Carlos Correa and the Giants agree on a 13-year, $350m deal

Status
Not open for further replies.

HurstSoGood

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2006
2,181
I'm surprised the Fed hasn't announced an extra .5% interest rate increase in response to these idiotic contracts.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,567
AAV not THAT high but this puts Correa collecting until a couple weeks past his 41st
So SS then 3B then LF then DH?

he’s only 3 years older than Pena
Same birthday too
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
I'm really disappointed in the Giants. This feels so much like the Sox-Carl Crawford signing - ownership forcing a GM's hand due to fan discontent. And what the hell are they going to do with Brandon Crawford for next season?
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,948
I guess I'm the only one that doesn't think this is that crazy of a deal. Slightly lower AAV than Trea Turner and $1.5M more than Xander. You tack on two more years but Correa's younger than each and the defensive gap is significant. The last 3 or 4 years are just deferred payments.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
I guess I'm the only one that doesn't think this is that crazy of a deal. Slightly lower AAV than Trea Turner and $1.5M more than Xander. You tack on two more years but Correa's younger than each and the defensive gap is significant. The last 3 or 4 years are just deferred payments.
Now compare their injury histories.
 

NorthwestSoxGuy

New Member
Oct 15, 2022
155
I don't like this move at all. Correa is definitely talented, but he doesn't seem likeable, and he didn't handle Houston's cheating scandal very well.

The contract itself is terrible. 13 years is waaay too much.

It hurts that this is coming from the Giants, my second favorite team (after the BoSox of course)
 
Last edited:

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,879
Boston, MA
Has every star but Judge gone to the NL the last few years? And they still can't win the All Star game.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,387
I guess I don't understand why, just because one team does something incredibly stupid, that means the market is "set" at that stupidity.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
I guess I don't understand why, just because one team does something incredibly stupid, that means the market is "set" at that stupidity.
It isn't. That's why Correa got the deal he did last year. At some point, maybe not this year, the bubble will burst.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
I'm really disappointed in the Giants. This feels so much like the Sox-Carl Crawford signing - ownership forcing a GM's hand due to fan discontent. And what the hell are they going to do with Brandon Crawford for next season?
Crawford will be 36 before spring training, and had an OPS+ of 85 last year. I don't get the Carl Crawford comparison--Correa is better, is younger, and plays a more important position.

What's interesting about Brandon Crawford, if they keep him for utility type stuff is that he has never played an inning at any position except SS in the majors.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
I think he just got lucky. What was Boras' pitch, "sign Manaea and I'll let you have Correa for only $350 million"?
Yeah, I could be missing something but what was the benefit? Manaea taking less money so they could package Correa?
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
I don't like this move at all. Correa is definitely talented, but he doesn't seem likeable, and he didn't handle Houston's cheating scandal very well.

The contract itself is terrible. 13 years is waaay too much.

It hurts that this is coming from the Giants, my second favorite team (after the BoSox of course)
I like the cut of your jib; Giants are my second favorite team as well.

I'm happy they got him and as the saying goes, it's not my money.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,600
02130
I don't think the Sox should have offered any of them given the makeup of their team but I like this more than the Xander or Turner deals. Everyone needs to understand that the team does not care about the last 3-5 years of the deal and expects inflation and an increase in the CBT to make the money not a big deal by then even if you get 0 from the player. You just can't have more than a couple of these kinds of deals on your team. Sort of like max contracts in NBA.

If Correa can put up 5 WAR per year for the next three years and then declines at .5 WAR per year (ending with 0 in the final year of the deal) you'd be paying him $9.3m per WAR. He has both upside and downside from that basic projection, but that's about what teams paid from 2018-2020 (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/what-are-teams-paying-per-war-in-free-agency/) and I think you would pay some premium for guys who are 5+ WAR players at premium positions, because of their relative scarcity and how it helps you throughout the roster.

If Sox (or any) ownership doesn't want to play ball in this market that's their decision but they need to accept that they're just not going to be in the market for a whole bunch of players and I don't see it changing next year.
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,473
Saskatchestan
Has every star but Judge gone to the NL the last few years? And they still can't win the All Star game.
Get paid, get lazy?

