Sonny Gray Gives Twins a New Jose Berrios

[chpettit19]

29 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

You should throw the also completely unrelated Cruz trade in there because it makes your argument better.

I was replying to a comment where the other person compared the trades. Your comment was quite productive, though. Thanks.

[Wax off]

52 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

They weren't going to extend Berrios, that is now abundantly clear..

That was the wrong stance for FO to take. That's on them.

[Mike Sixel]

3 minutes ago, Wax off said:

That was the wrong stance for FO to take. That's on them.

Or, Berrios didn't want to sign here. Or, he changed his mind about not testing FA for some unknown reason. We really have no idea.

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, Wax off said:

That was the wrong stance for FO to take. That's on them.

That's fair, but doesn't change the situation. We don't know the behind the scenes of why he wasn't going to sign an extension here. Maybe the FO lowballed him (wouldn't be surprised), maybe he didn't want to stay in Minneapolis, maybe he really was planning on testing FA. We'll never know. But if they wouldn't/couldn't extend him it made no sense to hold onto him during a lost season and turn down a package like they got in return.

[MMMordabito]

1 minute ago, Mike Sixel said:

Or, Berrios didn't want to sign here. Or, he changed his mind about not testing FA for some unknown reason. We really have no idea.

I bet he tasted malt vinegar on fries for the first time, loved it and never wants to leave.  The $131m was a bonus.

[Wax off]

2 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Or, Berrios didn't want to sign here. Or, he changed his mind about not testing FA for some unknown reason. We really have no idea.

He signed up lon term for Toronto. What do they have that we don't?

As far as what we know, why should I give them the benefit of the doubt. If they had their way I believe Buxton would've been traded even though willing to take a discount.

[Wax off]

7 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

That's fair, but doesn't change the situation. We don't know the behind the scenes of why he wasn't going to sign an extension here. Maybe the FO lowballed him (wouldn't be surprised), maybe he didn't want to stay in Minneapolis, maybe he really was planning on testing FA. We'll never know. But if they wouldn't/couldn't extend him it made no sense to hold onto him during a lost season and turn down a package like they got in return.

I feel like they wouldn't rather than couldn't. You can give them the benefit of the doubt, though. 

[Mike Sixel]

4 minutes ago, Wax off said:

He signed up lon term for Toronto. What do they have that we don't?

As far as what we know, why should I give them the benefit of the doubt. If they had their way I believe Buxton would've been traded even though willing to take a discount.

No one said give them the benefit of the doubt....how about not assuming the worst as an option? 

Wait, they signed Buxton, but you think they didn't want to? I'm very confused, given that trading Berrios somehow proved they didn't want to sign him. 

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, Wax off said:

I feel like they wouldn't rather than couldn't. You can give them the benefit of the doubt, though. 

I don't disagree. I think it is likely a core part of their team building strategy to not spend big money on pitching extensions or free agents. At this point it seems silly to me to continue to beat the dead horse of the FO not spending on big money arms. They're not going to do it so why discuss it as a possibility when it clearly isn't?

[Cap'n Piranha]

21 minutes ago, Wax off said:

He signed up lon term for Toronto. What do they have that we don't?

As far as what we know, why should I give them the benefit of the doubt. If they had their way I believe Buxton would've been traded even though willing to take a discount.

Almost twice as many people in the metro area, and a better climate.  If Berrios wanted to live in a city, there really isn't a comparison between Toronto and MSP.  Also, as the only remaining team in CA, TOR might provide some more endorsement opportunities as well.

It makes no sense to say Buxton would have been traded if Falvine had their way--they are running the team, and it is therefore their way.  Being wary of overspending on an oft-injured player about to turn 28 who was potentially having an outlier year while staring a potential rebuild in the face is hardly an unreasonable position to take.

[Cap'n Piranha]

6 minutes ago, Wax off said:

I feel like they wouldn't rather than couldn't. You can give them the benefit of the doubt, though. 

And you are basing this feeling on....what, exactly?

[cHawk]

I’d argue Gray is better than Berrios.

Berrios:

Gray:

[MMMordabito]

10 minutes ago, Wax off said:

He signed up lon term for Toronto. What do they have that we don't?

As far as what we know, why should I give them the benefit of the doubt. If they had their way I believe Buxton would've been traded even though willing to take a discount.

This just doesn't make sense.  If "who" would have had their way? The FO? They along with Buxton's agent came up with the creative, incentive-laden deal that gave him generational wealth along with good chances to have uber-generational wealth if he stays on the field.  Pohlad? Everything I heard was that JP was fully on board the whole time.  The same FO also signed Donaldson for $92 mill.  At the time, the Twins were coming off 2019, and that was a win now move.  It didn't work out due to Covid, calf muscles, Colome, Happ, Shoemaker, Buxton injuries, Maeda's elbow, Simmons' ghost showing up in the batter's box and several other minor regressions and misfortunes.  

I think there's something to them being risk averse on long pitcher contracts above a certain dollar amount.   Look no further than Yu Darvish (one the Twins were rumored to be after) to see why.

[Wax off]

43 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Wait, they signed Buxton, but you think they didn't want to? I'm very confused, given that trading Berrios somehow proved they didn't want to sign him. 

