Rumor: Mets Have Concerns With Correa Physical

[jorgenswest]

I am having a hard time buying the narrative about acquiring injured players.

On Mahle… Are we suggesting they trade for players with no injury history? Montas, Castillo and Mahle were the best starters moved at the deadline. All three had time in the IL. Mahle’s was recent but Montas also missed time in July.

There were only 40 starters last year with at least 30 starts. Perhaps they should limit themselves to that group. Actually we need to make the group smaller. There are pitchers in that list that have have had Tommy John surgery or missed significant time in 2021. They are a risk of getting injured again. Eventually you get down to Gerrit Cole. Maybe they should trade for him.

On the other hand sometimes it is the injury risk that makes that talented player available in the first place. Sign Correa. Expect he will miss time for injury. The reality is that missing time due to injury is the norm. It is the injury risk that makes Correa and his elite talent available to a small/mid market team like the Twins. 

 

 

[chpettit19]

5 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I think it's missing the part I already mentioned following Correa's comments about that uncomfortable feeling.

Do you believe the Twins were aware of his potentially balky ankle prior to the season starting? 

Do you believe they examined his ankle after the slide and were ok with what they saw? 

We just watched acquisitions flop due to health issues that each had prior to joining the team, but yes, how unrealistic to think the Twins weren't aware of whatever SF or NY found.....

Were the Twins aware that Correa had a plate in his leg prior to the season? Yes. Everyone in the baseball industry was aware of that. What does that have to do with long-term stability concerns?

Did they do scans and a full workup of his ankle after he reported no pain on a slide on September 20th and they knew he'd be leaving the team in a month? No. Why in the world would the Twins have done scans of his leg after that? They knew they'd do an entirely new physical on him if they were to agree to a deal with him. They're not putting their players through unnecessary medical exams when the player isn't reporting any pain that could effect them in the current season.

Who's saying the Twins weren't unware of whatever SF or NY found? I'm saying they had no reason to be looking for long-term problems before last season (they didn't have him signed long-term!), and it's entirely possible the concerns arose because of that slide, or just normal wear and tear of another season. "The Mets continue to express reservations about the long-term stability of Correa’s leg." That's a quote from Ken Rosenthal/Dan Hayes in an Athletic article. You can find thousands more like them in other articles about the Giants and Mets deals with Correa. The Mets new the Giants had concerns about his physical and still offered him their 12 year deal before doing their own deep dive. But the Twins offering a deal before getting to do their new physical is outrageous?

The Yankees traded for a pitcher with the exact same "health issues" as Mahle at the deadline. The Yankees also allowed Tanaka to pitch with a partially torn UCL for years. The Dodgers couldn't even tell if Walker Buehler had torn his UCL before he went into surgery for his 2nd TJ in August after allowing him to pitch with elbow concerns for most of last year. Jacob deGrom hasn't stayed healthy for 2 years (15 starts in 2021, 11 in 2022) and just signed a 5 year deal for a boatload of money at the age of 34. Aaron Judge is a 30 year old, 6'7" player (they don't tend to hold up and age well) who's had over 500 PAs in a season twice since 2017 and just signed one of the biggest contracts in baseball history. The Yankees traded for Harrison Bader while he was on the IL. The Padres traded for Clevinger knowing he had elbow concerns, had those elbow issues flair up at the end of the 2020 season and brought him back for the playoffs anyways only to watch him undergo his 2nd TJ before then buying out his last 2 arbitration years knowing they'd only get 1 season of a guy coming off his 2nd TJ. And these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. This idea that the Twins are just doing crazy (or are simply incompetent) things simply isn't true.

[PseudoSABR]

Surprising this hasn't resolved itself yet.  I'm surprised the Mets haven't worked it out by now, if they could.  I imagine there is another deal being worked on, and they are making sure all the physical/medical is done prior to announcing anything else.  

[KirbyDome89]

46 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Were the Twins aware that Correa had a plate in his leg prior to the season? Yes. Everyone in the baseball industry was aware of that. What does that have to do with long-term stability concerns?

Did they do scans and a full workup of his ankle after he reported no pain on a slide on September 20th and they knew he'd be leaving the team in a month? No. Why in the world would the Twins have done scans of his leg after that? They knew they'd do an entirely new physical on him if they were to agree to a deal with him. They're not putting their players through unnecessary medical exams when the player isn't reporting any pain that could effect them in the current season.

Who's saying the Twins weren't unware of whatever SF or NY found? I'm saying they had no reason to be looking for long-term problems before last season (they didn't have him signed long-term!), and it's entirely possible the concerns arose because of that slide, or just normal wear and tear of another season. "The Mets continue to express reservations about the long-term stability of Correa’s leg." That's a quote from Ken Rosenthal/Dan Hayes in an Athletic article. You can find thousands more like them in other articles about the Giants and Mets deals with Correa. The Mets new the Giants had concerns about his physical and still offered him their 12 year deal before doing their own deep dive. But the Twins offering a deal before getting to do their new physical is outrageous?

