The Carlos Correa Question

[Brock Beauchamp]

I had a user contact me about creating a poll to gauge where people land on this subject and now I'm curious about it. If in a magical world, you run the Twins and know the Giants have offered Carlos Correa a 13 year, $350m contract, would you match it?

The caveat is that payroll stays about where it was last year. Let's say $150m in 2023.

[wsnydes]

I don't think they should have, but they should have realized that there was no way he was signing for less and moved on quickly instead of holding themselves hostage.  To me, that's the most frustrating part of it.  You can't be that low and expect him to sign let alone basically put yourself in a holding pattern on other signings at the same time.

[cHawk]

Yes, I definitely would. If you have a chance to sign a player of Correa's caliber, 

[VivaBomboRivera!]

Higher annual. Seven years max. Lower total value.

[mnfireman]

7 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

You can't be that low and expect him to sign let alone basically put yourself in a holding pattern on other signings at the same time.

Why do people keep saying things like this? The team made several moves and were mentioned as "being in on" many of the top FA's. Considering how many hours are in a day and how many people the front office employs, this is a statement of ignorance. If one player is taking up all your time, then there are bigger problems at hand. However, that one player or players may force you to take Plan B or Plan C instead of Plan A. The team is now in the Plan B or Plan C stage.

And I vote NO. Correa is a helluva ballplayer, but he loses value when moved off of SS, and he's not staying there over the second half of this contract (inflation or not).

[wsnydes]

2 minutes ago, mnfireman said:

Why do people keep saying things like this? The team made several moves and were mentioned as "being in on" many of the top FA's. Considering how many hours are in a day and how many people the front office employs, this is a statement of ignorance. If one player is taking up all your time, then there are bigger problems at hand. However, that one player or players may force you to take Plan B or Plan C instead of Plan A. The team is now in the Plan B or Plan C stage.

And I vote NO. Correa is a helluva ballplayer, but he loses value when moved off of SS, and he's not staying there over the second half of this contract (inflation or not).

Being in on and actually signing those players are two very different things.  If they weren't tying up funds for a potential signing and used that to up offers on other players they were supposedly in on, perhaps they'd have landed a few of those players.  This team wasn't a Correa away from being a true competitor, they need many other pieces.  

Does the extra money guarantee signing those guys?  Absolutely not, but it certainly increases the odds.  

[Rondo]

Not a chance. The length of these contracts is ridiculous. He is not even the best Shortstop that was available. The Giants will regret this signing. OVERRATED

[Mike Sixel]

I can't think of one good reason not to match it. If you can afford ten 285, you can afford that. 

[bap3141]

2 hours ago, mnfireman said:

Why do people keep saying things like this? The team made several moves and were mentioned as "being in on" many of the top FA's. Considering how many hours are in a day and how many people the front office employs, this is a statement of ignorance.

My thoughts precisely.  The notion that the Front Office can don't more than one thing at once is laughable.  The implication would be that they are the most incompetent front office in sports history.

Pure nonsense.   My follow up would be, which free agents did the Twins miss out on?  Xander as Plan B?  Sure... but he signed before Correa.  

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

I can't think of one good reason not to match it. If you can afford ten 285, you can afford that. 

10 years or 13 years is irrelevant. What difference does it make? The Giants actually got him for a lower AAV than what the Twins supposedly offered. Take $5M per year for the first 10 years, set it aside in investments, and you've paid the last 3 years.

 

The problem isn't 10 years or 13 years. The problem is the Twins never really wanted to sign him at any price, and leaked am "offer" just to placate some fans.

[frightwig]

Yes. If they were told about the Giants offer and did not counter with something structured like $260/7 + $60/3 + $40/3, then they weren't really trying. They were content with just releasing figures that looked fair in comparison to the Turner/Bogaerts deals, but didn't come close to closing the deal. "Twins were in the mix," again.

[VivaBomboRivera!]

46 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

The problem is the Twins never really wanted to sign him at any price, and leaked am "offer" just to placate some fans.

What support do we have for this statement?

A separate thought on this quote:

Quote

The problem isn't 10 years or 13 years.

It really is a problem.  Guaranteeing players money a decade from now when it is unlikely they will perform at a level deserving of that money distorts value and warps the market.  Think about this - even the contract Correa opted out of was already worth 30% of that $350 million in just 23% of the time span. A two-year extension would have lifted the value to 50% ($ 175.5 million) in 38% of the time. While of course there is no knowing what Correa might be able to earn in his early thirties, it would still be a considerable sum if he was unhurt.  The risk of injury and declining performance due to age should be shared between teams and players.

We knew he was going to opt out and test the market.  We did not know how foolish the Giants would be. 

