Hicks Placed On DL, Buxton Coming Up

[USAFChief]

They were in a push for the playoffs 2 weeks ago. I'm sorry but no GM or manager on ANY team would bring back a rookie player (who only played in 10 games and played poorly) after not playing for a month and a half. If you think that was what was best for Buxton's development then I'm glad you're not making the decisions for the Twins. The correct action for his development is to send him down to the minors to get his timing right. No star players in the majors ever come back after month and a half and go right to the majors and you want to do that to a rookie?

this is one we will have to disagree on. I think no other GM keeps Robinson around when he has the option of adding a top prospect.

[wavedog]

Glad to see Buxton being called up but unfortunately at the expense of Hicks.  That means we will still have the Robinson/Hunter platoon I guess.  At least Buxton was spared witnessing the usual NY meltdown.   Looking forward to seeing improvement in his batting approach this second round and no headfirst slides. 

[sane]

 

I haven't seen anyone mention what Hicks' injury is? 

The next step will likely be sending Hicks to AAA for rehab, and promoting Xavier Avery.

Maybe they are just worried about a Buxton-Hicks collision!

[SF Twins Fan]

 

Nothing you said differentiates the way the Twins are handling Buxton from the way you'd handle an AAAA journeyman whose organizational role is outfield depth.

 

Buxton was called up when Hicks was hurt.     He was DL'ed when he was hurt.     With both Buxton and Hicks healthy, Buxton was demoted.    With Hicks hurt again,   Buxton is back up to the majors.

 

Of course the Twins don't really regard Buxton as a quad A player.    But they're treating him like one by using him as an injury sub.

 

Yes, there have been injuries, but to argue that extraordinary circumstances have forced the Twins into desperate measures in center field is to argue that they've been the victim of multiple lighting strikes at the same position over the past three seasons    (steaming bowl of Clete Thomas, anyone?).

I'm sorry but is there a point to your statement? They originally called up Buxton when Hicks was injured yes that is correct. But you don't know what they would have done with him when Hicks came off the DL because Buxton was inured before Hicks came back so your statement is opinion based. Now when Hicks comes back, if the Twins send Buxton down that would be a different story and we'll just have to wait and see. But so far this season I agree 100% with the way the Twins have handled Buxton's development. He hardly played last year and ended the season playing 1 game at AA, so they started him there. His first month was aweful, then he started to turn it around in May and June. Hicks got injured and Buxton was called up to the Majors. Buxton played poorly and got injured. He missed a month a and a half and our outfield was playing well in his absence.  Sending him to the minors to get his timing back was the right thing to do.  Now Hicks is injured again and Buxton has been tearing it up in AAA, so again it makes sense to call him up to repalce Hicks. 

[SF Twins Fan]

 

this is one we will have to disagree on. I think no other GM keeps Robinson around when he has the option of adding a top prospect.

So you think after not playing for a month and a half the best course of action is to have Buxton come right to the MLB and play 3 to 4 days a week while also taking valuable playing time from Hicks and Rosario?  That's really going to be beneficial to the development of those three players...

[DocBauer]

But 13 pitchers and Shane Robinson is sound judgment? 

 

Got it.

14 PITCHERS if you include Robinson.

 

Seriously, isn't he setting up now?

[jimmer]

 

So you think after not playing for a month and a half the best course of action is to have Buxton come right to the MLB and play 3 to 4 days a week while also taking valuable playing time from Hicks and Rosario?  That's really going to be beneficial to the development of those three players...

Why would they have needed to take ANY playing time from Hicks and Rosario if Buxton had been up? Three OF spots.  How about taking time from the 40 year old on a one year contract playing bad defense and providing an OPS a slight hair over .700?  And, um, how is playing Robinson so much affecting the development of Hicks and Rosario?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Would this move be a tacit admission that sending him to Rochester in the first place was unwarranted?

If he wasn't ready then, why is it OK to bring him up now? What does Hicks' injury have to do with Buxton?

 

Sorry Chief, but this masquerades as good logic but it doesn't really work.  By this thinking, any call-up can be accused of being some kind of magical ready point.  Did Eddie Rosario magically become major league ready the day of his call-up?  Hicks?  Duffy? Anyone who has ever gotten a call-up due to an injury?

 

Of course not.  There are a variety of circumstances that go into any decision.  This one could have very simple, very defensible logic: Buxton was hurt for a long time, they wanted to help him get some more reps (and may have intended him to get even more), but an injury rushed their expected time table because he plays the same position.  So they abandoned their original plan to help the big league team rather than play Rosario in CF.

