SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 14, 2022 17:53:24 GMT -5
And the handling of Devers in 2020. Realistically, that was the time to get a cheap(er) 4-6 year extension. Instead they somehow took the most aberrant year in baseball history since 1944 as somehow definitive of his skill set and didn't bother to engage in any serious way on an extension. Well now that's a totally unjustifiable claim. I'm sure they didn't do this. But like I said, what would be the terms of an extension that would be acceptable to both sides at that point in time? It's hard to imagine it.
So far I don't think there's anything to blame them for regarding a Devers extension. They offered $200 million+ last winter, which was a serious offer. I'd bet they would've gotten it done if Devers were like Bogaerts, but he's not; he's like Mookie. I.e., more interested in seeking maximum value than in sharing risk with the team to guarantee a healthy floor for his career earnings. Nothing wrong with that. But it means the window between the two sides to make an extension just hasn't been there.
Having said that, THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THEY SHOULD'VE GOTTEN IT DONE WITH BOGAERTS. He was open to an extension. He wanted to stay in Boston. Yet out of the three, he's the one the team failed to make a serious effort with. Now he's gone and Devers has them completely over the barrel - for both on-the-field and team identity reasons, they really need to keep him. But Devers has all the leverage in the world.
He and possibly Machado will be the only legit 3rd basemen on the market next year, with some big $$$ teams definitely needing 3rd base help. Added to his age and even the market last year before the CBA, means this wasn't a legit offer, especially with only 2 years to go. He sees Arenado ($30M AAV at 9 years) and Anthony Rendon (7 years at $35M AAV) and thinks, I'm younger than them and haven't even reached my peak and I'm already a top 5 guy. I guarantee you he and his agent are looking to exceed Rendon's AAV and Arenado's years. Also, I agree there is nothing wrong with a player not wanting to share risk with ownership. I mean, who among us does that unless we get an equity stake or stocks? And their careers are much, much shorter, and their services in much higher demand than, I would guess, any of us here. In fact, why would a player of his caliber ever share risk with the team, especially when it's been pretty well established that the vast bulk of these players measure their ability against other players by the dollar? Also, I recall that Devers said no offer was made to him in 2020. At that point, I'm sure he and his agent said, "Screw it, unless they bowl us over, rededicate yourself to excellence, play this out and we'll be sitting in the catbird seat come 2023." Finally, I agree, Xander was the guy to overpay - and I said so earlier in the year. This extends beyond talent into leadership and fan appeal. It's a sport, but many people forget it's also entertainment. Nothing entertaining about a faceless, mediocre team that gives up on its core stars. Still a lot of time left, but that's what they have right now. That's not how you sell tickets, concessions, advertising, gear or get ratings. I mean, even the Dodgers, with their "Tampa on Steroids" approach, still has their stars and personalities, and integrates new one. And they win - at least for 162 games a year (I think we all agree that the playoffs as constructed are a coinflip or at best a 55-45 proposition game-to-game). Until this team can show its a consistent winner and not that it's just a mediocre team having an outlier year - and, again, there's still time - their risk-reduction plan of "comfort with the contracts" in a high revenue market with fans that really care about baseball will be on notice. Breaking up one of the more popular homegrown cores in team history, for whatever the reasons, does not help their cause.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 14, 2022 19:38:31 GMT -5
Great discussion. Not meant to be in the Carlos Correa thread.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,942
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 15, 2022 6:39:04 GMT -5
Alex Speier @alexspeier As recently as this afternoon, my understanding was that the Sox were never meaningfully involved on Correa. Sleep well! Red Sox organization has become incredibly sad. Carlos Correa's ACTUAL WAR, when you factor in his consistently terrible situational hitting. The second number is per 600 PA (which he's reached once since 2016): 2018, 2.8 / 3.6 2019, 3.2 / 6.0 2020, 1.4 / 1.4 (raw figure prorated to 162 games) 2021, 5.2 / 4.9 (walk year) 2022, 3.1 / 3.1
I did a simple Marcel projection (last 3 years weighted 5-4-3, and by PA) for a bunch of guys. Predicted WAR, and same per 600 PA.
