Were Twins fans intentionally misled about Carlos Correa?

[Shobae]

I'm sure nobody wants to hear about Carlos Correa anymore so I apologize in advance for beating this dead horse, however I feel like the real issue at stake here is whether or not ownership and the front office intentionally mislead Twins fans about this situation. And if so, what consequences does that have in the future on how we as fans can even trust anything they say regarding their conduct in the free agent market.

I want to layout my case here and see what other people think. First there was this pioneer press article where the following was stated: 

Quote

Jim Pohlad is emphatic in his desire to have Carlos Correa back.

“I’m totally on board with him coming back,” the Minnesota Twins’ owner said Thursday of the pending free agent shortstop. “Definitely. Absolutely. I love the guy. He’s a huge asset and benefit to the team. But I don’t know how it’s going to go.”

Second here is the sentiment from Derek Falvey:

Quote

We obviously want Correa. He did a great job for us both inside the clubhouse and on the field. We also knew when we signed the contract that this potential reality was part of the equation for us. He's earned a that right (to test the market).

So both ownership and the front office said multiple times they wanted Correa and were trying to get him. Yet every time they would add some kind of cautiously optimistic or mitigating comment. I think I would contrast this with how the Yankees talked about Aaron Judge. Both Cashman and Steinbrenner were adamant they wanted Judge back and were doing everything to bring him back. Obviously the twins aren't the Yankees so I'm not saying they should have acted like them, however what I'm trying it point out is that the Yankees were unambiguous that they wanted Judge and that there were no excuses. In contrast, the twins claimed similar desire for correa, which was always followed up with how the market was an issue.

Now with that out of the way my point here is, the twins did not want Correa but rather they wanted Correa on a contract they liked. Therefore by stating they wanted to bring correa back, which to me implies having to pay the market rate, they were intentionally misleading people as to their true intentions. Because had they said "we want correa within the limits of our organization" everyone would have known the twins were out of the mix. So I get that they obviously can't say that but yet they are still selling the fans a false narrative. Now to be fair Falvey did say they were trying to get creative with the contract, which basically means make it a deal the twins would tolerate. So I think it's undeniable that I can't actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this happened, rather I am just making a judgement with the information available to me.
The main piece of evidence I have is how the twins handled the second opportunity to get Correa. Dan Hayes just wrote an article today stating that

Quote

Boras informed the Twins they'd need to improve upon their original offer. Team sources said the Twins wouldn't increase their bid, nor would they hold further discussions until they had a better understanding of the medical concerns that reportedly caused Correa's deal with the Giants to fall apart.

Now the revealing part to me is the first part that the Twins wouldn't improve their offer to Correa, the second part is entirely reasonable. However, the fact they would not even state "we will improve our offer, however we need a better understanding of the medicals" is what makes clear to me they did not actually want Correa, rather they wanted him for on a good contract. If they had lost out because of the caution they were exercising then that would be understandable. So, their behavior shows the true intentions here and it does not match what they were telling the press, and by extension fans.

To wrap up this already too long post, I think if that's true then essentially going forward twins fans have to assume that anything the front office says about free agents is no better than a rumor on twitter. And until they get a deal done it's best to assume nothing will happen. Now, the reason I made this a forum post is because I wanted to hear other fans opinions on this subject. Was I being too naive and this was always going to be the case? Has this happened many times before I started paying close attention to the team? Am splitting hairs and being overly semantic to try and cope with the loss of Correa (twice)? Thanks for reading.

[NotAboutWinning]

I think you make the case for why we were not misled. They told us who they were, we just chose to hear “I’m totally on board with him coming back,” instead of “But I don’t know how it’s going to go.”

[Linus]

I don’t get this at all. Common sense would tell you the Twins had a minimal chance of signing him. There were dozens of articles blog posts etc detailing what was highly likely to happen and they were spot on.  Seems to me the Twins were as straightforward as they could be. Essentially they said it would be great to have him but no promises. 

[Riverbrian]

We mislead ourselves. 

[Squirrel]

25 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

We mislead ourselves. 

Hope springing eternal will do that to you.

[Riverbrian]

19 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Hope springing eternal will do that to you.

Yes it will... I agree. 

That along with our propensity to take very little information and expand it so it's large enough to fill the void left behind by getting very little information.  

[Squirrel]

Just now, Riverbrian said:

Yes it will... I agree. 

That along with our propensity to take very little information and expand it so it's large enough to fill the void left behind by getting very little information.  

