Rumor: Dodgers Interested in Carlos Correa

[Brock Beauchamp]

6 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

They did, but I think that's because they already had Turner and didn't plan on giving two big contracts to two shortstops.

In any case, I'd have to think that if there's any indecision on whom to pursue, they'd prefer the shortstop(s) that their fanbase doesn't constantly boo and berate.

And that's very possible, though I think the Dodgers prioritize winning above all else and Correa is likely to be the better investment IMO.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

42 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Remember just a year ago they had Corey Seager and appeared to make little to no effort to retain him, if I'm recalling correctly.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/why-dodgers-couldnt-hang-on-to-corey-seager-revealed/ar-AARjySz
 

This confirms your recollection 

[Squirrel]

3 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

And that's very possible, though I think the Dodgers prioritize winning above all else and Correa is likely to be the better investment IMO.

Most fans won't really care as long as the team wins. If he provides them the chance to win, they will get on board

[Squirrel]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

I believe in the Yankees interest, despite the prospects they have coming up; that team is in desperation mode. I don't believe LA as much. They seem to really like 'their guys' and I'd guess they'd rather retain Turner.

I do want Correa back, but of the four free agent shortstops, he does seem like the one who'd be most resistant to moving off of SS when that inevitable time comes. And that time is probably coming sooner rather than later for all of them. If you could get one of the others at 2/3rd the price with the understanding that SS isn't their forever home, that might work out pretty well in the long run.

Is your opinion that Correa will be more resistant to move off SS made from any public statements, or just your feeling? I think it will depend on how much he is paid. Didn't we think that of Story, and then the Red Sox signed him to play 2nd base?

[Brock Beauchamp]

15 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Is your opinion that Correa will be more resistant to move off SS made from any public statements, or just your feeling? I think it will depend on how much he is paid. Didn't we think that of Story, and then the Red Sox signed him to play 2nd base?

Correa is a platinum glove shortstop who derives massive value from his glove. He's a good, not great, hitter. I cannot see him moving off shortstop for at least several years.

The Story thing was a little surprising but with Bogaerts opting out, I suspect he knew he'd play only one year at second base.

[nicksaviking]

19 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Is your opinion that Correa will be more resistant to move off SS made from any public statements, or just your feeling? I think it will depend on how much he is paid. Didn't we think that of Story, and then the Red Sox signed him to play 2nd base?

Just my feeling, which is completely uneducated, but he's always been perceived to have the best defense of them all, and I'm sure he's aware of that. Plus he's the youngest, very confident in himself and proud. All three traits being positive in my view. He'd likely be the last of them to NEED to move from shortstop though, so it may be a bridge crossing well down the line.

Despite what other teams' fans think, he does seem to be a team player though, so I could have it 100% the opposite too. In any case, I might prefer the free agent SSs most amenable to a hypothetical future position change. 

[chaderic20]

I think people saying LA won't sign Correa because the fans hate him, are vastly underestimating the fickleness of fans. As Jerry Seinfeld says:

""Loyalty to any one sports team is pretty hard to justify, because the players are always changing, the team can move to another city. You're actually rooting for the clothes, when you get right down to it. You know what I mean? You are standing and cheering and yelling for your clothes to beat the clothes from another city. Fans will be so in love with a player, but if he goes to another team, they boo him. This is the same human being in a different shirt; they hate him now. Boo! Different shirt! Boo!"

I think you can change that last part to "Fans will hate a player, but if he joins their team, they love him. This is the same human being in a different shirt; they love him now" and it still applies.

[Squirrel]

Just now, Brock Beauchamp said:

Correa is a platinum glove shortstop who derives massive value from his glove. He's a good, not great, hitter. I cannot see him moving off shortstop for at least several years.

Neither can I. Was just wondering where Nick's opinion came from if there was something publicly said to that point. 

[Squirrel]

3 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Just my feeling, which is completely uneducated, but he's always been perceived to have the best defense of them all, and I'm sure he's aware of that. Plus he's the youngest, very confident in himself and proud. All three traits being positive in my view.

Despite what other teams' fans think, he does seem to be a team player though. I could have it 100% the opposite too. In any case, I might prefer the free agent SSs most amenable to a hypothetical future position change. 

Personally, I wouldn't even entertain the thought to move him if I were the owner/manager/coach, because of what you said. Not unless, years down the road, there was some definite decline that necessitated it, but I just can't see that now or even in 5 yrs. Was just curious if you had heard something publicly stated. And, I agree with you. I'd be the one resistant to move him off short, let alone him being resistant.  

