Article: Hardball, the Twins, and Byron Buxton

[Jham]

What a bizzare argument. Both sides make valid points. Neither is wrong.

 

I noticed a few false narratives being pushed some even in the latest Gleeman and the Geek.

 

1) premeditated service time manipulation. Bonnes even tried to argue that the Twins DLed him to save service time (obviously opposite effect). If you recall, Buck went to the DL initially for a migraine, not a toe. He returned and was bad. We could have optioned him then to save service since he was healthy enough to play. Instead, he went to the DL and aquired service time. In fact, this was a huge risk because of the injury lingered or he had set backs, the service time would have evaporated on the 60 day and the team would lose development and service time. He was later optioned after returning to eligibility but before his rehab was up. Of course, that type of early communication is exactly what was asked of by posters here.

 

2) Aaron Hicks comparison. This is an odd comp to suggest that the Twins need to bring Buck up. This should be a cautionary tale on why you don't rush players with tools but raw skills. We didn't learn. We rushed Buck, but now we have the opportunity to rectify that mistake and retake some of the time he wasted on the big league roster. Hicks blossomed later. We're trying to learn from that mistake by extending the window in which he'll be a Twin into the years where he's figured out how to hit.

 

3) His defense will likely never be as good as it was last year (historically good). If he's defense only, service time really isn't an issue. He'll have lost enough go get it by 2022 that an extra year likely won't matter much. So the argument should probably revolve around the hit tool. And as useful as some part time at bats against expanded rosters would be, a full year against starters is better. It has to be right?

 

4) Loyalty? We drafted him second over-all. Paid the slot money. Pushed his development and arrival. Marketed the heck out of him. Stuck with him and defended him through months of immense struggles while accruing service time, potentially at detriment to a winning team. We actually intended to send him down last year, but Rowson stuck up for his guy and the team relented. Loyalty? Why do we owe loyalty to Buck and not Mauer? Do we really expect Buck will show the Twins loyalty in contract negotiations? He might, but should he? Baseball is about entertainment. Easiest form is winning.

 

5) Gleeman started that the Twins asked Buck to play hurt. Where did that come from? What a weird thing to do if you're worried about service.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Jham

[Riverbrian]

I’m doubtful every team would treat this situation the same.

 

Likewise, I’m willing to bet some organizations have better reputations than others.

I’m sure you are correct and I have no idea what teams have the reputation and I’d be willing to bet that player B feels differently than Player C and D and E. Player D just might not care at all and player E might be troubled because his brother was cut by the organization in A ball.

 

In the end, I’m pretty sure all 30 teams are going to act on their best interest and the players will act on their best interest. Any team that acts on the players behalf first is going to have Trevor Plouffe playing 3B for them until they are 45.

 

I’m not worried the Twins will be able sign the next Ricky Nolasco type to an FA deal and I’ve always been worried about the Twins being able to sign a Manny Machado type and Buxton doesn’t change that.

[Don Walcott]

 

Is this an ethics lesson that I'm receiving?

 

Give me an example of a team that doesn't treat them like cattle. Cattle being your definition not mine. 

I only follow two teams closely, the Twins and the Rockies. I'd say the Rockies treat their players better, and as a result they get more reasonable contract extensions that buy out more years for their players, leading to more continuity in their team. Charlie Blackmon is a recent example, whose stop and start injury plagued first few seasons look a lot like Buxton's. The Rockies even got Carlos Gonzales to come back after his contract expired (which was extended prior to his free agency). And they've been more successful than the Twins lately, in a way that looks more sustainable.

 

I don't recall the Rockies having fire sales like the Twins have had recently either. They tend to stick with their guys and bolster areas of need (like the bullpen in the past two years). Believe me, Rockies fans complain about the ownership being cheap just as much as Twins fans. However, they don't have to feel ashamed at how their FO treats the players they love to see on their team. Even trading Tulowitzki (whose contract had been extended), was the choice of the player.

 

I love to see Buxton on this team, and I'm ashamed at how the FO has treated him. I hope they make "amends" with him sooner than later, but I fear that won't be possible. Rather than nickel and dime him by manipulating service time, I wish they'd work on extending his contract. If he turns out to be a bust, I'll admit to being wrong about this. But I fully believe he'll be a perennial All-Star caliber player. And the way things are going, most of his prime years will likely be with another team. And either way, I'd rather the Twins act honorably towards Buxton and all of their players.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I think the only difference here was the Twins openly citing service time.  Otherwise I think this exactly what every other team would do.  Sox and Jays are doing it too.

 

Cubs might have the most glaring example ever.  Didn't impact them one bit in FA.

There are more differences than that. Those examples were all players who hadn't yet played in MLB, thus weren't union members, thus weren't on the 40-man roster with at least some expectation they'd be called up when rosters expanded.

