Prospect Talk: Eddie Rosario and Delino DeShields, Jr.
Let’s start by saying this is going to be less about the statistics that either of the titular players offer, and more about the concept of them as prospects, and how we perceive them. While statistics are necessary in most cases, I wanted to talk about the value of these players as it pertains to their positions, and the risk involved in investing in them. Both players ranked in the top 300 on the July update of the top 500, but then again both were playing second base at the time.
Since then, both players have been shifted to the outfield, with DeShields, Jr moving to centerfield and Rosario to a corner (centerfield is pretty well covered for Minnesota between Hicks now and Buxton in the future). The shift from the offense-scarce second base to the offense-rich outfield is a tough one for both players’ prospect status. Of course, in leagues where RF/CF/LF is split out, instead of the generic OF, DeShields, Jr still retains value, as centerfielders are hard to come by as well. Both DeShields, Jr and Rosario are still prospects in their own right, but each takes a hit in a very different way, when it comes to fantasy.
DeShields, Jr is stocky, standing 5’9/205 lbs and can deliver extra base hits, though his home run power will be lacking. His fantasy value, and perhaps his prospect value though, is built on his wheels. He’s got 80 grade speed and while hustling might not be his forte, he can take a walk, get down the line in a flash and rack up stolen bases with the best of them. Rosario on the other hand has a more well rounded game. He doesn’t walk like DeShields, Jr but he doesn’t strike out as much either (excepting his first taste at Double-A last year). He hits for average, gets on base enough, and has hit for ample pop at every level, once again, excepting Double-A. While neither player is going to be a home run hitter, Rosario is the much better bet to post a solid slugging percentage, making up for the lack of homers by wearing out the gaps for doubles. The problem here is, that while I would rather have Rosario as a prospect in real life, this outfield shift is worse for Rosario than it is DeShields, Jr. The latter remains a boom/bust prospect who could drastically impact your fantasy leagues if he hits – at any position. The former had more value tied up in the position he played because his ceiling wasn’t quite as high.
I have long been a proponent of both prospects, and I own them each in different leagues. I had thought, and perhaps been insistent that, while not a good defender, Rosario would stick at the keystone if for no other reason than that his bat was worth it there. There was a risk inherent in that thinking, and it turns out I lost. I once would have ranked Rosario far above DeShields, Jr but with both shifting to the outfield, looks like their on field positions aren’t the only things that have changed.
The Author
28 Comments
RE: Deshields
I am pretty desperate for a 2B in a deep dynasty points league, which is the reason I’ve been holding onto Deshields. My OF is really solid, so if DDS becomes a full-time OF he is worth a lot less to me, since steals don’t score that much.
Should I hold onto him and hope they give him a real shot at 2B, or try and trade him now to another team gambling on the 2B eligibility?
Short version: Is this guy going to be a 2B?
Short version: No.
Long version: They’ve given him every opportunity to be a second baseman, and he wasn’t a good one. It’s always possible he shifts back to second, but I don’t believe his move to center is an experiment. I think it’s for the long haul.
Thanks, Craig.
I’m going to shop him around and move my chips over to 2B Dorssys Paulino.
I’d be investing in Rougned Odor if I could
When did Rosario move back to the outfield? Reports I read said that he was doing well at second.
It appears he’s still splitting some time there – though I had heard a report that he was shifting back to the OF earlier this offseason. Additionally, a more recent BP report had this to say about him:
“Rosario has a solid bat that would be a great fit at second base, where it would be an above-average asset. Unfortunately, he can’t play second base, at least not well. “
Isn’t Rosario playing second every day, right now, in the Arizona league? This is a well-written piece but I think you are wrong about Rosario moving to the outfield.
He has played 2B in the AFL just as he has DH’d. As I said before, it was reported previously that Rosario would spend time in the outfield. The “writer’s note” in this link http://kstp.com/sports/stories/S3170762.shtml?cat=7 indicates as such.