Name prWAR pr/600 Turner 6.3 5.8 Swanson 5.2 5.2 Bogaerts 4.0 4.1 Correa 3.7 3.7 Andrus 2.9 3.1 Segura 2.2 2.8 Haniger 2.7 3.1 Abreu 2.8 2.9 Contreras 1.8 2.3
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Dec 15, 2022 9:14:28 GMT -5
Alex Speier @alexspeier As recently as this afternoon, my understanding was that the Sox were never meaningfully involved on Correa. Sleep well! Red Sox organization has become incredibly sad. Carlos Correa's ACTUAL WAR, when you factor in his consistently terrible situational hitting. The second number is per 600 PA (which he's reached once since 2016): 2018, 2.8 / 3.6 2019, 3.2 / 6.0 2020, 1.4 / 1.4 (raw figure prorated to 162 games) 2021, 5.2 / 4.9 (walk year) 2022, 3.1 / 3.1
I did a simple Marcel projection (last 3 years weighted 5-4-3, and by PA) for a bunch of guys. Predicted WAR, and same per 600 PA.
Name prWAR pr/600 Turner 6.3 5.8 Swanson 5.2 5.2 Bogaerts 4.0 4.1 Correa 3.7 3.7 Andrus 2.9 3.1 Segura 2.2 2.8 Haniger 2.7 3.1 Abreu 2.8 2.9 Contreras 1.8 2.3
Which is fair. He was my "third" option behind Turner and Xander. He's still a better player than what's left and unless this team is planning on making a play for Ohtani, there's really not much else to spend that money on next year. Machado maybe? It's a very terrible class next year and I don't think the Red Sox have the stomach for Ohtani so it really only leaves Machado and hopefully re-signing Devers. Maybe I'm missing something with next year's class. Jumping ahead, the year after looks even worse. This might be why teams just said, "I'll do whatever it takes to sign Turner, Xander, Correa, Judge, etc". What are the Red Sox going to spend on now? Yes, it's a 13 year deal, not a 4 or 5, but if there's not much on the market then other bad contracts (Sale) will start coming off the books (also hopefully Casas and Mayer are asking for the moon, means things worked out).
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 15, 2022 9:54:56 GMT -5
Well I guess I don't really want Devers because I'm sorry just because a handful of teams want to give out these wild 10+ year deal doesn't mean I'm signing up for a 14 year deal for literally anyone. Unfortunately, if the market keeps going this way all you can ever sign will be the Stripling and Duffy's of the world. That's including your farm. They might take 1 contract that extends them out by 1-2 years, but after that, they'll be gone. If Casas lives up to the hype then in 6 years we're probably looking at a 13 year deal for him. So the Red Sox are on the clock now and are very likely wasting the 1st of 6 years they have with him. In six years, people will be looking at these decade-plus contracts and saying either "I wish we hadn't done that" or "I'm so glad we didn't go there."
How many of these megadeals actually work out? A-Rod, Pujols, Cabrera, Ellsbury, Tanaka, Price, Stanton, Strasburg, Rendon, Davis, Heyward, Bryant, Cano, Yelich ... trying to think of one that actually made sense.
Betts, Tatis Jr., Seager still too soon to call, Cole is barely treading water and is not getting any younger, and I suppose Trout is an exception in that you kind of had to pay him. Machado and Harper have been solid so far.
Now we have a fresh new batch and out of Turner, Bogey, Correa, Judge, Nimmo... how many of these do you really think are going to look good in six years?
The "this is the market now" argument stops making sense the longer the track record of failure gets...
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Dec 15, 2022 10:11:26 GMT -5
Unfortunately, if the market keeps going this way all you can ever sign will be the Stripling and Duffy's of the world. That's including your farm. They might take 1 contract that extends them out by 1-2 years, but after that, they'll be gone. If Casas lives up to the hype then in 6 years we're probably looking at a 13 year deal for him. So the Red Sox are on the clock now and are very likely wasting the 1st of 6 years they have with him. In six years, people will be looking at these decade-plus contracts and saying either "I wish we hadn't done that" or "I'm so glad we didn't go there."
How many of these megadeals actually work out? A-Rod, Pujols, Cabrera, Ellsbury, Tanaka, Price, Stanton, Strasburg, Rendon, Davis, Heyward, Bryant, Cano, Yelich ... trying to think of one that actually made sense.
Betts, Tatis Jr., Seager still too soon to call, Cole is barely treading water and is not getting any younger, and I suppose Trout is an exception in that you kind of had to pay him. Machado and Harper have been solid so far.