The Yankees traded for a pitcher with the exact same "health issues" as Mahle at the deadline. The Yankees also allowed Tanaka to pitch with a partially torn UCL for years. The Dodgers couldn't even tell if Walker Buehler had torn his UCL before he went into surgery for his 2nd TJ in August after allowing him to pitch with elbow concerns for most of last year. Jacob deGrom hasn't stayed healthy for 2 years (15 starts in 2021, 11 in 2022) and just signed a 5 year deal for a boatload of money at the age of 34. Aaron Judge is a 30 year old, 6'7" player (they don't tend to hold up and age well) who's had over 500 PAs in a season twice since 2017 and just signed one of the biggest contracts in baseball history. The Yankees traded for Harrison Bader while he was on the IL. The Padres traded for Clevinger knowing he had elbow concerns, had those elbow issues flair up at the end of the 2020 season and brought him back for the playoffs anyways only to watch him undergo his 2nd TJ before then buying out his last 2 arbitration years knowing they'd only get 1 season of a guy coming off his 2nd TJ. And these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. This idea that the Twins are just doing crazy (or are simply incompetent) things simply isn't true.

Is the plate not what this long term angst is about? Were they aware prior to the season that long term his ankle looks to be an issue? 

He has a surgically repaired ankle, had to leave the game after a slide,  publicly comment about the fact he were scared when they felt the ankle "vibrate," and if you're MN he's supposedly FA target No. 1. None of that merits anything other than a quick thumbs up? This is a team that had him on scheduled rest days, you really don't think they had any interest in a closer look? Ok. 

Why would they offer 10/285 if they knew what SF or NY recently found? He didn't sign with the Mets last year, and he wasn't a Met when he slid and irritated the plate in his ankle. I doubt we need to go down the financial road either. It's apples and oranges. 

Trading for two pitchers recently injured pitchers within 4 months and getting 9 combined starts is not out of the norm because other players get hurt too. I'll just disagree. 

[KirbyDome89]

2 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

I am having a hard time buying the narrative about acquiring injured players.

On Mahle… Are we suggesting they trade for players with no injury history? Montas, Castillo and Mahle were the best starters moved at the deadline. All three had time in the IL. Mahle’s was recent but Montas also missed time in July.

There were only 40 starters last year with at least 30 starts. Perhaps they should limit themselves to that group. Actually we need to make the group smaller. There are pitchers in that list that have have had Tommy John surgery or missed significant time in 2021. They are a risk of getting injured again. Eventually you get down to Gerrit Cole. Maybe they should trade for him.

On the other hand sometimes it is the injury risk that makes that talented player available in the first place. Sign Correa. Expect he will miss time for injury. The reality is that missing time due to injury is the norm. It is the injury risk that makes Correa and his elite talent available to a small/mid market team like the Twins. 

 

 

Are you suggesting Mahle's shoulder issues in MN weren't related to one that shelved him in Cincinnati a few weeks before he was acquired? I think that's a more difficult sell. 

You really can't see the difference between trading for somebody with an injury history who is currently healthy/pitching vs. somebody who has a history, was shelved for the remainder of the previous season with that same type of injury, and hasn't thrown since? Don't let me stop you from arguing to the extreme though. 

[KirbyDome89]

5 hours ago, Squirrel said:

What I’d like to know is, was Correa’s 3 yr deal insured? It seems to me that that is a big part of the equation with the Mets and Giants contracts. It was pointed out in several threads that this could be, and likely is, the issue to the 12-13 yr length of the contract vs the 1-3 yr length. And as a medical expert pointed out, that the issue is likely the beginnings of arthritis forming around the surgically repaired area, that it either wasn’t there at the start of last season, and/or wasn’t a concern for a 3 yr deal but would be for a 12-13 yr deal, given the nature of the progressiveness of arthritis.

i don’t disagree about being skeptical of the Twins evaluations, but on this, yes, we are all arguing on assumptions based on our skepticism and not knowing all the facts. Could they have missed something? Sure. Could they have noticed something but didn’t think it was much of a risk for 3 yrs? Also possible. Could the condition not have been there at the beginning of last season? Again, also possible. That said, if the insurance companies were willing to take on the risk, I think the deals with the Giants or the Mets would have been done already, And yes, I think more due diligence was done based on the total years and total cost of the contracts the Mets and Giants offered, and that their risk is far greater than the length and cost of the contract than the Twins contract prior to last season,

I have no clue how insurance is actually involved. 

