Carlos Correa Trade Buzz Is Heating Up

[tony&rodney]

We all are aware that any player can be discussed and potentially traded. The Twins are right back where they were last offseason, except for this time they need to make up some ground on other teams. Specifically, the AL Central is markedly improved from a year ago. Still, the situation is pretty much the same. What can Falvey do to improve the roster for 2025?

Money does make a difference in decisions but it is past the time for using the financial budget as a crutch or excuse. Budgets are a reality. The Twins can win with a budget of $110-125 million. We all knew that every player would or should be discussed in terms of their role in making the roster better next season. The central question remains .... how does any move make the team better?

 

[specialiststeve]

Amazingly a good portion of the Twins fan base undervalues Correa. He is a gold glove player at a prime position that is a middle of the lineup bat. 

That being said, I would say that every player on the roster should be available for trade... always!!

If the return improves the team and makes financial sense it would be stupid for the front office to not entertain offers. Not trying to make your players unhappy but to understand the goal is to be good longterm and short term. 

The article is a bit hollow without having any actual names that could be returned... 

[Seansy]

Would be a collosal mistake unless they get back a massive overwhelming return.

Correa's contract is extremely reasonable for a mid market team.

They have other contracts to dump from underperforming players before ever considering trading Correa.

Would signal to any other big FA to disregard MN as they value salary relief over winning.

[Brandon]

So what does Correa get to waive his no trade clause?  He will be in a position to make that demand.  He probably wants those option years restructured so that two or three more years are guaranteed at 30 million a season.  Then have a declining option year or two at the end.  If I was him I wouldn’t accept anything less and if I was being traded to the Mets, nothing less than the original agreement would be acceptable.  What do you think it takes for Carlos to waive his no trade clause?

[bean5302]

17 minutes ago, Brandon said:

So what does Correa get to waive his no trade clause?  He will be in a position to make that demand.  He probably wants those option years restructured so that two or three more years are guaranteed at 30 million a season.  Then have a declining option year or two at the end.  If I was him I wouldn’t accept anything less and if I was being traded to the Mets, nothing less than the original agreement would be acceptable.  What do you think it takes for Carlos to waive his no trade clause?

I think it's pretty obvious Correa has a huge personal component to his contract negotiations. He shunned the Giants and Mets hard after they balked, not even trying to work out any other deal, and then he went directly back to Minnesota and worked with them to come here under terms which were honestly probably less favorable than what he could have gotten from SF or NY.

Hard to jump into the head of a player, but if Correa believed the Twins were not competitive and a courting team was competitive, that'd probably matter a lot.

Correa isn't the biggest problem though. Finding an interested party with the RSN situation is the problem. A lot of the league is pulling back on payroll, and the big teams could potentially be paying up to $78MM for Correa next year due to the 110% luxury tax ceiling (Yankees, Mets, Dodgers). If teams balk at Correa being worth $37MM, imagine the eyebrows raised at the true cost being $78MM! Then there are teams which consistently operate in the mid/small market zone who wouldn't consider $37MM ever. On top of that, even teams which are good fits there are other major issues. Detroit Tigers have Baez stinking up the place so could they really justify another super pricy veteran SS like Correa? Would a division rival work out a deal to help the Twins? 

[bean5302]

The argument I find the least compelling is "fans revolt!!!!" since it's probably never been witnessed in the history of baseball. Correa means virtually nothing to the Twins' fans who are going to attend the games. I've posted this before. Attendance went UP after Puckett retired. Attendance went UP after Mauer retired. Attendance went UP after Johan Santana was traded. 

Fans attend games for the team and the game day experience. The name on the lineup card is utterly irrelevant to attendance.

Overall sense of urgency to compete does matter, but again, freeing up $37MM to spend elsewhere could make the Twins more exciting to fans. Goes a long ways towards signing Willy Adames and Blake Snell (not that the Twins would that specific example). Also, a new owner could be in transition before the start of the year, and that new owner (if it's moving that way) would have the ability to influence payroll should they choose to do so.

