Article: Twins Transactions: Buxton Activated, Optioned to AAA

[Dr. Evil]

People wouldn't be as sensitive to issues like this if the norm was to move these players along through the system in a slightly more aggressive manner with a focus on players with high ceiling potential. There seems at times to be a willingness to stand by whatever "gem" has been pulled off the scrap pile via rule 5 or free agency or throw-in's as part of a trade, often times an older player. To me this is very annoying and when a guy like Buxton is sent down I feel like, "here we go again." It has to be frustrating for guys trying to make the leap to the bigs. Or, guys that get sent to the pen in favor of a veteran guy etc.... I am bored with the current MO.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Are you sure, I thought guys injured while optioned stay on milb injury lists.

 

If someone is injured in spring training before being optioned, they would remain on the mlb disabled list, which is why the 40 man guys who aren't going to make the 25 man get moved out so quickly.

Guys that get injured on optional assignments indeed go on the minor league disabled list.

 

But optional assignments and disabled lists cease to exist at the conclusion of each season.  As does the 25 man active roster.  The only roster/list in the offseason is the 40 man, and all the players on that have to be re-assigned in the spring to a new 25-man roster, new DLs, and new optional assignments.

 

Basically, all DL players are activated again when the season ends in October.  See two recent Twins to end seasons on disabled lists, Mauer and Gibson in 2013 -- their official MLB transactions show both were activated in October 2013:

 

http://m.mlb.com/player/502043/kyle-gibson

 

http://m.mlb.com/player/408045/joe-mauer

The Twins clearly wouldn't have done that with Gibson if they didn't have to.  And in neither case was a corresponding player removed from the 25 man active roster to accommodate the activated player, because the 25-man roster didn't exist anymore.

 

You are correct that guys get optioned/reassigned quickly in spring training for this reason, but already injured players on the 40-man can't be optioned/reassigned like that, regardless of when and where the injury took place. Buxton would have to be optioned while healthy next spring, THEN injured, to get on the AAA disabled list to begin the 2016 season.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Isn't the 2.140 date related to the group that will earn it following this year? For example, Arcia was 1.132 at the start of the season and was likely to miss the cutoff bu projection. I don't think they would have near enough data to make a projection on this year's group. 

 

There has only been a handful of years since the super 2 group size increased. There will be years where that number is below 122. 

Yes, that is the estimated cutoff for players to be eligible following this season.  But the trend is clear.

 

The Super 2 group size increased from 17% to 22% in December 2011, so last year's Super 2 arbitration eligibles already had their entire careers under the new system.  And the cutoff then was 133 days.

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/04/projected-super-two-cutoff-3.html

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/04/projected-super-two-cutoff-5.html

 

I don't think any elite prospect recalled in June in recent years has ever become eligible for Super 2, so teams know what they are doing.  Most Super 2's are lesser players (Plouffe) and/or players in very different circumstances (Harper, Bryant).

[John Bonnes]

 

The cubs just sent Starlin Castro to the minors, after signing a $60MM deal, to call up a rookie.

 

Ryan should make personnel decisions based on people cheering for Hunter winning 1 game, really?

 

You don't think Buxton excites fans?

 

That's an interesting example. I appreciate you finding that. 

 

Certainly the Cubs are somewhat similar. Certainly demoting Castro could be seen as a stab in the back, like benching Hunter would.

 

But Castro has a 575 OPS. He was killing that team. And the $60 million is a reason to send him down, rather than keep him up - they need to get him right. And it's not too difficult for a rookie to produce a 575 OPS. There is a lot less pressure on him than there would be on Buxton. 

 

To be fair, with Hunter scuffling over the last month, it's not totally inconceivable that Buxton would put up better numbers over the last seven weeks if Hunter is truly hurt. (Hunter has about a 680 OPS over the last month). But if he's not, then it's going to be very hard for Buxton to post a 740 OPS like Hunter has now. The average CF OPS this year is 726. To put up even that number as a 21-year-old rookie would put him in elite company historically. 

[drjim]

 

Guys that get injured on optional assignments indeed go on the minor league disabled list.

 

But optional assignments and disabled lists cease to exist at the conclusion of each season.  As does the 25 man active roster.  The only roster/list in the offseason is the 40 man, and all the players on that have to be re-assigned in the spring to a new 25-man roster, new DLs, and new optional assignments.

