Squirrel

We aren't talking about about trading him for prospects. We are talking about trading him for mlb starting pitching. While I'd like a bit better return than Lopez, and I'd hate to lose Luis, it is the way to go about it.

Nice write up! I think he's got a very sharp, baseball mind. He will do something post-career whether managing or general managing ... wouldn't surprise me!

This is the part with all of this that confuses me. Maybe. I mean ... the guaranteed dollar amounts and years are very different than the Twins contract. Could it be that insurance said, 'Okay, this is doable' where the others were not, again because of the guaranteed length and amounts? Front loading it as they did, and basically have 4 years of being opt outs at lower rates ... maybe the insurance said that was workable where the other structures were not? Totally guessing. If, indeed, insurance was part of the problem. If it truly wasn't, then, I'm back to they were trying to put the screws to Correa.

I liked the trade for Paddack and I would do it again. My only problem with it (which has nothing to do with this article) is that they didn't effectively stock the BP. But back to Paddack, I'm excited to see what he brings when he's all recovered.

To truly emulate Wrigley, you need some critters living in the ivy, too ... along with the rats in the other areas.

It was also something they said in the press conference … maybe not those exact words, but there was certainly an ‘Okay, let’s figure this out’ attitude. And you are right, it’s a good way to approach negotiations. It’s why I said the Twins negotiated in good faith. I can’t really speak to the Giants, or really to the Mets, either, but the Mets asking him to ‘pass’ a physical every year to guarantee money is not a good faith negotiation and is basically a yearly opt out clause. And the Twins didn’t give Correa what they initially offered, either, but I think they approached it fairly, which shows the amount of respect they bring to the table (despite my earlier whines that they only offered 10/285). Perhaps a different thread, but I’m not sure it’s a luxury tax issue. I think the later years, low AAV and opt outs was simply an insurance plan to a few things. IF Correa’s speculative ankle arthritis is a problem in those later years, it gives the Twins options to move him to another position, become a lesser role player or to cut him if it’s indeed that bad. And if it’s not that bad, Correa has already made his money up front. The lower salary later also leaves them room to take on another big contract or extend younger players. I mean, I’d guess it is more a payroll issue because I don’t ever see the Twins reaching a luxury tax threshold. They have the payroll room now and can do the higher AAV, but again, maybe an insurance plan … who knows what payroll will be then, but the Twins haven’t hampered themselves.

I think this is the crux of it for all three teams. And I believe that the Twins were the only team that was willing to be creative enough to structure a contract that basically said ‘We’re both covered either way.’ The high AAV early on, the very low AAV with the team opt outs in the latter years beyond 6. The Giants balked and Boras/Correa walked away thinking the Mets were offering guaranteed years and money. But then I think the Mets tried to play a game and leverage information against Correa. And then the Twins came in, with the same information, asking, ‘How can we make this work for both of us?’ The Twins negotiated, imo, in good faith. I’m not sure a deal could have been made with the Giants or not because it seemed the Giants weren’t given opportunity, but I don’t really know. And I believe the Mets tried to put the screws to him. All knowing the exact same thing.

Eh ... maybe as depth as long as he's not taking up a 40-man spot. Seems as if we have enough backups to play 1st, otherwise he has no position. And we have someone else on the roster with no position in Arraez. I just don't see a fit, in the long run. And if we are calling him up, then something is amiss.

Actually, I think it’s when ST starts, unless you were counting that as the beginning of the season

I like this deal. The off season continues!

This, times infinity

I don’t really think they’re blocked. Lee or Lewis can play 3rd with Miranda becoming the DH. Martin will move to the OF, likely. Lewis could also play OF. Remember, Polanco will likely be gone before too long. And there is always trading one of them away for pitching. And Correa may need to move off SS in a few years.

I'm very happy but also very exhausted. I think I will go take a nap now.

And even more so ... that Francona said it

As a fairness minded fan ... most are looking at Bauer the teammate more than anything else. He has a proven track record of not being a good teammate or baseball colleague, of players not wanting him there, of being a bad clubhouse presence. Even if he can still contribute as a high end pitcher (he hasn't pitched for almost 2 seasons), I still think the cost is too high given the other things about him as a player and teammate. And these were issues long before any allegations came out. The player and teammate alone gives me a 'no, not on my team' response.

I'm wondering if they sign before it's announced, or, they announce it just as they sign. That whatever medicals he has to go through will be done before anything gets said. IF ...

I'm not sure it comes to choice of locations ... I think it comes down to length of contract for the reason you said, insurability. But ... not sure how short/long the contract needs to be for the insurance company to get on board. That said, I'd still offer a contract. That said, it still won't be the offer he and Boras take.

Of course we do. I see it with many trade proposals on this site. Doesn't mean it's wrong to be so. Doesn't mean the opposite is, either. I think being guardedly hopeful is a good way forward, but then that is too optimistic to others. We each come from a different perspective where some seem over the top optimistic to some while others seem way too over the top pessimistic for others. But, back to Buxton, lots of 1st-rounders show huge promise and potential ... it's why they are 1st-rounders ... but it's still a crapshoot who makes it and who doesn't. But Buxton still shows huge ability, both on field and in the batter's box ... when he plays. I don't think we are overrating his player abilities and skills ... but where I am guarded is how often those abilities and skills contribute, due to injuries. How you want to play that in your hopefulness or lack thereof as to what kind of season he will have, well, no one is right or wrong in their opinions. As I've said, I just want to see him play as often as possible, just not sure how often as possible will happen.

I think that was Ted’s point as that was his response to someone who claimed Buxton was Sano-esque, which was way off the mark

Welcome to TD! ?

I was going to say something very similar. I also think it is a bit dehumanizing to refer to players as assets. I get what’s being said and appreciate the article even so, but it just struck me differently. I was expecting the list as you said it, and not of human beings.

Okay, well I do

What I’d like to know is, was Correa’s 3 yr deal insured? It seems to me that that is a big part of the equation with the Mets and Giants contracts. It was pointed out in several threads that this could be, and likely is, the issue to the 12-13 yr length of the contract vs the 1-3 yr length. And as a medical expert pointed out, that the issue is likely the beginnings of arthritis forming around the surgically repaired area, that it either wasn’t there at the start of last season, and/or wasn’t a concern for a 3 yr deal but would be for a 12-13 yr deal, given the nature of the progressiveness of arthritis. i don’t disagree about being skeptical of the Twins evaluations, but on this, yes, we are all arguing on assumptions based on our skepticism and not knowing all the facts. Could they have missed something? Sure. Could they have noticed something but didn’t think it was much of a risk for 3 yrs? Also possible. Could the condition not have been there at the beginning of last season? Again, also possible. That said, if the insurance companies were willing to take on the risk, I think the deals with the Giants or the Mets would have been done already, And yes, I think more due diligence was done based on the total years and total cost of the contracts the Mets and Giants offered, and that their risk is far greater than the length and cost of the contract than the Twins contract prior to last season,

Heezy did weigh in … this was his post: