Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • entries
    37
  • comments
    480
  • views
    23,422

Carlos Correa Option. Would this be legal?


Doc Munson

1,390 views

 Share

Twins Video

I am not an expert on the MLB CBA, but I am wondering if something like this would be legal...

Could the Twins and Correa come to an agreement where he opts in for 2023, and teh Twins agree to allow him to negotiate with other teams for a long term contract?

 

Hasnt something like this happened before with disgruntled (not the case with Correa, he just wants long term deal) players who "demand trades"?  Maybe it is only in other sports, like NBA, but I could swear I remember stories of where teams allow players to speak with other teams to try and get trades done. and they basically pre-negotiate new deals in advance of a trade.

 

If this IS legal, then Correa coudl lock in a guarantee 1 year deal at another $35M, and then still negotiate with other teams. and then if he finds a team who is willing to give him the long term deal he wants he comes back to the Twins who either get to match it, or finalize a trade.

 

Correa gets a guaranteed starting point (and possibly some leverage), and the Twins position themselves to still get a fairly decent haul in a trade.  its a win/win.

 

But I guess if it was legal, it would have been done already.

 Share

13 Comments


Recommended Comments

The NBA had (maybe still has, I don't really pay attention) sign-and-trade deals... which I never really understood. A player wants the most money he can get, and in the NBA, that was with his current team, but wants to play elsewhere, so they work out a trade. Of course, in the NBA, trades have to be even, so the player's new team has to give up a ton to get him, so is it really better?

Anyway, can't do that in MLB. 

Link to comment

Nice out of the box thinking Doc! I stated before that Correa would be better off if he opt in his $35MM  2nd year & have a better chance of getting a better deal in '24. But your idea is better because it gives Correa more security right now. I think the person who would protest is the 2nd party (Twins) if the Twins allow him to seek a 3rd party for his '24+ yrs. services, that'd satisfy everybody, as long as his loyality isn't divided. I'd hope for that to be legal.

Link to comment

My guess is that it comes down to technicalities that the Players Association might not look kindly upon.  If Correa doesn't opt out by the specified date, he is obligated to play for the Twins in 2023 for the stated salary.  The Twins verbally saying they will let him negotiate and then work out a sign-and-trade is just that, a verbal commitment, and might not be enforceable.

I'm personally a stickler for having things in writing, and the paperwork I've ever signed is dwarfed in magnitude by the dollars being discussed here, so I can fully understand if Correa tells the team, "nice idea, but I can't go along, because while I trust you it sets a dangerous precedent for other players."  Which might be a polite way of saying, "I can't trust this proposed process myself."

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Seth Stohs said:

The NBA had (maybe still has, I don't really pay attention) sign-and-trade deals... which I never really understood. A player wants the most money he can get, and in the NBA, that was with his current team, but wants to play elsewhere, so they work out a trade. Of course, in the NBA, trades have to be even, so the player's new team has to give up a ton to get him, so is it really better?

Anyway, can't do that in MLB. 

NBA still does.  Never quite understood that tho.

Link to comment

On further thought I don't see a team going for it, either.  Let's say Correa is the Twins' preferred option.  This arrangement leaves them in limbo for longer, and if Correa does eventually move on, it may be that the second and third option have already signed or been traded too. The return they get in trade may not be that high, since the acquiring team is a "sole source" and the Twins would have little leverage in negotiation; and if no trade happens, Correa is disgruntled all year.

Look at it from the perspective of this mystery "other" team too.  Do they go after Correa for, say, $200M plus having to give up something in trade?  Or do they just simplify and sign Bogaerts or Turner for a similar sum and save themselves the prospect capital?

This comes out as a lose-lose option.

Link to comment
On 11/4/2022 at 9:46 AM, Doctor Gast said:

Nice out of the box thinking Doc! I stated before that Correa would be better off if he opt in his $35MM  2nd year & have a better chance of getting a better deal in '24. But your idea is better because it gives Correa more security right now. I think the person who would protest is the 2nd party (Twins) if the Twins allow him to seek a 3rd party for his '24+ yrs. services, that'd satisfy everybody, as long as his loyality isn't divided. I'd hope for that to be legal.

Could the Twins and Correa come to an agreement where he opts in for 2023, and teh Twins agree to allow him to negotiate with other teams for a long term contract?

I don't watch NBA so I have no idea about the specifics, but to me it's clear cut. Where do you come in with trades? Correa opts in for '23 & opts out '24 & automatically goes to the team where the Twins allowed him to sign in '23 for '24 and beyond. 