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, Seansy said:

Would be a collosal mistake unless they get back a massive overwhelming return.

Correa's contract is extremely reasonable for a mid market team.

They have other contracts to dump from underperforming players before ever considering trading Correa.

Would signal to any other big FA to disregard MN as they value salary relief over winning.

If it's reasonable that would suggest it's a model proven to succeed.   Name a mid market teams that has succeeded in the past 20 years while paying one player 25%.  The closest would be the 2019 Nationals who were above average in revenue but not so far above that it negates any value for comparison.  They paid Max Scherzer 21.5% of payroll.  Their next two highest paid player represented a combined 22% so the three of them were 44% of payroll.  The Twins will be paying Correa/Lopez and Buxton roughly 55%.  

If this was a good model there would be several examples of it succeeding.  There are not.  Actually, teams don't even try.  The argument would be that front offices don't understand it's a good model.

[RpR]

2 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Fans attend games for the team and the game day experience. The name on the lineup card is utterly irrelevant to attendance.
 

Tell that to the trading cards company, how they do not know what they are doing.

[ashbury]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

 Name a mid market teams that has succeeded in the past 20 years while paying one player 25%. 

The easiest way to pay one player 25% is to have a small payroll in the first place. The large-payroll teams were above $200M, ten of them now, and no player this year earned a quarter of that.

Turn the question around more usefully, based on that insight.  The interesting question is, when is the last time a team won the World Series while being in the bottom half of the major leagues in total payroll?  That's a clear-cut metric, not some nebulous "mid-market" or "succeeded" concept.

While you look that up (hint: your beloved 2015 Royals are NOT the answer to the question, because b-r.com shows them as top-half payroll that year), I will mention that our Twins were not in the top half of payroll last season, they were not in the top half this season, and it seems pretty clear they won't be in the top half of payroll in 2025 either.  It's pretty fair to assume they aren't going to win the World Series.

Since it's hard to find a team in the past 20 years who succeeded by winning the WS, period, while spending less than MLB average on payroll, one is of course not going to find any team that succeeded in that regard while paying 25% to one player.

In other words, whether you intended to or not, you asked a trick question.  There's a statistical bias to the framing of the question, and a cause-and-effect fallacy, on top of flexible definitions of terms.

Said another way, the 2024 Washington Nationals didn't fail because they paid Patrick Corbin 25 percent, they paid Patrick Corbin 25 percent because they were failing.  Somehow disposing of Corbin would not have saved their season.

[D.C Twins]

I'm cool with the salary dump.... His chronic foot problems are a huge concern, especially as he ages.

The Twins to not have the budget to absorb the 30+ million albatross during the last 2 years of the contract.

Not great in the short term.... but that is the reality  

[Major League Ready]

52 minutes ago, ashbury said:

The easiest way to pay one player 25% is to have a small payroll in the first place. The large-payroll teams were above $200M, ten of them now, and no player this year earned a quarter of that.

Turn the question around more usefully, based on that insight.  The interesting question is, when is the last time a team won the World Series while being in the bottom half of the major leagues in total payroll?  That's a clear-cut metric, not some nebulous "mid-market" or "succeeded" concept.

While you look that up (hint: your beloved 2015 Royals are NOT the answer to the question, because b-r.com shows them as top-half payroll that year), I will mention that our Twins were not in the top half of payroll last season, they were not in the top half this season, and it seems pretty clear they won't be in the top half of payroll in 2025 either.  It's pretty fair to assume they aren't going to win the World Series.

Since it's hard to find a team in the past 20 years who succeeded by winning the WS, period, while spending less than MLB average on payroll, one is of course not going to find any team that succeeded in that regard while paying 25% to one player.

In other words, whether you intended to or not, you asked a trick question.  There's a statistical bias to the framing of the question, and a cause-and-effect fallacy, on top of flexible definitions of terms.

