What Was the Point of Signing Carlos Correa?

[Nick Nelson]

If they're not going to make a push now, at this moment, then why did the Twins bother signing Carlos Correa to the biggest contract in franchise history?

To say the Pohlad family went out of their comfort zone when they signed Carlos Correa to a $200 million contract in January of 2023 would be an understatement. It was the largest free-agent contract they'd ever signed by a margin of more than $100 million. Two prior contract agreements elsewhere had to fall through to even bring Correa into the range of remote feasibility, but when the opportunity to land a generational talent was in front of them, the Twins took it. The Pohlads stepped up.

I commended them for doing so, just as I did two years earlier when they did what it took to lock up Byron Buxton. I continue to commend it. The Correa contract wasn't just a big deal by Twins standards; it was a big deal period. One of the 30 largest contracts ever handed out by a major-league team, a list dominated by large-market powerhouses.

The Pohlads went into that historic agreement with eyes open. They knew how it would impact their payroll over the following seven years. They had to have some understanding at the time of the revenue uncertainty to come, albeit maybe not the full extent of it. Their message was nonetheless clear and assertive.

“I think it's great for the organization, great for the fans," said Joe Pohlad, celebrating his signature move as newly-appointed ownership figurehead. "And hopefully what it reiterates to the fan base is that our commitment to winning." It did, at the time. Looking back two years later, one question that comes to mind.

What was the point?

While it would be a stretch to say Correa's contract has gone entirely to plan over the first two seasons, it's been far from a disaster. In the first year, despite his struggles due to a foot injury, Correa helped the Twins advance in the playoffs for the first time in almost 20 years. In the second year, he missed 76 games with another foot injury, but when on the field he played at a legitimate MVP-caliber level. While his multiple bouts with plantar fasciitis have been concerning, he did come back productively at year's end, inspiring hope that he can rebound physically in 2025.

No, he hasn't been exactly what you'd hope for as a $70 million player between 2023-24, but Correa has been FAR from a Javier Baez-level disaster where you basically just have to write off the contract as a sunk cost and try to succeed in spite of it. He remains a viable championship building block as he enters his 30s, still in the heart of his prime.

And yet, one year after signing Correa, the Twins stripped down their payroll around him, sabotaging a playoff-caliber squad that unraveled in the shortstop's absence. Correa was deprived of a chance to deliver more postseason heroics, and as we look ahead to a reshaped competitive landscape in the Central next year, ownership seems inclined to follow the same inexplicable path.

There have been indications that they won't further reduce spending after slashing payroll by $30 million last offseason, but even if true, that still leaves the Twins and their front office in a precarious position as they attempt to retool and rebound following their historic collapse. 

This is where I just sort of get lost in trying to grasp the logic and mindset behind what's happening. Look, if finances and the bottom line are the guiding factors for the Pohlads, I understand it. I don't agree with it, but I understand. If that's the case, though, then why the hell did they make such a bold statement to the contrary, both literally and figuratively? Why sign Correa, or Buxton or Pablo Lopez for that matter? The club now has $70 million in guaranteed money tied up in those three for each of the next three years. And they are worthy foundational building blocks! Now we're suddenly going to decide to skimp on the rest of the construction?

The Minnesota Twins managing to end up with Carlos Correa was one of the most unlikely free-agent outcomes we've ever seen. It created a unique opportunity for this franchise to truly push behind one of the most celebrated performers in the league. His age-30 season lies ahead and he's shown that if healthy he can be exactly who they thought he was. In two or three years, we may not feel as confident in that.

Spending an extra $10-20 million this offseason would be pretty insignificant relative to the investment they've already made in Correa. But it could have an outsized effect on getting the most from that investment by supplementing the roster around him rather than dismantling it. If you're not willing to take that modest step toward actualizing the goals set forth by that monumental signing, then what was the point of it to begin with?

View full article

[bean5302]

The article hits the nail on the head. The Pohlad's essentially turned the roster into a long term only investment, then immediately performed a 180* turn and tried to cash out. It's an absolutely catastrophic decision from an investment/business perspective. 

The irony with "have a business to run" statements from the Pohlad family is awfully thick. Changing illiquid investment strategy, and not holding failed sales/marketing channels and leadership accountable (Dave St. Peter). Those are not how successful businesses are run. 

[nicksaviking]

Good article. I'm happy he's here, but it doesn't make sense. It just goes to show that either ownership never had a long range plan or they were foolish not to anticipate the less favorable revenue situation that was clearly approaching.

I mean this would be like if any of us knew we were going to stop receiving our monthly bonus but bought plane tickets to fly the family to Disney World anyway. What, so now there's no more money and we won't buy the tickets to get into the theme parks? We're just going to sit in Orlando and do nothing all week? Thanks dad.

[BH67]

Question:

And yet, one year after signing Correa, the Twins stripped down their payroll around him, sabotaging a playoff-caliber squad that unraveled in the shortstop's absence. Correa was deprived of a chance to deliver more postseason heroics, and as we look ahead to a reshaped competitive landscape in the Central next year, ownership seems inclined to follow the same inexplicable path.

Answer:

This is where I just sort of get lost in trying to grasp the logic and mindset behind what's happening. Look, if finances and the bottom line are the guiding factors for the Pohlads, I understand it. I don't agree with it, but I understand.

It's called Occam's Razor, Nick. My guess is that the pending Diamond Sports implosion wasn't known at the time of Correa's signing.

The insistence of many knowledgeable voices here of something more nefarious at work has made reading Twins Daily insights unpleasant for me. But that's the cost of admission.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

Good question here Nick...

It makes me wonder if the sale of the team has been in the works for longer than we think.  Sign Correa, increase payroll, win a WS, then sell the team at a high point.  Once that fell apart, along with the TV rights fiasco, they started cutting corners to provide better "value" to a buyer.

[LambchoP]

First off was Buxton. They had to sign the hometown kid or fans would have been real pissed. His injury issues were well known by then and we actually got him on a pretty team friendly deal. Then we had a bunch of young guys come up and perform pretty well. We were set up for a winning window so signing a star like Correa made sense. We played well his first year and we actually won a playoff series last year. What is hurting the team now is the decision to cut payroll and make our GM work around major constraints. Correa signed here with the understanding we had a good core and the money to fill out the roster and be competitive year after year. Ownership went back on that plan and now because of the payroll crunch, we have three players in Correa, Buxton and Lopez that are taking up most of the teams payroll and leaving nothing left to fill the many holes on our roster. Very sad. Even more frustrating because most of us know we are probably only a few pieces from being a legit playoff contender....

[IndianaTwin]

Ah, 20-20 hindsight. Such a beautiful thing. 

You make what seems to be the best decision with the information you have at the time. Sometimes* circumstances change. 

*Pretty much always.

[The Great Hambino]

You can justify signing Correa (plus extending Pablo on top of it).  Investing in payroll when you see a competitive window opening makes sense for a mid-market team.

You can justify reducing the payroll because of the TV revenue.  

You absolutely cannot justify doing both within less than a year of each other.  The only way this could be justified is if the TV problem had blindsided them out of nowhere.  But there's no way competent leadership wouldn't have seen that coming.  The impending DSG issues were public knowledge when they signed Correa (they were losing a billion with a capital B per quarter by the fall of 2022), and DSG had already filed for bankruptcy when they extended Pablo. 

Why the family keeps letting Joe run things is beyond me.  Between this and his farcical forays into running media companies, he's like the opposite of King Midas.  I wouldn't trust him to run a lemonade stand.

[ashbury]

2 minutes ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

Good question here Nick...

It makes me wonder if the sale of the team has been in the works for longer than we think.  Sign Correa, increase payroll, win a WS, then sell the team at a high point.  Once that fell apart, along with the TV rights fiasco, they started cutting corners to provide better "value" to a buyer.

I don't think the sequence of events supports that.  Winning the WS is too long a shot for basing the sale strategy around.  If the pump and dump were to happen it would have been a year ago, after the fan base was excited. Instead they didn't replace Sonny Gray and "right sized" the payroll.

