Don Walcott

Robinson? Allison?

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.

I think you misinterpreted the comment. Nobody is saying "the Pohlads aren't cheap." Rather, this is one of many off-season blue print articles, some of which are about spending a lot of money, and this one is about not spending much money. It's not an opinion about how much money to spend, but about how to do it if you're not spending a lot of money. And I believe the author was simply relieved that he was able to conduct this exercise without it turning into a debate about whether the Pohlads are cheap, since that debate takes away from the productive conversation about how to go about not spending a lot of money (if that's what you want to do).

It's very sad to see Joe retire from the Twins. However, I'm glad he retired as a Twin. And I'm sure this will be a great thing for his family. As a native Minnesotan, I was always proud that Joe was one of us -- especially that he was from my home town along with three other HOFers. For a brief period, he was the best player in the world. Probably the best hitting catcher ever, and a gold glove defender. He was the best player on a great Twins team that won a lot of games and made the playoffs regularly. The Twins also benefited from selling a lot of his jerseys. But even more than his importance to the franchise -- as stated above a few times -- he was a class act that made us all proud. Best wishes to Joe and his family.

Sure, Buxton is the best outfielder in the majors, but I'll bet he can't kick a football 40 yards. He's worthless.

Possible explanations, yes. Plausible explanations? Not yours. If you didn't understand my explanation for why your claimed service time manipulations by the Rockies were not plausible, I can't help you. Regardless of my approval, the Twins may have some short-term gain in value for Buxton (assuming he doesn't win a grievance). But any value beyond 4 years (except for what we can get when we're forced to trade him or see him refuse a QO), is gone. And the one additional year of trade value would be next year. I'm not sure there are many teams who will give up much value for Buxton before he has a full healthy season next year anyway. And after next year, his trade value keeps decreasing as he gets arbitration awards and closer to FA. But, if you want your commodity to have short-term value, rather than work with a human being who can have much more long-term value, at the expense of your reputation among other human beings, then fine. Great move. You can do your touchdown dance now. We can all only hope that the FO keeps playing these games for short-term profit, at the expense of baseball players, for the owners of the team. That's why I love this game (by "game," I mean the one played by the billionaires who we root for to maximize profits and increase the value of their franchises every year). GO POHLADS!!

I never said I "proved" anything, but I did show you how service time was not a factor in the decisions you thought might have involved service time considerations. Nevertheless, if you're right, then there's no point debating this as we can never know the minds of others through circumstantial evidence, no matter how strong that circumstantial evidence is. I may be wrong, but your arguments seem to seek justification for the conduct of the Twins FO towards Buxton by claiming that the Twins are doing the same thing every other FO has done and continues to do. I think that argument is false. But even if it were true, it still wouldn't justify the conduct. As an analogy, the fact that many MLB players were taking steroids in a certain era doesn't justify any of the individual players who did it.

In every instance I showed how service time was not an issue.

Chuck Nasty: In 2012, the Rockies had a starting outfield of Dexter Fowler, Michael Cuddyer and Carlos Gonzales. The 4th outfielder was Tyler Colvin, who had an .858 OPS. Charlie wasn't breaking into the team as a regular, though he came up late in the season and played through September. He had good minor league stats, and okay major league stats, but nothing that would establish him as to those positions in 2013. He was also competing with Corey Dickerson in 2013 for the 4th outfielder spot, and Corey Dickerson was absolutely tearing up AAA, (1.046 OPS compared to Charlie's .804 OPS). They were comparable at the major league level in 2013. When Dexter left, Charlie was handed the center field job, and Dickerson played most of the year in left. The entire time Charlie was vying for a major league position, he was blocked by a set outfield and was in competition with Colvin or Dickerson for the 4th spot.There is simply no reasonable argument that Charlie was being held back in 2012 or 2013. In 2014, the Rockies took a gamble replacing Dexter with Charlie in center field. It worked. Now, Charlie's been given a generous contract to stay, and he's happy to stay. Not sure how this proves the Rockies didn't treat Charlie well. Cargo: Was signed to a generous contract extension. Chose to come back to the team this year after not being offered anything by anyone else this off season. Not sure how this proves the Rockies didn't treat Cargo well. Nolan In 2012, Arenado had a .766 OPS in AA. At the beginning of 2013, he was promoted to AAA, where he had a 1.089 OPS in 18 games. He was promoted quickly and became the every day 3B from that point on. Nolan had a grand total of 75 ABs in AAA. I remember very clearly hearing about Nolan, when he was in the minors, as a future gold glove 3B, and that there were hopes he could hit in the majors. In 2013, he had an OPS of .706 in the majors, but played amazing 3B. He was never demoted, and his service time was never suppressed. Nolan was bought out of the past two years of arbitration at a generous price, is arbitration eligible for 2019, and is a free agent in 2020. I expect the Rockies will have the inside track negotiating with Nolan for a new contract. Not sure how this proves the Rockies didn't treat Nolan well. Eddie Butler: Who? Regardless of his draft position, Eddie Butler had marginal minor league stats in 2014 between high A, AA and AAA. He was promoted quickly nonetheless, and had a 6.75 ERA in three starts in the majors. In 2015, Butler had terrible stats in AAA and a 5.90 ERA in the majors in 16 starts. He had 44 strikeouts and 42 walks in 79.1 innings at the major league level. Even the Rockies were able to find better options. Since leaving Colorado, Butler has pitched more innings in AAA than in the majors. Unless you have some kind of emotional connection with Eddie Butler, I fail to see any reason to believe the Rockies did not treat Eddie Butler well. Your arguments about these players seem like a real stretch to me.

