TheLeviathan

I believe in the young man's talent and determination and grit. I am a skeptic of his ability to stay on the field to dazzle us with it. I hope this year calms that skepticism.

Signing in late February certainly indicates there wasnt a rush to sign him. It's also safe to assume in a year with a more normal bidding season and less financial uncertainty could have led to more money. 12M AAV seems like a Buxton floor. I dont see any reason he would ink a deal for a penny less than that.

I think these are good talking point benchmarks. I could do 5/50. I'd do 5/60 for the chance at lightning in a bottle. But past that you start to lose me in the risk vs. reward. Jackie Bradley Jr. is an informative comp for him. A player with no durability issues, but otherwise similarly up and down offensive profile with good defense. Dude got 12M in a year where the pandemic wrecked FA. I think we've come to a point where clubs are paying a premium for defense. I'm not sure we can get his name inked on a contract for less than 15 AAV.

I think there is too much speculation here. Yes, he seems to be really good at reading the ball, but it's hard to know how good that skill is independent of his speed for obvious reasons. We've seen a lot of other speedy players decline markedly after their speed goes from elite to just "good". Perhaps Byron is an exception, but that isn't the sort of thing you bet extensions on. I don't feel comfortable with any speculation on vision/migraines/concussions either. That can effect people so differently. I'd accept just having him take a bit more care not to freight train any OF walls. That sort of thing at age 31 isn't the same as 25.

He won't get signed for 10M. If this happens it will have to be 12-13M at minimum given what Jackie Bradley got. I'm guessing it'll actually have to be closer to 15M. 15M for a backup OF is not a terribly good use of resources. Van is right that his speed is going to wane and right now almost all of his defensive and offensive value is tied up in that. Couple that with the fact that age is rarely kind to durability and we have a problem. His body is in the prime of his life and he still can't stay on the field. That isn't going to get better. I can talk myself into the gamble because the talent is obvious, but we need to walk into it eyes wide open. He is a bit of a reckless player, the upside might be worth it, but the downside is seriously real.

Yeah I'm not in this heavy at all. I find the stock market slimy and gross. But a few hundred bucks to help this movement stick it to these guys? Hell yeah. I'm in. I bought AMC and I'll ride it out for a week or two. Worst case I'm out a few hundred bucks for a few weeks of fun. Make no mistake, even if all these guys lose their shirts in the end, they've made a difference. This is the first true blow to cronyism in our government in as long as I can remember.

This is an amazing effort by people to stick it to wall street. I'm in on it. I expect more nonsense like we saw today, but even if we all lose our investments....the spotlight on this BS became crystal clear. We're uniting the country one demolished hedge fund at a time!

No mention of Roger Clemens MVP Baseball? Those goofy name mutations to avoid paying a license were incredible! Plus it was a fun game....

For 2021? A tie, both. However, Buxton is seen as a player the Twins could/would have for quite some time. His inability to stay available to the team is a far bigger concern.

Buxton is heating up and getting in a groove! Awesome! *Watches Luplow triple where Buxton needlessly overruns a ball and crashes awkwardly into a wall* There it is. Buxton in a nutshell.

I have reread the original post and I don't think your interpretation is accurate because it is incomplete. The poster said that the players chose to stop playing for a day because something in the world is unjust and they wanted to raise awareness and add their voice/clout to the conversation. By you limiting the initial clause to a simplified version, you've essentially conducted a strawman argument. Your version: If everything is not ok, players choose not to play as scheduled What the poster actually said and better reflects the players: If everything is not ok and the players think their platform can be used to help reverse this injustice and support their teammates who feel strongly, they will choose not to play to make a statement and then continue to fight the injustice in other ways. Those extra conditionals significantly alter the simplicity of the logic you tried to use and explain why it went so far astray at even the most basic analysis. The players who feel strongly may have needed that show of unity. They may have needed to exercise their platform to get people talking and paying attention for future actions. Let's use a simple analogy to show the difference: 9/11 responders experience(d) significant PTSD and a host of other issues because of their bravery that day. Many of them suffer daily from it. Yet I would imagine, no matter how passionately you feel about honoring their sacrifice, you don't stop daily to remember it. Or donate daily. Or personally thank each of them daily. Or make some grand display daily. Those men and women are still there every day, but you effort isn't the same day in and day out. Does that, in any way, minimize the complications? Or minimize your genuine appreciation of those people? The simple truth is human beings don't have the capacity to be constantly, actively engaged in everything. We commemorate and honor on particular days, we raise awareness, we throw our full weight behind things for short bursts and then back down to work at it daily. We simply cannot do much more than that for all the injustices in the world. Your attempt at logic only works because you ignore what is realistically possible and removes all the complexity that is actually part of the situation. Which makes it appear easy to poke a hole in, but that's only because you've deliberately chosen to narrow the field to your convenience.