 

You may not particularly care about those differences, but they exist. I don't think they will matter from an official grievance standpoint, but Buxton, fans, and the rest of the Twins clubhouse might react differently here than they would to, say, Royce Lewis getting the Kris Bryant treatment in April 2020.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Worth noting that in one of the more famous "veteran" service time manipulations -- JJ Hardy in 2009 -- he still got called up Sep. 1st when rosters expanded.

 

It must be pretty rare to send home a veteran, healthy enough to play, who's already on the 40-man roster in September.

[TheLeviathan]

 

There are more differences than that. Those examples were all players who hadn't yet played in MLB, thus weren't union members, thus weren't on the 40-man roster with at least some expectation they'd be called up when rosters expanded.

 

You may not particularly care about those differences, but they exist. I don't think they will matter from an official grievance standpoint, but Buxton, fans, and the rest of the Twins clubhouse might react differently here than they would to, say, Royce Lewis getting the Kris Bryant treatment in April 2020.

 

The union isn't battling things whether a guy is officially union or not.  They fight based on ownership over-reaches.  So I can't see how that has any significance.  The Bryant grievance was still filed, whether he had played in MLB or not.  This one will be filed just the same.  And the result will likely be the same in both.

 

You can argue the circumstances are rare, and I'd agree with that, but service time manipulation is something all teams engage in.  That is common, though it comes in many forms and with many lame excuses.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The union isn't battling things whether a guy is officially union or not.  They fight based on ownership over-reaches.  So I can't see how that has any significance.  The Bryant grievance was still filed, whether he had played in MLB or not.  This one will be filed just the same.  And the result will likely be the same in both.

 

You can argue the circumstances are rare, and I'd agree with that, but service time manipulation is something all teams engage in.  That is common, though it comes in many forms and with many lame excuses.  

 

Well, I specifically said it wasn't so much about the official grievance (which I think Buxton would lose), but the reaction of fans and players.

 

And it's precisely my point that service time manipulation usually doesn't come in many forms -- it's almost always about delaying a rookie's debut. Every team does that. But I'd guess Chief is right, that not every team would do this to Buxton -- just based on his career results so far, the Cubs or other big spending teams probably don't value the extra year of Buxton now anywhere near that of rookie Bryant. So you're probably only looking at the more frugal teams that might do this. And then there are simple veteran/clubhouse communication issues. And a team that is more confident / has a track record of negotiating fair long-term contracts might not feel the need either.

[Mike Sixel]

BTW, I think they should have called him up. It's both the wrong, and right, thing to do. I'm on the right side on this one.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Well, I specifically said it wasn't so much about the official grievance (which I think Buxton would lose), but the reaction of fans and players.

 

And it's precisely my point that service time manipulation usually doesn't come in many forms -- it's almost always about delaying a rookie's debut. Every team does that. But I'd guess Chief is right, that not every team would do this to Buxton -- just based on his career results so far, the Cubs or other big spending teams probably don't value the extra year of Buxton now anywhere near that of rookie Bryant. So you're probably only looking at the more frugal teams that might do this. And then there are simple veteran/clubhouse communication issues. And a team that is more confident / has a track record of negotiating fair long-term contracts might not feel the need either.

 

No, you spoke of how the union would treat Buxton based on whether he was officially a member or not.  That's irrelevant.

 

As for the rest, debuts are the most common, but do you really think teams aren't considering that factor other times as well?  That they make a July call-up, send the player down, and then just stop considering service time the second or third time they are called up?  The debuts just get the most coverage, but service time manipulation is happening constantly to players.  

 

And no, we know that all teams play service time games.  Not just the small market teams, as Bryant is a glaring example of.  Makail Franco is not exactly playing for the Tampa Bay Rays either.  And I could go on.  Players might feel burned by interactions they personally have with some organizations, but what the Twins did to Buxton matters diddly squat to Machado.  Any player that tried to say "I won't sign with a team that manipulates service time" - they'll have to sign with the St. Paul Saints.

[TheLeviathan]

Here are the Yankees actively jerking around Brandon Drury over a similar issue.  It even mentions how they kept Torres down for similar reasons.

 

The suggestion that big market clubs don't care as much or don't do this is flat out false.  Everyone does it.  All the time.  To all kinds of players.

[djvang]

 

Sadly he'd probably get a solid amount of at-bats in September against the same AAA-level pitching.  Of the 28 games on the schedule only 9 are against teams that are still in the race and aren't going to lose 90+ games this year.  Combine that with expanded rosters, the level of pitching they're facing on average isn't going to be great.  It's been an ugly year, I'd just let him start the offseason early.  

You'd think they'd learn that September stats mean nothing.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Here are the Yankees actively jerking around Brandon Drury over a similar issue. It even mentions how they kept Torres down for similar reasons.

 

The suggestion that big market clubs don't care as much or don't do this is flat out false. Everyone does it. All the time. To all kinds of players.

Torres was another start of career situation.

 

That Drury stuff is pretty speculative. The article said he needed 5 more days in the minors -- yet the Yankees recalled him the day after the article was published. He was optioned again a couple weeks later, but it's not nearly as clear that Drury had a place on the Yankees 25 man active roster at the time, as it is for Buxton on the Twins 40 man active roster right now.

 

The author speculates that there is no other reason the team would prefer Bird and Walker to Drury, yet a month later, they traded both Drury and Tyler Austin, and have kept Bird and Walker for their pennant race. Occam's Razor suggests they simply preferred Bird and Walker to those other two, despite the stats. It's not crazy, Drury has been a fairly marginal player himself. The Yankees acquired him as infield insurance but their young infielders really stepped up quickly, rendering him superfluous.

[Otto von Ballpark]

No, you spoke of how the union would treat Buxton based on whether he was officially a member or not. That's irrelevant.

 

As for the rest, debuts are the most common, but do you really think teams aren't considering that factor other times as well? That they make a July call-up, send the player down, and then just stop considering service time the second or third time they are called up? The debuts just get the most coverage, but service time manipulation is happening constantly to players.

 

And no, we know that all teams play service time games. Not just the small market teams, as Bryant is a glaring example of. Makail Franco is not exactly playing for the Tampa Bay Rays either. And I could go on. Players might feel burned by interactions they personally have with some organizations, but what the Twins did to Buxton matters diddly squat to Machado. Any player that tried to say "I won't sign with a team that manipulates service time" - they'll have to sign with the St. Paul Saints.

I didn't bring up the union to mean that. It was just part of a list to clarify that Buxton is a veteran in this situation.

 

Although on a practical level, I think the union has to approach Buxton's situation differently than Bryant's. I think the Bryant grievance is still pending, some 3 years after it was filed. There is nothing the union can do with it except use it as a prop for the next CBA negotiations. Buxton's, on the other hand, should he choose to pursue it, would probably see a quicker, more tangible resolution (even if Buxton loses).

 

As for non-start of career service time manipulation, there is not a lot. It is harder to justify, and honestly it is generally worth less than the early career stuff. Like the alleged Drury manipulation, the returns on that seem marginal to non-existant.

[TheLeviathan]

 

As for non-start of career service time manipulation, there is not a lot. It is harder to justify, and honestly it is generally worth less than the early career stuff. Like the alleged Drury manipulation, the returns on that seem marginal to non-existant.

 

Or just less publicized and easier to hide.  At the end of the day it's about keeping them down a certain amount of time to protect team control.  We only see the surface of how much it is considered and only rarely do teams even come close to acknowledging it.   The career starting decisions have a couple reasons for being more widely publicized, but the practice is hardly limited to that.

 

I literally searched "Yankees service time" and got an example from this year that dispelled the notion you were throwing out there.   The noted examples are numerous enough, I imagine that is but the tip of the iceberg.  And you don't have to do much reading to hear GMs acknowledge it anonymously.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Or just less publicized and easier to hide. At the end of the day it's about keeping them down a certain amount of time to protect team control. We only see the surface of how much it is considered and only rarely do teams even come close to acknowledging it. The career starting decisions have a couple reasons for being more widely publicized, but the practice is hardly limited to that.

 

I literally searched "Yankees service time" and got an example from this year that dispelled the notion you were throwing out there. The noted examples are numerous enough, I imagine that is but the tip of the iceberg. And you don't have to do much reading to hear GMs acknowledge it anonymously.

As far as non-start of career players, as the other poster is saying, you just don't see or hear about it with players like Byron Buxton. This is not Drury or Profar or whoever.

 

Regardless of your opinion of Buxton he did lead the team into the postseason in 2017 with his bat and also win a gold glove. That's why the national media is writing about it.

[Riverbrian]

 

I only follow two teams closely, the Twins and the Rockies. I'd say the Rockies treat their players better, and as a result they get more reasonable contract extensions that buy out more years for their players, leading to more continuity in their team. Charlie Blackmon is a recent example, whose stop and start injury plagued first few seasons look a lot like Buxton's. The Rockies even got Carlos Gonzales to come back after his contract expired (which was extended prior to his free agency). And they've been more successful than the Twins lately, in a way that looks more sustainable.

 

I don't recall the Rockies having fire sales like the Twins have had recently either. They tend to stick with their guys and bolster areas of need (like the bullpen in the past two years). Believe me, Rockies fans complain about the ownership being cheap just as much as Twins fans. However, they don't have to feel ashamed at how their FO treats the players they love to see on their team. Even trading Tulowitzki (whose contract had been extended), was the choice of the player.

 

I love to see Buxton on this team, and I'm ashamed at how the FO has treated him. I hope they make "amends" with him sooner than later, but I fear that won't be possible. Rather than nickel and dime him by manipulating service time, I wish they'd work on extending his contract. If he turns out to be a bust, I'll admit to being wrong about this. But I fully believe he'll be a perennial All-Star caliber player. And the way things are going, most of his prime years will likely be with another team. And either way, I'd rather the Twins act honorably towards Buxton and all of their players.

