Rumor: Bogaerts has gone to San Diego

[Doctor Gast]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

Unfortunately Bogaert is gone. That means we have to fight deep pockets SF & Cubs for Correa & many teams for Swanson. Let's see what happens?

View full rumor

[High heat]

With the deal he just got from a team in San Diego who already has an all star SS the Giants and possible the Cubs are going to outbid us.  

[bunsen82]

I wouldn’t be so sure.  The cubs for some reason are not as enamored with Correa.  I could see it coming down to us and the Giants.  

[Eris]

San Diego agreed to an 11-year, $280 million contract with shortstop Xander Bogaerts late Wednesday night, The Post’s Jon Heyman first reported. The deal includes a no-trade clause.

I think the view on these threads was that Bogaerts was considered an affordable alternative to Correa. What does this mean for Correa’s contract. Maybe 10 years at $350 million.  

[dxpavelka]

He got 11 years, $280 Million from SD.  From the beginning I've said offer Correa 8 years, $275 Million.  With a two year opt out he might take that and go for another bite at the apple when he's 30 (Boegarts' current age).  If in two years one of Lewis, Martin, Lee (or Miller) isn't ready to take over full time at SS it would be time to blow it up anyway.

[Riverbrian]

Is it just me or do the FA prices seem really high this year? 

[Brock Beauchamp]

For the record, this shouldn't be posted as a rumor. If someone is actually going to a team and it's being confirmed, that's just a thread.

[bunsen82]

27 minutes ago, Eris said:

San Diego agreed to an 11-year, $280 million contract with shortstop Xander Bogaerts late Wednesday night, The Post’s Jon Heyman first reported. The deal includes a no-trade clause.

I think the view on these threads was that Bogaerts was considered an affordable alternative to Correa. What does this mean for Correa’s contract. Maybe 10 years at $350 million.  

My guess is 280 to 300 million. You had the Red Sox bidding against the Padres and also the Cubs.  The Yankees Dodgers and Red Sox don’t appear to want to get involved due to the cheating scandal. So we have the cubs Twins and Giants. Giants have to outbid due to higher taxes.  They have money to spend so they may just throw out a crazy offer like judge. My guess is they don’t. The cubs seem to have focused on Dansby.  Twins may end up with the best offer. 

[tony&rodney]

Is it fair to say that MLB owners and Manfred have totally obliterated their view that baseball is in financial trouble? San Diego sure found some cash. 

I guess the Twins got lucky they didn't sign all of Happ, Shoemaker, Bundy, and Archer to 3/$50 contracts. 

[Trov]

Padres have been throwing crazy lengths and money to all kind of guys that snubbed them.  First Turner turned them down for less money, then Judge took less money, so they went big.  I am not sure if it shifts the market for CC or not.  I mean the annual value is not super high, only just over 25 a year.  No opt outs, or options, just full no trade.  I do not think anyone was expecting that length for him. 

[terrydactyls]

53 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Is it just me or do the FA prices seem really high this year? 

It's due to the supply chain problems.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

Choose one of the following reasons for the huge contracts we are seeing:  1) all those millions of dollars which the owners got from PPP loans which did not have to be repaid.  2) The reasonable forecast of rapidly advancing inflation 3) Increased tv revenue, 4) climate warming. As for me, I choose answer number 2. To quote James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid".

[Byrdman]

With the cost of this signing you can pretty much say the Twins are not going to sign CC.  Unless they cough up a 8yr/300mil contract.  We all know they will not do that.  I say sign Inglesis and find 3 shutdown bullpen arms.  You could make a run at Rodon now, but he is going to be 30mil a year. 

[Nashvilletwin]

16 minutes ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

Choose one of the following reasons for the huge contracts we are seeing:  1) all those millions of dollars which the owners got from PPP loans which did not have to be repaid.  2) The reasonable forecast of rapidly advancing inflation 3) Increased tv revenue, 4) climate warming. As for me, I choose answer number 2. To quote James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid".

$25MM a year 11 years from now is only about $10-12MM in today’s $s at most. Plus revenues/budgets/salaries will more than double as well over that period, and by 2034 Bogaerts will be getting paid less than a mop up reliever or a third catcher.

