Don Walcott

Why not go all Minnesota State Fair on them and put all of this on a stick . . . and in a deep fryer.

I agree. It was the reaction here from fans I was talking about more than the reality. I'd definitely like to have Darvish in our rotation going into 2020.

It seems like many Twins fans tend towards beating the FO over the head for risks taken that don't work out as we had hoped (or at all) -- i.e. Mauer, Nolasco, Hughes, Reed, Dyson. And many also continually point out risks that we might have taken, but were better off for not having taken -- i.e. Darvish, Zimmermann, Cueto. Then we celebrate the FO when they are clever and find a bargain. It seems to make taking risks even riskier for the FO.

You're not a horrible person. Just an honest one.

Ted, I always enjoy your perspective and the way you analyze how the FO has, will or should proceed with a plan. Thank you for your insight. I'm getting nervous about the number of teams in play for the top FA pitchers. I really believe the FO should focus on getting at least one of the big 5, and one other serviceable back end starter. We should also get a reliever. I would be fine sticking with what we have for a lineup, and bringing in one or two of the young guys to fill the gaps. Sano has such a good arm, and shows flashes of great hands. In my opinion, it would be a shame to move him to first at this point, when he seems to be on the cusp of becoming a good 3B. But if we can fill the hole at 3rd with Arraez, Gonzales, or others already in our system, I guess moving Sano the 1B might be the best long-term decision, as he's likely to end up there at some point anyway, and he might as well start getting good at the position sooner than later. Like other posters above, I'm not too worried about the defense going forward, as we have young guys who appear capable of improving, and a couple of stop-gap veterans who are good at several positions (Gonzales and Adrianza). But I'd also not be opposed to bringing in a glove-first SS and move Polanco to 2B. I'd also not be opposed to bringing in Shaw, who is also fairly versatile in the infield, and can be used as a platoon hitter. Bottom line is that hitting and defense do not seem to be as much of a need as pitching this off season, even without re-signing Cron (assuming his thumb heals properly by Spring Training). And I would be excited to see Rooker, Larnach and/or Kiriloff break out in this team out of Spring Training.

I agree that the move worked out for the Twins, and we should move on without any regrets. Schoop was good defensively, and was what you would expect offensively. He also seemed like a good guy who was not only a good teammate, but was willing to take a back seat to Arraez with minimum fuss. And now that we have Arraez penciled in at 2nd, he's no longer needed. I will say that I was disappointed that he didn't start Game 1 against the Yanks. But even if we won that game, it wouldn't change the fact that we're moving on with Arraez at 2nd, and some healthy competition for that spot internally as well.

This is a very cynical point of view, but it explains a lot. Hrbek turned down more money to stay in MN. I think that was good business for him (bet he's never had to buy a beer in MN). Mauer turned down more money to stay in MN. I think that was good business for him. Kirby could have made more money as well. I'll bet Tony Gwynn could have made more money if he'd left San Diego. Johnny Damon could have been a hero in Boston, and now he's a zero in Boston. Those are just a few examples, but I believe there is a long-term value for players to stick with the same organization and the same fan base.

. If the question in this thread were whether you'd rather have seen Buxton in September 2018 or have an extra year of seeing Buxton, it would be really easy for almost everyone to agree on that (there appear to be some who don't want to see him as a Twin at all). I think the question is whether the ultimate determination in the Bryant case would affect Buxton's potential grievance, and whether Bryant or Buxton have a valid grievance. For the record, Buxton is pretty much my favorite player to watch play, and I'd like the Twins to extend his stay here beyond his years of control.

You sound like a Republican Senator asked about impeachment! Assume the deal that is in place doesn't change. The Bryant arbitration decision on service time manipulation will apply equally to all teams. There's no issue about one team taking more or less advantage as a result. I'm hoping the Bryant ruling does away with this practice. Would you rather every team be able to manipulate service time or not? Sorry if I seem pushy. Feel free to not answer. But I'm genuinely interested in your opinion.

Although I'd be cautious about trading with the Astros given our recent history, I think this would be a good time to see what they want for Greinke. They probably don't want much, and would prefer to use their resources to keep Cole. Greinke looks better and better as his contract gets shorter and shorter (I wanted the Twins to get him last year or before as well). At this point, there are only two years left on his contract. I would love to have him for those two years, as we have the money to spend and the team to compete in the playoffs.

I believe I understand your position. However, I think it has little to do with the merits of either Bryant's or Buxton's case. Basically, you're taking the position that you'd want good players playing for your team as long as possible, regardless of how much money they make. Whether it's a whole lot of money, a whole ton of money, they make enough that you don't feel bad for them not making a whole ton more money, right? And you believe that their representatives did a bad job negotiating a deal for them with the owners, and we should not have any sympathy for them because they are sophisticated wealthy adults who can fend for themselves. I believe I understand that opinion. But I disagree with that opinion. The people we pay to watch are the players. I think they earn the money they make because they are the product on the field that we pay to watch. There's an agreement between ownership and the players. If both sides perform the agreement in good faith, taking a year of free agency away from a player by a technicality, backed up with false pretenses would not happen. Players would earn their position on teams, and teams would happily trot out their best players as often as possible. But the owners have sought to manipulate this situation by taking money away from players who otherwise earned that money. That's because taking that year of free agency away from a player takes money out of his pocket each and every year after his service time is manipulated. Even if you are of the opinion that these rich guys don't need more money, there is a moral or maybe ethical problem with condoning and even celebrating one rich guy taking money from another rich (but usually much less rich) guy wrongfully. Believe it or not, in the real world, a lot of these types of disputes end up in court. And the rich guy who gets caught taking money from the other rich guy wrongfully ends up losing, and ends up paying a lot more than he would have done if he had just performed the contract in good faith. Additionally, I just have always tended to side with the players over the management. That's where my opinion is coming from. In the specific cases of Buxton and Bryant, it is my opinion that if management had wanted to pay them fairly, rather than take money out of their pockets in bad faith, they could have paid the players enough that they'd be playing for their teams for all of their prime years and possibly more. And considering the revenues and the increasing value of the teams, it wouldn't even make much of a financial difference for them to do the right thing. But, just as there are clever tax accountants out there who help wealthy people avoid paying taxes, there are clever GMs who help wealthy owners avoid paying players. Penny wise and pound foolish, in my opinion. But here we are. And I strongly disagree with the position (maybe not yours) that under the CBA the GMs and owners could simply say, "I want another year, so I'm keeping you in the minors." If that were true, they'd just do that without fear of repercussions. But they have come up with all sorts of pretenses for bad faith behavior, knowing that what they are doing is not consistent with the intent and meaning of the contract they have with the players. So I hope the Bryant case is a huge blow to this practice by the owners. And I believe Buxton's case is as good or better than Bryant's since he was an established elite player (MVP votes, platinum glove) when the Twins manipulated his time to take a year of free agency away from him so that we could get a good look at Johnny Field. I'm curious, at the end of the day, do you believe service time manipulation is a good thing or a bad thing? Should we hope to abolish it, or encourage it?

I can say that, and I did. Mostly, I'm referring to fans who would rather see the best players playing in the MLB for their team. For that matter, I'd rather see the best players available playing for every team. Sports is a meritocracy. The best players play. The best teams win (most of the time). When management decides it doesn't care about winning, it affects the integrity of the game. I suspect that, as a fan, you would rather see Byron Buxton play for the Twins than Johnny Field (great name, though). I'm no expert, but it does seem that manipulating playing time has become more and more prevalent. I also suspect that, in the past, when there was some reasonable excuse for not promoting a player, it wasn't worth upsetting the apple cart. But the Kris Bryant case was so obvious, so blatant, and so unfair to the player, that they took up the case that was complained about in 2015. I'm not sure why it took so long for it to go to arbitration. Possibly, it's because the greatest affect of this happens next year, when he should have been able to become a free agent, and there was no hurry to adjudicate it until now. If the owners were always allowed to do this for whatever reason they wanted, then why the pretense? Why say Kris Bryant needed to work on his defense for three weeks, when that clearly wasn't what he was doing in the minors anyway? Why say there were concerns about Byron's health (after playing him hurt most of the season) when he was finally healthy? If it makes no difference, why don't the owners just say that they want maximum cost control and career control of a player? I suspect the owners know that what they are doing is in bad faith, and breaches their agreement with the players, which has always implicitly, if not explicitly been based on the fact that if a player earns a position on the major league team, he gets a roster spot. And if you believe the players negotiated a bad deal, and therefore certain individual players should pay the price for it, you would also be in favor of a reasonable interpretation of the deal that doesn't require either renegotiation or making those certain players pay the price for a deal these players didn't negotiate.