 

I'm doing it by hand so my math may be a little off but I'm close. 

 

Charlie Blackmon: 

2011

June 7 - Contract Selected by the Rockies - MLB Debut

July 7 - Charlie broke his foot running the bases at Turner Field in Atlanta and is placed on the 15 day DL. 

July 15 - He is transferred to the 60 day DL. 

 

Since the injury occured on the MLB Roster. He Accrues Service time. 

Running Total 0.114

 

2012

Charlie begins the season on the DL. 

April 13 - He begins rehab with AAA Colorado Springs

April 14 - He is optioned to Colorado Springs

Running Total 0.121

 

Charlie isn't recalled to the Bigs until August 18th and he remains on the roster until the end of the year. 

Running Total 0.167

 

Doesn't prove anything but the timing was certainly unfortunate for Charlie as the Rockies gain an extra year. 

 

BTW... Charlie did sign an extension... At age 32, 6 years/106 Million dollars that includes a player option for the final two years... not a club option -- it's a player option that gives him the right to opt out... Not the club. I'd sign that to at that age. He didn't get a hometown discount. 

 

Carlos Gonzalez signed for less than Logan Morrison signed with us. 

 

Then there's the case of Eddie Butler... Eddie was top ranked pitching prospect much like Byron Buxton... More so than Charlie Blackmon. 

 

Eddie Butler

 

2014 - Running Total 0.55

2015 - Eddie Butler is sent down to Albuquerque on August 14th and isn't a September recall. He remained healthy and never spent any time on the DL... as a matter of fact, on the very last game of the year for the Isotopes. Eddie Butler was the starting pitcher. 

 

Running Total 0.144

 

Nolan Arenado

Nolan at the end of this year will be at 5.155 because the Rockies decided to start Chris Nelson at 3B to begin 2013. Nolan was called up on April 28th, Chris Nelson was DFA's April 28th. I believe the Rockies said that he needed some time to work on his defense. 

 

This was a good move by the Rockies because he would be a free agent this year and he has already told the press that he is sick of losing. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/07/01/nolan-arenado-rockies-losing-free-agency/749138002/

 

All teams watch the service time when making decisions. If they didn't, they wouldn't be doing their jobs. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

As far as non-start of career players, as the other poster is saying, you just don't see or hear about it with players like Byron Buxton. This is not Drury or Profar or whoever.

Regardless of your opinion of Buxton he did lead the team into the postseason in 2017 with his bat and also win a gold glove. That's why the national media is writing about it.

 

Just because you don't hear it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.  Buxton has high name recognition and I'd acknowledge it's more rare for a player like that.  Although, Profar was a high name recognition guy for a long time and Rangers fans might have felt much the same way Twins fans did.  We don't hear much of these sorts of things because it's more localized to particular fan bases.

 

The average baseball fan probably heard and cared about the story roughly as much as they did about Vlad Jr.    It's only really a big deal here.  It's barely getting a fraction of the national attention Kris Bryant did, for example.  

 

As for Drury, my point there was to show that the Yankees do care about service time.  Even for a guy that most people see as a rotational/bench player.  Also, it was suggested that it was unique that Buxton had this happen at this point in his service time, but Drury has had a lot of major league at-bats to be left languishing in the minors in the name of service time.   I'd all but guarantee this happens more regularly than we know around the league and even with the Twins.  Team control is seen as a highly valuable component to a player's value, it only stands to reason that teams would incorporate it heavily in many of their roster decisions.

[Don Walcott]

 

I'm doing it by hand so my math may be a little off but I'm close. 

 

Charlie Blackmon: 

2011

June 7 - Contract Selected by the Rockies - MLB Debut

July 7 - Charlie broke his foot running the bases at Turner Field in Atlanta and is placed on the 15 day DL. 

July 15 - He is transferred to the 60 day DL. 

 

Since the injury occured on the MLB Roster. He Accrues Service time. 

Running Total 0.114

 

2012

Charlie begins the season on the DL. 

April 13 - He begins rehab with AAA Colorado Springs

April 14 - He is optioned to Colorado Springs

Running Total 0.121

 

Charlie isn't recalled to the Bigs until August 18th and he remains on the roster until the end of the year. 

Running Total 0.167

 

Doesn't prove anything but the timing was certainly unfortunate for Charlie as the Rockies gain an extra year. 

 

BTW... Charlie did sign an extension... At age 32, 6 years/106 Million dollars that includes a player option for the final two years... not a club option -- it's a player option that gives him the right to opt out... Not the club. I'd sign that to at that age. He didn't get a hometown discount. 

 

Carlos Gonzalez signed for less than Logan Morrison signed with us. 

 

Then there's the case of Eddie Butler... Eddie was top ranked pitching prospect much like Byron Buxton... More so than Charlie Blackmon. 

