Otto von Ballpark

I wasn't suggesting anything about their belief in Buxton's future. I was just saying, it's hard to spin their Sep. 1st decision to be about his 2015-2017 performance, given they made a very different decision with virtually all of that same data fairly recently. I'd say it's more likely that they're actually pretty comfortable with his defense-first, streaky-offense profile, but they saw a window to manipulate his service time in 2018 and took it. (Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that -- but it could have been handled much better than dropping the hammer with a laundry list of excuses on Sep. 1st.)

And 43 healthy MLB PA ago, the Twins looked at that same career line and thought it was worth an opening day job and an extension offer (although who knows for how much). 43 healthy MLB PA later, and the same career line apparently deserves to get sent home, even with expanded rosters and the minor league season complete. That's the juxtaposition that bothers me. I have no qualms about a Sano-to-Ft.-Myers-style rebuild project for Buxton, but it's a little suspicious and/or poor planning to not announce that until Sep. 1st. (Heck, given that the Sano thing clearly wasn't about service time -- he was sent down a few days *after* reaching 3 full years service -- I think linking his situation to Buxton's no later than August 1st or so could have spared the Twins some grief.)

I don't think that was the argument. I think the argument was, nothing has really changed in his performance since we offered him an extension and made him our opening day CF for the 3rd straight year. (The hot week at AAA was really just evidence to support his current health.)

Paul Molitor's reaction:

I download the image, then in "More Reply Options" on the desktop site, you can attach (upload) it, then "Add to Post". Seems to be the most reliable method for me.

Here you go! See the columns IR, IS, and IS%: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2018-reliever-pitching.shtml

Can he? Erv was pretty awful this year even after plenty of rest and rehab -- he might be cooked. I think I'd rather take a shot on someone else at this point, if at all possible.

It was pretty bad before that too. Belisle, Motter, Bobby Wilson. A bunch of marginal relief "prospects", many of whom have been added by the new front office. I don't know about worst of my lifetime, but the bad roster was part of the reason we had to sell at the deadline.

There are plenty of articles out there citing how Buxton was disappointed in the decision, how the Twins recognize this, and how his agents and his union reps are looking into it for a possible grievance. Here's one: https://www.twincities.com/2018/09/01/twins-hope-to-make-amends-with-byron-buxton-who-wont-be-recalled/amp/ Maybe it was still a wise decision for the team, maybe it will all blow over eventually, but please don't pretend that the short-term negative consequences are simply fan speculation.

Although perhaps related to your other point, this roster is full of Old Yellers.

Start following the NL right now -- there are some awesome races and storylines going on over there. Upwards of 6 relevant games every night. And then come back to the AL for playoff time -- yeah, a few great teams have helped make September less exciting this year, but that could also be the recipe for a pretty compelling October.

Don't look now, but 2018 might be another 90 loss season (currently on pace for 88).

Those were the days of "draft and follow"... and follow... and follow...

They are in the same time *zone*, at least. That has to count for something! At least the front office hasn't let the franchise drift westward.

I know that! But Motter otherwise met Vanimal's criteria. And we even brought back Gregorio Petit after outrighting him off the 40-man earlier. This is grievance material!

Taylor Motter:

Pretty compelling games in the meantime too -- 7 game homestand vs the Dodgers and Diamondbacks starting tomorrow, and a 6 game road trip vs those same 2 clubs the following week. If you've got MLB.TV and you can't stomach the Twins anymore, these look like some great games!

Tom mentions that these odds were from the end of August. At that time, the Rockies were still in 3rd place, 1.5 games out (and 3.5 out in the wild card too). Fangraphs had their playoff odds at 21% then, and they are up to 48% today (where they lead the division as you mention, and are only a half game back of the wild card).

I think this point has got muddled too. I think the *universal* cases all happen at the beginnings of careers, because that is where the stakes are highest. I am sure manipulation can happen at other times, but once you send a guy down, even just once, you have likely seen the stakes reduced dramatically, and as I pointed out, other factors come into play and clubs are going to respond to those differently. And manipulation after the first year or two is much harder to execute too, because there are more moving parts. It would be interesting to study. I am guessing that beyond the top players/prospects, the distribution of guys falling just short of a full year or service, or just short of Super 2 arbitration status, wouldn't be all that different from what you expect through random variation. There would probably be a few attempts at service-time jockeying within, but a lot more noise.

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.

The Hindenburg airship was really interesting to watch 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.

Twins fans, here is your daily standings site! http://www.tankathon.com/mlb

10 days minimum for a minor league assignment. Unless someone goes on the DL, then you can recall the player sooner.

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.