The Twins Quit on Byung-ho Park
On Wednesday, Travis Sawchik wrote about why there are still reasons for optimism surrounding Byung-ho Park, despite a rough first year in the major leagues. The piece was titled “Don’t Quit on Byung-ho Park”, but two days later, the Twins have done exactly that, designating him for assignment in order to clear a roster spot for Matt Belisle.
This is a bit of a surprising decision because, a year ago, the Twins paid a $13 million posting fee to acquire Park’s rights. But that was a different front office with different evaluators, and the new management team in Minnesota apparently decided that Park wasn’t worth keeping on the 40-man roster, so they’ll either trade him or expose him to waivers, where any team who wants to take a shot on the bounce back would be on the hook for the roughly $9 million in guaranteed money he has coming over the next three years.
Given they minimal salary commitment, I can’t imagine Park is actually going to clear waivers. $3 million per year is nothing in this day and age, and with a multi-year deal, there’s some upside with Park that doesn’t exist if you sign, say, Chris Carter, to a one year contract. And as Sawchik noted in his piece, anyone who was thinking about signing Carter to a cut-rate deal should probably be interested in Park too.
Borrowing a couple of tables from Sawchik’s piece.
| Rank | Player | Batted balls tracked | Barrels/Batted ball % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gary Sanchez | 128 | 18.8 |
| 2 | Byung-ho Park | 123 | 18.7 |
| 3 | Khris Davis | 357 | 18.2 |
| 4 | Nelson Cruz | 381 | 17.8 |
| 5 | Chris Carter | 315 | 17.8 |
| 6 | Mark Trumbo | 386 | 17.4 |
| 7 | Tommy Pham | 81 | 17.3 |
| 8 | Giancarlo Stanton | 248 | 17.3 |
| 9 | Chris Davis | 313 | 16.9 |
| 10 | Miguel Cabrera | 437 | 16.5 |
And this one.
| Rank | Player | Batted balls | Avg. FB/LD exit velo (mph) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nelson Cruz | 381 | 99.2 |
| 2 | Tommy Pham | 81 | 98.9 |
| 3 | Pedro Alvarez | 208 | 98.7 |
| 4 | Franklin Gutierrez | 148 | 98.2 |
| 5 | Khris Davis | 357 | 98.0 |
| 6 | Gary Sanchez | 128 | 97.8 |
| 7 | Josh Donaldson | 408 | 97.8 |
| 8 | Giancarlo Stanton | 248 | 97.4 |
| 9 | David Ortiz | 393 | 97.3 |
| 10 | Byung-ho Park | 123 | 97.2 |
Like Carter, Park hits the crap out of the baseball when he makes contact. And, like Carter, he doesn’t make enough contact. But if you’re okay with the swing-for-the-fences-and-whiff-a-lot approach, well, Park actually made more contact than Carter did last year.
| Name | PA | O-Swing% | Z-Swing% | Swing% | O-Contact% | Z-Contact% | Contact% | Zone% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chris Carter | 644 | 25% | 67% | 44% | 38% | 77% | 65% | 45% |
| Byung-ho Park | 244 | 27% | 67% | 46% | 44% | 77% | 67% | 47% |
Of course, having a lot of similarities to a free agent who can’t find a home isn’t really an argument in favor of Park having a lot of value. Perhaps the Twins decided to DFA Park in part because of the league’s reticence to signing Carter, thinking that perhaps with Carter still willing to sign a one year contract, that maybe Park will slip through waivers. Or, more interestingly, maybe they DFA’d Park because they want to sign Carter themselves; that would be a fun twist to this story.
Of course, that’s pretty unlikely. The reality is that, while Park remains interesting on his own merits, there might not have been much playing time for him in Minnesota. With Joe Mauer and Kennys Vargas ahead of him on the 1B/DH depth chart, Park was probably ticketed for a platoon role, and maybe even a limited platoon role given that Vargas is a switch-hitter who hits lefties better than righties, so Park was only likely to play when Mauer wasn’t in the line-up. Neither Mauer nor Vargas are great players, but Mauer has some franchise icon appeal, and Vargas is both probably better and definitely younger, so giving him the bulk of the DH time is likely a better long-term investment.