Sure, but being skeptical isn't the same thing as being unrealistic or interpreting the situation in only the worst possible light. I agree SF and NY had more at risk, but I don't think Correa underwent a radically different physical with any of the 3 teams in this discussion. 

[chpettit19]

29 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Is the plate not what this long term angst is about? Were they aware prior to the season that long term his ankle looks to be an issue? 

He has a surgically repaired ankle, had to leave the game after a slide,  publicly comment about the fact he were scared when they felt the ankle "vibrate," and if you're MN he's supposedly FA target No. 1. None of that merits anything other than a quick thumbs up? This is a team that had him on scheduled rest days, you really don't think they had any interest in a closer look? Ok. 

Why would they offer 10/285 if they knew what SF or NY recently found? He didn't sign with the Mets last year, and he wasn't a Met when he slid and irritated the plate in his ankle. I doubt we need to go down the financial road either. It's apples and oranges. 

Trading for two pitchers recently injured pitchers within 4 months and getting 9 combined starts is not out of the norm because other players get hurt too. I'll just disagree. 

The simple reality of the plate being there isn't the problem. Again, everybody knew he had a plate in his leg. He's had it for over half a decade. It's not a long-term problem simply having a plate. I'd guess they were not aware of any long-term concerns about the plate before the season. There very well may not have been any long term concerns about the plate before the season. The concern about the plate now may be coming from insurance companies not being willing to insure past a certain number of years because of the plate and that wasn't a problem the Twins faced because it was only a 1-3 year deal.

No, it doesn't. Not to mention Correa is a human being with the right to say "I'm fine, I don't need, or want, a whole physical with scans and MRIs and everything else because I feel fine." The Twins don't just get to tie him down and scan him whenever they want. He told them, and the media, that there was no pain and he was fine. He missed no games because of it. What reason did they have to do a bunch of scans then? They were already going to be able to do a physical if they agreed to terms with him. There was no reason to do it. 

Again, I'm not saying they were aware of the concerns! I'm literally arguing the opposite. 

It's not about the pitchers both getting hurt (news flash: every team in major league baseball has multiple pitchers get hurt every year). It's about the risk they were willing to take. People act like no other team acquires players who've been injured. Even recent injuries. Montas was on the IL in July last year with shoulder issues and these boards and Twitter and the entire internet was filled with Twins fans still begging the Twins to go get him. Literally the exact same injury concern on almost the exact same timeline and the Yankees traded for Montas. The point is that that risk is taken by every team all the time. It's not just the Twins being stupid.

[jorgenswest]

33 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Are you suggesting Mahle's shoulder issues in MN weren't related to one that shelved him in Cincinnati a few weeks before he was acquired? I think that's a more difficult sell. 

You really can't see the difference between trading for somebody with an injury history who is currently healthy/pitching vs. somebody who has a history, was shelved for the remainder of the previous season with that same type of injury, and hasn't thrown since? Don't let me stop you from arguing to the extreme though. 

I think they knew the injury risk. If he were completely healthy they can’t get him without a global top 50 prospect. They didn’t even need to give up a global top 100. They took the risk in trying to get a starter at the top of the rotation and lost. They didn’t have the prospect capital to get Castillo and maybe should not have spent it if they did. After that I think it was better to trade for Mahle or Montas and risk the injury as opposed to a pitcher that is a borderline playoff starter. If the opportunity comes up again this summer I would take the higher risk on the injured player over more certainty of a number 3-4.

[ashbury]

3 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

I am having a hard time buying the narrative about acquiring injured players.

On Mahle… Are we suggesting they trade for players with no injury history? Montas, Castillo and Mahle were the best starters moved at the deadline. All three had time in the IL. Mahle’s was recent but Montas also missed time in July.

Gauging injury risk is a thorny problem.  I have a suspicion that some teams' analytics staffs have made greater progress than others, in working out a rubric for placing players into one bucket or another in terms of injury risk.

The way you phrased it here sounds like there is only "injured" and "not injured," or at least that's what you think people here are asking for.  I think everyone accepts that injury is a part of every player's life at some point. But as you go on to say, some pitchers do log 30 starts. Figuring out a way to improve your odds of locating those guys is not the same as demanding totally accurate prediction.

Not trading for players with an injury history means sorting into two buckets, red and green for stop and go respectively. Instead, if you have buckets labeled 20% injury risk (there being no such thing as 0%), 40%, 60%, 80%, and 95% (with 100% almost certainly meaning "retired"), you'd have an edge over teams with poorer assessment. Possibly there are much finer-grained ways of sorting risk than that, across multiple dimensions rather than simply ever-smaller ranges of percentages.

