Don Walcott

I see what you are saying. I was thinking in terms of pure payroll. The article states: The calculations for final payrolls are for the 40-man roster, that also “include the average annual values of contracts and $14,044,700 per club for benefits and extended benefits, which include items such as health and pension benefits; club medical costs; insurance; workman's compensation, payroll, unemployment and Social Security taxes; spring training allowances; meal and tip money; All-Star game expenses; travel and moving expenses; postseason pay; and college scholarships,” according to the Associated Press. The totals include “incentive bonuses, non-cash compensation, buyouts of unexercised options and cash transactions. In some cases, parts of salaries that are deferred are discounted to reflect present-day values.” So that seems to be all expenses related to the 40-man roster plus payroll? I would have assumed that Pohlad representation of spending 52% of payroll meant 52% of "only" payroll, but that could certainly be twisted around a bit.

Actually, $135 million is what the Twins would have spent if they had not unloaded some players and their contracts mid-season. I think they actually spent less than $120 million, and still managed to have very little committed to 2019.

If the Twins don't want to spend money to be competitive, they won't bring back the fans and the revenue that comes with the fans. It's kind of a self-defeating prophecy to be cheap. There are good studies that show that being competitive and making the playoffs will make the Twins much more profitable, not less profitable, this year and next year. This franchise needs some success and optimism. I hope they spend the money necessary to make this team competitive in 2019. It could lay the groundwork for this team being better in the years thereafter with more revenue and more ability to spend on acquiring and keeping good players.

The Dodgers have Justin Turner at 3B and Kyle Seager coming back at SS. I don't think there's much of a statement about Machado that the Dodgers will continue with these two on the left side of their infield.

Anecdotal evidence can be the same as no evidence when the anecdote is untrue. So far, I've seen nothing that supports the one tweet about harassment at Chattanooga, and the story doesn't make sense. If I recall the story correctly, the head usher allegedly told a patron about constant harassment of ushers, such that they had to rearrange where ushers were placed. First, the head usher telling someone about this outside the organization does not seem credible. Second, the head usher has an obligation to do something about this, if it had been true. Third, the Twins Organization had an obligation to do something about this, if it were true. Moreover, if it were true, there would be an usher out there somewhere who would likely have an axe to grind with the Twins, and you would have expected them to inform someone about this abhorrent behavior. You would have expected some fans in Chattanooga to have witnessed this abhorrent behavior and reported to someone about it. The fact that this story remains one tweet has, in my opinion, shown that it was not the truth. Although repeating this anecdote likely won't cause someone to shoot up a pizza joint, it is still doing harm -- to Sano's reputation -- unfairly in my opinion. Until there is any substantiation of the strange anecdote, I hope people refrain from using it as evidence. And if it is used as evidence, I hope people here will keep reminding everyone that the Chattanooga harassment story, which should be easily verifiable if true, has no evidence to support it.

I find the argument for Bonds (pre and post-1998) interesting. If we could put an asterisk on his plaque and separate out his statistics pre1998 and post-1998, I might agree. Clemens was not on his way to the HOF when he started juicing to revive his stalled career. My problem with either of them being inducted, is how do you explain not putting Sosa, McGwire and Palmeiro in the HOF (and A-Rod)? I also don't like the "everyone else was doing it" argument, because it justifies anyone doing anything in any era to cheat in any way (even destructive and illegal ways), so long as they aren't the only ones cheating. Pete Rose may or may not deserve to be inducted based on his gambling (which had no affect on his performance). But at least he didn't encourage a generation of young aspiring players to do something illegal and harmful to their health in order to succeed. Rose is a cautionary tale for other reasons, but at least he's not the poster boy for why you should cheat to get ahead in life. I think putting known PED users in the HOF sends a bad message - like putting Bud Selig in the HOF.

Apparently, it is possible to sign a top free agent to a big contract while a team is rebuilding. Imagine that.

Not sure what the topic is of this thread any more. But I'll chime in anyway. There's no simple formula for all players regarding development. Some are ready early. Some aren't. Some benefit from ripping up a level of play before moving up, some seem to rise to the challenge of moving up quickly. Ultimately, I think it's fair to the players to let them move up when they've shown they have mastered a level of play -- including getting them to the majors when the minors is no longer a challenge to them. Conversely, some players need to be demoted when they can't master a certain level -- especially if there's someone ripping up a lower level who deserves a chance to move up. Sometimes, though, everyone knows that a certain player is ready for the majors, even though they struggle. For an extreme example, Mike Trout had a tough first year in the majors. However, the Angels didn't treat him like other guys who might get demoted or discarded. And they were right. They, like everyone else in the world, could see that he would be a special talent. Also, when we talk about the 1987/91 teams, we forget that we got lucky to benefit from the owners' collusion against free agency. The Twins wouldn't and couldn't build a team any other way than to try out their young core players. We were lucky that those players basically had to stay with the organization, and we basically were unable or unwilling to let them develop more in the minors because we were going along with the collusion and weren't signing top free agents. And we were fortunate in 1987 that the free market wasn't allowing teams with superior resources create the kinds of all-star teams we're seeing today. For example, during the 1980s, every AL East team other than the Indians won their division. There is simply no way to compare building a team in the 1980s with how best to build a team today. Circling back to Nelson Cruz, I don't see how he is "blocking" anyone who deserves a place on the Twins. If someone can do better than him, I will expect them to play regardless of his presence. I don't expect that will be the case, and that decision (we can hope) might need to be made when we are deciding whether to exercise our team option for 2020. The young players who are getting a shot at playing on this team will no doubt benefit from working with him, and some pressure might also be alleviated on some of them with him residing in the middle of the lineup. I am also hopeful that his presence will help the team win more, which will also help with the confidence of the young players. Finally, I hope that something will rub off on the younger players due to the presence of and example set by a professional who is able to continue to perform at his age. Looks like a good signing to me.

