Rumor: Mets Have Concerns With Correa Physical

[bap3141]

On 12/24/2022 at 1:05 PM, Doctor Gast said:

The same way that Paddock, Mahle & Dyson did. ?

So many people mispell it "Paddock" on these boards, that I wonder is it an intentional inside joke that I'm missing?

[Squirrel]

2 hours ago, bap3141 said:

So many people mispell it "Paddock" on these boards, that I wonder is it an intentional inside joke that I'm missing?

I think it’s autocorrect more than anything? Not sure why autocorrect didn’t catch ‘misspell’, though ??

[dxpavelka]

11 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Buxton? That post is about Buxton.

THIS post is about Correa.

[Mike Sixel]

33 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

THIS post is about Correa.

Ok. But the post you responded to was about Buxton, so I'm not sure your point. 

[bap3141]

5 hours ago, Squirrel said:

I think it’s autocorrect more than anything? Not sure why autocorrect didn’t catch ‘misspell’, though ??

Okay, you got me.  That particular misspell is a typo from attempting to type on my phone.  Paddack and "Paddock" genuinely had me curious.  Misspelling names drives me bonkers.  Saw enough Mark McGuire, and Greg Maddox over the years. 

[Doctor Gast]

13 hours ago, bap3141 said:

So many people mispell it "Paddock" on these boards, that I wonder is it an intentional inside joke that I'm missing?

My bad, thank you. A Freudian slip.

[dxpavelka]

10 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Ok. But the post you responded to was about Buxton, so I'm not sure your point. 

My response was on THIS post "Rumor: Mets Have Concerns With Correa Physical" so I'm not sure what YOUR point is.  My response was that we would not have signed CORREA to the original deal had we had injury concerns.

[Mike Sixel]

2 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

My response was on THIS post "Rumor: Mets Have Concerns With Correa Physical" so I'm not sure what YOUR point is.  My response was that we would not have signed CORREA to the original deal had we had injury concerns.

You quoted my response to someone talking about Buxton. 

As for CC, they if they felt there was an issue, they likely didn't fear it given it was really a one year deal. 

[dxpavelka]

1 minute ago, Mike Sixel said:

You quoted my response to someone talking about Buxton. 

As for CC, they if they felt there was an issue, they likely didn't fear it given it was really a one year deal. 

Had it been an issue it likely could have ended up being a three year deal.

[Nine of twelve]

I haven't read every post regarding Correa but I don't think anyone has said this in so many words.

I expect that the Twins are and were fully aware of Correa's medical history. I would further expect that their determination was that this was not likely to be a problem for the length of the 3-year contract he was signed to last spring.

Of course, the Mets and Giants both have had much longer-term contracts to be responsible for, and I would expect that their respective determinations have been that this is much more likely to be a problem for the length of the terms involved. I would further expect that the concerns are valid based on the fact that two separate medical evaluations have been done and the team raised a concern in both cases.

[bap3141]

On 12/26/2022 at 5:38 AM, Doctor Gast said:

My bad, thank you. A Freudian slip.

Ha! Not calling you out though... I just see it so often that I thought I might be missing something. Just my FOMO at work.

 

I forgot to add another to my list (with Mark McGuire and Greg Maddox)... Roger "Clemons".

[Doctor Gast]

1 hour ago, bap3141 said:

Ha! Not calling you out though... I just see it so often that I thought I might be missing something. Just my FOMO at work.

 

I forgot to add another to my list (with Mark McGuire and Greg Maddox)... Roger "Clemons".

Cool ?

[Craig Arko]

On 12/26/2022 at 5:38 AM, Doctor Gast said:

My bad, thank you. A Freudian slip.

I’m confused. Does Chris Paddack remind you of your mother, or a cigar?

[Doctor Gast]

32 minutes ago, Craig Arko said:

I’m confused. Does Chris Paddack remind you of your mother, or a cigar?