Now we have a fresh new batch and out of Turner, Bogey, Correa, Judge, Nimmo... how many of these do you really think are going to look good in six years?
The "this is the market now" argument stops making sense the longer the track record of failure gets... Something to consider, how long is the average employment of a GM or age of owner? I can see a 75 year old owner not caring about what a team will look like in 12 years.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Dec 15, 2022 10:14:39 GMT -5
In six years, people will be looking at these decade-plus contracts and saying either "I wish we hadn't done that" or "I'm so glad we didn't go there."
How many of these megadeals actually work out? A-Rod, Pujols, Cabrera, Ellsbury, Tanaka, Price, Stanton, Strasburg, Rendon, Davis, Heyward, Bryant, Cano, Yelich ... trying to think of one that actually made sense.
Betts, Tatis Jr., Seager still too soon to call, Cole is barely treading water and is not getting any younger, and I suppose Trout is an exception in that you kind of had to pay him. Machado and Harper have been solid so far.
Now we have a fresh new batch and out of Turner, Bogey, Correa, Judge, Nimmo... how many of these do you really think are going to look good in six years?
The "this is the market now" argument stops making sense the longer the track record of failure gets... Something to consider, how long is the average employment of a GM or age of owner? I can see a 75 year old owner not caring about what a team will look like in 12 years. The Mike Ilitch strategy
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Dec 15, 2022 10:25:40 GMT -5
Unfortunately, if the market keeps going this way all you can ever sign will be the Stripling and Duffy's of the world. That's including your farm. They might take 1 contract that extends them out by 1-2 years, but after that, they'll be gone. If Casas lives up to the hype then in 6 years we're probably looking at a 13 year deal for him. So the Red Sox are on the clock now and are very likely wasting the 1st of 6 years they have with him. In six years, people will be looking at these decade-plus contracts and saying either "I wish we hadn't done that" or "I'm so glad we didn't go there."
How many of these megadeals actually work out? A-Rod, Pujols, Cabrera, Ellsbury, Tanaka, Price, Stanton, Strasburg, Rendon, Davis, Heyward, Bryant, Cano, Yelich ... trying to think of one that actually made sense.
Betts, Tatis Jr., Seager still too soon to call, Cole is barely treading water and is not getting any younger, and I suppose Trout is an exception in that you kind of had to pay him. Machado and Harper have been solid so far.
Now we have a fresh new batch and out of Turner, Bogey, Correa, Judge, Nimmo... how many of these do you really think are going to look good in six years?
The "this is the market now" argument stops making sense the longer the track record of failure gets... Manny did for sure. Forget about Arod getting popped for a second. He absolutely worked out. You can say that maybe the Yankees should have let him walk when he opted out, but the initial deal worked. I also don't think Detroit really hated the Miggy deal. That's essentially the perfect example of what the best case scenarios are for these long-term deals. Excellent return on the front end, and the back end is pretty bad. Verlander is a guy you didn't mention, and that one also worked out. But yes, the risk is huge with these contracts. More often than not, it's given to the wrong players and someone declining.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 15, 2022 10:43:44 GMT -5
Dunno about the Miggy deal for DET. His cumulative bWAR for the past 6 seasons is -2.1, during which time he got paid $180m and surely hamstrung the FO. That's a long time to remember (and recover from) the glory days...
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Dec 15, 2022 10:45:23 GMT -5
Dunno about the Miggy deal for DET. His cumulative bWAR for the past 6 seasons is -2.1, during which time he got paid $180m and surely hamstrung the FO. That's a long time to remember (and recover from) the glory days... But his stats runs probably put butts in seats. I wonder if there is any way to measure that. Pujols, too, probably created a lot of value like that this year. Not a refutation. More like a footnote.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Dec 15, 2022 10:49:03 GMT -5
Dunno about the Miggy deal for DET. His cumulative bWAR for the past 6 seasons is -2.1, during which time he got paid $180m and surely hamstrung the FO. That's a long time to remember (and recover from) the glory days... Fangraphs has Cabrera being worth a total of $25 million over the course of his $248 million contract. He's been overpaid by literally an order of magnitude.
ADD: Here's a question: which player has a better Hall of Fame case? Or rather, which player belongs closer to the inner circle of the Hall of Fame (since obviously both players would get in)?