Park probably fits better on a team that doesn’t already have a Kennys Vargas to DH, or a local hero making $23 million a year at first base. The power makes him worth another shot, and given the state of several teams 1B/DH positions, I’m pretty sure the Twins will find someone to take the rest of Park’s contract off their hands.
For instance, the Rangers seem to want to give Joey Gallo more time in Triple-A this year, but if they send him back to the minors, they would be penciled in to start Ryan Rua and Jurickson Profar as their 1B and DH options. Sure, everyone still expects them to sign Mike Napoli to play one of those two spots, but Park would still be an upgrade over Rua/Profar at the other position, and give them a cheap source of power while they figure out what Gallo might be.
Alternately, the A’s might also be interested, given that they were hunting for right-handed DHs earlier this winter, and currently have some combination of Yonder Alonso and Ryon Healy at their 1B/DH spots. In a year that is unlikely to result in a playoff berth, taking a shot on Park’s power is probably worth some playing time. Or, if we’re looking for a rebuilding team who needs a DH, the White Sox currently project to have Matt Davidson as their starting DH, and Steamer is forecasting him for a 73 wRC+ and -1 WAR. I would imagine the Twins would rather not trade Park to the White Sox, but if it comes down to waivers, there’s no way Chicago should let him get past them.
Park’s upside is probably something like an average player, so he’s worth the $9 million gamble to see if he can make enough contact to hold down a roster spot. For $9 million with a potential three year payout, there’s just not much risk here, and enough upside for another team to take a low-risk flyer on a guy with serious power. One could reasonably argue that the Twins should have kept him around and hoped to find enough playing time to be the team that got some value out of a potential improvement, but since they just had to have Matt Belisle pitching the seventh inning in a non-contention year, some other franchise will now get to make a bet on Park’s cheap upside.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
*scans both charts* free tommy pham tbh
*sees sample size of 81* Travis should have set the threshold higher tbh
some truth perhaps. but exit velocity is one of the harder things to fake, i’d think, similar to fastball velocity. notice that there aren’t any other small-sample sneakers on there. it’s basically park, pham and 8 obvious mashers. plus pham was up there on these same type lists in ’15 too.
worth at least taking him for a spin to find out, i’d think
Sure, but one of the problems with selecting solely from times that a player makes contact is that you lose the overall context by excluding the times that player did not make contact. The indignation in this comments section regarding the Twins releasing an 80 wRC+ DH illustrates the importance of that context. Chris Davis had a similar season in 2009, so I’m not ruling out the possibility of Park becoming a productive player, but it’s pretty darn unlikely, especially since he’s only good against breaking pitches.
don’t disagree with any of this, but don’t think it changes the basic point i started out making here, which is “tommy pham is more interesting than is generally recognized and deserves some run as a regular to see what he is”
#FreePham
eye test confirms, Pham can hit the crap out of the ball. What he can’t seem to do is stay on the field.
Would the Rays get first dibs on waivers? I know they just signed LoMo again, but could they fit him in as well with the likely Miller move to 2B? At a first glance, seems like a great upside play for them just like it is for the A’s.
Morrison signed for $2.5 million over one year even though all of his seven major league seasons were significantly better than Park’s debut.
at $3MM annually for the next 3 years how could a team like the Rays not jump all over this buy-low opportunity?
At 3/9 half the league should jump all over this buy-low opportunity. Only thing that makes sense is that either his medicals suck, or the Twins already have an unannounced trade deal 90% in place.
Yeah, no one is talking about his multiple hand surgeries, which I’m sure are a factor at play here.
Not sure what kind of pending trade would cause them to DFA Park, though.
FIRE FALVINE INTO THE SUN.
All to add a 36 year old RP that doesn’t strike out NL players….and to keep Danny Santana.
Rangers do have Beltran for DH (mostly.)
and Fielder (mostly.)
I’d say that one is less than mostly.
WHAT ? lol Fielder is a medical retirement man… ( I aint hating but makn a joke here ) were have all you guys been lol…Beltran and Fielder lol
No they don’t. He signed with the Astros.
Hmmm . . . Life-long Twins fan here, who can’t get the Who lyrics, “Meet the new boss . . . same as the old boss . . . ” out of my head. The head that I’m scratching furiously . . .