 

Eddie Butler

 

2014 - Running Total 0.55

2015 - Eddie Butler is sent down to Albuquerque on August 14th and isn't a September recall. He remained healthy and never spent any time on the DL... as a matter of fact, on the very last game of the year for the Isotopes. Eddie Butler was the starting pitcher. 

 

Running Total 0.144

 

Nolan Arenado

Nolan at the end of this year will be at 5.155 because the Rockies decided to start Chris Nelson at 3B to begin 2013. Nolan was called up on April 28th, Chris Nelson was DFA's April 28th. I believe the Rockies said that he needed some time to work on his defense. 

 

This was a good move by the Rockies because he would be a free agent this year and he has already told the press that he is sick of losing. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/07/01/nolan-arenado-rockies-losing-free-agency/749138002/

 

All teams watch the service time when making decisions. If they didn't, they wouldn't be doing their jobs. 

Chuck Nasty:

 

In 2012, the Rockies had a starting outfield of Dexter Fowler, Michael Cuddyer and Carlos Gonzales. The 4th outfielder was Tyler Colvin, who had an .858 OPS. Charlie wasn't breaking into the team as a regular, though he came up late in the season and played through September. He had good minor league stats, and okay major league stats, but nothing that would establish him as to those positions in 2013. He was also competing with Corey Dickerson in 2013 for the 4th outfielder spot, and Corey Dickerson was absolutely tearing up AAA, (1.046 OPS compared to Charlie's .804 OPS). They were comparable at the major league level in 2013. When Dexter left, Charlie was handed the center field job, and Dickerson played most of the year in left. The entire time Charlie was vying for a major league position, he was blocked by a set outfield and was in competition with Colvin or Dickerson for the 4th spot.There is simply no reasonable argument that Charlie was being held back in 2012 or 2013.

 

In 2014, the Rockies took a gamble replacing Dexter with Charlie in center field. It worked.

 

Now, Charlie's been given a generous contract to stay, and he's happy to stay. Not sure how this proves the Rockies didn't treat Charlie well.

 

Cargo:

 

Was signed to a generous contract extension. Chose to come back to the team this year after not being offered anything by anyone else this off season. Not sure how this proves the Rockies didn't treat Cargo well.

 

Nolan

 

In 2012, Arenado had a .766 OPS in AA. At the beginning of 2013, he was promoted to AAA, where he had a 1.089 OPS in 18 games. He was promoted quickly and became the every day 3B from that point on. Nolan had a grand total of 75 ABs in AAA. I remember very clearly hearing about Nolan, when he was in the minors, as a future gold glove 3B, and that there were hopes he could hit in the majors. In 2013, he had an OPS of .706 in the majors, but played amazing 3B. He was never demoted, and his service time was never suppressed. Nolan was bought out of the past two years of arbitration at a generous price, is arbitration eligible for 2019, and is a free agent in 2020. I expect the Rockies will have the inside track negotiating with Nolan for a new contract. Not sure how this proves the Rockies didn't treat Nolan well.

 

Eddie Butler:

 

Who? Regardless of his draft position, Eddie Butler had marginal minor league stats in 2014 between high A, AA and AAA. He was promoted quickly nonetheless, and had a 6.75 ERA in three starts in the majors. In 2015, Butler had terrible stats in AAA and a 5.90 ERA in the majors in 16 starts. He had 44 strikeouts and 42 walks in 79.1 innings at the major league level. Even the Rockies were able to find better options. Since leaving Colorado, Butler has pitched more innings in AAA than in the majors. Unless you have some kind of emotional connection with Eddie Butler, I fail to see any reason to believe the Rockies did not treat Eddie Butler well.

 

Your arguments about these players seem like a real stretch to me.

[Riverbrian]

 

Chuck Nasty:

 

In 2012, the Rockies had a starting outfield of Dexter Fowler, Michael Cuddyer and Carlos Gonzales. The 4th outfielder was Tyler Colvin, who had an .858 OPS. Charlie wasn't breaking into the team as a regular, though he came up late in the season and played through September. He had good minor league stats, and okay major league stats, but nothing that would establish him as to those positions in 2013. He was also competing with Corey Dickerson in 2013 for the 4th outfielder spot, and Corey Dickerson was absolutely tearing up AAA, (1.046 OPS compared to Charlie's .804 OPS). They were comparable at the major league level in 2013. When Dexter left, Charlie was handed the center field job, and Dickerson played most of the year in left. The entire time Charlie was vying for a major league position, he was blocked by a set outfield and was in competition with Colvin or Dickerson for the 4th spot.There is simply no reasonable argument that Charlie was being held back in 2012 or 2013.

 

In 2014, the Rockies took a gamble replacing Dexter with Charlie in center field. It worked.

 

Now, Charlie's been given a generous contract to stay, and he's happy to stay. Not sure how this proves the Rockies didn't treat Charlie well.

