Do the Twins Have a Trick to Lure Free Agents?

[Ted Schwerzler]

The Minnesota Twins have plenty of money to spend this offseason, and there’s some great fits that will cost a lot. How does this front office work to ensure they can land the big fish, and is there a way for them to get creative in hoping it helps?

 

Image courtesy of Jeffrey Becker-USA TODAY Sports

Over the years we’ve heard Derek Falvey and Thad Levine use plenty of buzzwords when describing their process as heads of the Twins' front office. One comment that has been made was a willingness to “get creative” in signing new contracts. Creativity leaves plenty to the imagination, but we certainly saw a new way of negotiating when Carlos Correa was signed last spring.

Prolific agent Scott Boras negotiated a $105.3 million deal that was tied to a three-year term. Except, as we knew from the moment Correa agreed to put on a Twins uniform, he was only going to be with Minnesota on this deal for a single year. The Twins allowed Correa to have opt-outs after each of the first two seasons in this deal. He was always going to exercise that following a successful year one, and would’ve had a safety blanket in year two had he needed to opt back in.

So, do opt-outs allow Minnesota a way to put contracts a bit more in favor of the player?

Maybe someone will offer Correa a $350 million contract over the course of ten years. It’s hard to see Minnesota coming close to that, in terms of duration or money. What they could do, however, is to put a shorter deal together with a bit less money, but allow Correa to opt out in year two or three. The ability to again rip up a deal and continue working towards more money is certainly an advantage for a player. Revenues continue to increase in baseball, and year over year, it’s understandable that yearly valuations would also rise.

We haven’t seen an extensive track record for contracts with opt-outs included in them; they are somewhat of a new negotiating tactic. That means it’s hard to pin just how much players or agents value them, and while they aren’t specifically a monetary gain, there’s a value they theoretically should carry as well.

This isn’t just a Correa discussion either. Six other prolific free agents opted out of their contracts to enter free agency this offseason. Regardless if it was Xander Bogaerts or Jacob deGrom, each of those decisions was made based on the ability to secure a larger payday on the next contract. Some of those players did so at a similar age to Correa, while others are much older and looking for a short-term deal that will pay substantially more than their previous guarantee.

As the Twins try to angle their way toward acquiring talent, they’ll need to find opportunities to differentiate their offers. It really doesn’t matter what level of financial security the Pohlad family has, as dollars are going to be handsome across organizations as a whole. If the Twins can make lucrative financial deals a bit more player-friendly in terms of an opt-out or full no-trade clause, they should certainly be willing to do so.

It’s hard to see a talent like Correa walk after just a season because he had the ability to opt-out, but it was that opportunity that provided a way for him to sign here in the first place. Is utilizing opt-outs something you’d like to see the Twins do more of even if it relates to a lesser commitment from a given player?

View full article

[MABB1959]

The Twins are not mentioned in any of the MLB Rumors section.  Sean Murphy looks like a catcher we could use among many pitchers.  

[baul0010]

Free agents aren't looking for creativity.  They are looking for years and dollars.  There were extenuating circumstances last off-season that led to the MN Twins signing Correa.  There's a reason you don't see many contracts like Correa's previously opted out of.  

[mnfireman]

Player's generally want the option to opt out of a contract to pursue either a bigger, longer contract or higher AAV. Correa's value is at its peak because of his age (28) and position (SS). In 4 or 5 years he will be "old" by MLB standards and ready for a positions change, both of which mean less $$$. He could have played out his contract in MN and not cost himself anything, unless he got hurt in year 3. He would be 30 years old and inline for another big payday, lets say 7 years, $245 MM. That would equate out to 10 years, $350.3 MM including the 3 year, $105.3 signed last year. I don't think he gets that much this year competing against Judge, Bogaerts, Swanson, Turner, Verlander, deGrom, etc... 

[Rosterman]

You do the opt outs because you feel the price of superstar money will increase sunbstantially as each year passes. 

Who knows, the Twins could come back now with three years and $130 million with an opt out again. Would you pass on that if you aen't getting the longterm...and maybe asking for $50 million in year one and $40 each of the other two.

Remember, the danger of an "opt out" is that if injured, the player still gets paid. So you better have a darn good insurance policy.

[ashbury]

We saw only the upside of Correa's opt-out arrangement.  A few players that demonstrate the downside will cure us of thinking it's a panacea.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

Like actor Cuba Gooding said in the movie, "Jerry McGuire" : "Show me the money, Jerry. Show me the money".