They missed their window, if that were the plan.

[nicksaviking]

7 minutes ago, BH67 said:

Question:

And yet, one year after signing Correa, the Twins stripped down their payroll around him, sabotaging a playoff-caliber squad that unraveled in the shortstop's absence. Correa was deprived of a chance to deliver more postseason heroics, and as we look ahead to a reshaped competitive landscape in the Central next year, ownership seems inclined to follow the same inexplicable path.

Answer:

This is where I just sort of get lost in trying to grasp the logic and mindset behind what's happening. Look, if finances and the bottom line are the guiding factors for the Pohlads, I understand it. I don't agree with it, but I understand.

It's called Occam's Razor, Nick. My guess is that the pending Diamond Sports implosion wasn't known at the time of Correa's signing.

The insistence of many knowledgeable voices here of something more nefarious at work has made reading Twins Daily insights unpleasant for me. But that's the cost of admission.

True the bankruptcy filing happened a month after the Correa signing, but the signs of Balley's demise had been there since 2020 when all the streamers dropped them. Anyone who thought a Bally direct streaming service was going to be just as profitable didn't understand streaming.

[Squirrel]

I still follow the team and keep up on things, but last off-season just ended the enthusiasm I had for the team. The season before was great. Along with signing Correa they went out and broke their curse. I thought a corner was turned where investment in the team and winning was finally going to be a thing. Nope. So much for hoping. Reduce payroll and don’t fill your roster with competence. So many teams in the 2000s had that potential that was never fully invested in, and then Santana said he was out. Thats when I wanted the Pohlads out. But I started getting hopeful again when they signed Correa. Ugh. Back there again. So, yeah, what was the point? I have no idea but these owners today are just killing the sport.

[The Great Hambino]

10 minutes ago, BH67 said:

 

It's called Occam's Razor, Nick. My guess is that the pending Diamond Sports implosion wasn't known at the time of Correa's signing.

That defense of the Pohlads doesn't hold up to me.  Even if they didn't know that bankruptcy was coming for DSG (which is hard for me to believe given the public information showing their struggles - surely insiders would have even more info on this), they doubled down on long-term payroll increases by extending Pablo, which happened after the bankruptcy filing.  If they didn't know when they signed Carlos, they sure as hell should've when they extended Pablo.  They don't get to claim ignorance of the TV problems

[BH67]

2 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

True the bankruptcy filing happened a month after the Correa signing, but the signs of Balley's demise had been there since 2020 when all the streamers dropped them. Anyone who thought a Bally direct streaming service was going to be just as profitable didn't understand streaming.

Short of the investment banking sector, I doubt anyone anticipated that with sufficient foresight,

[BH67]

1 minute ago, The Great Hambino said:

That defense of the Pohlads doesn't hold up to me.  Even if they didn't know that bankruptcy was coming for DSG (which is hard for me to believe given the public information showing their struggles - surely insiders would have even more info on this), they doubled down on long-term payroll increases by extending Pablo, which happened after the bankruptcy filing.  If they didn't know when they signed Carlos, they sure as hell should've when they extended Pablo.  They don't get to claim ignorance of the TV problems

Maybe not. But that's the crux of what we're talking about.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

4 minutes ago, ashbury said:

I don't think the sequence of events supports that.  Winning the WS is too long a shot for basing the sale strategy around.  If the pump and dump were to happen it would have been a year ago, after the fan base was excited. Instead they didn't replace Sonny Gray and "right sized" the payroll.

They missed their window, if that were the plan.

Maybe not winning the WS, but definitely raising the profile.  Also, there was also a definitive shift in financial approach after last season.  The TV rights deal was blamed, but that same situation could have scuttled any potential sale being worked on.  I am not saying that this is definitively what happened, but when you start putting pieces together, there is a logic to it.

As an aside, I do believe the only reason the Pohlads went public with their intentions is because someone was going to out them and they wanted to try to control the narrative.  We, as fans, have no clue how long the Pohlads have had the team on the market...   

[chpettit19]

20 minutes ago, BH67 said:

Question:

And yet, one year after signing Correa, the Twins stripped down their payroll around him, sabotaging a playoff-caliber squad that unraveled in the shortstop's absence. Correa was deprived of a chance to deliver more postseason heroics, and as we look ahead to a reshaped competitive landscape in the Central next year, ownership seems inclined to follow the same inexplicable path.

Answer:

This is where I just sort of get lost in trying to grasp the logic and mindset behind what's happening. Look, if finances and the bottom line are the guiding factors for the Pohlads, I understand it. I don't agree with it, but I understand.

It's called Occam's Razor, Nick. My guess is that the pending Diamond Sports implosion wasn't known at the time of Correa's signing.

The insistence of many knowledgeable voices here of something more nefarious at work has made reading Twins Daily insights unpleasant for me. But that's the cost of admission.

MLB was talking about having to have their own broadcast capabilities during the lockout. To add to multiple other posts, MLB knew this was coming and was actively preparing for it years before DSG filed for bankruptcy. The DSG implosion was known at the time of the Correa signing. And happened before the Pablo extension (as another poster said). If reading these things is "unpleasant" for you it's likely because it goes against what you want to be true. The publicly known facts of the situation is that MLB was preparing for the demise of Diamond Sports, and RSNs in general, well before Carlos Correa ever wore a Twins jersey.

[chpettit19]

33 minutes ago, IndianaTwin said:

Ah, 20-20 hindsight. Such a beautiful thing. 

You make what seems to be the best decision with the information you have at the time. Sometimes* circumstances change. 

*Pretty much always.

They had the information. MLB talked about the changing TV landscape during the CBA negotiations. DSG filed for bankruptcy before the Twins extended Lopez. It's not 20-20 hindsight just because you didn't know about things. They knew when their TV deal was expiring. Everybody who paid any sort of attention at all to such things knew they weren't going to get nearly as much in their next deal and that MLB wanted to create their own streaming network which the RSNs wouldn't like. RSNs were dying anyways. This isn't 20-20 hindsight. It's all things that us regular folk knew at the time and the people who's company had tens of millions of revenue depending on their TV contracts absolutely should've been making decisions based on.

[BH67]

5 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

MLB was talking about having to have their own broadcast capabilities during the lockout. To add to multiple other posts, MLB knew this was coming and was actively preparing for it years before DSG filed for bankruptcy. The DSG implosion was known at the time of the Correa signing. And happened before the Pablo extension (as another poster said). If reading these things is "unpleasant" for you it's likely because it goes against what you want to be true. The publicly known facts of the situation is that MLB was preparing for the demise of Diamond Sports, and RSNs in general, well before Carlos Correa ever wore a Twins jersey.

No. The unpleasantness of reading these things comes from being told that I'm a wishful thinker when I make assumptions based on what I understand to be true.

[laloesch]

The question to be asked is what happens going forward?  If the Pohlads are truly serious about selling the team and it looks like they are, do they go ultra cheap and gut the roster and pocket the savings, or do they just go cheap and not do anything until a new buyer.  Knowing them, they'll gut the roster and cut payroll further.  They are gonna get 1.5-2billion regardless of on the field product, might as well pocket as much as you can before exiting.

[chpettit19]

Just now, BH67 said:

No. The unpleasantness of reading these things comes from being told that I'm a wishful thinker when I make assumptions based on what I understand to be true.

Except in this very article and thread multiple people are telling you things that are true and your responses aren't to change your view it's to continue to stick to your disbelief of those things.

[CRF]

If you google "sailing the ship without a rudder"...it brings up info about the Pohlads. Now...how did that happen?

[Mike Sixel]

The 35 million dollar question. Possible answers. 

They somehow hoped things would turn out with Bally?

They changed their mind? 

A true lack of vision? 

None of those paint them in a good light. I have no idea what the deal was. What I do know is that we are under a new reality, where he's here, as is Lopez, and they have almost no wiggle room to add players. Not good, Bob.

[BH67]

1 minute ago, chpettit19 said:

Except in this very article and thread multiple people are telling you things that are true and your responses aren't to change your view it's to continue to stick to your disbelief of those things.

First, if the economic effects of this were sufficiently known three years in advance, the Pohlads hoped for a different outcome that didn't pan out, and now they want to sell the team. So perhaps they understood the issue but not the ramifications or timing of the economics, and they weren't the only business people caught flatfooted here. That doesn't contradict my basic understanding.

Second, why the derision per a subject so vicarious to daily life?

[nicksaviking]

32 minutes ago, BH67 said:

Short of the investment banking sector, I doubt anyone anticipated that with sufficient foresight,

People on this site were talking about how this current model of a streaming service for this one specific product wouldn't work from day one.

[BH67]

Just now, nicksaviking said:

People on this site were talking about how this current model of a streaming service for this one specific product wouldn't work from day one.

It seems the Pohlads didn't grasp the magnitude of it. I doubt they were alone among their peers.

[Vanimal46]

This is just my assumption with no evidence to back it up. I assume Joe Pohlad was planning on having a consistent $150-165 million payroll, and the rest of the family decided to change direction. 

As much as I’ve enjoyed watching him on our favorite team, I wouldn’t blame him if he requests a trade somewhere else. 

[laloesch]

10 minutes ago, BH67 said:

First, if the economic effects of this were sufficiently known three years in advance, the Pohlads hoped for a different outcome that didn't pan out, and now they want to sell the team. So perhaps they understood the issue but not the ramifications or timing of the economics, and they weren't the only business people caught flatfooted here. That doesn't contradict my basic understanding.

Second, why the derision per a subject so vicarious to daily life?

I think it's likely that the Pohlads were banking on something getting worked out with Bally and not the disaster that unfolded ultimately and it was a miscalculation, maybe a result of Joe's hands at the helm.  It's hard to say.  Pablo was and still is a good signing.  The Buxton signing while less costly than Correa has been at best a marginal return because he misses 1/3 of the season almost routinely.  On a team with increasing payroll's year over year it's bearable, but this sudden return to pinching pennies and cutting payroll is not a good omen and makes the situation tenuous.  You have what 2/3 of the team's payroll tied up in 3-4 guys (I don't know the exact numbers)?  The point is that it was a bad business decision to change course after signing Pablo, Correa, and Buxton, but that is how this appears to be playing out.  It could take several years to work out a sale, and who knows how much revenue the Twins get from MLB with this streaming.  Sounds like a net loss either way, so potential for big disaster here.

[nicksaviking]

1 minute ago, BH67 said:

It seems the Pohlads didn't grasp the magnitude of it. I doubt they were alone among their peers.

I agree, they probably weren't alone.

But the TV apocalypse is another reason why they should have replaced Dave St. Peter long, long ago. He had already failed at three broadcasting deals, he shouldn't have been in charge for the fourth.

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, BH67 said:

First, if the economic effects of this were sufficiently known three years in advance, the Pohlads hoped for a different outcome that didn't pan out, and now they want to sell the team. So perhaps they understood the issue but not the ramifications or timing of the economics, and they weren't the only business people caught flatfooted here. That doesn't contradict my basic understanding.

Second, why the derision per a subject so vicarious to daily life?

That's the problem many of us have with them. Whether they understood and ignored or simply didn't understand doesn't really matter to me. The end result is the same and they've put the team I cheer for in a tougher spot than they needed to. That's my understanding of the crux of this article. The point you waved off as Occam's razor. The signing of Carlos Correa to a large contract when they were going to slash payroll. Them not being able to foresee what many, many people foresaw is a problem. Not being able to see what MLB was openly talking about and running your franchise as if the problem wasn't about to arrive because your TV contract was going to expire is a really weird situation to defend.

There's no derision. I'm not mocking anyone. But when people suggest them not being aware of something means that it's 20-20 hindsight (not a phrase you used, but another poster did) or not something people could've seen coming (the suggestion you have been making) I push back when it is something that many, many people openly talked about as being the obvious outcome.

[nicksaviking]

44 minutes ago, BH67 said:

Short of the investment banking sector, I doubt anyone anticipated that with sufficient foresight,

Also, the Pohlad's ARE the investment banking sector.