Why didn't Correa's injury keep the Twins from signing him last season?

[singlesoverwalks]

The Giants and Mets have both put a hold on free agent offers to Carlos Correa after a physical. The rumor is he has some condition in his leg, maybe related to a 2014 surgery on his right leg. The Twins signed Carlos Correa to a free agent contract in March 2022, and he had a physical. So logically, it seems like there can only be three things that happened with the Twins and Correa: 

1. He wasn't injured when they signed him. Whatever this medical condition is, it didn't exist nine months ago when the Twins signed him. Even if the injury is related to a long-ago leg surgery, maybe the deterioration wasn't to the point of being detectable in March, but now it has reached that point? I guess? 
2. He was injured at the time, but the Twins didn't detect it. This would mean that the Twins' physical examination of prospective free agent signings is somehow less rigorous than the Giants' or Mets'. (As a lifelong Twins fan, this has the ring of truth.)
3. The Twins' physical detected the same condition, but they decided they were OK with the risk. Deciding that you could live with some long-term injury risk certainly makes more sense for a three-year, $100-million contract than 12-13 years and over $300 million.

It's complete speculation, but I bet it was #3. The Twins' front office seems to have a philosophy of not being scared off by injury histories (see their trade for Chris Paddock, who everyone knew was a risk to have Tommy John surgery in the next year, or their signing of Byron Buxton to one of the biggest contracts in franchise history). Any player could have a season-ending injury at any time, they reason. Maybe they believe they can get value they wouldn't normally get by being willing to sign the players that other teams pass over because of injury risk.

If that's the case, then Correa was playing with this medical condition for the last year, and he has the records from the March 2022 physical to show he played with it. Maybe he took the Twins' short-term contract to prove that he is capable of performing at a high level despite this condition? That would make sense. Obviously, we now know that he didn't do this out of some special affection for scrappy mid-market teams - he's strategizing for the biggest payoff possible. So this was the Scott Boras "pillow contract" strategy of showing the market what they could be getting out of this guy if they signed him to a long-term deal.

If this is the case, that also means we know the Twins made their $285 million, 10-year offer knowing that Correa had this condition. So presumably that offer would still be on the table - unless the Twins didn't really want to sign Correa and were just making that offer for show (I don't really buy that conspiratorial theory, but I guess companies have done worse things), or they're taken aback by how seriously the Giants and Mets took the condition and want to reevaluate, or their feelings are hurt by Correa not loving them enough to give them a discount. The Giants offer was 13 years, $350 million, and the Mets offer was exactly 10% lower (in dollars) at 12 years, $315 million. What's 10% lower than $315 million? (Checks Google) $283.5 million - or almost exactly what the Twins offered.

Maybe this could happen after all? 

[Craig Arko]

I suppose 1-3 years are less than 10-13. Also, the insurance parameters are different. 

[Vanimal46]

More than likely option #3. The risk is much different with a 1-3 year contract than 12-13 years. 

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

It’s most likely 1 and 3.  I think the Twins were comfortable with the risk on a shorter contract, but there is no doubt the condition has deteriorated in the last year and most likely on that slide.  

[nicksaviking]

Hopefully it’s number three.

However, if for some reason the Mets deal falls through and the Twins STILL insist on further evaluation. and/or renegotiation, I’d hope they replace their doctors, because there’d be no other conclusion then they somehow missed what the other teams’ doctors found.

[gman]

I think at this point the insurance risk would be much higher. If they took the risk, knowing that he failed physical twice before I don't think the insurance would cover it for them at the same levels. Although, if the insurance company was awake, they may simply charge high enough premiums that by year 5 you're paying the salary amount again in premiums. I don't know I'm not an insurance agent. But if you buy a maintenance policy on an appliance for three years, its the same as paying twice for the appliance.

[Mike Sixel]

14 hours ago, Craig Arko said:

I suppose 1-3 years are less than 10-13. Also, the insurance parameters are different. 

This. It's a short term deal with considerably less risk. 

[Squirrel]

15 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Hopefully it’s number three.

However, if for some reason the Mets deal falls through and the Twins STILL insist on further evaluation. and/or renegotiation, I’d hope they replace their doctors, because there’d be no other conclusion then they somehow missed what the other teams’ doctors found.

I don’t think they missed anything. There is different scrutiny to a one year deal than a 10-13 yr deal. Heezy made a great post in another thread. Of course it’s as much speculation and guess as anyone’s, but as our ‘resident orthopedist’, I give his guesses and insights a lot more weight. I get the skepticism of our medical staff due to the injuries last year, but I think we can tone down some of instant judgement on this.

 

[Trov]

I read an article when approached after the Giants backed out, the Twins as well said they would want to look deeper at the medicals.  My guess, not being a doctor, is that the old injury may lead to possible greater regression as he ages, but at this point not as big of risk.  Just my speculation.