The Carlos Correa Question

[insagt1]

Maybe all these contracts are smoke and mirrors. 13 years is totally ridiculous unrealistic and any other descriptor. Try trading this guy in 6 or 7 years when he can't produce anymore with all those payments still due..allegedly. guess teams don't care anymore. Sports contracts are way out of line and cost to attend events also way beyond reasonable. Do we learn anything from all this? Nah. These things never change. It's usually the exception when the big fish lands in the small pond. Guess what we'll never know is whether Carlos/Boras simply played the Twins from the get-go. Time to move along

[strumdatjag]

Really, would anyone here have been thrilled 13 years from now to watch Correa in his forties and being paid $30 mill????   Let the Giants make that bad deal.   The Twins will be a better team longterm if they are NOT dumb enough to make this type of deal.   I don’t think CC is even the difference maker who would have brought a World Series championship to the Twinkie Towns in the short term 

[laloesch]

20 minutes ago, strumdatjag said:

Really, would anyone here have been thrilled 13 years from now to watch Correa in his forties and being paid $30 mill????   Let the Giants make that bad deal.   The Twins will be a better team longterm if they are NOT dumb enough to make this type of deal.   I don’t think CC is even the difference maker who would have brought a World Series championship to the Twinkie Towns in the short term 

i tend to agree.  I think this was a bad deal even for the Giants.  13 years, 350 million for Correa, knaw no thanks.  That's too much, WAY TOO MUCH and far too long.

Roll with Lewis and see where that goes, it's not like Correa would have made this team a world series contender anyways and he wouldn't have.  This team has too many holes at other positions to sink that kind of money into ONE GUY at this period of time.   

I also find it quite interesting that a very vocal contingent on this forum keeps saying that the Twins should have signed Correa at all costs and keeps implying that those who think otherwise are somehow crazy when the poll on this topic is quite the opposite, chuckles

[TwinsDr2021]

I put no, because I would rather have seen the Twins make an offer of 9/330, the $20 short is easily explainable in taxes and the ability to make more than that in 4 extra years.

 

[laloesch]

39 minutes ago, insagt1 said:

Maybe all these contracts are smoke and mirrors. 13 years is totally ridiculous unrealistic and any other descriptor. Try trading this guy in 6 or 7 years when he can't produce anymore with all those payments still due..allegedly. guess teams don't care anymore. Sports contracts are way out of line and cost to attend events also way beyond reasonable. Do we learn anything from all this? Nah. These things never change. It's usually the exception when the big fish lands in the small pond. Guess what we'll never know is whether Carlos/Boras simply played the Twins from the get-go. Time to move along

it was a play and the Twins fell for it.  The way Boras was needling around out in California for offers judging by the interest he got from the Dodgers and other big market teams should have been a big red flag to Falvey.  I sure hope though that they don't intend to roll with Farmer full time.  If they don't make any other notable acquisitions in this offseason they really do need to throw in the towel and start over.  This round of prospects is just not good enough to build on besides Buxton and a couple of others.   

[RJA]

Great comments.  I am not sure I have a pony in this race, but I think discussing this within the parameters of existing payroll constraints is not helpful  I think anytime a team looks to add a player that has as much to offer as they think Correa did, it should be willing to stretch the payroll to make it happen.  If you look at the numbers, Correa will be making roughly 27 million a year for 13 years.  This year he was making 35 million, and the Twins were ok with that salary for three years.  If they valued him as much as they claim--great leader, mentor for young players, great skills, face of the franchise, etc.--then why not agree that the payroll will increase to accomodate his salary.  Look, he signed for 350 million which was 65 million more than the Twins offered.  If he agreed to a 10 year contract for 350 million with the Twins, it would have cost them an extra 6.5 million a year.  They were already comfortable with 285, so they were planning to pay 28.5 million a year already.  Frankly, these salary levels are crazy for an old guy like me, but the real question we should be asking is should the Twins have agreed to increase payroll by 6.5 million a year to get this done.  IF they truly valued him like they say, I think it might have behooved them to do so.  For those that think he is not worth it, I understand.  I am not sure I do.  But, I think this will signal to players and the league that the Twins aren't really ready to fish in the deep end of the pond.  And, of course, the other question is where do we go from here?  Swanson is not someone I would pay 200 plus million to.  Rodon is not likely to be here--he wants New York or a big market.  We will be losing three starters after next year.  This FO is really between a rock and a hard place IMHO.  Crazy times.

