Agree to disagree. I don't think there's any upside to the 4/90 offer. He wasn't going to accept it and there's a downside where he feels disrespected and doesn't want to negotiate. It seems like you basically just disagree with the term "insulting".The first issue with these sorts of things is you never know if the reporting is accurate. The second is that there's usually a discussion, not a flat take-it-or-leave-it offer.
But even with the above numbers, it's $22.5M a year (4/90) to $23.3M a year (6/140). Story has an opt-out after year 4, which the club can void by picking up another year on the back end at $25M (his age 35 season, and at that point, his 6 and 7th year options are subject to the 10-5 no-trade rule.)
Xander's reported deal 4/90 deal would take him to his age 34 year, whereupon he'd be a FA. (Plus he's automatically a 10-5 no-trade guy from the start of his extension.)
So they're not grossly off to the point where this is facially "insulting." There's no reason Xander couldn't counter by saying, "Look, I actually don't want to hit FA again, so I need two more years guaranteed, plus option years."
By the way, there's not a bigger cliche in reporting on negotiations to be had - you'd be shocked, shocked at the number of "insulted" people who manage to walk out of a negotiation pretty happy.
But, I will just ask you straight up, do you think there was any chance that Bogaerts accepts the 4/90 offer?