65 replies to this topic

[Ben Noble]

 

Sure, but it seems likely that could have been communicated better by the front office. As far as I know, Buxton wasn't optioned to AAA with some mandate to make significant changes, like the Sano to Ft. Myers plan -- the front office, around July 2nd, sure made it sound like it was about reps to get his timing back and get comfortable at the plate again after his injury absences.

 

I don't know about the stolen bases, but I suspect the alternating days of rest thing was primarily driven by the front office, so maybe the lack of SB was too.

 

What are the quotes from the front office from around July 2? I've only seen quotes from Molitor...asking sincerely, btw, not challenging you or being argumentative.

[spycake]

What are the quotes from the front office from around July 2? I've only seen quotes from Molitor...asking sincerely, btw, not challenging you or being argumentative.

Good question! Can't find it now... I seem to recall it wasn't a direct quote, but it was through a trustworthy source like a beat writer, but maybe I am mistaken. I'll drop that angle.

My point has just been there was no need to drag this out to Sep. 1st. By the time he went on the minors DL again at the end of July, I think the front office must have known a 2018 promotion was impossible.

Interesting to see those Molitor quotes from July 2nd, though -- suggesting that they optioned him so they could start his 10 day option clock and potentially recall him sooner!

[Major Leauge Ready]

 

Agreed that they should always be on the lookout for a guy like Muncy, but those innings shouldn't come at the expense of a player like Buxton. Carving out room for auditions and maintaining the major league development of your own talent aren't mutually exclusive.

 

FWIW Field is 1-22 with 0 BB and 7 Ks. Gimenez spent the majority of the season at AAA and wasn't good there or in limited big league action. Who the hell knows why Belisle is still on a roster. The point is, you can't honestly say anybody in that trio has performed so as to earn or maintain a spot on the active roster. Nobody is disputing Buxton's own struggles here, but if 3 players, who have no future with this club, can perform as poorly as they have and still soak up September innings then it's nearly impossible to say that production is what kept Buxton off the active roster. 

 

For the record, I don't see what they see in Field either. Honestly, I think he sucks but I am not a professional baseball talent analyst and I don't have nearly the experience or information they have. I assume those who have more information and more experience than I have reasonable logic as to why Field is worth a look. Also, the context is that Buxton has had almost 1000 ABs. # weeks of September baseball is not critical to his future and the logic might be it would be better for him to work through whatever they are working on before exposing him to ML pitching again. IDK but there are reasonable potential scenarios. The other end of the logic is that little is lost in taking a look at Field right now. Its's just to bad he is the best guy they have to look at presently.

[gunnarthor]

 

I would agree they looked to be positioned pretty well but there was still much that needed to come together. Also, if we were to catalog the things that went wrong or did not progress, I have a hard time blaming the F/O for much of it. Their two superstar prospects went backward. Is that on the F/O. Dozier had a terrible year. Santana was lost basically for the season. Polanco was suspended. Kepler is still trying to put it all together. Sure, other teams have issues but I think we can agree this team did not have the depth to overcome this many issues.  

 

Well, I'm not sure how much you want to blame the FO for that. Some (a lot?) of those things are on the manager and the FO chose to keep Molitor even though he's clearly not the right manager for this club. A lot of our young guys aren't really young anymore and it seems like the ML staff has to take some responsibility for Kepler plateauing and Sano regressing. 

 

As for depth, isn't that part of the FO's job? They traded for Odorizzi and signed Lance Lynn and gave up a draft pick to do it. They went with Reed and Rodney. I agree that the Twins had some bad injuries - Buxton but also Granite and Wade in AAA affected reinforcements - but other FO's seemed to be better prepared for that. 

 

But my initial point that the FO came into a pretty good situation remains. We'll see if they can fix it this offseason.

[Major Leauge Ready]

 

Well, I'm not sure how much you want to blame the FO for that. Some (a lot?) of those things are on the manager and the FO chose to keep Molitor even though he's clearly not the right manager for this club. A lot of our young guys aren't really young anymore and it seems like the ML staff has to take some responsibility for Kepler plateauing and Sano regressing. 

 

As for depth, isn't that part of the FO's job? They traded for Odorizzi and signed Lance Lynn and gave up a draft pick to do it. They went with Reed and Rodney. I agree that the Twins had some bad injuries - Buxton but also Granite and Wade in AAA affected reinforcements - but other FO's seemed to be better prepared for that. 

 

But my initial point that the FO came into a pretty good situation remains. We'll see if they can fix it this offseason.

 

If we take a step back, there is very little about the management of the organization that we can make a statement which includes "clearly". None of us have direct contact or the information necessary to conclude anything with this degree of certainty. I realize this is an internet forum but let's keep in mind this would considered absolute incompetence to do so in any business decision making practice.