 

Cargo:

 

Was signed to a generous contract extension. Chose to come back to the team this year after not being offered anything by anyone else this off season. Not sure how this proves the Rockies didn't treat Cargo well.

 

Nolan

 

In 2012, Arenado had a .766 OPS in AA. At the beginning of 2013, he was promoted to AAA, where he had a 1.089 OPS in 18 games. He was promoted quickly and became the every day 3B from that point on. Nolan had a grand total of 75 ABs in AAA. I remember very clearly hearing about Nolan, when he was in the minors, as a future gold glove 3B, and that there were hopes he could hit in the majors. In 2013, he had an OPS of .706 in the majors, but played amazing 3B. He was never demoted, and his service time was never suppressed. Nolan was bought out of the past two years of arbitration at a generous price, is arbitration eligible for 2019, and is a free agent in 2020. I expect the Rockies will have the inside track negotiating with Nolan for a new contract. Not sure how this proves the Rockies didn't treat Nolan well.

 

Eddie Butler:

 

Who? Regardless of his draft position, Eddie Butler had marginal minor league stats in 2014 between high A, AA and AAA. He was promoted quickly nonetheless, and had a 6.75 ERA in three starts in the majors. In 2015, Butler had terrible stats in AAA and a 5.90 ERA in the majors in 16 starts. He had 44 strikeouts and 42 walks in 79.1 innings at the major league level. Even the Rockies were able to find better options. Since leaving Colorado, Butler has pitched more innings in AAA than in the majors. Unless you have some kind of emotional connection with Eddie Butler, I fail to see any reason to believe the Rockies did not treat Eddie Butler well.

 

Your arguments about these players seem like a real stretch to me.

 

Colvin and Cuddyer also played 1B and Helton was injured quite a bit. Also, Gonzalez and Fowler player 131 games in the OF. You also don't mention that the Rockies played Andrew Brown and Eric Young Jr. in the OF more than Charlie Blackmon. 

 

The Rockies were 45-72 and when Blackmon was called up. 

 

Eddie Butler was on the 40 man. 

 

I'm not making the claim that any team is treating anybody well or terrible. 

 

I am claiming that all front offices are making service time considerations. 

 

You are making the claim that the Twins are not treating players well. (Buxton). 

 

[Riverbrian]

Chuck Nasty:

 

In 2012, the Rockies had a starting outfield of Dexter Fowler, Michael Cuddyer and Carlos Gonzales. The 4th outfielder was Tyler Colvin, who had an .858 OPS. Charlie wasn't breaking into the team as a regular, though he came up late in the season and played through September. He had good minor league stats, and okay major league stats, but nothing that would establish him as to those positions in 2013. He was also competing with Corey Dickerson in 2013 for the 4th outfielder spot, and Corey Dickerson was absolutely tearing up AAA, (1.046 OPS compared to Charlie's .804 OPS). They were comparable at the major league level in 2013. When Dexter left, Charlie was handed the center field job, and Dickerson played most of the year in left. The entire time Charlie was vying for a major league position, he was blocked by a set outfield and was in competition with Colvin or Dickerson for the 4th spot.There is simply no reasonable argument that Charlie was being held back in 2012 or 2013.

 

In 2014, the Rockies took a gamble replacing Dexter with Charlie in center field. It worked.

 

Now, Charlie's been given a generous contract to stay, and he's happy to stay. Not sure how this proves the Rockies didn't treat Charlie well.

 

Cargo:

 

Was signed to a generous contract extension. Chose to come back to the team this year after not being offered anything by anyone else this off season. Not sure how this proves the Rockies didn't treat Cargo well.

 

Nolan

 

In 2012, Arenado had a .766 OPS in AA. At the beginning of 2013, he was promoted to AAA, where he had a 1.089 OPS in 18 games. He was promoted quickly and became the every day 3B from that point on. Nolan had a grand total of 75 ABs in AAA. I remember very clearly hearing about Nolan, when he was in the minors, as a future gold glove 3B, and that there were hopes he could hit in the majors. In 2013, he had an OPS of .706 in the majors, but played amazing 3B. He was never demoted, and his service time was never suppressed. Nolan was bought out of the past two years of arbitration at a generous price, is arbitration eligible for 2019, and is a free agent in 2020. I expect the Rockies will have the inside track negotiating with Nolan for a new contract. Not sure how this proves the Rockies didn't treat Nolan well.

 

Eddie Butler:

 

Who? Regardless of his draft position, Eddie Butler had marginal minor league stats in 2014 between high A, AA and AAA. He was promoted quickly nonetheless, and had a 6.75 ERA in three starts in the majors. In 2015, Butler had terrible stats in AAA and a 5.90 ERA in the majors in 16 starts. He had 44 strikeouts and 42 walks in 79.1 innings at the major league level. Even the Rockies were able to find better options. Since leaving Colorado, Butler has pitched more innings in AAA than in the majors. Unless you have some kind of emotional connection with Eddie Butler, I fail to see any reason to believe the Rockies did not treat Eddie Butler well.

