Grade the Twins’ signing Carlos Correa

[cHawk]

Yeah, this is a bit late. But who cares, right?

The Twins made a huge splash yesterday signing Carlos Correa, arguably the best SS on the market going into the offseason, to a 3-year, $105.3M deal, with several opt-outs.

What do you think of the signing?

[stringer bell]

The Twins signed an elite player at a position of need. They may or may not have him beyond this season. The next three years should be Correa’s peak years and if he does stay for all three years the Twins wouldn’t be paying for his declining years. If Correa leaves next year or the year after, the Twins should have payroll space to add substantial talent. 

[ashbury]

3 hours ago, stringer bell said:

The Twins signed an elite player at a position of need. They may or may not have him beyond this season. The next three years should be Correa’s peak years and if he does stay for all three years the Twins wouldn’t be paying for his declining years. If Correa leaves next year or the year after, the Twins should have payroll space to add substantial talent. 

There is a third possibility, which seems unpopular to raise, namely the 5-10% chance that the team will end up paying for all 3 years but not gain all-star performance for their money.  Indeed the lower his performance in year 1 the more likely he remains on the payroll. 

If Lloyds of London were to underwrite this contract they probably would assign it an expected cost-value of $40-45M, not the nominal $35M for one year of the contract.  (I presume the Pohlads will opt to self-insure.  If I were Bill Pohlad I would tell Falvey that $45M goes on the books for this year, and if year 2 and year 3 end up costing $35M for unexpectedly bad performance, it would not be held against the budget for those years.  But then, I am not Pohlad, am I.)

In any case Correa was not going to sign a one-year contract for $35.1M.  To point out the additional dollar cost of the risk explicitly is not to say it's a bad signing. 

I grade the signing 'A' because our FO office went out and got top-shelf talent, and committed by contract to the price necessary to get him to sign.  I would have reserved an 'A+' for if I thought it was actually a below-market signing.

[stringer bell]

3 minutes ago, ashbury said:

There is a third possibility, which seems unpopular to raise, namely the 5-10% chance that the team will end up paying for all 3 years but not gain all-star performance for their money.  Indeed the lower his performance in year 1 the more likely he remains. 

If Llloyds of London were to underwrite this contract they probably would assign it an expected cost-value of $40-45M, not the nominal $35M for one year of the contract.  (I presume the Pohlads will opt to self-insure.  If I were Bill Pohlad I would tell Falvey that $45M goes on the books for this year, and if year 2 and year 3 end up costing $35M for unexpectedly bad performance, it would not be held against the budget for those years.  But then, I am not Pohlad, am I.)

In any case Correa was not going to sign a one-year contract for $35.1M.  To point out the additional dollar cost of the risk explicitly is not to say it's a bad signing. 

I grade the signing 'A' because our FO office went out and got top-shelf talent, and committed by contract to the price necessary to get him to sign.  I would have reserved an 'A+' for if I thought it was actually a below-market signing.

Yes, the Twins really are assuming the risk against poor performance and injury. Correa has an injury history and there is a non-zero chance they pay $105M for performance worth considerably less than that amount. On the flip side, if he remains elite, he will be looking for (and getting) more.

[The Mad King]

I went with a "B" because it could very well be just one and done. Who knows if anyone will be ready or capable to step in next year and we're right back to square one. 

[TheLeviathan]

14 minutes ago, The Mad King said:

I went with a "B" because it could very well be just one and done. Who knows if anyone will be ready or capable to step in next year and we're right back to square one. 

We really have no chance for it to be anything but one and done.  No one did because of the agent change by Correa.  If we keep Correa long-term it'll be because we rip this deal up and sign a brand new one, but make no mistake....we could offer him 10 years and 350M and the only way he signs it is if he fires his agent and negotiates on his own.

This deal has almost no downside.  Even in the worst case scenario he gets hurt, we are out only money and opportunity, no long-term consequences.  In all other situations we yield substantial benefits from this deal.  Easy A.