I know Baseball America said he had taken to the position in their end of year prospect roundups. I saw he played 1st the other day in the Arizona Fall League. Worth keeping an eye on.
I heard that Rosario’s move to OF is a result of Dozier playing well at 2B last year. This definitely hurts Rosario’s odds of being a major league 2B, but if it’s truly (and I don’t know that it is) a matter of Dozier being a solid regular, there’s still a chance Rosario could play 2B for the Twins some day.
Even if he has to move to the OF I would guess his *fantasy* ceiling would be similar to Torii Hunter’s last 2 seasons? I would still sign up for that, but of course that’s ceiling, and would be much preferred at 2B.
Agreed. It’s not out of the question he spends time there, but he goes from being an above-average option at 2B to something more like a fourth outfielder in fantasy (maybe third depending on league depth). Additionally, the more time he spends away from the position, the less likely it is he increases his ability to play it. Thanks for the extra info!
No problem. I agree that regardless of the reason this definitely hurts his chances of being an everyday 2B.
If the move is Dozier dependent, it might indicate that the Twins believe in Rosario’s bat enough to move his position in hopes that he could help the major league club in the future. Or, he is so poor at 2B that they cannot leave him there because his poor defense is somehow hurting his market value; thus, they are hoping he can show other teams he can be a solid OFer. Given that they are still splitting his time makes lean towards the former being true, but we’ll see.
Mr. Goldstein said Rosario has been “moved” and “shifted” to the outfield based on one source who actually said this: “Writer’s note: a Twins official said Rosario will play some outfield in the Arizona Fall League and winterball.”
“Some” does not necessarily equal “moved” and “shifted.”
Mr. Goldstein responds to this matter, also, by saying that, yes, Rosario has played 2b so far in the Arizona League but has also “DH’d.”
“DH’d” does not prove that Rosario has been “moved” and “shifted” to the outfield.
Another commentator here adds that Rosario has played one game at1st base in the AZ.
1st base is not played in the outfield.
People, is the proof, beyond an ambiguous “writer’s note” by one source that Rosario has been shifted to the outfield?
There is none.
Meanwhile here is what another one source says: John Sickels in a recent dispatch on Twins prospects at minorleagueball.com:
“Eddie Rosario, 2B, Grade B: Solid line drive hitter with consistently good production through the Double-A level. Converted outfielder has made good progress learning second base. Strong makeup adds to package. Development of Brian Dozier means the Twins won’t have to rush Rosario. ETA: late 2014.”
Mr. Fanthed cites a report claiming that Rosario “has made good progress learning second base.” “Progress” does not equal “has become adept at playing.”
People, is there proof, beyond a single “dispatch” by another respected prospect writer, that Rosario will stick at second base?
There is none.
Seriously though, Sickles is a great source and I appreciate you bringing other evaluations into the picture, but we talk to people as well and Craig and I have both repeatedly been told that Rosario will not stay at 2B. What’s the value if we tell you he’s moved to the outfield after he’s already played 20 games there?
If you don’t want to believe us, fine, but go troll on Bleacher Report or somewhere else.
TYPO! Sorry! Meant to write:
People, WHERE is the proof, beyond an ambiguous “writer’s note” by one source that Rosario has been shifted to the outfield?
Mr. Carsley, you are just being rude and defensive to accuse me of trolling just because I disagree, calmly and logically, with the written analysis here. I gave you a few arguments, besides the one source, to support my arguments. You ignore all these arguments but one (John Sickels). That’s not intellectual engagement, that’s a form of pettiness, and I suggest that if you can’t handle honest disagreement without resort to ad hominen attacks that you write less.
Where did he make an ad hominem attack? He described an action you took. It’s the difference between calling something I’ve done stupid and calling me stupid.
You did not provide a few arguments, in fact. I don’t know what else to tell you except that I’ve seen in multiple places, one of which I’ve linked you to, and heard from people I trust that Rosario will be spending more time in the outfield.