Player A: .321/.399/.562, 153 wRC+, 70.7 WAR, 2519 hits, 446 HRs Player B: .308/.384/.524, 140 wRC+, 68.6 WAR, 3088 hits, 507 HRs
That's Cabrera through 2016 vs. Cabrera for his whole career. Is his career more or less impressive for having tacked on half a dozen sub-replacement level years at the end?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaydouble on Dec 15, 2022 10:53:13 GMT -5
Dunno about the Miggy deal for DET. His cumulative bWAR for the past 6 seasons is -2.1, during which time he got paid $180m and surely hamstrung the FO. That's a long time to remember (and recover from) the glory days... But his stats runs probably put butts in seats. I wonder if there is any way to measure that. Pujols, too, probably created a lot of value like that this year. Not a refutation. More like a footnote. Detroit has hung between 22nd and 25th in attendance the past five years. They were top 10 back when they were good. Maybe you can justify one year of a bad contract for some kind of Jeter/Ortiz victory lap season, but winning games is always going to make you more money in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Dec 15, 2022 10:55:21 GMT -5
Dunno about the Miggy deal for DET. His cumulative bWAR for the past 6 seasons is -2.1, during which time he got paid $180m and surely hamstrung the FO. That's a long time to remember (and recover from) the glory days... The front end on that deal was great, though. The back end was horrific. Helped them stay competitive for a little bit. The point on these deals is that you pay a premium so you can get the most out of the first couple of years. The one deal I never understood was Ellsbury.
|
|
|
Post by melvinhoggs on Dec 15, 2022 10:56:10 GMT -5
Unfortunately, if the market keeps going this way all you can ever sign will be the Stripling and Duffy's of the world. That's including your farm. They might take 1 contract that extends them out by 1-2 years, but after that, they'll be gone. If Casas lives up to the hype then in 6 years we're probably looking at a 13 year deal for him. So the Red Sox are on the clock now and are very likely wasting the 1st of 6 years they have with him. In six years, people will be looking at these decade-plus contracts and saying either "I wish we hadn't done that" or "I'm so glad we didn't go there."
How many of these megadeals actually work out? A-Rod, Pujols, Cabrera, Ellsbury, Tanaka, Price, Stanton, Strasburg, Rendon, Davis, Heyward, Bryant, Cano, Yelich ... trying to think of one that actually made sense.
Betts, Tatis Jr., Seager still too soon to call, Cole is barely treading water and is not getting any younger, and I suppose Trout is an exception in that you kind of had to pay him. Machado and Harper have been solid so far.
Now we have a fresh new batch and out of Turner, Bogey, Correa, Judge, Nimmo... how many of these do you really think are going to look good in six years?
The "this is the market now" argument stops making sense the longer the track record of failure gets... It depends on what you define as "working out", but in my eyes they're more successful than people think. Nobody knows where a team is going to be roster-construction wise in 5+ years – you're signing these guys to mega contracts because that's what it takes and you want to compete now. If you're looking for "positive value over the course of the contract", you're going to have less successes because of how much the later years drag value down. But if you win a world series in those first few years or remain consistent playoff contenders for the first half of the contract with big contributions from that player, I generally consider that a success and the cost of doing business. The megadeals that truly flopped to me are the injury-plagued ones where they never even saw the benefit of the early years of their contract: Ellsbury, Strasburg, Rendon, etc. A-Rod, Cabrera, Tanaka and more have for sure "worked out" to me. Tatis is in the injury category, Betts would have to literally break a leg and never recover to not "work out" and I have no idea how Cole is "treading water"... aside from some postseason hiccups he's given the Yankees three fantastic, healthy years. It's early, but the Padres definitely aren't regretting the Machado deal – Lindor, Harper, Arenado, Kershaw, Votto. And if you're including Nimmo, you're also looking at mid-100M contracts – which I wouldn't really consider a megadeal but has more examples of success as well.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 15, 2022 11:07:01 GMT -5
I'll throw Vernon Wells into the mix of failed contracts!
One of the missing elements in the discussion is age. Machado and Harper signed those big contracts at age 26. That's vastly different than players who are approaching or past 30. That's if you believe the aging curve has any meaning at all.