How did this thread turn into a debate about Buxton's character? I don't believe that is relevant in any way to whether he has a case against the Twins for manipulating his service time. I also don't believe it is relevant that, as a fan, you want an extra year of team control over a player. The question here is whether this conduct is okay. As I pointed out above, if you think it's okay for teams to hold back players for service time for any reason or no reason at all, it's a very slippery slope, and not one that is good for the fans or the players. If you believe roster spots are earned and teams have a duty to play players who have earned their spots, I don't see this as even being a very close call. Bryant should not have been held back. Buxton deserved a roster spot in September 2018. If roster spots cannot be earned by players, I believe the teams holding them back are not acting in good faith, which constitutes a breach of contract. I would definitely take this one to the judge.

I think you missed the point of even the portion of my post that you quoted. People have made the argument here and elsewhere that he was not called up in September 2018 due to fear of him re-injuring himself. If you don't believe that to be the case, I've made my point about the comparison with Tatis and the slippery slope of that argument. And if you want further comparison with Tatis, at this point in his career, Tatis has not won a gold or platinum glove nor received any votes for MVP. Yet I doubt anyone would seriously argue that he should be in the minors in 2020 if he's healthy. If your main point is that Buxton, by his performance, did not merit being called up in September 2018, that's an entirely different argument that I addressed in other portions of my post. I disagree with the argument that he didn't merit being the starting center fielder on the Twins in September 2018, much less a player on that expanded roster at all. From what I've seen of him over the past several years, when he's healthy, as he was in September 2018, he most definitely is the best option we have to start in center field. And based on statements by the organization in the off season and the fact that he was our opening day starting center fielder in 2019, I'd guess that the Twins organization agrees with me. If your other argument is that he didn't merit a position on the Twins in September 2018, is based on his "character," as evidenced by his honest response to a question posed to him last off season after the Twins didn't call him up in September, suffice to say I disagree. I like his character. As far as the comparison with Bryant, that's the whole point of this thread. I also addressed that comparison in my previous post.

As a fan, I want to see the best players playing in the majors for every team. I feel empathy for older players who might not be able to continue getting a major league pay check because of a younger player taking their position. But the younger player also has a right to that major league pay check, if they are the better player. I keep hearing the argument that ownership is only following the rules that are in place by keeping a player in the minor leagues to increase the number of years of control. If we accept this argument, there is a very slippery slope ahead. If we accept that ownership does not have an obligation to the fans and the players to field the best team available to them, we are allowing the rules to be perverted in ways that damage the integrity of the game. For example: Fernando Tatis, Jr. looks like a future superstar right now. But he missed all of May, most of August and all of September due to injuries. Let's say the Padres can't sign the free agents they need or trade for the players they need to be competitive with LA in 2020. Seems likely. The Padres have a long-term contract with Machado, and are serious about building a team in the future. So what's to stop them in 2020 from saying that they are worried that, by playing in the majors, Tatis will hurt himself and jeopardize his future? Could they bury Tatis in the minors for 2020 to gain an extra year of control that will extend their window of contention? Do the rules really allow ownership to keep any player in the minors for any reason? If not, where do we draw the line? I believe we draw the line at the point where a player in your system clearly deserves a roster spot in the majors. Bryant wins his case on this basis. Buxton wins his case on this basis. In case there's any doubt that Buxton would have been the starting center fielder in September 2018, just look at how the team treated him before his injuries and after. He was the team's starting center fielder both before and after. In fact, as damage control, the team basically announced he was going to be the opening day starting center fielder in 2019 during last off season. In one way, his case is even clearer than Bryant's. Bryant hadn't yet proven himself in the majors when he was held back. Buxton was already a gold glove, platinum glove, MVP vote-getting starter for his team. He had a rough season mostly due to migraines, a broken toe and a sprained wrist. In 2019, he has proven that he should have been starting in September 2018, just as he had earned that spot in 2017. Based on his ability, there is simply no question he should have been starting in center field in September 2018. If you believe the Twins were justified in holding Buxton back due to fear about him injuring himself, then you would have to accept that the Padres could do the same with Tatis in 2020. It's a very slippery slope if you don't draw the line at a player being entitled to a roster spot based on merit. I also think it's unfair to the players and the fans to allow ownership to keep a player down purely for financial reasons.

Or maybe we would have hit 400 HRs if we played half of our games in Yankee Stadium.

Great season, everyone! I mean it.

Holy crap.

Sucks for Max. Let’s go Jorge!!

Please just let him walk you, CJ.

Which means it is not.

The ball is round.

EDDIE!!!!

I don’t know, but is Loki among them?

Another HR in Yankee Stadium wasted in MN.