[stringer bell]

15 minutes ago, The Mad King said:

I went with a "B" because it could very well be just one and done. Who knows if anyone will be ready or capable to step in next year and we're right back to square one. 

I would disagree with “square one”. I would expect the Twins will know a lot more about both Martin and Lewis and would know if either would be ready to step in or if they would have to bridge to them or look for a different permanent solution. That Lewis hasn’t played since 2019 and Martin is newly acquired really leaves a lot of unknowns at the forefront. These are among the very top prospects on the team and highly regarded (top 100) in baseball. 

[Unwinder]

I just clicked on this discussion to see if anyone replied with something like "it sucks because they didn't somehow find a way to sign a starting pitcher in the same transaction."

[Otto von Ballpark]

Can I give them an incomplete, because they haven’t officially signed him yet?

[twinssporto]

There is zero wrong with this signing. Amazing actually. Even Patrick Reusse liked it. That might be a bad omen but I'm optimistic!

[In My La Z boy]

I'll be interested in what the "limited no trade" is for this year, just in case we are horrible. Could he be the most sought after trade deadline candidate ever? Could he be traded in late July for a freaking haul? I suspect this is our backstop plan, and we could probably move him to a select group of teams if we fall on our face this year. I give this signing an A+. No downside here.

[TopGunn#22]

There is all sorts of flexibility in this deal for both sides.  I'm expecting very good to elite production.  I'm hoping we're able to land some pitching in the next day or two to solidify our playoff chances.  I'm also looking for Carlos to lead the Twins to their first playoff "game" win with a 2-run HR in the 9th inning and then lead us to our first playoff "series" victory since 1991, so yeah, my expectations are pretty "modest."    

[Trov]

I voted A+.  I get that it is most likely a 1 year deal, and only way it is more than 1 is either he has injury that cost him a lot of time, maybe even carry into next year, or two he has a huge decline similar to what Lindor had last year, which really was not a huge decline from the year prior, but was big decline from 2017 to 2019.  

Why I gave it a huge grade was our options were getting very limited, we did not have an internal good option for the season if we wanted to compete at all.  We may have someone internal or new options in FA next year if Correa ops out.  The main thing was Story was not agreeing to what we wanted so we made the call to Correa to see what he was looking for.  We did not assume he was not coming here, and we knew Story was unlikely to come here, for what we were willing to risk.  So they pivoted and got the best FA on the market, although it may be for only 1 year, they avoided a long term deal to Story that I believe Red Sox will not be happy with the production they get from him the last 2 to 3 years of that deal. 

[mk]

A+ from me.

I was a bit apprehensive about the no trade clause at first but if the Twins are bad what are the chances he vetoes a trade? Correa ends up with a bit of bargaining power and maybe the Twins don't reap quite as big of a return, but hey, they didn't trade anything away to get him so it only cost them $$$ to get a free prospect return.

I hope the Twins are in the thick of the playoff chase so it's a moot point regardless.

[Squirrel]

I voted A+ mostly because I have never been so shockingly pleased by a Twins signing. I’m still saying ‘Correa?! Holy ****! Is this for real?’

[nicksaviking]

12 hours ago, ashbury said:

There is a third possibility, which seems unpopular to raise, namely the 5-10% chance that the team will end up paying for all 3 years but not gain all-star performance for their money.  Indeed the lower his performance in year 1 the more likely he remains on the payroll. 

If Lloyds of London were to underwrite this contract they probably would assign it an expected cost-value of $40-45M, not the nominal $35M for one year of the contract.  (I presume the Pohlads will opt to self-insure.  If I were Bill Pohlad I would tell Falvey that $45M goes on the books for this year, and if year 2 and year 3 end up costing $35M for unexpectedly bad performance, it would not be held against the budget for those years.  But then, I am not Pohlad, am I.)