I’m not even sure what your endgame is here. If your argument is that he is going to stay at second base – you’ve given one report from Sickels. I’ve given you three different ones from reputable sources. I’m not sure why you’re arguing this so hard. I can agree that you’ve been calm, but I’m not sure to what end you’re making this argument. It seems to me that you’re going to great lengths to prove me wrong when I’ve provided ample reasoning as to my statement. I don’t *know* if that’s “trolling” but it’s something that doesn’t look good, at least in my eyes.
I also asked Brandon Warne of ESPN1500 in Minnesota and he said they’re moving him around, which continues to sound like second base isn’t going to be a primary position for him in the long term.
I’ve said before and I’ll say again, this isn’t set in stone, but the piece holds up even if Rosario doesn’t move as instructive on how values can change depending on the type of profile the prospect has and the depth/value at the position they play. I’m not sure why we can’t just let that be.
Sorry – I had not posted the three different ones – I had included that in a reply I did not post, here they are:
This is BA after 2012: Minnesota has had him focus on making the routine play and turning the double play, but he’ll need more work to be an average defender. Rosario will stay in the infield as he moves up to high Class A. He’s a bit of a tweener if he has to go back to the outfield, so the Twins will give him every chance to remain at second base.
This is Parks at mid-season: I was disappointed in Rosario’s defense at second, as he looked uncomfortable on balls hit right at him and his reactions to either side appeared slow, both in live action and in warm-ups. It should be noted repeatedly that the field conditions were terrible because of consistent rain over the weekend, but his approach and his actions weren’t of major-league quality. Given his athleticism, it seems likely that the outfield is a better location for his skills, but with repetition perhaps his glove can take steps forward at the keystone. But in the small sample, it wasn’t just the fact that he made errors and didn’t play well, it’s how and why those errors were made in the first place.
To requote what I used above which was a separate BP author: “Rosario has a solid bat that would be a great fit at second base, where it would be an above-average asset. Unfortunately, he can’t play second base, at least not well. “
I do not feel the need to provide a counterpoint to arguments such as “first base and DH are not in the outfield.” The only substantiative comment you made was about Sickles, and I addressed it.
1. Mr. Goldstein. I am questioning your analysis respectfully; I am not trolling. To call somebody a name so as to disparage his character, versus directly engaging all of his reasonable arguments, is what is called an ad hominen attack. Mr. Carsley calling me a troller has nothing to do with the quality of my argument. My argument or questioning may be wrong but that doesn’t mean I am trolling.
2. I appreciate that you have addressed my question with more support than was in your original article. You have mentioned, for example, sources. None of which were mentioned in the original article. Thank you.
3. Mr. Carsley asks: “What’s the value if we tell you he’s moved to the outfield after he’s already played 20 games there?”
I’ll respond: “None, I suppose. But the fact that Rosario’s apparently played 0 games in the outfield the Arizona League to date while he’s played 2nd, 1st, and DH’d doesn’t seem utterly irrelevant or like the non-point that you seem keen on portraying it as.”
4. No where in the above piece, Mr. Goldstein, do you say that Rosario’s supposed move to the outfield “isn’t set in stone.” Maybe you’ve said it elsewhere. But in the above you wrote, in fact, as if this move was set in stone. You simply wrote that he had been moved and shifted to the outfield and left it at that. That’s what I’m questioning. And I am sorry if you think I am misreading what you wrote. And I am sorry that Mr. Carsley is rude.
Thank you.
It appears then that you did not read my responses to other commenters, as I said there:
“It appears he’s still splitting some time there – though I had heard a report that he was shifting back to the OF earlier this offseason. ”
“Agreed. It’s not out of the question he spends time there, but he goes from being an above-average option at 2B to something more like a fourth outfielder in fantasy (maybe third depending on league depth). Additionally, the more time he spends away from the position, the less likely it is he increases his ability to play it. Thanks for the extra info!”
As for your responses to Ben, I again would make a distinction between action “trolling” and name-calling “troll”. “Go troll” is about an action. “Go be a troll” would be calling you a name.