And at the time of the trade, I was looking at Mahle as an 60%er or maybe an 80%er. A lot of us were. I don't think Monday-morning quarterbacking is involved. However, guessing on one player certainly isn't the same as having a professional level of forecasting firepower.  Still that's what I do expect of our professional FO. And they disappointed when acquiring Paddack, Mahle, and (for me) even Sonny Gray, not to mention Archer and Bundy who everyone understood would need to be handled with extreme care.

[jorgenswest]

26 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Gauging injury risk is a thorny problem.  I have a suspicion that some teams' analytics staffs have made greater progress than others, in working out a rubric for placing players into one bucket or another in terms of injury risk.

The way you phrased it here sounds like there is only "injured" and "not injured," or at least that's what you think people here are asking for.  I think everyone accepts that injury is a part of every player's life at some point. But as you go on to say, some pitchers do log 30 starts. Figuring out a way to improve your odds of locating those guys is not the same as demanding totally accurate prediction.

Not trading for players with an injury history means sorting into two buckets, red and green for stop and go respectively. Instead, if you have buckets labeled 20% injury risk (there being no such thing as 0%), 40%, 60%, 80%, and 95% (with 100% almost certainly meaning "retired"), you'd have an edge over teams with poorer assessment. Possibly there are much finer-grained ways of sorting risk than that, across multiple dimensions rather than simply ever-smaller ranges of percentages.

And at the time of the trade, I was looking at Mahle as an 60%er or maybe an 80%er. A lot of us were. I don't think Monday-morning quarterbacking is involved. However, guessing on one player certainly isn't the same as having a professional level of forecasting firepower.  Still that's what I do expect of our professional FO. And they disappointed when acquiring Paddack, Mahle, and (for me) even Sonny Gray, not to mention Archer and Bundy who everyone understood would need to be handled with extreme care.

I don’t disagree with anything you said. I simply think the injury risk created the opportunity to get an impact pitcher without needing to give up a global top prospect. I think that Correa comes with that same opportunity.

It is a reasonable argument that the mid to small market Twins can’t afford to take these risks. I am on the other side. I would take the risk of signing Correa and if they are in first place at the deadline next year I would prefer the injury risk of the impact pitcher over a more reliable middle of the rotation pitcher.

[Squirrel]

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I have no clue how insurance is actually involved. 

Sure, but being skeptical isn't the same thing as being unrealistic or interpreting the situation in only the worst possible light. I agree SF and NY had more at risk, but I don't think Correa underwent a radically different physical with any of the 3 teams in this discussion. 

Okay, well I do

[KirbyDome89]

12 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The simple reality of the plate being there isn't the problem. Again, everybody knew he had a plate in his leg. He's had it for over half a decade. It's not a long-term problem simply having a plate. I'd guess they were not aware of any long-term concerns about the plate before the season. There very well may not have been any long term concerns about the plate before the season. The concern about the plate now may be coming from insurance companies not being willing to insure past a certain number of years because of the plate and that wasn't a problem the Twins faced because it was only a 1-3 year deal.

No, it doesn't. Not to mention Correa is a human being with the right to say "I'm fine, I don't need, or want, a whole physical with scans and MRIs and everything else because I feel fine." The Twins don't just get to tie him down and scan him whenever they want. He told them, and the media, that there was no pain and he was fine. He missed no games because of it. What reason did they have to do a bunch of scans then? They were already going to be able to do a physical if they agreed to terms with him. There was no reason to do it. 

Again, I'm not saying they were aware of the concerns! I'm literally arguing the opposite. 

It's not about the pitchers both getting hurt (news flash: every team in major league baseball has multiple pitchers get hurt every year). It's about the risk they were willing to take. People act like no other team acquires players who've been injured. Even recent injuries. Montas was on the IL in July last year with shoulder issues and these boards and Twitter and the entire internet was filled with Twins fans still begging the Twins to go get him. Literally the exact same injury concern on almost the exact same timeline and the Yankees traded for Montas. The point is that that risk is taken by every team all the time. It's not just the Twins being stupid.

I get that, the plate is a stand in for whatever health concerns are supposedly causing the delay. 

Personally, I'm not sure why he would refuse. If a medical professional recommended a look, if for no reason other than to remove any doubt/fear, I'd agree without hesitation but yes, he has the option to decline. If you're the Twins, and you're serious about committing to him long term, why would you not to erase any doubt as well? Why put him back on the field and risk something happening during a handful of meaningless games? Why not have as much info as possible at your disposal? I don't know why a team that's concerned enough to make Correa a healthy scratch wouldn't be hyper cautious about a surgically repaired ankle. 

"Every team has multiple pitchers get hurt," is such an oversimplification. Every team takes risks relative to their normal operating procedures, or every team gambles on Paddack and Mahle in a 4 month window? Those are two different things.