On Carlos Correa and the Differing Opinions of Doctors

[IndianaTwin]

Just now, Squirrel said:

It was also something they said in the press conference … maybe not those exact words, but there was certainly a ‘Okay, let’s figure this out’ attitude. And you are right, it’s a good way to approach negotiations. It’s why I said the Twins negotiated in good faith. I can’t really speak to the Giants, or really to the Mets, either, but the Mets asking him to ‘pass’ a physical every year to guarantee money is not a good faith negotiation and is basically a yearly opt out clause. And the Twins didn’t give Correa what they initially offered, either, but I think they approached it fairly, which shows the amount of respect they bring to the table (despite my earlier whines that they only offered 10/285).

Perhaps a different thread, but I’m not sure it’s a luxury tax issue. I think the later years, low AAV and opt outs was simply an insurance plan to a few things. IF Correa’s speculative ankle arthritis is a problem in those later years, it gives the Twins options to move him to another position, become a lesser role player or to cut him if it’s indeed that bad. And if it’s not that bad, Correa has already made his money up front. The lower salary later also leaves them room to take on another big contract or extend younger players. I mean, I guess it is more a payroll issue because I don’t ever see the Twins reaching a luxury tax threshold.

Yeah, I picked up that in the press conference as well. There was also a statement there where Boras specifically referenced Levine having maintained contact throughout the process.

There was also a thread about the whole time-value-of-money thing, and while you were typing, I was punching up a spreadsheet out of curiosity. Turns out that if you use a 5 percent discount rate, the final contract (if it goes the full 10 years) provides Correa almost exactly the same amount in current dollars as if he signed at 10/281. 

(I see the luxury tax as just a bonus. And I'm not sure I'm even understanding it correctly.)

[IndianaTwin]

2 minutes ago, wabene said:

Do we really know for certain that the Mets didn't seek additional medical opinions? 

I guess Cohen could have been scrambling after a rash decision

 

 

 

 

We don't.

But it's the internet, so we don't have to know anything in order to speak with certainty. :-)

[Nine of twelve]

15 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

I'm not clear about this: exactly who engaged the services of the MD or MD's who provided the opinion used by the Giants and the Mets? Was it the teams themselves or was it the insurance company or companies who would be providing coverage for the contracts?

 

14 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Teams. The insurance policies are a completely different thing, in my understanding. 

It's my understanding that contracts such as this are almost always insured. That means the insurance company would be assuming the financial risk in the event of a health-related problem affecting the player's performance. As such, it would seem to me that the underwriter would want to assess the risk before such a policy is put into effect. That's why I was wondering if insurance companies hire doctors to give independent opinions in such cases. Maybe Heezy is aware of whether this is done?

[Brock Beauchamp]

19 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

It's my understanding that contracts such as this are almost always insured. That means the insurance company would be assuming the financial risk in the event of a health-related problem affecting the player's performance. As such, it would seem to me that the underwriter would want to assess the risk before such a policy is put into effect. That's why I was wondering if insurance companies hire doctors to give independent opinions in such cases. Maybe Heezy is aware of whether this is done?

Oh, insurance is absolutely involved but my understanding is that their process with doctors and evaluation is separate from what we're talking about with the Giants' and Mets' doctor.

By the way, the Twins were able to insure Correa's contract. I believe Boras made a smart-ass remark about it at the press conference, implying the Twins could magically get him insured but the Giants and Mets could not.

[Squirrel]

23 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

By the way, the Twins were able to insure Correa's contract. I believe Boras made a smart-ass remark about it at the press conference, implying the Twins could magically get him insured but the Giants and Mets could not.

This is the part with all of this that confuses me. Maybe. I mean ... the guaranteed dollar amounts and years are very different than the Twins contract. Could it be that insurance said, 'Okay, this is doable' where the others were not, again because of the guaranteed length and amounts? Front loading it as they did, and basically have 4 years of being opt outs at lower rates ... maybe the insurance said that was workable where the other structures were not?

Totally guessing. If, indeed, insurance was part of the problem. If it truly wasn't, then, I'm back to they were trying to put the screws to Correa.

[Cris E]

The Twins accepted different opinions because they weren't asking the same questions.

The Giants and Mets were essentially working from the same starting point, trying to get a contract with an excellent youngish SS free agent who had a lot of leverage when playing teams against each other. At the point the Giants backed out it easily could have been a team thing or a real health thing. But when the Mets backed out too Correa's negotiating position was significantly weakened. Once his health was in doubt the Twins were free to not be considering 10-12 years of health because they had the leverage to crank down on the guaranteed years. 

When you need to paying out for ten or twelve years you're far more concerned about what difficulty a 38 year old might have with arthritis than when you're looking at six years and how the 34 year old might be feeling. Our front office was able to take those earlier negotiations to change their discussion to reduce risk to align with what the docs were saying. 

 

[twinstalker]

On 1/16/2023 at 7:58 AM, Karbo said:

The dr. isn't always right. There outlooks are nothing more than an educated guess going by what the majority of people have had. IMHO using the patients history should be factored in more than it is.

And cross-your-fingers hope for the best case scenario is almost always worse than the doctor's rec.

That's what we're all doing.  We should at least admit it.