Yeah it’s a little weird. I wonder if they foresee Sano having to move to 1B/DH sooner rather than later. I thought they were going to give him a shot at 3B but that may not be happening. Sano, Mauer, Vargas, and Park are a lot of 1B/DH only guys to roster. That’s kind of what I thought when they signed Park, but figured the upside was good enough and the price low enough to take the shot. Like Dave said in the article, this might just be the new management saying they do not have much optimism at all with Park.
It seemed senseless to me too, till drewcorb mentioned this. Yeah, wasn’t Sano just awful at 3B last year? And while he could go to the outfield, my impression is no one wants him there either, long term. I’m sure the Twins tried to deal Park first. How much value, playing part-time or in Triple A, could Park recoup before this next trading deadline? Actually I think this explains it entirely.
Sano was “just awful” in the outfield but was only a little below the league average at third.
Sano is an awful defensive 3B.
No, he has been awful at both positions.
http://www.claydavenport.com/dt/sanomi01-fielding.shtml
Not according to UZR or DRS. He only has ~450 major league innings at third, so it’s entirely possible that he could be worse than he has demonstrated so far, but the early results have been acceptable.
It took him less than 400 innings at 3B last year to be at -2 DRS at 3B. Frazier played almost 4 times as much out there and was at -2. If Sano had played a full season out there, he’s likely at -10 DRS or worse. Can’t even catch an infield fly. I watched him play a lot and he is horrible, except coming in on slow grounders.
Your subjective opinion may eventually end up being proven correct, but as of now the statistics do not support it.
$9M for 3 years? Even the Rays can afford that and have an opening. Forget Carter and give Bunghole a shot!
Quote from a Star-Tribune writer, who apparently is stuck in 1997: “He is under contract for three more seasons and would be owed nearly $9 million, so it’s unlikely another team would claim him.” You can’t even get a bat boy for $3M these days
In fairness, the Cardinals waived Aledmys Diaz in mid-2015 when his performance suffered because of injuries for the better part of a year and he was only owed $5M…he sailed through waivers, immediately started to rake in AAA, then the AFL, then MLB.
Was Diaz top-10 in the MLB in barreled ball % and FB/LD exit velocity in 2015?
It’s important to make a distinction between “barreled ball %,” where Park ranked significantly below the league average, and “Barrels/Batted ball %,” where Park came extremely close to leading the league. That discrepancy exists because Park had one of the worst contact rates in the major leagues, which caused him to post a wRC+ of 80 despite tremendous exit velocity when he did make contact.
Damn. I’m on the wrong career track. Maybe I should quit my job and go back to bat boy school.
I listen to the Gleeman & the Geek podcast, which covers the Twins, and they speak about some of the local sportswriters rather disparagingly, and this just confirms what I’ve heard them saying about their local writers.
you may not be able to get a bat boy, but the one thing you *can* maybe get is a corner bat with power but questionable everything-else. and that’s without the 3-year commitment. so i actually think this could go either way
I think the Red Sox should seriously consider picking this guy up, because watching Mitch Moreland try to fill David Ortiz’s shoes is going to be very disappointing. Like Ortiz, Park is being left for dead after showing (albeit overseas) that he can clobber a ball. If Park figures things out, he’d be an interesting guy off the bench at the very least.
Would also be hilarious for them both go from the Twins to Sox only to go on to greatness.
Getting ahead of myself here, but then “Big K-Papi” might stick.
Park can’t hit fastballs. Being a power hitter allows you to overcome various flaws, but flailing helplessly against the most common pitch type is a daunting one. It didn’t take long for the league to figure out that he crushed breaking pitches but struggled against everything else, which is why his percentage of breaking balls seen fell from 31.7% last April to 22.7% last May. According to Brooks Baseball, Park’s average exit velocity against fastballs was just 89.1 mph and his average exit velocity against changeups was a pathetic 76.8 mph. The damage demonstrated by the charts above came against a select group of pitches, and therefore you would expect that 22.7% to continue dropping somewhere close to zero.
Also, I know it’s minor quibble in the grand scheme of things but for whatever reason it’s like nails on a chalkboard for me whenever writers employ “reticence” as a general substitute for “reluctance.” “Reticence” specifically applies to speech, deriving from the Latin root “tacere” which means to be silent.
Not being snarky, just acknowledging the fact that I’m a professional writer, and I never noticed the difference. (Not saying there isn’t one, just that I didn’t know there was one.)
There is one. So how come you’re a professional writer and I’m not?? ARGHHH!!! Wait, I’m finE with my current job. Oh, never mind.
