ashbury

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'.

Other contenders: "He used to be with us." "I recognize that name." "If he can just stay healthy."

And ample examples of our Twins getting pwned by the Yankees.

Archer and Bundy also likely had visions along those lines, with guaranteed 1-year contracts* also. It's a win for the player who comes through, it's a nothing-ventured nothing-gained situation for the ones who don't, but it's an opportunity cost for the team itself unless these players come through more than 1-in-3 during a season. * Correa was technically 3-years guaranteed but in practical terms it was 1-year with a generous insurance policy attached

Since I'm old fashioned and consider at least a playoff appearance to be the minimum threshold for a successful season, I'm not too interested in loading up on players who will be intimidated when walking onto the field at Yankee Stadium in October.

You told him already.

Wait, the guy who rolled early round dice on the likes of Tyler Jay, Mason Melotakis and Nick Burdi, to name a few, in a futile quest for think-outside-of-the-box pitching? I have tremendous respect for Ryan but it's not as though he had some sort of magic touch. Hence the Total System Failure, a somewhat unfair label but still with an element of truth. Ryan might have helped orchestrate a different suite of head-scratching picks in 2020, I'll go along with that.

And if he bounces back in 2023 as the team hopes, he'll command a similar long term contract next off-season and the Twins will say too rich for our blood, an extension wouldn't be prudent. So I really hope the plan isn't to trade away, say, Wallner or Larnach to make room for a signing that has very little upside ultimately.

Of course it's not and the examples you gave, um, exemplify that.

They had a plan. They failed to execute. If their multi-layered plan had evidence of "we targeted Correa because of this, this, and this reason, and if we don't get him then we address all those same reasons in these other ways," I'd feel better. It was important to go after this one high-end SS, at a certain price, but not to go after others, at lower price points? What was special about Carlos, in this light? Because so many of the good FA targets are now off the table, I'm less reluctant than usual to say, "the off-season isn't over yet." It just about is. "Buck" Farmer? That's a pitcher, as opposed to our new incumbent shortstop Kyle of course.

This is not the thread for debating franchise health in other markets, but yes of course I have. And your comment suggested you hadn't looked at anything bigger-picture than win-loss record so I challenged it. I've long wondered if the Moneyball strategy that's evolved looks like a mixed bag at best when you take everything into account, and quite possibly is long-term slow-acting poison.

I like to remind myself at times that both Derek Falvey and Thad Levine played on NCAA teams. Maybe not powerhouse schools like Arizona State, Division III in fact (Trinity and Haverford respectively), but higher than the high school level. Maybe they were benchwarmers and held their spots out of compassion and kindness. But beats my own slow-pitch softball experience by a few light years. Anyway their on-field experience pales in comparison to Rocco's but IMO shouldn't be dismissed. Pretty sure they know from personal experience that if you hit .200 or have an ERA of 6 you might get benched.

Well then the Twins better get cracking and catch up with the top teams! Yeah, I resist my usual snarky impulse to pull out the "We Got Him" gif, because every team makes these signings. It's interesting to read about the players and their strengths, but honestly if any of them makes a contribution it will probably be some kind of beacon of success in a sea of wreckage for the season.

For me it comes down to the 2016 mantra of Sustainable Success, if I'm remembering the incoming FO's exact phrase correctly. Trades that come from a mid-season fire sale or trading-deadline sale of expiring contracts? That's not a pipeline, unless the trades would have happened if they were in first place - that's just being smart and making the best of an unsuccessful situation. Dealing away Berrios and Cruz are examples and I'm not really willing to call the guys we received part of any pipeline, because if we'd been fighting for a World Series that year those new guys wouldn't be with us. Trades that come from reallocating duplicate talent to fill areas of need, or to simply acquire young up the middle talent that is always valuable rather than let the duplicate talent die on the vine? Sign me up for that, and yes it's part of the pipeline. It comes down to specific cases. But a pipeline that relies in any important way on periodic failure isn't really the steady stream that we think of as a pipeline.

It would be poor stewardship of resources to make Gallo a full time DH; too much of the $11M price tag is for his glove. They could have made a surer bet on just the bat by applying that sum to outbidding for JD Martinez for instance. Packaging any of the young lefty corner outfielders in trade, to make room for this new guy who is on a 1-year contract that is even less likely to be extended than Correa's was, would also be poor stewardship IMO.