Don Walcott

Quick, who received MVP votes in 2017?

Would he be even more valuable with 6 years of control?

Yet another risk of the FO taking this approach, is that they lose the grievance and don't get the extra year, they get tagged with a bad reputation among players and their agents, and they've damaged their relationship with Buxton to the point where he refuses to deal with them, and he becomes a star somewhere else from age 27 on. It might have seemed to be a clever manipulation of their contractual relationship with Buxton. But it might end up as a breach of contract that irreparably harms the FO's reputation beyond their time with the Twins. They're playing a dangerous game to save a few bucks (at the expense of Bux) for the ownership.

As I said before, I said nothing about financial hardship. You quoted and bolded the quote that said nothing about financial hardship. I have no idea what you are reading into my post, but it does not now, nor will it ever say or even imply “financial hardship”.

And there went the quality start, way, way out there.

I can accept that, in theory, you are with the players. You are obviously not with Buxton on this one. The issue, in my view, isn't whether we get another year of control, and therefore reap the benefit of one more year of Buxton. The issue is that Buxton loses a lot of money by this decision, assuming he plays well in the future. The Twins can always give him a generous extension and keep him longer than their current control, but it will cost money. I guess I'd rather they just pay guys fairly, even if the players are well paid. We pay for the entertainment, and they are the entertainment for which we pay. I personally don't pay for the entertainment in order to applaud the FO making a clever, technical, legal maneuver that screws over a player. We disagree on Buxton as a player. If you believe he should be held down because of his health and because he's not good enough to play for this team, that's fine. But if he's not that good, why do you care if the Twins get another year of control? And if he is potentially that good, why would you hold him down instead of giving him more time to work on his game at the major league level? If having him play September with the Twins helps Buxton's development, are you still against it because we failed to screw him out of some money? If playing him in September helps him to be an important part of the 2019 Twins, why would you be against that? Personally, I want to see this team win, not hoard more of their ridiculous profits. I believe he's still the player we saw last year. He hit well in stretches, was almost perfect stealing bases, was as exciting as anyone I've ever seen running the bases, and he deservedly was named the best defensive player in the major leagues. Ask any Twins pitcher if they want Buxton patrolling center field in September. This year, he has had migraines and then a broken toe to deal with, and none of us knows how hard it must have been for him to perform through that. In another thread, I blamed the FO for not letting him properly rehab from the broken toe. If you watched the games, you know that it severely affected his performance. I expect he'll be back to form in 2019. And I believe that getting to play for the Twins in September will help him to be ready to be that player in 2019. And I don't want to see him demoted at the beginning of 2019 for any reason other than he hasn't earned a place in the team. And frankly, I'd be shocked if that happens. As a Twins fan, I'm rooting for Buxton to be the player you don't think he is, but I do. I hope to see that player in September and, more importantly, in 2019. And I hope he's that player for a long time with the Twins, whatever amount they pay him.

Your argument against Buxton being called up appears to be based on merit. If the decision is based on merit, no problem. If it’s based solely on preventing him from having service time it’s bad faith, in Minnesota, New Mexico and even California.

Where do you read “financial hardship” in that?

As a fan, I want to see the best players playing. Buxton is among our best players, and he is, if not the most entertaining, among the three or four most entertaining players to watch. I also want to see the players get paid fairly, and it doesn't bother me at all that Buxton will get a better deal on an extension if the Twins don't jerk him around for the rest of the year.

Not one poster here has said it's a human right to reach arbitration. However, the Twins and Buxton are in a contractual relationship. If one party to a contract does something to prevent the other party from reaping the benefits of the agreement, it's a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. You may believe Buxton doesn't deserve to be called up based on performance. That's fine, and that's a legitimate reason to not call him up. I disagree. I believe Buxton deserves to be called up, and that not calling him up would be a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It would be dishonest and unethical, in my opinion. And I don't want the organization I root for to conduct its business in that way. I felt this way when the Cubs held back Bryant as well, and I expect he and Mr. Boras won't be giving any loyalty discounts when the Cubs seek to extend him.

That hasn’t happened. So there’s no analogy there. And I would think Buxton walking is more likely if the Twins aren’t honest with him. It is a business. That doesn’t mean it’s okay to be dishonest. In fact most people in business act ethically. It’s generally better for business.

I didn’t say anything about financial hardship. He’s earning his money honestly, and not calling him up to keep him another year away from free agency would not be honest. It’s bad form, and the Twins should be better than that.

Buxton was a key component of a playoff team last year. He was (and probably still is) among the best, if not the best, fielders in the game. He showed last year that he can hit as well. If the Twins are going to contend for a playoff spot next year, we are going to need him in center field. We'll also need him to hit well and get on the base paths. Sitting him down for the rest of the year isn't going to help him prepare for 2019. He should be playing as much as possible. Also, as far as the service time thing goes, he's potentially our star player for the next several years. Treat him like it. When it comes time to talk extension with him, he'll be a lot more receptive. Are there players in Rochester, objectively, who deserve to be called up more than him? I don't think so. If he deserves to be called up, not calling him up would be bad faith. I'm not sure why anyone is okay with harming him and his family financially by sitting him the rest of the year. Sure, it's a business, but people who run their businesses by unfairly harming other people end up harming themselves by losing good relationships and creating a bad reputation for themselves. It may seem clever now, but I hope the Twins are thinking long term about their organization, its employees and their culture..

Right now, the Cubs and Dodgers each have approximately 200 more plate appearances than the Twins. So that number is decreased a bit. The Cubs have about 100 more ABs and the Dodgers have about 50 more ABs.

Yes.