I only follow two teams closely, the Twins and the Rockies. I'd say the Rockies treat their players better, and as a result they get more reasonable contract extensions that buy out more years for their players, leading to more continuity in their team. Charlie Blackmon is a recent example, whose stop and start injury plagued first few seasons look a lot like Buxton's. The Rockies even got Carlos Gonzales to come back after his contract expired (which was extended prior to his free agency). And they've been more successful than the Twins lately, in a way that looks more sustainable. I don't recall the Rockies having fire sales like the Twins have had recently either. They tend to stick with their guys and bolster areas of need (like the bullpen in the past two years). Believe me, Rockies fans complain about the ownership being cheap just as much as Twins fans. However, they don't have to feel ashamed at how their FO treats the players they love to see on their team. Even trading Tulowitzki (whose contract had been extended), was the choice of the player. I love to see Buxton on this team, and I'm ashamed at how the FO has treated him. I hope they make "amends" with him sooner than later, but I fear that won't be possible. Rather than nickel and dime him by manipulating service time, I wish they'd work on extending his contract. If he turns out to be a bust, I'll admit to being wrong about this. But I fully believe he'll be a perennial All-Star caliber player. And the way things are going, most of his prime years will likely be with another team. And either way, I'd rather the Twins act honorably towards Buxton and all of their players.

And with the way they are treating him, unless they make “amends” quickly, there is no chance they have Buxton beyond four years (or three if they lose his grievance).

The post I responded to asked why we were looking at Buxton long-term. I did not dispute the number of years of control in that or any other post. And I assume Doomtints was saying that if he has an MVP year, he'll walk as soon as he can. But you'd have to ask Doomtints about that.

We're looking at Buxton long-term right now because of what the FO has done to him long-term. Obviously, the FO believes he's important enough to think about controlling him for an extra year four years from now. That's the whole context of this conversation -- on both sides.

This is a good article, and a similar sentiment is being expressed in several other national publications. None of it looks good for the reputation of our FO. I hope they make "amends" with Buxton and his agents a soon as possible.

As Riverbrian stated, team control means reasonably being able to predict costs based on the outcomes likely in arbitration. That's a money issue. If we pay a guy enough money, he'll stay longer. Of course, if we jerk him around, he won't stay longer. I see it primarily as a money issue. But I understand your point.

If he doesn't perform, it doesn't matter for how many years. If he does perform, you've just lost any chance of keeping him beyond 4 years. Obviously, we won't know the correct answer for another year or two or even three regarding whether he will perform, and whether we should have sought an extension (or more than one extension).. But I'd rather pay him more for 6 years, betting that he will perform, than be sure that he'll be done with us in four years. The FO has closed the door on having Buxton more than four years. And the FO's gamble is based on short-term monetary considerations, which makes it frustrating to be a Twins fan.

So why is it so simple that 4 years is better than 3?

The question is simple. Is he more valuable to the Twins with 4 years of control or 6?

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”.

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?