Maybe with the more balanced inter-league schedule this year, we'll see some different results. But if I'm remembering correctly, the AL has a huge win/loss advantage in inter-league play ever since it was brought in
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
I guess I'm the only one that doesn't think this is that crazy of a deal. Slightly lower AAV than Trea Turner and $1.5M more than Xander. You tack on two more years but Correa's younger than each and the defensive gap is significant. The last 3 or 4 years are just deferred payments.
Relative to the Turner and Xander deals, it’s not crazy at all.

What was crazy (to me) was that anyone would expect that he’d get less than those two deals considering his age, production and agent.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,266
Manchester, N.H.
So I get "the last 3-5 years doesn't matter" statements but that's still hard money on the books that either has to be dealt, mitigated, or eaten when considering the tax. If you have an owner who doesn't care about the tax or a baseball ops team that is okay running in the tax annually draft pick wise I agree that it doesn't really matter or we can consider it that way, but that kind of money can prevent a team from paying other talent without deferring or backloading their money even if they acknowledge the rationale behind the deal being signed and getting a player somewhat at or under real value for the first 3-5 years for instance.

I don't particularly hate this deal for the Giants to be honest, but I just look at the Sox having to deal themselves out of albatross deals at half the length and think it's not as easy as considering it that way unless your owner is willing to ignore that when considering other deals in 2032 when Carlos Correa could be a 1 WAR DH.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,948
So I get "the last 3-5 years doesn't matter" statements but that's still hard money on the books that either has to be dealt, mitigated, or eaten when considering the tax. If you have an owner who doesn't care about the tax or a baseball ops team that is okay running in the tax annually draft pick wise I agree that it doesn't really matter or we can consider it that way, but that kind of money can prevent a team from paying other talent without deferring or backloading their money even if they acknowledge the rationale behind the deal being signed and getting a player somewhat at or under real value for the first 3-5 years for instance.

I don't particularly hate this deal for the Giants to be honest, but I just look at the Sox having to deal themselves out of albatross deals at half the length and think it's not as easy as considering it that way unless your owner is willing to ignore that when considering other deals in 2032 when Carlos Correa could be a 1 WAR DH.
13 years ago the first luxury tax threshold was only $160M. In 2023 it’s $233M. Lowering the AAV with these extremely long deals also helps you build a better team while the player is still at their peak, and during their later years, when Correa would have been making say $36M in a 9 year deal at age 35 or something, $27M is a bit more palatable.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,266
Manchester, N.H.
View: https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/1602887992313626625

good lord this market is insane. And honestly that Story contract from last off season is looking better by the day
Also, because it's fun to cherrypick (like this outright misses some great early Correa seasons) and provide minimal context

Trevor Story's WAR from 2016-2021 (Age 23-28 seasons): 26.8
Carlos Correa's WAR from 2017-2022 (Age 22-27 seasons) 27.7

Now there's a lot of reasons Correa has a much higher future value than Story likely does but that Story deal being half the length for just over a third of the cost feels pretty good.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,266
Manchester, N.H.
13 years ago the first luxury tax threshold was only $160M. In 2023 it’s $233M. Lowering the AAV with these extremely long deals also helps you build a better team while the player is still at their peak, and during their later years, when Correa would have been making say $36M in a 9 year deal at age 35 or something, $27M is a bit more palatable.
All of this is right and I don't disagree...but let's say it goes up another 70M in the next 13 years to about 300m (as a separate topic I feel that's very optimistic but it's easier to discuss in that parameter) 27m on the books is still just under a tenth of that for a player that will likely be giving you minimal value on the field and will be difficult to move. Still a greater percentage than that of, say, David Price's dead money in 2022. I'm not denying that it's probably worth it and baked into the cake of these deals (in that if you want Carlos Correa, getting him for 13/350 instead of losing him because you'd only do 9/325 or something is a good idea), but the Sox have had enough of an issue getting around their short extensions that go south that I get the hesitation on locking up a player into their late 30s and early 40s this far out.