A freudian slip is an unintentional error that stems from a subconscious feeling. I'm not sure what that feeling is, Maybe it was tramatic experience I had when they traded Rogers for him?

[ashbury]

3 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

A freudian slip is an unintentional error that stems from a subconscious feeling. I'm not sure what that feeling is, Maybe it was tramatic experience I had when they traded Rogers for him?

Sometimes a mother is just a cigar.

[wsnydes]

On 12/26/2022 at 12:00 PM, Nine of twelve said:

I haven't read every post regarding Correa but I don't think anyone has said this in so many words.

I expect that the Twins are and were fully aware of Correa's medical history. I would further expect that their determination was that this was not likely to be a problem for the length of the 3-year contract he was signed to last spring.

Of course, the Mets and Giants both have had much longer-term contracts to be responsible for, and I would expect that their respective determinations have been that this is much more likely to be a problem for the length of the terms involved. I would further expect that the concerns are valid based on the fact that two separate medical evaluations have been done and the team raised a concern in both cases.

I had the same thought about where the Twins stood on the condition of the injury.  It's also possible that it worsened over the course of last season and now seems more suspect than it did last offseason.

[KirbyDome89]

On 12/24/2022 at 12:32 PM, chpettit19 said:

Strongly disagree. You're assuming their injury concerns are for the first 1 or 2 years of 12 and 13 year deals. But to each their own.

Weren't those later years considered a wash anyways? 

[chpettit19]

33 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Weren't those later years considered a wash anyways? 

Which later years? Years 3 through 12 or 13? No. Years 10 through 12 or 13? Yeah, probably. But there's a whole lot of years between there.

The point is that pointing to the Twins passing him on a physical for a 3 year deal (that everyone knew was really a 1 year deal) as them being incompetent now that other teams don't want to pay him for 12 or 13 years is ignoring a whole lot of context. Like 10 years of context. It's just confirmation bias.

[IA Bean Counter]

A medical professional came out and speculated that if he is passing physicals now, but concerns are arising from imaging it is most likely arthritis is beginning to develop in the joint and area.   It essentially takes any long term deal past 6 years off the table. 

[tarheeltwinsfan]

On 12/24/2022 at 12:15 PM, Craig Arko said:

If Boras calls I’d say he could opt back into year 2 of 3. Pending a physical, of course.

Interesting proposal. It just might work.

[KirbyDome89]

21 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Which later years? Years 3 through 12 or 13? No. Years 10 through 12 or 13? Yeah, probably. But there's a whole lot of years between there.

The point is that pointing to the Twins passing him on a physical for a 3 year deal (that everyone knew was really a 1 year deal) as them being incompetent now that other teams don't want to pay him for 12 or 13 years is ignoring a whole lot of context. Like 10 years of context. It's just confirmation bias.

I haven't seen the term incompetent being thrown around. 

Yeah, it was a 1 year deal assuming health & production, and I buy that MN was willing to risk some kind of freak injury, but I have a more difficult time believing an uberconservative team like the Twins was equally aware of the ankle, and they were $70M sure it wouldn't be an issue. I don't have a strong background in medical science, but that type of predictability (year 2-3 with MN vs. some permutation of years 3-9 elsewhere) seems off to me. They were fine with gambling on Paddack and Mahle, so maybe they just don't view short term risk as that big of a deal, but the money is where I'm hung up. 

[August J Gloop]

Correa's leg is clearly a lot worse than he wants people to know. He's bombed two physicals and wouldn't let the Twins look at the Giants finding before making any further offers. At this point they should let the Mets have him. 

Seems likely this will be one of the worst offseasons in MLB history as far as value per dollar spent. Rodon? Bust. Xander? 2-3 good years, then fizzle. Turner, will be OK throughout, lots of sexy slides, but never really worth the contract. Swanson? Jason Heyward will look good in comparison. Correa might still end up being the best value, if someone can get him to hop back on those short deals. 

