Rumor: Jim Pohlad "Totally on Board" with re-signing Correa

[Brock Beauchamp]

Obviously, the Twins say they "want" to keep Correa but we've all heard this song and dance before. This interview gives little indication whether the Twins will actually be *competitive* in the Carlos Correa sweepstakes but at least they're talking about it as if it's a real possibility. This doesn't change my opinion whether the Twins have a real shot at keeping him or not but at least they're not already moving on and trying to convince the fanbase that's in the best interest of the franchise.

What do you believe the odds are the Twins will have Carlos Correa on the 2023 Opening Day roster?

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/11/twins-rumors-carlos-correa-jim-pohlad-owner.html

View full rumor

[Squirrel]

I think realistically is 0% … that’s what I think of the FO with the ‘We’re on board’ which will become, ‘We tried’

[Brock Beauchamp]

I put their chances at maybe 5%. Remote to the point of not being a real consideration but also not impossible.

[weitz41]

I'll go with 2.5%..Halfway between Squirrel and Beauchamp..I expect a "we tried" but hope for last off-seasons surprise.

[nicksaviking]

Obviously there will be a payroll limit we as fans will never be privy too, but any Correa contract could fit into that limit comfortably. I honestly do think Jim Pohlad is on board with signing Correa, but the Pohlad's aren't known to be meddlers. The biggest problem is that Falvey or Lavine (whos responsibility is this really? we SHOULD know that as fans) know that they'll be judged based on how this hypothetical deal works out. I do believe it's almost entirely in the hands of the front office and how comfortable they are making this type of decision.

[Nine of twelve]

I'm quite confident the Twins will make an offer. I'm just as confident it will not be the best offer Correa receives. 

[RJA]

I fear this is a scene we have seen play out before.  Pohlads say they are on board with some move, but they don't pony up the dollars to get it done.  Then the FO says they made a competitive offer, but try as they might, they couldn't make it happen.  Then, in response to a reporter's question, the FO will say Pohlad "was all in and money wasn't an obstacle."  "Pohlad has never turned us down when we have gone to him and asked for money to make the team better."  Sound familiar?  It should.  It is a way to protect Pohlad from criticism for being a tightwad.  Wouldn't it be nice if behind the scenes Pohlad said "do what you need to do to get player X,Y or Z.  I will expand the budget to accomodate his salary."  I won't hold my breath.

[baul0010]

Why wouldn't you be totally on board when your offer will be 5 for 150....

[Squirrel]

16 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

I'm quite confident the Twins will make an offer. I'm just as confident it will not be the best offer Correa receives. 

Yep ... 'We tried' is their mantra

[IndianaTwin]

Better than I thought they were at this point last year...

Meaning, I still think it's doubtful, but they HAVE pulled off surprises. Few of us expected Correa. Few of us expected Donaldson. I don't remember back that far, but how many of us expected Cruz the first time? Not sure how many of us expected them to come through with seven years on Buxton.

 

[IndianaTwin]

And while I'm at it, I'll make the first of my probably eleventy-seven times of saying this -- can we please not judge the entire offseason on one transaction that does or doesn't happen, can we please not make "we didn't even try" assertions on every free agent that we're not linked to, and and can we please wait until Opening Day to put a grade on the offseason?

(This is not directed to anyone on this post -- just a general declaration about the tenor of how offseason TD discussions seem to go.)

EDIT to add: @Squirrel, you must have posted while I was typing. I indeed wasn't poking at you! ?

 

[IndianaTwin]

And completely unrelated, @Squirrel, you may be interested in knowing that my alma mater just introduced a new mascot, a squirrel named Dash. You have to be creative when you're the Maple Leafs. 

https://goleafs.net/sports/2022/10/6/meet-the-mascot.aspx

 

 

[ashbury]

[Squirrel]

30 minutes ago, IndianaTwin said:

And while I'm at it, I'll make the first of my probably eleventy-seven times of saying this -- can we please not judge the entire offseason on one transaction that does or doesn't happen, can we please not make "we didn't even try" assertations on every free agent that we're not linked to, and and can we please wait until Opening Day to put a grade on the offseason?

(This is not directed to anyone on this post -- just a general declaration about the tenor of how offseason TD discussions seem to go.)

EDIT to add: @Squirrel, you must have posted while I was typing. I indeed wasn't poking at you! ?

 

It's okay. I'm not saying they didn't try. But that does seem to be the most-oft response. It doesn't mean they didn't try, but ... there it is. It's not about not trying, it's about not putting forth the best offer.