And especially because his numbers since the positive test have been so good under increased scrutiny, it would indicate that he wasn't "enhancing" so much.

I suspect the league getting younger has more to do with players not being able to compete as well at older ages than it does with players starting their careers younger. There have always been guys who were able to make it right away at a young age, and others who needed time to mature into major league players. I haven't done an exhaustive study, but I'm willing to bet that the age that players break into the league hasn't changed that much since the 1970s (when I specifically remember Robin Yount and Butch Wynegar breaking in as teenagers). Correction: Wynegar was just turned 20 when he debuted.

To put Rooker into context, Nelson Cruz didn't debut in the Majors until he was 25, and didn't have a full season of ML ABs until he was 28/29. Not every All-Star slugger started out like Ken Griffey, Jr.

I would also suggest that with an outfield of Buxton, Rosario and Kepler, some more experience and stability in the infield, and Jason Castro catching, the pitching statistics are bound to improve. That said, even though I'm happy with this move and the Schoop move, I'd like to see us get either Kikuchi or Greinke and a couple of relievers, one of whom I'd like to be Ottavino. Then, I'd be really happy.

We have money to spend. Kikuchi is in his prime, and likely wants to maximize his value. I say we go for it.

Thank you for the small dose of reality. Now, let's get back to predicting historically terrible numbers for Buxton in 2019!

Robinson? Allison?

I agree. But I don’t think that translates to poor performance in the field. It translates to contract negotiations. We may be looking at nobody wanting to extend contracts with us, and more one year only deals. That reduces our assets going forward.

I still don't see where anyone has said that either Buxton or anyone else is likely to play worse because of being pissed at the FO. Some people have said that Buxton could have used more ML at bats to help him going into 2019. But nobody said that he won't play well because of the decision. I have seen some ridiculous suggestions that he'll play better because of the decision motivating him. And I haven't seen anyone say the rest of the team will play worse out of sympathy towards him, or whatever it is you were trying to address.

I"m amazed at the pessimism around Buxton. Migraines and a broken toe. Why would we fault him for 2018? Why wouldn't we expect him to be as good as he was in 2017? Remember, when he got MVP votes, the platinum glove and got caught stealing once (when he overslid the bag)? The potential replacements for him are not even in the same universe of upside. Why wouldn't we support him and support the team that hands him the center field job that he so obviously deserves when he's healthy? If you want this team to continue to be mediocre, put Jake Cave in there instead of Buxton. That might just convince me to stop watching this team.

Get over it? Again with the diva assumptions? He can both continue to be pissed at the Twins FO and play well. Those are not mutually exclusive. And I see no evidence for the assumption that because he said he's pissed that he's also so fragile that he won't be able to play well until he "gets over it." Obviously, Kris Bryant has gone out and performed despite continuing to be pissed at the Cubs FO. I also have not seen anyone say that the rest of the clubhouse will stop performing well because they support Buxton and also are fragile. These are straw man arguments.

You have been very consistent in these opinions. And you're not a hypocrite. Sorry that my post came off that way. I respect your opinions, though I disagree with some of them. My only point in the last point is that you really should stop saying that you're for the players when you're not. I think much of what you say above shows this to be the case. You're for YOU, and YOU want another year of Buxton, even if that costs Buxton a lot of money. And you also believe that it won't hurt Buxton that much because he and other baseball players make a lot of money anyway. And you have often pointed out that they had their opportunity to negotiate with the owners and allowed this kind of thing to happen to themselves. All of this has been your consistent opinion. And that opinion is not on the side of the players, no matter how many times you say it. That's my point. Just so you know I'm consistent, years ago I posted here about Kris Bryant getting screwed over. Now, apparently, he's not willing to give the Cubs a pass on that, nor should he. Given his ability, popularity and marketability, I think the Cubs made a mistake, just like I think the Twins made a mistake with Buxton. Obviously, we'll never know for sure, as that alternate reality door has been closed. I agree with your point about minor leaguers not being paid enough as well. But I don't think anyone here is a "victim". Everyone has the opportunity to choose their career path. And part of that choice is taking a gamble on yourself that you'll make the big leagues and cash in. After all, the reason MLB makes the big bucks is because we pay to watch the players. And Byron Buxton, in my opinion, is among the top three reasons I want to watch the Twins. When healthy, he's among the best outfielders I've ever seen. When healthy, he's basically unstoppable on the base paths stealing bases. When healthy he's one of the few players who can turn a single into a double, go first to home on a single and break records legging out triples and inside-the-park home runs. If there's a minor leaguer who can do what Buxton does to entertain fans and win games, that guy deserves a lot of money too. I'm looking forward to watching a healthy Byron Buxton in 2019, and I'll bet his teammates -- particularly the fly ball pitchers -- are looking forward to playing with him. Especially in an era of launch angles and infield shifts, that outfield defense has become more and more important. And I expect the Twins defense will improve significantly with him in center. I'm not worried about his hitting numbers from 2018. It was a lost season due to injuries. I'm expecting 2017 Buxton in 2019, and that guy will likely be an All-Star and get MVP votes. I'll be rooting for him and the Twins regardless of what I think of the front office and the owners.

I like the Schoop move. He has the potential to have a big bounce back year. And I don’t see this as betting on Gordon in 2020. I see it as betting on Royce Lewis.

Riverbrian, I really enjoyed your Game Threads, and I respect the opinions you voice on this site. YOu are very smart and thoughtful about your opinions. However, I can't count how many times you've said you are on the players' side, yet you condone the behavior of the Twins FO depriving a player of being one year closer to free agency. I have no problem with you having the opinion that the FO should screw over Byron Buxton -- though I vehemently disagree with that position. However, you really need to stop saying you are on the players' side when you take this position. Clearly, you are not on the players' side. And, at a minimum, you're not on Buxton's side. Imagine if your boss just screwed you out of a pay raise. Now imagine if you told your friends about it at the bar, and one of them said, "I completely agree with that decision as it helps the business and is ultimately good for our town." And then, when you point out that it hits your pocket book, your friend says, "I'm totally for you. I wish the system were different. But the way things are, they had a right to screw you over. And I'm in favor of screwing you over for the good of this town. However, I'm also in favor of the workers. It's just that the way the laws are now, screwing you helps the rest of us in this town." Would you consider your friend to be in favor of the workers? Or is he just being a hypocrite? Again, I have no problem with you taking the position that the FO had every right to screw over Byron Buxton by delaying his free agency pay day by a year. It's anyone's right to take that position. But I do have a problem with you continuing to take that position with the caveat that you are on the side of the worker. Because you clearly are not.

I've learned a lot reading through this thread. First, Buxton is a terrible baseball player who doesn't deserve a spot on the Twins roster. Second, the front office did a very smart thing by gaining an extra year of control over a terrible baseball player who doesn't deserve a spot on the Twins roster. Third, if Buxton has a problem with it, he should just shut up. If he does talk about it, he's a diva. Fourth, if Buxton does play well in 2019, it's probably because of the motivational prowess of our FO, who somehow knew how to press the right buttons while they ****ed him over.

I've said that this conduct is unethical (in other threads with this identical topic), because it is. If a player deserves a spot on a roster, as Buxton did, depriving him of that spot for financial reasons is unethical. It's simply wrong, and I'd prefer if my favorite team didn't do things like that to players or anyone else for that matter. For example, if I found out the Twins screwed over a beer vendor, using a technicality in a contract and their position of power in that contractual relationship, I'd be unhappy with the Twins. And I would expect other people who do business with the Twins to be wary of their reputation for screwing people over. And I'd expect this would have a negative effect on the Twins' ability to do business. Of course I'd continue to root for the team while being disappointed in management. It was a test of everyone's patience to wait out the Calvin Griffith years while he refused to pay the best players to stay with the team. And the Pohlads took over and immediately participated in collusion against the players for several years with all of the other owners. Baseball fans have survived a lot of despicable behavior from management of these teams historically, but we're still going to root for the team. I do not want to continue this debate (so I won't after this), but I can't see how anyone thinks that the Twins organization has any moral ground to stand on vis-a-vis Buxton. Nothing new to this debate, just re-hashing the debates we had in July and August.

Of all of the things that frustrate me, the concept that we shouldn't pay a lot of money to sign good major league players because they might "block" our young prospects is probably the most frustrating. I've never seen a situation where a young player was actually blocked from playing. As a very extreme example, the Angels traded for Vernon Wells, who was being paid more than $20 million per year, while a young Mike Trout was ripping up the minors. When Trout was ready to dominate the majors, did Vernon Wells block his path? Hell no. The Angels simply sat Wells on the bench until they could trade him. If a young player is ready to make the team, they'll make the team. In the meantime, let's stock the team with the best players we can. That strategy works whether the young guys pan out or not.