Actually, how often do you hear ‘reticence’ anymore at all? Too bad, as I liked the word. There’s a commentary regarding this on our internet posting age somewhere here. Like, what I’m doing right now.
I hear it all the time, mostly from myself (regarding my child with anxiety issues).
My career has primarily been related to writing, but I try not to be professional about it.
I’m a professional writer as well. ; )
What an odd comment.
Usage is more important than ‘correctness,’ I’d argue. A sociolinguistic approach to language is the only one that doesn’t devolve into some form of pedantry and oppression. Full disclosure, speaking as an academic.
Usage tells us interesting things, but the idea that it should supersede correctness is appalling. Do you find it acceptable for people to pronounce nuclear as nuk-u-lar? Many do, so by your logic that should become an acceptable pronunciation. Words have definitions and therefore may be employed correctly or incorrectly. The etymology of “reticent” clearly demonstrates a link with speech, so anyone who uses it as a general equivalent for “reluctant” in cases that do not involve speech is using the word incorrectly. That being said, I’m not surprised that an academic would disagree given how postmodernism has taken hold in academia.
But which year’s usage would you lock down as correct for all time? I can remember when “postmodernism” would have been seen as missing a hyphen.
I, too, prefer “reluctant” to “reticent” in this instance. But the latter usage is well established. Calling it incorrect verges on denying that language is inherently malleable, and usually for the better.
I say, fight usage changes that ruin a word’s useful meaning, as has happened to “literally.” But if you fight much more than that, most people tune you out. Those who say “nuk-u-lar” just find that easier; in the same way, we wound up with three-syllable pronunciations of “interesting” and “comfortable.”
While we’re at it, your repeated insistence on “speech” as the proper context for “reticent” is too strict even for me. Do you not accept Merriam-Webster’s second definition, “restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance”?
And if not, why do you even accept the modern meaning of “speak,” instead of that from which it derives — the Greek “spharageisthai,” to crackle?
@John Autin That’s the best grammar take-down I’ve seen in a while.
Thanks, @evo34. My own language instincts are mainly prescriptivist, so this thread is like a booster shot for me. It’s good to be reminded of how much more obnoxious I’d be if I stopped biting my tongue when someone says, “I could care less!”
John Autin:
Usage is completely irrelevant to definitions, it is only relevant to conveyed meaning. If incorrect usage is common then we can understand the intended meaning despite the word being used improperly.
Then you’re not remembering correctly. Post-modern employs a hyphen whereas postmodernism does not.
Actually, it’s only recently during the internet age that misuse has become widespread.
Why would nuk-u-lar be easier than nu-clear? It is interesting that you refused to say that any of those mispronunciations are acceptable, which implies that you agree with me but do not want to acknowledge my point.
Not only does the root clearly indicate that reticence refers to speech, but that is the accepted definition of the word.
Speak is Anglo-Saxon in orgin, not Greek: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=speak
[Comment deleted]
jdbolick, a simple search of the OED disproves many of your claims. Please, stop presenting your opinions as is they are facts (to say nothing of asserting ‘facts’ that are false). Usages of ‘post-modernism’ with a hyphen date back to 1914 in the OED. Usages of ‘reticent’ to mean restrained or hesitant date back to the 1870s. All of the meanings you deem to be incorrect appear in the OED with substantial histories, long before the internet age. And the idea that usage is independent of definition is also false. If you spend time reading things written in the eighteenth century (or earlier), for example, you’ll find familiar words used to mean the opposite of what they mean now. Until I looked it up in the OED for the first time, I couldn’t figure out why ‘doubt,’ for example, was being used to mean ‘fear’ or even ‘a tenuously held belief’ rather than an inclination toward disbelief. Definitions can and do change over time, too, which was Autin’s point. If despite these facts you are a strict prescriptivist, that is your choice, but please don’t overstate what you know.
Postmodernism without a hyphen has always been the vastly predominant spelling, contrary to what John Autin claimed.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ret2.htm This extends a bit beyond my “internet age” contention, although I do believe that period has seen the highest growth in frequency, yet it confirms that the use of reticent as a general synonym for reluctant is a relatively recent one and is widely criticized.