So now it's the Dodgers? Okay, the Dodgers have 14 guys with 101+ ABs. The Twins have 14 guys with 99+ ABs. The Dodgers have 15 guys with 90+ ABs The Twins have 16 guys with 90+ ABs The Dodgers have 3 guys with 400+ ABs The Twins have 3 guys with 400+ ABs Not much difference in the number of players and how often they were used. The obvious big difference is that the Dodgers have better players. And just for good measure: The Cubs have 4 guys with 400+ ABs and only 13 guys with 90+ ABs. Looks like Maddon is riding his main guys pretty hard, no? Does this make Maddon Old School? Does this make Molitor and Roberts New School? Ask yourself honestly, would Maddon or Roberts do better with the Twins this year than Molitor?

I want to see more of Astudillo circling the bases and then having Mauer stoop down to give him a high five as he crosses the plate.

The counterexample is in St. Louis, where Matt Carpenter could easily have been benched. I picked him up off waivers in a 16-team league. He was that bad into mid-May. Now, he's an MVP candidate because they stuck with him. Sometimes you have to have faith that a good player going through a slump will come out of it. However, I get your point that there are some times when you need to sit a guy who's going through a slump because he's hurting the team. It's tough to criticize Molitor for sticking with Dozier, since we've all seen him go through extended slumps, and then go on a tear out of nowhere. Buxton shouldn't have been playing with his bad toe, but given his value defensively, it's hard to justify sitting him on the bench if he's on the roster. I don't know enough about Morrison's history to know whether sticking with him made any sense. He was kind of a tease. In May, he made it look like he was coming out of his slump, only to go back into it. This is a very difficult area for a manager. You can only know what's the right choice in retrospect, and by then it's too late if you made the wrong choice. Like many things, I also don't believe there's an old school/new school approach either. It's not like Maddon's immediate reaction is always to replace a guy. In 2016, he stuck with Jason Heyward through the entire season during which Heyward posted a .631 OPS, good for an OPS+ of 68. Heyward tortured Cubs fans with 592 plate appearances that year. Anthony Rizzo struggled early in 2017, and instead of benching him, Maddon stuck with him and moved him around in the batting order. So I don't think this line of criticism for Molitor is an easy one to defend this year, when he had a handful of guys that could have been benched for their performance, some of whom have proven track records, and some of whom are key players to this team. And I definitely don't think that you can or should categorize Molitor as "Old School" (and therefore wrong about everything) based on him not benching players who were slumping.

I agree with Cave being a decent 4th outfielder who can play center field in a pinch. However, if Lamarre and Cave were considered viable options, why did they have Buxton play through it? It just seemed like they were having him play because they had no other choice. I believe it hurt the team, and hurt Buxton to do that. Part of having a Plan B is that you use it when Plan A isn't working or isn't available.

I do not agree that the FO handled Buxton correctly. He had a broken toe! Why send him out there with a broken toe? Buxton was not helped out by this. And the fact that we hadn't prepared for a contingency of not having him in the lineup and patrolling center field made things worse. I agree with the mid-season handling of Sano, but it was too late. He didn't have a proper off-season due to having a rod put into his leg, and he shouldn't have been trotted out in the beginning of the season. I don't agree with keeping Grossman on the roster. I don't agree with signing Belisle. I'm hopeful that the long-term plan is coming together, and I'm hoping for some major signings this off-season.

Okay, here's just one example in the comparison of Maddon v. Molitor: 1. At the end of the 2017 season, Molitor would not have used Lackey as a relief pitcher in the last game of the regular season, which the Cubs lost because of Lackey. 2. Then, in the first game of the playoffs, Molitor would not have gone to Lackey at the end of the game for 1.2 innings and 27 pitches. 3. Then, even if he had done either or both of the previous two things (that he wouldn't have done), he definitely would not have put Lackey in at the end of Game 2 to blow the game for the Cubs. Therefore, Molitor is better at managing his bullpen than Maddon. P.S. There are other great examples of Maddon being terrible at managing his bullpen from the 2016 WS.

To be fair, much of the criticism and praise for Molitor is based on speculation. It's only a logical progression to start posing hypothetical scenarios where he would do well or not do well.

FIrst of all, "even if" is very clear. Second, my position in that post, and every other, is that the FO is responsible regardless of what the manager may have recommended. It's their job. There's a reason they employ analytics people, and it's not so that they can make decisions based on what the manager tells them. The manager cannot be expected to be the analytics department and the scouting department. It was their responsibility to determine whether to stick with Grossman or look for an alternative. Personally, I think they found an alternative in Cave, but just not before the season started with Buxton as a fixture in center. If Buxton sticks at center next year, we have Cave and/or Austin and likely no Grossman. You may believe that Molitor is responsible for these decisions. I don't know, you may be right. But I'm saying again, even if that's the case, I blame the FO. That's their job, their responsibility, and there's no sharing blame here.

This back and forth started with Riverbrian quoting me when I suggested that the FO "stuck" Molitor with Grossman, and that having Grossman on the roster has limited Molitor's options. I don't think it's reasonable to even get a vibe that I was okay with Molitor advocating for Grossman. The words I typed would indicate almost the opposite of that.

If I have a legal assistant or paralegal or associate attorney working with me on a case, I like to have their input and I listen to their opinions. If I base a strategic decision on their advice and it doesn't work, I don't blame them, I blame myself. I'm not sure why people imply that Molitor had anything to do with keeping Grossman and bringing back Belisle. But even assuming that was the case, I don't blame Molitor, I blame the FO. And for all we know, Molitor was entirely against signing Logan Morrison, and nobody listened to him . . . .