Riverbrian

Dozier, Kepler, Morrison, Sano and Buxton were bad and they played every single day. Adrianaza was our third best hitter and now he is not. Wilson caught more games than Garver... now Garver is catching more games than Wilson. Improvement was a poorly managed low bar to clear.

I admit I don't know the answer with 100% certainty but I'm fairly baseball attentive and I don't recall a ton of reports of clubs getting nailed by grievances filed by the MLBPA. Frankly, the CBA not only allows service time manipulation, it basically encourages it. The Cubs manipulated service time with Kris Bryant The Astros manipulated service time with George Springer The Braves manipulated service time with Ronald Acuna The Yankees manipulated service time with Greyber Torres The list is waaaaaayyyyyy longer than this... "the bad look" is worn by every major league club and it doesn't appear as if the bad look has cost the Cubs or Astros or Yankeees in terms of acquiring players.

I'd be somewhat OK with this. But, at this moment... we are theoretically in contention for 2019. Not so much in 2018.

If he doesn't improve at the plate. The extra year will not matter. The scouts who predicted super-stardom will need to be fired of course.

Nick you did a great job presenting all sides but this one is an absolute no-brainer. Buxton does not see Minnesota soil for the rest of 2018. If he gets September off... he gets September off. Call it for the purpose of getting healthy but it is primarily for the purpose of getting that extra year... back. Buxton has nearly burned 3 years of service time and has produced 340 K's and 70 BB's in 1074 AB's. Career BA .230 - Career OBP .285 - Career OPS .672. This is not the superstar production that the scouts predicted he will produce. What this is... is nearly 3 years of service time wasted culminating in some of the worst offensive numbers ever produced this year. If you believe the scouts are right... you have to wait for it. If you have to wait for it... you need time to enjoy it when it finally arrives. That extra year is huge in case the scouts were right. If you call him up for a month worth of AB's in a lost season, what do you gain? I don't believe that a month of AB's are going to be the springboard to a changed man in 2019 and I know that his defense isn't going to get us into the playoffs this year. When you give up that extra year of control... you run a very real risk that Buxton figures it out, becomes the player the scouts predicted, the player we dreamed of... right before he hits free agency and we get 1 maybe 2 years if we are lucky of Good Buxton to go with the 4 or 5 years of Bad Buxton. If the front office burns a year of his control, while it is easily avoided and justifiable in consideration of production and health. And do it THIS SEASON with nothing to play for. It could only be viewed as irresponsible. If Buxton considers this a "gut punch". Better him than me. Because he has been gut punching me for 3 years and if we lose a year of superstar Buxton because of September AB's of Bad Buxton... that will be more like a cannonball to the crotch. A gut punch will feel good by comparison. This is coming from a guy, who looks at the terms of the CBA and consistently sides with the players. I do think they get the short end of the stick. But, the CBA is an agreement that a GM needs to consider when making decisions on long range plans. Until the CBA is changed to something more equitable to the players... I sincerely hope that my teams front office utilizes the rules of the CBA to their advantage and ultimately as a fan... that is also the front office acting on my behalf.

The short answer is: Yes he can. He may not but... Yes he can and I support his right to try.

Murphy is the type of guy who can develop position flexibility because he isn't tremendously gifted as a defender but has the capability of being adequate at multiple positions. You sign him and find a way to get his bat in the lineup. Murphy would absolutely be on my FA wish list.

It's 2018... It doesn't matter to me if he does cartwheels or walks up to the retired batter, tweaks his nose and says boop. You gotta let these guys loose as part of the game remake.

Maybe he will miss 4 bats next game.

I just want to say that it was a good start. 1 K 1 Smay... Nothing was hit hard... Nothing. I won't predict his future but it was a good start and we should give him another one.

Agreed that a double play wasn't possible. One out Runners on first and second. Double Play not possible. Lead runner out... A SURE THING. And that's the guy you'd want out if you could choose. I'd forgive him for a boot... Adrianaza was sleeping on the job. Stewart got pulled as a consequence.

Adrianaza owes Stewart an apology. Messed up his first major league start.

He looked parallel with the runner. It also looked the runner stopped to avoid being easily tagged.

I agree that adjustments have been trending the figures together but the Closer still makes the money. In Arbitration ruling and Free Agent Deals.

That Adrianaza error that wasn't credited as an error was huge and simple situational awareness would have rectified it. If Adrianaza just takes care of the lead runner like every other major league player would have. Stewart has a chance to get out of the inning with 1 run and maybe gets another inning. This wasn't a boot... this was a guy asleep in the field. Stewart gave up nothing hard. He gets pulled as a consequence beyond his control.

Sure... you gotta use logic on me.

I'm not trying to start anything I promise since you are already capitalizing... But Both Martinez and Goodrum have hit left-handers better this year and V-Mart also has hit left-handers better for his vast career... so I'm not sure what you gain by turning them around.

I gotta go with Wrath after watching Adrianaza inexplicably not get the sure out on the lead runner. Why is it OK to remove the pitcher from the middle of an inning but not OK to remove a 3B from the middle of inning?

He ate 4 so far. How many does he have to eat? Gluttony is one of the 7.

No it's the balls that he is swinging at.

Right now in a small sample size of 6 AB's... It's looking like the answer to this question will depend on how many balls are thrown low in the zone.

You know me. I don't like the structure of a starting 9. I don't like the structure of players only playing one position. I don't like the structure of a traditional bullpen. No way I'm gonna structure that 5th AB for him... I'm just gonna be happy it's no longer a strike out.

Yeah it does but at the same time doesn't explain the unwavering reward of playing time.

I'm not the traditional closer role guy so I don't spend a lot of time worrying about who is in the 9th. If I had to choose, I like low WHIP guys in the 9th and Hildenberger used to be that prior to this deep funk he is in so I'm not completely in opposition to this being his role... I'm just more in opposition of the static role itself. Because sometimes you have a 3 run lead in the 9th where it makes sense to give Brandon Workman the ball and sometimes you have a 1 run lead in the 7th where it makes sense to give Craig Kimbrel the ball. Just pitching Kimbrel in the 9th exclusively if it's a 3 run lead or a 1 run lead is just another form of auto-pilot managing that I am a little sick of at the moment. I understand that as long as players are compensated for saves, the players will demand the role and this puts me firmly against the wind but I'm pointing this out to say that I don't care if Hildy is our closer. So with that said and knowing that Molitor doesn't share my thoughts on the subject and knowing that he is going to require a 9th inning guy. The selection of Hildenberger is interesting. Hildy is in a deep funk and Molitor went there anyway. Not surprising... Molitor is pretty consistent, he has his chosen guys and he is going with those guys come hell or high water.

I don't remember his contributions from the last Mets World championship. I remember Bill Buckner helping a little.