Jump to content

Carlos Correa is a Twin - 6 yrs $200M


Sleepy Harold
 Share

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Sambuca said:

It’s 27mil per year. 

He will only be 28 next season, and he has been worth 27mil every season of his career so far.  He’s been worth almost double that in some seasons.  

It's 13 years, LMAO!

I don't care if it's $27 million per season.  If years 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 suck (as we have plenty of samples to go around saying they will), that's $135 million of dead money on the back end.  It's absurd.

 

Edited by HOFHurt35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HOFHurt35 said:

It's 13 years, LMAO!

I don't care if it's $27 million per season.  If years 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 suck (as we have plenty of samples to go around saying they will), that's $108 million of dead money on the back end.  It's absurd.

 

I was responding to the post saying the Giants would be lucky to get three years of surplus value.

I did not say anything about the back end. There’s no question they will be eating money in the last few years, but there is crazy value in the front of that contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind  having  a stable and strong franchise albeit with a team that is  mired in mediocrity. The alternative could have long lasting negative impacts on stadium upkeep and improvements, spring training facilities,  scouting, advertising, and forcing more and more money out of fans for tickets and cable subscriptions. It isn't worth the crap shoot to go all in with a few mega player contracts.  It just isn't.

  • Haha 2
  • TLR 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HOFHurt35 said:

It's 13 years, LMAO!

I don't care if it's $27 million per season.  If years 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 suck (as we have plenty of samples to go around saying they will), that's $135 million of dead money on the back end.  It's absurd.

 

He’s 28 now. Odds are that he’ll see a strong decline in his mid 30’s. I foresee them getting 5-7 good years from this contract and 5-7 years that are painful, trotting out a sub par player because he makes 30 mil a year and you have to play him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Chick Mercedes said:

the Sox being what they are, it's crazy they don't  put everything possible into building up the minors, and just keep churning youth

Yup, these insane contracts prove that the Sox can’t afford to be major players in free agency while Jerry owns the team.  While I expect this crazy spending to eventually revert back to more sane levels when one or two of these deals totally blow up, that won’t be during these last couple years of our window.

As such, the Sox should strongly consider selling off some short term pieces in Anderson, Hendriks, & Giolito.  I don’t think there is any chance Jerry would ok that given the Central is very winnable with a couple mid tier moves, but it would allow us to capitalize off this crazy seller’s market and add some legit controllable talent.

And for the record, I think there is zero chance Tim is traded.  All signs point to Hendricks being moved to open up space to sign a B/C tier OF free agent.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Yup, these insane contracts prove that the Sox can’t afford to be major players in free agency while Jerry owns the team.  While I expect this crazy spending to eventually revert back to more sane levels when one or two of these deals totally blow up, that won’t be during these last couple years of our window.

As such, the Sox should strongly consider selling off some short term pieces in Anderson, Hendriks, & Giolito.  I don’t think there is any chance Jerry would ok that given the Central is very winnable with a couple mid tier moves, but it would allow us to capitalize off this crazy seller’s market and add some legit controllable talent.

And for the record, I think there is zero chance Tim is traded.  All signs point to Hendricks being moved to open up space to sign a B/C tier OF free agent.

As a UK Sox fan and also a football (soccer) fan, wages have kept on rising and have never reverted to sane levels. There are 17 year olds who have never made a first team appearance on £20,000 a week, and the good players are on £250,000 or more a week, and the world class players on as much as £500,000 a week or more. Admittedly contracts are shorter, 3 to 5 years, but often clubs have to pay transfer fees as well, and these are ridiculous for an international player you are looking at £40- 100 million. The only big difference in football is that there is no salary cap or luxury tax and even the attempts at limiting clubs spends by Financial Fair Play rules don't stop spending.

The length of the FA contracts in baseball is surprising but it is just a way of spreading the cost and reducing the annual outlay to make the team wages keep within (or nearly within) the luxury tax. But the wages for good or better FAs will likely keep on rising if the example of football (soccer) is anything to go by.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HOFHurt35 said:

It's 13 years, LMAO!

I don't care if it's $27 million per season.  If years 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 suck (as we have plenty of samples to go around saying they will), that's $135 million of dead money on the back end.  It's absurd.

 

This is a similar contract to Harper and the price of poker. I think , because it is more than one  or two  teams that are doing this, baseball is telling you something. There is a lot more money available than the owners want you to believe. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

This is a similar contract to Harper and the price of poker. I think , because it is more than one  or two  teams that are doing this, baseball is telling you something. There is a lot more money available than the owners want you to believe. 

Exactly, if a club came up for sale there would be no shortage of bidders, equally it explains why many owners don't want to sell, owners of MLB teams don't lose money even when offering big contracts, they expect to reap the revenue of increased crowds, advertising and merchandising that big signings generate, let alone the potential increases from a successful team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, HOFHurt35 said:

It's 13 years, LMAO!

I don't care if it's $27 million per season.  If years 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 suck (as we have plenty of samples to go around saying they will), that's $135 million of dead money on the back end.  It's absurd.

 

It’s absurd, but it seems so rare that any player actually finishes out a large contract with any team.  They probably view it as getting a good front end then try to move him when it isn’t working out anymore to some team looking for a seasoned vet in a playoff push.  Unless he totally dive bombs like Heyward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it as a bad deal for SF, at all. Go look at their future contract status...only 19 mil was committed beyond 2024 before this deal. They have a payroll now, that is only 13 mil over our current garbage pile. And, they have a franchise SS for the foreseeable future.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • southsider2k5 changed the title to Correa to...ah hell, who knows

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...