Gut Punch! Carlos Correa Signs with the Giants

[KirbyDome89]

2 hours ago, USAFChief said:

I came here just to see the "Well we tried REAL hard" article, with similar comments, and TD didn't disappoint.

 

Anybody still sticking with their "we only got Farmer as a backup" stance?

Time is a flat circle....at least for fans of this team. 

[tony&rodney]

1 hour ago, ScottMNTWINSFAN said:

there WERE times that many felt a bit "encumbered" by that contract

.... and 100% of the people who felt that Mauer's contract 'encumbered' the Twins in signing or acquiring players were wrong. 

!00%.

[AlwaysinModeration]

41 minutes ago, Battle ur tail off said:

My question is why didn't we offer this same package last year? If we had offered him 10/285 last year before the start of the season I think he takes it, don't you? Or even 8/250! He flat out came to them last year looking for a place to go. Why was there not a greater effort to go long term at this time?

I had the same thought, but remember, he just switched to Boras as his agent.  So Boras would only get half of a long-term contract commission.  So Boras was incentivized to get Correa to sign a one-year deal.

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, AlwaysinModeration said:

I had the same thought, but remember, he just switched to Boras as his agent.  So Boras would only get half of a long-term contract commission.  So Boras was incentivized to get Correa to sign a one-year deal.

Always look for the hidden incentives. Yes!  On the other hand I continue to believe Boras is an ethical guy, and he tries to compartmentalize his own interests versus his clients. As evidence: he advised Correa to accept the one-year contract for $35.1M (with a $70.2M insurance policy on top of it) and try again. Adding this Giants contract to what Carlos earned via this advice, does anyone believe Boras convinced him to turn down $385.1M last off-season? So then, the advice was sound and Correa reaped the benefit versus whatever sub-$300M offer was probably on the table this time last year.  Boras happens to reap the agent benefits, as he should.

Boras IMO is unexcelled at his job, and clients flock to him because of that.

[Steve71]

3 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

1) I'd be excited to watch him alongside some of the younger players. In 10 years the hope would be that a $27M AAV would look and feel like the deal the Twins have with Buxton. 

2) No. MN state tax would have him at roughly 10% I believe, and when you factor in the higher MN AAV (our big bragging point) the gap between the deals doesn't really budge; he makes $50M more in SF rather than $65.

3) Giving Jose Miranda a Wander Franco deal is a more prudent financial investment? Yeesh.

4) So make the team worse in the short term (i.e. rebuild) while they've got young positional talent or vets on team friendly deals everywhere? Hard pass. 

5) Trade for the immature star on a 14 year $340M deal because Correa at 13/$350 is so unpalatable? 

Selected reading much?

1) I think you are in the minority if you think the Twins should have paid the same contract to Correa (assuming he would take it from the Twins, which I doubt;  we would likely have to pay even MORE.)

2) At current tax rates, Correa will pay an extra $12.25M in California taxes on that contract.  And California is threatening to raise the top individual rate to 27%, which would make the MN offer higher net dollars.  Even at the current rates, the Twins AAV was $2.5M per year higher, but of course we were not paying him when he is 41.

3) I said the Twins should consider "candidates" for extensions.  You immediately jumped to the second highest such early extension in history, Franco.  We don't have a Franco on the roster, so that is inapplicable.

4)  Correa is projected at about 4-5 WAR.  The Twins were under .500 WITH him on the roster.  We are not "on the brink" of contention unless a ton of young players blossom and the injury bug leaves town.  None of that is impacted on whether we have Correa or Swanson or Farmer or whomever as SS in any meaningful way.  We are many, many pieces from a complete high-level team.

5)  Again, please read what I wrote.  I would only consider that for the Twins if the Padres ate a big portion of the contract.  But if we can get Tatis at a third of what we would have paid Correa, sign me us, even if he plays LF instead of SS in the future.

 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

8 minutes ago, Steve71 said:

Selected reading much?

1) I think you are in the minority if you think the Twins should have paid the same contract to Correa (assuming he would take it from the Twins, which I doubt;  we would likely have to pay even MORE.)

2) At current tax rates, Correa will pay an extra $12.25M in California taxes on that contract.  And California is threatening to raise the top individual rate to 27%, which would make the MN offer higher net dollars.  Even at the current rates, the Twins AAV was $2.5M per year higher, but of course we were not paying him when he is 41.

3) I said the Twins should consider "candidates" for extensions.  You immediately jumped to the second highest such early extension in history, Franco.  We don't have a Franco on the roster, so that is inapplicable.

4)  Correa is projected at about 4-5 WAR.  The Twins were under .500 WITH him on the roster.  We are not "on the brink" of contention unless a ton of young players blossom and the injury bug leaves town.  None of that is impacted on whether we have Correa or Swanson or Farmer or whomever as SS in any meaningful way.  We are many, many pieces from a complete high-level team.

5)  Again, please read what I wrote.  I would only consider that for the Twins if the Padres ate a big portion of the contract.  But if we can get Tatis at a third of what we would have paid Correa, sign me us, even if he plays LF instead of SS in the future.

 

 

 

Why is SD paying most of Tatis' contract? Why would you want him if he's not good enough to carry the team (which is your argument for not signing CC)? I'm not sure I understand any of your post. Also, ballplayers pay pro-rated taxes based on where their games are played, so only about 60% (as he'll have to play SD and LAD) of his money is taxed at CA rates. But I doubt that matters much to him.

Name a player they Twins should extend like ATL did, please. 

I'd bet the VAST majority of fans wanted CC signed at that price. VAST. They want winning, exciting, players.

[Coach Wheels]

5 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

You don't think Swanson is getting ten years? He's not close to the player the other three are. Why would you sign two cheap starters? They have plenty of back end starters.

A) I don't think Swanson gets 10 years and he gets about $18 million, not $27.

B) Wacha could be had for $10 million, he'd be an upgrade over Archer or Bundy. I'm all in favor of offering Rodon an extended contract but they haven't paid pitchers beyond 3 years, doubt Rodon changes that philosophy

[Mike Sixel]

Just now, Coach Wheels said:

A) I don't think Swanson gets 10 years and he gets about $18 million, not $27.

B) Wacha could be had for $10 million, he'd be an upgrade over Archer or Bundy. I'm all in favor of offering Rodon an extended contract but they haven't paid pitchers beyond 3 years, doubt Rodon changes that philosophy

Archer and Bundy aren't on this roster. 

If you can get Swanson for 5 years and 90 million, he'd already be signed in ATL or elsewhere. Even 7 years 126. 

[USAFChief]

9 hours ago, Coach Wheels said:

A) I don't think Swanson gets 10 years and he gets about $18 million, not $27.

 

I'll take the over on $18m per. 

 

 

[DJL44]

Swanson will get more than Javy Baez did last winter.