Jham

7 days right? That's why planned call up waves make sense to me. rotate in, over, and out on a set schedule. You have to have deep interchangeable AAA options with options as well as option slots available in the pen or rotation as well. This would have been a prefect year for the Twins to employ this. We didn't really have a 5th starter or set long reliever. Schedule a piggy back pen game instead of struggling auditions. Mediocre starters often end up as relievers anyhow. Slegers into Littel. Gonzo into Mejia. Romero into Duffey. This also allows use of Curtis, Reed, Vasquez, Moya and Boozy in rotation. If anyone sticks, adjust. Overworked? replace. Makes available options very valuable. why not utilize add much of your 40 man as the rules allow?

It makes prefect sense when explained, in theory. Time to run the EA sports simulator! I get that top of the first inning 1 is automatically an opportunity to bring in your guy in a tie game to gave the opposing offenses' best. But if you score 4 in the first, might you be better saving your opener? And if it's about the third time through, isn't that all relative as well? Like the bottom of the order that are hypothetically auto-outs trip 1 are for sure going to be worse trip 3 than the top 3 trip 1? If not, shouldn't the opener be saved until that 3rd trip where you may or may not even need him (chief theory)? just have a manager capable of counting to 9 twice. I think the correct use may be to just string together a couple mediocre guys to equal 1 average inning eater... Which brings me to my next question: why don't teams exercise options regularly to effectively stretch your roster? The Twins regularly call up a fresh pen arm after extra inning affairs or particularly rough stretches. why not a regular rotation of guys with options? You have them, exercise them! Maybe just give your rotation an extra day rest every once in a while. Keep the farm system engaged and connected. We've had a plethora of seemingly interchangeable arms that occasionally rotate up. some frequently, some not at all. I mean why wait till the pen is overwhelmed instead of trying to keep everyone fresh?

I made that exact point about Buxton and Sano previously. I hope Buxton comes back next season and hits angry like Dozier did (and still agreed to buy out arb years and wanted an extension). That said, your old school disciplinarian approach doesn't work for all, especially today's youth. Not everyone is motivated the same way. I have no idea what motivates Mr. Gordon. I'm not talking about giving him a spot or even seeing what we've got. He's a first-rounder with pedigree, tools, and minor league success. There's nothing mediocre about his talent and prospect status. He's bluish chip. The call up, as I stated, would have nothing to do with reward necessarily. I wanted to trade Gordon, but we didn't. So he figures in to our future. A month with the staff and teammates may be just what he needs. If not who cares? He's going back to AAA next spring regardless. In short (too late) his player development trumps rewarding mediocre play in this particular situation, imo.

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.

Based on every scouting report I've ever read on him. I've hardly seem him play, but what I saw in spring training, he belongs. Will he ever be good? Who knows. We have invested a lot. I think that was my point? I never said he deserves a call up. I suggested that the kid has had a rough year. Perhaps it would do him some good. Lift his spirits. Give him a positive note into the off-season. He's an important character in the story still at this point.

Didn't Jeffers have a really solid August moving up a level and ranking after adjusting? No errors or passed balls at Cedar Rapids? Like hon. mention for hon. mention maybe? 2nd rounder looking good so far.

Gordon is a future big leaguer. Hee had a rough year. Unless there's an unknown attitude problem, getting him up just for the experience and a handful of at bats would have been useful in my opinion. Vargas could sign a minor league deal depending on what happens with Mauer. At the very least, a call up for an audition and appreciation for 7 years would have shown some class. It seems he's done most everything he's been asked to do. Seems like a good guy. Could have used the major league $$.

Buxton stole an MLB paycheck for 2 months last season. We stuck with him through thick and thin.His track for his injury this year could have bern a DL, rehab, option play very easily but gave him another chance to stick. It worked last year, not this year. He was playing every other game in AAA with the wrist injury. I think people forget how truly awful Buck was BEFORE his toe injury. We burned this bridge with Perkins once, and it turned out good for everyone. Especially the Yankees.

The problem is that I think you already know how that would go as well.

I think what you're referring to is entitlement or scholarship. I think that has gotten us to trouble in the past. My guess is that Cave and Grossman have some friends on the team. Seeing Buxton get outplayed by those "easily replaceable" guys and still get his spot back might rub some players the wrong way. If Buxton can't appreciate that, then I would have to question his maturity, and I would argue keeping him down to try to teach him a lesson would be even more warranted. A lot has been made of the mistake of trying Sano out in right field. However twins staff was on the record as believing that the move would help him keep his weight under control and be a better overall player, as well as a team first move. Taking Sano's side over others' in the organization might have set back his development. Sure we can try to protect young stars, however we shouldn't coddle them. If Buxton was playing really well to begin the year, I'd agree with you. But he doesn't deserve to play over guys who've battled their tails off all year and outperformed him. Cave could have a better career than Buck. Grossman has to show he deserves a chance to stay on the game.