Well, speculation and opinion will do that, too … but it is the nature of sites like this … it’s what gives us something to talk about

[Craig Arko]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

We mislead ourselves. 

This holds true well beyond the scope of sports fans, to be sure.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't know what to make of the organization's thought process here.

I saw zero chance he'd sign for less than others got (if healthy, clearly), and he didn't. Like, zero chance their bid was any more realistic than their bit for Darvish a few years ago (or any other long term deal other than Donaldson). So, I don't know what the deal is.

Were they wrong about the price (If so, fire them now)?

Were they misleading us (maybe, but I don't know)?

All I know for sure is that they weren't getting him for what they offered, they should have known that. It is possible they misled themselves. As for the owner's comments? I don't think they matter at all. All that matters is actions. 

[Original_JB]

Unless CC or Boras specifically told them that their contract offer was a non-starter ---- and there were witnesses there to hear it, they can say whatever they want and not technically be "lying", and ultimately, that's all that matters to them.  And that's how you need to approach listening to the owners and FO when they are up there flapping their gums --- what aren't they saying? They love to insinuate all kinds of things and lead you down the path that makes you believe certain things --- without actually saying them. And they come back and can truthfully state "that isn't what we said". You have to be cynical and look at the ownership/FO like you would politicians.

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, Squirrel said:

Well, speculation and opinion will do that, too … but it is the nature of sites like this … it’s what gives us something to talk about

No doubt... I understand this completely.  Social Media doesn't really exist without it. 

I assume it's possible that this might have something to do with my comments in a different thread. So... I'll go straight to that just in case it is. 

Once you say... "plenty of front office insight". 

Produce it. Because you've just said... trust me... I have it. 

You've just become the reality to others who are searching for reality and not finding it. Now you are the angry leading the angry to angrier and if you don't have it... who exactly are we following here. 

So if you have it... Prove it. Take responsibility and understand that this on a smaller scale is exactly how social media produces January 6th. 

Merry Xmas to all! ? 

[Riverbrian]

34 minutes ago, Craig Arko said:

This holds true well beyond the scope of sports fans, to be sure.

Craig,

You absolutely understand my point. 

 

[Riverbrian]

35 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I don't know what to make of the organization's thought process here.

I saw zero chance he'd sign for less than others got (if healthy, clearly), and he didn't. Like, zero chance their bid was any more realistic than their bit for Darvish a few years ago (or any other long term deal other than Donaldson). So, I don't know what the deal is.

Were they wrong about the price (If so, fire them now)?

Were they misleading us (maybe, but I don't know)?

All I know for sure is that they weren't getting him for what they offered, they should have known that. It is possible they misled themselves. As for the owner's comments? I don't think they matter at all. All that matters is actions. 

I don't know Mike. I'm in the dark like everyone else. But, I think it's safe to assume that the front office is directly involved in the process. 

The assumption that the front office would know they were out of it and yet wait for it to happen regardless is attaching an impossible level of dumb to people in a position where it would be impossible to be even slightly dumb. 

If they thought they were in it... Can we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they had a reason to believe they were in it. 

I think you are a solid poster but I hope you understand that you seeing zero chance should be weighted accordingly by what you are able to see.... which is probably exactly what I am able to see.  

  

[Mike Sixel]

9 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I don't know Mike. I'm in the dark like everyone else. But, I think it's safe to assume that the front office is directly involved in the process. 

The assumption that the front office would know they were out of it and yet wait for it to happen regardless is attaching an impossible level of dumb to people in a position where it would be impossible to be even slightly dumb. 

If they thought they were in it... Can we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they had a reason to believe they were in it. 

I think you are a solid poster but I hope you understand that you seeing zero chance should be weighted accordingly by what you are able to see.... which is probably exactly what I am able to see.  

  

And yet, they've been wrong in every attempt other than Donaldson. So maybe they aren't good at projecting the market. I could be wrong, but not one website predicted he'd go for 285 once others signed. So it isn't just me. 

[Riverbrian]

6 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

And yet, they've been wrong in every attempt other than Donaldson. So maybe they aren't good at projecting the market. I could be wrong, but not one website predicted he'd go for 285 once others signed. So it isn't just me. 

I've heard the number. I've heard final offer attached to that number. Does that mean that they wouldn't go to 287(for example)?

I don't know and I think it's dangerous to take little bits of information and bang the gavel like a negotiation of this magnitude isn't living and breathing until it's not.

Did they miss on whatever they projected the market to be? Maybe, I don't know but can you honestly tell me that you believe that they don't have the access to the information necessary to acclimate to whatever the market is... my assumption would be that they would acclimate more accurately than you and I ever could. 

Every free agent of value has teams that end up on the losing end. Do the Twins lose out on more of them than other teams? How many did they take a swing at? Are we aware of every swing? How do we know? 

 

[Mike Sixel]

2 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I've heard the number. I've heard final offer attached to that number. Does that mean that they wouldn't go to 287(for example)?

I don't know and I think it's dangerous to take little bits of information and bang the gavel like a negotiation of this magnitude isn't living and breathing until it's not.

Did they miss on whatever they projected the market to be? Maybe, I don't know but can you honestly tell me that you believe that they don't have the access to the information necessary to acclimate to whatever the market is... my assumption would be that they would acclimate more accurately than you and I ever could. 

Every free agent of value has teams that end up on the losing end. Do the Twins lose out on more of them than other teams? How many did they take a swing at? Are we aware of every swing? How do we know? 

 

I also started that post acknowledging I don't know.....

All we know is that they've signed one. So, either they only tried on three (donaldson, CC and Darvish) that they've acknowledged and been right once (and way off the other two times), or they've been wrong even more. 

What number did you think would do it, after the other two SS signed?

[Riverbrian]

5 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

I also started that post acknowledging I don't know.....

All we know is that they've signed one. So, either they only tried on three (donaldson, CC and Darvish) that they've acknowledged and been right once (and way off the other two times), or they've been wrong even more. 

What number did you think would do it, after the other two SS signed?

To be honest... I never put up a guess 

I didn't really allow myself the expectation that Correa would sign with us. I've probably been conditioned over the years of being a Twins fan when it comes to free agency. It's almost Pavlovian, the free agency bell rings and I expect the bowl to be empty as the bigger names sign with the bigger clubs like usual. Rumors that the Twins were even attempting to sign Darvish, Correa or Donaldson is still new stimuli to my brain. I'll have to be re-conditioned if they keep throwing hats into that ring. 

 

[IndianaTwin]

20 hours ago, Shobae said:

… twins fans have to assume that anything the front office says about free agents is no better than a rumor on twitter.

…And until they get a deal done it's best to assume nothing will happen.

…Was I being too naive and this was always going to be the case?

…Has this happened many times before I started paying close attention to the team?

…Am splitting hairs and being overly semantic to try and cope with the loss of Correa (twice)?

…Thanks for reading.

That’s six sentences from your last paragraph…

…I agree with the first two, but I don’t think the Correa situation changed anything.

I’m not saying I agree because I’m cynical toward the front office — I actually like the moves they’ve made (Farmer, Vazquez, even Gallo) and not made (signing a SS at the price they would have needed to make). I would have liked to see them bid higher on a couple relievers that have signed elsewhere, but I also don’t consider myself as smart as them and I don’t have all the information they do.

Rather, I’m just saying I agree because that’s the nature of the beast when you’re a baseball fan (And in general, these principles mostly apply to life as well, but that’s a discussion for another Web site.). In my experience, assuming that the opposite of these will happen tends to lead to uncomfortable walking, since it usually means that my shorts are a little too tightly wound.

…To the next three, I’ll just say, “Yes, for the reasons I just described.”

…To the last, thanks for writing. 

[Shobae]

21 hours ago, NotAboutWinning said:

I think you make the case for why we were not misled. They told us who they were, we just chose to hear “I’m totally on board with him coming back,” instead of “But I don’t know how it’s going to go.”

Yeah that's true when I was reaching what the front office actually said I was looking for that smoking gun that in my mind I thought existed but all I found where carefully worded open ended comments. So perhaps sunk cost fallacy set in but I do feel strongly that they should have offered more than $285M/10. Though I guess a well written piece should also present counter arguments/limitations so maybe this wasn't a waste of time after all.
 

20 hours ago, Linus said:

I don’t get this at all. Common sense would tell you the Twins had a minimal chance of signing him. There were dozens of articles blog posts etc detailing what was highly likely to happen and they were spot on.  Seems to me the Twins were as straightforward as they could be. Essentially they said it would be great to have him but no promises. 

Well yes that's true, I know Gleeman never said they had more than a 15% chance on his podcast so I should have probably paid more mind to that. Though my rebuttal would be that the twins certainly had the resources to match the mets offer if they really wanted to given the vast wealth ($3.8 billion in 2015 according to Forbes) of ownership.
 