Said another way, the 2024 Washington Nationals didn't fail because they paid Patrick Corbin 25 percent, they paid Patrick Corbin 25 percent because they were failing.  Somehow disposing of Corbin would not have saved their season.

The problem is not that it's a trick question.  The problem is identifying anything less than winning the WS as a failure.  Yes, it's the ultimate goal but nothing is going to make sense if the measure of success can be expected once every 30 years.  Of course, that's assuming spending does not influence success. 

Any analysis of this type requires some assumptions.  We can debate if 90 wins or 95 wins is success but nothing is going to make sense if you use a standard rarely achieved.  We can certainly look at those teams as additional insight but it does not make sense as a standard of success.  I gathered the roster construction and spending for free agents on every 90-win team in the bottom half of revenue for the last 25 years.  Actually, I have set-up the data using wins as a variable so I can sort on number of Xwin seasons and overall winning percentage of every team.   This provides a very good indication of how various methods of roster construction have succeeded.  The teams that produced the most success from free agent spending significantly outproduced the average WAR per dollar spent.  This should not be surprising.  

[RpR]

[Mike Sixel]

Goal posts officially moved! 

The key statement in this whole thing is admitting that the owners changed the assumed payroll, after the FO signed their two big contracts. WTF was the ownership group thinking?

[Schmoeman5]

6 hours ago, Brandon said:

So what does Correa get to waive his no trade clause?  He will be in a position to make that demand.  He probably wants those option years restructured so that two or three more years are guaranteed at 30 million a season.  Then have a declining option year or two at the end.  If I was him I wouldn’t accept anything less and if I was being traded to the Mets, nothing less than the original agreement would be acceptable.  What do you think it takes for Carlos to waive his no trade clause?

The right team.

[Hubie29]

On 11/9/2024 at 5:23 PM, RpR said:

No trade clause, end of story.

You don't think Correa would be salivating to get away from the dumpster fire known as the Minnesota Twins?

[rv78]

9 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

What's the point of getting rid of Correa if you're going young? None of the youngsters are true shortstops unless you really believe in Brooks Lee. By virtue of being young they're cheap so Correa being expensive isn't stopping them from committing to the young core coming up. If they move Correa and his money what would you replace him with? How do you improve the 2025 team without Correa? And Buxton. 

I'm not improving the 2025 team. This team is going no where in 2025. I'm improving the team in 2026 or 2027 and beyond. Trading Correa and Buxton for top prospects to add to the young core already here or coming shortly makes the team better long term. Adding a top young arm and a top young SS, or 1B is where I'm looking. No reason why the Twins can't find a good young SS to add to the team and replace him with if Lee isn't good enough. Doesn't appear Keaschall or Culpepper will be good enough either at SS. The Astros did it. The Twins need to go that route as well. Buxtons replacement is in the minors already. E-Rod or Jenkins. It's a perfect time to go young at SS as well and find another good arm for the rotation.

[rv78]

10 hours ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

This is spot on TopGunn.  I think Correa came here seeing a young and up-coming team thinking he could win a WS.  If the team sale along with the lower payroll convince him this is not possible, I could definitely see him waiving his no-trade clause to go to a team he thinks can win a WS.  He does not want to bust his butt for a team that plays for 3rd in the division every year.

That's kind of the reason why he left after his first tenure with the Twins. 3rd place team in 2022 and he flew the coup looking for greener pastures. He'd likely do it again, especially knowing there is little chance for 2025 to be much better than 2024 was.

[T.O.]

On 11/9/2024 at 5:23 PM, RpR said:

No trade clause, end of story.

Since he has not been worth his salary for two years I would think he'd see he owes it to the fans to waive that clause.

[RpR]

1 hour ago, Hubie29 said:

You don't think Correa would be salivating to get away from the dumpster fire known as the Minnesota Twins?

No, as much as some here think , money is all they play for, I do not think it always works that way.

[chpettit19]

51 minutes ago, rv78 said:

I'm not improving the 2025 team. This team is going no where in 2025. I'm improving the team in 2026 or 2027 and beyond. Trading Correa and Buxton for top prospects to add to the young core already here or coming shortly makes the team better long term. Adding a top young arm and a top young SS, or 1B is where I'm looking. No reason why the Twins can't find a good young SS to add to the team and replace him with if Lee isn't good enough. Doesn't appear Keaschall or Culpepper will be good enough either at SS. The Astros did it. The Twins need to go that route as well. Buxtons replacement is in the minors already. E-Rod or Jenkins. It's a perfect time to go young at SS as well and find another good arm for the rotation.

Those 2 aren't bringing back top prospects. Absolutely not bringing back a top young arm. Trading Buxton or Correa would be for salary relief and salary relief alone. Mid-level prospect for Correa. Unless you think the Pohlads are going to eat a bunch of money on his deal. That could get a better prospect. I find it awfully hard to believe that would be the case, though. You'd be clearing space to bring in more Santanas, Margots, and Farmers. Not changing the future by adding a top young arm or young SS to take over.

Correa and Buxton's deals aren't stopping the Twins from keeping the young guys they have and they aren't bringing back top prospects. Trading them isn't changing the Twins future. Trading Carlos Correa and/or Byron Buxton would be in order to add more 1 year veteran nobodies who block the young guys and provide no ceiling. They may play more games than the 2 higher priced guys, but the team isn't going to get any better.

[darin617]

2 hours ago, Hubie29 said:

You don't think Correa would be salivating to get away from the dumpster fire known as the Minnesota Twins?

It's more about money.  

[darin617]

I would be all for a trade. All you have to do is look at the injury history and things only get worse as a player ages.

There's no reason the Twins even signed Correa in the first place.  Let's just say the Twins have a payroll of 150M in 2025 Correa would be eating 25% of the payroll. 

Then the biggest question would be who would be the SS in 2025?

[USAFChief]

21 minutes ago, darin617 said:

It's more about money.  

His contract is guaranteed either way 

[Brandon]

While it’s about the money it’s also about respect and the Mets disrespected him as did the Giants and if I had a no trade clause to a team with bigger pockets that is willing to trade for me , I try to tack on more guaranteed money to accept the trade.  I would shoot for two or three of those option years to be restructured as guaranteed at 30 million or so 

[dxpavelka]

16 hours ago, Fatbat said:

Everyone says his $35M is a team salary limiter. Ok, at what salary is he a bargain? 15M? 20M?  
just split it at $17.5M.

 Lets pretend what the left over 17.5M would buy this organization. 

2-3 hasbeen MLB veterans. Or

1 Pablo type ace SP. Or

How about the Pohlads just suck up an investment into the team and spend $17.5M more and keep Correa. 
They made a commitment to win now.  

If Correa is traded, you need it to be for 

1. Allstar pitcher and

1 on the cusp of being an allstar position player and

2 high milb prospects and

2 Low milb prospects with high ceilings.

Anything less, we lose the trade. 

 

 

You always lose a trade that has the best player in the trade leaving town.

[RaoulDuke]

13 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

Agreed!

Topa - Stewart - Moran are all health question marks……one or two of the 3 should help at times.

Paddack - Varland - Alcala - Sands - Jax - Duran are potentially 6 very solid performers!

Henriquez - Headrick - Funderburk - Blewett are depth contributors in the Pen.

Thats a good bullpen not a lock down bullpen.

Duran/ Jax/ Stewart are studs but they need 2-3 guys more preforming at a 7th/ 8th inning setup level to be lockdown and just end games in the 7th if they are up.

Some of that has to come from within so whoever rises to the top from Varland/ Alcala/ Sands/ Paddack can fill a spot.  They should sign at least one if not two Jax/ Stewart level guys with some track record to truly make the pen a weapon.  