Well then Cave and Grossman should be treated like family also? They both deserve every at bat for the work they've put in this year. More so than Buxton at this point. Imo.

There is so little risk in keeping Buxton down from a FO stand point. But lose the extra year when the late bloomer reaches his potential and you'll be remembered as a the fool who traded 20 games of crap Buxton for a year of MVP. Byron has no one to blame but his own dismal results for much of 3 wasted seasons for this situation. If he stayed healthy and hit, service time wouldn't be a concern. If he stays healthy and hits, he'll get a fat extension buying out arbitration. Byron Buxton hasn't done enough to suggest that we owe him anything. I think playing him over Cave or even Grossman at this point would be unfair. What free agent would want to play for a team who's willing to replace you with a guy you're badly outperforming? Cave deserves his shot, Grossman has earned his spot for this last month.

What's wrong with the Rolls Royce?

I can think of another toolsy outfielder from Georgia with a nice guy demeanor but fiery competitor who might be great mentor for him one day assuming Baddoo doesn't pass him in the minors (3/4ths joking).

Of course, you can't be optioned off the disabled list. This is Byron Buxton we're talking about after all...

In fairness, most of the guys we got in return for those traded away are being termed "lottery tickets". I have to think that our chances of making the playoffs, even now for that matter, surpass our odds of winning the lottery. There's something to be said for not embracing a losing culture. Giving up every time the odds aren't in your favor doesn't really build character or winners, imo. Now if the guys we got move the needle, then it makes some sense. But to give up on multiple seasons for aaa filler and future rule 5 offers, not so much. There are odds of wining, and there are pot odds. The 2 are not the same. A horse going off as a 1/9 favorite is going to be the most likely winner of a horse race, but a live long shot would still be a better bet because of value. Less abstractly, if you bet $500 on the Twins to make the playoffs at 10-1 odds earlier in the year and I offered to buy the ticket off you at the trade deadline, you'd want an offer high enough that it actually makes a difference to you. If I offer 2 $1 scratch offs and a power ball, you hold out because for that offer, you may as well hope for the miracle.

We've also debuted guys in the past to get them an mlb paycheck as a reward for loyalty before cutting them haven't we? I'd have to think this is a possibility as well. Maybe we convinced him to not play football this year or something and feel like we owe him something.

Oh don't get me wrong. I'm excited to actually see him pitch after all these years. I just don't see how we could possibly make a 40 man decision based off what happens in the next 6 weeks in a role I seriously doubt he'll stick in.

But don't we have a pretty good idea of Stewart as a starter? And doesn't that make him completely expendable which is why he wasn't protected last off-season? If he's a 5th or 6th starter, what use is he to this team? If we agree that his most likely role on this team is a shuttle-reliever with options, then shouldn't we have committed to that? I'd rather see him in that role. It's similar to river Brian's position flexibility argument. Why not get him experience in a role where he might actually be of some use?

I don't get this exactly. Personally, I would have been converting Stewart to the bullpen a year ago. The chances that this is the beginning of a nice mlb career as a starter seems remote to me. Will we really feel ant better about his chances if he had some initial success? When he struggles and labors to get outs, particularly strike outs will we really know anything we didn't already know? Maybe he'll develope etc.. then why is he coming up now?

Probably should have included a link to Parker's article and thread where all of this is hashed out. It's a good point and counter point. All lift is not created equal. 100 mph two hoppers are outs as often as hits.

So we got a worse version of Daniel Paulka to drag around for a couple years before not protecting him, and proved to the league that we can be pushed around in trade talks. Gross.

Twins don't really ever talk contracts mid season. And players rarely sign extensions 2 months from free agency. An extension happens this of season or never. He's a number 1 pick with serious success in the minors who struggles as a sinker pitcher in the launch angle revolution but reinvented himself as a strike out guy. He's got 2 pitches that are among baseballs most swung and missed. Hint: neither are the 2 seamer he once relied on. It is doubtful he'll be viewed as 1 of baseball's best starters in terms of return. I'd extend this off-season if it can be reasonably done. It's hard for me to imagine wining a playoff series in the next couple years without "good Gibby" playing a role.

Isn't the pedigree a bit different? Position? Maybe it's the catching situation in the organization that's making me jumpy.

Dozier is the most extreme example of something the Twins have put up with for years: babying players in spring training. Not bussing to road games is 1 thing, allowing guys to come in throwing 5 mph under top velo, make public comments about needing 10ab to get ready, come in out of shape, overweight, and incapable of fielding, that's anther. Dozier would often spend winters with mission work. Super noble. But the team seems to put up with slow starts and does nothing to push in spring training or encourage guys to come in ready to hit the ground running.