Carlos Correa Officially Opts Out of Twins Contract

7 hours ago, Aggies7 said:

A lot of those guys you mentioned were signed by teams with much better roster situations. Might make more sense to me to take a swing when you have a team that realistically has a chance to compete. Even then, when these guys get to their mid-late 30s then they tend to just become an albatross 

Yes, their roster situations were better but that's not the primary difference between the teams that signed these players.  With the exception of Machado, these teams all have significantly more revenue.  The fact that these teams could all sign at least two of these contracts and still have the Twins budget left over is a far more significant difference.  Let's also recognize that SanDiego has one 90 win season since the turn of the century and that was exactly 90 in 2010.  Not exactly a franchise that has such great success that we should follow their practices.

I wish he would stay but clearly there are too many other teams with big bucks that will fatten his wallet. Twins can't compete so he's gone. Next.

5 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Dunno. Sooner with players as good as Correa than without.

 

I do not subscribe to the theory of "wait until you have good players to sign good players." 

I don't believe the finances are beyond the Twins capabilities.

I don't believe signing market rate contracts for good players prevents the Twins from acquiring or developing other good players. Developing good players is needed whether we sign free agents or not. 

Sitting around waiting for the stars to align and our farm system to win us a World Series isn't going to work, IMO. It certainly hasn't for decades. Hasn't even won us a single postseason game in a long long time.

 

You are ignoring history which very clearly illustrates the stars aligning in our farm system is by far the most important element to any average or below average revenue team building a dominant team.  I am including trading established players for prospects or players that have minimal major league experience in "the starts aligning" in our farm system as trading for prospects has been far more impactful than free agents or trading for established players among these teams.  This is how average and below average revenue teams have been successful.  Believe what you want to believe but you are ignoring the facts. 

We had Correa and we were under 500.  Texas signed Seager and Semien and they were under 500.  LA has Ohtani and Traut and they are under 500.  They won 68 and 73 games respectively.  What matters and what we should be concerned about are decisions like drafting Cavaco instead of Corbin or Stott.   

Don't agree.  Great but show examples of winning teams in these markets that back-up your opinion.

Another in a long line of Carlos Correa stories.  At least we don't have to read that many Buxton stories anymore.  I'm of the opinion we should not, and will not sign him to a long term extension.  Remember it was Correa who voided the last two years of his Twins contract.  He turned away from 35 million each of the next two years.  Apparently that's not enough for him.  Yes we all figured he would opt out after one year.  Let's face the fact:. The Twins were used by Correa to only improve himself.  The Twins, Twins fans, media, were all taken in by his superstar status.  He used us for his own benefit.  What did the Twins gain by having him here?  Not much IMO.  The fact is that his offensive stats were rather anemic until September came and the team was out of it.  Also he had a great September mainly by beating up on some minor league and unproven pitchers trying to make a name for himself.  Correa was brutal in the clutch most of the season.  Bottom line for me is it makes no sense to spend so much on one person when there will be little money left to improve the team in many needed areas.  What good is it to have a superstar shortstop if your team is budget strapped?  More mediocre baseball.  Carlos Correa made his decision.  He voided the last two years of his contract that made him the highest paid position player.  The Twins had him already signed. He said it wasn't good enough.  What arrogance.  It's time to move on from Carlos.

My humble opinion, which I believe to be fair for both parties.  Yes, I want Correa to stay.  How about an 8 year contract for $280M slightly front loaded with player options after years 4 and 5 and mutual options after years 6 and 7.  Absolutely no "No trade clause".  I think this should be offered early and if not accepted move on so we still have options on how to spend that money.  With money saved from the Sano and Sanchez Contracts we still have money to sign a frontline pitcher.  Our payroll would be virtually the same.  Make some trades if necessary to upgrade at C and bullpen.  And I think this would be enough to compete, barring the injury factor,  but everybody faces that possibility.