The question for a number of owners is not annual cash flow; instead it’s mostly equity value growth coupled with ego. 

[DJL44]

One fun thing about long-term free agent contracts is the team can depreciate them and shelter money from taxes. They get double counted as an expense and an asset.

[Reptevia]

This either prices the Twins out or raises the price/years too high to be tenable. I believe it also puts Swanson out of reach. Twins should concentrate on a Kepler replacement, some bullpen help and a starting catcher. 

[mikelink45]

No No No Lets get Lewis or Lee to be the new Pena.  Don't commit the future to someone who is just going to be an anchor on the team payroll and roster in 3 - 5 years.  

I hate this.  It is owner ego not realistic team planning.  SD has been signing big names for how many years and no WS to show for it. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

1 hour ago, Nashvilletwin said:

$25MM a year 11 years from now is only about $10-12MM in today’s $s at most. Plus revenues/budgets/salaries will more than double as well over that period, and by 2034 Bogaerts will be getting paid less than a mop up reliever or a third catcher.

The question for a number of owners is not annual cash flow; instead it’s mostly equity value growth coupled with ego. 

At 3.5% inflation (real inflation over the last decade including recent short term spike is 3.1%) 25m today is $17m in 2034. If todays inflation persists a decade, our global economy will collapse and we’ll all revert to a Mad Max distopia.

whether MLB salaries follow their current growth trend, I’m not smart enough to forecast, but I gotta think the P&L of the owners will necessitate slowing growth at some point.

I think a good comparison is Capital Expenditure (which does fall under equity once it’s paid for). It’s the reinvestment back into the business that is best paid for by your cash flow, rather than more expensive financing options like stock issuance or debt.

Also keep in mind that both parties know that the payback period on the capital expenditure exceeds the useful life of the asset. Bogaerts knows he won’t be an all star SS, and probably not a SS, maybe not in the MLB in 2034, and so does SD. The payback period assumes higher revenue in the future to facilitate today’s spend.

[2wins87]

4 hours ago, Eris said:

San Diego agreed to an 11-year, $280 million contract with shortstop Xander Bogaerts late Wednesday night, The Post’s Jon Heyman first reported. The deal includes a no-trade clause.

I think the view on these threads was that Bogaerts was considered an affordable alternative to Correa. What does this mean for Correa’s contract. Maybe 10 years at $350 million.  

There have been some very high AAVs but it's really been the lengths that have been surprising.

I wonder if Correa isn't thinking he can get 12 years, given Turner and Bogaerts got 11, which probably could pretty easily get to the $350 million range.

His bargaining position might be around 12/$360 to match Judge's overall value.  I don't know if he can get that, but it seems like a reasonable goal if you are in his camp.

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, mikelink45 said:

No No No Lets get Lewis or Lee to be the new Pena.  Don't commit the future to someone who is just going to be an anchor on the team payroll and roster in 3 - 5 years.  

I hate this.  It is owner ego not realistic team planning.  SD has been signing big names for how many years and no WS to show for it. 

So, the owners should keep the money and not pay players?

[nicholas Anderson]

Correa's contract is going to be a long one.  No way does an 8 year contract get it done.

here is what I would offer if I were the twins:

13 years for $345,000,000. More money than Lindor, but a reasonable AAV of $26.5. With inflation, that should be very manageable the last 2-3 years when he is not that good.  To sweeten the pot for Correa, I would give him an opt out after 4. This would give the twins his best years, but allow correa to bet on himself, while he is still relatively young.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

3 hours ago, Nashvilletwin said:

$25MM a year 11 years from now is only about $10-12MM in today’s $s at most. Plus revenues/budgets/salaries will more than double as well over that period, and by 2034 Bogaerts will be getting paid less than a mop up reliever or a third catcher.

The question for a number of owners is not annual cash flow; instead it’s mostly equity value growth coupled with ego. 

Exactly. Thanks Nashville.

[howeda7]

3 hours ago, DJL44 said:

One fun thing about long-term free agent contracts is the team can depreciate them and shelter money from taxes. They get double counted as an expense and an asset.

