TheLeviathan

No, your argument doesn't follow at all. We didn't sell players to restock the 40 man roster right now, so right there this entire post falls apart. We sold players and stocked up on talent that will hopefully be part of the future 40 man roster. So nothing backwards at all, the criticism of your positions still holds true. You can't argue how ready they were for a playoff run this year and simultaneously bemoan how awful our talent is. One of those two things is likely a silly notion. (Hint: it's the first one. Has been since July. Probably since May) So, yes, I will judge the returns on those trades in time. They were never designed to help September of 2018, they were designed to be a factor in September 2021. I liked the approach - high upside, lower minors guys for players that weren't going to do anything to change the trajectory of this year. They only have to hit on one or two of those acquisitions for it to be a massive success for that future 40 man roster. And that plays into what many of us are saying, the real measure of this FO's work will be seen in 2-3 years time. Just as it was for the Cubs, Astros, and others. We openly acknowledge the fact of today - this team isn't very talented. I give the FO an incomplete overall because so many of their moves have been to strengthen the overall talent in the organization, but I don't pretend the current 40 man is anything other than a disaster. We agree on that apparently. But we also openly acknowledge the moves made this year were for the long-term. There is no inconsistency. There is, however, inconsistency in your position. Unless you've changed your mind about how playoff ready this team was, your opinions do not mesh. Maybe, just maybe, the opinion that was misguided was the one people were trying to convince you for weeks: this isn't a very good baseball team. No reason to chase ghosts.

That might have been achieved trying to go for it this year. There is a bizarre disconnect that post was right to highlight: Some of the same posters who were loudly clamoring for the Twins to buy at the deadline are now loudly bemoaning the lack of quality players on the 40 man roster. That's a hard circle to square for both to be true. If indeed this roster is not talented enough right now such that the FO should be derided for their efforts, why would anyone in their right mind encourage them to buy? If this roster was a move or two from contention...why rag on them about the state of the team? Surely the difference between "Playoffs here we come!" and "We're god awful" isn't Escobar, Pressley, and Dozier right? Those two arguments aren't quite contradictory, but they're real close.

This is a really interesting question. All the trends in baseball are negative - the fan base is aging, ratings are down, attendance is down, etc. However, baseball might be in a really good spot as far as TV deals go. With CBS, NBC, Fox, and ESPN all vying for eyes on cable, baseball presents a really strong option to build a programming schedule around. I could see that competition for ratings driving them to get a really good deal for their national contract. One that probably exceeds what the sport deserves based on their trends. As for the money situation - it's hard for me to root for the players or the owners. They both are making insane profits at the expense of jacked up prices for fans. Whoever sticks up for the minor leaguers will get my support.

I do. I think this has potential to be a major issue for Buxton. It's when you try to project that to FA or other players that I think the criticism is reaching.

MLB does not operate like your company. Players resign with teams all the time that openly go into rooms, disparage the player, and talk an arbiter into saving them a few thousand bucks at the expense of a young player who could use it. If that doesn't move the needle....why would this? The reality is that players and agents understand the way the contract game is played - they find ways to use/game the system to their advantage and players make them pony up when it comes to free agency. Getting lost in the weeds on the little stuff isn't on anyone's radar. I get that some here WANT this to be true, because it serves as a point to attack the FO on, but practically speaking it's irrelevant. As irrelevant as how cold the winters in Minnesota are. Our climate doesn't stop people from signing here, our checkbook does.

I'm on the record as not loving their handling of it, so we agree there. I think they are making the decision to extend his service time on the same basis they handed him CF to start the year: they still believe he'll be a star. whether their basis is in his 2015-2017 performance, his athletic profile, his July/Aug run last year, or some combo of all of the above.....I think their decisions were consistent. The outcome just looks strange because of the weird timing of injuries, rehab, and performance.

Buxton should always look out for himself, regardless. That's why players sign agents isn't it? You and others act like some sacred bond of togetherness was broken here. Player/team dynamics are almost always adversarial when it comes to contracts. This is nothing new in that regard. There are specifics to this case that are somewhat unique, but not as unique as some of are trying to portray. At the end of the day it's a money squabble and that happens all the freaking time. Also, you don't know if he was pressured to play. He might have masked the injury or kept quiet about it also. Or it might have been a joint effort.

I don't think anything they've done has indicated they have a lack of belief in Buxton's future. In fact, saving his service time implies they still highly value his future. I'm not sure there is any real contradiction there. As you say, there are other decision in this that do mystify me a bit. I'm of the opinion that if a player can't play two days in a row due to injury, he probably shouldn't be playing at all. That's the real issue to me, they seemed to be half-assing their way through handling him.

If they're cheap what they did to Buxton is irrelevant. It'll never get past the stage of "Well, that offer sucked" So your point is moot. Which is kind of the point. There is zero evidence that players and agents use adversarial tactics against clubs in negotiations. Zero. And the plainest evidence is right in front of you - EVERY club is adversarial in almost all contract talks, issues of service time, and negotiations. If players and agents gave that any weight they'd have to stop playing major league baseball. You could find all sorts of jerk moves to use against a club if you wanted to. As an example - every arbitration hearing where a billionaire nickel and dimed me would piss me off WAY more than this. And that happens every year to all sorts of players! Buxton's will matter squat to anyone not named Buxton. The front office correctly dismissed that concern and, as I stated earlier, is really playing the long-game for upside here.

You know what isn't a sample? His 1,000 at-bats. Do you know what his career OPS is? What is K-BB ratios are? Let's be real - the only way his offense looks anything other than "bad" is if you play the small sample game. As a whole - it isn't good.

A like didn't seem sufficient for this post. Spot on.

I think zeros on paychecks matter about a gazillion times more. The dynamic between teams and players/agents is already adversarial. It happens in every arbitration meeting. Every contract discussion. And if what you said was true...no player would've ever agreed to be part of the Miami Marlins organization since about 1997. No team has jerked people around more than them and they still sign FAs, agree with draft picks, etc. There is zero evidence for teams acting selfishly has any impact on player acquisition and reams of evidence to the contrary. No, I don't think what the Twins did to Buxton means squat to any other player, agent, or anyone not named Byron Buxton. And even he won't care if enough zeros appear in an offer.

Do they? Until this the Cubs were the most notorious abusers of this....have you seen any meaningful impact?

Guys get jerked around a lot and still answer the bell when the money is right. Hopefully he turns this into a motivating factor and the Twins can eventually make it up to him. If not, they reap the benefit of three awesome years of Buxton and the opportunity to trade him when he has actual value. But let's look at this as objectively as we can - the Buxton that feels so slighted is also the one that can't hit his way out of a paper bag and would be worth diddly in a trade right now. The FO gambled that he'll be worth more than that at some point over the next three years and they know they at least have a chance to extend that longer if bygones are bygones. The flipside is that the cost is on the front end in pissing him off. But really...what's the downside from the organizational level? He becomes less valuable? Hard to imagine. He becomes a permanent non-contributor? Well, he's basically that now. You can't put him in the field every day when he can't hit. The upside? He becomes what you want him to be and you get an extra year of him on the team. I think the calculus on this is pretty easy, even factoring in the human toll.

I won't disagree it might have human consequences. It might seriously upset Buxton and wreck any chance of him going back to July/August 2017 version. The human toll here is hard to know from the outside, but I absolutely accept the possibility and acknowledge it. But they did it for long-term benefits to the organization. Your characterization of it was wholly inaccurate.

We are past "early season slumps". He's had over 1,000 at bats, it's time to stop these ridiculous characterizations. His offense has been bad. His defense is amazing. His offense has been largely putrid. Can we please stick to reality and not forget what doesn't fit our narrative? And, as far as I know, they offered him an extension. He refused. To construe their decision as "short-term" is seriously mistaken. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but you have completely missed the boat for why they did it if you still believe that.

Buxton was not about a short term benefit. There is room to criticize the FO, but their reasoning was the exact opposite of that. Buxton has largely been bad at his job, you should keep that in mind in your analogy too.

In fairness, that article about Pressley doesn't suggest the Astros fixed Pressly. Alston is specifically credited for getting him to use it and pushing him to keep using it. Frankly, I think most of these issues still stem from the state the franchise was in when these guys took over. Two years is not a lot of time. Luhnow didn't rebuild in two years either.

I never remember this many impassioned pleas for Pedro Florimon. He put up an 11 WAR defensive effort for us at one point. But most of us folks saw his awful hitting and said "nope". If Buxton can't hit, we'll have to say "nope" to him too.

I'm not sure you'll ever see specifics. That would be seen as an unnecessary shot at Terry Ryan.

We've heard rumblings that they've had to spend a lot of their time fixing the systems behind the curtains. By all accounts I've heard, the Twins were running two-bit operation. To use an analogy, it sounds like everyone else was streaming and the Twins were still adjusting the rabbit ears and coax cables.

Winfield Sr.was one of my all time favorites, looks like the Apple didn't fall far from the tree. I also grew up near Norseland, so hard not to like seeing Annexstad succeed. That Russel Wilson impression he pulled on the 13 yard first down was stupidly fun.

Helluva game.

The circumstances with Buxton were unusual, yes. No one disputes that. However, the behavior by the Twins - protecting team control by manipulating service time - is universally common. In my opinion, that leads to a more likely outcome in this hypothetical.

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.