TheLeviathan

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.

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.