Does Arencebia have the potential to be a first baseman?

illy · Post #1 » by **illy** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:56 pm

i mean with d'arnaud on the come up, its gon be a complicated situation. has he played anyother position in college or the minors?

if lind continues his struggles, could this be a possibility? or are they better off trading him?

reason i'm asking is that hes great in the clubhouse and is one the fan favourites

CrymeTime · Post #2 » by **CrymeTime** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:55 pm

I remember hearing that when we drafted him (21st overall), they wanted him to be a catcher.

When the supplemental round came around, it looked like we could draft d'Arnaud (he was taken 1 pick to early). Had we gotten d'Arnaud, management would have converted JPA into a 1B.

I think they'll test him out at 1B next spring.

BigLeagueChew · Post #3 » by **BigLeagueChew** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:27 pm

Depends how well he hits this year, if he draws some more walks and gets on base more often then I might consider it but it's too early to make this decision IMO.

We also have to think of Lind having a bounce back season , which would put Arencibia moving to first out of the question.

kwamebargnani · Post #4 » by **kwamebargnani** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:58 pm

His bat is considered okay BECAUSE he plays C. I wish people would stop with this ridiculous idea. If you have JPA playing 1B, your team has a serious problem.

Relentless88 · Post #5 » by **Relentless88** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:00 pm

Lind is a better hitter at 1B and Lind is terrible.

Post #6 » by **OldNo7** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:27 pm

The only time it is OK for your first baseman to hit .220 is when he walks 90+ times and hits 30+ bombs, like Carlos Pena.

WpgPage · Post #7 » by **WpgPage** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:19 pm

Does not have the bat for 1B will most likely be traded, to bad seams like a good guy but he has no value at 1B.

LBJSeizedMyID · Post #8 » by **LBJSeizedMyID** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:03 pm

He has much more value at catcher. A 25+ homerun catcher is much easier to move as well and would command a lot more in return in a trade. Add on the fact that the Jays treat their players right, they'd be ripping Arencibia off of a larger type contract in the open market if this were to happen.

Post #9 » by **OldNo7** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:11 am

I still think he could be a passable version of Napoli with the Angels as a backup C/1B/DH platoon guy who can get 400 ABs.

Deron05 · Post #10 » by **Deron05** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:48 pm

I would rather have him in a package deal to get a starter, if we need one. Which I think we will.

Parataxis · Post #11 » by **Parataxis** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:39 pm

I really see no problem with having two great catchers and platooning them as battery units. Would be much better for their knees, and probably extend their careers considerably.

kwamebargnani · Post #12 » by **kwamebargnani** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:23 am

Parataxis wrote:I really see no problem with having two great catchers and platooning them as battery units. Would be much better for their knees, and probably extend their careers considerably.

There's a lot of problems with that. Thankfully, AA isn't stupid enough to platoon them.

Parataxis · Post #13 » by **Parataxis** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:39 pm

kwamebargnani wrote:
Parataxis wrote:I really see no problem with having two great catchers and platooning them as battery units. Would be much better for their knees, and probably extend their careers considerably.

There's a lot of problems with that. Thankfully, AA isn't stupid enough to platoon them.

Want to be constructive and actually explain why it's a problem to have two great catchers, instead of one and a mediocre backup? (obviously, if a trade makes the team better, you do the trade, but that applies to every single player, so it's not what we're talking about)

Thanks.

Skin Blues · Post #14 » by **Skin Blues** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:07 pm

There's no obvious problem with 2 great catchers other than opportunity cost. And there's always the chance that Farrell doesn't play d'Arnaud as often as he should if he's ceding at-bats to the backup more than he would if it was Jose Molina or something. You don't want to destroy an asset like Arencibia by giving him <200 ABs per season but you also don't want to play d'Arnaud less than <400 AB per season. The latter stunts d'Arnaud's development and doesn't get max production out of him. And Arencibia isn't a great catcher, he's probably a below average catcher that can't get on base but has good pop. That's not a bad back-up, but if we can get a team to give us something in return that's more useful than a backup catcher we definitely should. None of the ideal choices of action involve Jeff Mathis though... it's really unfortunate that he's on the team.

flatjacket1 · Post #15 » by **flatjacket1** » Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:27 pm

He would have been so much more terrible if he had been a first baseman last year.

We lose so much positional value by moving him from the hardest position to one of the easiest. It just doesn't make sense. That's like asking Escobar to play 1st. Only difference is that Escobar can hit.

kwamebargnani · Post #16 » by **kwamebargnani** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:30 am

Parataxis wrote:Want to be constructive and actually explain why it's a problem to have two great catchers

Do I actually have to?

There's just no reason to platoon when one guy can do a fine job as a starter. First, if you're gonna platoon catchers, you're gonna have to waste a roster spot on the 3rd catcher unless you want to give them 81 games each, which is even more (Please Use More Appropriate Word). Second, it's just a terrible way to handle rookies. You want to give them as much opportunities to refine their tools as possible. Do you know any team that benches their top prospects every freakin time because they want to protect their knees, shoulders, arms or whatever? Me neither. Third, JPA is not good enough to still be around when d'Arnaud is ready. I cringe whenever I see someone suggest JPA should be the future 1st baseman. No, he should be traded AS A CATCHER when d'Arnaud is ready. That's how he's gonna bring back anything positive. The moment you start platooning JPA, his value becomes negligible.

flatjacket1 · Post #17 » by **flatjacket1** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:00 pm

It makes a lot more sense to trade Arencebia as a decent catcher with plenty years of surplus value left than a terrible first baseman who provides negative value.

For now it makes sense to keep things how they are.

mini · Post #18 » by **mini** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:07 pm

Is D'Arnaud likely to be ready next year for the full year? Does he see some time this September?

Tyrone Slothrop · Post #19 » by **Tyrone Slothrop** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:58 pm

mini wrote:Is D'Arnaud likely to be ready next year for the full year? Does he see some time this September?

That seems to be the plan, considering he's on the 40 man roster. He's also probably going to be put up some pretty big number in Vegas, which will lead to high expectations for 2013.

flatjacket1 · Post #20 » by **flatjacket1** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:16 am

Tyrone Slothrop wrote:
mini wrote:Is D'Arnaud likely to be ready next year for the full year? Does he see some time this September?

That seems to be the plan, considering he's on the 40 man roster. He's also probably going to be put up some pretty big number in Vegas, which will lead to high expectations for 2013.

The sole purpose he is on the 40 man is to protect him from the rule 5 draft. I'm pretty sure they added him to it a day or so before the draft either this year or last year. All I know is if he wasn't put on the 40 man he would be eligible to be drafted.

He will likely see a full year in Vegas and may see time in September if JPA isn't lights out. That's just a guess, yours is as good as mine.