Front Page: Kris Bryant Decision Could Have Ramifications for Twins and Byron Buxton

[Don Walcott]

 

You can't state that my wanting "an extra year of control" is not "relevant" and then state that holding players back is "not one that is good for the FANS or the players". 

 

However, if you wish to limit the conversation to your defined narrow scope of considerations.

 

OK... I'm game... Let's start with the "Slippery Slope" that you mention. John Danks, Phil Hughes, Evan Longoria, Jordan Zimmerman are possible examples of "Service Time Manipulation" from 2007, 2008 and 2009. 

 

If you consider that it has been 12 years time from 2007 to 2019 and the players union just got around to using Kris Bryant as a "Test Case". Can you better define how slippery or slopee the slope actually is? 

 

If you want to cling your hopes on the vague usage of "Good Faith" in the CBA language. Go ahead but it's kind of like using a dog leash to stop a tanker at sea. 

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.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

OK... I'm game... Let's start with the "Slippery Slope" that you mention. John Danks, Phil Hughes, Evan Longoria, Jordan Zimmerman are possible examples of "Service Time Manipulation" from 2007, 2008 and 2009. 

I won't wade into the general argument, but I'm not sure about these examples, other than Longoria. Danks was up on opening day 2007, and nothing about Hughes or Zimmermann's timelines stand out.

[Riverbrian]

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.

Lot to cover here.

 

Right off the bat... I'm a fan and I represent myself. I don't have representation at the CBA negotiation table. I'm the one drifting in the wind here. My happiness is in the hands of other people, I don't get a vote or representation at that table.

 

I'm not going to lose sleep over a year of service time and I'm especially not going to lose sleep when I know that the agreement was negotiated by two power brokers, skilled at such things, while looking across the table at each other and not at gun point. Especially, Especially when I know that both sides are looking out for their interests... and not mine. Neither the owners or the players care if the price of a ticket goes up. They are negotiating to get the most money in their pockets, why am I taking sides? I'm not because NEITHER resemble Mother Theresa. The player can hit .189 and still collect the 30 million. The Owners can keep players under control until they are past their prime. These things were negotiated. I didn't get a vote.

 

Both sides understand it is strictly business by now... the innocence is gone. If the business side of things hasn't hit them in the eyes in year one... it will certainly cold cock them once they sit down with the Arbitrator as the team tears them apart to save a couple of million bucks.

 

So what's my interest? I want the players who suck... gone and I want the players with skill playing for my team as long as possible. According to the CBA, to which I have no representation, I have to tolerate all bad contracts, but my good contracts have a shelf life. I have to put up with players getting paid and throwing 85MPH and I have to put up with players struggling for 3 years of precious service time so he can get good right before he says goodbye.

 

My interest is very uncomplicated. I want the players I want, playing for my team as long as possible. That is what is best for me.I am simply not concerned if Acuna makes 600K or 27 Million or if he reaches free agency at 26 or 27 or 32. I will trade 17 days of rookie ball in April for a full season in a players prime every single time. You can't compare 17 days in April to a full year in a players prime without recognizing how lopsided of a no-brainer decision it is. I am not bound by slight of hand or public relations. I don't have to say that the reason is defensive work, the player isn't ready or he needs rest for better health with a straight face. I can scream from the mountain tops without reservation or apology. "I WANT THE EXTRA YEAR" for my benefit and I deserve it.

 

And the negotiated CBA states that I can have it.

 

Did the players union negotiate a bad deal? Yes... they failed to see the future but at the time, they got what they wanted. They didn't see the Ivy league front offices doing cost per analysis down the road. It changed everything and the next CBA is going to be a nightmare when the players union tries to get things back in their favor. And once again... I won't have representation at the next CBA negotiation table either. Meaning... when they go into a lock out or strike... I'll have to sit there and take it.

[Riverbrian]

 

I won't wade into the general argument, but I'm not sure about these examples, other than Longoria. Danks was up on opening day 2007, and nothing about Hughes or Zimmermann's timelines stand out.

 

As always... you have talent Spycake. 

 

My research consisted of one article that I googled using "Evan Longoria Service time Manipulation" between bites during my lunch hour.

 

It still stands that we are 11 years between Longoria and Vlad Jr. 

[Don Walcott]

 

Lot to cover here.

Right off the bat... I'm a fan and I represent myself. I don't have representation at the CBA negotiation table. I'm the one drifting in the wind here. My happiness is in the hands of other people, I don't get a vote or representation at that table.

I'm not going to lose sleep over a year of service time and I'm especially not going to lose sleep when I know that the agreement was negotiated by two power brokers, skilled at such things, while looking across the table at each other and not at gun point. Especially, Especially when I know that both sides are looking out for their interests... and not mine. Neither the owners or the players care if the price of a ticket goes up. They are negotiating to get the most money in their pockets, why am I taking sides? I'm not because NEITHER resemble Mother Theresa. The player can hit .189 and still collect the 30 million. The Owners can keep players under control until they are past their prime. These things were negotiated. I didn't get a vote.

Both sides understand it is strictly business by now... the innocence is gone. If the business side of things hasn't hit them in the eyes in year one... it will certainly cold cock them once they sit down with the Arbitrator as the team tears them apart to save a couple of million bucks.

So what's my interest? I want the players who suck... gone and I want the players with skill playing for my team as long as possible. According to the CBA, to which I have no representation, I have to tolerate all bad contracts, but my good contracts have a shelf life. I have to put up with players getting paid and throwing 85MPH and I have to put up with players struggling for 3 years of precious service time so he can get good right before he says goodbye.

My interest is very uncomplicated. I want the players I want, playing for my team as long as possible. That is what is best for me.I am simply not concerned if Acuna makes 600K or 27 Million or if he reaches free agency at 26 or 27 or 32. I will trade 17 days of rookie ball in April for a full season in a players prime every single time. You can't compare 17 days in April to a full year in a players prime without recognizing how lopsided of a no-brainer decision it is. I am not bound by slight of hand or public relations. I don't have to say that the reason is defensive work, the player isn't ready or he needs rest for better health with a straight face. I can scream from the mountain tops without reservation or apology. "I WANT THE EXTRA YEAR" for my benefit and I deserve it.

And the negotiated CBA states that I can have it.

Did the players union negotiate a bad deal? Yes... they failed to see the future but at the time, they got what they wanted. They didn't see the Ivy league front offices doing cost per analysis down the road. It changed everything and the next CBA is going to be a nightmare when the players union tries to get things back in their favor. And once again... I won't have representation at the next CBA negotiation table either. Meaning... when they go into a lock out or strike... I'll have to sit there and take it.

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?

[Riverbrian]

 

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'm currently indifferent to service time manipulation. I don't have to have an opinion on it. 

 

It's there and all teams use it to their advantage... I don't want my team "not taking" advantage of that advantage while all the other teams are... because that would end up being a disadvantage to my team and therefore me. Keep in mind, I hold no illusions that players will give a preferred team discount when they hit free agency because we were nice (or fair) to the player. It's a business and they have had no right until they hit free agency. 

 

If you want to know my true deep down feelings... it will throw you for a loop. It's so radical that the when I post it, the tomatoes will be thrown my direction. But here goes anyway. 

 

I would abolish the Rule 4 draft. Let the players sign with teams of their choosing at age 18, just like you and I do with our employment and let the market sort itself out. A young player can decide if he wants to sign with the Yankees or Marlins or attend LSU.

 

The Orioles might need a SS, however a young SS that is third on the depth chart in Houston can't apply for that job because the Astros own his rights. This will create that environment that you seek... the best players playing without future considerations complicating a fairly simple decision. Those future complications are only in place because of the CBA. Which is an agreed upon document between two entities trying to get the larger slice of the pie. The 18 year old baseball player has no representation. 

 

I'm not as pro-owner as I seem in my previous post... I consider myself more pro-player despite my previous post. I think that teams controlling the fates of players past their prime is that real crime and this is the case for the majority of the players. 

 

Service time manipulation? I don't care...it was collectively bargained and it only involves a small percentage of the work force. If a player is good enough to have his service time manipulated, he is already young and most likely able to hit free agency before 30 even with the extra year. I don't care because this small minority will be fine. 

 

In the case of Buxton. You call him Elite (Defensively)... I agree that he is elite defensively but his total game has not been and 3 years have burned waiting for Elite. I want the Extra Year because he will become Elite and we will have no time to enjoy it. The extra year is for me so I can enjoy it. 

 

In the case of Bryant... of course it was manipulation, I don't care about spin... people spin all the time... but you place too much faith in the "Good Faith" wording in the CBA. A good lawyer can argue that his plane was delayed for 17 days to get out of that one.

 

I'm standing here saying that I believe the Rule 4 draft should be abolished out of fairness to the players but since it won't be... the CBA sets the rules and guidelines to be followed and it has been agreed upon. If I was a GM or Owner, I'm using those rules and guidelines and getting the most out of them. Meaning my top prospect will hang tight for 17 days to gain the extra year because a full year in their prime is lopsidedly better than 17 days of rookie ball. The owners interest at this point aligns closer to mine... So here I am. 

[Don Walcott]

 

I'm currently indifferent to service time manipulation. I don't have to have an opinion on it. 

 

It's there and all teams use it to their advantage... I don't want my team "not taking" advantage of that advantage while all the other teams are... because that would end up being a disadvantage to my team and therefore me. Keep in mind, I hold no illusions that players will give a preferred team discount when they hit free agency because we were nice (or fair) to the player. It's a business and they have had no right until they hit free agency. 

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.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Don Walcott

[Riverbrian]

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.

That’s what I like about you Don. You are likely the only one interested in my opinion. That’s what my wife tells me anyway.

 

As a fan I want my star players in my uniform for as long as possible so I’ll take the extra year. That is where things are on an even playing field. Extra years are not only longer time to benefit from talent but they are also increased trade value during their service time because of the extra year of control.

 

Once they hit free agency we are immediately at a competitive disadvantage so the longer that can be delayed is better for me.

 

In a nutshell... as long as teams control rights to players... I’d just as soon control them as long as possible even though I am against teams controlling rights period.

 

I’m complicated ain’t I.

[stringer bell]

I mostly agree with Brian on this--I want to see Buxton in a Twins uni in 2022 much more than I needed to see him in September of 2018, when the Twins were out of contention. Further, Buxton's option to the minors was justified by his play on the field and his play in Triple A was not a golden ticket for return to the majors. To me, the Cubs were blatant in the Bryant case, while the Twins were ambiguous in Buxton's case.

 

I don't think we can blame Buxton for recklessness, it is not like he's driving dirt bikes at 150 mph, he happens to run faster than 99.99+% of us which makes his collisions with the ground or a wall much more dangerous. I hope he is able to stay on the field next year, although my faith is slipping with each new injury. Also, recovery from injury is something that can't be standardized for each person. Some heal faster than others. It isn't on Buxton that some of his injuries have taken longer to heal than similar injuries have for others.

 

Finally, I think it is unfair to demean Buxton's character. I've never seen video of his "rant", but from what was said, while it was ill-timed, I think the volume of Buck's dealing with management and media makes that incident an outlier and not a disqualifier. 

[Don Walcott]

 

I mostly agree with Brian on this--I want to see Buxton in a Twins uni in 2022 much more than I needed to see him in September of 2018, when the Twins were out of contention. Further, Buxton's option to the minors was justified by his play on the field and his play in Triple A was not a golden ticket for return to the majors. To me, the Cubs were blatant in the Bryant case, while the Twins were ambiguous in Buxton's case.

 

I don't think we can blame Buxton for recklessness, it is not like he's driving dirt bikes at 150 mph, he happens to run faster than 99.99+% of us which makes his collisions with the ground or a wall much more dangerous. I hope he is able to stay on the field next year, although my faith is slipping with each new injury. Also, recovery from injury is something that can't be standardized for each person. Some heal faster than others. It isn't on Buxton that some of his injuries have taken longer to heal than similar injuries have for others.

 

Finally, I think it is unfair to demean Buxton's character. I've never seen video of his "rant", but from what was said, while it was ill-timed, I think the volume of Buck's dealing with management and media makes that incident an outlier and not a disqualifier. 

. 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.

[Riverbrian]

. 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.

I don’t believe Bryant will win. Game over.

[Jham]

The CBA isn't negotiated by minor leaguers. The service time rules frees up more money for veterans. Every player thinks that they'll be one of the good ones that will get a big FA deal. So is it good or bad for players? As chief would say, "yes". It's also good AND bad for players. Good for vets but bad for talented rookies. Different strokes and such.

[Kelly Vance]

 

Have your other opinions if you want, but this right here is wrong. That is business and he played poorly. He put himself in that position and there was no obligation to bring him up. It's not something for nothing.

To say that "everyone" would have reacted that way is off base. I would not have reacted that way and I would guess a lot of others feel the same. His reaction was too pouty for me. Then for him to cry about "I don't know what they want from me"???

No way am I doing that. To assume otherwise about me is to assume I'm lying here and that is out of hand. Sorry

Pouty?   That decision by the FO cost the guy a few million bucks.   I bet you'd bitch over a thousand. I would too.   And remember, any team that wants that extra year of control feels the player is a star, and they wanna save that  few million.  They don't worry about years of control over utility infielders.  That is also why all those critics who try to say Buck ain't a special player are ignoring facts. Like his platinum glove and MVP votes.  I say, get real. You are dissing a guy that is a star and who has gotten hurt playing for your amusement. The negativity on Buck is bogus all around. The team had a right to do what they did. But don't expect Buck to like it. 

 

I hope Buck takes off and becomes  superstar and leaves the Twins first chance he gets for a better gig. It would send a message. 

[Kelly Vance]

 

That’s what I like about you Don. You are likely the only one interested in my opinion. That’s what my wife tells me anyway.

As a fan I want my star players in my uniform for as long as possible so I’ll take the extra year. That is where things are on an even playing field. Extra years are not only longer time to benefit from talent but they are also increased trade value during their service time because of the extra year of control.

Once they hit free agency we are immediately at a competitive disadvantage so the longer that can be delayed is better for me.

In a nutshell... as long as teams control rights to players... I’d just as soon control them as long as possible even though I am against teams controlling rights period.

I’m complicated ain’t I.

River, if you really want to see him in a Twins uniform for years to come, that one year may cause them  to lose the opportunity to sign him to a  five year extension. Think about it.  How you treat people matters. 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Kelly Vance

[Riverbrian]

 

River, if you really want to see him in a Twins uniform for years to come, that one year may cause them  to lose the opportunity to sign him to a  five year extension. Think about it.  How you treat people matters. 

 

Who knows but these players know it's a business. One trip through the arbitration process will show them that. If they don't learn it that way, his professional representation will teach him.

 

His business is Byron Buxton. 

 

He will look out for his best interests and if the the Twins offer him an extension that is better than what he believes he will make in free agency... he'll sign it. If they don't... he will become a free agent.

 

Turning down a better offer out of spite is bad business. Excepting a lesser offer out of loyalty is also bad business. 

 

 

[Don Walcott]

 

Who knows but these players know it's a business. One trip through the arbitration process will show them that. If they don't learn it that way, his professional representation will teach him.

 

His business is Byron Buxton. 

 

He will look out for his best interests and if the the Twins offer him an extension that is better than what he believes he will make in free agency... he'll sign it. If they don't... he will become a free agent.

 

Turning down a better offer out of spite is bad business. Excepting a lesser offer out of loyalty is also bad business. 

This is a very cynical point of view, but it explains a lot.

 

Hrbek turned down more money to stay in MN. I think that was good business for him (bet he's never had to buy a beer in MN). Mauer turned down more money to stay in MN. I think that was good business for him. Kirby could have made more money as well. I'll bet Tony Gwynn could have made more money  if he'd left San Diego. Johnny Damon could have been a hero in Boston, and now he's a zero in Boston. Those are just a few examples, but I believe there is a long-term value for players to stick with the same organization and the same fan base.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I mostly agree with Brian on this--I want to see Buxton in a Twins uni in 2022 much more than I needed to see him in September of 2018, when the Twins were out of contention. Further, Buxton's option to the minors was justified by his play on the field and his play in Triple A was not a golden ticket for return to the majors. To me, the Cubs were blatant in the Bryant case, while the Twins were ambiguous in Buxton's case.

 

 

This... so much this... Perhaps I'm in a minority here, but I'm of the opinion that Buxton and Bryant cannot even be compared.

 

Bryant was a star the moment he was called up. His worst season since 2015 when he was called up was an .834 OPS with 13 HRs in a little over 100 games in 2018. 

 

To put that in perspective, Buxton's best season in the same timeframe was this year posting a .827 OPS in just under 90 games. Think about that...

 

These two players do not compare at all. Buxton's play on the field is a big reason why his free agency has been delayed, which I'd add is precisely the reason service time rules exist... so that teams the develop a player can benefit from good play once the player plays well at MLB. 

[ewen21]

 

This... so much this... Perhaps I'm in a minority here, but I'm of the opinion that Buxton and Bryant cannot even be compared.

 

Bryant was a star the moment he was called up. His worst season since 2015 when he was called up was an .834 OPS with 13 HRs in a little over 100 games in 2018. 

 

To put that in perspective, Buxton's best season in the same timeframe was this year posting a .827 OPS in just under 90 games. Think about that...

 

These two players do not compare at all. Buxton's play on the field is a big reason why his free agency has been delayed, which I'd add is precisely the reason service time rules exist... so that teams the develop a player can benefit from good play once the player plays well at MLB. 

The discussion has gone off topic (although it has been an interesting read).

No way in the world are these two players comparable.  No matter how good Buxton is in the field he isn't good enough to counter the fact that he was beleaguered with injuries and migraines and hit .156 in his time with the team.  As a matter of fact, he was hitting .235 in Rochester as late as August 25th:

http://www.milb.com/player/index.jsp?player_id=621439#/gamelogs/R/hitting/2018/MINORS

 

To assert that the Twins somehow screwed him by keeping him down is absurd.  He had four good games in a row to get his average up to .272.  Four good games is raking?  Are we actually being serious?  Too little, too late.....AND the Twins were playing meaningless games.  With his luck that year he might have ran into a wall and nearly killed himself.  It was best to just send him home and let him do some soul searching.  

 

Byron Buxton's 2018 was about as big a disappointment I have seen from a player who was supposed to be on the rise as I have ever seen.  He needs to put the big boy pants on, learn how to hit more consistently and stay on the field.

 

I think the desire for Buxton to do well is so great here that some folks are accentuating the positives so much it muddies the big picture.

[Squirrel]

 

This... so much this... Perhaps I'm in a minority here, but I'm of the opinion that Buxton and Bryant cannot even be compared.

 

Bryant was a star the moment he was called up. His worst season since 2015 when he was called up was an .834 OPS with 13 HRs in a little over 100 games in 2018. 

 

To put that in perspective, Buxton's best season in the same timeframe was this year posting a .827 OPS in just under 90 games. Think about that...

 

These two players do not compare at all. Buxton's play on the field is a big reason why his free agency has been delayed, which I'd add is precisely the reason service time rules exist... so that teams the develop a player can benefit from good play once the player plays well at MLB. 

I agree that the players and the situations are not comparable, but is only in that there was service time manipulation. That's really the crux of the topic ... service time. In Bryant's case it was blatant, as someone said. There was nothing wrong with his play and it was obvious exactly what the Cubs were doing. Bryant was ready, he wasn't plagued by injury or poor play, he was ready, and his play that season proved it. The Cubs made some excuse of not being ready to send him down and called him up the minute they got that extra year control. While it might be to the letter of the law of the contract, it certainly wasn't in the spirit of it. I'm not sure Bryant will win his case because of that, but I think he has a case and has a grievance. Why make up excuses then? If by contract they can do what they did, then just say so? Why manufacture an excuse? And Bryant has turned down offers of extensions with the Cubs. I wouldn't be surprised if that blatant 'misuse' of the contract is a factor in that.

 

As for Buxton's service time, again, it's not the same situation. I think that was the sole reason for his not being called up ... because they wanted that year back. I think there is justification for doing so and don't think Buxton has a case for a grievance in the same way Bryant did. I think Buxton's case is as you said, why that exists in the contract. I don't particularly care for it, but I get it and understand.

 

But my question for GM's, is if you can do this rightfully, by the terms of the contract, then why not just say that's what you are doing? In Bryant's case it was obvious. By not just saying 'because we want the time of control, and the contract says we can take it', then why not just say it? Players who are affected by it will get upset, yes, but then that becomes an issue for the next negotiation, where it is clarified that the purpose for such a rule is for cases like Buxton's, but not for cases like Bryant's.

[ewen21]

How are we talking about "service time manipulation" with Buxton?

 

The guy hit .159 in 90 at bats with the big club, got injured a few tines and was hitting .235 in AAA going into August 26th.  He didn't play well enough and he was injured.  It was a lost season and that is all on him, not the Twins.

 

He would only look silly if he tried to file a grievance.  He needs to worry about his game more than anything else.

[Squirrel]

How are we talking about "service time manipulation" with Buxton?

 

Because that’s what the topic is about. And it was a manipulation, justified or not. If there weren’t a service time issue, he would have been up. But the two players’ situations were not the same.

[ewen21]

Because that’s what the topic is about. And it was a manipulation, justified or not.

If isn’t being talked about because it’s justified. The discussion only started because people feel he got screwed.