Lots of interesting takes here about Correa. People complaining about his bat (he was the best hitting shortstop in MLB by wRC+) others about his defense, since apparently yearly defensive metrics are reliable now. I think it would be interesting to look at how many people here were hailing the start of the kirilloff, lanarch and jeffers era in the late 2010s when they were in the system and then we can see how that panned out. We could go back to the Sano, Kepler and Polanco hype train for more comps. I'm not saying that will happen with lewis et al but I wouldn't say it's unimaginable.
I personally don't think that these mega deals are great value for teams, however if you want a top tier shortstop then most of the time you have to pay market rates, or pray that brooks lee pans out as expected. Realistically what you're paying for in Correa is a premium bat who also plays the second hardest position in the game. Defensive metrics vary on his defensive abilities. DRS thinks he's elite, FRAA (BPs metric) thinks he's below average and OAA has his range being above average. I think people will have different opinions about where on that spectrum he lies but even if you take FRAAs verdict of him being below average, his bat more than makes up for it.
In the likely event the twins don't resign Correa they will have to ask themselves how are we going to replace the 4-5 wins that we're losing from last season. Aside from massively improved pitching or signing one of the other top SS, I don't see any way this realistically happens, sadly praying for a MVP season from buxton (since he already had 3-4 war) isn't realistic. But we know this FO doesn't like to spend pitchers who could actually give you 4-5 wins so that just leaves me thinking we'll have another mediocre team without Correa.

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

I explicitly cited history.

More than 30 years of history since a WS appearance.

The last postseason win, much less winning series, is a distant memory. 

History? Please. 

I knew you would not actually address the issue.  If the Twins were the only below average revenue team in MLB you would have a point.  Obviously, the point is how teams have been successful NOT how they have failed.  The facts are very clear that successful average revenue teams have been a product of drafting players and trading for prospects.  The reality is obvious if one is in the least bit willing to educate themselves on past winners.  Your refusal to address my position with facts would be understandable if they were not so easy to validate.  You damn well know you are ignoring the facts and if you could disprove my point you would have done so.   Instead your response is a smart ass answer.  We can all ignore facts when they absolutely obliviate our positions if we are willing to remain uniformed.   

3 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

The Twins roster situation is exactly why they should be doing a large contract now. They won't give a pitcher a long term deal and they don't have other holes to fill. If they're going to ride steady at a 140Mish payroll, it'll have to be due to signing a big time player. 

And the team is young, so it's going to be this way for the foreseeable future.

No doubt they have the capacity.  The question is the relative effectiveness of spending such a high percentage on one player?  I am sure you have seen/heard or read this discussion in various form of media.  The common wisdom is that it is not.  Do you think Houston is poorly run?  They could pay Correa twice with their incremental revenue and they let him go? 

2 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Well that ratio argument is much more convenient if they don't have a high value free agent and payroll sits at 100M, instead of 140M. Or, I hope you're not suggesting the old 'quantity over quality' approach they used to run with. Geez, we only have roster space for four free agents, lets sign four Andrelton Simmons so as not to pay someone 20% of our payroll. Nobody wants that. Including the front office.

And Houston 100% would have tried to re-sign Correa or one of the other shortstops last year if they didn't have one of the top shortstop prospects in the league ready to roll and 3B and 2B locked up through 2024.

Bryce Harper, Mookie Betts, Freddie Freeman, Manny Machado, Paul Goldschmidt, Nolan Arenado, George Springer. These kinds of contracts have often been paying dividends recently

It is not 'common wisdom' to assign slot values to roster spots, that's very inflexible and outdated. Like, last decade outdated. Most of the fans and the TEAM ITESLEF has shown not to be interested in that conservative approach. One player you can confidently predict will be good is better than four who are unlikely to be much better than the guys already in the minors. Mid level free agents are the absolute worst value for your money as the young, cheap players tend to be able to approach, if not surpass their productions. 

Show me an example of a team that went to the world series while paying 25% to one player which is what Correa at $35M of a $140M budget.  You also refuse to acknowledge that Harper / Betts / Freeman / Goldsmidt / Arenado and Springer all play for teams that could pay 2 players Correa's salary and have the Twins budget left over.

You also apparently don't understand that the lower revenue necessitates higher productivity per dollar spent.  This is not a theory.  It's a mathematical certainty.  In other words, it's not a quantity of quality thing.  Forget about what I think.  Do you know something all the other GMs of average revenue (or below) teams don't know because they don't sign these players.  You are able to find plenty of meaningless comparisons like teams with significant incremental revenue.  No kidding a team with an extra 75 or 150M can sign high AAV free agents that the twins don't sign.  Yet, somehow the fact these players are not signed by below average revenue teams escapes you.

3 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Which fact did I ignore...last WS over 30 years ago, or last postseason win pre-Twins Daily and then some?

The performances of approximately 15 other teams at or below average revenue.

I'm not taking a position in this discussion, I'm simply answering your question.

5 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Which fact did I ignore...last WS over 30 years ago, or last postseason win pre-Twins Daily and then some?

You ignored how all of the winners were built.  This particular failure you are focused on is absolutely irrelevant unless you are trying to figure out how to not get to the WS for 30 years.  I am sure you think there is great wisdom in your position but you are demonstrating why some fans (of all organizations) are dismayed by FO decisions.   You think not getting to the WS for 30 years is relevant to strategic decisions.

13 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Who is saying this is a World Series team next year? Signing Correa long term is one step towards building a World Series caliber roster. We have upwards of $60-70 million to spend this offseason to match this years’ payroll. With a limited amount of roster spots to realistically spend on to reach that number. You’ve previously posted that spending big money for a front line pitcher like Rodon is no big deal. And spending big time money for a pitcher is the biggest risk in all of the major sports. So where’s the disconnect here?

I’d like to spend big money on a position player who’s proven to be available for 120+ games a year and clearly one of the best players at a premium position. 

You quote me asking for examples and then come back with the same rhetoric.  If you have point, there would be plenty of examples.  The capacity to just ignore anything that seriously challenges a position goes with fanaticism.   I get this but when the question is asked repeatedly you would think a few people would stop to ask why other teams in similar positions don't sign these elite players.  What do you know that all of the GMs of similar teams don't know.   

11 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

You refuse to acknowledge that the Twins roster is unique in that they have no reason NOT to sign a free agent that takes up a high percentage of the payroll. They don’t have many holes to fill and are sittin g at about 90M. Your theory for roster building puts them at what, a 110M payroll ONLY for the sake of enabling your ludicrous 25% maxim? 
Hey fans, we CAN go to $140M but we’re cutting budget because ….. well you’re too stupid to understand.

It’s hard not to recognize that every year you preach this same nonsense, until the Twins tell you that they don’t need you to defend them and they don’t agree with you by signing a Donaldson or a Correa, at which point you stop your bellyaching until the next off season.

Actually, I don't think there has been anyone more vocal about the benefits of building this type of flexibility.  Last year when people were having a fit about moving Berrios I said future success was all about building a staff from within because of what it would allow in free agency.  The difference is that I would use that money on the best pitching possible.  Don't tell me they refuse to invest in pitching.  That could and should change if as you say we are in unique position which is exactly what I have been saying for a year.

I submitted my plan and it was $135M and the 25% assumes a $140M payroll.  My posts at the time show I was OK with them signing Donaldson.  I was even more in favor in the deal to move him when others had a fit that we got worse at 3B.   What did we hear.  

Chief appears to be saying the Twins have not had satisfactory success with their current strategy, so therefore the strategy is bad. MLR appears to be saying that there is evidence that Twins' lack of satisfactory success is not necessarily because the strategy is bad, it's also possible that Twins management is not executing the strategy well enough.

Is that about right?

1 hour ago, Nine of twelve said:

Chief appears to be saying the Twins have not had satisfactory success with their current strategy, so therefore the strategy is bad. MLR appears to be saying that there is evidence that Twins' lack of satisfactory success is not necessarily because the strategy is bad, it's also possible that Twins management is not executing the strategy well enough.

Is that about right?

Close enough but what you have left out the most important difference in our positions.  We have a boat load of evidence as to which strategies have been successful for other teams.  I have studied all of the successful teams with relatively the same or less revenue and that examination leaves little doubt as to which strategies have been successful.  I have offered those examples and described how anyone can check this out for themselves. 

Chief and others refuse to evaluate the evidence and insist we should follow a different strategy.  Those strategies have far / far less history of success, but some here insist we should follow bad strategy because we have not effectively executed what have proven to be best practices.  I am saying get better at practices that have been proven most effective instead of following strategy we know to be less effective.   In the real world, the latter gets you removed from a leadership position in a hurry.

Now, if anyone wants to actually offer tangible proof / examples where drafting and trading for unproven players / prospects were not the driving force of success, I am wide open to re-evaluating which strategies are most successful.  

17 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Four JA Haaps >>>>> One Carlos Correa.

How about Lewis / Rodon and $10M on a BP arm vs Correa?  Which option produces more WAR?