Passan: Buxton Willing To Waive No-Trade Clause

[SteveLV]

First, next year can't be any worse than the last halves of 2024 and 2025.  This team was atrocious!

Second, Tony&Rodney, I will be you a Target Field Hot Dog with all the fixin's that MLB loses games in 2027.  I think it is inevitable.

[bean5302]

3 hours ago, DJL44 said:

"Trying to figure out which one helps reduce the debt". One pitcher makes $22M and the other makes less than $6M. I think I can tell you which one helps reduce the debt more.

I still refuse to believe the debt is real. How could they possibly run up $100M in debt in one season with revenues over $300M and a player payroll less than $130M? Who is going to jail for embezzlement?

I think "the debt" is their excuse to slash and burn and make it seem like they were forced to do it. It's a deflection from having to rebuild because the front office failed to produce a contender.

The Twins' "debt" has nothing to do with the team's operations. The debt was acquired through other business transactions and failures where the Pohlad family used the Minnesota Twins as collateral.

As a fake example, the Pohlads use the Minnesota Twins as collateral to secure a $500MM loan in 2015 to buy a whole boatload of JC Penny stock before it went bankrupt. Now the Twins have a $500MM loan and no assets = the Minnesota Twins are $500MM in debt.

So whatever investments the Twins purchased with the loan the Pohlads took against the team could have tanked in value or the Pohlads could have taken out another $100MM in secured loans to finance other debt or investments last year. Has nothing to do with the team's operating expenses or profits.

[tony&rodney]

29 minutes ago, SteveLV said:

First, next year can't be any worse than the last halves of 2024 and 2025.  This team was atrocious!

Second, Tony&Rodney, I will be you a Target Field Hot Dog with all the fixin's that MLB loses games in 2027.  I think it is inevitable.

I'm pretty bullish on a number of Twins, particularly a couple of prospects and their pitching. I'm also adamant that the defense must be at least elevated enough to be slightly below average. Some moves need to be made. Things can always get worse but they won't. I really like the Twins dugout/coaching staff. I actually believe they will make a difference. Rolling out the current roster is not what I want to see in 2026. I'm still hopeful for change.

The entire uproar and forthcoming decisions on the Twins current stars needs to be resolved as a win. This can occur through trades or by keeping them and trading enough others in combination with a few key free agent pickups. As is usual the budget is a big deal. We just don't know and below $90M is a tough playground. It could be $120M though, which allows for a few additions.

As far as the bet goes, I have stated on numerous occasions going back months that some games in April could be lost, but zero games will be lost in May. My guess is the next CBA is completed by the end of January in 2027. Nevertheless, it is a worthwhile bet, I'll take it.

[SteveLV]

T&R, we are in complete agreement that they cannot simply roll out the same lineup that was so disastrous last half of the year--the stands would be empty.

I prefer an aggressive rebuild with basically anyone at or near 30 years old or on a short contract be shipped out and get younger, faster, and much better defensively.

A good example is Jeffers.  He is a decent C, a pretty good hitter at that position, but is in his last year, is represented by Boras, and is effectively gone.  Let's move him for young assets.  I suggested a package to the Mets to snag their 24 year old starting C Alvarez as an example of getting younger, and, hopefully, better down the road and GIVE THE FANS HOPE!

[Richie the Rally Goat]

17 hours ago, mnfireman said:

My guess is that Buxton is "willing to waive" the no-trade clause means that Falvey and Buxton have discussed the possibility and have agreed that any deal has to be beneficial to both team and player;

Falvey has to get a good return first, even then if Buxton doesn't want to go to that team - no deal.

Buxton picks a team he wants to go to if they can't meet Falvey's request - no deal. Other team sweetens the pot, but asks for more players from Twins that Falvey doesn't want to part with - no deal.

Nothing to see hear other than that the national sports media doesn't think that smaller market teams should have nice toys...

 

 

Agreed, I think part of this discussion between Falvey and Buxton was ‘26 budget and contention window.

again, nothing really new.

[DJL44]

10 hours ago, bean5302 said:

The Twins' "debt" has nothing to do with the team's operations. The debt was acquired through other business transactions and failures where the Pohlad family used the Minnesota Twins as collateral.

As a fake example, the Pohlads use the Minnesota Twins as collateral to secure a $500MM loan in 2015 to buy a whole boatload of JC Penny stock before it went bankrupt. Now the Twins have a $500MM loan and no assets = the Minnesota Twins are $500MM in debt.

So whatever investments the Twins purchased with the loan the Pohlads took against the team could have tanked in value or the Pohlads could have taken out another $100MM in secured loans to finance other debt or investments last year. Has nothing to do with the team's operating expenses or profits.

Ok. So they placed bad bets and lost $500M in a bull market and now the Twins fans of Minnesota need to suffer because of their bad business decisions. I don’t think Bernie Madoff hurt the Mets that badly.

[bean5302]

34 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Ok. So they placed bad bets and lost $500M in a bull market and now the Twins fans of Minnesota need to suffer because of their bad business decisions. I don’t think Bernie Madoff hurt the Mets that badly.

Not really. The debt doesn't directly hurt running the team since it has nothing to do with the team; it just restricts the owner's overall financial situation. Where the debt really hit hard was in selling the team to try to get out from under it.

If the Pohlads sold the Twins for $1.5B, that's $1.5B of pure gain. Taxes on that would be like $600MM. Net is now $900MM - $500MM of debt repayment = $400MM total net sale. Not enough to allow the Pohlads to do whatever it was they wanted to invest in next, I'm guessing. So that's why they've backed away from the sale. It doesn't really change their financial position/options enough.

The Pohlad family appears to be extremely risk averse when it comes to running companies in the red to grow market base, and they've made what I feel are poor decisions based on fear.

[Woof Bronzer]

37 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Ok. So they placed bad bets and lost $500M in a bull market and now the Twins fans of Minnesota need to suffer because of their bad business decisions. I don’t think Bernie Madoff hurt the Mets that badly.

More like, for years the Pohlads used the Twins as a debt shelter to hide the costs of their mismanagement/incompetency/lack of foresight.  They doubled down on commercial real estate when even pre COVID the writing was on the wall for that market, and continuing to double down through COVID, so now they are stuck with a huge portfolio of underperforming real estate assets.  They had to eat massive losses on Bring Me The News and B96, the 2 media properties that Joe Pohlad destroyed.  They likely still have some Target Field debt on the books too - billionaires hate paying for things with their own money.  But because the Twins books are private, the shell games they've been playing never came to light.

But, as a result of their chronic shortsightedness, they never considered that one day they might want to sell the team, and that the debt would come to light in the sale process - or, more likely/alarming, they didn't think it was a big deal and they would still get what they wanted because they're billionaires and billionaires always get whatever they want.  So here we are - stuck with an ownership group that is so grossly short-sighted and incompetent they do that they can't sell a company with a quarter billion dollars in guaranteed (subsidized) minimum annual revenues and a valuation that doubles every 10 years or so independent of performance. 

[Squirrel]

22 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

And today Passan, the most plugged in guy, declaratively said Buxton is willing to waive it for Atlanta (specifics!) and other teams. 

I thought that was something already stated at the end of season. It would make sense he’d say that. He’s from there, he lives there. Even though Passan gives it a 35% chance, I’d say the chance is 50-50. I kind of expect it so it’s not going to be surprising if it happens. Wont be surprised if it doesn’t.

And stop telling people they are in denial just because they don’t agree with you. It would be like me calling you a pessimistic doom seeker. We all have a point of view and at this point it is conjecture. It’s fine if you think it’s a done deal. It’s fine if others don’t. With or without Buxton, the team isn’t going to win this year or probably next. Who knows when.

[C-Gangster]

27 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

I thought that was something already stated at the end of season. It would make sense he’d say that. He’s from there, he lives there. Even though Passan gives it a 35% chance, I’d say the chance is 50-50. I kind of expect it so it’s not going to be surprising if it happens. Wont be surprised if it doesn’t.

And stop telling people they are in denial just because they don’t agree with you. It would be like me calling you a pessimistic doom seeker. We all have a point of view and at this point it is conjecture. It’s fine if you think it’s a done deal. It’s fine if others don’t. With or without Buxton, the team isn’t going to win this year or probably next. Who knows when.

I really think as long as we keep our current core and made a few small key signings we could have a chance to compete next year. Atleast a little. 

[Woof Bronzer]

2 minutes ago, C-Gangster said:

I really think as long as we keep our current core and made a few small key signings we could have a chance to compete next year. Atleast a little. 

The "current core" was the worst team in baseball post deadline.  

[DJL44]

55 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Not really. The debt doesn't directly hurt running the team since it has nothing to do with the team;

They're not "right sizing" the payroll to pay down the debt? Could have fooled me.

[Woof Bronzer]

28 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

They're not "right sizing" the payroll to pay down the debt? Could have fooled me.

Yeah I mean the debt is preventing the team from being sold and it is driving their plan to cut payroll and let the welfare flow in, so it has everything to do with the team's operations right now, even if the debt service isn't technically showing up on the Twins payroll.

[Chembry]

I was listening to a couple of podcasts yesterday and took away a few notes:

1. Ken Rosenthal stated on foul territory that he doesn't believe Buxton will waive his no trade clause unless Pablo and Ryan are traded.  AJ Pierzynski also stated he doesn't believe Buxton will waive his NTC.

2. Gleeman stated on his podcast that it's unclear if this is stemming from the Dan Hayes piece in the Athletic and just finally making its way to Jeff Passan, or if this is new information. 

 

[Twins_Fan_in_NJ]

I love Buxton's loyalty or at least his willingness to stay with the Twins. If I wasn't a Twins' fan, I'd say he's making a mistake. Someone like the Mets or Dodgers would love to have Buxton and he'd find himself playing for a legitimate WS contender. At this point in his career, he deserves that opportunity.

[Mike Sixel]

Do we think Buxton is dealt? If they deal him, they just have to deal Jeffers, Lopez, Ryan, right?
AvatarJason Martinez
2:48    I'll say probably not. The price will be (and should be) ridiculously high considering how good he was in 2025 and how team-friendly the contract is for the next 3 seasons. Even if they expect to go backwards for one more season, they'd have their homegrown superstar on a competitive roster for 2027 and 2028 with a lot of young talent and (hopefully) a higher payroll that allows them to add some impact players. For Buxton, it sounds like he'd be fine with that.

If they do trade him, it's really about which teams have the farm systems to acquire him. Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox all come to mind. But it will be costly. I'd guess 3 top-50 prospects and more.

 

Has any player been dealt for three top 50 players? I doubt it. This answer seems off to me. 

[Parfigliano]

14 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Do we think Buxton is dealt? If they deal him, they just have to deal Jeffers, Lopez, Ryan, right?
AvatarJason Martinez
2:48    I'll say probably not. The price will be (and should be) ridiculously high considering how good he was in 2025 and how team-friendly the contract is for the next 3 seasons. Even if they expect to go backwards for one more season, they'd have their homegrown superstar on a competitive roster for 2027 and 2028 with a lot of young talent and (hopefully) a higher payroll that allows them to add some impact players. For Buxton, it sounds like he'd be fine with that.

If they do trade him, it's really about which teams have the farm systems to acquire him. Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox all come to mind. But it will be costly. I'd guess 3 top-50 prospects and more.

 

Has any player been dealt for three top 50 players? I doubt it. This answer seems off to me. 

What leads anyone to believe TC is on the way to being competitive in '27 or '28?  Seriously.

[Riverbrian]

3 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Do we think Buxton is dealt? If they deal him, they just have to deal Jeffers, Lopez, Ryan, right?
AvatarJason Martinez
2:48    I'll say probably not. The price will be (and should be) ridiculously high considering how good he was in 2025 and how team-friendly the contract is for the next 3 seasons. Even if they expect to go backwards for one more season, they'd have their homegrown superstar on a competitive roster for 2027 and 2028 with a lot of young talent and (hopefully) a higher payroll that allows them to add some impact players. For Buxton, it sounds like he'd be fine with that.

If they do trade him, it's really about which teams have the farm systems to acquire him. Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox all come to mind. But it will be costly. I'd guess 3 top-50 prospects and more.

 

Has any player been dealt for three top 50 players? I doubt it. This answer seems off to me. 

Who knows but I feel compelled to say again.

His team friendly contract will probably not remain team friendly. 

In order to waive the no-trade clause his only leverage. He's going to renegotiate that team friendly contract so it isn't as friendly.

If Byron was a free agent this year... what would could he get? I don't know but that's what his agent will probably ask. 3 years at 25 AAV. Is that out of line for Buxton?  

That's his only leverage and he would have to be out of his mind to just give that up.  

That renegotiation is going to lower his trade value perhaps significantly so I'd say Jason Martinez didn't factor that in. 

Besides... How many teams actually have 3 top 50 prospects? 

 

[tony&rodney]

12 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Who knows but I feel compelled to say again.

His team friendly contract will probably not remain team friendly. 

In order to waive the no-trade clause his only leverage. He's going to renegotiate that team friendly contract so it isn't as friendly.

If Byron was a free agent this year... what would could he get? I don't know but that's what his agent will probably ask. 3 years at 25 AAV. Is that out of line for Buxton?  

That's his only leverage and he would have to be out of his mind to just give that up.  

That renegotiation is going to lower his trade value perhaps significantly so I'd say Jason Martinez didn't factor that in. 

Besides... How many teams actually have 3 top 50 prospects? 

 

Interesting take but he can only veto this year. Next year Buck could be traded to wherever (he can block 5 teams), so in light of that I doubt he worries about a new contract as much as playing where he wants to play.

You could be correct though and he certainly should ask for a little something if he is traded.  Something tells me that Buxton has every penny he ever wanted though and he is just looking to be healthy and get a chance to play in the playoffs.

[mnfireman]

Buxton currently has 9.160 years of MLB service, as soon as that clock hits 10, he can still block any trade as a 10/5 player, don't let that 5 team wording fool ya...

[Riverbrian]

25 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

Interesting take but he can only veto this year. Next year Buck could be traded to wherever (he can block 5 teams), so in light of that I doubt he worries about a new contract as much as playing where he wants to play.

You could be correct though and he certainly should ask for a little something if he is traded.  Something tells me that Buxton has every penny he ever wanted though and he is just looking to be healthy and get a chance to play in the playoffs.

Close but... 

Yes... the full no-trade clause in his contract does expire after 2026. Because the no trade is no longer necessary because he will have reached 10-5. 10 years of service and 5 with the same team gives him full no-trade protection. It doesn't need to be expressed in a contract.  

If he does waive his no-trade. His no-trade would be limited to 5 teams for the final years of the contract. 

If he waives this year. He gives up 10-5 rights and full no-trade protection unless he renegotiates full no trade into the new contract along with a hefty raise. 

There's a lot for Buxton to consider.  

 

[howeda7]

On 12/3/2025 at 8:38 AM, C-Gangster said:

I really think as long as we keep our current core and made a few small key signings we could have a chance to compete next year. Atleast a little. 

87 wins might win the division next year if the Tigers trade Skubal. 

[Parfigliano]

2 minutes ago, howeda7 said:

87 wins might win the division next year if the Tigers trade Skubal. 

TC 70 wins top.

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

Do we think Buxton is dealt? If they deal him, they just have to deal Jeffers, Lopez, Ryan, right?
AvatarJason Martinez
2:48    I'll say probably not. The price will be (and should be) ridiculously high considering how good he was in 2025 and how team-friendly the contract is for the next 3 seasons. Even if they expect to go backwards for one more season, they'd have their homegrown superstar on a competitive roster for 2027 and 2028 with a lot of young talent and (hopefully) a higher payroll that allows them to add some impact players. For Buxton, it sounds like he'd be fine with that.

If they do trade him, it's really about which teams have the farm systems to acquire him. Dodgers, Mets, Red Sox all come to mind. But it will be costly. I'd guess 3 top-50 prospects and more.

 

Has any player been dealt for three top 50 players? I doubt it. This answer seems off to me. 

That is a wildly high price to pay. Juan Soto (and Josh Bell) returned Luke Voit, C.J. Abrams, Robert Hassell, James Wood, MacKenzie Gore, and Jarlin Susana. 

Voit and Bell are essentially a wash, I think, so I'd call it Soto for Abrams, Hassell, Wood, Gore, and Susana. Gore and Abrams had already graduated so they're a little tough to gage in terms of prospect rankings, but the shine had come off Gore to where he was off most top 100 lists all together before his debut, but Abrams was a top 10-15 global prospect going into that 2022 season. Hassell was a top 50 guy then and Wood was a top 100 guy. Susana was a very low-level flier (looking quite good these days). 

So, I'd say 23-year-old Juan Soto didn't even bring back 3 top 50 guys. He brough back 3 top 100 guys and 2 other very well thought of guys, but not 3 top 50. 

Getting three top 50 prospects for Byron Buxton should win Falvey the executive of the year award the second that deal is approved by the league.

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

Who knows but I feel compelled to say again.

His team friendly contract will probably not remain team friendly. 

In order to waive the no-trade clause his only leverage. He's going to renegotiate that team friendly contract so it isn't as friendly.

If Byron was a free agent this year... what would could he get? I don't know but that's what his agent will probably ask. 3 years at 25 AAV. Is that out of line for Buxton?  

That's his only leverage and he would have to be out of his mind to just give that up.  

That renegotiation is going to lower his trade value perhaps significantly so I'd say Jason Martinez didn't factor that in. 

Besides... How many teams actually have 3 top 50 prospects? 

 

Wouldn't him being willing to waive the no trade be a pretty good sign he actively wants to be traded? I can't imagine he's waiving it for any reason other than he is essentially demanding a trade. If that's the case, why would he turn around and make it more difficult to trade him? Are there a lot of examples of guys waiving no trade clauses and then adding 10 mil a year more to their contracts before the trade? There's certainly some small changes that guys make, but something that big? I don't remember anything like that, but I'm getting old so the memory isn't what it used to be.

[tony&rodney]

48 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Close but... 

Yes... the full no-trade clause in his contract does expire after 2026. Because the no trade is no longer necessary because he will have reached 10-5. 10 years of service and 5 with the same team gives him full no-trade protection. It doesn't need to be expressed in a contract.  

If he does waive his no-trade. His no-trade would be limited to 5 teams for the final years of the contract. 

If he waives this year. He gives up 10-5 rights and full no-trade protection unless he renegotiates full no trade into the new contract along with a hefty raise. 

There's a lot for Buxton to consider.  

 

In other article on Twins Daily it was stated he reaches the 10-5 with the beginning of the 2027 season. I will admit I don't know the exact date. In any event I hope Buck stays. He may ask for a trade based on what happens with Ryan and/or Lopez. It is a tough time to be a Twins fan.

[tony&rodney]

20 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

That is a wildly high price to pay. Juan Soto (and Josh Bell) returned Luke Voit, C.J. Abrams, Robert Hassell, James Wood, MacKenzie Gore, and Jarlin Susana. 

Voit and Bell are essentially a wash, I think, so I'd call it Soto for Abrams, Hassell, Wood, Gore, and Susana. Gore and Abrams had already graduated so they're a little tough to gage in terms of prospect rankings, but the shine had come off Gore to where he was off most top 100 lists all together before his debut, but Abrams was a top 10-15 global prospect going into that 2022 season. Hassell was a top 50 guy then and Wood was a top 100 guy. Susana was a very low-level flier (looking quite good these days). 

So, I'd say 23-year-old Juan Soto didn't even bring back 3 top 50 guys. He brough back 3 top 100 guys and 2 other very well thought of guys, but not 3 top 50. 

Getting three top 50 prospects for Byron Buxton should win Falvey the executive of the year award the second that deal is approved by the league.

I thought that was a high price as well. I hope the Twins manage to keep Buxton but there should be some really good offers. Teams are so reluctant to trade prospects and then finish the year short a player or two in the playoffs. Detroit and the New York teams will be calling.

San Diego did give up quite a haul though. Abrams was 60 with all of Hassell, Gore, and Wood at 55 via MLB. Susanna was a 50. By the end of 2022 Fangraphs had Wood at 60 and #9 as a top global prospect. It was an amazing trade. Preller likes to roll the dice. San Diego has been super competitive and fills the stadium too, drawing 3.43 miilion last year.

We might be surprised by what Buxton returns. I just don't have any feel for his value. I do know he has more value than both Wallner and Ober, who are valued higher via BBTV.

What do you think Buxton has in the way of value for another team?

[Riverbrian]

42 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Wouldn't him being willing to waive the no trade be a pretty good sign he actively wants to be traded? I can't imagine he's waiving it for any reason other than he is essentially demanding a trade. If that's the case, why would he turn around and make it more difficult to trade him? Are there a lot of examples of guys waiving no trade clauses and then adding 10 mil a year more to their contracts before the trade? There's certainly some small changes that guys make, but something that big? I don't remember anything like that, but I'm getting old so the memory isn't what it used to be.

Off the top of my head.

Johan Santana had a NTC

The Mets had to negotiate a 6 year deal prior to the trade or something like that? 150 million or so. I don't remember exactly and I don't remember what he was making with the Twins but it was nowhere near the 20 plus million AAV with the Mets. 

I see the Buxton news (if you call it that) differently.

I've said this before.

If I was in Buxton's shoes. I've been a Twins fan since before I was born in 1965. I wouldn't want to play for any other team. That's how big a Twins fan I am and I am a loyal guy... have always been.

However... despite all of that... I would let the club know that I would... Yeah... Of course consider waiving my NTC if the team was willing to blow my doors off.

It will be the only chance for Buxton to renegotiate his (what many call) team friendly deal. He's coming off his only healthy season. It would kind of naive to not at least consider waiving it without hearing what other teams are willing to offer you to waive it and play for them.    

Being inflexible would be a mistake. I can only guess but if the Mets are willing to increase his AAV and add an extra year... what you really turn down 55 million for Minnesota loyalty? He's certainly not getting anything like that with his next contract. 

Now... the other side of this is the Twins. If the Mets or Phillies agreed to add an extra year and increase his AAV significantly. They won't give the Twins the talent back in return for a trade.

So if I'm the Twins... I won't take the trade. You are better off with Buxton remaining and hopefully retiring a Twin. 

All we can do as fans is endure the rumors until something happens. Buxton will have to express to the Twins what he would require so they can negotiate a trade with the new parameters but the negotation hasn't happened yet and those agents might turn around and say... Yeah... that's what I told the Twins but to live in New York... I'm going to need more and now the Mets don't like the trade.  

In the end... if he leaves... he leaves. The franchise will go on. But... a lot of things have to be sorted out and yeah... he probably won't get that statue in the plaza. 

One more thing... in regards to his NTC rights. If he waives it... he is unprotected for the next two years. He can list 5 teams and that's it. He might take that deal with the Dodgers but the Dodgers can turn around and trade him to Pittsburgh. 

 

[The Great Hambino]

30 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Wouldn't him being willing to waive the no trade be a pretty good sign he actively wants to be traded? I can't imagine he's waiving it for any reason other than he is essentially demanding a trade. If that's the case, why would he turn around and make it more difficult to trade him? Are there a lot of examples of guys waiving no trade clauses and then adding 10 mil a year more to their contracts before the trade? There's certainly some small changes that guys make, but something that big? I don't remember anything like that, but I'm getting old so the memory isn't what it used to be.

He might actively want to be traded.  He also might just be testing the waters on what his options might be if he were to waive it.  He's not making any firm commitments; he can at any time say "no thanks" to whatever's presented to him.  Plus, the Twins likely aren't going to seriously entertain any offers if they don't think he'd be willing to waive it, so he would need to make his willingness known in order to know what those offers might be.

So I don't think being willing to waive it makes him the Meesta Meesta lady from Happy Gilmore.  It's just a way to make the most informed decision he can.

I also don't think he'd be able to get bumped up to his free agent market price since that would remove any surplus value in obtaining him, unless the market for centerfielders really dries up and a free spender gets desperate.  He would likely accept something below market since it would still represent an increase.  Besides, the contract he signed was pretty unique in that its base value was well below market but still included a full no-trade.  It might be hard to find a historical comp for that kind of a deal.

[Riverbrian]

2 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

He might actively want to be traded.  He also might just be testing the waters on what his options might be if he were to waive it.  He's not making any firm commitments; he can at any time say "no thanks" to whatever's presented to him.  Plus, the Twins likely aren't going to seriously entertain any offers if they don't think he'd be willing to waive it, so he would need to make his willingness known in order to know what those offers might be.

So I don't think being willing to waive it makes him the Meesta Meesta lady from Happy Gilmore.  It's just a way to make the most informed decision he can.

I also don't think he'd be able to get bumped up to his free agent market price since that would remove any surplus value in obtaining him, unless the market for centerfielders really dries up and a free spender gets desperate.  He would likely accept something below market since it would still represent an increase.  Besides, the contract he signed was pretty unique in that its base value was well below market but still included a full no-trade.  It might be hard to find a historical comp for that kind of a deal.

Be willing to waive it is just plain smart.

Regardless if he wants out or not.