Report: Twins Willing to Back Out on Blockbuster Deal

I agree with Gleeman: what could they have possibly seen on the medicals that changes Graterol's value so much that they're asking for another top 10 pick...yet they still want Graterol in the deal? That's the bit that makes no sense about this whole "medicals" bit. The reality is, the Red Sox got cold feet (probably because they've been getting hammered on this deal by almost everyone) and are using "medicals" as the excuse to try and redo the deal.

I suspect Boston wanted a pitcher, and Graterol was still the best one available to them. That's why they still wanted him in the deal, even at reduced value.

Now that the Betts trade is going through, does the "Boston has cold feet" thing really make sense anymore?

I suspect Boston wanted a pitcher, and Graterol was still the best one available to them. That's why they still wanted him in the deal, even at reduced value.

 

Now that the Betts trade is going through, does the "Boston has cold feet" thing really make sense anymore?

Can’t answer the cold feet thing, because that wasn’t my claim. But I do think it was all handled poorly, even upon conclusion of both deals.

Can’t answer the cold feet thing, because that wasn’t my claim. But I do think it was all handled poorly, even upon conclusion of both deals.

I'm curious, how exactly do you think it was handled poorly?

If it's about the timing (agreement in principle before medical review), that's just standard procedure in MLB.

If it's that the trade agreement leaked in general, it's pretty unrealistic to expect otherwise for a trade of this magnitude. (And there's no evidence that suggests the Red Sox were the primary leakers of that, or any of the later developments.)

And if you're referring to Graterol's privacy, I thought what leaked about him was pretty generic and respectful. (The Red Sox were actually criticized by many because their reported concerns weren't specific enough, and as I said above, it's not even clear that the Red Sox were responsible for that particular leak.)

I'm not sure what folks expected the Red Sox or anyone in this trade to do otherwise.

I'm curious, how exactly do you think it was handled poorly?

 

If it's about the timing (agreement in principle before medical review), that's just standard procedure in MLB.

 

If it's that the trade agreement leaked in general, it's pretty unrealistic to expect otherwise for a trade of this magnitude. (And there's no evidence that suggests the Red Sox were the primary leakers of that, or any of the later developments.)

 

And if you're referring to Graterol's privacy, I thought what leaked about him was pretty generic and respectful. (The Red Sox were actually criticized by many because their reported concerns weren't specific enough, and as I said above, it's not even clear that the Red Sox were responsible for that particular leak.)

 

I'm not sure what folks expected the Red Sox or anyone in this trade to do otherwise.

Yes, the leaked medicals and how it was characterized is on them. Of course, the press is going to have their say, but to the extent the press went at it was Boston up and down. And then they walked it back a bit with a statement saying ‘They didn’t think he could be a starter based on his medicals’ but that was still too much to say publicly as it just fueled it all even more. They could have left much of that quiet, and didn’t. Graterol didn’t need to be called ‘damaged goods’ ... while that characteristic was media generated, it got its start from how Boston handled the halt of the trade. They could have and should have handled it differently, imo. But then still wanting him along with another top 10 from our system? Seriously? That was laughable.

You can defend them all you want and we will remain in disagreement. I don’t think it was cold feet, just poorly managed. I couldn’t say exactly by whom, because I don’t know what exactly was happening internally.

Yes, the leaked medicals and how it was characterized is on them. Of course, the press is going to have their say, but to the extent the press went at it was Boston up and down. And then they walked it back a bit with a statement saying ‘They didn’t think he could be a starter based on his medicals’ but that was still too much to say publicly as it just fueled it all even more. They could have left much of that quiet, and didn’t. Graterol didn’t need to be called ‘damaged goods’ ... while that characteristic was media generated, it got its start from how Boston handled the halt of the trade.

I'm curious -- do you have a link for whatever was attributed to Boston that they allegedly walked back with the starting workload thing? I may have missed something, but to me, it seemed like the starting workload thing was the only reason ever given. And Boston got ripped for it because it was too vague (the whole "that's obvious, they should have already known that" argument).

Beyond that, I'm not sure why we're attributing the leaks to Boston. They didn't help Boston. Heyman was definitely citing sources outside of Boston in his reporting, and that was where most of the updates were coming from. The whole "Boston is leaking this" assumption seems to have its roots in the "Boston has cold feet" / "Boston is making this up to rip us off" takes.

But then still wanting him along with another top 10 from our system? Seriously? That was laughable.

That was definitely coming from sources outside Boston, and I'm not sure how accurate it was. There were also reports that Boston asked about Balazovic in place of Graterol, and it wouldn't surprise me if lines were crossed by that point. Boston ultimately did not require two top 10 prospects from the Dodgers the very next day, for what it's worth.

How much control do you think Boston had over the process here? There were at least 3 teams involved (probably 4 if you count the Angels and their related trade, whose owner became pretty vocal about it). National media. The biggest agent in sports and his favorite media member. The idea that there could be any kind of delay in this blockbuster trade, and Boston alone could make sure the whole process was handled like any random HIPAA records issue, seems to be an unfair assumption.

I'm curious -- do you have a link for whatever was attributed to Boston that they allegedly walked back with the starting workload thing? I may have missed something, but to me, it seemed like the starting workload thing was the only reason ever given. And Boston got ripped for it because it was too vague (the whole "that's obvious, they should have already known that" argument).

 

Beyond that, I'm not sure why we're attributing the leaks to Boston. They didn't help Boston. Heyman was definitely citing sources outside of Boston in his reporting, and that was where most of the updates were coming from. The whole "Boston is leaking this" assumption seems to have its roots in the "Boston has cold feet" / "Boston is making this up to rip us off" takes.

 

 

 

That was definitely coming from sources outside Boston, and I'm not sure how accurate it was. There were also reports that Boston asked about Balazovic in place of Graterol, and it wouldn't surprise me if lines were crossed by that point. Boston ultimately did not require two top 10 prospects from the Dodgers the very next day, for what it's worth.

 

How much control do you think Boston had over the process here? There were at least 3 teams involved (probably 4 if you count the Angels and their related trade, whose owner became pretty vocal about it). National media. The biggest agent in sports and his favorite media member. The idea that there could be any kind of delay in this blockbuster trade, and Boston alone could make sure the whole process was handled like any random HIPAA records issue, seems to be an unfair assumption.

As I said, we’ll have to disagree here.

As I said, we’ll have to disagree here.

I honestly would like to know if there was a report I missed, attributing another reason to Boston for the hold-up beyond the starting workload thing.