THE ATHLETIC: Buxton, Twins Cannot Come to Terms on an Extension

[D.C Twins]

3 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

1. I disagree that Buxton would get significantly more on the open market--there are teams out there willing to guarantee well into the 9 figures for a guy who has only played more than 100 games once, only has one month out of his entire career where he played at a superstar level, and is turning 28 this offseason?  I'm sure there are teams who would go higher than 7/$80M, but the idea that Buxton will get multiple 7/$140M+ offers I find far-fetched.  Not impossible, mind you, but unlikely.  As for the Hicks comp, in the three years before he signed the contract, Hicks had 1,300 PA's and put up 8.2 WAR.  In 2018-2021 (which is the same number of maximum games), Buxton has 634 PA's, and put up 6.3 WAR.  Clearly, Buxton has a higher ceiling than Hicks, but has been far less available, which offsets that.  Hicks as a starting point is actually quite logical.

2. Your proposed offer is probably much more than what his WAR is likely to warrant.  Everyone wants to use the $8M-$10M/WAR figure, but that's only for free agency.  In reality, 1 WAR actually costs about $4M (in 2019, MLB salaries were around $4B, and all MLB combined for 1,000 WAR).  As such, for $25M a year, Buxton needs to put up at least 6 WAR every year to actually be worth it.  Is he capable of doing that in 110-120 games?  At April 2021 rates of production, absolutely.  Any other point of his career?  Not even close.  Combine the elevated potential for decline (combination of accumulating injuries plus the fact he is now past his physical peak), and your proposed contract is a giant risk.

The Twins are offering (as best we can tell, unless we get insight into the incentives) a very appropriate deal, given the vast chasm between the worst case and best case scenarios for the next 7 years of Buxton's career.

Buxton WILL get multiple offers for guaranteed money > 100 million on the open market.

Again, it is not about if you think he SHOULD get those offers... He WILL get them.

I have no problem with the Twins FO/ownership determining that the risk/reward is unacceptable (after all... they should be experts in such things)

Just spare me the nonsense that 70-80 million guaranteed over 7 years is a serious market value offer. If that your 'offer' just be honest with the fan base and tell them you don't think the risk is worth the potential reward!

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 minute ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I've seen it, and you won't get any argument from me that it's anything but brutal. 

I agree, I just don't see him falling off a cliff during his age 27-30 or 31 seasons. 

But you're also assuming that Buxton continues to hit like he did in April of this year, which he literally has never done before.  Maybe everything did finally click for him, and it won't matter how the league tries to adjust, he will just literally continue, when healthy, to be the best hitter in baseball--his wRC+ this year is 10% better than Mike Trout, in the year in which Mike Trout was putting up the best wRC+ of his career.  But I would be really leery of assuming Byron Buxton is now a superior player to peak Mike Trout, so I think he probably does fall off a cliff quite soon, all the way down to say the 130 wRC+ level.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that, combined with his defense, that still makes Buxton a very valuable player.  But some of the other players around 130 wRC+ this year are Ji-Man Choi, Franmil Reyes, Patrick Wisdom, and Adam Frazier.  Should any of those players be paid $20M to $25M a year?

[D.C Twins]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

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.

We don't know what the counter offer was.... I suspect they just tossed something back ludicrously high to highlight how ridiculous the Twins offer was.

Anyhoo, I promise you that Buxton will not be signing an extension with the Twins and it is OK if the Twins think the risk>reward.... I just ask that they be honest with it instead of face saving low ball offers.

[Cap'n Piranha]

4 minutes ago, D.C Twins said:

Buxton WILL get multiple offers for guaranteed money > 100 million on the open market.

Again, it is not about if you think he SHOULD get those offers... He WILL get them.

I have no problem with the Twins FO/ownership determining that the risk/reward is unacceptable (after all... they should be experts in such things)

Just spare me the nonsense that 70-80 million guaranteed over 7 years is a serious market value offer. If that his your 'offer' just be honest with the fan base and tell them you don't think the risk is worth the potential reward!

