Much has been said about the Mets' pending acquisition of star free agent Carlos Correa. First he was lured to the San Francisco Giants for a 13 year, $350M contract. Both teams had agreed in principle, but the Giants balked after reviewing the results of Correa's physical. While they were mired in uncertainty, Steve Cohen swooped in and grabbed Correa with a 12 year, $315M offer that put the Mets roster over the top for the 2023 season. But wait, the Mets did their own physical on Correa, and now they are worried.
This saga is not over yet. The Mets have not walked away on the offer, but are in discussions with Correa and his agent Scott Boras on what to do with this contract. Rumor has it that the concern has to do with an ankle injury, but details have been held tight within the inner circles of Correa's and Cohen's camps. Speculation is that the Mets want to do this deal, but need to have certain assurances.
And that's where you the reader come in. If you were Cohen/Eppler, what kind of concessions or assurances would you want to make the deal go through? With Correa on the team, the Mets have an extremely strong lineup and deep roster that makes them the favorites in the NL East and maybe the entire NL. Without him, the Braves and Phillies have some comparable strength in their teams.
Would you restructure? Would you walk away? Would you buy an insurance policy? Let's hear your comments.
Correa dropped 1 year, $35 million when he signed with the Mets. Drop one more year and another $35 million, so it is 10/$280, and call it a deal.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think it is essential for the Mets (and Correa) to get this deal done. The addition of Correa to the Mets lineup gives them that extra push over the top in a very competitive league. For Carlos, if this deal falls apart, his value on the market plummets because it will strike fear into other owners if two teams back away from his medical report.
ReplyDeleteSecond of all, it is important that the Mets protect their investment with the assurances they need so money is not squandered. They did recoup money on the Wright and Cespedes injuries, so they know how it is done.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteSign him to a short term contract with language protecting the Mets if he is unable to play. If his injury does not cause a problem during the short term contract, extend that contract to make him a life long Met.
I suspect the player association may have some input into his contact discussions. I personally hope that can be avoided.
I like Tom's idea plus a full insurance policy.
ReplyDeleteSteve's jumping the gun just about guarantees this guy is a Met.
I had so much hope for Baty at third.
This is what i actually think the problem is: it wasnt the Docs who kiboshed the deal, it was the insurance company who either listed it as an exclusion or simply refused to offer any policy at all. This is why it wasnt picked up by the Twins last year, because they wouldnt have sought a policy on a three year deal with an opt out. Insurance companies have been crushed with these policies and have tightened underwriting standards. Honestly, this is the only rational explanation, and it would be absolutely taboo to leak this information
DeleteThis brings back memories of Vlad Guerrero Sr.
ReplyDeleteWhen he became a FA in '03, following his years in Montreal, he said he wanted to remain in the NLE, if possible, preferably in the Northeast to be close to his mother (who lived in Montreal).
Like Correa, he had had some injury questions (hip, I think) which he insisted were in the past.
The Mets reportedly (Mack and Tom and others may recall) offered a huge contract, based on vesting options. Each year he'd reach the specified # of AB of games, the contract would vest for the following year.
The Angels offered a large deal with no vesting, but for less total value than the Mets' one. He could take their guarantee, or "bet on himself", with the chance to earn more and stay close to Mom.
He chose the Angels, where he reached the #s that would've earned more with the Mets.
I wonder if something similar might be offered to Correa, and if he'd "bet on himself".
How does this sound: 5 guaranteed years, and 7 more vesting option ones?
Anonymous is likely onto the real issue (insurance companies and how much or little they are willing to cover), since most "problems" in life come down to money.
ReplyDeleteThe good news here, if you are a Correa fan, is that both sides appear to be working on a solution. That solution will likely contain elements from all of the various comments listed above (maybe we should just send this thread to the folks in charge). Kidding aside, perhaps make the portion of the contract (money, years or both) that the insurance companies have issues with option years that vest based upon the previous years' availability?
I like that he will be playing a slightly less demanding position (3B vs SS) moving forward and I still think he is a net positive for the roster (especially if Baty can learn how to play LF at an acceptable level defensively).
My fear is that there are no insurance companies who are willing to offer any policy at all. If it were just an exclusion, they (and the Giants) would breeze right over this. I think Jake from State Farm is playing hardball here and unwilling to offer anything meaningful
DeleteInsurance companies prefer to turn a profit, that much I know.
ReplyDelete