1 hour ago, IndianaTwin said:

That’s six sentences from your last paragraph…

…I agree with the first two, but I don’t think the Correa situation changed anything.

I’m not saying I agree because I’m cynical toward the front office — I actually like the moves they’ve made (Farmer, Vazquez, even Gallo) and not made (signing a SS at the price they would have needed to make). I would have liked to see them bid higher on a couple relievers that have signed elsewhere, but I also don’t consider myself as smart as them and I don’t have all the information they do.

Rather, I’m just saying I agree because that’s the nature of the beast when you’re a baseball fan (And in general, these principles mostly apply to life as well, but that’s a discussion for another Web site.). In my experience, assuming that the opposite of these will happen tends to lead to uncomfortable walking, since it usually means that my shorts are a little too tightly wound.

…To the next three, I’ll just say, “Yes, for the reasons I just described.”

…To the last, thanks for writing. 

Yeah that's true and I usually try and keep my expectations low but I probably just let myself get carried away thinking we really had a shot at Correa. So probably the biggest error I made was assuming the Twins would not act in a way similar to the one they did which did not match my expectations of how they would operate. Also I'd agree the Correa situation didn't change anything other than showing the Twins are willing and able to spend 285 million dollars or less on one player if they really want him. (Which should not be forgotten in the future.)

[gman]

Dead horse rest in peace!

[SteveLV]

I am sure this post will not age well, but I do find it interesting that the Mets also requested 48  hours to evaluate his medicals and have not, so far, announced the signing officially.  Part of this could be the Christmas holiday.

I am 97% sure he will sign with the Mets, but a certain part of me would find it amusing if he failed that physical too and came crawling back to the Twins in the end....

[tarheeltwinsfan]

20 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

We mislead ourselves. 

We have seen the enemy, and it is us.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

I want a Porsche 911. I think it would make me happy and it would be good for my image. But I would have to withdraw funds from my 401k to buy it and that might compromise my future ability to buy things that I will want in the coming years and my ability to currently buy other things I want more. So I'm driving a Jeep Wrangler. 

[tarheeltwinsfan]

11 minutes ago, SteveLV said:

I am sure this post will not age well, but I do find it interesting that the Mets also requested 48  hours to evaluate his medicals and have not, so far, announced the signing officially.  Part of this could be the Christmas holiday.

I am 97% sure he will sign with the Mets, but a certain part of me would find it amusing if he failed that physical too and came crawling back to the Twins in the end....

If that happened, would the Twins immediately sign him, without a new , complete physical and without Correa giving his HIPPA permission for the Twins to have access to Correa's medical records which the Giants and the Mets used to determine that they would not sign him? I think not.

[IndianaTwin]

1 hour ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

I want a Porsche 911. I think it would make me happy and it would be good for my image. But I would have to withdraw funds from my 401k to buy it and that might compromise my future ability to buy things that I will want in the coming years and my ability to currently buy other things I want more. So I'm driving a Jeep Wrangler. 

I hate buying vehicles. The 2004 Accord in the garage will hit 230,000 miles sometime this week. 

(I’ll save someone the keystrokes — yeah, you can call me Derek or Thad. ?)

[nicksaviking]

While I lean toward a charade over naïveté, why did they put forth three separate initial offers of different lengths? Why the effort if it was all a show? Additionally, why did they push for a face-to-face meeting at the winter meetings unless they really wanted him? 
 

But then at the meeting they only upped their initial offer by 5M? That honestly seems disingenuous. And if we would have had a poll in October asking if the Twins could sign CC or 10 for 285M, I’d guess it would have been a near unanimous “No”. Even the amature arm-chair fans knew that wasn’t enough.

I don’t know, either explanation is a bad look in my book.

[USAFChief]

The Twins had no intention of signing Carlos Correa to a long term contract.

None.

 

[Danchat]

19 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

I also started that post acknowledging I don't know.....

All we know is that they've signed one. So, either they only tried on three (donaldson, CC and Darvish) that they've acknowledged and been right once (and way off the other two times), or they've been wrong even more. 

What number did you think would do it, after the other two SS signed?

They were also about $20M short on Zach Wheeler, who's been worth every penny so far through his deal.

[Mike Sixel]

Just now, Danchat said:

They were also about $20M short on Zach Wheeler, who's been worth every penny so far through his deal.

When it happens over and over, it isn't a minor thing.