Don Walcott

. 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.

Wade has really looked good lately -- at the plate, in the field and on the bases. Cave needed to bounce back tonight, and generally to keep Wade from taking his roster spot in the ALDS.

Actually, it kind of did work. They swept the Rockies in three games, and took the Dodgers to 7 in a very tight NLCS. They were very close to making the World Series with that formula. I'm not saying it will work for us, but it's probably our best shot at this point.

We should have no problem winning 4 of 7.

Was Romero still an option for the playoff roster? Given how well our bullpen has been pitching, I can't imagine that Romero could have done anything to get himself on the playoff roster. I think it was a huge mistake putting him out there in our last game against our only competitors in the division -- a game we were winning! I also think it was not a good time to experiment with Gibson as a reliever. There is absolutely no reason to believe Gibson was up to the task, after his poor start on Thursday. Rather than screw around with his schedule, I'd have preferred to see the Twins try to get Gibson back on a normal schedule for starting, and have a short leash for him starting a playoff game (rather than just start the game off as a bullpen game, just prepare for the possibility when Gibson starts). Now, we may have screwed him up as a starter as well. And, most importantly, we could have won that game. Putting Romero and Gibson out there to protect a lead were not our best options for winning that game.

The Phillies are only 4.5 out of a wild card spot. They play the Braves, who have nothing to play for, except to stay healthy for the NLDS they will host against the NL Central champs. I think they'll win 2 of 3 from Atlanta, and still be very much in it. They have 5 against Washington after that, where they could conceivably make up ground on the Nats, then end with Miami. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I believe the Phillies will still be in it and playing for the playoffs this coming weekend.

We should get those games in the last two weeks of the season. And although I agree that I'd like to see some more auditions, I'd also like to see the bullpen we'll be using in the post-season continue this good momentum in close games. I think the confidence in the bullpen is growing with each good outing by May, Duffey, Romo and Rogers, in particular. Those guys will need some rest, of course, but they also need to stay in the groove they are in by continuing to pitch regularly.

Congratulations! One more potential positive: the defense seems to have gotten over a swoon. That one game against the Red Sox, they had 4 or 5 web gems on MLB highlights, and generally they seem to be playing better now. If they can keep up their concentration, and play defense the way they are capable, it will really help out the pitching in the playoffs.

Mitch needs to be the DH tomorrow, and every day he doesn’t catch until Cruz is 100%.

When Cruz hurt his wrist, he should have been taken out of the game to treat it immediately. Put Garver in at DH for the rest of the game. In fact, put Garver in at DH until Cruz is healthy. We need both of those guys healthy, and I feel like we're walking a tight rope with Garver's potential concussions behind the plate. And Cruz was worthless in that AB, and the subsequent ABs. So we hurt ourselves during the game by leaving him in. And it's more important to get and keep Cruz healthy than it was for him to have those 2 more ABs during that game.

I get your point, but "lies, damn lies, and statistics." Eddie does not play the game like other players. Eddie doesn't have the same approach at the plate, the same decision-making on the base paths or in the field, nor the same level of concentration as many players on this team. However, he's different. There's something special he brings to the field and to the club house. We are lucky to have so much depth in the outfield in this organization. And it seems we should be able to trade from this position in the off-season. However, Eddie is a big part of this team. He's gone through the worst seasons and hung in there. He does what he does, and often wins us games. I don't think he's easily replaceable.

Streaks and records are consolation prizes.

I love that you're consistent.

Agree. They should seriously consider moving him to 1st base as soon as possible. Even if that means letting Cron walk.

I don't see any reason why we wouldn't have these guys up. Rocco will have multiple options in most situations. If someone doesn't pitch well, he can pull them immediately. The pressure is on for the fringe bullpen guys, and some (I hope, all) of them will likely step up to the challenge, knowing it is a big moment for their careers. Harper was really good for a while. He slumped. He has a chance to regain his mojo. He give us something very different. Hildy was really good in several stretches with the Twins over the past few years. He slumped and was hurt. Now he seems to be back to form. He also gives us something very different. Romero will only be used if we need to eat innings in a blowout. But he was really good at the beginning of last year as a starter. He knows he has the talent to pitch his way into the team for next year. And he can learn a lot about being a big league reliever just by being in the big leagues. If they don't get many opportunities, we have plenty of other guys to use so we don't burn out the bullpen before the playoffs. If they do get opportunities, they are saving other arms for the playoffs. It's good for the team. It's good for the potential development of each of these guys. How can this not be seen as a "win-win"?

Jake Cave is improving his trade value for this off-season. Several people talking about trading Rosario. How about trading Cave? Might even get more for him, as he has more years of control, and he's definitely at his peak of performance right now. And for some reason, I just think Rosario is a better player. Definitely has much more of a sample size for his performance than does Cave. But I'm also fine keeping Cave as our 4th outfielder. He looked good in center today. Has looked good in left, is very fast on the bases, and is showing that he can be a legitimate MLB hitter. Especially given our team's injury history, it makes sense to keep quality and depth at the outfield positions.

So is this the beginning or the end of the conversation? Edit: Obvious Chief setup.

I’m really proud that our boys scored so many runs in the bottom of the eighth without swinging at any 3-0 pitches.