My thoughts on the Carlos Correa contract situation

[Lucas Seehafer PT]

Not that anyone asked, but I've posted this elsewhere, figured I may as well post it here as well:

What I'm most interested in is whether or not this Correa fiasco impacts the next round of labor negotiations. How all of this was handled doesn't set a great precedent moving forward. Correa had "positive" findings on MRI but has never had an issue with the ankle.

The implication of these prolonged negotiations is that the Mets/Giants "want to protect themselves." I.e. they want to spend less money than they originally promised because of "positive findings" that have never (and may never!) impact the athlete. You can't prove a negative.

"But if I were paying $300+ million, I'd want a clean MRI." The truth is: There's rarely such thing in professional athletes. Look hard enough and you will find "abnormalities". But: Imaging is a poor predictor of future injury.

"But two teams came to the same conclusion: There's something going on in Correa's leg." Sure, there probably is. But 1. Does it impact his performance? (Seemingly no) and 2. Will it ever impact his performance? (?). (And 3. Don't forget who pays their checks.)

Owners are *billionaires*. $315 million over 11 years is *nothing* to them. Correa's ankle could explode and it would not impact them financially one iota. But not getting that money does impact Correa.

Of course, the issue is not necessary with Correa. He'll be fine financially. But what about the Kumar Rockers or lesser known players of the world? Rocket left college early and then the Mets refused to sign him after "positive findings" on MRI. He got paid much less to go Indy.

If owners can do this to the big fish, what's stopping them from doing it to the small or medium fish? (In truth, this has been and is still is happening.) I would imagine the MLBPA probably isn't pleased at the moment.

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

22 minutes ago, Lucas Seehafer PT said:

Not that anyone asked, but I've posted this elsewhere, figured I may as well post it here as well:

What I'm most interested in is whether or not this Correa fiasco impacts the next round of labor negotiations. How all of this was handled doesn't set a great precedent moving forward. Correa had "positive" findings on MRI but has never had an issue with the ankle.

The implication of these prolonged negotiations is that the Mets/Giants "want to protect themselves." I.e. they want to spend less money than they originally promised because of "positive findings" that have never (and may never!) impact the athlete. You can't prove a negative.

"But if I were paying $300+ million, I'd want a clean MRI." The truth is: There's rarely such thing in professional athletes. Look hard enough and you will find "abnormalities". But: Imaging is a poor predictor of future injury.

"But two teams came to the same conclusion: There's something going on in Correa's leg." Sure, there probably is. But 1. Does it impact his performance? (Seemingly no) and 2. Will it ever impact his performance? (?). (And 3. Don't forget who pays their checks.)

Owners are *billionaires*. $315 million over 11 years is *nothing* to them. Correa's ankle could explode and it would not impact them financially one iota. But not getting that money does impact Correa.

Of course, the issue is not necessary with Correa. He'll be fine financially. But what about the Kumar Rockers or lesser known players of the world? Rocket left college early and then the Mets refused to sign him after "positive findings" on MRI. He got paid much less to go Indy.

If owners can do this to the big fish, what's stopping them from doing it to the small or medium fish? (In truth, this has been and is still is happening.) I would imagine the MLBPA probably isn't pleased at the moment.

If the issue is big enough to impact the ability to get insurance for a contract everything you wrote above is mute.  Correa most likely is showing early signs of arthritis.  There is very low odds he is able to be playing competitively in 10 years add in his back issues,  he has extreme risk tied to him.  

[Lucas Seehafer PT]

20 minutes ago, IA Bean Counter said:

If the issue is big enough to impact the ability to get insurance for a contract everything you wrote above is mute.  Correa most likely is showing early signs of arthritis.  There is very low odds he is able to be playing competitively in 10 years add in his back issues,  he has extreme risk tied to him.  

Do you know that? Is that known (by clubs) or just a guess? 

There's a stigma around back injuries and arthritis (conditions that can undoubtedly be debilitating for many!). Most athletes have varying degrees of arthritis. Most athletes have had episodes of significant back pain. NEITHER of these conditions have impacted Correa for literal years. Not all arthritis or back pain is or is destined to become debilitating. 

I would wager that Correa's risk is no greater than any other professional athlete over the next 10 years simply because 10 years is a long time and anything can happen injury-wise. 

[NotAboutWinning]

My hope is that this fiasco reverses the trend of 12 and 13 year contracts. The ability for large market teams to carry years of dead money gives them a competitive advantage over medium and small market teams.

[KirbyHawk75]

Sounds like he gone anyway.  At least according to Bowden.  

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

23 minutes ago, Lucas Seehafer PT said:

Do you know that? Is that known (by clubs) or just a guess? 

There's a stigma around back injuries and arthritis (conditions that can undoubtedly be debilitating for many!). Most athletes have varying degrees of arthritis. Most athletes have had episodes of significant back pain. NEITHER of these conditions have impacted Correa for literal years. Not all arthritis or back pain is or is destined to become debilitating. 

I would wager that Correa's risk is no greater than any other professional athlete over the next 10 years simply because 10 years is a long time and anything can happen injury-wise. 

2 major physicians both came out and stated that specific surgery the biggest risk is arthritis. If the issue is currently not causing issues with a physical but projecting what will be an issue down the road ( those are Boras’s words) and the Mets are wanting to make this effectively a 6-7 year contract I am fairly confident stating this is the most likely issue.  
 

As to Correas back issues Correa has to do an intense 90 minute warm up before every game.  He missed significant time in both 2018 and 2019.  Now if one leg begins to experience pain, any person begins to change their gait to avoid the pain, and next think you know the back is a mess.  

[Riverbrian]

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid keeps running through my mind as I follow the saga. 

It's a 12 year contract!!! The odds are that he will pick up an injury or two or seven along the way. It's a 12 year contract... that's what will kill ya. It's the fall that'll kill ya. 

 

 

[Nine of twelve]

1 hour ago, Lucas Seehafer PT said:

Do you know that? Is that known (by clubs) or just a guess? 

There's a stigma around back injuries and arthritis (conditions that can undoubtedly be debilitating for many!). Most athletes have varying degrees of arthritis. Most athletes have had episodes of significant back pain. NEITHER of these conditions have impacted Correa for literal years. Not all arthritis or back pain is or is destined to become debilitating. 

I would wager that Correa's risk is no greater than any other professional athlete over the next 10 years simply because 10 years is a long time and anything can happen injury-wise. 

I would wager that given the size of the contract that is going to be insured I expect that an insurance company would have a radiologist and/or orthopedist interpret all the imaging and come up with a prognosis. It's not some actuary or underwriter doing that.

[Steve71]

Correa's "treatment" by the Giants and the Mets is what needs to be explored in the next CBA?????  Are you serious?

The guy is being offered over $300M over a decade and the teams are not allowed to have a physical to make sure he has a reasonable chance to play later in his career?  Surely you jest.

What DOES need to explored in the next CBA is the Mets and other teams spending with total disregard of the soft cap, the lack of both a salary floor or a hard cap, the lack of parity, the poor treatment of minor leaguers, and on and on. 

Not how Mr. Correa is being treated as he receives his well-deserved hundreds of millions of dollars with some degree of medical scrutiny.

[Parfigliano]

3 hours ago, IA Bean Counter said:

If the issue is big enough to impact the ability to get insurance for a contract everything you wrote above is mute.  Correa most likely is showing early signs of arthritis.  There is very low odds he is able to be playing competitively in 10 years add in his back issues,  he has extreme risk tied to him.  

Which is why the Twins would be crazy to make a long term contract offer

[ashbury]

4 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

It's the fall that'll kill ya.

The fall never killed nobody. It's hitting the surface.

[sun]

I think the Mets are somewhat guilty of employing a bait & switch. And when Correa said that he doesn't want to renegotiate the terms it's because he wouldn't have agreed to go there if they didn't lure him in with the money. If he cared about playing for the Mets he would be negotiating with them. If Correa plays SS for the Twins for the next 6-7-8 years, he will provide the excitement that the TC fans expected to get from watching Buxton play but hardly ever get to see due to his constant injuries  It's hard to quantify the level of excitement that Correa generates but it's significant. If Buxton can stay on the field with him then more fans will show up  and generate more revenue for more Twins spending. Success breeds success. It's not about the risk as much as it's about the reward for investing in both Buxton & Correa.  I guess we'll  soon see if the Twins are Correa's team of choice or not. 

[Riverbrian]

8 hours ago, ashbury said:

The fall never killed nobody. It's hitting the surface.

Not always

[Parfigliano]

10 hours ago, sun said:

I think the Mets are somewhat guilty of employing a bait & switch. And when Correa said that he doesn't want to renegotiate the terms it's because he wouldn't have agreed to go there if they didn't lure him in with the money. If he cared about playing for the Mets he would be negotiating with them. If Correa plays SS for the Twins for the next 6-7-8 years, he will provide the excitement that the TC fans expected to get from watching Buxton play but hardly ever get to see due to his constant injuries  It's hard to quantify the level of excitement that Correa generates but it's significant. If Buxton can stay on the field with him then more fans will show up  and generate more revenue for more Twins spending. Success breeds success. It's not about the risk as much as it's about the reward for investing in both Buxton & Correa.  I guess we'll  soon see if the Twins are Correa's team of choice or not. 

Then there should be some policy accompanying a  Twins ticket about a refund should management elect to sit Buxton or Correa outside an injury.  Double refund if both sit.