In any case Correa was not going to sign a one-year contract for $35.1M.  To point out the additional dollar cost of the risk explicitly is not to say it's a bad signing. 

I grade the signing 'A' because our FO office went out and got top-shelf talent, and committed by contract to the price necessary to get him to sign.  I would have reserved an 'A+' for if I thought it was actually a below-market signing.

I'm still of the mind that the Twins aren't contending for a World Series this year, but may be in 2023 if they figure out the pitching. With that said, a middling .750 OPS from Correa that keeps him on the books for an extra year and then a rebound the following year may be the best thing that could happen here.

[Number3]

So once upon a time a team has the number 1 pick in the entire draft and they select a short stop. Fast forward and the same team signs a free agent as now the highest paid player on the entire team to play what position? Why short stop of course. This is classic ticket selling and I wonder what the analytics geniuses would predict as the WAR for Correa for 2022? That is all that matters. The real stat should be TAR....tickets above replacement.

C+

[Unwinder]

15 minutes ago, Number3 said:

So once upon a time a team has the number 1 pick in the entire draft and they select a short stop. Fast forward and the same team signs a free agent as now the highest paid player on the entire team to play what position? Why short stop of course. This is classic ticket selling and I wonder what the analytics geniuses would predict as the WAR for Correa for 2022? That is all that matters. The real stat should be TAR....tickets above replacement.

C+

I'm sorry, are you saying that this signing is bad because we previously drafted Royce Lewis?

[chpettit19]

23 minutes ago, Number3 said:

So once upon a time a team has the number 1 pick in the entire draft and they select a short stop. Fast forward and the same team signs a free agent as now the highest paid player on the entire team to play what position? Why short stop of course. This is classic ticket selling and I wonder what the analytics geniuses would predict as the WAR for Correa for 2022? That is all that matters. The real stat should be TAR....tickets above replacement.

C+

I'm also confused by this take. So the Twins shouldn't sign great players? For what it's worth the analytics geniuses around the industry predict he'll be somewhere around the 5 or 6 WAR mark. So high end all star bordering on MVP level performance. And you're mad that they signed him because they drafted Royce Lewis then saw him lose 2 years to a pandemic and ACL injury? Are you suggesting the Twins should pass on signing someone like Correa to ensure they have room for a prospect who literally hasn't played a baseball game in 2 years? 

[Heiny]

I voted A+.  My take has always been that MLB teams should be trying to win the WS "every year".  That is the point.  And for the Twins to pull the trigger on this move, along with trading for Gray, and the other moves leading up to it,  it tells me that this front office is making a strong effort to compete for a WS bid.  On the other hand,  I can't give them A+  for entire off-season due to the lack of a top FA SP signing, which admittedly went pretty fast and furious prior to the lockout.  But another trade for, hopefully Montas, and I would give them an A.  I think our FO is doing a fine job despite all the criticism they receive.  I seem to remember the Donaldson signing to be a bit of a surprise at the time also.  Most of us loved that signing also.  I like what the "New Twins"  are trying to do. So, A+ for this deal, and solid A for FO effort.

[Heinie Manush]

I know that I sound like the kid who got the fancy new bike for Christmas but didn't like the streamers on his handlebars, but let me at least throw this out there.

• Donaldson 21M, Kiner-Falafa 5M, Rortvedt 1M, Random DH/Bench Bat 2M, Stud pitcher(s) $20M= $49M
• Correa $35M, Urshela 6M, Godoy 1M, Sanchez 7M, = $49M

I only pose this question because I really like Kiner-Falafa.  

I'm not ungrateful, mind you, just too much time on my hands I guess.

[Mike Sixel]

2 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

I'm still of the mind that the Twins aren't contending for a World Series this year, but may be in 2023 if they figure out the pitching. With that said, a middling .750 OPS from Correa that keeps him on the books for an extra year and then a rebound the following year may be the best thing that could happen here.

