I want to see Kubel hit like he did in Rochester but so far it's hard to see whether that will happen at all.

It's sad that the day Gardy comes out and says Kubel is our LF he goes and sprains his "good" knee.

I'm pulling for Kubel but my expectations have been lowered.

by caluofmn on Jun 14, 2007 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Even if you want...

...to compare Kubel to Lohse, Lohse had a lot more value as a major leaguer than Restovich will. Whether or not he stays healthy enough to turn that talent into value, Kubel's a lot more talented than Restovich.

by ubelmann on Jun 14, 2007 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Kubel's injuries

It seems like every time he gets going he gets hurt. At least that's what happened last year and this year. Hopefully this stint on the bench doesn't mean another month of getting his timing back. Because he was really turning it on before he got hurt. Shades of David Ortiz in a Twins uniform.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 14, 2007 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Patience

Kubel is at that stage most young prospects go through, he's learning to translate his talents to a major league level of play. Some players, like Mauer, don't seem to go through that stage. And some players, like Rivas, never seem to figure it out. But most guys, like Cuddyer, Hunter and even Morneau, take some time to adjust and some take longer than others.

That said, some of the Twins chances the rest of the way depend on Kubel starting to figure things out in a hurry.

/*****/ "If you come here, have fun with the sometimes breezy way we deal with the information that comes our way." cmathewson

by TT @ Twinkie Town on Jun 14, 2007 4:59 PM EDT reply actions

The Bad Luis

Oh, c'mon. Rivas never had any talent. The Twins' management was just deluded.

by ravenfly on Jun 14, 2007 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions

BBA

Along with Baseball America and numerous other respected evaluators.

/*****/ "If you come here, have fun with the sometimes breezy way we deal with the information that comes our way." cmathewson

by TT @ Twinkie Town on Jun 14, 2007 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Rivas

News bulletin:

If you match Bartlett and Rivas through Bartlett's current MLB experience, Bartlett gets his butt handed to him by Luis.

Rivas was a far more promisng player after 225 games than Bartlett is. On top of that, Rivas has out-performed Bartlett and was only 22. Bartlett turns 28 around World Series time.

Chances are real good Bartlett, blogger darling and the subject of many "Free Jason Bartlett" posts a year ago, won't have a career as good as Rivas.

It's too bad Rivas just fell apart. He was a pretty decent ballplayer for 4-plus years and caught the eyes of more scouts than Bartlett ever did.

by Firpo Marberry on Jun 15, 2007 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Rivas was bad

Rivas had a career .238 EQA. Bartlett has a career .245 EQA. Luis had more power in his career, but Bartlett has 30 points of OBP on Rivas, which more than makes up for the slight power of Rivas. And Bartlett plays a more demanding position (that Rivas didn't really have the arm for). And Bartlett has better range than Rivas.

Rivas was younger. That didn't make him better, that just made him younger.

by ubelmann on Jun 15, 2007 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions

You beat me

I guess it pays to be concise.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 16, 2007 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions

Where stats fail

The Rivas Bartlett comparison is a good example. Or it's a good example of people missing the point -- that Rivas at his best was better than Bartlett, and better longer.

Bartlett's entire career and whatever one-number stat you want to toss out basically lies with a couple good months last summer. Bartlett has been mostly stinko since last September 1, including the playoffs. If the trend continues, Bartlett's career will never match that of Rivas for quality.

Anyone who saw Rivas at the top of his game would either have been more impressed with Rivas, not knowledgeable about baseball or basing their opinion on that fact Rivas was Latin.

And using Rivas' entire career one-number stat isn't a fair comparison, because he was awful his final year. But the parameter here is neither a couple wonderful months in '06 nor the entire careers of these two players, both of which skew everything toward the blogger darling, Bartlett.

If Bartlett ever plays as many games as Rivas, get back to me with his stats. Man, Bartlett from last September through now is not good.

On top of that, for all the talk about Bartlett's great range he makes too many plays flopped on his face, even on batters he has shaded to their bat side. I am often astonished to see Bartlett have to leave his feet, say, against a leftie, even though he was shading him left.

I guess if a couple hundred ABs over a couple months in '06 makes Bartlett a good ballplayer, then there have been more good ballplayers than have ever been credited as such.

Bartlett has a LOT to show before anyone will remember him in a decade.

by Firpo Marberry on Jun 16, 2007 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Whatever

The problem with your statements is they're highly subjective. I thought Rivas was a complete joke. He often grounded out to third base on the first pitch and had little range at second. The only thing he was good at was turning the double play, which he did fewer than once per game on average. To me, he doesn't hold a candle to Bartlett. HWereas Bartlett had two great months last year, Rivas had no good months for his entire career. But that's just my opinion. Your's is no better or worse than mine. That's why we need stats.