That said, rule changes and screwing with the baseball may have changed what FOs think they know about the future - that and the impact of inflation on that same future. But predictions about what's going to happen even a few years from now are a crapshoot at best.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Dec 15, 2022 14:19:35 GMT -5
Dunno about the Miggy deal for DET. His cumulative bWAR for the past 6 seasons is -2.1, during which time he got paid $180m and surely hamstrung the FO. That's a long time to remember (and recover from) the glory days... The front end on that deal was great, though. The back end was horrific. Helped them stay competitive for a little bit. The point on these deals is that you pay a premium so you can get the most out of the first couple of years. The one deal I never understood was Ellsbury. Yeah that might be the point of the deals. Doesn't mean you should sign them still unless you are buying out a bunch of arbitration years. I'm glad the Red Sox are avoiding them.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 15, 2022 23:11:27 GMT -5
In six years, people will be looking at these decade-plus contracts and saying either "I wish we hadn't done that" or "I'm so glad we didn't go there."
How many of these megadeals actually work out? A-Rod, Pujols, Cabrera, Ellsbury, Tanaka, Price, Stanton, Strasburg, Rendon, Davis, Heyward, Bryant, Cano, Yelich ... trying to think of one that actually made sense.
Betts, Tatis Jr., Seager still too soon to call, Cole is barely treading water and is not getting any younger, and I suppose Trout is an exception in that you kind of had to pay him. Machado and Harper have been solid so far.
Now we have a fresh new batch and out of Turner, Bogey, Correa, Judge, Nimmo... how many of these do you really think are going to look good in six years?
The "this is the market now" argument stops making sense the longer the track record of failure gets... It depends on what you define as "working out", but in my eyes they're more successful than people think. Nobody knows where a team is going to be roster-construction wise in 5+ years – you're signing these guys to mega contracts because that's what it takes and you want to compete now. If you're looking for "positive value over the course of the contract", you're going to have less successes because of how much the later years drag value down. But if you win a world series in those first few years or remain consistent playoff contenders for the first half of the contract with big contributions from that player, I generally consider that a success and the cost of doing business. The megadeals that truly flopped to me are the injury-plagued ones where they never even saw the benefit of the early years of their contract: Ellsbury, Strasburg, Rendon, etc. A-Rod, Cabrera, Tanaka and more have for sure "worked out" to me. Tatis is in the injury category, Betts would have to literally break a leg and never recover to not "work out" and I have no idea how Cole is "treading water"... aside from some postseason hiccups he's given the Yankees three fantastic, healthy years. It's early, but the Padres definitely aren't regretting the Machado deal – Lindor, Harper, Arenado, Kershaw, Votto. And if you're including Nimmo, you're also looking at mid-100M contracts – which I wouldn't really consider a megadeal but has more examples of success as well. Cole has produced 9.9 fWAR in his first 3 years as a MFY. Those early years are supposed to be the ones when he over-produces his contract (and carries his team full of plenty of other stars to at least a WS appearance). Sadly for blowhard MFY fans, he was paid $108m in those three seasons for an average of $10.9m/WAR, which is something like 20% above market rate. So yeah, he's pretty much treading water through the first third of his contract. Throw in his spotty playoff performance with the MFYs and you've got a guy who's got some catching up to do in his mid-30s to earn that contract.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Dec 15, 2022 23:52:05 GMT -5
It depends on what you define as "working out", but in my eyes they're more successful than people think. Nobody knows where a team is going to be roster-construction wise in 5+ years – you're signing these guys to mega contracts because that's what it takes and you want to compete now. If you're looking for "positive value over the course of the contract", you're going to have less successes because of how much the later years drag value down. But if you win a world series in those first few years or remain consistent playoff contenders for the first half of the contract with big contributions from that player, I generally consider that a success and the cost of doing business. The megadeals that truly flopped to me are the injury-plagued ones where they never even saw the benefit of the early years of their contract: Ellsbury, Strasburg, Rendon, etc. A-Rod, Cabrera, Tanaka and more have for sure "worked out" to me. Tatis is in the injury category, Betts would have to literally break a leg and never recover to not "work out" and I have no idea how Cole is "treading water"... aside from some postseason hiccups he's given the Yankees three fantastic, healthy years. It's early, but the Padres definitely aren't regretting the Machado deal – Lindor, Harper, Arenado, Kershaw, Votto. And if you're including Nimmo, you're also looking at mid-100M contracts – which I wouldn't really consider a megadeal but has more examples of success as well. Cole has produced 9.9 fWAR in his first 3 years as a MFY. Those early years are supposed to be the ones when he over-produces his contract (and carries his team full of plenty of other stars to at least a WS appearance). Sadly for blowhard MFY fans, he was paid $108m in those three seasons for an average of $10.9m/WAR, which is something like 20% above market rate. So yeah, he's pretty much treading water through the first third of his contract. Throw in his spotty playoff performance with the MFYs and you've got a guy who's got some catching up to do in his mid-30s to earn that contract. I think you are counting his full salary in 2020. It was prorated, he didn't get paid the full $36m, so he's made just over $85 million in the first 3 years. That comes out to about $8.5 mil/win which is about the going rate.