Maybe.  He's taking an awfully big bet on being able to show any improvement on the health front, while simultaneously playing like one of the 20-30 best players in baseball (at least).

Baseball teams are generally smart, and tend to be risk averse.  Your undoubted belief that not just one, but multiple teams will ignore the Chinese Parade amount of red flags attached to Buxton, especially if his production declines (it would be hard not to) or his speed starts to dissipate (more than likely).

$70M-$80M over 7 years is absolutely a market value deal IF the incentives are appropriate.  Clearly, Buxton disagreed, as is his right.  But to pretend like there is no chance that the offer the Twins just made is better than any offer he gets in 15 months is not tethered in reality, particularly if the QO sticks around, or maybe even gets strengthened.  Is it a foregone conclusion that a team woudl offer $100M guaranteed, PLUS $60M-$80M in incentives, PLUS lose 1 or more draft picks, all for a guy that had less than 500 PA's in the last two seasons combined, shook out to an OPS in the .800's, and was losing his best skill (speed)?

[Cap'n Piranha]

6 minutes ago, D.C Twins said:

We don't know what the counter offer was.... I suspect they just tossed something back ludicrously high to highlight how ridiculous the Twins offer was.

Anyhoo, I promise you that Buxton will not be signing an extension with the Twins and it is OK if the Twins think the risk>reward.... I just ask that they be honest with it instead of face saving low ball offers.

Again, without knowing the incentives, how can you possibly claim the Twins offer was lowball?  What if the Twins said that Buxton gets $5M for reaching 500 PA's, another $5M for 600 PA's, $2M for being in the top 10 of MVP voting, $5M for Top 5, and $10M for winning it?  That would mean a minimum of $15M more for every MVP winning season, and probably more like $20M more.  The 500 PA's would equate to about 125 games--the only time Buxton has hit 500 PA's in the majors, he put up 3.6 WAR--a minimum of $16M for that production is not unreasonable, given the going rate of WAR at $4M

[KirbyDome89]

45 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Buxton's displeasure with the back end protection signals he either A--fully believes he'll get a better deal (which is not the same as these incentives/escalators not being great), or B--it's a negotiating position to try and get the Twins to sweeten their offer yet again.  Since they've already done it once in this most recent round, perhaps he's hoping to get back on the field by mid-August, and put up 6 more good weeks, making April seem more indicative of future results.  If so, maybe he hopes to get an offer from the Twins in the offseason for 7/$90M with enhanced incentives.

The max value of the Twins contract has to be in at least the $120M range (if $80 is guaranteed, do you really think there's any less than $40M in incentives), and is probably more in the $140M range.  DO you really think someone will give Buxton a contract that could be worth at least $120M in only 4 years?  I don't think anyone is going to guarantee Buxton more than $15M a year over the next 3-4 years, which means he'd need another $15M a year in incentives to hit that amount--seems plausible but unlikely, particularly if he has yet another injury-marred season in 2022.  If he also returns to an OPS in the .800's, while showing the first signs of declining speed?  I would imagine he would rue the day he declined the Twins offer.

If the escalators are easily attainable and he can reach $20M+ that's a slam dunk. I think we'd all agree he isn't getting 7 years $140M+ in FA. 

What's your basis for these numbers?

32 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Since 2013, here are Donaldson's PA numbers, through 2019--668, 695, 711, 700, 496, 219, 659.  In that span, he had one season over 8 WAR, 2 more over 7, and 2 more over 5 (a third was at 4.9).

Since he debuted in 2015, here are Buxton's combined MLB/MiLB PA numbers--465, 540, 524, 246, 298, 365 (2020 pro-rated), 175 (2021 pro-rated).  In 7 years, Buxton has averaged 373 PA's/year, while Donaldson (before signing the contract with the Twins) had averaged 593.  Buxton wishes he could trade his injury profile for Donaldson's nagging calf injuries.