[chpettit19]

34 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I haven't seen the term incompetent being thrown around. 

Yeah, it was a 1 year deal assuming health & production, and I buy that MN was willing to risk some kind of freak injury, but I have a more difficult time believing an uberconservative team like the Twins was equally aware of the ankle, and they were $70M sure it wouldn't be an issue. I don't have a strong background in medical science, but that type of predictability (year 2-3 with MN vs. some permutation of years 3-9 elsewhere) seems off to me. They were fine with gambling on Paddack and Mahle, so maybe they just don't view short term risk as that big of a deal, but the money is where I'm hung up. 

Now you're playing semantics. Use whatever word you want, the implications are that the Twins screwed up/ignored a problem/weren't even aware of said problem because they signed him to a 1 year deal with 2 option years. Pretending that's at all the same to signing him to a 12 or 13 year deal is nonsense. They're not at all the same thing. And who says he didn't jostle that plate (I mean he literally admitted that a slide late in the year had him nervous as he felt something in the plate) during the season and that's what the other teams are now seeing. I seriously don't understand how you don't see a difference between the next 2 years and the next 9 years.

What reason do you have to believe the Mets or Giants are seeing something that at all concerns them in the next 2 seasons?

[KirbyDome89]

19 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Now you're playing semantics. Use whatever word you want, the implications are that the Twins screwed up/ignored a problem/weren't even aware of said problem because they signed him to a 1 year deal with 2 option years. Pretending that's at all the same to signing him to a 12 or 13 year deal is nonsense. They're not at all the same thing. And who says he didn't jostle that plate (I mean he literally admitted that a slide late in the year had him nervous as he felt something in the plate) during the season and that's what the other teams are now seeing. I seriously don't understand how you don't see a difference between the next 2 years and the next 9 years.

What reason do you have to believe the Mets or Giants are seeing something that at all concerns them in the next 2 seasons

So the same team that watched the Paddack and Mahle acquisitions blow up in their faces was so far ahead of the curve when it came to Correa that they were fully aware of whatever issues his future potentially held, and simultaneously certain that those issues wouldn't surface during a 3 year deal? Ok. After the slide incident and his post game "vibrating," comment, Correa played a bunch of meaningless games and the Twins apparently felt comfortable enough to offer him 10/285. Those are decisions that a team makes with full understanding of his ankle aliment prior to the season? If it's really the "worst possible light," to say the Twins didn't have a solid grasp then guilty as charged I guess. 

We're using a routine slide from this season as the launching pad for what could go wrong, but there isn't concern in the short term? I don't think the cliff is as easy to pinpoint as you seem to believe, i.e. "we're safe for 3 years, but watch out in year 6." 

[Mike Sixel]

42 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

So the same team that watched the Paddack and Mahle acquisitions blow up in their faces was so far ahead of the curve when it came to Correa that they were fully aware of whatever issues his future potentially held, and simultaneously certain that those issues wouldn't surface during a 3 year deal? Ok. After the slide incident and his post game "vibrating," comment, Correa played a bunch of meaningless games and the Twins apparently felt comfortable enough to offer him 10/285. Those are decisions that a team makes with full understanding of his ankle aliment prior to the season? If it's really the "worst possible light," to say the Twins didn't have a solid grasp then guilty as charged I guess. 

We're using a routine slide from this season as the launching pad for what could go wrong, but there isn't concern in the short term? I don't think the cliff is as easy to pinpoint as you seem to believe, i.e. "we're safe for 3 years, but watch out in year 6." 

You realize medicine is an art, not science. We have no idea if they screwed up those first two, or if things changed or if they were willing to accept the risk. None. 

