Thanks for the. Angst.

[mikelink45]

I have really enjoyed the emotions I have triggered in my stand against giving Correa a large long term contract. But replies to replies seemed inadequate. 

Yes I think there will be a lot of buyers remorse in four years. 

Yes Correa was a very good player but in response to many of you: we would have missed the playoffs and finished in the same place in the standings without him last year. 

Do I want to see the owners keep the money?  No. But I will still insist one great player does not make a team. I continually sight the Angels but they actually have three in Trout, Ohtani and Rendon. 

Judge did not get them to the WS nor did the big contract Padres or Dodgers. 

For that matter the Banks led Cubs with five HOF players did not sniff the pennant and Ted Williams could not make the Red Sox world champs. 

Houston won with a complete team. They had a roster that covered the mound, field, and bench. 

What would I have liked?  With the SS money. Sign Iglesias short term.  Sign Contreras for our catcher and sign Walker for the mound. Spread the money impact. And if that does not cover all of it - reward the fans with cheaper tickets. 

There you go.  Keep debating. I love it

 

 

[Mark G]

4 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

I have really enjoyed the emotions I have triggered in my stand against giving Correa a large long term contract. But replies to replies seemed inadequate. 

Yes I think there will be a lot of buyers remorse in four years. 

Yes Correa was a very good player but in response to many of you: we would have missed the playoffs and finished in the same place in the standings without him last year. 

Do I want to see the owners keep the money?  No. But I will still insist one great player does not make a team. I continually sight the Angels but they actually have three in Trout, Ohtani and Rendon. 

Judge did not get them to the WS nor did the big contract Padres or Dodgers. 

For that matter the Banks led Cubs with five HOF players did not sniff the pennant and Ted Williams could not make the Red Sox world champs. 

Houston won with a complete team. They had a roster that covered the mound, field, and bench. 

What would I have liked?  With the SS money. Sign Iglesias short term.  Sign Contreras for our catcher and sign Walker for the mound. Spread the money impact. And if that does not cover all of it - reward the fans with cheaper tickets. 

There you go.  Keep debating. I love it

 

 

"And if that does not cover all of it - reward the fans with cheaper tickets."

Could I trade that in for fewer commercials when I watch on TV?   ?

Seriously, when you sign a Correa to the long term contract we are talking about, and commit the kind of money we are also talking about, you are getting more than just a bat in the line up.  You are securing your SS position for as long as it takes to find the next Correa, and a key element in your infield for years to come.  You are getting a field playing version of Nelson Cruz; a leader in the clubhouse and in the dugout, a mentor to young guys (Miranda?  Arraez?  Others coming up throughout the years?), and a guy that will represent the franchise as well.  Hell, he might even inspire folks to buy tickets, at least at first.  At the time, we debated whether Mauer's contract hindered the team payroll year after year, but in hindsight how many players come along that you put in your team HOF?  Correa has the potential to be that type of player should he play out his career with one team; would it be so bad if that team was the Twins?  We pay Buxton the kind of money we do knowing he might only play half the season much of the time.  What would a full season be worth?  And would we have paid that, even to Buck?  I bet we would be having the same debate then if we had been talking about 8 years at 30 mil or so.  This team always debates payroll; it has been part of the franchise since they were in Washington.  We keep getting told the game has changed and we have to accept that.  Well, salaries are part of that change; we can keep up, or we can step back and watch.  

No, one great player does not make a team.  But I can't think of one great team that didn't have at least one great player, either.  

And lastly, the guy is just fun to watch.  To me, that is worth something in itself.  

And the debate IS fun.  I love it too.  ?

[mikelink45]

54 minutes ago, Mark G said:

"And if that does not cover all of it - reward the fans with cheaper tickets."

Could I trade that in for fewer commercials when I watch on TV?   ?

Seriously, when you sign a Correa to the long term contract we are talking about, and commit the kind of money we are also talking about, you are getting more than just a bat in the line up.  You are securing your SS position for as long as it takes to find the next Correa, and a key element in your infield for years to come.  You are getting a field playing version of Nelson Cruz; a leader in the clubhouse and in the dugout, a mentor to young guys (Miranda?  Arraez?  Others coming up throughout the years?), and a guy that will represent the franchise as well.  Hell, he might even inspire folks to buy tickets, at least at first.  At the time, we debated whether Mauer's contract hindered the team payroll year after year, but in hindsight how many players come along that you put in your team HOF?  Correa has the potential to be that type of player should he play out his career with one team; would it be so bad if that team was the Twins?  We pay Buxton the kind of money we do knowing he might only play half the season much of the time.  What would a full season be worth?  And would we have paid that, even to Buck?  I bet we would be having the same debate then if we had been talking about 8 years at 30 mil or so.  This team always debates payroll; it has been part of the franchise since they were in Washington.  We keep getting told the game has changed and we have to accept that.  Well, salaries are part of that change; we can keep up, or we can step back and watch.  

No, one great player does not make a team.  But I can't think of one great team that didn't have at least one great player, either.  

And lastly, the guy is just fun to watch.  To me, that is worth something in itself.  

And the debate IS fun.  I love it too.  ?

What a great come back - that is what I enjoy.  The Nelson Cruz/Correa comp was really good.  And yes to the commercials, but then the game would speed up! 

[Brock Beauchamp]

At this point I'm convinced the Pohlads own a controlling interest in Tums.

[WhenWillWeBeatNY]

I was agreeing with everything you said up until signing Contreas.

[chpettit19]

9 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

I have really enjoyed the emotions I have triggered in my stand against giving Correa a large long term contract. But replies to replies seemed inadequate. 

Yes I think there will be a lot of buyers remorse in four years. 

Yes Correa was a very good player but in response to many of you: we would have missed the playoffs and finished in the same place in the standings without him last year. 

Do I want to see the owners keep the money?  No. But I will still insist one great player does not make a team. I continually sight the Angels but they actually have three in Trout, Ohtani and Rendon. 

Judge did not get them to the WS nor did the big contract Padres or Dodgers. 

For that matter the Banks led Cubs with five HOF players did not sniff the pennant and Ted Williams could not make the Red Sox world champs. 

Houston won with a complete team. They had a roster that covered the mound, field, and bench. 

What would I have liked?  With the SS money. Sign Iglesias short term.  Sign Contreras for our catcher and sign Walker for the mound. Spread the money impact. And if that does not cover all of it - reward the fans with cheaper tickets. 

There you go.  Keep debating. I love it

 

 

My first question is what the point of Iglesias would be now that they have Farmer. Do you feel he's an upgrade on Farmer? I don't. I think he's a different style hitter (all contact, no power vs medium contact and power), but doesn't significantly help the team at all. So I'd spend that money elsewhere (he got $5 million last year and I'd assume he gets roughly the same this year). Or was this your plan before the Farmer trade?

My second question is whether 4 years is just a random guess or you have a specific reason you think Correa's contract is bad by the time he's 32. "Buyers remorse" is an interesting phenomenon in sports. Some fans want the player to be worth their contract every year of the deal. Others look at the lifetime of the contract and judge it as good or bad based on the combination of years. Others are just happy the team signed that player at all. Some are just mad that athletes make so much money. I think the 2 "important" ones are the lifetime vs individual year approaches.

It feels like you're an "individual year" kind of thinker. Nothing wrong with that, just my observation. That would definitely lead you to feeling a different way about these kinds of deals. I'm a "lifetime" approach kind of person. It's why I love the Buxton deal. The real question isn't how us two "keyboard GMs" view those contracts, but how the FO and ownership view them. To this point it sure feels like the previous head Pohlads and FO execs view those deals like you. They want the player to be worth their deal every season. It is starting to feel like this FO may view things a little more my way. The Buxton deal feels kind of in the middle while a potential Correa deal will almost certainly have some bad years at the end so you'd think the motivation for signing it is the lifetime view.

All this to say I agree that these discussions are fun and interesting. I enjoy seeing how others process the deals that are handed out, or the possible deals. I hope they sign Correa (for multiple short and long-term reasons) as I think Correa+$8 million is better than Contreras, Walker, and Iglesias. I'd even take Correa+$3 million over Contreras (I don't expect him to age well) and Walker (he's no better than Joe Ryan and I only want someone who'd be the new "best on staff"). But I certainly understand the desire to spread the money around.

[Musk21]

I'm convinced that no matter what happens there are going to be plenty of unhappy people.

Correa signs with the Twins - "Why did we commit so much $ and so many years to 1 player?"

Correa signs elsewhere - "Cheap Pohlads strike again!"

[mikelink45]

20 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

My first question is what the point of Iglesias would be now that they have Farmer. Do you feel he's an upgrade on Farmer? I don't. I think he's a different style hitter (all contact, no power vs medium contact and power), but doesn't significantly help the team at all. So I'd spend that money elsewhere (he got $5 million last year and I'd assume he gets roughly the same this year). Or was this your plan before the Farmer trade?

My second question is whether 4 years is just a random guess or you have a specific reason you think Correa's contract is bad by the time he's 32. "Buyers remorse" is an interesting phenomenon in sports. Some fans want the player to be worth their contract every year of the deal. Others look at the lifetime of the contract and judge it as good or bad based on the combination of years. Others are just happy the team signed that player at all. Some are just mad that athletes make so much money. I think the 2 "important" ones are the lifetime vs individual year approaches.

It feels like you're an "individual year" kind of thinker. Nothing wrong with that, just my observation. That would definitely lead you to feeling a different way about these kinds of deals. I'm a "lifetime" approach kind of person. It's why I love the Buxton deal. The real question isn't how us two "keyboard GMs" view those contracts, but how the FO and ownership view them. To this point it sure feels like the previous head Pohlads and FO execs view those deals like you. They want the player to be worth their deal every season. It is starting to feel like this FO may view things a little more my way. The Buxton deal feels kind of in the middle while a potential Correa deal will almost certainly have some bad years at the end so you'd think the motivation for signing it is the lifetime view.

All this to say I agree that these discussions are fun and interesting. I enjoy seeing how others process the deals that are handed out, or the possible deals. I hope they sign Correa (for multiple short and long-term reasons) as I think Correa+$8 million is better than Contreras, Walker, and Iglesias. I'd even take Correa+$3 million over Contreras (I don't expect him to age well) and Walker (he's no better than Joe Ryan and I only want someone who'd be the new "best on staff"). But I certainly understand the desire to spread the money around.

Nice observations - I was thinking Iglesias before Farmer.  With Farmer he is not needed and we could get another Right handed OF, but your observations are right on.  I want value throughout the contract not 4 good years and then an oversized payment to someone taking up roster space.  

The average age of decline for a SS is 33, it is the time Correa might be expected to shift over to 2B.  Correa could beat my 4 great years and decline message, but the fact he does not have the speed of a Turner works against longevity.  However my statement applies over all the signings - not limited to Correa.

[tony&rodney]

We all can agree that the money is stupid big. That is a reality. The Twins signed Kirby to the biggest contract in baseball. A larger contract shortly thereafter broke that record. Fans pay the bills but the prices don't come down. The support for a team comes from the interest in that team. Winning is big but an exciting product is important as we saw from last year.

Signing Correa allows the Twins an opportunity to blend in prospects as they are ready and also means that the team can trade for other needs. I think it was short-sighted to push the entire Correa deal into the offseason because the prices just keep going up. The owners, led by Manfred, cried poverty all last offseason. Now? It turns out there are piles of gold coins just sitting around. Who knew? If the Twins cannot sign anyone or complete a trade or two, let the kids play. Further, if the market is so crazed for pitching maybe Falvey should be looking to see the worth of Gray to another team. 

I would like to see Falvey sign Carlos Correa and trade for Sean Murphy and Pablo Lopez. Then again, maybe that's nuts.

It should be interesting to see what transpires in 2023.

[se7799]

Another point I'd like to make in favor of a Correa signing.  I know its a what if..heck isn't everything though.  What if/when Buxton does play close to a full season?  Will we have a player like Correa signed in the fold to capitalize on it?  Or will it be just Buxton and a bunch of nobody's.  If Buxton stayed somewhat healthy last year..then that Correa signing turns out to be huge...and we do at least win the division, maybe more.  Just because it didn't happen last year does Not mean it can't happen next season.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

On 12/9/2022 at 12:22 AM, mikelink45 said:

I have really enjoyed the emotions I have triggered in my stand against giving Correa a large long term contract. But replies to replies seemed inadequate. 

Yes I think there will be a lot of buyers remorse in four years. 

Yes Correa was a very good player but in response to many of you: we would have missed the playoffs and finished in the same place in the standings without him last year. 

Do I want to see the owners keep the money?  No. But I will still insist one great player does not make a team. I continually sight the Angels but they actually have three in Trout, Ohtani and Rendon. 

Judge did not get them to the WS nor did the big contract Padres or Dodgers. 

For that matter the Banks led Cubs with five HOF players did not sniff the pennant and Ted Williams could not make the Red Sox world champs. 

Houston won with a complete team. They had a roster that covered the mound, field, and bench. 

What would I have liked?  With the SS money. Sign Iglesias short term.  Sign Contreras for our catcher and sign Walker for the mound. Spread the money impact. And if that does not cover all of it - reward the fans with cheaper tickets. 

There you go.  Keep debating. I love it

 

 

I think some of the discussion needs to be “to what extent do you believe injuries will repeat themselves?”.

if you think lesser extent, this is already a well rounded very good hitting team with 3-4 very good starting pitchers and 2-4 very good relievers, and are just a few key components away from really competing.

if you think to a greater extent, there might need some additional higher quality players required.

 

I tend to fall a bit towards the lesser on the hitter side. Sure Buxton is going to get banged up, but the corner OF have good depth, Celestino has a ton of potential as a strong backup, outside of SS there’s quality players to start day 1, and depth around the infield except Catcher, where there’s 2 year out depth, but very thin in ‘22. I don’t think Lewis will be ready until late in the year, and of any position in baseball, SS is THE place to have a star.

pitching I think to greater, but the options for starting free agents don’t help, and don’t improve over Gray, Ryan, Maeda, Mahle. That’s 4 pitchers who are all very good 2-3 types. None of them are Game 1 WS types, all are game 2/3 types. Rodon is a game type but is an injury risk that I’d be all-in on for the right contract, but doesn’t look like that’s happening. Relievers, I’d rather convert fringe minor league starters and churn ‘n burn, than commit free agency contracts. Volume at reliever over pinpoint accuracy.

[ashbury]

On 12/9/2022 at 8:32 AM, Musk21 said:

I'm convinced that no matter what happens there are going to be plenty of unhappy people.

Correa signs with the Twins - "Why did we commit so much $ and so many years to 1 player?"

Correa signs elsewhere - "Cheap Pohlads strike again!"

2022 was the perfect synthesis. "Why did we commit so much of this year's payroll to one player? And an opt-out after one season  - cheap Pohlads!"

[Mike Sixel]

No team lowers ticket prices. Why do I keep reading this on this site?

[whosafraidofluigirussolo]

5 hours ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

pitching I think to greater, but the options for starting free agents don’t help, and don’t improve over Gray, Ryan, Maeda, Mahle. That’s 4 pitchers who are all very good 2-3 types. None of them are Game 1 WS types, all are game 2/3 types. Rodon is a game type but is an injury risk that I’d be all-in on for the right contract, but doesn’t look like that’s happening.

I'm hoping, maybe foolishly, that:

(1) The reason we're not hearing signs that a Rodon deal could be "happening" - other than the Twins' reported general interest - is that they're focusing on Correa right now (and know they won't sign both), but there's been enough preliminary conversation for them to go back and negotiate seriously with Rodon if a Correa deal doesn't look like it'll happen

(2) If the above is true, they'll be willing to stay in the bidding for Rodon if the the dollars and years go higher than they expected.

It's not impossible that other teams are slow-walking pursuit of Rodon while they're talking with Correa, too...

[Squirrel]

1 hour ago, whosafraidofluigirussolo said:

I'm hoping, maybe foolishly, that:

(1) The reason we're not hearing signs that a Rodon deal could be "happening" - other than the Twins' reported general interest - is that they're focusing on Correa right now (and know they won't sign both), but there's been enough preliminary conversation for them to go back and negotiate seriously with Rodon if a Correa deal doesn't look like it'll happen

(2) If the above is true, they'll be willing to stay in the bidding for Rodon if the the dollars and years go higher than they expected.

It's not impossible that other teams are slow-walking pursuit of Rodon while they're talking with Correa, too...

I honestly want them to pass on Rodon given the years and amount he will want, and get. It's a far riskier pursuit, imo. That said, I wouldn't be unhappy if they did.