And the stats prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rivas has nowhere near the talent that Bartlett has.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 16, 2007 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions

That's a joke...

Anyone who saw Rivas at the top of his game would either have been more impressed with Rivas, not knowledgeable about baseball or basing their opinion on that fact Rivas was Latin.

Whatever. If you want to call me stupid or racist for having a particular opinion about two ballplayers that happens to be supported with facts, you're not worth discussing this matter with.

by ubelmann on Jun 17, 2007 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions

I think we're done here.

This has been a good exercise. We've learned that some goofball stat might work somtimes, but you can't beat actually watching a game and knowing something about it.

In the case of Rivas and Barlett, this single-digit stat erroneously suggests Bartlett is a better player to some people who want to ignore some of the same things that they cling to if it helps to make their point.

Jason Bartlett might become a better player. He needs to stay healthy. "Baseball people" (the non-pocket protector observers who understand it is real people who play the game, not some number that pops up on a spreadsheet) tell me he's a smart guy, so he might figure out where to play the hitter so he's not flopping on his face all the time and tossing balls around, and he might learn he needs to go to right field at the plate.

But right now he's got barely more extra base hits than Jason Tyner this year, and Tyner never plays. You don't need some one-digit stat to see that Bartlett ain't gettin' it done at the plate, and his 12 errors are pitiful.

Also, Bartlett's below "replacement level" on the Twins' squad.

Surprise.

This season the Twins are a sub-.500 club with Bartlett in the lineup. They are a .667 team without him.

That would be 6-3.

Oh. Right. The people who are mesmerized by the numbers that appear on their calculators would call that "too small a sample size."

Well, so is Bartlett's career. It's way to small to call him anything other than a guy who passed thorugh. At least Rivas got it done for more than two magical months.

And most certainly, anyone who understands Thing One about baseball knows that a couple of months last summer after Gardy lit a fuse in Bartlett's behind doesn't constitute anything other than a cup of half-decaf.

Since September 1, 2006, Jason Bartlett has been one of those guys who I was always glad to see wearing some other uniform.

He's got a lot of work to do to change my opinion. I'm giving him 50-50 that he can change it, but I'm not about to cling to the idiotic belief that he's anything memorable; so far he's just like a lot of other guys who passed through the big leagues. The Royals' recent history is filled with middle infielders like Bartlett.

And his age does matter. It's time for the bloggers who delude themselves about this guy to quit giving him a free pass. He's been mediocre at best since September 1, 2006. Punch your calculator all you want. You can't change that.

For months now, including spring training, where he was just terrible at the plate and in the field, this is a guy you want to see playing on the other team.

by Firpo Marberry on Jun 17, 2007 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions

I hope we're done here

I watched Rivas' futility at the plate for five years, practically every game. He had three traits that Bartlett never has had: 1. He often swung at the first pitch and grounded to the third baseman. 2. He often popped up to the right fielder on the first pitch. 3. He never walked. The only thing he did better than Bartlett was he had better pop when he made solid contact. Unfortunately, he didn't make solid contact four out of five times to the plate.

I watched Rivas in the field for five years. I thought he had better range than Jay Cannizaro and was good on the double play. But when other second basemen would come into town and get to balls that Rivas gave up on, especially in the hole, I came to realize that having more range than Cannizaro is not very good. Rivas had below average range. Scouts say Bartlett has above average range.

You can rail against stats all you want. But you can win an argument without them. So we are at an impasse, and unless you're willing to stoop to stats to prove your point, I suggest you drop it.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 18, 2007 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions

Mediocrity

First of all, it's extremely arguable that Bartlett is "below replacement level" on the Twins, no matter what the silly win-loss record says. By that measure, Boof Bonser has been more valuable than Johan Santana this year, which I think we would all agree is hogwash.

An honest discussion of that theory would posit whether the Twins' lineup is better without Bartlett than with it, so you're basically comparing Bartlett to Cirillo or Rodriguez, since Punto would slide over to shortstop and one of those two would take his place at third. Cirillo and Rodriguez have both been terrible this year, worse than Bartlett by every measure except Cirillo's SLG. I haven't watched enough games to know whether that change would provide an upgrade in the field at all, much less enough to offset the difference in hitting.

Your "Bartlett has been terrible" opus misses one key point - he's still getting on base. He's slugging at a Tyner-esque level, true, but his OBP this year is higher than Rivas' career high. That doesn't excuse the lack of power completely, but it does make it more tolerable, especially given his baserunning ability - he's been more successful at stealing bases than Rivas was, albeit in fewer attempts.

by BeefMaster on Jun 18, 2007 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions

Bartlett is hispanic

not knowledgeable about baseball or basing their opinion on that fact Rivas was Latin.

I hate the race card. But in this case, it doesn't apply. Did you see Bartlett's family in Oakland? The camera spent a good deal of time between pitches of his at bats focusing on his family. Some were white, but most of them are what the government would call "hispanic". I suspect there's a mix of indigenous and European blood coursing through Jason's veins, and some of that European blood comes from the south western corner of the continent, not that it makes any difference in wither mine or ubelmann's opinions in the matter.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 18, 2007 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions

Race

The idea you can look at someone's family and know their race is silly. Race isn't genetic. Tony Oliva is hispanic.

by TT @ Twinkie Town on Jun 19, 2007 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions

All I'm saying is

If you had seen his family, you would conclude that he is not 100% Anglo Saxon. So for people to say that we prefer Bartlett 'cause he's the white kid is not only wrong, it's well, wrong.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 19, 2007 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions

Tony O'

Technically, Tony is Latino. But these distinctions are more cultural than based on blood, which I think is your point. Central and South America was an even bigger melting pot than the US. So the culture is what binds them together.

In Bartlett's case, he grew up in a culturally diverse household. That was my point.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 19, 2007 8:27 AM EDT up reply actions

Nonsense

Rivas' OPS by season starting with age 17: 663, 623, 676, 687, 754, 681, 697, 689, 715, 627, 540.

Bartlett's OPS by season, starting with age 21: 779, 660, 693, 805, 829, 887, 864, 770.

As you see, Bartlett has consistently been a better hitter. Most of that is in OBP. Whereas Bartlett has consistently been in the upper .300s/ low .400s for OBP, Rivas has struggled to crack .300 throughout his career. Some years, there's a .100 point difference between their performance at the same level.

And when you consider that Bartlett plays shortstop and Rivas plays second, the comparison isn't even close.

I think it's dubious to use Rivas as a yardstick for how Bartlett's career will go. Rivas never had a year remotely like Bartlett's last year. So why should we expect Bartlett's carer to go into the tank just because Rivas' did. In truth, Rivas' career never got out of the tank.

And the age issue is a moot point. Rivas started his pro career after his junior year of high school. Bartlett started his pro career after his junior year of college. So what? If the age issue were valid, why is Rivas stuck on the bench at the minor leagues at age 28 while Bartlett is the starting shortstop on a championship team at the same age? Rivas should be coming into his prime, but his prime never had much of a chance to be very good. Eventually he ran out of chances and now he's a roster filler in AAA.

The only reason Rivas was much beloved by BA was because he had great speed on the stopwatch. As the old saying goes, you can't steal first base.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 16, 2007 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions

Silly

That is one of the silliest comparisons I have ever seen. What level of baseball were they playing at each of those years? Why not include Bartlett's high school and college numbers? And who gives a crap about OPS anyway?

Rivas has clearly had a better career than Bartlett at his point and its not even close. And it doesn't really look very promising that he is ever going to catch him if he doesn't step things up.

Bartlett is the starting shortstop on a championship team

Bartlett was the starting shortstop only part of last year and part of the year he was at AAA. He has yet to play a single full season in the major leagues. And the way he is going, it doesn't really look like he deserves to make it through this year.

Steve Lombardozzi was a starting second baseman on the 1987 championship team. And he played the whole year, not just part of it. It didn't make him a good major league player.

The only reason Rivas was much beloved by BA was because he had great speed on the stopwatch.

I suggest you try reading Rivas's reviews by BBA instead of just making stuff up again. The fact is Rivas was the Twins shortstop of the future until Guzman came along. He was also the youngest player in his league most years. You could find plenty of young players who started out at his age with his major league numbers who turned into allstars and couple who were hall of famers.

I think Rivas was one of those guys who matured early and fooled people as a result. I also suspect he got lazy once he made some money and Gardy wasn't as good at kicking him in the butt as TK had been.

by TT @ Twinkie Town on Jun 19, 2007 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions

I don't want this to escalate into another row

But I disagree. While Bartlett was shortstop, the Twins had a historic winning record. To suggest that Castro had anything to do with the championship team when he left the team with a losing record is ludicrous.

Bartlett had a good year, why don't you just admit it? Will he have as good a year again? I don't know. But I think he's got a better chance of sustaining his career because he has a better approach than Rivas did, and he works harder. If you are a first-pitch swinger and you never change, your career is destined for the toilet.

You are right about Rivas and complacency. He had more talent than Bartlett; but he never worked as hard as Bartlett and he took his talent for granted.

I think most fans of that era look back nostalgically at Rivas and say, "he had a great rookie year and then he got hit on the hand early in his sophomore season and he never was the same". He didn't have as great a rookie year as people remember. He hit .266/.319/.369 with 99 strikeouts and 40 walks. That's not a great year by any measure. And Rivas only got worse from there. It's a decent rookie year, but it wasn't nearly as good as Bartlett's .309/.363/.396 last year with 46 strikeouts and 22 walks. Bartlett hit .241/.316/.345 in 2005 and people wanted to dump him. That's not much different than Rivas' best year. Will Bartlett get better or worse? Too early to tell. But to say Rivas had the better career at this point is just false.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 19, 2007 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions

Not false, just a matter of opinion

It's really not that hard to argue that Rivas has had a better career so far than Bartlett. Bartlett's career averages (save slugging) are better, but Rivas provided roughly four years of production above replacement level at second base (a traditionally poor offensive position), while Bartlett has just one.

I still believe we'll remember Bartlett more fondly than Rivas, and that he'll ultimately have a better major league career (the fact that Rivas' career may be over helps Bartlett's cause there), but to say that he's had a better career so far is arguable, not nearly as cut-and-dried as you're saying.

by BeefMaster on Jun 19, 2007 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions

Fair enough

I thought the debate was about which player has had a better career at this stage of his career. I don't think that's too tough of an answer if you just look at the stats and you don't romanticize Rivas the way the Twins ads did ("he's so fast, you can't see his feet"). But if the debate includes Rivas' entire career against Bartlett's relatively short career, Rivas is the winner. If nothing else, Bartlett might have a chronic neck problem that degenerates into a problem that prevents him from playing at all. So his career would be tragically brief, and Rivas' longevity would carry the day.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 19, 2007 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions

Not a full year

Bartlett had a good year,

He had three good months. Or maybe it was only two good months and one not very good one. Comparing that to four years in the big leagues is just plain silly.

by TT @ Twinkie Town on Jun 19, 2007 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Read what I wrote

But if the debate includes Rivas' entire career against Bartlett's relatively short career, Rivas is the winner.

Therin lies our disagreement. Are we done now?

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Jun 19, 2007 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Opportunity

All arguing aside, you can make the case that Bartlett looks like he could be "Rivas, Part Deux." There are differences between them, to be sure. Bartlett has more plate discipline then Rivas (then again, I have more), Bartlett has more range, and Bartlett has a stronger arm. Rivas was faster, Rivas has a quicker release / quicker hands, and Rivas had a bit more power. Also, Bartlett did actually have a goo year last year. -But Rivas did too. It was 2001 (his rookie season). After Rivas's rookie campaign, he looked very promising. After last season, Bartlett looked very promising.

At some point, the book is out on you as a hitter. The league comes to a consenus on how to pitch to you, and you are forced to adjust in order to succeed as a major leaguer. Morneau's 2006 is the best example of a hitter adjusting and succeeding. Rivas never made an adjustment. Some players can't.

The question is: Do you think that Bartlett will adjust? I know that his struggles so far have really only been for a half of a season. -But if they continue, I'd like to have insurance that our middle infield won't be terrible next year. To me, re-signing Castillo would be that insurance. If Bartlett continues to struggle through next year, Casilla can play shortstop every day.

Now, I know that re-signing Castillo would basically be saying "goodbye" to Hunter. Maybe Santana or Nathan too. -But I ask you this: Is it really realistic to think that Hunter, Santana, and Nathan will be Twins in 2009 anyway? If you keep one, obviously you keep Santana. If you know you can't keep Santana, why not keep Castillo around for another year or two to try and win the World Series in 2008?

I agree that GM's play to win now instead of later far too often. Terry Ryan is one of the few GM who doesn't sell out his future for one, slightly better shot at a pennant. However, the Twins' window of opportunity could well be closing. Sometimes it's OK to try and win now (or in this case, 2008).

-Flip

by Flip27 on Jun 18, 2007 4:54 PM EDT reply actions

I'd

I'd rather spend the money on considering keeping Hunter or locking up Cuddyer. Not that Castillo hasn't been as good as those guys, but because we have at least some semblance of a replacement option for Castillo. Casilla is a lot like young Castillo actually. We don't have any replacement for Hunter or Cuddyer's bats.

Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Jun 19, 2007 2:37 AM EDT reply actions

All

All that being said, I look forward to the day when he returns to the metrodome so I can give him a big round of applause. From being a good solid player, to a good teammate doing things like working with Bartlett on his fielding, Castillo has been a great Twin.

Baseball is great because you cant take a knee or kill the clock. You gotta put the ball over the plate and give the other guy his damn shot E Weaver abridged

by AdamOnFirst on Jun 19, 2007 2:38 AM EDT up reply actions

Yes......

We can always play Punto at second after scoring a big trade for a third baseman, so Castillo is out (maybe even this year...got to keep Punto's bat in the line-up after we get that third baseman).

If you look at Bartlett, who better get that neck fixed, he's no a shoo-in for keeping the job short-term. It could be a fight for the middle infield next season between Jason, Casilla, Tolbert, Punto -- assuming, again, that the Twins get a real third baseman.

Luver of Twins history, cards and the minor leagues.

by twintown on Jun 19, 2007 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions