TheLeviathan

Buxton has less track record and worse injuries than Donaldson. And Donaldson had to scrape to get a four year deal while Buxton is getting offered 7. And, yes, he could blow what they offered out of the water in 3-4 years. He might also be so injured and declining that he doesn't earn half of it.

I agree with many of you that it's very hard to peg what he'd get, but I'm pretty confident of a few things: 1. Anyone who gives Buxton a contract term beyond 3 years is going to want it heavily incentivized, with a lot of outs, or with a lower AAV. Possibly all of those things. He won't get a deal longer than 3 years without at least significant protections of that nature. Again, this is how teams behave now. The free agent spending binges of years past are not the same. 2. The only way he gets anywhere close to a $20M AAV is on a 1-2 year deal with mutual options and other protections that the team will insist on in order to swing for the fences. They won't box themselves in. I don't think people are looking at the current pay rate of centerfielders in the league when they think he's getting 150 or 200M guaranteed. That's just not reasonable. If he had no history or injuries, sure. But Buxton's track record is ugly and teams are gun-shy when there are red flags. GMs know they keep their jobs, in part, by protecting the owner's pocket book from ugly contracts. On top of that, I think a lot of this fanbase is still in love with the myth of Byron Buxton. He's such a likable player and so easy to root for and it doesn't help that he fuels that for 40 games a season when he's just phenomenal, but GMs can't be starry-eyed fans. The sober take on this guy is that guarantees in his next contract are going to be few and far between unless he makes significant sacrifices in other areas of the deal.

Except there is significant risk in that. And Hayes said part of his reason for rejecting it was more security in the back end of the deal.

Before we rush to call the Twins cheap skates, shouldn't we know a bit more about the "unique incentives package" and Buxton's counter-offer? Hayes seems to hint that Buxton wants more assured money in case he gets hurt again, which is totally reasonable, but isn't it also reasonable for the team to be wary of that? If the incentives are low-ball and meaningless, then I'd say the Twins are being cheap. If, however, he can hit 20M a year by just getting on the field, say, 60% of the time than I'd say they aren't being cheap at all. Only ten players in the entire league have gotten contracts in free agency over 4 years in the last three offseasons. Only 5 that have gotten 7 years or more in term: Harper, Machado, Cole, Rendon, and Strasburg. Teams don't hand out deals like this much anymore, so it wouldn't take those incentives being all that elaborate for them to be well in line with MLB behavior right now. (I'd argue they would be acting very generously on the term aspect relative to the rest of the league)

I too will wait for the counter to leak.

Glad the team is selling. I wish Nellie the best but we need that DH spot for young hitters. These look like players worthy of starts the last two months. That, in my eyes, is very good value in return.

Team control is perhaps the most valuable commodity in the trade market.

Am I crazy or does this list only really have one contender in Simmons?

Love this piece. The season is lost....let's get weird and hope we get lucky!

I think one year is his most likely deal. A fat one year contract with some GM hoping to ride a lucky year of health to value. I don't think any GM who wants to retain their job gives him more than three years. Once you start getting past that point contracts can look like an albatross. Especially when the known track record is as bad as it is.

They will for sure take a shot at him, but what people are getting wrong around here (IMO) is that they think he'll get a long contract. Teams will blow a wad of cash in a short term deal, but no one is locking in to him for anything beyond that. A 6 year contract to Byron Buxton is the kind of thing that gets you fired in a few years.

Is it possible to very much agree with the conclusion while completely disowning the methodology?

Agreed, he's still valuable and on a relatively friendly deal. Plus it's a sell-low point.

It isn't coincidence.....it's July 6th and trade season. No grand conspiracy. If Donaldson is now a half time DH to stay on the field.....I'd argue that's even more reason to move on. The best argument for keeping him is as a full time, good fielding 3B.

Well... I guess I'm confused. Why do you have to dislike him to see the prudence in trading him? I love JD as a player and as a signing. I love Byron Buxton as a person and a player. Making decisions about the team shouldn't include those considerations if moving them is better for the team. This article is about being a GM, not a fanboy. Players age and with age comes increased issues with durability and health. And, yes, he continues to be a health liability just like when we acquired him. (the year in Atlanta off of which we signed him appears to be something of a health fluke) I make no argument we will be downgrading the position to some degree by trading him. Though, given his health issues and the available options, perhaps not as much as some would like to think.

"No reason at all" doesn't feel remotely fair or realistic. I can understand not wanting to move him, but there are plainly obvious reasons it would be prudent.

Well argued Nick and spot on IMO. I like Donaldson and have for a long, long time. (I LOVED that deal for Toronto way back in the olden days) Reality about injuries has to be part of planning your team and it's future and the combo of JD's age and his injuries since arriving are just too much to ignore. If you can free up room to add pitching, while adding some talent for him....you simply have to do it. It's a shame that signing didn't deliver what they thought it would, but you can let that romantic sunk cost decide your future.

Good god what a hideous baseball game.

The only unlikable thing about Donaldson is his inability to stay on the field.

I agree we can't draw specific conclusions and in general I agree with your analysis. But I think the most comparable player to Buxton is Josh Donaldson, except that Buxton has even larger red flags in his profile than Donaldson. There are a couple other factors involved on both sides (Donaldson with a much more established track record of production, Buxton younger, etc.) but I have a really, really hard time believing any GM looking to keep his job is going to give 5 years of term, with no conditions, to a player so incapable of staying on the field. I think it's highly likely he has to accept the shorter "make good" deals unless he comes back from this most recent injury and is an ironman until FA next year. Then all bets are off.

The open market should inform any action you take. Otherwise you are bidding against yourself/your own desperation/player's delusion. If that's the case I don't see why you would entertain the idea at all.

What if he's not getting anything close to that kind of term? Teams have shifted to being willing to pay higher AAV at the expense of term because they've started to realize large, short contracts are less likely to become franchise-killers. I could see someone giving Buxton a healthy "make good" contract with a shocking AAV. What I can't see is anyone want to budge on keeping the term incredibly short because of the enormous risk he carries.

Yeah we are all guessing. Hell....maybe he gets 6/180 if the next year and a half is healthy and amazing. But I think 3/70 is a more likely number given the significant risks and the trends league wide. Go ahead and pull up contract trackers over the last 5 years. Contracts over 4 years simply arent happening as much, much less with this level of risk.

Worth noting....the frequency of 5+ year deals has dramatically tailed off in recent years. Only the most elite players with few risks are getting contracts like that. I feel like a lot of these projections are ignoring a significant change in trends. Aaron Hicks was a much healthier player than Buck and that deal looks terrible now. Plus it has zero chance of being signed in today's market.

I think what the Twins gave Donaldson could be helpful. Donaldson was older with a much more established track record of success but got 4/92. I think he is far more likely to see short term, make good offers as teams hesitate to invest in free agency in general, much less players with huge red flags.