 

Your arguments about these players seem like a real stretch to me.

I also want to be very clear. That I responded to Kelly Vance asking him to provide a team that doesn’t treat players like cattle. I even acknowledged in the post that cattle was his term not mine.

 

You responded with the Rockies.

 

I responded with potential service time decisions made by the Rockies. Even said it doesn’t prove anything.

 

You responded that I didn’t prove that they were treated poorly and that was never my point.

 

For clarity: My point is that all teams make service time decisions all the time. If they don’t they are making a mistake and the CBA basically encourages teams to strongly factor service time into their decisions.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I literally searched "Yankees service time" and got an example from this year that dispelled the notion you were throwing out there.

That blog post is probably not sufficient evidence of what you claim. Every optional assignment has service time consequences, but that hardly proves the frequency with which they are a motivating factor. Heck, there are posters here at Twins Daily that will speculate about the service time implications of every marginal call-up -- that doesn't mean it is actually an important factor for most of those decisions.

 

The marginal value of the extra year control, or of avoiding Super 2 status, drops precipitously for non-elite players (including former Elie prospects), to the point where it can be (and often is) eclipsed by a variety of other factors. I think, for some clubs, that point would have been reached with Buxton by Sep. 1, 2018, at least as far as a 2018 shutdown is concerned. That is all I read into Chief's comment. (Buxton still has an option for 2019 -- a higher revenue team could also plan to acquire a better plan A and use Buxton's remaining option right away in 2019.)

 

I would expect all teams to hold back a guy like Bryant; I wouldn't expect all teams to necessarily hold back Buxton circa Sep. 1st. That's all. I know you disagree, so I will drop this tangent with you.

[Don Walcott]

 

I also want to be very clear. That I responded to Kelly Vance asking him to provide a team that doesn’t treat players like cattle. I even acknowledged in the post that cattle was his term not mine.

You responded with the Rockies.

I responded with potential service time decisions made by the Rockies. Even said it doesn’t prove anything.

You responded that I didn’t prove that they were treated poorly and that was never my point.

For clarity: My point is that all teams make service time decisions all the time. If they don’t they are making a mistake and the CBA basically encourages teams to strongly factor service time into their decisions.

In every instance I showed how service time was not an issue.

[yarnivek1972]

In every instance I showed how service time was not an issue.

That’s you speculating. Many are speculating that while service time might not be a primary reason for optioning a player it is certainly a factor the decision makers are aware of when they make it. If they weren’t aware of it, they would be negligent in performing their jobs.

[TheLeviathan]

I would expect all teams to hold back a guy like Bryant; I wouldn't expect all teams to necessarily hold back Buxton circa Sep. 1st. That's all. I know you disagree, so I will drop this tangent with you.

Cute, you have no evidence but take issue when I post an example. What you have is a narrative (Twins = outlier) and nothing but speculation. Whereas I have examples and the very real value of control to teams to support my contention. Yeah, I'd drop the tangent too.

[TheLeviathan]

That’s you speculating. Many are speculating that while service time might not be a primary reason for optioning a player it is certainly a factor the decision makers are aware of when they make it. If they weren’t aware of it, they would be negligent in performing their jobs.

From Passan:

 

I hate doing it,” said one of the many general managers who has engaged in service-time manipulation. “But if I didn’t, I wouldn’t be doing my job.”

 

It stands to reason teams care about this all the time. Let's stop treating the Twins as an exception. You can still disagree with the move without making them a villain relative to other teams.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Cute, you have no evidence but take issue when I post an example. What you have is a narrative (Twins = outlier) and nothing but speculation. Whereas I have examples and the very real value of control to teams to support my contention. Yeah, I'd drop the tangent too.

None of us here have "evidence" in this area beyond what we can personally infer from contracts and such. A blog post about Drury is no more an example for your position, than me pointing out logical issues with that blog post is an example for my position. It is a lot of opinion, and we disagree. So can we keep this respectful and not demean other opinions as "cute" and such? We can just agree to disagree at this point, no need to taunt or gloat about that.

[TheLeviathan]

 

None of us here have "evidence" in this area beyond what we can personally infer from contracts and such. A blog post about Drury is no more an example for your position, than me pointing out logical issues with that blog post is an example for my position. It is a lot of opinion, and we disagree. So can we keep this respectful and not demean other opinions as "cute" and such? We can just agree to disagree at this point, no need to taunt or gloat about that.

 

Except, I do have evidence.  I'm not inferring when I state that teams value control and GMs acknowledge manipulation.  Yes, I'm inferring from the hundreds of examples that those values were applied in those situations, but I have strong reasons and logic for doing so based on those facts.  You are purely speculating, I am not.  Dismissing my examples, that have real facts beyond them, because it doesn't fit with your version of events is not good form.  

 

You can disagree, you just do so in the face of stronger evidence.  