[chpettit19]

44 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

So the same team that watched the Paddack and Mahle acquisitions blow up in their faces was so far ahead of the curve when it came to Correa that they were fully aware of whatever issues his future potentially held, and simultaneously certain that those issues wouldn't surface during a 3 year deal? Ok. After the slide incident and his post game "vibrating," comment, Correa played a bunch of meaningless games and the Twins apparently felt comfortable enough to offer him 10/285. Those are decisions that a team makes with full understanding of his ankle aliment prior to the season? If it's really the "worst possible light," to say the Twins didn't have a solid grasp then guilty as charged I guess. 

We're using a routine slide from this season as the launching pad for what could go wrong, but there isn't concern in the short term? I don't think the cliff is as easy to pinpoint as you seem to believe, i.e. "we're safe for 3 years, but watch out in year 6." 

Do you agree or disagree with this timeline?

Twins agree to 3 year deal with 2 player opt outs with Correa.
Twins do physical before signing deal and feel there's nothing in the physical to lead them to believe he was a ticking timebomb about to explode during the 2022 MLB season.
Correa slides and feels a vibration in the plate in his leg.
Correa opts out after 1 season of 3 year deal like everyone thinking rationally knew he would.
Twins offer Correa 10/285.
Correa agrees to 13 year deal with the Giants.
Correa takes new physical.
Giants have hesitations.
Correa agrees to 12 year deal with Mets.
Mets review new physical and have concerns.
Today.

That's my understanding of how things have gone. And in there the Twins were looking at his physical assessing the likelihood of him being hurt during the 2022 season because they knew with 100% certainty that he was opting out unless he had some sort of major injury or completely forgot how to play baseball. I've even been generous enough to give you the 2 extra years and say they were concerned about 3 years, when we all knew from the day he signed that they had 1 year with him.

I don't think it's just "worst possible light," I think it's confirmation bias with no standing in reality. We're not going to agree on this, though. So no real point in me continuing to point out the gigantic gap in years, and the entire season he played after the Twins physical that included him commenting on an uncomfortable feeling he had in the part of his body teams are now concerned about.

[KirbyDome89]

10 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

You realize medicine is an art, not science. We have no idea if they screwed up those first two, or if things changed or if they were willing to accept the risk. None. 

Paddack's 2021 ended with elbow issues and he'd already undergone TJ once. 

Mahle spent time on the IL with shoulder inflammation just before the deadline. 

I think we have an idea....

[KirbyDome89]

10 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Do you agree or disagree with this timeline?

Twins agree to 3 year deal with 2 player opt outs with Correa.
Twins do physical before signing deal and feel there's nothing in the physical to lead them to believe he was a ticking timebomb about to explode during the 2022 MLB season.
Correa slides and feels a vibration in the plate in his leg.
Correa opts out after 1 season of 3 year deal like everyone thinking rationally knew he would.
Twins offer Correa 10/285.
Correa agrees to 13 year deal with the Giants.
Correa takes new physical.
Giants have hesitations.
Correa agrees to 12 year deal with Mets.
Mets review new physical and have concerns.
Today.

That's my understanding of how things have gone. And in there the Twins were looking at his physical assessing the likelihood of him being hurt during the 2022 season because they knew with 100% certainty that he was opting out unless he had some sort of major injury or completely forgot how to play baseball. I've even been generous enough to give you the 2 extra years and say they were concerned about 3 years, when we all knew from the day he signed that they had 1 year with him.

I don't think it's just "worst possible light," I think it's confirmation bias with no standing in reality. We're not going to agree on this, though. So no real point in me continuing to point out the gigantic gap in years, and the entire season he played after the Twins physical that included him commenting on an uncomfortable feeling he had in the part of his body teams are now concerned about.

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.....

[Squirrel]

1 hour 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.....

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,

[Major League Ready]

19 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

You realize medicine is an art, not science. We have no idea if they screwed up those first two, or if things changed or if they were willing to accept the risk. None. 

This and the fact that we are talking about something that requires we be fully informed and have specific expertise to provide an informed opinion.  Considering these things makes for a wasted opportunity to assert someone is incompetent.