[Richie the Rally Goat]

2 minutes ago, chaderic20 said:

I think people saying LA won't sign Correa because the fans hate him, are vastly underestimating the fickleness of fans. As Jerry Seinfeld says:

""Loyalty to any one sports team is pretty hard to justify, because the players are always changing, the team can move to another city. You're actually rooting for the clothes, when you get right down to it. You know what I mean? You are standing and cheering and yelling for your clothes to beat the clothes from another city. Fans will be so in love with a player, but if he goes to another team, they boo him. This is the same human being in a different shirt; they hate him now. Boo! Different shirt! Boo!"

I think you can change that last part to "Fans will hate a player, but if he joins their team, they love him. This is the same human being in a different shirt; they love him now" and it still applies.

Agreed, but the bar is a bit higher in certain markets, Yankees being one of them. If he doesn’t play well, the public scorn will intensify

[Brock Beauchamp]

15 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Just my feeling, which is completely uneducated, but he's always been perceived to have the best defense of them all, and I'm sure he's aware of that. Plus he's the youngest, very confident in himself and proud. All three traits being positive in my view. He'd likely be the last of them to NEED to move from shortstop though, so it may be a bridge crossing well down the line.

Despite what other teams' fans think, he does seem to be a team player though, so I could have it 100% the opposite too. In any case, I might prefer the free agent SSs most amenable to a hypothetical future position change. 

I agree with all of this. First and foremost it'd be pretty foolish to take Correa off short and he knows that as much as anyone. I'm sure there's a pride component mixed in there but it's also just the right decision to make.

[chpettit19]

Hasn't Turner made statements about being willing to stay with the Dodgers, but also very much being interested in getting back to the east coast?

I believe every story about the Dodgers being interested in stars. Especially with so much money coming off their books this year. They want Judge. They want Correa. They want Turner. They want all of them. The question is how they prioritize them. I've also seen reports that Judge is their #1 target (Mookie moving to 2B is interesting there). Maybe Correa is their #2. I have no reason to think he wouldn't be since those are the 2 best players on the market.

Fan boos isn't something the FO cares about, and the clubhouse won't care either as long as he performs. Kenta was on that Dodgers team, do we think he was enraged that the Twins signed Correa? That was 2017. Bellinger (maybe, he may get non-tendered), Turner, and Taylor are the only position players left on the Dodgers for 2023. Kershaw (I'm assuming he stays), Urias, and Buehler are the only pitchers left. That's a max of 6 guys left from that team. This narrative that they wouldn't sign him cuz of 2017 is complete nonsense to me.

[Bigfork Twins Guy]

29 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I agree with all of this. First and foremost it'd be pretty foolish to take Correa off short and he knows that as much as anyone. I'm sure there's a pride component mixed in there but it's also just the right decision to make.

The good thing about possibly having to move Correa to third base eventually is that he definitely has the arm to man that position.  Signing him leaves open the possibility of third base IF, for some reason, he does decline at SS.

[dex8425]

23 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

It is interesting to me to see the Dodgers win all those regular season games, sign all those high priced free agents, and  still they have been there twice in the last five years.  and they have won once since the Twins last championship in 1991.  

Will Correa make the difference - he led us to a 481 pct.  Not his fault, but baseball is complex.

I do wonder what they do need.  They have been there 3 times since 1991, but only won once.  The wish lists and desires of fans aside, trying to make the right decisions are really difficult.  

Imagine what the Twins winning percentage would have been if Correa got hurt and Gordon or Palacios was playing shortstop every day. Or Polanco. Would've been ugly. 

The Dodgers were deeper this year, but didn't have vintage Jansen-led bullpen, or 3 top starters. They started Gonsolin who wasn't stretched out. If Buehler was healthy I think it makes the series different? Idk. 

[Vanimal46]

Correa is going to drum up interest from over half of the teams in MLB. That’s just reality. He’s a top SS in the game with abilities that should translate well as he gets older. 

Correa is not a big west or east coast star that we have to convince to play in the modest Midwest. He’s been on our team, knows the coaches, and has said on numerous occasions that him and his wife like it here. The latest (free) Gleeman and the Geek played a 12 minute clip talking with Dan Hayes. He shared that Correa made impacts in every facet of the organization. 

Why would we not fight tooth and nail to retain this guy? We have the money to make this a long term relationship and finally end the revolving door of shortstops over the last 20+ years. 

[Squirrel]

7 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

Why would we not fight tooth and nail to retain this guy? We have the money to make this a long term relationship and finally end the revolving door of shortstops over the last 20+ years. 

Yep ... agreed. And if we don't get him, there will be a ton of excuses. On this one, I won't accept, unless it can be proven that we had the best offer and he turned it down for intangibles. Show him the money! 

[Nine of twelve]

4 hours ago, Squirrel said:

When your owner is one of the wealthiest of baseball owners (I think he's 8th?) and has a couple billion dollars, there is no reason he can't 'go for it' once in a while.