 

And here's Keith Law adding more evidence to the pile:

 

Keith Law
1:27 Completely disagree with it, and I think he should file a grievance - I think more players should fight these manipulations, because teams do it with impunity right now.

Edited September 6, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[Otto von Ballpark]

Except, I do have evidence. I'm not inferring when I state that teams value control and GMs acknowledge manipulation. Yes, I'm inferring from the hundreds of examples that those values were applied in those situations, but I have strong reasons and logic for doing so based on those facts. You are purely speculating, I am not. Dismissing my examples, that have real facts beyond them, because it doesn't fit with your version of events is not good form.

 

You can disagree, you just do so in the face of stronger evidence.

 

And here's Keith Law adding more evidence to the pile:

 

Keith Law

1:27 Completely disagree with it, and I think he should file a grievance - I think more players should fight these manipulations, because teams do it with impunity right now.

I have said repeatedly that all teams engage in service time manipulation. And I believe that when the stakes are high enough, like Bryant early career situations, they will do so pretty much universally. No disagreement there. If you think that is what I have been disputing, I apologize, that was not my intent at all.

 

Where I joined this conversation was where Chief said that he's not convinced that all teams would have done this with Buxton. And I agree -- as the benefits to manipulation are lowered, it seems logical that behavior would increasingly diverge among teams. (Up until the other logical extreme, where all teams would universally *not* manipulate -- no team is going to manipulate the service time of, say, Buddy Boshers! To pick on a former Twin with an alliterative name.) On that narrow point, all anyone can do really do is infer, and maybe just on a case-by-case basis. And there is nothing wrong with that, just a difference of opinion.

 

I don't know what the breakdown would be -- maybe 15 teams would do as the Twins did with Buxton, maybe 15 wouldn't? Maybe 10 would have held him back in 2018, maybe 10 others would have done it in 2019? It is very hard to say, because some clubs may have approached it differently in the past so it may not even have been an issue by Sep. 1st. And it may not even be consistent by organization -- a week ago, I might have guessed the Twins wouldn't have done it. They didn't even try with Sano this year. Maybe they wouldn't do it next time either. Maybe this time, there was just the right set of circumstances to cause that decision for this club.

[Riverbrian]

 

In every instance I showed how service time was not an issue.

 

No... You provided alternative possibilities to my possibilities. . 

 

Neither of us have proven anything. 

 

If we had proof, we could probably get compensation for that proof from the MLBPA or MLB Commissioners office. 

[Riverbrian]

 

I have said repeatedly that all teams engage in service time manipulation. And I believe that when the stakes are high enough, like Bryant early career situations, they will do so pretty much universally. No disagreement there. If you think that is what I have been disputing, I apologize, that was not my intent at all.

Where I joined this conversation was where Chief said that he's not convinced that all teams would have done this with Buxton. And I agree -- as the benefits to manipulation are lowered, it seems logical that behavior would increasingly diverge among teams. (Up until the other logical extreme, where all teams would universally *not* manipulate -- no team is going to manipulate the service time of, say, Buddy Boshers! To pick on a former Twin with an alliterative name.) On that narrow point, all anyone can do really do is infer, and maybe just on a case-by-case basis. And there is nothing wrong with that, just a difference of opinion.

I don't know what the breakdown would be -- maybe 15 teams would do as the Twins did with Buxton, maybe 15 wouldn't? Maybe 10 would have held him back in 2018, maybe 10 others would have done it in 2019? It is very hard to say, because some clubs may have approached it differently in the past so it may not even have been an issue by Sep. 1st. And it may not even be consistent by organization -- a week ago, I might have guessed the Twins wouldn't have done it. They didn't even try with Sano this year. Maybe they wouldn't do it next time either. Maybe this time, there was just the right set of circumstances to cause that decision for this club.

 

I agree it's a complicated discussion and I also think that Chief is right when he says that not everyone would have handled Byron Buxton the same way and I believe that is hard to find precedent because the circumstances surrounding Byron are unique. 

 

However, I'm not sure if you are correct assuming that it usually happens at the beginning of the career ala Kris Bryant and then tapers off. I believe the Kris Bryant cases are hit you between the eyes obvious and are usually more publicized as a result but I'm guessing you are going to find larger doses of it a year or two down the line. 

 

Players get called up and sent down and called up again more often than the rare player who starts his career and never sees the minors again. My theory is that you are going to find lots of cases where a player could have been called up on June 1st only to have a player with less potential called up because the front office can see on the spreadsheet that they gain the extra year by waiting 8 days. When that happens, it is rarely publicized because not many are watching the service time clock. The Rockies might call up a Matt McBride instead of Charlie Blackmon until Charlie clears that mark. 

 

I'm doing calculations by hand because I can't find a website that will break it down for you and if there isn't a website doing the work... who is going to do the work. The front offices are, the agents are, but is the general public doing the math so they can see how the hot dogs are made?  

 

Just a theory