ashbury

Looks like the Giants and Mets both got a Saving Throw against the Correa Injury Monster.

Sometimes a mother is just a cigar.

We had Sano, and I'll stand by Wallner as the closest young comp now. The Gallo who was, the Gallo who is, and the Gallo who will be.

Why would a one-year signing, of someone attempting to bounce back, be a reason to use five or six years of team control of a similar player as a trade chip?

I thought you were going to tag Matt Wallner as the "next" Joey Gallo. I think most scouting reports show Wallner with a better outfield arm than Larnach, likewise power at the plate. Neither of our young'uns has CF range.

That's 2011, which I think means two general managers ago. / Oops, I hit reply to the wrong one of your two posts.

Coming next Friday, a RandBall's Stu article headline: "Pirates withdraw 1-year league-minimum make-good contract offer to Correa, citing concern about medicals."

The players should stay optimistic. So much of the game is mental and you can't play at a high level if you're not giving 100%. and not trusting your teammates. We fans on the other hand have no bearing on what happens on the diamond, and I feel within my rights to forecast another sub-.500 season based on where we're at, at this mid-point in the off-season. And then I'll be pleasantly surprised if and when everything comes together like has been promised for a while now.

Three trades that mostly fail to solve a non-existent problem in the first place. Just roll with Miranda now that they've committed to him.

60/600 would be the ultimate bargain, no? I mean, he might even die early, and then they're completely off the hook for the remainder.

This piece is a tour-de-force, containing a full quota of quotable quotes. Quoth ashbury, "kudos."

"The deal is pending a physical." The Giants, LOL. Stay tuned.

Highest annual value matters on short contracts. Highest total value matters on contracts that will last to the end of the player's career. The Twins simply were outbid by millions. Blame the system that's been set up.

The buyers and sellers all know each other better than is the case in the residential real estate market. I just got done in a different post warning against using our own experiences as a guide to 9-figure deals in a sport, and yet there I go. It just feels like there is scope for shenanigans when taking a player off the market for a week or so during a prime time-period of the off-season. Maybe there's no irreparable harm done in this case, where actual loss is realized by Correa, as he still landed on his feet. I'm just a little surprised there aren't more safeguards against frivolous use of medical reports to say "oh, well that's very different then. Never mind."

A detail I haven't seen addressed (and my apologies if I missed it) is whether the Giants owe Correa any money at all. Often when you reach agreement on a big ticket item, earnest money is put down and is at risk if the buyer pulls out. After all, they've taken the player off the market during a period of time that could matter, and what this cost Correa is at least debatable.

I read the article too. It's a third-order effect. Someone posted with a straight difference of MN versus NYC tax rates to the whole contract, then someone else responded with the second-order observation that taxes are paid where the work is performed, and then you seemed to contradict that with your statement. The basic observation that the tax bite is less than it seems still stands, quibbles aside.

So how is that different to his bottom line than the shorthand terminology everyone else is using, that he pays tax in each state he plays? His accountant will have to fart around with a dozen or so state filings, but the net-net is that he'll pay less than the NY rate even when he signs with a NY team. BTW, here is an article from a professional accounting company, which probably outweighs any of the opinions we collectively may have. I'd also say, to another poster, that it's not always a mistake to equate our own lives to how a big-time ballplayer must look at things, but it's not an infallible guide either. People who played HS ball think they know what a major leaguer is doing; people who travel for work think they know what a major leaguer's finances must look like, etc. (I'm sure I'm guilty of the same error when presuming to judge the FO and their business/marketing/analytic processes, because a sports franchise is fundamentally different from most businesses, so again, I'm just saying to listen when others push back, and be prepared to learn something.)

The Twins offer is pretty spread out too. I think you'd have to have very pessimistic forecasts of hyper inflation to prefer $285M to an only slightly more spread out 350. (The new 315 number might be a closer matter, but now it's only 2 years different.)

I want to like the idea because the two players do seem to complement each other. But "2+" WAR at a position is average or slightly above, and yet not really a benchmark for winning a pennant. Consuming 2 precious 26-man roster spots to accomplish it seems like pretty thin soup. I might support trading for him, say for Pagan to clear a 40-man spot, but it means we're bottom feeding with aspirations of only .500, yet again.

I feel like I've seen this quote before.

Medical science has really improved in my lifetime. It can now pinpoint that something bad will happen to someone's health 13 years from now, but he'll be okay for 12.

I know, right? It even happens to people who aren't writers.

His botched toss of an utterly routine double play grounder in the AFL is etched onto my retinas, so even though it says nothing about his range and arm my one game of scouting Martin leaves me in the Not A Shortstop camp. Some other time, remind me to tell you why Jake Cave is dead to me....

The football analogy doesn't provide me much hope. By this point in the Twins off-season, the majority of players who could get the needed touchdowns are now off the field and enjoying their bye-weeks or whatever; Turner, Bogaerts, Swanson, etc. I'm no boxer, but I'll go with a boxing analogy instead. "Everyone has a plan, until you're punched in the mouth." The Twins had a plan, namely that Correa was so enamored of them that for once they would merely need to get "close" in terms of dollars offered. Then late in the last round the Giants punched them in the mouth, and they apparently had no idea just how hard a punch it could be. I didn't serve in the military either, but how about a Donald Rumsfeld military analogy. The Twins had a plan, but couldn't execute, because the plan didn't accurately account for a known-unknown. This wasn't some unknown-unknown, like a Japanese team swooping in and making Correa an offer to play in their league. The Giants were a known-unknown, and part of our FO's job is to get it right. "What will you do if the Dodgers or some other rich team offers $350M?" Apparently their answer was "well, we'll pivot to....", only when the moment of truth came their known-unknown came at the wrong time. The timing was another known-unknown which they didn't get right. I wouldn't have gotten it right either, I'm pretty sure. At least not at the outset. But when the dominoes started falling, namely Trea Turner getting $300M, they needed to rethink their entire strategy, and I think I would have. The Phillies actually delivered the punch in the mouth, and the Twins seemingly didn't react. The Giants merely delivered the knockout blow with a folding chair to the head. I guess that's tag-teaming, so now I'm talking Pro Rasslin'.