I have never decided how I feel about this. To me he should be spending whatever it takes of the team's money to get the most talent. But whether he has a billion dollars or a hundred dollars, I don't think he should be obligated to take money out of his own pocket, the vast majority of which did not derive from earnings as the team's owner, just because he has it and fans want him to. Doing so would create a lot of good will and presumably make the team more competitive, and I'm not saying it is or isn't the right thing to do, but it's not our right to insist that he give away his own money.

[Squirrel]

2 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

I have never decided how I feel about this. To me he should be spending whatever it takes of the team's money to get the most talent. But whether he has a billion dollars or a hundred dollars, I don't think he should be obligated to take money out of his own pocket, the vast majority of which did not derive from earnings as the team's owner, just because he has it and fans want him to. Doing so would create a lot of good will and presumably make the team more competitive, and I'm not saying it is or isn't the right thing to do, but it's not our right to insist that he give away his own money.

I'm not suggesting that at all. 

[Nine of twelve]

1 minute ago, Squirrel said:

I'm not suggesting that at all. 

And I'm not suggesting that you were suggesting it. As I said, I think he should spend as much of the team's money as possible to optimize player talent. I just wanted to express the thought.

[Squirrel]

Just now, Nine of twelve said:

And I'm not suggesting that you were suggesting it. I just wanted to express the thought.

But ... the owner could set a higher payroll, knowing that there are several players under team control for a few years, and with our media contract ending after next season and presumably we can sign a new deal that gives us a boost, this is the right time to sign Correa long-term. I think the team can handle it and I think the owner can handle it.

[Nine of twelve]

1 minute ago, Squirrel said:

But ... the owner could set a higher payroll, knowing that there are several players under team control for a few years, and with our media contract ending after next season and presumably we can sign a new deal that gives us a boost, this is the right time to sign Correa long-term. I think the team can handle it and I think the owner can handle it.

I think we are in agreement. As I said, I think he should be spending as much of the team's money as is required to optimize the roster. And whatever cut he himself takes from the team's profits should be considered to be part of that. But because you referenced the owner's personal wealth it can be inferred that you feel the team's money could or should be supplemented with his personal wealth as well. 

[Squirrel]

Just now, Nine of twelve said:

But because you referenced the owner's personal wealth it can be inferred that you feel the team's money could or should be supplemented with his personal wealth as well. 

No, was suggesting that he could take less of a cut this year to get it done

[Nine of twelve]

Just now, Squirrel said:

No, was suggesting that he could take less of a cut this year to get it done

OK, I concur. That wasn't clear to me in your post that I originally cited.

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

The good thing about possibly having to move Correa to third base eventually is that he definitely has the arm to man that position.  Signing him leaves open the possibility of third base IF, for some reason, he does decline at SS.

For sure. His arm will keep him more defensively viable as he ages. 

[mikelink45]

1 hour ago, dex8425 said:

Imagine what the Twins winning percentage would have been if Correa got hurt and Gordon or Palacios was playing shortstop every day. Or Polanco. Would've been ugly. 

The Dodgers were deeper this year, but didn't have vintage Jansen-led bullpen, or 3 top starters. They started Gonsolin who wasn't stretched out. If Buehler was healthy I think it makes the series different? Idk. 

I know what you are saying, but when you finish 481 it really doesn't matter what you might have finished.  We stunk and one player could not raise the sinking ship.

 

[nicksaviking]

25 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

I think we are in agreement. As I said, I think he should be spending as much of the team's money as is required to optimize the roster. And whatever cut he himself takes from the team's profits should be considered to be part of that. But because you referenced the owner's personal wealth it can be inferred that you feel the team's money could or should be supplemented with his personal wealth as well. 

Well whatever St. Louis and San Diego are doing to fight in the higher weight class, that's what I'm in favor of this team doing.

But also, they don't actually NEED to fight in that weight class to sign Correa or another top SS. Their current payroll would fit a giant contract quite comfortably.

[Rosterman]

He got so many catcalls and boos from visiting Dodger fans when the Twins played the N.L. team at Target Field!

[Major League Ready]

41 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

I'm not suggesting that at all. 

If you are not suggesting he take money out of his own pocket, his wealth is absolutely meaningless in this discussion.  

[nicksaviking]

7 hours ago, Rosterman said:

He got so many catcalls and boos from visiting Dodger fans when the Twins played the N.L. team at Target Field!

He got booed in Minnesota while still an Astro too. It's tough to be a fan without having some built in hypocrisy. 

[RpR]

14 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

Sarcasm.  101.  Learn it dude.  Actually, though, if they had 4 MLB ready SS they wouldn't be that far from the World Series.

IF, that wonderful word IF, que sera, sera.