 

Basically, all DL players are activated again when the season ends in October.  See two recent Twins to end seasons on disabled lists, Mauer and Gibson in 2013 -- their official MLB transactions show both were activated in October 2013:

 

http://m.mlb.com/player/502043/kyle-gibson

 

http://m.mlb.com/player/408045/joe-mauer

The Twins clearly wouldn't have done that with Gibson if they didn't have to.  And in neither case was a corresponding player removed from the 25 man active roster to accommodate the activated player, because the 25-man roster didn't exist anymore.

 

You are correct that guys get optioned/reassigned quickly in spring training for this reason, but already injured players on the 40-man can't be optioned/reassigned like that, regardless of when and where the injury took place. Buxton would have to be optioned while healthy next spring, THEN injured, to get on the AAA disabled list to begin the 2016 season.

 

The recall of Mauer and Gibson strike me as different transactions/situations.

 

So, hypothetically, if Meyer blows out his arm next appearance in Rochester, he is put on the AAA dl and then is activated in the offseason and spends the entire season on the mlb dl? Assuming they don't remove him from the 40 man?

 

I don't know the rules well enough on this specific transaction, but I also think it is 99.9% a moot point for a position player.

[drjim]

 

That's an interesting example. I appreciate you finding that. 

 

Certainly the Cubs are somewhat similar. Certainly demoting Castro could be seen as a stab in the back, like benching Hunter would.

 

But Castro has a 575 OPS. He was killing that team. And the $60 million is a reason to send him down, rather than keep him up - they need to get him right. And it's not too difficult for a rookie to produce a 575 OPS. There is a lot less pressure on him than there would be on Buxton. 

 

To be fair, with Hunter scuffling over the last month, it's not totally inconceivable that Buxton would put up better numbers over the last seven weeks if Hunter is truly hurt. (Hunter has about a 680 OPS over the last month). But if he's not, then it's going to be very hard for Buxton to post a 740 OPS like Hunter has now. The average CF OPS this year is 726. To put up even that number as a 21-year-old rookie would put him in elite company historically. 

 

And Cubs fans hate Castro right now, so pretty much the exact opposite on that account.

[jimmer]

I wonder if the outstanding defense Buxton would provide would make up for the lesser offense he would produce this year.

 

Let's see, fantastic defensive player in CF (Buxton), a very good defensive CF(Hicks) moves to RF replacing Hunter. Defense goes from Rosario, Hicks, Hunter to Rosario, Buxton, Hicks.  If OPS is truly the stat to value, how many points dropoff would he have to drop to make the defensive upgrade meaningless?  

 

Assuming, winning games this year should even be the primary reason for any moves at this point.

[Mike Sixel]

Twins fans should probably take a closer look at Hunter's performance.......I think saying "all Twins fans like Hunter" is probably not accurate at this point.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The recall of Mauer and Gibson strike me as different transactions/situations.

 

So, hypothetically, if Meyer blows out his arm next appearance in Rochester, he is put on the AAA dl and then is activated in the offseason and spends the entire season on the mlb dl? Assuming they don't remove him from the 40 man?

 

I don't know the rules well enough on this specific transaction, but I also think it is 99.9% a moot point for a position player.

Yes.  If Meyer is injured anytime between now and before he is optioned in spring training 2016, he would need to open the 2016 season on the MLB disabled list.  He can't be optioned in spring training unless he is healthy.  It's probably happened to a pitcher out there somewhere.  From a quick Google search. Nick Kingham of the Pirates is a current example -- he was on the 40-man roster but in AAA when he had TJ surgery earlier this season.  If he's still not ready next spring, he will need to go on the MLB disabled list at that point.

 

Gibson 2013 is almost identical to the current Buxton situation.  He was added to the 40-man in June 2013, then optioned in August.

 

Then Gibson had a minor injury while at AAA and missed the remainder of the season, so he wasn't recalled for September (whether they planned to do that or not, it could have just been a paper transaction meaning he wouldn't have to pitch) and burned an option year.

 

He was activated, as all disabled players are, when the MLB season ended in October, because his injury and roster status at that point did not matter, other than that he was still our protected property on the 40-man roster.

