TheLeviathan

Well, I like that this signals Cave isn't plan B at CF. But now we, you know, actually need one.

It also explains the sliding, wrist injuries of the past. He has had some bad luck injuries but a ton of them seem to be preventable with better technique and measured aggression.

Or....we could find comparisons that are more applicable to the situation. Molitor was Cal Ripkian compared to Buck.

I think Joe Mauer is the right comp in many ways. We had to sign Mauer and signing him was the right move. But we signed him knowing that there could be serious regression and a good chance he couldn't play catcher his entire term of the deal. Nevertheless it was the right move. Buxton could absolutely flop and earn a tiny portion of this deal and it could be dead money by the end. It could also be an absolute windfall for this team. (Upside the Mauer deal didn't have!) Hell, it could even end up being both....a windfall early and an albatross late. All of those possibilities are part of the fair risk analysis. That analysis is why the Twins were able to land a 7 year, 15M AAV in the first place. There are serious risks. Serious upside. But I've always said....bet on upside. It's a good signing, let's hope we swoon over the results in 7 years.

This routine about Molitor is simply not true. Paul Molitor's early health situations were not nearly as extensive as Buxton's. That comparison has no merit.

It's definitely a win today! I'm all for it and excited we got it done. Hell, I've been on the conservative end with 7/115 in my offseason projection so to get in even further under? Huge win. But there is absolutely the potential we look back in disappointment. That in no way obligates us to change our mind and think we wouldn't do it over, just disappointed in the outcome. It's possible to acknowledge the risks while still being solidly in favor of the move. Jubilant even! But we do assess risks and should assess them in this case. Personally, I feel the upside relative to this cost is tremendous. There is serious downside, but not enough to sway me off that stance. I can see that downside happening, hell it may even be likely, but it doesn't change the value of the upside. So I'd sign that deal today and 7 years from now either way, but we may look back and be disappointed in how it all played out. I hope that isn't the case though!

Every contract comes with risk, no? So, yeah, there could be regret. Isn't that the risk evaluation we do in analyzing any trade or signing? All I've stressed is that I like this deal in full consideration of all the upside and downsides of it. I'm not living a fairytale that what happens from here is irrelevant. It is relevant. Hindsight won't change that I feel this is a great move, but I may end up sad it didn't pay off. Still right to do now. What is irrational is saying this deal is a win because nothing could go wrong. Including, as was mentioned, Buxton never actually playing and getting 100M. We agree that is nonsense right?

Yup, almost made that point above but I was long-winded enough, I don't want to encroach on @DocBauer's territory or anything.

Considering the future is how you make assessments about value in a contract. We need pitching but are you going to do cartwheels if we give Scherzer 14 years and 280M? Or how did your reaction to the Siemien contract change when you saw that it was 7 years? Having a rational conversation about this contract is hard right now because people are willing to say things as objectively preposterous as "If Buxton never has another PA, I won't complain". Now part of that kind of nonsense is just poor reading comprehension. No one is talking about using hindsight to look back and want to undo this deal, but assessing why it exists today requires the willingness to see the upside and downside in a contract. The same people who were wagering beer that Buxton was a 30M AAV guy are of course going to look at this differently because they were so, so wrong three months ago that of course this looks differently. It's part of a longstanding TD phenomenon in which Buxton is reality-proof. If that's your approach to the player your assessment of this deal is going to be similarly blinded/non-rational. If people want to be naively joyful, go ahead, but then they should just check out of the rational part of the discussion. Which is totally fine to do sometimes! To that end, al I was saying to the poster above, and it's still true now, is that the reason this deal is what it is relates to Buxton himself. Had he gone through another year of injuries he would've seen a fraction of this kind of guaranteed money next offseason. He's taking 100M in guarantees with incentives in part because he likes it here and also in part because his agents/reps clearly question how much will be out there in the future. Which means that there is also that downside here now that we've made this guarantee. We may see that his injuries persist and this contract ends up not paying off the way we hope. In 6 years we may have remorse that it didn't pay off. Not that we shouldn't have signed it, just remorse that this talented kid never did pay off on all that potential. We may also look back and see this as the move that won us a World Series because we got a star at a discount rate. Both possibilities are very, very real and that's why this deal looks the way it does. I get being euphoric because it's Buxton. At the same time, that's also not a real fair way to assess this move.