What are you talking about?

[tarheeltwinsfan]

1 hour ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

At 3.5% inflation (real inflation over the last decade including recent short term spike is 3.1%) 25m today is $17m in 2034. If todays inflation persists a decade, our global economy will collapse and we’ll all revert to a Mad Max distopia.

whether MLB salaries follow their current growth trend, I’m not smart enough to forecast, but I gotta think the P&L of the owners will necessitate slowing growth at some point.

I think a good comparison is Capital Expenditure (which does fall under equity once it’s paid for). It’s the reinvestment back into the business that is best paid for by your cash flow, rather than more expensive financing options like stock issuance or debt.

Also keep in mind that both parties know that the payback period on the capital expenditure exceeds the useful life of the asset. Bogaerts knows he won’t be an all star SS, and probably not a SS, maybe not in the MLB in 2034, and so does SD. The payback period assumes higher revenue in the future to facilitate today’s spend.

Well said Richie.

[Steve Lein]

I think I'd be trying to sign Carlos Rodon now instead of Correa.

This type of money isn't what the Twins are gonna invest unless you take Boras' "fishing in the ocean" comment as "they're actually willing to spend that money now" instead of a slight dig akin to "they're out of their league" like I do.

[Cap'n Piranha]

5 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

Is it just me or do the FA prices seem really high this year? 

Must be just you.  I've been reliably informed by multiple people on this site that all owners are greedy, parsimonious misers cruelly depressing wages in order to screw the decent, hard working players. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

3 hours ago, Nashvilletwin said:

$25MM a year 11 years from now is only about $10-12MM in today’s $s at most. Plus revenues/budgets/salaries will more than double as well over that period, and by 2034 Bogaerts will be getting paid less than a mop up reliever or a third catcher.

The question for a number of owners is not annual cash flow; instead it’s mostly equity value growth coupled with ego. 

Directionally accurate, but mathematically erroneous.  Also, mop-up relievers and third catchers will continue to be, almost exclusively, rookie-scale guys.  The minimum salary for an MLB player will not exceed $12M for decades, assuming major league baseball is still a thing that far into the future.

[Mike Sixel]

9 minutes ago, Steve Lein said:

I think I'd be trying to sign Carlos Rodon now instead of Correa.

This type of money isn't what the Twins are gonna invest unless you take Boras' "fishing in the ocean" comment as "they're actually willing to spend that money now" instead of a slight dig akin to "they're out of their league" like I do.

You'd rather pay a pitcher (who I think is older) 180 million over six years? Brave.

[Squirrel]

3 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

No No No Lets get Lewis or Lee to be the new Pena.  Don't commit the future to someone who is just going to be an anchor on the team payroll and roster in 3 - 5 years.  

I hate this.  It is owner ego not realistic team planning.  SD has been signing big names for how many years and no WS to show for it. 

Okay ... so ... how do you guarantee Lewis or Lee to become the next Pena? And if they don't become that, what then? I really dislike this philosophy of putting our eggs into a basket that is completely unproven. It could prove to be steady, but it more likely will prove to be unstable and lands broken eggs all over the sidewalk. A Correa contract will NOT hamstring us. With so many young players on the roster, a new TV deal around the corner, the rising cost of doing business, the smart money is to sign Correa and IF either Lewis or Lee become something, they slot in in another position, or they become trade bait for quality pitching and not has been pitching. I think we need to stop putting our eggs into the 'if' basket of prospects.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

40 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Okay ... so ... how do you guarantee Lewis or Lee to become the next Pena? And if they don't become that, what then? I really dislike this philosophy of putting our eggs into a basket that is completely unproven. It could prove to be steady, but it more likely will prove to be unstable and lands broken eggs all over the sidewalk. A Correa contract will NOT hamstring us. With so many young players on the roster, a new TV deal around the corner, the rising cost of doing business, the smart money is to sign Correa and IF either Lewis or Lee become something, they slot in in another position, or they become trade bait for quality pitching and not has been pitching. I think we need to stop putting our eggs into the 'if' basket of prospects.

No more eggs in the "if" basket. No more iffy basketed eggs.