[nicksaviking]

 

 

3) He takes Hunter's job. This seems to be the primary argument, and I think I addressed it in earlier comments, but I'll summarize it like this:

 

This is a position that is so extreme as to be nearly detached from reality. I'm open to counter examples. If you can find any evidence that any other of the 29 management teams, from any year, who

 

1) finds themselves suddenly competitive, still a handful of games from a Wild Card spot, past the trade deadline, a game under .500 and experiencing a renewed interest in the team after four years of abysmal results...

 

2) would bench a $10 million free agent who has been a productive player and who also is a crowd favorite and AND as recently as Friday night was celebrated as a game-winning, team-rallying hero...

 

3) just so they can push a 21-year-old coming off a thumb injury who had previously skipped AAA and gone directly to the majors (and didn't have immediate success)...

 

...I'm completely open to any comparisons you can find.I mean that is never going to happen. Not here, not now, not anywhere at any time. 

 

I'm open to new ideas, but to me, this suggestion is fringe; it's borderline untethered. I don't mean that as an insult, though I can see how it would read that way. We can all get carried away as fans. Instead I mean it as a call to maybe reexamine where your perceptional base is. What paradigms are you viewing the world through that makes this sound reasonable? Is anger at someone making all moves like this be viewed as terrible?

 

Well I think a big part of this idea, even if it's subconsious, is that if the Twins de-commit from Torii Hunter now, we probably don't have to worry about the possibility of them re-committing to him in the offseason.

 

I'd like to see Buxton, but even if he was on the 25-man, Ryan coudln't make Hunter sit in favor of the youngster, that would come from Molitor, and there's no way I buy Molitor benching Hunter for Buxton.  I do want Hicks and Rosario continuing their development at the MLB level and it's those two who I think would suffer the most from a Buxton call up.

[jimmer]

 

Twins fans should probably take a closer look at Hunter's performance.......I think saying "all Twins fans like Hunter" is probably not accurate at this point.

What's funny is that Hunter's offense this year has been worse than last year, practically across the board.  Yet he had a negative WAR last year because of horrible defense.

 

This year, even with the worse offense, he's got a 1.2 WAR due to his defense being not quite as horrible as it was last year (but still bad).  In other words, the defensive metrics he hates is what is making him look better than last year as an overall player.

[drjim]

 

What's funny is that Hunter's offense this year has been worse than last year, practically across the board.  Yet he had a negative WAR last year because of horrible defense.

 

This year, even with the worse offense, he's got a 1.2 WAR due to his defense being not quite as horrible as it was last year (but still bad).  In other words, the defensive metrics he hates is what is making him look better than last year as an overall player.

 

Or confirms his suspicion that they shouldn't be taken all that seriously.

 

I predict Hunter spends approximately 0 seconds of his daily life worried about his WAR.

[jimmer]

 

Or confirms his suspicion that they shouldn't be taken all that seriously.

 

I predict Hunter spends approximately 0 seconds of his daily life worried about his WAR.

It certainly doesn't confirm they shouldn't be taken seriously.  Especially when one realizes these are comparative stats and people being compared change year to year.  And when we realize performance changes year to year all the time, no one stays the same.  And when we also realize these stats don't compare him to himself.

 

I have no doubt the second part of your post is true.  At least nowadays. Though hopefully for him his agent cares about it.  Because over his career, it's been a positive for him and when going to the table with teams, the more positives the better in contract negotiations.  And as much as some want to dismiss it at hocom, I imagine most teams don't think it's hocom.  At least not the parts that go into it, even if they have things they think are better.  Most people want as much good info as possible.

Edited August 11, 2015 by jimmer

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

3) He takes Hunter's job. This seems to be the primary argument, and I think I addressed it in earlier comments, but I'll summarize it like this:

 

This is a position that is so extreme as to be nearly detached from reality. I'm open to counter examples. If you can find any evidence that any other of the 29 management teams, from any year, who

 

1) finds themselves suddenly competitive, still a handful of games from a Wild Card spot, past the trade deadline, a game under .500 and experiencing a renewed interest in the team after four years of abysmal results...

 

2) would bench a $10 million free agent who has been a productive player and who also is a crowd favorite and AND as recently as Friday night was celebrated as a game-winning, team-rallying hero...

 

3) just so they can push a 21-year-old coming off a thumb injury who had previously skipped AAA and gone directly to the majors (and didn't have immediate success)...

 

...I'm completely open to any comparisons you can find.I mean that is never going to happen. Not here, not now, not anywhere at any time. 

 

I'm open to new ideas, but to me, this suggestion is fringe; it's borderline untethered. I don't mean that as an insult, though I can see how it would read that way. We can all get carried away as fans. Instead I mean it as a call to maybe reexamine where your perceptional base is. What paradigms are you viewing the world through that makes this sound reasonable? Is anger at someone making all moves like this be viewed as terrible?

John, this does come off as somewhat insulting.  "Extreme"?  "Nearly detached from reality"?  "Fringe"?  "Borderline untethered"?

 

You are framing the situation to make it seem that way.  First, your reference to the team as "suddenly competitive, still a handful of games from a Wild Card spot, past the trade deadline, a game under .500 and experiencing a renewed interest in the team after four years of abysmal results..." ignores their massive recent slide and more-or-less punting at the trade deadline (and arguable punting of a game against their biggest wild card rival in Toronto by debuting Duffey).

 

Your only reference to Hunter is as "a $10 million free agent who has been a productive player and who also is a crowd favorite and AND as recently as Friday night was celebrated as a game-winning, team-rallying hero."  Ignoring that he is also:

 

- a 40 year old signed to a one-year deal by a rebuilding club looking for mentorship

- on pace for his fewest starts in the field for a full healthy season in his whole career

- his lowest OPS since his last minor league stint 15 years ago

- his 4th consecutive season of declining OPS

 

Then, your description of Buxton is "a 21-year-old coming off a thumb injury who had previously skipped AAA and gone directly to the majors (and didn't have immediate success)".  No mention of

 

- top 1-2 prospect in baseball for 2-3 years running

- best Twins prospect since Mauer

- important enough to get called up immediately after the likely Super 2 deadline passed in June

- a clear candidate to be an opening day starter in 2016 but could benefit from more MLB experience, having only received 39 MLB PA so far

 

Also, I am not sure that many reasonable posters here are calling for a full benching of Hunter, just that he and his OF caddy Robinson cede the most playing time of our current OF to audition (and mentor!) the #2 prospect in MLB for a starting spot in 2016.

 

I also suggested that maybe Mauer, with by far the lowest OPS of his career, should be reduced from his career-high pace of games started and plate appearances to assist in this endeavor, with Sano getting some reps at 1B and adding a few more DH games for Hunter.  I am curious to see how you will mischaracterize that suggestion as "nearly detached from reality."

 

Your framing of this situation is closer to the post-and-run Adam Brett Walker boosters here than an honest, accurate assessment.

 

EDIT TO ADD: Not that my assessment above is any more accurate, but I have no interest in this kind of selective fact presenting to paint other people's views as extreme.

Edited August 11, 2015 by spycake

[tobi0040]

 

I wonder if the outstanding defense Buxton would provide would make up for the lesser offense he would produce this year.

 

Let's see, fantastic defensive player in CF (Buxton), a very good defensive CF(Hicks) moves to RF replacing Hunter. Defense goes from Rosario, Hicks, Hunter to Rosario, Buxton, Hicks.  If OPS is truly the stat to value, how many points dropoff would he have to drop to make the defensive upgrade meaningless?  

 

Assuming, winning games this year should even be the primary reason for any moves at this point.

 

I am guessing we are protecting Buxton more than anything, with the fear that we don't want to hurt his confidence. He struggled against breaking balls here and hasn't played in six weeks.  Throwing him immediately back in there may not be a safe move.  We like safe moves.

 

 

[drjim]

 

I am guessing we are protecting Buxton more than anything, with the fear that we don't want to hurt his confidence. He struggled against breaking balls here and hasn't played in six weeks.  Throwing him immediately back in there may not be a safe move.  We like safe moves.

 

To me, "protecting" is prudent action to put Buxton in a position to maximize his success. Both in the immediate and the long term.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I am guessing we are protecting Buxton more than anything, with the fear that we don't want to hurt his confidence. He struggled against breaking balls here and hasn't played in six weeks.  Throwing him immediately back in there may not be a safe move.  We like safe moves.

He can't be protected on a longer rehab assignment in AAA?  He has to be optioned to AAA to be protected?

[tobi0040]

 

He can't be protected on a longer rehab assignment in AAA?  He has to be optioned to AAA to be protected?

 

My comment was in response to those suggesting he should be on the MLB roster right now.

[jimmer]

 

I am guessing we are protecting Buxton more than anything, with the fear that we don't want to hurt his confidence. He struggled against breaking balls here and hasn't played in six weeks.  Throwing him immediately back in there may not be a safe move.  We like safe moves.

yeah, my post had more to do with the idea that our current team would be hurt by downgrading from Hunter to Buxton.  I'm not 100% that would even be true if we take into account defense and even if there was a slight dropoff in overall value, I doubt it makes any difference in the win-loss column.

 

I've said before I have much less problem with the idea they doing this for his health, though I think if that's the case another different course of action should be implemented.

 

I also don't think it's any safer for him to play in AAA than it is in the majors., though I get you point.

 

 

[tobi0040]

 

I also don't think it's any safer for him to play in AAA than it is in the majors., though I get you point.

 

I can get on board with the fact that maybe he wasn't ready for the AA to MLB breaking ball jump.  Going back to AAA may help that transition back here.

 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

My comment was in response to those suggesting he should be on the MLB roster right now.

Fair enough.  My fear is that by optioning him rather than letting his rehab play out, they may have longer-term "protection" of Buxton in mind...

[Mike Sixel]

This whole "he has to go to AAA to face harder pitching" thing cracks me up.

 

when I push to have guys go to AAA, like Kepler or Buxton earlier, I am told that it doesn't matter, there isn't much difference in the pitching, or "you can jump right from AA to the majors"........now I am told that Buxton has to go to AAA because the pitching is better and you really should go to every level first.....I am confused since many of these people are the same people making two different arguments.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Fair enough.  My fear is that by optioning him rather than letting his rehab play out, they may have longer-term "protection" of Buxton in mind...

 

This is really the heart of it.  If he's back up September 1st most of this teeth-knashing is beyond silly.  If he's not back up at that point, then it's time to release the hounds.

[Jham]

Well there seems to be 2 different arguments that people are blending into one.  

 

1) Should the Twins Bench/Waive Hunter in order to get Buxton at bats.

2) Should Buxton have been optioned to AAA or immediately called up or briefly rehabbed and called up in order to get experience wherever he could?

 

I think only 1 poster has suggested benching or waiving Hunter, yet the Hunter v. Buxton debate rages on.  

 

Regarding Question 2: I wouldn't have been mad either way.  I can't believe people are freaking out like this over a few weeks in AAA coming back from a thumb injury.  This seems to be a perfectly reasonable course of action for a young player who wasn't met with immediate success in his first stint.  Calling him up immediately in order to try to spark the team/gain experience in the league and with his team would have also been reasonable.  Neither move is likely to change EITHER the Twins fortunes or Mr. Buxton's, IMO.

 

 

This whole "he has to go to AAA to face harder pitching" thing cracks me up.

 

when I push to have guys go to AAA, like Kepler or Buxton earlier, I am told that it doesn't matter, there isn't much difference in the pitching, or "you can jump right from AA to the majors"........now I am told that Buxton has to go to AAA because the pitching is better and you really should go to every level first.....I am confused since many of these people are the same people making two different arguments.

 

I think people would say that AA is prospects league, more high end talent, while AAA is an extended bench with plenty of veteran minor leaguers with MLB experience ready to be recalled at a moment's notice.  Perhaps fewer high-end talents, but with far more experienced and consistent performers providing a higher level of play day to day, week to week.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

when I push to have guys go to AAA, like Kepler or Buxton earlier, I am told that it doesn't matter, there isn't much difference in the pitching, or "you can jump right from AA to the majors"........now I am told that Buxton has to go to AAA because the pitching is better and you really should go to every level first.....I am confused since many of these people are the same people making two different arguments.

In fairness, Buxton's initial call-up was timed with a Hicks injury.  It's possible that the team thought he was close to ready so they called him up for a few weeks MLB action, and planned to send him back down to AAA when Hicks returned.  They didn't really have that option until now.

[Platoon]

Wow. 108 comments by the time I get here after my early morning meetings. And mods, I am sorry that I've created so much work for you.

 

There's way too much to address on this. There's a lot of anger here. My probably overgeneralized take is that a frustrating trade deadline combined with a more frustrating slump has people wanting the team to give up, so they can give up and not emotionally invest in what looks like an unhappy ending.  

 

To the issue: I only see three ways that Buxton should be on this roster:

 

1) He replaces Shane Robinson in the 4th outfielder role. I can't believe that's what people want.

 

2) He is "mixed in" with everyone, taking a few at-bats from everyone and slightly more from Hunter. I don't have a great reason not to do this, other than we're messing around with a bunch of guys that seem to be on the right track, and I don't see a compelling reason to do that. But this also doesn't seem to by the gist of the comments. 

 

3) He takes Hunter's job. This seems to be the primary argument, and I think I addressed it in earlier comments, but I'll summarize it like this:

 

This is a position that is so extreme as to be nearly detached from reality. I'm open to counter examples. If you can find any evidence that any other of the 29 management teams, from any year, who

 

1) finds themselves suddenly competitive, still a handful of games from a Wild Card spot, past the trade deadline, a game under .500 and experiencing a renewed interest in the team after four years of abysmal results...

 

2) would bench a $10 million free agent who has been a productive player and who also is a crowd favorite and AND as recently as Friday night was celebrated as a game-winning, team-rallying hero...

 

3) just so they can push a 21-year-old coming off a thumb injury who had previously skipped AAA and gone directly to the majors (and didn't have immediate success)...

 

...I'm completely open to any comparisons you can find.I mean that is never going to happen. Not here, not now, not anywhere at any time. 

 

I'm open to new ideas, but to me, this suggestion is fringe; it's borderline untethered. I don't mean that as an insult, though I can see how it would read that way. We can all get carried away as fans. Instead I mean it as a call to maybe reexamine where your perceptional base is. What paradigms are you viewing the world through that makes this sound reasonable? Is anger at someone making all moves like this be viewed as terrible?

John, in your second paragraph, during your attempt at amateur psychology, you point out that some people want the team to give up, so they in essence no longer invest themselves in a losing cause? Or is it possible that many of these same people see it differently. Either those who see this as another in a long line of decisions that almost invariably go towards a veteran presence over raw talent. Or, those of us who never thought Hunter should have been signed by this team, this year, and saw his signing as a sop to the casual fan base. The "Hey Torii's back" group! Frankly I am in both of the aforementioned camps!

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

This is really the heart of it.  If he's back up September 1st most of this teeth-knashing is beyond silly.  If he's not back up at that point, then it's time to release the hounds.

Well, a September 1st recall would unnecessarily burn an option year, when they could have left him on rehab and optioned him August 13th and kept the option year at the cost of 3 service time days.  So my teeth-gnashing would remain totally on point.

[spinowner]

 

Well, a September 1st recall would unnecessarily burn an option year, when they could have left him on rehab and optioned him August 13th and kept the option year at the cost of 3 service time days.  So my teeth-gnashing would remain totally on point.

So they simply call him up on August 28 if they want to avoid burning the option. While I agree it would have made more sense to wait three more days to assign him to AAA it's not that big of a deal. Hunter and Robinson will have decreased playing time in September anyway, so starting that three days sooner really doesn't matter.

[Otto von Ballpark]

So they simply call him up on August 28 if they want to avoid burning the option. While I agree it would have made more sense to wait three more days to assign him to AAA it's not that big of a deal. Hunter and Robinson will have decreased playing time in September anyway, so starting that three days sooner really doesn't matter.

Sure, if they do that it doesn't matter much. But they could have left him on rehab until August 27th. And either way, barring injury they would have to demote someone for 3 days to get Buxton back here before roster expansion. (And I wonder if that person could be recalled again before the 10 day period? Not sure it applies in September...)

[TheLeviathan]

 

Sure, if they do that it doesn't matter much. But they could have left him on rehab until August 27th. And either way, barring injury they would have to demote someone for 3 days to get Buxton back here before roster expansion. (And I wonder if that person could be recalled again before the 10 day period? Not sure it applies in September...)

 

You're right, it has to come before Sept. 1 and I too am baffled why he wasn't just left to rehab a bit longer.  (Or even on rehab until then)  But it's not inexcusable to let him build back his timing and hand strength in AAA.