Donaldson was also perceived as the final piece to push the Twins into WS contention--a lot easier to talk yourself into a huge contract when you expect that to help you potentially get a flag, as opposed to when you're coming off 90 losses.

So I prefaced the comp by saying it wasn't perfect and Donaldson's past success far outweighs Buxton's. The Josh Donaldson from '13 to '16 wasn't who the Twins were signing. The committed $21M annually to a 34 year old that had one healthy season in the last 3 due to nagging calf injuries. I have no issue with the signing, and Donaldson was and still is a talent. The point was the risk the Twins were willing to take. 

Whether it's a final piece or a premium position with no internal replacement (CF) I don't think it really matters. 

[KirbyDome89]

39 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

But you're also assuming that Buxton continues to hit like he did in April of this year, which he literally has never done before.  Maybe everything did finally click for him, and it won't matter how the league tries to adjust, he will just literally continue, when healthy, to be the best hitter in baseball--his wRC+ this year is 10% better than Mike Trout, in the year in which Mike Trout was putting up the best wRC+ of his career.  But I would be really leery of assuming Byron Buxton is now a superior player to peak Mike Trout, so I think he probably does fall off a cliff quite soon, all the way down to say the 130 wRC+ level.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that, combined with his defense, that still makes Buxton a very valuable player.  But some of the other players around 130 wRC+ this year are Ji-Man Choi, Franmil Reyes, Patrick Wisdom, and Adam Frazier.  Should any of those players be paid $20M to $25M a year?

Nope, that wasn't my assumption and I don't think anybody is making Trout comps. 

Spot on, he's an incredibly valuable player with the "when healthy," caveat. Big yikes if that's an actual argument you're making with those four names. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 minute ago, KirbyDome89 said:

If the escalators are easily attainable and he can reach $20M+ that's a slam dunk. I think we'd all agree he isn't getting 7 years $140M+ in FA. 

What's your basis for these numbers?

So I prefaced the comp by saying it wasn't perfect and Donaldson's past success far outweighs Buxton's. The Josh Donaldson from '13 to '16 wasn't who the Twins were signing. The committed $21M annually to a 34 year old that had one healthy season in the last 3 due to nagging calf injuries. I have no issue with the signing, and Donaldson was and still is a talent. The point was the risk the Twins were willing to take. 

Whether it's a final piece or a premium position with no internal replacement (CF) I don't think it really matters. 

No basis for the numbers other than educated guesses.  For the astronomical ceiling Buxton possesses, the incentives have to be robust.  They just have to be, otherwise Buxton's camp would have made them public, whether by leaking them, or just flat out telling a reporter.

Donaldson's second-least healthy season still featured more PA's than all but two of Buxton's.  The point is if we're going to continue to harp on how injury-prone Donaldson was when we signed him, what does it say that his average PA's over the 3 preceding years, including his two injured years, is still about 80% more than Buxton's last 3 years?  I'll help out--it says Buxton has not a bad injury history, but a catastrophic one.

Overall health of the team absolutely matters when dishing out big deals.  It makes no sense to pay $20M+ for a player so they can have you be an 85 loss team, instead of a 90 loss one.  If the Twins think they have an executable plan to get back to contention in each of the next 3 years, then sure, sign Buxton to help that happen.  If not, they're better off getting prospects, and avoiding the prospect of Buxton's contract  being an albatross.

[TheLeviathan]

39 minutes ago, D.C Twins said:

We don't know what the counter offer was.... I suspect they just tossed something back ludicrously high to highlight how ridiculous the Twins offer was.

Anyhoo, I promise you that Buxton will not be signing an extension with the Twins and it is OK if the Twins think the risk>reward.... I just ask that they be honest with it instead of face saving low ball offers.

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.

[Mike Sixel]

If I'm Bryon, I want 12-15 guaranteed....then easy incentives to get to 20, then more to get to 25-27.......