No, it isn’t appalling. Yes, I am fine with alternate pronunciations and usages. The correctness of usage is determined within a given speech community. Sociolinguists do not believe there are no rules of grammar; they believe that those rules are contextual, not universal, so the question to ask is whether a native speaker of any particular language variety would recognize a construction as grammatical. You know what really is appalling? The ways in which the prescriptivist thinking you espouse has been used as a tool of subjugation. You have it exactly backwards I’m afraid. Ask yourself what are the dire consequences of letting usage evolve over time. Then ask yourself how policing the language of others has been used by those in power as a tool for controlling vulnerable populations. There is no comparison.
Also, I’m no postmodernist, most academics are not, and postmodernism has nothing to do with sociolinguistics. In fact, the deconstruction of language that is one of the markers of postmodernism is directly opposed to the ways in which linguists attempt to codify language.
It’s interesting that you claim that you are no postmodernist immediately after employing postmodernist rhetoric such as calling accepted definitions “a tool of subjugation” and “for controlling vulnerable populations.” Those statements are practically out of a postmodernist pamphlet, as that ideology rejects objective reality and accepted definitions in favor of personal interpretation precisely because it claims that objective representations devalue minority experiences. Furthermore, it’s bizarre that you would claim that “postmodernism has nothing to do with sociolinguistics” given that the two are actually deeply linked, with sociolinguistics arising in opposition to structural linguistics.
As for the “dire consequences,” it is precisely the devaluation of meaning. When definitions are subordinated to usage, then words no longer have established meaning and instead take on whatever meaning a particular population desires. Taken to an extreme, that fundamentally threatens rational discourse. In this argument you and I are exchanging ideas via words with established definitions. If you or I reject those definitions and use whatever words we want however we want, then the exchange of those ideas becomes impeded. An accepted framework is necessary for the accurate transmission of information.
Also, it seems that you forgot to answer my question: “Do you find it acceptable for people to pronounce nuclear as nuk-u-lar?”
My second sentence answered your question. I explicitly said I do fine alternate pronunciations acceptable. That includes “nuk-u-lar.” As to the rest, the history you have sketched of these terms and fields of study are woefully incomplete–as someone who studies them, I am equipped to know. But then you strike me as a person who will never admit to not knowing something, so there’s nothing more to be done here productively.
Fair enough. I didn’t pick up on that being what you meant because “nuk-u-lar” is not an accepted alternate pronunciation at all, it is considered to be an incorrect pronunciation.
As am I, given that my undergrad and grad school background is in anthropology. Your education on the subject may be superior for all I know, but I have had an extensive one in linguistics. Moreover, I know from having double-checked information before posting that what I have claimed is completely accurate while what you have claimed is certainly not. The notion that “postmodernism has nothing to do with sociolinguistics” is something any linguist would scoff at.
That’s a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, don’t you think? After all, I’m the one who has presented resources backing up what I have stated.
FanGrammar.com — you could probably rent the URL for $30/year for three years.
As for making a blanket statement that a player “can’t hit” a certain type of pitch because he failed in his first half-season of exposure to it (MLB-quality fastballs), that’s an awfully simplistic and short-sighted analysis.
It is simplistic, yet both true and important. I did not claim that Byung-Ho Park will never be able to hit fastballs, but from what he has demonstrated thus far at the major league level he has fatal flaws that make it easy for opponents to attack him and limit his usefulness.
I wonder how many guys hit with phenomenal power but can’t hit fastballs? Is it lack of bat speed or unfamiliarity with faster pitch speeds in the United States? The critical question is, can an offseason adjustment fix that kind of problem?
Given that Carter’s got sitll no offer , I dont think any team would take that waiver for Park. And even Napoli could be a potential competitor to Park. So. Unfortunately, Park would start 2017 season in a minor league
He’ll definitely be claimed. The Rays are an obvious landing spot, and I’m sure St. Louis would heavily consider it, since they were second in the Park bidding when he signed. I guess it depends on how strict they are about Carpenter staying at first base.
How about a three-way deal: Park to the Cards, Tommy Pham to the Reds, and Dilson Herrera to the Twins. #FreeThemAll 😉
“Like Carter, Park hits the crap out of the baseball when he makes contact.”
Let’s step back a sec. First off, if they’re comparable, why don’t we see Carter in that exit velo table? Why not compare Park to someone listed in both tables?