Have you though? I see two pages of polite attempts to correct your stance on Kaepernick and I don't see much evidence you've taken any of it to heart. That isn't to say you need to feel differently about standing or kneeling for the anthem, but it is to say that many of your thoughts surrounding the man and the choices he made range from misinformed to downright false. It's easy to say a conversation is productive and listening is good, but in the end those are words. A conversation and a genuine effort to listen requires the ability to ask questions, reform ideas, rethink your positions, and consult new sources. It requires a commitment to be better in our opinions. In Kaepernick, I think you've found your starting point. And, if you choose to actually take this opportunity....THEN the conversation can become an opportunity for progress rather than merely an exchanging of words.

Well said. Buxton has got to play a significant, uninterrupted stretch of baseball before this is even a conversation IMO. Sano is a regular contributor with some warts. Buxton, at this point, isn't even a regular for this team.

He looks electric.

The bullpen wasn't bad last year. Of course, you can almost always use more bullpen help, but it's hard to argue the bullpen held back the 2019 Twins. It's also hard to argue Pressly would've helped a ton given his second half performance. (Whatever the reason may be for it) I'm not sure, even with hindsight, we can say keeping Pressly would've moved the needle a whole lot given how his circumstances/performance played out. What remains to be seen is how the prospects we received play out. SSS...but I like what I saw from Alcala as a reliever last night. His stuff is nasty. But time will tell.

The Twins can fix this! Keep giving him at-bats so a ridiculously small-sample size is no longer the primary basis of our worry. It could well be that Garver is going to have issues adjusting, but there isn't sufficient evidence anything has to be "fixed" at this point.

This is a good bumper sticker, but it's mostly naive about how humans and biases work. Throughout sports there is significant under representation of minorities in leadership positions. Coaches, administrators, front office, and any other example you want to give. Professional or Ammy. This isn't unique to baseball (or even sports) but is a real thing. The sentiment you express would be a great one to have in some utopia in which people truly did hire the best person for the job, but in reality that isn't the case for a number of reasons. The best, maybe only, solution to that problem is to call attention to it so people are consciously aware of their biases and we can start to change that reality. It's especially important for a sport that has an ever diminishing player base of black players and fans. Baseball hides behind profit margins to ignore deep systemic problems that are threatening to push it into a niche category while most of the 50 year old white dudes who make up their average fan are still alive to see it. Calling attention to these issues, no matter how unpopular with utopian thinkers, is necessary.

It might be time to conclude that, for whatever reason, Buxton's body will not stay healthy playing baseball.

His talent is clear. His impact is clear. He's a great kid and a great ball-player. His durability? A major question mark and until we see a season in which injuries don't flare up for random, odd reasons, it's going to remain a question mark. At some point a series of events we keep calling bad luck may not be luck at all, but a sign of something he simply can't avoid. I sincerely hope that isn't the case.

Seems to me your posts have provided significant evidence for character assessment, were that the actual issue. Instead, you've chosen to feel slighted by the mere call for humanity. Perhaps some introspection is overdue before the conversation can begin for you.

I appreciate you and what you said here Nick. Healing and change won't happen in silence. Pure solidarity with you.

We agree completely.

Which peripherals? He is a groundball pitcher that seems to do well limiting hard contact and homeruns. Yeah, the Ks aren't out of this world, but he's not Bob Tewksbury. What don't you like?

I tried to do some digging on this but it looks like Stroman is a passionate, animated pitcher and for some they look at that as disrespectful or cancerous. I couldn't find anything seriously alarming in his profile though. I hope we don't dismiss the idea of a talented kid like him based on notions like that. We have players on our team now like Berrios and Rosario that play with that kind of passion. I think good teams have players with an edge like that.

Mostly i see people chomping at the bit to beat their personal dead horse. The bullpen performed well in April and May. Ive said all along that they need more bullpen help. However, my belief in that isnt grounds to play pretend about their performance so far. That kind of nonsense is how obnoxious threads start.