I still think he's dealt in the off season, gets an arbitration number, then goes to FA and gets 3/75 or so.

[Cap'n Piranha]

3 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Nope, that wasn't my assumption and I don't think anybody is making Trout comps. 

Spot on, he's an incredibly valuable player with the "when healthy," caveat. Big yikes if that's an actual argument you're making with those four names. 

That is indeed what you're positing here.  For Buxton to be worth $20M or more a year, he can't produce at a 130 wRC+ level, since you can't really count on him to play more than 100-120 games a year.  To validate that pay, Buxton either needs to start playing 150 a year, or play like Mike Trout for the 100-120 he's actually on the field, and that's the point I'm making--each of those 4 players has been a better offensive performer than Buxton ever had, until April 2021.  Buxton can offset that with defense sure, but that is based on speed, which is already in decline.  He's still elite, but he's already lost almost a foot/second since debuting.  As that decline accelerates, as it surely will, the onus for Buxton to perform offensively in order to remain an elite player only grows, and there is scant evidence outside of this April to suggest he can do that.

[Cap'n Piranha]

3 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

If I'm Bryon, I want 12-15 guaranteed....then easy incentives to get to 20, then more to get to 25-27.......

I still think he's dealt in the off season, gets an arbitration number, then goes to FA and gets 3/75 or so.

If what Byron truly wanted was say, 6/$90M, with $5M for 500 PA's, $5M more for 600 PA's, and a couple of kickers for all-star picks/MVP's, I would say do that deal today.

[D.C Twins]

1 hour ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Again, without knowing the incentives, how can you possibly claim the Twins offer was lowball?  What if the Twins said that Buxton gets $5M for reaching 500 PA's, another $5M for 600 PA's, $2M for being in the top 10 of MVP voting, $5M for Top 5, and $10M for winning it?  That would mean a minimum of $15M more for every MVP winning season, and probably more like $20M more.  The 500 PA's would equate to about 125 games--the only time Buxton has hit 500 PA's in the majors, he put up 3.6 WAR--a minimum of $16M for that production is not unreasonable, given the going rate of WAR at $4M

Don't distract yourselves with incentives.

Buxton and his agent will be focusing on guaranteed dollars for his one chance at a FA contract in his prime.

I would looooooove to sign Buxton to an incentive laden contract just like I'd love to only buy insurance only after I got sick or had an accident. 

Buxton and his agent already took the risk of waiting this long for FA, why on earth would they suddenly give that leverage away by taking an incentive laden extension and give up on FA? The Twins know this and knew he would never accept their 'offer'

I desperately want to keep Buck, it just isn't going to happen. I'm simply trying to infuse a does of reality and expectation management to the situation

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

If I'm Bryon, I want 12-15 guaranteed....then easy incentives to get to 20, then more to get to 25-27.......

I still think he's dealt in the off season, gets an arbitration number, then goes to FA and gets 3/75 or so.

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)

[Squirrel]

7 hours ago, Squirrel said:

So ... that's it? An offer (that we don't know all the specifics of), a counter (that we don't know specifics of), a counter-counter and done? Are we to assume that 'can't reach an agreement' implies that that's it? (I don't have a subscription to The Athletic, so can't read the article.) Wow, I've been involved with many negotiations over the years, and they have all taken more than that. If that truly is it, then, hmmm.

 

[Mike Sixel]

2 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

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)

 That average is way off. Way off. Also, three gives him another chance at free agency. Most everyone here said if it was 70 that it was four years, now we hear it is seven, and people think it makes sense for Byron?

[Brandon]

22 hours ago, Twodogs said:

So my thought process on this is why do negotiations need to stop at this point?  I mean why would the Twins draw a line in the sand and say if we don't have a deal done by this date then we are done negotiating?  I mean what value does that give the Twins?  So why would an article come out like this that basically says everyone failed in their negotiations? (Unless the Twins gave up for good?).  I mean why wouldn't the Twins and Buxton.....er his agent just keep the lines of communication open?  Doesnt really make sense to me.

