TheLeviathan

Yeah, I agree it wasn't a good example, but there are good examples of contracts that hamstrung a team. Dexter Fowler, Albert Pujols, etc. It can have a demonstrably bad outcome for your team to sign someone who takes a big chunk of your budget and adds nothing. Which is why it's absolute nonsense for some in these threads to suggest 150M guaranteed is the low end of what he'd be offered. No one wants to get Pujols'd. Byron and his agent seem to understand this, which is why we seem to be in a battle of 80M vs. 110M with at least one side expressing optimism we can get a deal done. The Twins are in the ballpark of a fair offer, let's hope they are willing to bridge the gap, even if the risk is high.

I can get behind almost all of this. He is valuable when on the field and I do think the Twins would be making a worthy gamble to give him 100M plus incentives. Where I will disagree is the idea that 15/20M in dead money isn't a problem, it almost certainly would be. But I believe it is a gamble worth taking if you can keep the guarantees around 15M per year. Even then, I wouldn't put good odds on us looking back at the contract in 2026 and feeling good about it.

I'd be guaranteeing 52M. If Byron Buxton thought he could guarantee himself a lot more than what the Twins are offering.....they wouldn't be actively negotiating around the known offers. As Hayes implied in his story, the team and Byron agree on large components of the contract the team offered. That alone should tell people what the actual market might pay. Turning down close to 100M has a very high risk of being the last time that much money is on the table for him.

I think we are negotiating against our own difficult situation more than the rest of the league. Mike's 3/45 idea seems right for the market so if I'm the Twins I offer 7/91 with easy incentives to double that by PAs. But I also demand a 4th year opt out as safety against his risks. The Twins would basically be offering double what anyone else would guarantee for his risk level so I feel like that is a fair compromise.

I can see not loving some of these deals considering we are packaging two players, but getting 32nd and 68th best prospects in the same deal is hard to call "light" either. Most teams literally can't offer anything as good or better than that.

I would listen, but I don't think anyone is going to pay enough to make me move a versatile, good fielder, good hitter with a good contract.

It is absolutely all over the two threads. You haven't, which is why I engaged with your totally reasonable 3/45 idea.

3 and 45 is 15M base. 7 and 80 is 11.5M base. It's not that off, especially depending on the incentives. Do I understand why Buxton turns it down? Absolutely. Do I want a piece of whatever delicious intoxicant people are using to suggest he can get 150M guaranteed? Also absolutely.

3/45 with attainable incentives doesn't seem that different than what we know they offered though right? Certainly not insultingly different considering it literally guarantees nearly double that much money. (At a lower AAV of course, but that's the trade off)

Well, we know they went from 7/73 to 7/80 right? Sounds like they guaranteed another 1M per season. We don't know what the offers and incentives were and that makes a huge difference in evaluating things. Where I disagree with you is what the market will yield. Buxton will not get 7 years unless he takes a huge hit in guarantees (much like the offer structure we see). If he takes short term deals he might get a good AAV, but if the injuries persist he may not get another deal. That's the risk, but I guarantee you that Buxton will not get 150M guaranteed. No chance. Too many posters here seem to be too close to the situation for an objective analysis.

I encourage you to find Van's laundry list of lost games on the way to the hundreds and hundreds of lost games by Buxton. I don't care if they are nagging or not, its brutal. I agree about his age being a major positive for Buck, but his game is built on speed. There is no profile of a player more likely to decline with age than one whose game is built on speed. Buxton's hitting has been great in only a smattering or the smattering of at-bats he has actually been healthy. Without his speed, Buxton is a significantly less valuable player. And his speed will decline.

Teams that don't offer anything close to fair market don't often get counter-offers. Your idea of the market does not seem accurate to the actual, current market.

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.