Second, let’s at least mention their results:
— Carter slugged .776 on batted balls last year, ranking 9th out of 231 guys who hit 9 or more HRs last year. His career rate is .736.
— Park slugged .638 on batted balls, ranking 80th.
I used 9 HRs so as to include Pham, thus covering all 14 players listed in the 2 tables above. All but Park ranked top-50 in SLG/batted:
Player, SLG/batted, Rank of 231
G.Sanchez, .904, 1
T.Pham, .795, 5
C.Carter, .776, 9
N.Cruz .748, 13
C.Davis, .743, 15
K.Davis .739, 17
M.Trumbo, .738, 18
G.Stanton, .735, 19
D.Ortiz, .727, 21
P.Alvarez, .702, 28
M.Cabrera, .692, 37
Donaldson, .688, 39
Gutierrez, .675, 46
B.Park, .638, 80
I know Dave is suggesting that Park’s results understate his ability. I just don’t know why I should buy that from these data. How much predictive value is in one-year data on barreled balls and exit velocity — especially for a guy with just 123 batted balls? And what can we learn from seeing Park listed 10th in a table of 10 on FB/LD exit velo? How many below him have a very similar rate, and how did *those* guys hit?
I know I’m an old fart, but I still feel we’re groping for context on some of these Statcast numbers. Park’s huge HR numbers in Korea do persuade me that he might yet improve in MLB. But his Statcast numbers, for 123 batted balls? Not feeling that.
Part of the problem in comparing the SLG on batted balls for Carter and Park is that Park doesn’t have the statistical sample from which to make much inference, which you sort of touch on in your penultimate paragraph but gloss over initially. Maybe his TTL is .230 BABIP, but that would be pretty shocking. 111 BIP with a .230 BABIP with that exit velocity screams bad luck in a SSS.
SSS is my point. How do we know that Park’s exit velo isn’t as much fluke as the .230 BAbip?
And remember, the table shows exit velo on flyballs & line drives only. Maybe Park just didn’t hit enough of those. He had an ordinary 0.70 GB/FB ratio. Carter’s ratio was 0.46. The inimitable Ryan Schimpf was at 0.25.
Anyway, getting his BAbip up to a normal zone would not by itself make Park much more valuable. Several sluggers had career BAbip of .250-.255. Adding 20 to 25 BA points of non-homers doesn’t change Park’s profile much. With his contact & walk rates, he has to hit more homers to be playable.
Exit velo is a valid predictor, even in small samples; BABIP is not.
He had 19 singles and 22 XBH. So if he makes more contact, they are certainly not going to be all singles. I.e., an extra 20-25 points of BA would likely result in 40-50 points in SLG, taking him up to a very playable .500 SLG hitter.
In any case, it’s going to be more about the effects of his injuries and his ability to adjust as a hitter than it will be about anything gleaned from parsing 244 plate appearances.
But you’re moving the target by hypothesizing that Park makes more contact. I never even raised BAbip; oldmanduggan raised it strictly in connection with exit velo (not contact rate) — suggesting a disconnect between Park’s exit velo and .230 BAbip. My reply was confined to the grounds that he raised — i.e., suppose Park’s BAbip was higher. Well, BAbip is specifically homerless. And there we are.
Speculating on contact gains by Park is a completely different topic, and one I’ll avoid.
Also, I would be sincerely grateful if you would point me toward evidence that exit velo — specifically on flyballs and line drives — is a valid predictor in samples this small.
Free Tommy Pham … thats funny… Gonna keep an eye on him now lol… But Im braves fan first then Dodgers..and If Im both those teams I take a flier on him..even if he goes to the minors first.. I was doing a little looking the other day…The Braves Faced a lefty 47 times last yr and play 20 interleague games…So lets say on the highend we face a tough lefty 30 times, that you could start out by letting Freeman get Rest..and 20 interleague games that Park could DH (Heck I’d take Napoli/Carter in this same discussion but different subject) Thats 50 Games That Park could start at DH/1B ( this keeps Rodriguez available to do what intended, play all over) for 3 Mil per yr..thats a win..now add in the fact, that Freeman, in general has had injury issue’s..last yr was good, prior 118 games… you could be looking at 60 games on the short end, 80 on the high end that you could use Park to start and play first…and save Freeman’s legs and wrist…same could be said for Dodgers..saves A.Gone…and keeps Forsyth free’d up for 2nd…