I had heard the Twins walked away from the same deal before the deadline. 

[Wax off]

2 minutes ago, MMMordabito said:

This just doesn't make sense.  If "who" would have had their way? The FO? They along with Buxton's agent came up with the creative, incentive-laden deal that gave him generational wealth along with good chances to have uber-generational wealth if he stays on the field.

The same deal was offered to the Twins before the deadline, as I understand it. Only after failing FA did they feel forced to do something.

[Wax off]

48 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Almost twice as many people in the metro area, and a better climate.  If Berrios wanted to live in a city, there really isn't a comparison between Toronto and MSP. 

I don't think Toronto blows away TC.

[MN_ExPat]

1 hour ago, Wax off said:

That was the wrong stance for FO to take. That's on them.

[MN_ExPat]

16 minutes ago, Wax off said:

I had heard the Twins walked away from the same deal before the deadline. 

But they finished where again?

 

[chpettit19]

12 minutes ago, Wax off said:

I had heard the Twins walked away from the same deal before the deadline. 

6 minutes ago, Wax off said:

The same deal was offered to the Twins before the deadline, as I understand it. Only after failing FA did they feel forced to do something.

Where did you hear that? The incredibly detailed article Dan Hayes wrote for The Athletic about the negotiations over the last handful of years certainly didn't paint that picture.

"The effort surprised even Buxton's representatives" is a rather telling quote from that article. 

“There were times we thought, ‘That’s it. They’re not going to call back,’” Goetz said. “And they did. Thad was the front-runner, he was the guy who pioneered the whole thing. … Our willingness to be open all the way through this and Thad saying ‘I’m not giving up’ (got this done).” Goetz being Al Goetz, one of Buxton's agents. That certainly sounds like Thad Levine was doing a bunch of work to keep Buxton in town.

[Wax off]

13 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Where did you hear that?

Gleeman and the geek podcast iirc

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, Wax off said:

Gleeman and the geek podcast iirc

Would be very interested to hear that quote if you can find it. The Hayes article suggested no such thing and he had quotes from just about everybody you can think of from FO personnel to Buxton to his reps.

[Wax off]

18 minutes ago, MN_ExPat said:

But they finished where again?

 

Thankfully, after failing FA, they got off their hands.

[Cap'n Piranha]

45 minutes ago, Wax off said:

I don't think Toronto blows away TC.

Next time you're going to write something this long and detailed, let me know beforehand.

[Wax off]

33 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The Hayes article suggested no such thing and he had quotes from just about everybody you can think of from FO personnel to Buxton to his reps.

I'm talking about negotiations before the deadline. Of course they were more motivated after failing FA.

[wsnydes]

2 hours ago, Wax off said:

That was the wrong stance for FO to take. That's on them.

Realism has to enter into the conversation at some point.  When it becomes abundantly clear one side doesn't have interest in an extension, the mindset must adjust.

[wsnydes]

1 hour ago, Wax off said:

I don't think Toronto blows away TC.

Perhaps in his mind it does?

[chpettit19]

6 minutes ago, Wax off said:

I'm talking about negotiations before the deadline. Of course they were more motivated after failing FA.

I'm aware of what you're talking about. Your claim is that Buxton's team offered this exact contract extension to the Twins before the deadline and they turned it down, but later accepted it. I'm telling you that Dan Hayes wrote an article covering 56 months worth of negotiations between the Twins and Buxton's reps. And nowhere in it does anyone say this deal was on the table before the deadline, but instead it came to fruition because Buxton wanted to be here and Thad kept working with Buxton's people to come up with a creative contract to make it happen. So until you can come up with actual quotes from people involved I'm going to choose to believe the Hayes' article and those people quoted in it.

[Wax off]

14 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

Realism has to e conversation at some point.  When it becomes abundantly clear one side doesn't have interest in an extension, the mindset must adjust.

The mindset that should adjust maybe is the FO's preconceived notions about pitching contracts before dealing with Berrios

 

8 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm aware of what you're talking about. Your claim is that Buxton's team offered this exact contract extension to the Twins before the deadline and they turned it down, but later accepted it. I'm telling you that Dan Hayes wrote an article covering 56 months worth of negotiations between the Twins and Buxton's reps. And nowhere in it does anyone say this deal was on the table before the deadline, but instead it came to fruition because Buxton wanted to be here and Thad kept working with Buxton's people to come up with a creative contract to make it happen. So until you can come up with actual quotes from people involved I'm going to choose to believe the Hayes' article and those people quoted in it.

Maybe not the "exact" same deal. Did Buxton not want a no trade clause before the deadline?

[Wax off]

16 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

Perhaps in his mind it does?

In whose mind, Berrios or the poster?

[chpettit19]

5 minutes ago, Wax off said:

Maybe not the "exact" same deal. Did Buxton not want a no trade clause before the deadline?

I assume he wanted one. I assume every player wants one. What does that have to do with anything? I mean you've provided no explanation for your stance on anything other than maybe you heard Gleeman and the Geek say something once. I've provided literal quotes from Buxton's agent and can link the Hayes article if you have an Athletic subscription.