[rv78]

I'd venture to guess the "totally on board" mantra will be if Correa falls into their lap. again. Otherwise it won't happen, which I'm fine with, IF they spend the money to improve the team elsewhere.

[Cris E]

All I want is a well-considered "we tried", not a "Correa at all costs" rager. They could afford a 8/320 deal for the next few years, but it would be dumb.  The Falvine know that they can fit him in, but they have other obligations coming due soon and things are going to get tighter when all these awesome kids hit arbitration in the next 2-4 years. So you want to keep Duran and Ryan and Miranda and two or three others? If Duran stays good he's going to cost a fortune. It doesn't take a lot of $11m paystubs to get to $150m. 

Pick something we can live with (7*35=245? 8/280?) and let it fly. It only takes one team saying "This is the most important thing we will do this decade" to blow away all other offers, and given our depth in young SS I don't think we should be that team.

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, RJA said:

I fear this is a scene we have seen play out before.  Pohlads say they are on board with some move, but they don't pony up the dollars to get it done.  Then the FO says they made a competitive offer, but try as they might, they couldn't make it happen.  Then, in response to a reporter's question, the FO will say Pohlad "was all in and money wasn't an obstacle."  "Pohlad has never turned us down when we have gone to him and asked for money to make the team better."  Sound familiar?  It should.  It is a way to protect Pohlad from criticism for being a tightwad.  Wouldn't it be nice if behind the scenes Pohlad said "do what you need to do to get player X,Y or Z.  I will expand the budget to accomodate his salary."  I won't hold my breath.

No, that actually does not sound familiar. The Twins have been giving out big contracts the last several years and any contract Correa would get wouldn't put the Twins over any self-imposed salary cap. I highly doubt ownership cares HOW the front office spends that salary space. A deal for Correa wouldn't put the team over budget so what would it matter to ownership? In fact, one Carlos Correa surely brings in more revenue than four bargain basement free agents.

If a deal for Correa, one of the other shortstops, Rodon or any other big budget free agent doesn't come to pass, it'll be because either the player wants to be elsewhere, or because the front office shied away from committing X% of the payroll to a single individual player or committing X amount of years to a player. No deal most likely means that someone in the front office is too scared to tie their future employment to one deal that can be easily pointed at as being a mistake.

 

[tarheeltwinsfan]

Take a note from fellow UNC graduate, Michael Jordan, and "Just Do It". " .

[prouster]

To me, it seems unlikely that Correa will get a $300 million contract, which is probably what he's going for. The question is whether the Twins will offer him something that is good enough. I think they should (not that they will) offer him 8/250 and see what happens. In any case, it seems like they mean it when they say they want to keep him.

I actually think they have an okay shot at signing him, maybe something like 10%. They have the benefit of a longer negotiation window, and the fact that he signed here last year means that a surprise can happen.

[Squirrel]

7 minutes ago, prouster said:

To me, it seems unlikely that Correa will get a $300 million contract

Why do you say that? I think he's as good or better than some others who received that

[KirbyDome89]

Totally on board......with a number of years and AAV we feel provides great value. What team isn't interested within those parameters? 

[Riverbrian]

Cool... Hope they sign him.

However... 

If the process goes deep into the off-season, which has been known to happen with Boras. This could really hamstring our pursuit of other free agents due to the clock running out. I assume they would have to hold the necessary funds for the possibility of signing Correa and can't spend it while courting him. 

 Going for it and losing him late in the off-season could leave a 35 million dollar unrealized hole. 

?

 

[prouster]

29 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Why do you say that? I think he's as good or better than some others who received that

Mainly a hunch. He's a year older and will likely move off shortstop partway through a long term deal. To cross the $300 million threshold, I think he'd need 10 years. I don't think a team will sign him for that long. I guess I wouldn't be shocked if it happened, but I would be a little surprised.

[IndianaTwin]

2 hours ago, Squirrel said:

Why do you say that? I think he's as good or better than some others who received that

I could reasonably see it being beyond $300M. There's an element of one upmanship and pride in these negotiations. The .1 in $35.1M wasn't coincidence -- it allowed him to top Rendon in AAV among infielders. With that in mind, I think it will take either some years at >$35M or at $300M in total, since that's a nice round number. Perhaps both.

So here's the idea that I've floated elsewhere...

8 years at $270M. The first four years at $36M, followed by two at $33M and two at $30M, with opt outs after four and six years.

Correa gets...

• A raise for the first four years and in the neighborhood of some of the biggies that have happened. 
• The ability to opt out if he thinks he can beat 4 years for $126M at age 31 or 2 years for $60M at age 33.
• A slightly front-loaded contract, which is beneficial for investment purposes. 

The Twins get...

• A bit of salary relief after four and six years if he opts in.
• A lot of salary relief after four or six years if he opts out.
• The ability for Lewis to play 3B for several years, flip-flopping with Correa at the appropriate time (think ARod moving to 3B). 

Is that close? I'm not sure it's enough, but I'm also not sure I'd go much further. 

 

[RJA]

2 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

No, that actually does not sound familiar. The Twins have been giving out big contracts the last several years and any contract Correa would get wouldn't put the Twins over any self-imposed salary cap. I highly doubt ownership cares HOW the front office spends that salary space. A deal for Correa wouldn't put the team over budget so what would it matter to ownership? In fact, one Carlos Correa surely brings in more revenue than four bargain basement free agents.

If a deal for Correa, one of the other shortstops, Rodon or any other big budget free agent doesn't come to pass, it'll be because either the player wants to be elsewhere, or because the front office shied away from committing X% of the payroll to a single individual player or committing X amount of years to a player. No deal most likely means that someone in the front office is too scared to tie their future employment to one deal that can be easily pointed at as being a mistake.

 

Thanks for the comment, but  I think you are missing the point completely.  I know they could sign Correa within present salary constraints,  But, that is not my point.  My point is that Pohlad has TOO LOW of a salary limit unless you believe all of this stuff about salaries as a percentage of revenue.  The Twins are a capital asset for Pohlad.  The family bought it for 44 million and it is now worth somewhere near 1.5 billion.  That means Pohlad now has an asset worth almost a billion and a half more than when it was purchased.  Pohlad has shown no interest in signing big free agents UNLESS they fit within his budget constraints.  That is how we end up with Happ, Shoemaker, Bundy, Archer, Smith, Bailey, Hill, etc.. etc, etc.  instead of Wheeler, Gausman, Ray, Stroman, etc., etc., etc.  Coming off of 2019, what significant pitcher did they sign?  In the best free agent pitching class in history, what free agent pitcher did they sign?  If you haven't heard Pohlad in previous years say some of these things, with all due respect, you haven't been listening.  If you haven't heard the FO say "Pohlad has never turned us down", you haven't been listening.He sends Dave St. Peter out to deliver the bad news about reduced revenues, etc. instead of saying it himself.  Nobody expects a 300 million dollar payroll like San DIego (though the market is the same size or smaller), but good heavens when you have a team coming off of 2019 and don't stretch to make a real run at the prize, it is truly sad.  Go for it, at least sometimes.   But, the great thing about this forum is that we can disagree.  Everyone has an opinion.  It makes the off season fun.  

[terrydactyls]

In my backwoods opinion, if the Twins make several big moves this off-season, the value of the team would also increase for three reasons: A) the additional star power bringing more fans to the stadium, increased merchandise sales, and C) a team being a legitimate World Series contender.  Adding $25M to the budget would be pretty minor if the team value goes up to $1.6B or more.

[tony&rodney]

The Pohlad's businesses are not emotional ventures. The goal is to maximize the asset, which many would argue (why not?) is the point of business. Carl and sons are not baseball people or fans. That's ok for many businesses but baseball does require some level of risk via spending that may be more difficult than many normal businesses. The alternative is to be superior at scouting, drafting, and developing. A combination of financial risk and an eye for player talent works best. The Twins are currently in a rough spot. Jim Pohlad repeats the same lines spoken decades in the past by his father because he has hired people to run his (the family) baseball business and does not have a vision for the Minnesota Twins beyond the expected financial return, and that is his right. Twins fans haven't seen their team among the highest in MLB payrolls since the heydays of Calvin Griffith's 1960 teams. San Diego has a smaller market but has spent big. Whatever the answer is, spend $140-180 million for 2023 or cut back to $90-110 million, I just hope the Twins are interesting in 2023 because their 2022 product was horrid and I followed them to the end just like a fanatic. 

[CRF]

Yeah...sure he is. I'll bet he's got the blank check all signed and ready to go. 

[dxpavelka]

5 years $190 million.  Make it happen. 

[Linus]

Only a fool listens to Jim Pohlad.