Sonny Gray Gives Twins a New Jose Berrios

[wsnydes]

12 minutes ago, Wax off said:

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

 

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

It's not a preconceived notion if the mindset evolves from the actual negotiations.  

[wsnydes]

20 minutes ago, Wax off said:

In whose mind, Berrios or the poster?

Could be both.

You said that Toronto doesn't blow away TC in your mind.  I simply noted that perhaps it does in Berrios'.  Everyone likes different things and has other priorities.

[Wax off]

18 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I've provided literal quotes from Buxton's agent and can link the Hayes article if you have an Athletic subscription. 

That's coming from agent and team officials, it's going to be rosy.

But I found the Gleeman and the Geek podcast. It's on their Patreon page.

Gleeman: "According to Dan Hayes"..."they were unwilling to give Buxton a full no trade clause in the talks in July"

 

[Doctor Gast]

2 minutes ago, Wax off said:

That's coming from agent and team officials, it's going to be rosy.

But I found the Gleeman and the Geek podcast. It's on their Patreon page.

Gleeman: "According to Dan Hayes"..."they were unwilling to give Buxton a full no trade clause in the talks in July"

 

That's what I assumed. If Buxton didn't want to be traded that's 1 more reason to keep him. How many impact players like Buxton would want to play here. Stupid on FO part not to jump all over that.

[chpettit19]

5 minutes ago, Wax off said:

That's coming from agent and team officials, it's going to be rosy.

But I found the Gleeman and the Geek podcast. It's on their Patreon page.

Gleeman: "According to Dan Hayes"..."they were unwilling to give Buxton a full no trade clause in the talks in July"

 

Where do you think Dan Hayes got the "unwilling to give Buxton a full no trade clause in the talks in July" from? So my Dan Hayes quotes aren't good because they come from an agent, team officials, and Buxton, but yours are good because they come from an agent, team officials, or Buxton? Feels a little off.

But I'm still not sure what you think that quote is proving. Your original stance was "I had heard the Twins walked away from the same deal before the deadline." Is your argument now that everything was the same except the no trade clause? Are you arguing that the Twins rejected the same financial terms in July and then accepted those terms while also adding a no trade clause? You don't think the no trade clause was part of negotiations that was tied to some financials?

Is your stance that Buxton wanted to be here so much that he waited until the Twins made no real effort to sign any high priced pitchers in FA and then they felt they were backed into a corner and had to sign Buxton so they threw in a no trade clause to get him to accept the deal that was on the table in July? Because following your chain of comments that seems to be what you're suggesting.

[Wax off]

18 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

.

I heard that they caved on no trade clause as in my previous response. I believe they were motivated by their failure in FA to get it over the finish line.

[chpettit19]

46 minutes ago, Wax off said:

I heard that they caved on no trade clause as in my previous response. I believe they were motivated by their failure in FA to get it over the finish line.

Yeah, that's how negotiations work. Each side gives and they figure out a middle ground that works for both.

Were there rumors I missed that the Twins were in on a bunch of free agents and missed? They extended Buxton before the lockout when there were still a bunch of FAs left. Like there still is. 

Agree to disagree. You're allowed to have whatever beliefs you want. I just fail to see where they come from. To each their own.

[Wax off]

27 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Yeah, that's how negotiations work. Each side gives and they figure out a middle ground that works for both.

Were there rumors I missed that the Twins were in on a bunch of free agents and missed? They extended Buxton before the lockout when there were still a bunch of FAs left. Like there still is. 

Agree to disagree. You're allowed to have whatever beliefs you want. I just fail to see where they come from. To each their own.

Robbie Ray was the one I heard. They should've been aggressive in FA. Then you wouldn't have to give up last year's first round pick because you're desperate.

[KirbyDome89]

5 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

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?

As much as I'd love "won't spend above X," to be a universally acknowledged truth on TD, it isn't, and arguments where contract amounts/length are at the center veer into bad faith territory (not accusing you of doing this) because of it. You're right, it's a dead horse, but we also need to acknowledge that removing an option from the table isn't the same thing as never having that option to begin with. 

[KirbyDome89]

7 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

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

I'll start with saying that I don't give a **** about rehashing whether or not Berrios should have been moved.

The longest FA pitching contract in 6 seasons at the helm for this FO is 2 years. Their two largest trade acquisitions to date, Odorizzi and Gray, each had/have 2 years remaining. Rather than extend the best pitcher this franchise has had in nearly two decades (an admittedly low bar to clear) they opted to trade him with 1.5 years remaining. They completely sat out FA this offseason despite desperately needing arms. There's a ton of evidence/activity or lack thereof, that suggests this FO won't commit years or money to pitchers. That shouldn't be debatable at this point.

[Wax off]

18 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

You're right, it's a dead horse, but we also need to acknowledge that removing an option from the table isn't the same thing as never having that option to begin with. 

Well said. They still deserve blame for obeying their own self imposed boundaries.

[Dave The Dastardly]

Sorry, I've lost track. What was the subject of this article?

[Wax off]

10 minutes ago, Dave The Dastardly said:

Sorry, I've lost track. What was the subject of this article?

Sonny Gray, the new Berrios

[wabene]

6 hours 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.

Berrios said he really liked Toronto and it's diversity. Toronto is one of the most diverse cities in North America. A family from Puerto Rico might not feel at home in a city like Minneapolis. Could be something as personal as that. And, yes, we don't know.

[tony&rodney]

Sonny Gray is a really good starting pitcher. Jose Berrios is slightly better. There - it's solved.

I'm sad that Berrios isn't on the Twins roster, but I'm happy we have Gray.

[KirbyDome89]

1 hour ago, Wax off said:

Well said. They still deserve blame for obeying their own self imposed boundaries.

I'm not assigning fault, I'm adjusting the frame. It's going to be years before this "debate," is remotely close to settled. 

[h2oface]

Didn't want a new fake Berrios. Wanted Jose, who, regardless of how his agent negotiated, was willing to sign a fair extension. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

13 hours ago, h2oface said:

Didn't want a new fake Berrios. Wanted Jose, who, regardless of how his agent negotiated, was willing to sign a fair extension. 

This suggests that you think Berrios' agent did not act in a way Berrios desired.  I find that hard to believe.

[h2oface]

7 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

This suggests that you think Berrios' agent did not act in a way Berrios desired.  I find that hard to believe.

Perhaps for you. I thought it suggests that people change their minds...... if given enough time. Sometimes in a day. Sometimes in a week. Sometimes in a month, and sometimes in a year. Berrios had 1 1/2 years to do it, and did it in quick order. His agent most likely did the messaging. 

I know quite a few married couples that said no at first, too. It is fact that Berrios did sign an extension, instead of testing the free agent market in a year and a half as he said he was going to do, in pretty quick order, so speculate all you want. 

 

[Cap'n Piranha]

18 hours ago, h2oface said:

Perhaps for you. I thought it suggests that people change their minds...... if given enough time. Sometimes in a day. Sometimes in a week. Sometimes in a month, and sometimes in a year. Berrios had 1 1/2 years to do it, and did it in quick order. His agent most likely did the messaging. 

I know quite a few married couples that said no at first, too. It is fact that Berrios did sign an extension, instead of testing the free agent market in a year and a half as he said he was going to do, in pretty quick order, so speculate all you want. 

 

Berrios did indeed sign an extension.  With Toronto.  Perhaps that is not a salient detail.  Or maybe it is the only salient detail; speculate all you want.