 

Too many people treat "readiness" as some kind of quantifiable, declarative thing when it really comes down to a variety of factors.  That isn't to defend all roster moves or even this one necessarily, but the mere act of calling someone up after an injury shouldn't be attacked like this because if you applied the same logic to every callup you'd make the whole process look like random nonsense. 

[bird]

 

If he wasn't ready then, 10 games doesn't make him ready now. If he was kept in AAA because he isn't reaxy, he shouldn't be up now. If he is ready now, he was ready 10 games ago.

 

 

Respectfully, Chief, I do question this a bit. After sitting out for as long as Buxton did, why wouldn't getting into a dozen games at AAA be the right tonic? I haven't heard reports first-hand from his AAA coaches, but isn't it reasonable to think he's been improving game by game down there? 

[DocBauer]

Yeppers and a high 5'er to Leviathan for beating me to the punch.

 

Buxton got hurt. Buxton missed time. Buxton gets to play at Rochester...where he's never spent a day before...to rehab, get back in the swing of things, and come up when that imaginary "ready through consistency" light comes on. After all, he wasn't firing on all cycling era his first go 'round, so a little sustained success is actually a GOOD thing. Instead of brining him up...oh, next week maybe?...he comes up now with Hicks hurt. No conspiracy.

 

On a side note, is it true he'll be arriving in the Twin Cities aback an ass?

[SF Twins Fan]

 

Why would they have needed to take ANY playing time from Hicks and Rosario if Buxton had been up? Three OF spots.  How about taking time from the 40 year old on a one year contract playing bad defense and providing an OPS a slight hair over .700?  And, um, how is playing Robinson so much affecting the development of Hicks and Rosario?

Let's be realistic here.  If they bring Buxton up two weeks ago (when they were still in the playoff hunt) they weren't going to sit Torii on the bench for more than half the week, so then you're rotating players around to try and get them playing time.  Robinson is only playing right now when Hunter has an off day or to give Rosario or Hicks a day off.  It's not like he's plays 3 to 4 days a week and taking time from Rosario and Hicks.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yes, you said it didn't cost them a "Berrios, Sano or Buxton."  Norris was rated higher than Berrios so......indeed it cost them a "Berrios."

 

If you asked MLB GMs whether they'd rather have Norris or Berrios, I suspect most would choose Berrios. Norris hasn't exactly been earth-shattering this season and Jose keeps trending upward.

 

I expect Berrios to crack a bunch of top 15, maybe even a few top 10, lists this offseason.

 

But yeah, the two players aren't miles apart.

[Twins7]

I have never once questioned his intelligence.  I question his nature in regards to it being a good fit in today's game.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have put words in your mouth . You may be right, and TR might not have what it takes anymore to get it done. Based on his body of work, he seems to be risk-averse. I just wonder whether he would behave this way if given the resources that the Yankees have.

 

I want to see if his stockpile of prospects coalesce into a great team; there is a real risk that some big names flounder, and we've wasted our shot this year. But when TR seems to be betting on the future (that's just my interpretation, it's likely that he could have added impact talent without mortgaging the future), we should wait to see how his plan unfolds before we call for his firing. Maybe he's a quack who withholds his "plan," just saying "give it one more year," after every losing season. Maybe, his plan requires multiple years to unfold, and we should judge him based on the performance of this young core with so much potential. Maybe too much worry over the future is making him make bad roster decisions week-to week this year.

 

I think that people here make really valid judgements of TR's plan, but I think people are clouded by the teams miserable performance in the last 4 years. If you can't spend 200+mil a year to buy your way out of a horrific roster, it takes a few years to rebuild your core. Perhaps TR's plan won't work, but I think that we ought to give it a shot.

[jimmer]

 

Let's be realistic here.  If they bring Buxton up two weeks ago (when they were still in the playoff hunt) they weren't going to sit Torii on the bench for more than half the week, so then you're rotating players around to try and get them playing time.  Robinson is only playing right now when Hunter has an off day or to give Rosario or Hicks a day off.  It's not like he's plays 3 to 4 days a week and taking time from Rosario and Hicks.

