Do the Twins Have a Trick to Lure Free Agents?

The Twins are not mentioned in any of the MLB Rumors section.  Sean Murphy looks like a catcher we could use among many pitchers.  

Free agents aren't looking for creativity.  They are looking for years and dollars.  There were extenuating circumstances last off-season that led to the MN Twins signing Correa.  There's a reason you don't see many contracts like Correa's previously opted out of.  

Player's generally want the option to opt out of a contract to pursue either a bigger, longer contract or higher AAV. Correa's value is at its peak because of his age (28) and position (SS). In 4 or 5 years he will be "old" by MLB standards and ready for a positions change, both of which mean less $$$. He could have played out his contract in MN and not cost himself anything, unless he got hurt in year 3. He would be 30 years old and inline for another big payday, lets say 7 years, $245 MM. That would equate out to 10 years, $350.3 MM including the 3 year, $105.3 signed last year. I don't think he gets that much this year competing against Judge, Bogaerts, Swanson, Turner, Verlander, deGrom, etc... 

You do the opt outs because you feel the price of superstar money will increase sunbstantially as each year passes. 

Who knows, the Twins could come back now with three years and $130 million with an opt out again. Would you pass on that if you aen't getting the longterm...and maybe asking for $50 million in year one and $40 each of the other two.

Remember, the danger of an "opt out" is that if injured, the player still gets paid. So you better have a darn good insurance policy.

Like actor Cuba Gooding said in the movie, "Jerry McGuire" : "Show me the money, Jerry. Show me the money".

I think when FO says we'll be creative, that means they're open for creative ideas from outside sources. This contract with Correa was advantagious to both parties, this opt out was because at the time we only needed him short term. If we want to contract a player for long term this contract won't work for our favor.

Could see generous opt-outs in particular situations, but they would be the exception to the rule. Guaranteed cash is still king. But for some who are younger, maybe pre-30, and potentially could increase their value over a 2-4 year period, they might be interested.

Guess the question might be, if opt-outs are one way to increase the non-cash value of the offer, why not offer annual opt-outs after the first 2 years for shorter overall term? Player has guaranteed higher value on the front end, team has guaranteed performance for 2 years , and if player thinks he can leverage a better deal at that point,  more power to him. Would have to be somebody willing to bet on himself in a big way.

Theoretically it sounds reasonable, but I suspect in reality it will still be a matter of guaranteed cash carrying the day most of the time. That, and the dreadful no-trade clauses..........but those seem to be the cost of doing business in the high end free agent pool. 

I think the intent here is, what can the Twins provide as value or incentive to lure Big Time FAs that may otherwise not want to come here.

Opts Outs are one idea.

Smart Agents will look at long term earnings potential vs security and try to maximize both.

The downside is exactly that if you make the contract one-sided to the player.  If the player gets hurt or declines rapidly or walks off the Flat Edge of the Earth (Hi Kyrie) the team is on the hook.

But what if as the contract ages that it becomes a mutual options vs a player only option.  So, unless both want to continue the contract ends with whatever agreement is place for said ending.

I've been in favor of the Twins thinking outside of the box when it comes to signing FAs that Move the Playoff Needle in our favor.  Not the bargains basement stuff.  I would rather work with our young players than waste money on bargain basement FAs, (some exceptions of course), or reclamation projects.  Although sometimes your farm system does not allow you to take this stance.

Check the data, C4 is very similar to Cal Ripken, Jr when it comes to pre-age 28 WAR, body type, smarts and clubhouse impact.  Check CRJr's WAR after year 28 to however long you want the contract to be.  

Then using what I hear is the industry standard of $8M/War and make a case for a good contract.

Opt out clauses are ok but not after just one year.  Plus make it mutual options.  That way the team can get out of a possible bad contract as well.  A one year opt out contract to a superstar does very little for the team.  If the Twins don't resign Correa it begs the question as to what good did it do to have him here?  Also if you sign one player to that much money and then can't or won't spend much more, you are still left with a mediocre team.

55 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Is there enough of a track record with mutual options to have a feel for how they work in practice?  When I hear about a mutual option in year N of a new contract, I always assume it's about 1% to play out in that way.  Too much can happen in years 1 to N-1, for $X million to be the correct number both sides will still agree to.

I am not sure on the track record.  We here about the bad contracts always and the REALLY great contracts.  But the contracts that are mutually good fly under the radar as they aren't newsworthy.

My instinct is that the mutual options are a relatively, (less than a decade) new thing.  I only recall player or club options.

I posted the following on the article stating the Correa opted out of his contract.  I think it is appropriate here, so I copied and pasted from Nov. 8.   

• 
• Verified Member
• •  119
• Location: Perham, Mn