Link to comment

Correa would not do it. This is maybe his last chance to get an 8+ year deal and no reason to even entertain taking a 1 year deal. I would expect he would rather take 28-30 over 8 years before taking just 35M for 1 year.

Link to comment
On 11/4/2022 at 12:54 PM, EGFTShaw said:

NBA still does.  Never quite understood that tho.

The NBA's sign and trade has more to do with the way their salary cap and CBA work:

- The CBA structure typically allows for a player to get a higher salary offer from their existing team then they could get on the open market (designed to curtail player movement).  Signing with their existing team before getting traded gets them more money.

- The hard salary cap in the NBA allows teams to go over the cap in resigning their own players.  Sign and trades can play into that.

- The sign and trade also allows the team trading away the player to recoup some value instead of losing a player for nothing.  MLB does the same thing, though they do it differently.  Say the Twins want to trade Sonny Gray, who is on the last year of his deal.  The Twins agree to a trade with the Cubs, but only on the condition the Cubs can work out an extension with Gray before the trade is finalized.  The Twins would then grant the Cubs a window to work out that extension before the trade happens.  No extension, the trade falls apart.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

The NBA's sign and trade has more to do with the way their salary cap and CBA work:

- The CBA structure typically allows for a player to get a higher salary offer from their existing team then they could get on the open market (designed to curtail player movement).  Signing with their existing team before getting traded gets them more money.

- The hard salary cap in the NBA allows teams to go over the cap in resigning their own players.  Sign and trades can play into that.

- The sign and trade also allows the team trading away the player to recoup some value instead of losing a player for nothing.  MLB does the same thing, though they do it differently.  Say the Twins want to trade Sonny Gray, who is on the last year of his deal.  The Twins agree to a trade with the Cubs, but only on the condition the Cubs can work out an extension with Gray before the trade is finalized.  The Twins would then grant the Cubs a window to work out that extension before the trade happens.  No extension, the trade falls apart.

Thanks!

NBA version I never understood, was the Nets allowing the Warriors to get value back for Durant.  I mean the Warriors have been at the top of the heap.

Great explanation tho.

Link to comment

Thinking outside the box as I have never been inside a box. LOL

Could this contract work, not asking if the Twins or anyone would do it but continuing with the theme is this legal.

C4: 8yrs/$265M with a $1M bonus for every WAR accumulate during the year.

C4 is good for about 4-5 WAR per year.  Average year his compensation would be $33.125M + $4-5M in bonuses.  If he does a HUGE year, then more power to him as team and C4 benefit.

I initially thought of it as 8yrs/$250M with bonuses.  Regardless the concept is the same.

Link to comment
On 11/4/2022 at 9:46 AM, Doctor Gast said:

Nice out of the box thinking Doc! I stated before that Correa would be better off if he opt in his $35MM  2nd year & have a better chance of getting a better deal in '24. But your idea is better because it gives Correa more security right now. I think the person who would protest is the 2nd party (Twins) if the Twins allow him to seek a 3rd party for his '24+ yrs. services, that'd satisfy everybody, as long as his loyality isn't divided. I'd hope for that to be legal.

Teams already do this to a certain degree:

The Twins signed Correa last year knowing they could trade him at the deadline if they felt so inclined.  Teams might not trade for Correa if they don't get an extension negotiation window.

The legality of this type of deal may be murky, but it would not benefit Correa.  All of his power as a FA comes from being able to play contract offers off of each other.  This scenario eliminates that power.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, EGFTShaw said:

Thanks!

NBA version I never understood, was the Nets allowing the Warriors to get value back for Durant.  I mean the Warriors have been at the top of the heap.

Great explanation tho.

The other bigger issue with the NBA is that is if a player formally demands a trade request, the team is required to pursue it in good faith.  It is in the teams best interest to move said disgruntled player because of the incredible impact one player can have on the entire game.

This is why I laugh at the "Sonny Gray will request a trade" comments.  Every time I see these comments I think of the movie Little Big League.  Go to the 57:50 mark of this movie and you will understand.

https://ww3.fmovies.co/film/little-big-league-8686/

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

The other bigger issue with the NBA is that is if a player formally demands a trade request, the team is required to pursue it in good faith.  It is in the teams best interest to move said disgruntled player because of the incredible impact one player can have on the entire game.

This is why I laugh at the "Sonny Gray will request a trade" comments.  Every time I see these comments I think of the movie Little Big League.  Go to the 57:50 mark of this movie and you will understand.

https://ww3.fmovies.co/film/little-big-league-8686/

That "I Demand A Trade" BS in the NBA is crap.  You signed the contract, suck it up buttercup.

Unless there is some item in their CBA that the teams received as compensation for having to try and trade someone.  Send him to the G-League.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...