I think you might be moving the goalposts.  You said it'd be bad because it would take valuable time from Hicks and Rosario.  And that wouldn't actually NEED to happen.  Now you're talking how they couldn't stop playing Hunter (even though he's playing horribly).  So I guess we can switch to talking about why they would feel the need to play a 40 year old with no future on the team (and who hasn't been playing well) at the expense of developing the young players.

 

 

[SF Twins Fan]

 

I think you might be moving the goalposts.  You said it'd be bad because it would take valuable time from Hicks and Rosario.  And that wouldn't actually NEED to happen.  Now you're talking how they couldn't stop playing Hunter (even though he's playing horribly).  So I guess we can switch to talking about why they would feel the need to play a 40 year old with no future (and who hasn't been playing well) at the expense of developing the young players.

Well you brought up benching Hunter, so I responded to that part of your comment. Taking playing time from one of them and giving it to another is all related since they all play the same position.  If you bring up Buxton you want him playing everyday, so you either have to bench Hunter ( which 2 weeks ago when Buxton came off the DL I don't think they would have done since we were still in the playoff hunt) or bench him (Hunter) a couple of days and then take time away from either Rosario or Hicks. Since both of those players are still young and need as much playing time to help their development, that to me doens't make sense to do.  So to help all of their development's it made sense to send Buxton to AAA and continue to have Hicks and Rosario playing everyday.  Now that Hicks is injured and Buxton is playing well it's logical to call him up.  Hopefully he plays well and once Hicks comes back those two along with Rosario get the playing time, which since they aren't going to make the playoffs now makes sense.

[HitInAPinch]

Gods, I don't understand what all this babbling is about.

 

BUXTON IS BACK IN THE MAJORS AND IT'S OFF TO THE SUPER BOWL!!!

[jimmer]

 

 

Well you brought up benching Hunter, so I responded to that part of your comment. Taking playing time from one of them and giving it to another is all related since they all play the same position.  If you bring up Buxton you want him playing everyday, so you either have to bench Hunter ( which 2 weeks ago when Buxton came off the DL I don't think they would have done since we were still in the playoff hunt) or bench him (Hunter) a couple of days and then take time away from either Rosario or Hicks. Since both of those players are still young and need as much playing time to help their development, that to me doens't make sense to do.  So to help all of their development's it made sense to send Buxton to AAA and continue to have Hicks and Rosario playing everyday.  Now that Hicks is injured and Buxton is playing well it's logical to call him up.  Hopefully he plays well and once Hicks comes back those two along with Rosario get the playing time, which since they aren't going to make the playoffs now makes sense.

Once Ryan bailed on the season at the deadline (while other teams in playoff contention went for it), it should have all been about next year meaning playing the guys with a future on this team and minimizing the playing time of players with no future with the team.  They could have started Rosario/Buxton/Hicks a huge majority of the time with a small chunk left for Hunter who has performed horribly since before the deadline. One could probably argue that particular defensive alignment could have helped us win more games than Hunter's ever decreasing offensive production could have anyway.

 

One of the prevailing arguments defending his inaction at the deadline was that there was no point even trying since to improve the team since we weren't going to be real playoff contenders.  In that case, how can one then argue that playing Hunter needed to happen because we were still shooting for the playoffs?  There's a disconnect there. 

[Jham]

I think they were going to call him up in the next few anyway. Just a matter of opinion. There is a difference between believing a player isn't ready and wanting to see a few games first. I think they were doing the latter. Bummer about hicks. Would not be surprised if this was his last game with us.

[John Bonnes]

It seems like there's a lot of rhetoric out here, or a lot of people more interested in rhetoric than analysis. I find that a little disappointing. I'll posit this: this is the right move, obviously. I also think reasonable people can disagree whether it would have been the right move previously.To suggest incompetence one way or the other might be fun, but isn't true.  I think reaonsable people can disagree on the following points:

 

1. Buxton is "ready". The trigger for Buxton being called up was that Hicks was hurt (albeit lightly). That is true again. That the Twins pushed him up from AA before and after just 10 games in AAA now AND that they seem very willing to DL Hicks with slight injuries, suggest they think Buxton is ready, but

 

a) It's OK to think he didn't look all that ready last time when he was posting a 500 OPS. And

B. "readiness" isn't the only reason someone is called up to the majors. And furthermore,

c) the Twins might have thought he was ready before but then second-guessed themselves with some of his reactions to big league offspeed pitches.

 

2. I think it's OK to feel like Buxton could have been called up before now, but it's also OK to think he shouldn't have been. There are three roles to call him up, I think, and I think all three of them one could take one side or the other:

 

a) He could replace ONLY Robinson. OK, but that means just 8 at-bats per week for the #1 prospect. Personally, I don't like that. But if you want him in that role, fine. I think it's a little bombastic to declare that if the Twins don't put their #1 prospect in that role, they're not trying. 

 

B. He could replace Hunter. Personally, I think this is unrealistic, not just for the Twins but for any MLB team. Hunter isn't just a random 40yo free agent. He's arguably the most popular Twin since Kirby, which puts him above a couple of MVPs, a multiple Cy Young Award winner and a Hall of Famer who also happens to the be the Twins manager this year. He also gets credit in the clubhouse for helping the team come together this year and the development of the youngsters, most of whom happen to be outfielders. Benching him could hurt as much as it helps, even if he continues to slump. I can see others' points on this - I see their logic and numbers - it just strikes me as so unrealistic to be as if it came from a fantasy baseball owner. 

 

c) He could take select at-bats from Hicks and Rosario. This makes the most sense to me, but that is a "feel" call. I think you have to know how the players are going to react and I don't. 

 

Finally, all of those scenarios assume that Buxton will be quite a bit more productive than he was in his limited callup. 

 

So I guess I don't see the arguments, but I fail to see the basis for outrage about the club's treatment of Buxton. I'll add this: I'm very much looking forward to seeing him and Sano in the lineup together for the first time tomorrow. 

[Vanimal46]

I haven't read through this thread, don't intend to either. I'm just excited that Buxton's going to get his playing time and hope he's an everyday player the rest of the way so he's ready to go opening day 2016. We avoided burning an option year; that's a good thing whether others think it's meaningless or not. The damage from all the threads and anger before: 10+ games in AAA, and seeing Shane Robinson play more than we'd like. Compared to other situations with this team, it's not the worst thing in the world.

[twinsfanstreif]

If he wasn't ready then, 10 games doesn't make him ready now. If he was kept in AAA because he isn't reaxy, he shouldn't be up now. If he is ready now, he was ready 10 games ago.

It was never about him being ready or not, we are still committed to getting Hunter at bats so with Hicks lighting it up we wanted to get lots of at bats for Hicks, Rosario, and Buxton while staying committed to getting Hunter at bats (right or wrong decision aside). So the logical choice was to send Buxton down to get him as many at bats as possible, with Hicks going down we can call him up to get playing time in the majors. I feel like once Hicks is ready Hunter will ride the pine unless there's other injuries.

[Monkeypaws]

Arcia Time!

 

At last  

[Kwak]

 

Once Ryan bailed on the season at the deadline (while other teams in playoff contention went for it), it should have all been about next year meaning playing the guys with a future on this team and minimizing the playing time of players with no future with the team.  They could have started Rosario/Buxton/Hicks a huge majority of the time with a small chunk left for Hunter who has performed horribly since before the deadline. One could probably argue that particular defensive alignment could have helped us win more games than Hunter's ever decreasing offensive production could have anyway.

 

One of the prevailing arguments defending his inaction at the deadline was that there was no point even trying since to improve the team since we weren't going to be real playoff contenders.  In that case, how can one then argue that playing Hunter needed to happen because we were still shooting for the playoffs?  There's a disconnect there. 

Of course! The conclusion that the team isn't/would not be (good enough) and the need to sell tickets (at full price!), concessions, merchandise all while satisfying the fan base, advertisers, and broadcasters.  Given the preseason statements about winning you really can't expect Ryan to publicly admit this team, the one he assembled, won early, and was still mathematically "in the race"--wasn't "good enough"?

[USAFChief]

It seems like there's a lot of rhetoric out here, or a lot of people more interested in rhetoric than analysis. I find that a little disappointing. I'll posit this: this is the right move, obviously. I also think reasonable people can disagree whether it would have been the right move previously.To suggest incompetence one way or the other might be fun, but isn't true.  I think reaonsable people can disagree on the following points:

 

1. Buxton is "ready". The trigger for Buxton being called up was that Hicks was hurt (albeit lightly). That is true again. That the Twins pushed him up from AA before and after just 10 games in AAA now AND that they seem very willing to DL Hicks with slight injuries, suggest they think Buxton is ready, but

 

a) It's OK to think he didn't look all that ready last time when he was posting a 500 OPS. And

B. "readiness" isn't the only reason someone is called up to the majors. And furthermore,

c) the Twins might have thought he was ready before but then second-guessed themselves with some of his reactions to big league offspeed pitches.