Its not necessarily that they stop negotiations with Buxton but more that they are going to shift and see what they can get for Berrios before the deadline.  A Buxton agreement and they keep Berrios.

[howeda7]

2 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Again, without knowing the incentives, how can you possibly claim the Twins offer was lowball?  What if the Twins said that Buxton gets $5M for reaching 500 PA's, another $5M for 600 PA's, $2M for being in the top 10 of MVP voting, $5M for Top 5, and $10M for winning it?  That would mean a minimum of $15M more for every MVP winning season, and probably more like $20M more.  The 500 PA's would equate to about 125 games--the only time Buxton has hit 500 PA's in the majors, he put up 3.6 WAR--a minimum of $16M for that production is not unreasonable, given the going rate of WAR at $4M

Because even if they got to or above $20 million/year with incentives, he's not taking a contract that is 70% incentives. There are almost no comparable contracts structured that way for a prominent player. The player's union would frown upon it big time. $25 m per year with incentives is fair. They need to increase the guaranteed portion to at least $15-20 million/year. The ratio has to be at least 60-80% guaranteed and 20-40% incentives. Not the other way around.

[TheLeviathan]

24 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

 That average is way off. Way off. Also, three gives him another chance at free agency. Most everyone here said if it was 70 that it was four years, now we hear it is seven, and people think it makes sense for Byron?

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.

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

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.

Someone said that? I sure didn't. 

[TheLeviathan]

12 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Someone said that? I sure didn't. 

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

[KirbyDome89]

8 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

No basis for the numbers other than educated guesses.  For the astronomical ceiling Buxton possesses, the incentives have to be robust.  They just have to be, otherwise Buxton's camp would have made them public, whether by leaking them, or just flat out telling a reporter.

Donaldson's second-least healthy season still featured more PA's than all but two of Buxton's.  The point is if we're going to continue to harp on how injury-prone Donaldson was when we signed him, what does it say that his average PA's over the 3 preceding years, including his two injured years, is still about 80% more than Buxton's last 3 years?  I'll help out--it says Buxton has not a bad injury history, but a catastrophic one.

Overall health of the team absolutely matters when dishing out big deals.  It makes no sense to pay $20M+ for a player so they can have you be an 85 loss team, instead of a 90 loss one.  If the Twins think they have an executable plan to get back to contention in each of the next 3 years, then sure, sign Buxton to help that happen.  If not, they're better off getting prospects, and avoiding the prospect of Buxton's contract  being an albatross.

Buxton's camp also didn't disclose their own counter. Their silence doesn't mean anything right now.

Donaldson was 7 years older than Buxton and coming off two seasons where he missed 49 and 100+ games due to a lingering injury. There was serious concern, and rightfully so, about his ability to stay on the field at his age when he signed that deal, and we've already seen those concerns become reality. Again, the comp is the risk/financial commitment, not the career profile. 

The way to get from 90 losses to 85 is by having better players. There is no internal replacement for Buxton. 

[KirbyDome89]

8 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

That is indeed what you're positing here.  For Buxton to be worth $20M or more a year, he can't produce at a 130 wRC+ level, since you can't really count on him to play more than 100-120 games a year.  To validate that pay, Buxton either needs to start playing 150 a year, or play like Mike Trout for the 100-120 he's actually on the field, and that's the point I'm making--each of those 4 players has been a better offensive performer than Buxton ever had, until April 2021.  Buxton can offset that with defense sure, but that is based on speed, which is already in decline.  He's still elite, but he's already lost almost a foot/second since debuting.  As that decline accelerates, as it surely will, the onus for Buxton to perform offensively in order to remain an elite player only grows, and there is scant evidence outside of this April to suggest he can do that.