I also disagree that you’re respectfully questioning my analysis. You’re questioning my facts, which I backed up and which you continued to question and then decided to play the semantics game with my entire article. Your original comment asked me a question to which I responded to with proof that the Twins planned to shift Rosario to the outfield. You then wrote a screed about the quality of my article. I didn’t realize I needed to give you three+ links to qualify my statement. I could have. I thought it reasonable to provide you with AN (1) example of said reasoning. Apparently that’s not the case.
I addressed your question immediately with a source. You seemed to find that source unqualified, which is more your problem, not mine. I’d say if anyone here is being rude, it’s you for your continued assaults on my article despite my being completely willing to back up what I’ve said.
And to be utterly clear: by “the above piece” and “the above you wrote,” I mean the original post, not your subsequent responses.
ok, but you had seen those responses to comments that you referenced in your original long comment, so to pretend like they didn’t exist is absurd.
I am not pretending that they did not exist. Which is why I referenced them over and over again. Boy, you two are defensive–if not out and out hostile!
And by the way: despite all your verbiage about sources (which is your obsession, not mine) you still have not addressed my point about Rosario not having played outfield in the Arizona League while playing 1st and Dh and 2nd. In pointing this out, I am not challenging your facts–I hope you can follow that–and instead I am merely pointing out that you, again, haven’t addressed what you haven’t addressed.
I expect a petulant response or more silence (on this ONE, particular point). So have it.
You said I didn’t say it was set in stone, while I acknowledged in the comments that he might still see time there. I’m not being petulant by refuting your incorrect statement. I’ll admit that I am a bit defensive in that I’m defending my article and my reasoning. If that’s not what you want, I’m not sure what I can do to help you.
Regarding him not playing the outfield in the AFL – I’m again not sure what you want. You’re correct in that. I don’t know what you want me to address. He hasn’t done it yet. The note I linked you to said AFL/Winter leagues, so it’s possible he won’t play the outfield in the AFL.
I’m not sure how it can possibly be my obsession with sources, when you attacked the fact that when you stated I was wrong about him moving to the outfield, I gave you a source and you then wrote a screed about my article. You continue to say you have been respectful, but instead of engaging in dialogue and saying “I see that’s one note from an author – do you have more your basing it on?” you wrote your original long note decrying that I had no proof whatsoever. Perhaps you’re not as polite as you think.
Eddie Rosario, fantasy blog gasoline.
The whole point of your ORIGINAL article is that these two players have shifted to the outfield!
“Both players ranked in the top 300 on the July update of the top 500, but then again both were playing second base at the time.
“Since then, both players have been shifted to the outfield, with DeShields, Jr moving to centerfield and Rosario to a corner (centerfield is pretty well covered for Minnesota between Hicks now and Buxton in the future). The shift from the offense-scarce second base to the offense-rich outfield is a tough one for both players’ prospect status.”
“The problem here is, that while I would rather have Rosario as a prospect in real life, this outfield shift is worse for Rosario than it is DeShields, Jr….”
“I have long been a proponent of both prospects, and I own them each in different leagues. I had thought, and perhaps been insistent that, while not a good defender, Rosario would stick at the keystone if for no other reason than that his bat was worth it there. There was a risk inherent in that thinking, and it turns out I lost. I once would have ranked Rosario far above DeShields, Jr but with both shifting to the outfield, looks like their on field positions aren’t the only things that have changed.”
YOU set in stone that Rosario is moving to the outfield.
Only in the comments section, BELOW your ORIGINAL article, do you mention that Rosario’s move “isn’t set in stone.”
Apparently, you don’t understand how your writing has confused me and how your attacks on me for showing why I was confused are insulting. Okay. You don’t. Thanks, Craig. Brilliant performance.
[…] into a good ol’ comments section fight. But, Craig Goldstein did touch on him and what it means for his value if a move to the outfield becomes permanent in a post from last week. The reality is that Rosario […]