 

 

 

[laloesch]

3 hours ago, gman said:

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.

i noticed this as well.  The poll was definitely enlightening. 

There are some very very big egos on this forum.  Some of them pretend to be quasi organization insiders and it's laughable. Look I get it were all fans and WE DO ALL want this team to win, but comeonnnnn stop pretending to be something you are not.  It truly is all speculation here. 

I also agree that throwing a ridiculously long and outrageous amount of money at a 28 year old shortstop is not realistic for this franchise. I honestly think the Giants signed a very bad deal here.  It's gonna cost them dearly once he gets later into that contract.       

[Mike Sixel]

4 hours ago, Steve71 said:

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.  

It was less than Turner got. Of course it wasn't realistic at all he'd take less. 

[Mike Sixel]

38 minutes ago, laloesch said:

i tend to agree.  I think this was a bad deal even for the Giants.  13 years, 350 million for Correa, knaw no thanks.  That's too much, WAY TOO MUCH and far too long.

Roll with Lewis and see where that goes, it's not like Correa would have made this team a world series contender anyways and he wouldn't have.  This team has too many holes at other positions to sink that kind of money into ONE GUY at this period of time.   

I also find it quite interesting that a very vocal contingent on this forum keeps saying that the Twins should have signed Correa at all costs and keeps implying that those who think otherwise are somehow crazy when the poll on this topic is quite the opposite, chuckles

So, never sign an elite free agent? That's fine, but then you have to be better than nearly every team say drafting and trading. 

I don't think anyone is saying anyone is stupid. 

I have a master's in finance. I can tell you with certainly that there is very little difference between the two offers when you consider the time value of money, and baseball inflation. Minnesota chose not to offer a number that was competitive, given what Turner got. That's fine. It's their choice. But we've gone the entire franchise history with one big free agent signing that was more than one year.

It's clear they won't play in the deep end. Again, that's fine. But then you must be the best at drafting and developing. They aren't close to that. 

[tony&rodney]

I'm fine if the Twins roll with the current rostered team, but I always want the Twins to have the best players possible. The payroll is none of my business and Cleveland has a far, far more exciting team (pitching, defense, running, hitting, fundamentals, manager, etc.) to watch than the Twins for less than $100 million. I want a team that is fun to watch. Even when the Twins were winning last year they were pretty dull. So my only thought on Carlos Correa concerned his attributes as a shortstop. He is good.

I am a little confused why so many people are worried about what a player makes. MLB players make a ton of money. So does the Walton family, etc. A real surprise that sounded like jealousy, which is never a good look, is when people suggest the Giants are fools. A quick check will tell you that they are about the only franchise that paid for their own stadium and their record for winning and turning a profit is sterling. The Giants may be the best run organization in baseball.

It is totally fine to be opposed to the Twins signing Correa, Rodon, or any other player. We all speculate to some degree for a way forward for the Twins but it seems healthier to get excited about Royce Lewis or Brooks Lee as the next great Twins shortstop than to be all negative on the years and dollars that Carlos Correa earns. 

[laloesch]

2 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

So, never sign an elite free agent? That's fine, but then you have to be better than nearly every team say drafting and trading. 

I don't think anyone is saying anyone is stupid. 

I have a master's in finance. I can tell you with certainly that there is very little difference between the two offers when you consider the time value of money, and baseball inflation. Minnesota chose not to offer a number that was competitive, given what Turner got. That's fine. It's their choice. But we've gone the entire franchise history with one big free agent signing that was more than one year.

It's clear they won't play in the deep end. Again, that's fine. But then you must be the best at drafting and developing. They aren't close to that. 

I respect your opinion mike but i don't recall saying "anyone is saying anyone is stupid."  I said ...."those who think otherwise are somehow crazy."  Big difference.  And I also don't think this team should "never sign an elite free agent" that's preposterous and you and I both know it. 