Depending upon his production I think that's very plausible. It's partly why I'm so in favor of the gamble.

You won't have remorse that Buxton couldn't live out that contract or be what we hoped he could be? That sounds implausible. We could look back in 5 years, not with remorse that we did it, but with remorse that it didn't work. I would hope any Twins fan would be upset that we never get another PA out of Buxton. That's demonstrably bad for us as fans, for the team, and for Buxton himself. You can acknowledge downside or failure in a move without regretting the decision. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Yes. He could also continue to play 40% of the time and the deal is a failed gamble. It is an entirely plausible scenario that we look back in remorse at this. But the right attitude is to look at weighing the upside vs downside. Both are very real, but the gamble is worth it IMO.

Trying to pretend those voices in the first paragraph were even remotely on par with the other end is silly. At the deadline, when extension talks hit the media, the factions were pretty clearly "seems about right" vs "80M is half what he'll get". And the threads from then back it up. A lot of offseason projections have been close, but there is plenty of crow to be had for those I referenced.

Well...some. We had a sizable contingent saying anything less than 150M was a slap in the face and he'd get at least 25M AAV. This deal says a lot about Buck wanting to be here. It also says a lot about what his agents thought would be available in FA.

Yes...baseball has other challenges. The contract issues could be mitigated by a cap and floor. Which is all I suggested. No magic cure, tanking is here to stay, just mitigate. NFL has tanking too. Just less nonsense because there arent 200M payroll differences between teams.

Um....no. Perfect parity isn't the goal. The NFL works because good (or bad) management is the largest determining factor. Teams rise and fall moreso on the basis of their choices than league structures. That's the best that can be hoped for. Teams still tank in the NFL too, but the issue is better mitigated there.

No league can fix perpetual mismanagement through their system. Nor can they (or should they) limit success if you draft a GOAT in the 5th round.

Teams are definitely trying to lose. As long as there are structures in place to help teams with poor talent improve their state (and there has to be) there will be incentive to lose. Too many leagues try too many things to eliminate this behavior in mostly gimmicky, ineffective ways. The only thing you can do is have a salary cap and a salary floor and hope for parity. That's the NFL model and it works.

I think this needs to get pointed out more often. Those that want to sign Buxton to the contract numbers floating around (to which I am included, I put mine at 7 years, 119M)....it's simply not fair to anyone in these discussions to frame 80M as "cut rate" or "lowball". Given Byron's injury history it really isn't that far off. We're talking a couple million a year, not half what he wants. The Twins need to stop tip-toeing around contract negotiations looking to get big wins and meet players at the table without all of the "Death by a thousand cuts" negotiating. It may have been a factor for Berrios, it may be a factor now with Buck. But it needs to be repeated.....80 million dollars guaranteed for a guy with his track record is not an insult. Clearly it favors one side, but it's in the ballpark of discussions. In fact, Buxton's side has acknowledged this through the media in back channels. Now the Twins just need to put on the big boy pants and finish the contract.

I would more politely agree that the FA prices here are too low. Stroman is at least 5M short, probably more. Gray is 5M short. I think Baez is 5M short. That puts this closer to 155M, which should still be in the realm of possibility IMO.

There is no one giving Buxton 30M. He might get between 20-25M on a one year deal with options, but that's it. Baseball does not hand out big contracts - term or AAV - to guys with this many red flags. An extension should have a base around 16-18M with incentives that can reach 25M.

Worrying about Colorado players is not unreasonable. However, Gray has a history that ranges from Average Pitcher to Stone Cold Bad Ass Pitcher. He is a bit erratic on that spectrum, but I don't see a single starter on the FA list with as much potential to make his contract look like a steal as he does.

Jon Gray is not a "back end" starter by any rational use of that term. If someone of Gray's quality (and moderate upside) isn't good enough to be appealing I don't know what you think is reasonably possible to do.

None, I think they'll have to eat about 7M for the next two years. That's still 18M a year to play with though. And yeah, if they Terry Ryan that money away it will be a terrible move.

The Twins didn't have a ready to go 3B at the time IMO with Sano moving to 1B. Right now we have Miranda or Arraez as options, so to me the situation is a bit different.