Edit: NBA Max Deals were brought up, and it makes me wonder how many NBA teams would be committing to things like 12 or 14 year deals for their young NBA stars if it were CBA permissable. Lebron or Giannis types I'd understance.but what about those guys below the elite tier? It'd be interesting to see that dynamic given benhogan's points below.
 
Last edited:

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,125
Santa Monica
I don't think the Sox should have offered any of them given the makeup of their team but I like this more than the Xander or Turner deals. Everyone needs to understand that the team does not care about the last 3-5 years of the deal and expects inflation and an increase in the CBT to make the money not a big deal by then even if you get 0 from the player. You just can't have more than a couple of these kinds of deals on your team. Sort of like max contracts in NBA.

If Correa can put up 5 WAR per year for the next three years and then declines at .5 WAR per year (ending with 0 in the final year of the deal) you'd be paying him $9.3m per WAR. He has both upside and downside from that basic projection, but that's about what teams paid from 2018-2020 (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/what-are-teams-paying-per-war-in-free-agency/) and I think you would pay some premium for guys who are 5+ WAR players at premium positions, because of their relative scarcity and how it helps you throughout the roster.

If Sox (or any) ownership doesn't want to play ball in this market that's their decision but they need to accept that they're just not going to be in the market for a whole bunch of players and I don't see it changing next year.
I know you're not saying this but I hate comparing NBA MAX contracts to MLB contracts. It's really night/day.

1. The NBA CBA artificially suppresses MAX Players contracts size/length
2. NBA players have an exponentially greater impact/game than MLB players

13yr contracts are epically dumb, nobody knows if we will have rampant inflation or deflation in 3-4 years
 

Nacl

New Member
Jan 23, 2012
8
The problem with these contracts isn't that the players performance fades like a nice sunset and last few years are inflation adjusted deferred cash. The issue, and frankly the most likely outcome, is that performance hits a binary cliff at age 32-35 and the team is carrying $25M - $30M of dead or near dead money for 5, 6 or 7 years.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,600
02130
I know you're not saying this but I hate comparing NBA MAX contracts to MLB contracts. It's really night/day.

1. The NBA CBA artificially suppresses MAX Players contracts size/length
2. NBA players have an exponentially greater impact/game than MLB players

13yr contracts are epically dumb, nobody knows if we will have rampant inflation or deflation in 3-4 years
I know this about the NBA, I was making the narrow point that you only have a couple at most on your team so you should be choosy about which players you give them to, like a MAX deal. If you give out a 13 year deal to someone mediocre it would be like having a MAX slot tied up in someone who isn't is just an average starter as far as effect on your team.

No one knows for sure I guess but it's pretty likely we will have inflation over the life of the deal and if not, the Correa deal is not going to be the only worry for the Giants ownership.

It's also the only way to sign this kind of player recently. Taking on more than $50m or something would be epically stupid unless it's Ohtani but $27m is in all likelihood going to be worth under $20m by the end of the deal and the CBT will be a good deal higher. If you think that's epically dumb then fine but you're taking yourself out of this market.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,125
Santa Monica
The problem with these contracts isn't that the players performance fades like a nice sunset and last few years are inflation adjusted deferred cash. The issue, and frankly the most likely outcome, is that performance hits a binary cliff at age 32-35 and the team is carrying $25M - $30M of dead or near dead money for 5, 6 or 7 years.
If there is an injury or underperformance the first 7yrs of those deals, it really gets punitive, since it immediately starts sinking the last 5-6yrs.

The NBA sets 5-years on their MAX deals and many go very bad in that time frame. These MLB decade-long+++ deals are a pretty new occurrence (Bonilla had some crazy payout structure). If you could basket/index them they'd be an excellent short.

The classic "everyone else is doing it, so it must be fine" argument always ends in tears. Long-dated liabilities, with illiquid securities as the asset (MLB player/contract) get the smartest folks every time (see LTCM, CDO/Mortgage crisis, etc)

I'm glad Boston doesn't play FREE AGENCY that way, even if it means they miss out on Carlos Correa, Xander, Trea Turner etc
 

Merkle's Boner

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2011
3,760
Not sure if it’s been mentioned yet, but the move to abolish the DH in the NL seems to have made it easier to take on these long-ass contracts. Little doubt that Xander and Correa will be DHs by the end of their deals. Other than Judge, seems like the NL is getting most of the big names this year.
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
30,976
Geneva, Switzerland
Contracts for great players are going to be this stupid going forward. If we want a great player, we will have to put forward a deal like this sooner or later. The key is to do it for the right player, someone who stands a good chance of being great for at least the first 8 years.
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,482
Garden City
13 years? that is beyond crazy at this point... 90% chance he doesn't finish that contract wearing a Giants jersey. No thank you.
While I agree $350m is dumb for Correa, I think we probably should all ignore the years.

All of these contracts will result in the players finishing their careers well before the contract ends. I'm thinking Chris Davis situations where, the contract is so useless at x age that they buy out the player and defer more money for a tradeoff.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
How much would it cost to trade for the pair of Crawford and Yaz?
I suspect Crawford would retire rather than playing 3,000 miles from SF. He seems to have a pretty close-knit extended family including his own four young kids.

Crawford will be 36 before spring training, and had an OPS+ of 85 last year. I don't get the Carl Crawford comparison--Correa is better, is younger, and plays a more important position.

What's interesting about Brandon Crawford, if they keep him for utility type stuff is that he has never played an inning at any position except SS in the majors.
My treatment-of-Crawford beef is heart over head -- I hate for a guy with his resume to get unceremoniously sent to the bench or into a utility role, but you're right that he hasn't been hitting and Father Time is undefeated.
 

LoLsapien

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 5, 2022
183
While I agree $350m is dumb for Correa, I think we probably should all ignore the years.

All of these contracts will result in the players finishing their careers well before the contract ends. I'm thinking Chris Davis situations where, the contract is so useless at x age that they buy out the player and defer more money for a tradeoff.
Yeah, I'm starting to see the logic but it still is wild. Figure Correa gets paid $50M for 2 years, $45M for 2 years, $35M for 2 years, $25M for 2 years, you're at $290M for the maybe productive years of the contract (8 years). $60M deferred, to be paid over the final 5 years of the contract ($12M/year). It's still eye-watering, I wouldn't want to be attached to the guy for 8 years at those numbers.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
Keith Law likes it (rWAr/fWAR per AAV) and points out that Crawford is likely washed.

Correa also fills a huge need for the Giants, whose incumbent shortstop, Brandon Crawford, fell apart in 2022 after a surprising bounce-back year in 2021. Crawford hit just .231/.308/.344 last year, well below league average, and his batted-ball data mirrored that decline — he swung and missed at an exceptionally high rate and stopped hitting the ball hard. He’ll turn 36 in January, and while he’s got one year left on the two-year deal the Giants gave him after that dead-cat bounce season, it’s a sunk cost, and they’re better off just benching or even releasing him. Correa is anywhere from a 5-to-7-win upgrade over Crawford right now, improving the team both on offense and defense
.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
While I agree $350m is dumb for Correa, I think we probably should all ignore the years.

All of these contracts will result in the players finishing their careers well before the contract ends. I'm thinking Chris Davis situations where, the contract is so useless at x age that they buy out the player and defer more money for a tradeoff.
I think you’re right. The negotiation is mostly about the total guaranteed money. The total years become more or less irrelevant to the player. (Obviously it’s better to get all your money in eight years instead of thirteen, some maybe there’s a slight deferral adjustment, but the main thing is getting your money).
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
Once again, the years don't matter. The two most important parts of the contract are the total cost - and this contract isn't off market at all imo for a FA with Correa's profile - and the AAV. That's it.

Years don't matter even if these teams are likely to pay these players long after they stopped producing - its a cost of doing business. These long dated contracts are how teams get premium players. That's how MLBs talent market works now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.