 

2. I think it's OK to feel like Buxton could have been called up before now, but it's also OK to think he shouldn't have been. There are three roles to call him up, I think, and I think all three of them one could take one side or the other:

 

a) He could replace ONLY Robinson. OK, but that means just 8 at-bats per week for the #1 prospect. Personally, I don't like that. But if you want him in that role, fine. I think it's a little bombastic to declare that if the Twins don't put their #1 prospect in that role, they're not trying. 

 

B. He could replace Hunter. Personally, I think this is unrealistic, not just for the Twins but for any MLB team. Hunter isn't just a random 40yo free agent. He's arguably the most popular Twin since Kirby, which puts him above a couple of MVPs, a multiple Cy Young Award winner and a Hall of Famer who also happens to the be the Twins manager this year. He also gets credit in the clubhouse for helping the team come together this year and the development of the youngsters, most of whom happen to be outfielders. Benching him could hurt as much as it helps, even if he continues to slump. I can see others' points on this - I see their logic and numbers - it just strikes me as so unrealistic to be as if it came from a fantasy baseball owner. 

 

c) He could take select at-bats from Hicks and Rosario. This makes the most sense to me, but that is a "feel" call. I think you have to know how the players are going to react and I don't. 

 

Finally, all of those scenarios assume that Buxton will be quite a bit more productive than he was in his limited callup. 

 

So I guess I don't see the arguments, but I fail to see the basis for outrage about the club's treatment of Buxton. I'll add this: I'm very much looking forward to seeing him and Sano in the lineup together for the first time tomorrow.

 

Buxton couldn't have replaced Robinson, thereby taking those ABs, and also taking one start per week from Hicks and one or two from Rosario (maybe against a LHer)?

 

It didnt have to be "replace Hunter." Hunter is sitting twice a week anyway.

 

There was room for four outfielders including Buxton, just like there was including Robinson. That makes the team better (unless you don't think Buxton is a better player than Robinson) in the outfield AND puts a PHer on the bench.

[jimmer]

We have lost 2/3 of our games since the All Star break. Took us less than a week to give up sole position of the 2nd wild card and be behind 3 teams for it.

 

How much worse could benching Hunter for the future face of the franchise hurt the team?  I think people might have been excited to see the young #1 prospect 5 tool prospect play, even if it was at the expense of a former star.

 

Start Rosario/Buxton/Hicks.  Get the fanbase excited for the future.  Use Hunter as a 4th OF and DFA Robinson.

 

[TheLeviathan]

Just because it might marginally make the team better by swapping out a handful of ABs by Robinson doesn't mean it is necessarily the right thing to do.

 

The right thing for Buxton should be the priority.  Robinson is a separate problem.  (But shouldn't get in the way either of what is right for Buxton, which is why I agree that Hunter shouldn't be in the way of anyone.  That is a point I feel is a valid criticism)

[USAFChief]

Just because it might marginally make the team better by swapping out a handful of ABs by Robinson doesn't mean it is necessarily the right thing to do.

 

The right thing for Buxton should be the priority.  Robinson is a separate problem.  (But shouldn't get in the way either of what is right for Buxton, which is why I agree that Hunter shouldn't be in the way of anyone.  That is a point I feel is a valid criticism)

I'll have to disagree with paragraph one. Making the team better, when at least nominally in a postseason chase, should be priority one for a GM. And they WERE in a postseason chase up till very recently.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'll have to disagree with paragraph one. Making the team better, when at least nominally in a postseason chase, should be priority one for a GM. And they WERE in a postseason chase up till very recently.

 

So prospect development be damned for 8-16 at bats a week?  Yeah, I don't find that a fair criticism at all.

 

The problem is the roster construction (and loyalty to some players), don't compound the mistake by messing with your elite prospects.

[Platoon]

It also meant they were willing to go with Hicks/Robinson/Rosario or Hicks/Robinson/Hunter half of the time, which makes more sense how exactly?

 

How in the name of progress did it take an injury to Hicks for Buxton to be suddenly ready to be with the big club? Good grief.

Bringing up Buxton would require removing a bench player. Robinson, Nunez, or Escobar. We don't move bench players. Only pitchers and catchers!

[Platoon]

If Robinson were demoted to Rochester, does his salary and benefits, (I assume MLB has health insurance benefits go with him)?