[KirbyDome89]

They could've and should've matched the money. The number of years doesn't really matter. 

[JonnyOlin]

The Twins absolutely should have matched that offer. Hell, do 15 $400 million. The reason is everything that Gleeman and Bonnes laid out in the podcast today. Now what are you going to do? Spend nearly equal AAV on Dansby? Sign some middling guys to fill out the roster and hope for better health so you go .500? It seems like the ceiling for the team now is to win like 85 games and hope the Guardians are down. We'll see what happens, but my personal excitement for this coming season has cratered.

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, VivaBomboRivera! said:

What support do we have for this statement?

A separate thought on this quote:

It really is a problem.  Guaranteeing players money a decade from now when it is unlikely they will perform at a level deserving of that money distorts value and warps the market.  Think about this - even the contract Correa opted out of was already worth 30% of that $350 million in just 23% of the time span. A two-year extension would have lifted the value to 50% ($ 175.5 million) in 38% of the time. While of course there is no knowing what Correa might be able to earn in his early thirties, it would still be a considerable sum if he was unhurt.  The risk of injury and declining performance due to age should be shared between teams and players.

We knew he was going to opt out and test the market.  We did not know how foolish the Giants would be. 

1. Reports are they made a bid they knew was less than lesser players got. 20% less than Correa ended up getting. If they actually made that offer, they knew it wasn't realistic. I'm actually skeptical they even made such an offer, but even if we grant they did, they weren't actually trying. It's similar to offering Torii Hunter 3/$45. He got 5/$90. Ancient history, but were they actually trying to sign Hunter?

 

2nd, On the one hand you believe the Twins would go 10 years, on the other argue 13 years is not realistic.

 

There's little to no difference in the 2. Both are going to end badly. But $28M/yr 9 years from now, 11 years, 13 years, isn't going to cripple the Twins. And they could pay off those last three years by setting aside $5-6M per year for the 1st 10 years. One less JA Happ each year, if you will.

[VivaBomboRivera!]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

On the one hand you believe the Twins would go 10 years,

I'm on the record for a maximum seven years.  Pay for the performance while receiving the performance. Probably why I'm not a baseball executive.  :-)

More votes will doubtless come in, but presently there is considerable evidence that Minnesotans are frugal (and intelligent).

While "Vox populi, vox Dei" certainly does not apply in this situation, seems pretty clear that there is little daylight between ball club executives and the fan base on this question.

 

Forgot to mention:

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

Reports are they made a bid they knew was less than lesser players got.

Souhan quotes Falvey saying Twins offer was 10/285. Better than Bogaerts.

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by VivaBomboRivera!
Forgot to mention

[Squirrel]

The Twins could have offered 360/10. Heck, if 10 yrs is too scary, offer $360/9 or 7. They could have offered what it would have taken. It would not have hamstrung us. To think it would have means the propaganda we’ve been dished all these years has worked.

We will never win another World Series like this. Either the owners need to fix how business is done or they need to pony up to win. If you can’t do the latter, fans will continue to flock away from the sport because teams can’t win without the balance of talent.

[VivaBomboRivera!]

1 hour ago, Squirrel said:

offer $360/9

That's Judge. Are we saying he's worth what Judge is worth? This was last week's "ceiling" question.

With you that more does need to be paid by the Twins in order for them to play. Or the League needs a salary cap. 
<ducks>

Edited December 15, 2022 by VivaBomboRivera!
clarity

[wabene]

8 hours ago, wsnydes said:

I don't think they should have, but they should have realized that there was no way he was signing for less and moved on quickly instead of holding themselves hostage.  To me, that's the most frustrating part of it.  You can't be that low and expect him to sign let alone basically put yourself in a holding pattern on other signings at the same time.

I agree with this. They had to know that Boras and Correa were looking to be paid at least or more than the top SS, so that is over 300m. There were vague speculations considering last year when he couldn't land the big deal that for some reason Carlos wasn't valued like his peers. The Dodgers weren't interested because their fans might revolt, lol. However Carlos was smart enough to realize he had the market he wanted just not the agent. Boras knew he could leverage the deal. The only way the 285m was going to work would be to wait out the market, have Carlos and Boras be wrong and have Carlos drop in their laps again at the end of the off-season.

I hoped they had learned their lesson last year. I would prefer a front office that didn't rely on bargains in free agency and trades that deplete organizational resources. Be more aggressive early in free agency. Now here we are again, Rodon, Swanson or trades and middling signings. Doesn't seem like a competitive strategy. 

[wabene]

I am in the vast majority of TDers that wouldn't want the Twins to spend 350m on Carlos. The only way I would is if the Pohlads told the front office they wanted to try spending with the big boys for ten years. Then that could fit their budget. The contact would be ten years or less not 13. The funny part is he still may have chosen San Francisco, lol. I will say the money in sports is out of hand and the prices to attend are ridiculous. 

[NotAboutWinning]

Seems like the Twins fan base has pivoted pretty quickly. Now, let’s hope the FO can do the same!

[Steve71]

The Twins' offer was fair, and I reject the concept that they intentionally bid something they knew he would not take.  That is completely unsupported by any actual reporting and is illogical.  I am relieved to see the vast majority agree that the Giants' offer was a massive overpay--especially the contract length.  They can afford to gaffe the last several years, the Twins cannot, even adjusting for inflation.

We also do not know the details of the Twins' offer.  Multiple opt outs?  For whom and when?  Incentive clauses?  No trade or restrictive trade clauses until he reaches 10/5 status?

Time to move on and use the resources as constructively as possible.  

[gman]

I voted no. I also reject the notion that anyone posting on this website knows what the management is thinking concerning decisions for next years team. It's all speculation. Some on this site think that the team should throw all their money every year on whoever is available. Apparently not many. I liked this survey, I hope that most agree that the only realistic way for the team to be really good long term is to add successful prospects every year.

[Squirrel]

3 hours ago, VivaBomboRivera! said:

With you that more does need to be paid by the Twins in order for them to play.

I don't know what this sentence is trying to say ... sorry ... I don't understand

[Squirrel]

3 hours ago, VivaBomboRivera! said:

Or the League needs a salary cap. 

Or as Brock suggested, share the media revenue

[VivaBomboRivera!]

1 minute ago, Squirrel said:

I don't know what this sentence is trying to say ... sorry ... I don't understand

Apologies, still not articulate even after an edit.  :-(
You were trying to say that the Twins need to learn how to spend bigger, correct?  While there are limits (and this was one of them), in general I support that statement.  Remaining competitive in the free agent market is a minimum requirement for all clubs that want to play deeper into the post-season.

[Squirrel]

19 minutes ago, VivaBomboRivera! said:

Apologies, still not articulate even after an edit.  :-(
You were trying to say that the Twins need to learn how to spend bigger, correct?  While there are limits (and this was one of them), in general I support that statement.  Remaining competitive in the free agent market is a minimum requirement for all clubs that want to play deeper into the post-season.

I'm not advocating to spend just to spend. I'm advocating to spend when it warrants it and I felt this warranted it. And we could afford it. We can't buy every player that comes available, that would be ridiculous and not what I'm saying, at all. I still believe in development and trades, too. But this one time we could have done it and it would have meant a huge difference in the team, to the fans. And then to find out the final offer was 285? I mean, what was the point of that? That was just egregious, imo, and they should have just walked away at the time of the opt out and gone a different direction. Instead, we have no meaningful FA activity yet again. None. We need to partake in all aspects of the game or just be mediocre and lose. And the team, as it stands right now, is worse than last year, waiting for prospects to fill the void ... which we've done many, many times for the same results ... never getting there. We could have afforded this one signing. If I'm anyone on this team, I'm asking for a trade because there is no winning with this philosophy ... and many fans fall in step and think we can't ever do these things because we can't afford it ... woe is the small-mid-market team. We paid for a stadium with the promise of being able to spend more ... and yet we've all been talked into believing that oh, no, we really can't. We can.

As for salary caps, I'm fine with that ... as long as teams also have a minimum payroll, which is well more than Pittsburgh and Tampa ever spend, and there is better revenue sharing. Imposing a salary cap only works to increase profits to owners with less incentive to spend on the team.

[VivaBomboRivera!]

8 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

they should have just walked away at the time of the opt out and gone a different direction

Thoughtful post. Yes, constantly going back to the prospect well is tiresome.

Apparently, Farmer is their hedge (barring a trade). We'll see about that.

There is no one right answer for what happened with Correa. There might be a player and a deal where stretching the limits as far as his terms makes sense.  In this case, the front office and about 80% of readers here so far say it wasn't. 

The answer will become apparent in about five months. Meanwhile, FA and trade moves are still not exhausted.  Let us see.

[tony&rodney]

8 hours ago, VivaBomboRivera! said:

We did not know how foolish the Giants would be. 

Apparently you are not aware of their history and ability to compete. Look back at the last 10 years or go back further if you want to see what a winning franchise looks like.

It is fine if you don't believe Correa was worth signing but that is different than what another team might think. 

[mnfireman]

4 hours ago, VivaBomboRivera! said:

That's Judge. Are we saying he's worth what Judge is wworth?

$40 MM/yr is a pretty expensive DH in a few years. NY can afford that, the Twins can't.