Mets Also Have Medical Concerns about Carlos Correa

[Heezy1323]

2 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

Thanks for this. 

There are two paragraphs that I don't understand.

I think the most likely scenario is that Correa fell into the Twins lap quickly last year, and everyone recognized it was most likely a 1 year arrangement. So the level of due diligence required by the medical staff is lower. Imaging of all prior nicks/bruises isn't necessary in that case.

This time around given the commitment of 10+ years, teams were being more diligent and likely getting new imaging of any body part that had ever been treated for an injury (surgically or not). 

Thinking it's a 1 year arrangement is logical to me if he performs as hoped. However, the deal was a three year commitment with an AAV over 35 big ones if things go wrong. Injury is perhaps the primary risk of how things could have gone wrong. An underlying injury is something the team would need to be aware of (thrown together quickly or not) since they absorbed all of the risk. Over 100 million dollars worth of risk.

Carlos had the opts outs so in my limited thinking, while I understand the difference betwen 12 years and 3, still the level of due diligence required should be at least similar to the level the Giants and Mets put forth. 

Lower level due diligence makes no sense to me when you consider that 35 million out of a limited budget for a crippled player would cripple the franchise for the next two years.   

 

IMO, this wasn’t a 3 year deal. It was a “3 year deal” in which essentially everyone involved knew it was a one year deal absent extraordinarily unusual circumstances. 
 You’re welcome to disagree with my reasoning. I have no idea if I’m correct or not. It’s just the most plausible explanation to me given what we know. 

[Riverbrian]

32 minutes ago, Heezy1323 said:

IMO, this wasn’t a 3 year deal. It was a “3 year deal” in which essentially everyone involved knew it was a one year deal absent extraordinarily unusual circumstances. 
 You’re welcome to disagree with my reasoning. I have no idea if I’m correct or not. It’s just the most plausible explanation to me given what we know. 

I don't have the expertise to disagree with your reasoning. I'm sad if it came across as if I was. 

I'm still saying I don't understand how anyone approves lower level due diligence on that contract. 

Especially when it is only the 2nd time the organization has crossed the 100 million line on a contract. 

How many millions or years do you need to out distance before the high level due diligence is necessary? 

I appreciate your content. I really do. 

[Heezy1323]

1 minute ago, Riverbrian said:

I don't have the expertise to disagree with your reasoning. I'm sad if it came across as if I was. 

I'm still saying I don't understand how anyone approves lower level due diligence on that contract. 

Especially when it is only the 2nd time the organization has crossed the 100 million line on a contract. 

How many millions or years do you need to out distance before the high level due diligence is necessary? 

I didn't intend my reply to come across as snarky. I certainly didn't take your response disrespectfully. Mine was simply an honest take (as I see it): This was, for all practical purposes, a one year deal. I'm guessing the team reviewed his medicals at hand, but did not require repeat imaging of *all* prior injured areas (again, due to this being effectively a 1 year deal). IMO, this is because anything that is not recently/currently bothering Carlos is unlikely to become important over the course of one year. 

 To be clear, I'm not endorsing this approach as foolproof or the most ideal approach. I'm only giving my thoughts on what may have happened. I don't think I'm able to comment intelligently on what threshold exists for *standard* due diligence and *extreme* due diligence. I think most people would agree that a different level of scrutiny is necessary for a 10-year and what is effectively a 1-year deal. 

[Cornholio]

I was watching MLB TONIGHT this evening, and they played a clip of Correa attempting to steal 2nd base. This was on September 12th, I think. He was thrown out, and his right foot jammed into the defenders foot. He stayed down for a bit, and was rubbing his right ankle. The speculation of the piece was that maybe he loosened the metal plate from the surgery he had while a minor leaguer. He did play 11 of the next twelve games at ss.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Cornholio
Forgot something

[Heezy1323]

27 minutes ago, Cornholio said:

I was watching MLB TONIGHT this evening, and they played a clip of Correa attempting to steal 2nd base. This was on September 12th, I think. He was thrown out, and his right foot jammed into the defenders foot. He stayed down for a bit, and was rubbing his right ankle. The speculation of the piece was that maybe he loosened the metal plate from the surgery he had while a minor leaguer. He did play 11 of the next twelve games at ss.

IMO, this is VERY unlikely to be the case. These plates/screws just don’t suddenly come loose after 8 years. If something happened at the slide, the most likely disaster is fracture of the bone directly above the plate (which obviously didn’t happen here). I still like my theory of low-grade arthritis stemming from his original injury. Other possibilities exist, for sure.