Agreed. A less than ideal year from him, and he somehow staying because of that, is idea. Because this pitching staff is not likely to win a lot of playoff games.....but it might be more ready next year.

I give it an A+. I have no idea why it is anything but that. Would I have preferred two legit SPs? Yes. Was that an option at this point? No.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

They signed the best player available. I’m thrilled. There’s no way Correa would come to the Twins (or any team) on a contract that wasn’t advantageous for the player.

A-circle-plus and a star sticker

[bean5302]

I'm viewing this signing as "this signing" without considering the shifting of other players because, quite frankly, I don't think the Twins were pursuing this seriously or expecting this to even be a remote possibility even a week before it happened.

Correa's contract is a 70% discount off his expected market value. I mean, that's insane, and the reality Correa is almost certain to not exercise his player option means the Twins are really getting a 90% discount off his expected market value.

So it's worth keeping in mind... Correa's contract is likely worth trade package gold for teams without a lot of salary room in the future.

There are just so many valuable components for the Twins when it comes to this contract and so little risk. It's not fathomable to grade this worse than an A. 

[howeda7]

I give it a B. While it's hard for this to be a "bad" signing unless he's hurt and stays all 3 years, it's also not the greatest FA signing in Minnesota history as some are saying. We are now projected as ~84 wins. Fringe play-off contention. Hopefully we add a legit #1-2 starter. If we don't, we're likely dumping Correa at the deadline for prospects.

[Number3]

3 hours ago, Unwinder said:

I'm sorry, are you saying that this signing is bad because we previously drafted Royce Lewis?

What I am saying is that past poor decisions can't be remedied by signing 1 $35mil per year player. Correa could win the triple crown and it won't make any difference. The Buxtons, Sanos, Keplers, Polancos and the rest could rightfully say, OK Carlos, show us the way. One player grossly overpaid compared to the rest of the team never works. See Joe Mauer.

[Unwinder]

4 minutes ago, Number3 said:

What I am saying is that past poor decisions can't be remedied by signing 1 $35mil per year player. Correa could win the triple crown and it won't make any difference. The Buxtons, Sanos, Keplers, Polancos and the rest could rightfully say, OK Carlos, show us the way. One player grossly overpaid compared to the rest of the team never works. See Joe Mauer.

What bad decisions? Signing Lewis?

[Old fox]

The Twins and Correa should be congratulated on doing a great job. A+++.
This Correa deal may be the type of contract for the future of baseball. This type of contract has benefits for both the player and ownership. This may be the only way small market teams can compete in the future for talented players.  Furthermore, I go to ball games is to watch the team win with talented players. I don’t go to games to see a team lose with lower or lacking talent.  The highest costing players are the ones who can only perform at a low level of skills because of declining skills or lack of ability either physically, or mentally. 

Less we not forget that Correa is a dam-good player and at the top end of the current pay scale and that’s fine too.

Cueto is far overpriced and seriously on the decline. Montas isn’t overpriced and the “A’s” asking price may or may not be too high. I think if the Twins offered Duran, Sands, Arraez & Larnach to the “A’s” for Montas, Manaea ,Trevino (rhrp) & Piscotty(lf) would get the “A’s attention. 

[LastOnePicked]

It's an incredible signing. It's either a heaven-sent stroke of luck or a very skillful and patient use of the offseason market. 

My offseason grade isn't yet so high, but this signing is an "A" - with no grade inflation needed. Even if Correa gets injured, I can't fault the FO for shooting for the stars, all while avoiding blocking a pathway for the later emergence of Lewis, Martin or Palacios.

[prouster]

9 hours ago, Number3 said:

What I am saying is that past poor decisions can't be remedied by signing 1 $35mil per year player. Correa could win the triple crown and it won't make any difference. The Buxtons, Sanos, Keplers, Polancos and the rest could rightfully say, OK Carlos, show us the way. One player grossly overpaid compared to the rest of the team never works. See Joe Mauer.

This is the good stuff. Keep it coming!