What it means is that the team has to be smart in big free agent signings because they are rare.  I really think in this case the Twins made a very serious offer, and I also agree with Russo that the Giants went beyond that into the realm of utter stupidity with both the dollar amount and years.  He is good but 13 YEARS & 350 million good?  I'm not so sure about that.  I think it's very debatable, especially when the rest of this team has more holes in it than swiss cheese.  The fact that they offered 280 million to Correa and 10 years CLEARLY means they are willing to play in the deep end.  Apparently though the Giants are willing to not only dive into the deep end but also drown.  Again just my opinion on the matter considering the length of the contract, Correa's back injury history, and his apparent willingness to cheat.   

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, laloesch said:

I respect your opinion mike but i don't recall saying "anyone is saying anyone is stupid."  I said ...."those who think otherwise are somehow crazy."  Big difference.  And I also don't think this team should "never sign an elite free agent" that's preposterous and you and I both know it. 

What it means is that the team has to be smart in big free agent signings because they are rare.  I really think in this case the Twins made a very serious offer, and I also agree with Russo that the Giants went beyond that into the realm of utter stupidity with both the dollar amount and years.  He is good but 13 YEARS & 350 million good?  I'm not so sure about that.  I think it's very debatable, especially when the rest of this team has more holes in it than swiss cheese.  The fact that they offered 280 million to Correa and 10 years CLEARLY means they are willing to play in the deep end.  Apparently though the Giants are willing to not only dive into the deep end but also drown.  Again just my opinion on the matter considering the length of the contract, Correa's back injury history, and his apparent willingness to cheat.   

There was zero, zero, chance he took less than Turner. No way that offer is accepted. 

[jctwins]

14 hours ago, Rondo said:

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

People continue to not understand that length of contracts is not what you expect to get out of the players in years, but managing cash flow for the team. Longer contracts (the same dollars stretched out over more years)  actually help the owners, which helps the team.

[Squirrel]

11 minutes ago, jctwins said:

People continue to not understand that length of contracts is not what you expect to get out of the players in years, but managing cash flow for the team. Longer contracts (the same dollars stretched out over more years)  actually help the owners, which helps the team.

This this this! 

[Mike Sixel]

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/why-are-teams-issuing-extremely-long-contracts/

[Mike Sixel]

Just now, Mike Sixel said:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/why-are-teams-issuing-extremely-long-contracts/

Saved me the time of doing this myself. 

[ashbury]

8 hours ago, Squirrel said:

The Twins could have offered 360/10. Heck, if 10 yrs is too scary, offer $360/9 or 7.

This gets to the heart of it. Correa is going to provide a certain amount of playing value for the rest of his career, which at the end of his career we'll know with certainty but right now we can only forecast.  He's at the point in his career he is selling that entire (uncertain) package to one team.  His new team will pay him a certain amount of money, and that amount is guaranteed in writing and is not a forecast.  Whichever team has the highest playing value forecast, likely offers the most dough if they have it.  It's as simple as that.

The length of the contract isn't going to change that playing value - if the player becomes no longer playable at the major league level, he'll be released, whether that's in year 5 or 6 or ... or 13, and maybe a bottom-feeder team picks him up if he still likes playing and just loves the game so much he wants to continue at that diminished level.  He can of course retire and forego the money he is owed (there may be conditions, to that, such as major injury).

The number of years for the contract itself has little bearing on the number of years he'll play.  It is just a bookkeeping trick that depends on what the team wants to do with its ledger in the coming decade. Load the payments into his likely playing years? Or spread it out as deferred payments for after he hangs up the spikes.  Just bookkeeping.

If the Twins wanted Correa they were going to have to outbid the Giants, so $360M is the number.

I'd personally have to say "too rich for my blood, good luck with your new team," if I were in charge, but someone else might value him differently. I'm persuaded, by comps to big stars like Vern Stephens (who??!? look him up), Troy Tulowitski and especially Ernie Banks, that Correa stands an awfully good chance of being a non-factor at SS in his early thirties and may eke out a non-All-Star caliber resume for the rest of his career. Three more years of 4+ WAR, five years of WAR in the 2 range - at $10M per WAR on the free agent market (AKA the failure tax for not having developed a good young player yourself) that's something under $250M.  The Twins by this view already went high.  If you forecast him higher, you'll be willing to pay him more; the Giants evidently do - five years of 5 WAR stardom, 3 years of 3, and you're pretty close now to $350M.

/ edit - I see now that poster jctwins said essentially the same but more succinctly while I was "showing my work".

[IndianaTwin]

5 hours ago, gman said:

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.

I can't agree with the bolded statement strongly enough (and I'd welcome your repeating it in many comments sections!). I think the best we can do as fans and TD readers is to say, "I wish we would have,,," or "I think we should...," knowing that we are seeing through a glass darkly. I voted "no," but I did that without having anywhere close to a full understanding of the situation. 

Its corollary is that no decision is made in a vacuum. Choosing to not match (or more accurately, exceed) the Giants offer will have carryover effect on what they do and don't do elsewhere, just as matching or exceeding would have had carryover effect on what they do or don't do elsewhere. But it feels like we often (on TD, as in life) aren't able to fully take a step back and look at the entire picture.

[jctwins]

54 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Saved me the time of doing this myself. 

Interesting. That was my original thought when I posted it but this completely makes the point.

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, laloesch said:

I respect your opinion mike but i don't recall saying "anyone is saying anyone is stupid."  I said ...."those who think otherwise are somehow crazy."  Big difference.  And I also don't think this team should "never sign an elite free agent" that's preposterous and you and I both know it. 

What it means is that the team has to be smart in big free agent signings because they are rare.  I really think in this case the Twins made a very serious offer, and I also agree with Russo that the Giants went beyond that into the realm of utter stupidity with both the dollar amount and years.  He is good but 13 YEARS & 350 million good?  I'm not so sure about that.  I think it's very debatable, especially when the rest of this team has more holes in it than swiss cheese.  The fact that they offered 280 million to Correa and 10 years CLEARLY means they are willing to play in the deep end.  Apparently though the Giants are willing to not only dive into the deep end but also drown.  Again just my opinion on the matter considering the length of the contract, Correa's back injury history, and his apparent willingness to cheat.   

Smart meaning what? Would you have done any of the long term massive FA deals the last two years?

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

Saved me the time of doing this myself. 

And thus, the "13 years is RIDICULOUS" line is shown to be shortsighted. It actually reduces the cost of the $350m. Both yearly, and in total.

 

Look, $350m is idiotic. So was $285m....but that's what the market price is.

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, USAFChief said:

And thus, the "13 years is RIDICULOUS" line is shown to be shortsighted. It actually reduces the cost of the $350m. Both yearly, and in total.

It is clear that most here (and on the planet) don't understand the time value of money. This article also barely touches on baseball inflation being higher than normal, and that 35 million a year in 10 or 12 years will be what an average pitcher gets in FA (ok, maybe 25 MM)......

[Azviking101]

 So many people getting lost in the years of the contract and not recognizing the years are there to lower the aav to an extremely manageable  27 per year. 10 years ago the tenth highest payroll was 97m. This year it’ll be about 160. Assuming that similar trend happens, that 27 will be more like 16m just 10 years from now. 

The real issue is that the twins spend months telling everyone they had a good chance at Correa only to offer him essentially the same contract he turned down last year. That’s the craziness. He bet on himself, everyone said it turned out to be a good bet and that he would get a lot more than he declined and Falvey and Pohlad were like, let’s try 10 million more overall than he declined. 
 

Absolutely ludicrous. Among the most ridiculous things the twins have ever done. 

[Azviking101]

14 hours ago, bap3141 said:

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.  

If the Twins are holding out on the notion that they can sign Correa at 28.5 million then that's 28.5 million of their "budget" that they can't use until they hear from Correa. So yeah, the fact that they ridiculously thought they had a chance until the end meant they missed out on a lot of plan B options they could have focused time on instead.

It's not like they could have gone to Trea Turner or some pitcher and said "Hey we'll offer you this contract, but only if Correa says no, so you gotta wait until then"

 

[whosafraidofluigirussolo]

17 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. 

Talk of how crazy the 13-year contract seems was on my mind and I voted no on the poll, but immediately started to reconsider.

Steve Adams in the MLBTR chat today:
"You're basically asserting that the Twins could offer 10/285 -- their final offer to Correa -- but not 13/350.

"That premise suggests that the Twins were incapable of offering an additional three years and $65MM -- an AAV of $21.667MM that'd be owed more than a decade from now, at a time when that type of salary will probably buy ... a fourth starter?

"Over the past decade, the QO ... has seen a 47.7% increase. The median MLB payroll has seen a 74% increase. MLB revenue has jumped from 7-something billion to 10.7 billion....

"The Twins could've paid Correa. They chose not to, and they stopped at a weird spot, no less. If you were willing to go to 285, I legitimately don't understand why you stop there and don't just overpay to get the deal done. It was weird, and if they thought $285MM -- which is $10MM more than he rejected from the Tigers a year ago -- was going to get the job done after the market exploded, they were kidding themselves.

"Bottom line: I don't agree that the Twins had no chance. They just drew their line in the sand at a really weird point."

I think this lays it out pretty well. It is kind of weird that the Twins got in the neighborhood of Correa's final ask, but not on the same block. Oh well!

[Mike Sixel]

You can look at it this way.....

6 years of elite play
4 years of ok play
nothing in the last three years

In exchange, they get that, and give up an average FA in years 11-13.......because that's what an average FA will cost. 

Would you give up an average FA in years 11-13 (just one, not one each year) for the certainty of the present and elite play for 5-7 years? I would. That's all they are giving up in those last three years.....one average FA signing.

[VivaBomboRivera!]

5 hours ago, jctwins said:

People continue to not understand that length of contracts is not what you expect to get out of the players in years, but managing cash flow for the team. Longer contracts (the same dollars stretched out over more years)  actually help the owners, which helps the team.

People _do_ understand the accounting - they just don't like it.      ;-)

[bap3141]

4 hours ago, Azviking101 said:

If the Twins are holding out on the notion that they can sign Correa at 28.5 million then that's 28.5 million of their "budget" that they can't use until they hear from Correa. So yeah, the fact that they ridiculously thought they had a chance until the end meant they missed out on a lot of plan B options they could have focused time on instead.

It's not like they could have gone to Trea Turner or some pitcher and said "Hey we'll offer you this contract, but only if Correa says no, so you gotta wait until then"

 

This has to be one of the dumbest things I think I've ever read.

[tony&rodney]

7 hours ago, laloesch said:

Apparently though the Giants are willing to not only dive into the deep end but also drown. 

Again, the Giants are arguably the best run team in baseball going back 25 years or even 125 years. They paid for their own stadium, treat everyone respectfully, and stay competitive. They won 3 World Series this century, make money, and have a strong fan base. Ok, you don't like Correa and/or the contract he signed, but ludicrous to impugn the Giants. 

FWIW (really nothing), I'm a diehard Twins fan since 1961. I remember the 1965 World Series and was lucky enough to attend the 1987 Series gratis the Twins, etc.

[tony&rodney]

5 hours ago, whosafraidofluigirussolo said:

Talk of how crazy the 13-year contract seems was on my mind and I voted no on the poll, but immediately started to reconsider.

Steve Adams in the MLBTR chat today:
"You're basically asserting that the Twins could offer 10/285 -- their final offer to Correa -- but not 13/350.

"That premise suggests that the Twins were incapable of offering an additional three years and $65MM -- an AAV of $21.667MM that'd be owed more than a decade from now, at a time when that type of salary will probably buy ... a fourth starter?

"Over the past decade, the QO ... has seen a 47.7% increase. The median MLB payroll has seen a 74% increase. MLB revenue has jumped from 7-something billion to 10.7 billion....

"The Twins could've paid Correa. They chose not to, and they stopped at a weird spot, no less. If you were willing to go to 285, I legitimately don't understand why you stop there and don't just overpay to get the deal done. It was weird, and if they thought $285MM -- which is $10MM more than he rejected from the Tigers a year ago -- was going to get the job done after the market exploded, they were kidding themselves.

"Bottom line: I don't agree that the Twins had no chance. They just drew their line in the sand at a really weird point."

I think this lays it out pretty well. It is kind of weird that the Twins got in the neighborhood of Correa's final ask, but not on the same block. Oh well!

I read the comments by Steve Adams too and my reaction when I read the news of the Giants signing along with the Twins offer, I felt exactly the same as Adams. The way this all played out from the Twins side was very strange indeed. Why did Falvey even make such an offer in consideration of what he knew concerning the Trea Turner and Xander Bogearts contracts? Smells like incompetence. I mean if Falvey didn't want to sign Correa, why not just let it go and call it a good year.