 

There is also a tendency to judge the FO by our own personal criteria. Like it or not, the relative merit of their job performance is dictated by performance criteria set by ownership. They could be doing a fantastic job by those standards and fail from any given fans perspective, especially given the tendency of fans to have a very short-term view of performance. They have been very clear about building a "sustainable" model. This is at odds with many fans desire to push in all the chips for a very short span of contention. This organization is not going to follow KC's path of being great for a couple years and sucking for 20.

[USAFChief]

 

If we take a step back, there is very little about the management of the organization that we can make a statement which includes "clearly". None of us have direct contact or the information necessary to conclude anything with this degree of certainty. I realize this is an internet forum but let's keep in mind this would considered absolute incompetence to do so in any business decision making practice.

 

There is also a tendency to judge the FO by our own personal criteria. Like it or not, the relative merit of their job performance is dictated by performance criteria set by ownership. They could be doing a fantastic job by those standards and fail from any given fans perspective, especially given the tendency of fans to have a very short-term view of performance. They have been very clear about building a "sustainable" model. This is at odds with many fans desire to push in all the chips for a very short span of contention. This organization is not going to follow KC's path of being great for a couple years and sucking for 20.

Clearly?

[gunnarthor]

 

If we take a step back, there is very little about the management of the organization that we can make a statement which includes "clearly". None of us have direct contact or the information necessary to conclude anything with this degree of certainty. I realize this is an internet forum but let's keep in mind this would considered absolute incompetence to do so in any business decision making practice.

 

There is also a tendency to judge the FO by our own personal criteria. Like it or not, the relative merit of their job performance is dictated by performance criteria set by ownership. They could be doing a fantastic job by those standards and fail from any given fans perspective, especially given the tendency of fans to have a very short-term view of performance. They have been very clear about building a "sustainable" model. This is at odds with many fans desire to push in all the chips for a very short span of contention. This organization is not going to follow KC's path of being great for a couple years and sucking for 20.

Well, sure. I suspect ownership's #1 goal is revenue and always will be. And to that end, I think we have to give the FO some benefit of the doubt when they have a low payroll. And you're right that none of us know what criteria you use to measure Molitor's success but by any criteria I can think of, he's a failure.

[KirbyDome89]

 

For the record, I don't see what they see in Field either. Honestly, I think he sucks but I am not a professional baseball talent analyst and I don't have nearly the experience or information they have. I assume those who have more information and more experience than I have reasonable logic as to why Field is worth a look. Also, the context is that Buxton has had almost 1000 ABs. # weeks of September baseball is not critical to his future and the logic might be it would be better for him to work through whatever they are working on before exposing him to ML pitching again. IDK but there are reasonable potential scenarios. The other end of the logic is that little is lost in taking a look at Field right now. Its's just to bad he is the best guy they have to look at presently.

Maybe? I think if the best explanation for Field's presence is "the FO knows more than us," it's safe to say the decision isn't a good one. Neither of us have to be elite talent evaluators to look at Johnny Field and know he doesn't belong on a major league roster. 

 

Do you think the current version of Buxton is the player we'll see going forward? If not, then I'd argue that giving Field those ABs comes at a great cost in terms of Buxton's development. These September games might be meaningless in terms of wins and losses but there's literally no better time for him to work on whatever it is the coaching staff wants to see. 

 

We can try to find reasons other than service time manipulation for Buxton being left off the expanded roster but in the end they're all fairly weak. 

[The Wise One]

 

The performance argument is a moot point when guys like Gimenez, Belisle, and Johnny Field are getting innings in actual games. Nobody is making the argument that Buxton has been a great hitter to this point, but the idea that his 18' numbers exclude him from making the expanded roster is laughable. 

The numbers don't automatically exclude him, on the other hand what people seem to miss is that it does not say that you must include him. Belisle does not play the outfield, yet

[The Wise One]

 

Maybe? I think if the best explanation for Field's presence is "the FO knows more than us," it's safe to say the decision isn't a good one. Neither of us have to be elite talent evaluators to look at Johnny Field and know he doesn't belong on a major league roster. 

 

Do you think the current version of Buxton is the player we'll see going forward? If not, then I'd argue that giving Field those ABs comes at a great cost in terms of Buxton's development. These September games might be meaningless in terms of wins and losses but there's literally no better time for him to work on whatever it is the coaching staff wants to see. 

 

We can try to find reasons other than service time manipulation for Buxton being left off the expanded roster but in the end they're all fairly weak. 

Years ago Ryan liked Clete Thomas as amateur. He got a fair run here due to that. Field reminds me of that. There have been many players through the years with different coaching reach their potential, see Hicks, Aaaron.In terms of FO knowing more, I would hope that they do as they should have a lot better scouting

Edited by The Wise One, 10 September 2018 - 08:03 AM.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Years ago Ryan liked Clete Thomas as amateur. He got a fair run here due to that. Field reminds me of that. There have been many players through the years with different coaching reach their potential, see Hicks, Aaaron.In terms of FO knowing more, I would hope that they do as they should have a lot better scouting

I'm not sure what the argument is here; Thomas wasn't good by any measure for the Twins. 

 

It's sad that Hicks is reaching his potential after leaving MN. For reference, Buxton's WAR last season is higher than Hicks has ever put up, including this season. The Twins are quite literally choosing Field over Buxton to end the season. We know it isn't about MLB performance. We know it isn't about injury or rest. We know it isn't about where either player fits into the future of this team. That doesn't leave a whole lot else to point to other than service time manipulation. 

[Doomtints]

Hicks was decent for one year with the Twins. He was also terrible in his first crack with the Yankees.

 

Don't forget, Hicks was becoming "expendable" as Buxton was about to debut as the full time guy.

 

What should really make you angry is not only did the Twins give up on Hicks, but they gave up on JR Murphy, who they traded him for, after a mere 26 games. 

 

Anyway, for the older people in the audience, it's no surprise that someone was traded off from the Twins only to become very good. This has been going on my entire lifetime. It seems like a Twins-centric problem but it's probably simply a common thing in baseball.

 

 

Edited by Doomtints, 11 September 2018 - 09:00 AM.

[The Wise One]

 

Hicks was decent for one year with the Twins. He was also terrible in his first crack with the Yankees.

 

Don't forget, Hicks was becoming "expendable" as Buxton was about to debut as the full time guy.

 

What should really make you angry is not only did the Twins give up on Hicks, but they gave up on JR Murphy, who they traded him for, after a mere 26 games. 

 

Anyway, for the older people in the audience, it's no surprise that someone was traded off from the Twins only to become very good. This has been going on my entire lifetime. It seems like a Twins-centric problem but it's probably simply a common thing in baseball.

Murphy had a good month before becoming putrid. Gimmenez has given more than Murphy has for his team.Why should anyone think of being angry

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'm really trying to figure out what the deal was with Murphy. He could hit in NY... and just forgot in MN. 

[ashburyjohn]

I'm really trying to figure out what the deal was with Murphy. He could hit in NY... and just forgot in MN. 

Arizona hasn't helped him remember. Not even thin air at AAA Reno has put a charge back into his bat. Up to age 22 his minor league record suggested he would be a hitter, but apparently some hole in his game got exposed and he's never compensated - low outside strikes if Fangraphs' heatmap is to be taken at face value.

[spycake]

Murphy might be pretty good with the glove, though. BP ranks him 9th among catchers in 2018, despite not a lot of playing time:

https://legacy.baseb...php?cid=1899425

Bobby Wilson is 23rd in comparable playing time, but is 5.5 runs behind Murphy (half a win or so).

Arizona catchers rank 4th, 9th, and 19th. They've had a pretty incredible year pitching, that is for sure. (Although it is starting to look like they may fall short of postseason qualification.)

[Rosterman]

Johnny Field is one of those guys you need to evaluate if you wish to keep. Chances are he would still pas thru waivers and return as minor league depth. But they must see something.

 

Not sure the pecking order these days for communication within the organization. You have people in player development and contracts that talk to players and/or reps. You have your person in charge of the minor leagues, who is the main conduit there. 

 

I'm not sure if TC Bear, is used, at times, to communicate with folks. 

[Riverbrian]

 

I'm really trying to figure out what the deal was with Murphy. He could hit in NY... and just forgot in MN. 

 

I'll qualify that with "hit" OK for a catcher in Scranton and Trenton. His ceiling is mediocre in my opinion.

 

Give him time... he just might get there.

 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

That's a simplistic view. Giminez is there for the young SPs.Obviously, the scouts saw something in Johnny Field. We complain that we could never come up with a Max Muncy because we don't provide an opportunity and then complain when they take a look at a guy. He is getting that look in meaningless games and will be put down the road if he can't show something in this short stint. Belisle is a mystery. 

 

Just for clarity. 

 

It has been "I" along with a small minority of others who have been consistent in complaining about providing opportunity for others and therefore maybe getting lucky and finding a Max Muncy.

 

The people who complain about others getting a chance is probably the majority. 

 

The contradiction you reference is coming from two different view points but you make it sound like there is some sort of waffling going on. 

 

BTW... the majority is wrong.

[Riverbrian]

 

I'm not sure what the argument is here; Thomas wasn't good by any measure for the Twins. 

 

It's sad that Hicks is reaching his potential after leaving MN. For reference, Buxton's WAR last season is higher than Hicks has ever put up, including this season. The Twins are quite literally choosing Field over Buxton to end the season. We know it isn't about MLB performance. We know it isn't about injury or rest. We know it isn't about where either player fits into the future of this team. That doesn't leave a whole lot else to point to other than service time manipulation. 

 

Service time management or manipulation is a plausible explanation. 

 

Johnny Field is a separate issue in my opinion.