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 16, 2022 0:19:57 GMT -5
Cole has produced 9.9 fWAR in his first 3 years as a MFY. Those early years are supposed to be the ones when he over-produces his contract (and carries his team full of plenty of other stars to at least a WS appearance). Sadly for blowhard MFY fans, he was paid $108m in those three seasons for an average of $10.9m/WAR, which is something like 20% above market rate. So yeah, he's pretty much treading water through the first third of his contract. Throw in his spotty playoff performance with the MFYs and you've got a guy who's got some catching up to do in his mid-30s to earn that contract. I think you are counting his full salary in 2020. It was prorated, he didn't get paid the full $36m, so he's made just over $85 million in the first 3 years. That comes out to about $8.5 mil/win which is about the going rate. Nice catch. He's still not outperforming in the first third of his contract. Father Time says he'll prolly start underperforming pretty soon...
|
|
|
Post by Underwater Johnson on Dec 21, 2022 12:18:24 GMT -5
I wonder if the Giants simply came to their senses and realized that committing almost $30m AAV to a player in his 20s until his 40s is nuts. Fortunately for them their media market and fan base will give them the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Dec 21, 2022 12:42:33 GMT -5
Definitely possible that the Giants had some buyers remorse and saw the physical as a loop-hole out of the deal even though it wasn't a major issue.
On the flip side, why did Correa pivot so quickly to the Mets rather than re-engaging teams who are still shopping? Wouldn't you expect Boras to drive up his market again, or did he just reach out to the Mets since they head the second best offer two-weeks ago? If so, perhaps there really is a bigger issue that they are hoping does not come to the surface before securing a long-term deal.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 21, 2022 14:26:21 GMT -5
Definitely possible that the Giants had some buyers remorse and saw the physical as a loop-hole out of the deal even though it wasn't a major issue. On the flip side, why did Correa pivot so quickly to the Mets rather than re-engaging teams who are still shopping? Wouldn't you expect Boras to drive up his market again, or did he just reach out to the Mets since they head the second best offer two-weeks ago? If so, perhaps there really is a bigger issue that they are hoping does not come to the surface before securing a long-term deal. I mean, his Mets deal will be contingent on a physical as well. But this kind of explains it (and is sort of funny). It wouldn't look great for Boras to have Correa dangling out there in the wind for a long time after his deal with the Giants got banged, so he just pivoted quickly and got anoterh mega deal.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywaterinla on Dec 21, 2022 14:29:29 GMT -5
Definitely possible that the Giants had some buyers remorse and saw the physical as a loop-hole out of the deal even though it wasn't a major issue. On the flip side, why did Correa pivot so quickly to the Mets rather than re-engaging teams who are still shopping? Wouldn't you expect Boras to drive up his market again, or did he just reach out to the Mets since they head the second best offer two-weeks ago? If so, perhaps there really is a bigger issue that they are hoping does not come to the surface before securing a long-term deal. I mean, his Mets deal will be contingent on a physical as well. But this kind of explains it (and is sort of funny). It wouldn't look great for Boras to have Correa dangling out there in the wind for a long time after his deal with the Giants got banged, so he just pivoted quickly and got anoterh mega deal. Say what you want about Boras, but I do admire his penchant at fleecing billionaires.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Dec 21, 2022 14:31:04 GMT -5
How does Scott not give that story to his boy Heyman. No loyalty at all in this business.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Dec 21, 2022 16:20:48 GMT -5
Maybe Giants call the Sox and try to get Devers and then give him the biggest extention.
|
|
|