#85 ... thanks. But what happens if the team goes over the cap? Or does the league reject the new contract, potentially costing the player millions ... and the union just says OK? Or is the penalty for cap violations that you pay a big fine?

How do you have a low payroll year while still meeting the 3-year average salary floor without going over the cap in at least one of the other years.

So to be the Mets under NBA rules, the Mets would have needed to trade for Correa last year so that he would be their FA this year? (As they did for Lindor) And Nimmo and an Alonso extension wouldn't count against the cap? And as the only team that could go over cap to sign deGrom (while not being allowed to go over for Verlander) then the Mets just re-sign deGrom? (Same is true for Bassitt but presumably a few teams could fit him in.)

The biggest issue for me is that even if you give Correa credit for 150 Gs in the COVID year (which you shouldn't do) he's averaged 122.5 games per season from age 20 to 27. That's a huge red flag.

Snapper nails in #64 exactly how I feel about Correa's "value". Its incredibly concerning if a guy misses 40ish games a year between 20 and 27. Its rare for guys to be healthier in their 30s, but, occasionally happens.

Everyone thinks the Yankees spend too much, but in recent years they are only spending something like 50% more than the average team payroll.

What the Mets have done is bring back the Yankees of 2005. That year the median payroll was around 75 million, but the Yankees spent over 200 million. Your cast for the 2005 Yankees reboot:

Jeter - Francisco Lindor
ARod - Carlos Correa
Mussina - Max Scherzer
Randy Johnson - Justin Verlander
Kevin Brown - Kodai Senga
Mo - Edwin Diaz
Giambi - Starling Marte
Sheffield - Brandon Nimmo

@99 I’d rather debate the Mets’ payroll with your grandson.

Its incredibly concerning if a guy misses 40ish games a year between 20 and 27. Its rare for guys to be healthier in their 30s, but, occasionally happens.

Paul Molitor, after he became a full-time DH.

Its rare for guys to be healthier in their 30s, but, occasionally happens.

Paul Molitor comes to mind.

The big issue in my mind is the Mets still, with 101 wins last year, only had 2.5 million in attendance, good for 11th in MLB. Fewer fans showed up than did for the Rockies. Now, with only 41,922 seats they max out at 3,353,760 for attendance which is a bit low. For example, the Jays, Yankees, and Dodgers have all had 4+ million at some point in time. 4 teams cracked 3 million last year (Dodgers, Cardinals, Yankees, Atlanta with the Padres just shy). Astros, Jays, Red Sox, Cubs, and Rockies all had more fans show up. Fenway only has a capacity of 37,731 btw, and Wrigley is at 41,649 yet both despite putting bad teams on the field got more fans to come, and no one will claim either team gives deals on seats.

Now a reason might be the TV deal - the Mets appear to own SNY from what I'm reading and that means TONS of revenue if you can get a winner on the field and get people watching it. But if the team sucks you lose that advertising revenue and subscription revenue fast. Thus a very big deal to put a winner on the field and to build buzz around the team. Cohen isn't an idiot - or at least he doesn't hire idiots to manage his money so safe to say he has a plan to make back most of that near $400 million payroll plus $100 mil luxury tax hit.

I think back to that 1-hit elimination Mets loss in October (that was an MLB first for such postseason games).

the only current Mets, from what I can see, who have more than 25 career postseason PA are Correa (.849 in 334 PA), Lindor (.794 in 117 PA), and Canha (don't ask, in 45 PA).

might be nice to have a second hitter who has "been there, done that."

@104: You should; he's smarter than I am.

The big issue in my mind is the Mets still, with 101 wins last year, only had 2.5 million in attendance, good for 11th in MLB.

Attendance trails success and expectations. It will be notable if their attendance doesn't increase significantly next season.

For example, the Jays, Yankees, and Dodgers have all had 4+ million at some point in time.

The Mets drew 4M the same season the Yankees did—the last season of their old stadiums (2008).

Now a reason might be the TV deal - the Mets appear to own SNY...

Fred Wilpon owns 65% of the network. Cohen owns none of it.

If you're gonna complain about durability concerns, you can't include his age 20 season in your average game calculations. He debuted on June 8 and played 99 out of 103 games.

Games missed:

2015: 3
2016: 9
2017: 53
2018: 52
2019: 87
2020: 2
2021: 14
2022: 26

At least the trend is positive. "He misses 40 games a year" was true for 3 bad bad years. The last three years have been positive.

Despite the games missed, Correa has beaten Lindor, Turner, and Bogearts in WAR.

@105 & 106,

I actually was thinking of Molitor when I said "rare but happens". I wouldn't spend $300M+ hoping Correa not only stays good talentwise, but, also has a Molitor-like outcome for healthiness too.

I guess we'll see how it plays out, and, its not my money and Cohen is allowed to blow it trying to bring a title to Queens if he wants.

His missed time in 2022 was due to COVID and a foul ball off his hand. Not exactly the usual “injury prone” suspects like knees and hamstrings.

Its incredibly concerning if a guy misses 40ish games a year between 20 and 27

Actually it's very hard to know this because most players are still in the minors at 20-22 so you'd have to dig out those records to actually undertake this analysis. Lord only knows what you do with all the guys playing college ball at those ages. That also means that while it is potentially concerning that he missed a lot of games at ages 22-24 there is also the comforting fact that he is among the elite players who could excel in the majors at 20-22 and those guys usually last a very long time because they are usually way, way better than the other guys. If you want a Carlos Correa with the 5000+ PA you guys seem to think he should have before you're interested then good luck with that because that guy has 50-55 WAR, an MVP or two and is gonna cost you 12/$420 or more.

I don't know why anybody thinks the injury risk hasn't been priced in here. The man has produced at 7 WAR/650 and he should be able to maintain that pace for the next 5-6 years. So fine, maybe he averages 520 PA per year (80%) so that means he gives you 5.5 WAR a year (Dan's projection, a bit better). 5.5 WAR per year should be worth $45-55 M per year ($8 - $10 per WAR). So at the end of the first 5-6 years of this projected contract, the Mets "owe" him $75-100 M. What's the problem from the team perspective?

Somebody asked about the Correa ZiPS projection -- you can find it in their original article on his contract with the Giants. Which is here. Annoyingly(!) Dan feels it's beneath him to include a total row :-) but, give or take, ZiPS is expecting about 6300 PA over the next 12, so about 10,000 total. That looks optimistic -- Dan and I had that conversation way back when Stanton signed his contract. Chopping 1/3 off the projection could be destructive if it's the early years, make it a definitely not good contract if it's random (say 28 WAR) and matter almost not at all if it's the last 5 years of the contract (about 34 WAR). The key is that he average about 550-600 PA over the next 6 years (while maintaining production). There's no particularly good reason to think he can't do that from ages 28-33, those are pretty typical prime, productive years for a star.

There's a pretty amazing interview in the athletic with the As beat writer interviewing AA about letting Swanson go. Apparently Dansby was willing to take 140 (vs the 177 from Chicago) and Dansby personally called AA twice to see if they could square the circle. Pretty interesting and it does tell you that players have other concerns than getting top $$$. Maybe Correa really wanted out of his contract to go to NY.

I do believe that there is not a single member from the 2015 Met team that went to the World Series that remains on the major league roster. I probably would think that is true for most rosters but it still is kind of annoying.

and 2016 Cubs only have possibly-toast Kyle Hendricks.

#101
As far as I know, you can't register a player.
In NBA you can resign your own players even if it brings you over the cap (Bird rule). Otherwise, you simply pay the player association.
In NFL, you can transfer the unused cap space to the next season directly (I don't know if there are some limits) and indirectly - sign a player for 4/80M and instead of signing bonus give him $50M pay in the first year, and his cap is $10M in other years.
The teams might go over the cap because of bonuses (all-star, MVP, best team,...). NHL has a lot of bonuses for rookie contracts. I know for the NHL, and I think other leagues operate similarly: if the bonus is deemed likely to be reached before the season, space has to be planned in the cap. Otherwise, they are transferred to the next year.

The penalties for circumventing the cap include financial penalty, loss of draft picks and exposing players to waivers. It is very hard to inadvertently go over the cap, because the league simply won't register the transaction. And it can still be considered an attempt at circumvention, and subject to penalties.
NFL teams can be (a lot) over the cap after the season, but the have to be under it several days before the FA period signs.