They also need lefties badly.  At least one, if not two, of those setup level guys needs to be left handed.  Thielbar isn't it, Funderburk isn't it, Moran isn't it, they need a lockdown lefty.  Preferably its the best late inning arm you add.

 

[Riverbrian]

9 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Those 2 aren't bringing back top prospects. Absolutely not bringing back a top young arm. Trading Buxton or Correa would be for salary relief and salary relief alone. Mid-level prospect for Correa. Unless you think the Pohlads are going to eat a bunch of money on his deal. That could get a better prospect. I find it awfully hard to believe that would be the case, though. You'd be clearing space to bring in more Santanas, Margots, and Farmers. Not changing the future by adding a top young arm or young SS to take over.

Correa and Buxton's deals aren't stopping the Twins from keeping the young guys they have and they aren't bringing back top prospects. Trading them isn't changing the Twins future. Trading Carlos Correa and/or Byron Buxton would be in order to add more 1 year veteran nobodies who block the young guys and provide no ceiling. They may play more games than the 2 higher priced guys, but the team isn't going to get any better.

I'm wondering what increased his trade value to jump start such conversation? 

[gman]

Trading Correa means you think that shuffling the deck going forward with the hopes of adding to the roster for future years and not planning to win more in 2025.

Not trading Correa means you think the roster can win more and get deep into the playoffs the way it is constructed in 2025. 

Or maybe no one else is willing to pay Correa the contract he has. After all no one else stepped up 2 years ago when his other 2 suiters with drew their contract offers and after 2 injury filled years he hasn't greatly increased his value. In which case you're just stuck where you are.

[dxpavelka]

6 hours ago, RaoulDuke said:

Thats a good bullpen not a lock down bullpen.

Duran/ Jax/ Stewart are studs but they need 2-3 guys more preforming at a 7th/ 8th inning setup level to be lockdown and just end games in the 7th if they are up.

Some of that has to come from within so whoever rises to the top from Varland/ Alcala/ Sands/ Paddack can fill a spot.  They should sign at least one if not two Jax/ Stewart level guys with some track record to truly make the pen a weapon.  

They also need lefties badly.  At least one, if not two, of those setup level guys needs to be left handed.  Thielbar isn't it, Funderburk isn't it, Moran isn't it, they need a lockdown lefty.  Preferably its the best late inning arm you add.

 

I can assure you that every team in the league is trying to sign a couple of Jax / Stewart level guys with track records.  I can assure you that most of those teams will fail.  Filling out bullpens is a crapshoot.  Case in point:  Jeff Hoffman.

[Major League Ready]

14 hours ago, ashbury said:

The easiest way to pay one player 25% is to have a small payroll in the first place. The large-payroll teams were above $200M, ten of them now, and no player this year earned a quarter of that.

Which is why I expressly stated "Payroll Capacity" vs simply payroll.  Would you not agree that they way to measure the viability of paying one player a large portion of the payroll would be to look at every team with X amount of wins or playoff teams and then see if they had a player that reached that threshold based on the team's payroll capacity.  Judging payroll capacity is not exact but it would be reasonable to use a percentage of revenue.

BTW ... I have stated more than once here that producing cheap talent enables free agent spending or extensions.  If I was Falvey, I would have met with the Pohlads when they announced the salary cut and presented them with a list of 90 win teams in the past couple decades.  The list would include the percentage paid to the top player and the top 3 players.  That list would illustrate that teams are not successful paying one player 25% of payroll capacity and explained to them that this could be done this year but going forward they would likely have to raise payroll keep the roster together as a result of arbitration increases. 

The net he would have communicated is that payroll will have to go up a bit in the next couple years (26-27) if they want to keep their young core and Correa.   Put a different way if they want to retain enough talent to contend. they will likely have to raise payroll back to 2022-23 levels.  I say likely because it's possible the young pitching takes a big step up and it's possible Rodriquez, Jenkins and Keaschall change the equation making it feasible to trade Pablo Lopez and a couple of the more expensive arbitration eligible players.