Well no, I'm not assuming Buxton needs to be the best hitter in baseball like he was in April. That was your addition. No, he doesn't need to rival Mike Trout offensively to be worth $20M. You can't just ignore the defensive value a player like Buxton brings. Where is this foot/second info coming from?

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-cost-of-a-win-in-free-agency-in-2020/

[USAFChief]

7 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

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.

I'll wager a 6 pack of Grain Belt Premium right now: if Buxton reaches free agency, he gets more than $150m guaranteed.

[Cap'n Piranha]

17 hours ago, D.C Twins said:

Don't distract yourselves with incentives.

Buxton and his agent will be focusing on guaranteed dollars for his one chance at a FA contract in his prime.

I would looooooove to sign Buxton to an incentive laden contract just like I'd love to only buy insurance only after I got sick or had an accident. 

Buxton and his agent already took the risk of waiting this long for FA, why on earth would they suddenly give that leverage away by taking an incentive laden extension and give up on FA? The Twins know this and knew he would never accept their 'offer'

I desperately want to keep Buck, it just isn't going to happen. I'm simply trying to infuse a does of reality and expectation management to the situation

Buxton and his agent can focus on guaranteed dollars all they want, but I would be surprised if he got much more than $100M in guarantees.  To get that a team will have to look at a guy about to turn 29 with a disastrous injury history about to lose his best asset--his speed, and decide to allocate over $20M a year for at least 5 years.  It's just not likely that will happen unless Buxton can have a relatively healthy 2022 season with high level production.

Buxton would love to sign a mostly guaranteed contract just like I would love to buy stocks that never decline in value, and split every 3 years.

It wasn't really a risk to wait this long when Buxton had never been a particularly accomplished player, other than on the defensive side of the ball.  Even last year, in his best offensive season, Buxton still had a .267 OBP, struck out 26.7% of the time, and only made 35.4% hard contact, with 20.8% soft contact.  As such, the extension offers from the Twins would have been quite low, so he gambled on being able to stay healthy/increase his production--turns out he went 1 for 2.  He should still think about accepting, because if the incentives are right, and he performs, he'll be paid market value.  What happens if in April 2022, Buxton tears his ACL?  How will that affect his value?

I'd love to keep Buxton as well, but the reality of his injury history means you just can't guarantee him $20M a year and cross your fingers--not if you're the Twins.  If some other team wants to do that, they should go ahead, but the most likely scenario is that they regret that contract.

[Cap'n Piranha]

17 hours ago, howeda7 said:

Because even if they got to or above $20 million/year with incentives, he's not taking a contract that is 70% incentives. There are almost no comparable contracts structured that way for a prominent player. The player's union would frown upon it big time. $25 m per year with incentives is fair. They need to increase the guaranteed portion to at least $15-20 million/year. The ratio has to be at least 60-80% guaranteed and 20-40% incentives. Not the other way around.

I would imagine if the Twins 7/$80M offer was 70% incentives, Buxton would have jumped at it.  That would mean there were $186 MILLION in incentives.  Unless the vast majority of that is tied to almost impossible to hit milestones (like 700 PA's, or winning MVP's), do you really think Buxton would turn down a deal with a potential AAV of $38.1M?

I agree that $25M with incentives is fair--that works out to 7/$175, or $95M in incentives, which gives us a breakout of 54% incentives, 46% guarantees--not all that far off from what you're suggesting.  If giving Buxton 7/$105M with $70M in incentives gets the deal done, then we're really not that far off, although I tend to disagree that a player who is averaging about 400 PA's a year should get 60%-80% of a $25M a year contract guaranteed.  Perhaps the market will prove me wrong, but obviously, I don't think it will.

[Mike Sixel]

Don't forget, he's getting, what, $5-7MM next year, given how few games he played? Going to $15MM per year next year is a big jump for him in guarantees......Making the next 6 years look even better. If he'd sign for $15MM guaranteed for 7 years, I agree with Brock and Chief....make the incentives almost anything resembling realistic, plus insane ones. Because $15MM 7 years from now is going to look like peanuts for an average player....