[Doctor Gast]

I think when FO says we'll be creative, that means they're open for creative ideas from outside sources. This contract with Correa was advantagious to both parties, this opt out was because at the time we only needed him short term. If we want to contract a player for long term this contract won't work for our favor.

[Game7-91]

Could see generous opt-outs in particular situations, but they would be the exception to the rule. Guaranteed cash is still king. But for some who are younger, maybe pre-30, and potentially could increase their value over a 2-4 year period, they might be interested.

Guess the question might be, if opt-outs are one way to increase the non-cash value of the offer, why not offer annual opt-outs after the first 2 years for shorter overall term? Player has guaranteed higher value on the front end, team has guaranteed performance for 2 years , and if player thinks he can leverage a better deal at that point,  more power to him. Would have to be somebody willing to bet on himself in a big way.

Theoretically it sounds reasonable, but I suspect in reality it will still be a matter of guaranteed cash carrying the day most of the time. That, and the dreadful no-trade clauses..........but those seem to be the cost of doing business in the high end free agent pool. 

[EGFTShaw]

I think the intent here is, what can the Twins provide as value or incentive to lure Big Time FAs that may otherwise not want to come here.

Opts Outs are one idea.

Smart Agents will look at long term earnings potential vs security and try to maximize both.

The downside is exactly that if you make the contract one-sided to the player.  If the player gets hurt or declines rapidly or walks off the Flat Edge of the Earth (Hi Kyrie) the team is on the hook.

But what if as the contract ages that it becomes a mutual options vs a player only option.  So, unless both want to continue the contract ends with whatever agreement is place for said ending.

I've been in favor of the Twins thinking outside of the box when it comes to signing FAs that Move the Playoff Needle in our favor.  Not the bargains basement stuff.  I would rather work with our young players than waste money on bargain basement FAs, (some exceptions of course), or reclamation projects.  Although sometimes your farm system does not allow you to take this stance.

Check the data, C4 is very similar to Cal Ripken, Jr when it comes to pre-age 28 WAR, body type, smarts and clubhouse impact.  Check CRJr's WAR after year 28 to however long you want the contract to be.  

Then using what I hear is the industry standard of $8M/War and make a case for a good contract.

[Whitey333]

Opt out clauses are ok but not after just one year.  Plus make it mutual options.  That way the team can get out of a possible bad contract as well.  A one year opt out contract to a superstar does very little for the team.  If the Twins don't resign Correa it begs the question as to what good did it do to have him here?  Also if you sign one player to that much money and then can't or won't spend much more, you are still left with a mediocre team.

[ashbury]

4 hours ago, EGFTShaw said:

But what if as the contract ages that it becomes a mutual options vs a player only option.  So, unless both want to continue the contract ends with whatever agreement is place for said ending.

Is there enough of a track record with mutual options to have a feel for how they work in practice?  When I hear about a mutual option in year N of a new contract, I always assume it's about 1% to play out in that way.  Too much can happen in years 1 to N-1, for $X million to be the correct number both sides will still agree to.

[EGFTShaw]

55 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Is there enough of a track record with mutual options to have a feel for how they work in practice?  When I hear about a mutual option in year N of a new contract, I always assume it's about 1% to play out in that way.  Too much can happen in years 1 to N-1, for $X million to be the correct number both sides will still agree to.

I am not sure on the track record.  We here about the bad contracts always and the REALLY great contracts.  But the contracts that are mutually good fly under the radar as they aren't newsworthy.

My instinct is that the mutual options are a relatively, (less than a decade) new thing.  I only recall player or club options.

[Heiny]

I posted the following on the article stating the Correa opted out of his contract.  I think it is appropriate here, so I copied and pasted from Nov. 8.   

 

 

                                 

• 
• Verified Member
• •  119
• Location: Perham, Mn

Posted November 8

My humble opinion, which I believe to be fair for both parties.  Yes, I want Correa to stay.  How about an 8 year contract for $280M slightly front loaded with player options after years 4 and 5 and mutual options after years 6 and 7.  Absolutely no "No trade clause".  I think this should be offered early and if not accepted move on so we still have options on how to spend that money.  With money saved from the Sano and Sanchez Contracts we still have money to sign a frontline pitcher.  Our payroll would be virtually the same.  Make some trades if necessary to upgrade at C and bullpen.  And I think this would be enough to compete, barring the injury factor,  but everybody faces that possibility.