[Cap'n Piranha]

10 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Buxton's camp also didn't disclose their own counter. Their silence doesn't mean anything right now.

Donaldson was 7 years older than Buxton and coming off two seasons where he missed 49 and 100+ games due to a lingering injury. There was serious concern, and rightfully so, about his ability to stay on the field at his age when he signed that deal, and we've already seen those concerns become reality. Again, the comp is the risk/financial commitment, not the career profile. 

The way to get from 90 losses to 85 is by having better players. There is no internal replacement for Buxton. 

Why would they disclose their counter?  It lets every team, should he go to free agency, know exactly what to offer and makes it much harder to start a bidding war, which is the Holy Grail for every free agent.  If the Twins offer is laughably low, they would absolutely disclose it, if for no other reason than to get a sense of if it truly is as laughably low as they suspect it to be.

You keep talking about Donaldson as being injury prone, while ignoring the reality that he has been, on average, even in his most injured seasons, LESS injured than Buxton has.  If Buxton has a worse injury record at 27 than Donaldson had at 33, what do you think Buxton's injury situation will look like in years 5-7 of a deal, when he will be 32-34 (with an extension) or 33-35?  Since signing with the Twins, Donaldson has missed 52 games, which is 32%.  That's not great or anything, but in that same timeframe, Buxton has missed 95 games, which is 59%.  Stop pretending that Donaldson is not a significantly lower injury risk at this point than Buxton, just because he is still a risk.  That's why Donaldson could get (essentially) 4/$92 before 2020--he had already accumulated over 40 WAR in his career (top 40 ALL TIME amongst 3B).  Currently, Buxton is 21st amongst CF in WAR just since 2015.

Is Buxton's ceiling higher than Donaldson's?  Yes, and it's not even close.  The potential maximum Buxton is a 10-12 WAR player who wins MVP, and is the best player in the game.  Is Buxton's floor lower than Donaldson's?  Yes--it is not impossible that Buxton struggles to accumulate 400 PA's for the rest of his career, and puts up 2-3 WAR while doing so.

I'm not interested in going from 90 losses to 85.  I'm interested in going from 90 losses to 90 wins, and then beyond.  Unless the Twins have a plan to surround Buxton with enough talent to get us above that 90 win threshold, paying him is a waste, and they should not forgo the opportunity to add multiple high-level prospects to the system that could potentially match his ceiling, but would likely exceed his floor.

[Cap'n Piranha]

10 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Well no, I'm not assuming Buxton needs to be the best hitter in baseball like he was in April. That was your addition. No, he doesn't need to rival Mike Trout offensively to be worth $20M. You can't just ignore the defensive value a player like Buxton brings. Where is this foot/second info coming from?

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-cost-of-a-win-in-free-agency-in-2020/

When you say Buxton is worth $20M a year, you have to take in to account how many games he plays.  If he only plays 80 games, then that means over 160 games he's worth $40M--he has to be Mike Trout offensively to be worth that.  If he plays 150 games for that $20M, then no, he doesn't need to be Mike Trout offensively to be worth that.  But what evidence is there that suggests you can count on Buxton to play 130-150 games a year well into his 30's, when he hasn't been able to get anywhere near that in his 20's?  As such, if you agree to guarantee Buxton $20M a year, you're either banking on a dramatic improvement in his health, or for him to play like one of the 5-10 best players in baseball when he's available.  Either seems fairly fraught with risk.

The foot/second data comes from baseball savant.

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-player/byron-buxton-621439?stats=statcast-r-hitting-mlb

[Mike Sixel]

Dude got hit by a pitch.....not sure what that shows about him being injury prone at all.....of course, before that, sure, he was hurt a ton, but this latest one teaches us nothing.

Sometimes you need to take big risks....with Buxton that is either dealing him in the off season, or signing him. I prefer the latter.