I do believe that there is not a single member from the 2015 Met team that went to the World Series that remains on the major league roster. I probably would think that is true for most rosters but it still is kind of annoying.

I was thinking that was also true of the Yankees, but turns out that Severino made his debut in August of 2015. Bogaerts and Bradley were on the Red Sox roster in 2015 and 2022, but they won't be in 2023.

There are hardly any members of the 2015 Blue Jays still in mlb. (Stroman, Donaldson...)

...Ryan Tepera, pitcher Miguel Castro...Daniel Norris and Kevin Pillar both played somewhere in 2022, but were released mid-season, probably done. David Price, if he's still on someone's payroll somewhere, but he's also done.

2015 is almost a lifetime ago, in baseball terms.
(Hence these 12 year contracts are looney.)

Jays had kind of an older team in 2015. Some of the young guys were Devon Travis and Roberto Osuna.

Travis was forced to retire after 2018 because of bad knees. He’s now a coach in the Brave’s system. Osuna’s only 27. Last pitched MLB in 2020. Last year he pitched in Mexico and Japan, but seems like no MLB team wants to touch him because of his domestic violence incident.

(Hence these 12 year contracts are looney.)

Most of the time. Julio Franco played 6 full years with the Indians. He was under contract so traded to the Rangers, but if he had been a free agent an 18 year contract would have worked out just fine.

The Rangers actually have Martin Perez from their 2015 playoff team; I saw him start a playoff game that year (it did not go well). Perez has been around the league and back again since, but it's trivia, anyway.

2015 is almost a lifetime ago, in baseball terms.

The main thing that's caused these near-complete roster changes over a relatively short term period is free agency. Plenty of teams in the reserve clause era had rosters with at least 3 or 4 holdovers, and sometimes more, from 7 years previous.

1948 Indians still with the Indians in 1955: Feller, Lemon, Garcia, Rosen, Hegan, Doby, Mitchell.

1955 Yankees still on their 1962 roster: Berra, Skowron, Mantle, Howard, Ford, Turley. Cerv was also on both teams but had been with the A's and the Angels for some of the interim seasons.

1948 Dodgers still playing with them in 1955: Campanella, Robinson, Hodges, Reese, Furillo, Snider, Shuba, Erskine.

Those teams may have been outliers, but virtually none of the better teams had the 90%-100% turnover you see today.

Using Fangraphs, among SS up to age 27, within 1000 PA, ten points in wRC+, and positive defense, there are four retired matches: Lou Boudreau, Ernie Banks, Vern Stephens, and Nomar Garciaparra. That group averaged 23.5 fWAR after age 27 - that would cost the Mets $13.4 million per fWAR. But I think it perfectly encapsulates the risk of the deal. It's a coinflip whether he's a HoFer or a well known star that flames out too soon.

How quickly one forgets...

The Worst Team Money Could Buy

The book talks about the 1992 Mets season that had high expectations with the highest payroll ever for a major-league team, $45 million. The team signed veteran second baseman Willie Randolph, power-hitting first baseman Eddie Murray, and star pitcher Bret Saberhagen. The biggest of the acquisitions was outfielder Bobby Bonilla, who signed a five-year deal for just over $29 million. None of these acquisitions resulted in any success, as Saberhagen was ineffective, Randolph was injured, and Bonilla failed to live up to the deal he had signed and often heard boos from the Shea Stadium crowds.

#126 ... sort of a random list of notable short-career SS. [EDIT: Sorry, sounds snarky, isn't meant to be.] Banks didn't have his first full season until age 23 but was a rock in those first 5 years. Pretty much the opposite of Correa. Age 30 was his last year at SS due to knee problems -- given he'd led or tied for most GP in 6 of the previous 7 seasons we can't say that move off SS was foreseen. Meanwhile at 28 he won his 2nd MVP with a 10 WAR season, followed that up with a 8 WAR season and put up 29 WAR from 28-33 (give or take, that's what ZiPS projects for Correa).

Boudreau started at 22 and missed only a handful of games in the first 5 years but missed 40% of age 27. He was done after age 31 ... but he also posted 7 WAR at 29 and 10 WAR at 30. From 28-31 he put up 25 WAR and added 2 more WAR on his way out the door.

Stephens is reasonably close in that he was full-time at 21, missed about 10 games a year and 40 at 25. Arguably his offense was already in decline by 27 but he had a big bounce back at 28 so probably just random variation. I don't know what happened to him but age 29 was his last full season. He's the disaster comp with just 17 WAR. Nomar also had his first full season at 23 and missed nearly all of his age 27 season. Two big seasons left.

Anyway, the Mets will be pretty happy if they get Banks or Boudreau. They'll be ecstatic if they get Larkin -- 44 WAR in 5800 PA. (A very different type of player from Correa.) It was erratic and required a position change but Yount's 33 WAR would be fine.

And again, the key to this and the other crazy long contracts is still just the first 4-6 years. The basic idea is that Correa should produce (give or take) 25 WAR in the first 5 years. That's $200-250 M of value for which he will have been paid about $133 M. Cohen might be the only guy who would seriously consider signing him for 5/$200+. The rest of the contract is about "paying that back with some interest" while hopefully extracting some solid but unspectacular production. If he unexpectedly starts churning out 600+ PA seasons then the Mets might well get 30-35 WAR in that early stretch. But absolutely, if he misses a further 20% of time (taking him to about 40% missed overall) then they probably get no more than 20 WAR and that many injuries are bound to take a toll (Nomar/Stephens).

He wouldn't have been an FA (<6 years service time) but imagine what Banks would cost you -- turning 28, just won the MVP with a 9-WAR season and a league-leading 47 HR (his 3rd 40+ season at SS), 30 WAR over the last 4 seasons. That's gotta be 12/$420 or higher. As noted, his age 28 season (when he would have passed 6 years service) adds 10 WAR, another MVP and another 45 HR. We're closing in on Ohtani money now. Banks wouldn't have quite delivered on that first contract ("just" 37 WAR) but his team wouldn't have been too upset. Most relevantly though, Correa didn't get 12/$420 Banks money, he got $100 M less because he has had trouble staying on the field. Roughly speaking, he is being paid to match the actual Banks 28+. Correa's past fragility has been incorporated into this contract.

He owns the game 6 ball that “gets by Buckner!” for crying out loud.

"It gets through Buckner" was Scully's legendary call, you poser. ;)

Re Mets attendance, there were still some Covid policies inhibiting it in early 2022, the city vax passport and subway masks didn't go away until summer. That really being gone for 2023 will be a factor, along with the team's good year in 2022 and the new star players.

So there was an interesting idea back there.

Top young-ish players (let's say 25-29) of 2015 -- this misses Trout, Harper, Arenado, Machado -- from the top 30 in WARpos 2015 (so some we knew/suspected were not this good but some below it we though were so hopefully that cancels out). These are not meant to be Correa comps except possibly in the age/WAR sense. Some of these we know were huge busts. WAR 2016-22

Goldschmidt 35 WAR for 28-34 (same as Correa)
Donaldson 24 WAR, 30-36
Kiermaier 21 WAR, 26-32
Cain 20 WAR, 30-36
Pollock 10 WAR, 28-34
Heyward 9 WAR, 26-32
Rizzo 23 WAR, 26-32
Cespedes 6 WAR, 30-34
Posey 16 WAR, 29-34
B Crawford 16 WAR, 29-35
JDM 19 WAR, 28-34
K Seager 18 WAR, 28-33
McCutchen 9 WAR, 29-35
Pillar 10 WAR, 27-33
Marte 24 WAR, 27-33
Carpenter 14 WAR, 30-36
C Davis -20 WAR ... kidding, only about -3

Not much of a year for late 20s guys. Goldschmidt is the only one who's really stood out. Donaldson and Rizzo totals over the next 7 years wouldn't be disasters but not good and not promising for the last 5 years. Crawford, Carpenter and Seager are the only other IF in there and 15 WAR would definitely not be good. McCutchen is the scary one I think as a hitting CF -- he cratered at 29, bounced back to a solid 30 and that's really it. Marte is a decent comp (as this set goes) and the Mets will be happy if Correa's bat hangs on as well as JDM. Heyward is obviously another cautionary tale.

The 2005 list is better at the top but still plenty of meh: ARod, Pujols, Derrek Lee, Brian Roberts, Utley, Tex, Andruw, Furcal, Ensberg (really?), Polanco, Bay, Hafner, Ortiz, VMart, Rollins, Chavez, Mark Ellis. Still guys who mostly don't fit for Correa but the good outcomes (Utley) pretty well balanced by the bad (Chavez).

#127,

Good reference. It’s been 30 years, but Bonilla is still on the Mets’ payroll.

I do believe that there is not a single member from the 2015 Met team that went to the World Series that remains on the major league roster. I probably would think that is true for most rosters but it still is kind of annoying.

Nimmo is the last member of the club that made it all the way to the... 2016 Wild Card game.

Stephens is reasonably close in that he was full-time at 21, missed about 10 games a year and 40 at 25. Arguably his offense was already in decline by 27 but he had a big bounce back at 28 so probably just random variation. I don't know what happened to him but age 29 was his last full season. He's the disaster comp with just 17 WAR.

Stephens was an alcoholic, IIRC.

The 2022 Astros had, what, five holdovers from the 2017 champions? Altuve, Bregman, Gurriel, McCullers and Verlander.

That the front office was able to keep the team on or close to the top every year with all that turnover was... a fireable offense, I guess. :(


The 1986 Astros had six holdovers from the 1980 division champions -- Cruz, Puhl, Walling, Ashby, Ryan, Smith. Walling and to a lesser extent Puhl are surprising -- Walling was a handy bench player, a regular only in 1986, and still spent 11 years on the same team. I don't think we'll ever see that again. Puhl was a good, productive player, but his skill set wasn't *that* rare that you'd expect him to be an Astro for 14 years.

Its rare for guys to be healthier in their 30s, but, occasionally happens

That three of us cited the same example suggests that this happens far less than "occasionally". :)

Again, nobody cares if Correa is "healthy in his 30s." What matters is how healthy he is from ages 28-33. Give him 3000 PA over that span (basically the same amount as ages 22-27 with an adjustment for 2020) and you've got about 30 WAR. You take what you can get from there. An infamous "bad aging" example is Roberto Alomar ... who had 33 WAR from 28-33. If Correa does that, job done.

Many, many contracts this offseason have essentially assumed that guys will repeat their last 5-6 years over the next 5-6 years (depending on age). I'm not sure why this isn't sinking in but CORREA IS NOT BEING PAID AS IF HE WILL SUDDENLY BECOME HEALTHY. He is being paid to continue to average about 500 PAs a year for the next several years then hopefully fade away smoothly.

Healthier (or in some cases maybe just more PT) in their 30s -- three HoFers spring immediately to mind -- Molitor, Edgar, Fisk. Carew missed a good bit of time early (3100 PA 22-27) followed by 3800 PA and 39 WAR for 28-33. From 22-27, Morgan had 3100 PAs; from 28-33 it was 3900 PAs and a measly 54 WAR. Two guys who were fragile their whole career and still put up tons of WAR after age 27 are Walker (28 WAR in 2900 PA 28-33; about 20 WAR yet to come) and Larkin (30 WAR in 3000 PA; 15 yet to come). Stargell didn't even have a qualified season until age 25, never played in 150 games (career high 148 at age 33), barely cracked 600 PAs only 3 times, had 3400 PA and 29 WAR from 28-33 (with about 15 WAR to go).

Correa is only being paid for about 35 WAR over 12 years ($9/WAR). Nobody cares if he gets the last 5 WAR or not. Sure it's easier said than done but all he has to do really is repeat ages 22-27 for ages 28-33 -- star players do that all the f'ing time. He doesn't need to play 150 games a year to do that ... he just did that in 2700 PAs. He produces 1 WAR every 100 PAs -- that will obviously decline eventually but, barring a major new injury (or a chronic back condition we don't know about), it's not likely to decline substantially until 33-34.

Possibly MLB has recognized something that we (maybe especially me) should have recognized all along -- a 12-year contract really carries no more risk than a 7-year contract, at least for position players. There are marginal effects on $ and total WAR. Can we please stop with the implication that 12/$315 would be a fair price for a durable Correa? Can we get rid of the notion that a team could have had Correa at 6/$180.

Correa 12/$315
Seager 10/$320
Bogaerts 11/$280
Turner 11/$300

Correa is BY FAR the best deal there. He has the best expected value, he has the biggest upside (because he's more productive and he might get durable), over the last 3 years he has more PA than Seager and as many as X, he has slightly more PA than Seager 22-27 and he's the youngest of the bunch. This contract is a MF'ing bargain.

Generally speaking if the contract is a bargain it doesn’t get signed. About the only bargain contracts are the hometown discounts and the you suck but what the heck.

In this case the best contract was the one SanFran offered. This is probably the second best deal but obviously once SF pulled their offer the best deal. Considering that nobody else topped either offer it’s not a bargain.

That’s a sad way to look at the world.

Somebody asked about the Correa ZiPS projection -- you can find it in their original article on his contract with the Giants. Which is here. Annoyingly(!) Dan feels it's beneath him to include a total row :-) but, give or take, ZiPS is expecting about 6300 PA over the next 12, so about 10,000 total. That looks optimistic...

Walt: with all due respect it seems a huge overbid. I dont quite understand how Zips is doing these projections but they dont seem based in reality. You mentioned earlier (I think in the Nimmo thread) that they are using a "linear method" which I guess means the guy doesnt get hurt or something. But in that same thread you also referred to the law of averages: mentioning that one guy might no get any AB and another guy gets 600 AB etc. But I questioned your math then and let's think about it a little more. ..


here is a graph of MLB player distribution by age:

https://public.tableau.com/views/MLBPLAYERAGEDISTRIBUTION/MLBAGEDISTRIBUTION?:embed=y&:showVizHome=no&:display_count=y&:display_static_image=y&:bootstrapWhenNotified=true

ITs from a few years ago (Ichiro's final season I think) but whatever Im sure its close enuf for the rough approximations Im going to do. And that is: You'll note from age 28-29 the number of players stays the same. But by age 31 this is down to half of age 28/29. Age 32/33 stays level. By age 34 this is again half of age 31. And by age 36 its half of what it was at age 34. So let's take the fangraph starting pt. of 520 AB for Correa next year (age 28) and apply the aging profile suggested by the age distribution we see above. And see what it projects to:



Correa's Age... AB (fangraph).....AB (avg MLBer)

28-30 ... 1580 ... 1580 (we assume no aging these years)
31 ... 520 ... 260
32 ...502 ...260
33 ...480 ...260
34 ... 455 ...130
35 ... 421 ...97
36 ... 421 ... 65
37 ... 384 ... 45
38 ...352 ...30
39 ...315 ...22
40 ... 272 .... 15

total AB.... 5620.... 2804

SO SURE! Correa could get 5600 more AB before its all said and done, we all understand the limitations of projections. But wouldn't a normal baseball aging curve based on a huge sample of modern players be a more realistic guess at what he will produce? Using actual distribution of players by age, Correa's projected AB is about half of what fangraphs predicts.

Fangraph is predicting Correa has 42 WAR left in him. I will go with half of that and say on the average a player like Correa has 21 WAR left in him.

I guess the NYM are splitting the difference and saying he will get 31 WAR on average.

YOu seem adamant that these fangraphs projections will hold up, but why wouldnt applying a normal MLB aging curve to Correa be a better guess at what he will produce? Are we to assume that because Correa is an elite player he will age differently than the average MLB player? Im not sure but what do you think?

So $315M I would think is pretty big overpay. And sure if he even gives 25 war, its probably not a bad deal. I still think its a bit too much and the money could be better spent.

****

Again, thanks for the link Walt. And all the time and effort you put into these posts. I really appreciate your insights into this.

Actually since most of those AB he's not getting are coming off his late career, he probably wont lose half of his fangraph projected WAR. I dont have the time right now to do the math. But maybe it is closer to 31 WAR rather than 21 WAR. Someone else can look at the numbers again Im headed to bed.

Doing the math again, I think it comes to about 25.5 WAR if we apply a normal MLB aging curve to the Fangraphs starting pt of 520 AB at age 28.
With most of AB lost due to aging coming off the late career years of Correa.

So $315M for 25.5 WAR. Well somewhat of an overpay given what we assume is about 10M/war but not a huge overpay.

What were the SFG at? $350M that was a huge overpay. SFG fans might consider themselves lucky.

Do we factor inflation into this? or do we assume that baseball pricing for WAR will remain more or less constant through the life of the current CBA. Isnt that what's happened hisotoricallY? So we assume the price of WAR will be somewhat stable for most of Correa's contract and we dont need to consider inflation??

I think when it comes to star players the concentration of WAR is key. You only have 9 batters starting each game, you can't have 20 guys getting 2 WAR each to get to 40. You need that 40 from 9 and if one gives you 6 then that makes the math a lot easier.
FanGraphs has the Mets as projected fWAR for 2023
Nimmo: 4.5, Correa: 5.5, Lindor: 4.6, Alonso: 4.4, McNeill: 3.6, Marte: 2.6, Vogelbach: 1.1, Canha: 2.1, Narváez: 2.1 = 30.5 WAR.

A 0 WAR team should win about 48 games I think so that means before factoring in pitching and bench the Mets are at 78.5 wins.

Rotation: Verlander: 4.2, Scherzer: 4.3, Senga: ???, Carrasco: 1.8, Quintana: 2.0 = 12.3 + Senga

So before pen, bench, and Senga you have 90.8 wins. Safe to say those should add 5-10 wins. Thus the value of upgrades - bench and pen can only add so much so you need to improve the lineup or rotation to get extra W's on the board. Vogelbach (DH) is probably next to be upgraded.

here is a graph of MLB player distribution by age:

https://public.tableau.com/views/MLBPLAYERAGEDISTRIBUTION/MLBAGEDISTRIBUTION?:embed=y&:showVizHome=no&:display_count=y&:display_static_image=y&:bootstrapWhenNotified=true

ITs from a few years ago (Ichiro's final season I think) but whatever Im sure its close enuf for the rough approximations Im going to do. And that is: You'll note from age 28-29 the number of players stays the same. But by age 31 this is down to half of age 28/29. Age 32/33 stays level. By age 34 this is again half of age 31. And by age 36 its half of what it was at age 34. So let's take the fangraph starting pt. of 520 AB for Correa next year (age 28) and apply the aging profile suggested by the age distribution we see above. And see what it projects to:

I agree the ZIPS methodology is flawed, but this seems very problematic, too. What percentage of those 28 year olds are as good as Correa? I'm sure that way more than half the players of his caliber were still active three years later.

At the absolute least, you'd need to exclude pitchers from the analysis.

Inge: of course those are very good pts. Its a bit like saying the average lifespan for a US male is 75, and then telling a 72 year old he only has 3 years to live! Of course I think most primates understand that.

It was hard to find anything definitive out there with a quick google. Perhaps the most analysis was from this article by Rhymer (which seems to be missing his charts):

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1539301-putting-mlb-aging-theories-to-the-test-on-star-players

He cites a chart by Jeff Zimmerman, but note that's for rate of production, its normalized for 600 AB, so it does not take into consideration losing playing time:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/how-do-star-hitters-age/

What percentage of those 28 year olds are as good as Correa? I'm sure that way more than half the players of his caliber were still active three years later.

Well yeah that's the big question that we are trying to answer and you state that quite well. And whether it matters if the player is elite or just average. So I would agree: more than half of Correa-level players will be active at age 31. BUt how much playing time will they average? As I pointed out in the previous post, there's a sharp drop off at age 31 for MLB average player. So we've got at least two competing ideas:

On the one hand, as an elite/high level player you're going to want to run the guy out there for as much as possible.

On the other hand, the more games you play the more likely you are to get hurt, I suppose. So there's that.

Take a look at the list Walt produced in post 130 (again nice work). Even throwing out CDavis, those guys average out to 17 WAR for the next 7 seasons. That's even worse than the 25.5 I predicted for Correa.

Over the last three years, Correa has been on the IL for COVID and for a bruised finger from getting hit by a pitch. That is it.

Just to reiterate Adam's pt:

Have the primates reached any consensus on how many seasons are relevant to predicting Playing Time? I would think maybe the last 2 or 3 seasons at most. Anything older than that and is that really relevant?

Sadly we cant even agree on this.

Lets take a look at the free agents Walt mentions in post 136 (and throw in Nimmo) and apply the same MLB aging curve I posted. And throw in the deterioration in production suggested by the Zimmerman article I linked to. For that purpose lets say starting at age 31, players lose WAR per 600 AB each season: .1 .2 .2 .3 .3 etc. So since it all depends on the starting pt. we choose. I will give what I think is the start pt. i.e. predicted WAR next season and then do the next 7 seasons and throw in some small bit thereafter:


Name...age next yr.. WAR next season... WAR next 7 seasons+
Bogaerts.. 30 ... 5.5 ... 17
Seager.... 29 ... 4 ... 17
Turner... 30 ... 4.5 ... 14
Nimmo... 30 .... 4.5 ... 14


So yeah Correa is a bargain. Nimmo even bigger bargain (11.5M per expected WAR vs 12.5M per expected WAR)

lets throw in WIllison Contreras for next 5 years:

start pt: age 31: 2 WAR (last 2 years averaged 4 WAR, but age 31 is a huge drop)

So we get: 2 2 1.5 .8 .6 total 7 WAR

Price per WAR: $12.5m Same as Correa.

You can have star players on your team or not have them. Obviously you’d prefer the cheap part of their career, but we are talking about free agents. So who’s the Moneyball star free agent these teams should have signed for $9MM/war or whatever you deem to be the right price?

I looked at these players using "Player Skills Age" By Bill James. (James scores players based on "young players' skills" and "old players' skills.")

           Player Season Age  PA 3B SB BB  SO GIDP Skill Set Age
      Trea Turner   2022  29 663  1  3 58 103   14         25.44 
    Brandon Nimmo   2022  29 487  2  4 45 103   14         27.46 
Willson Contreras   2022  30 590  1  0 61 121   18         29.71 
  Xander Bogaerts   2022  29 708  4 27 45 131    9         30.34 
     Corey Seager   2022  28 673  7  3 71 116    9         31.09 
    Carlos Correa   2022  27 631  0  8 57 118   14         31.69 

Mets concerned with Carlos Correa’s physical. Story with @DanHayesMLB: https://t.co/pHleqBg0ho

Guess the Giants weren't crazy.

Turns out his leg is entirely made of wood! Mets are making sure the termites can be treated… to a handsome relocation package. Potential destinations include Rob Manfred’s head.

From the NY Post

[...] The issue is reportedly Correa’s lower right leg, which he had surgery on in 2014 to repair a fractured fibula. [...]

“There is no current issue with Carlos’ health whatsoever,” [Scott] Boras said Thursday. “There’s been a lot of discussion about backs and ankles. There’s nothing about him that is currently any form of a medical issue. 

“All the conjecture and evaluation of him has been about physicians using their crystal ball for years to come.”

Interesting comment on the Post website:

As an orthopedic surgeon who has surgically repaired many distal fibula fractures, I can say that there is a high incidence of arthritis developing at the lateral Talar dome area. For regular people it’s not that great of a concern, for a world class athlete though it would be very concerning. The goal of the surgery is to reestablish perfect anatomical reduction of the fracture site. this is often hard to do with complicated fractures. I’m sure they’re seeing arthritic changes in the lateral ankle area on MRI. Arthritis takes years to develop, at this point that’s likely what they’re seeing. The Mets would be fools to give this guy that much money over that many years.

So, what's the haircut the Mets are going to ask for? Indemnification against any medical issues with the leg? Or a straight reduction of the deal? or do they walk? If they walk, Correa is in trouble.

Correa DOES appear to have a medical issue related to his chronic past injured status.

Look, I don't root for the Mets. I even root for another team in the division. Even I don't want them saddled with a crippling contract because I prefer them and the Phillies winning to the Braves winning.

If the Mets bail, I have to think he ends up back in Minnesota, and takes a haircut on the side stuff from their prior offer (perhaps more team options involved at the end in return for Correa having 1 or more opt outs early and middle of the deal for example).

In a crazy world of course he ends up in Baltimore and tries to make his best Ripken-durability impression until May of the first contract year.

In the end, if the Mets can (partially) insure against ankle injury, Correa at 3B for the Mets may be a better long term risk than Correa at SS for the Giants.

It seems Correa's apparent "old player skills" may be confounded by his being self-protective.

Twins shortstop Carlos Correa opts for caution when it comes to stealing bases
Saturday marked three years since the last time he swiped a bag, with the memory of a rookie ankle injury still strong. 
By Phil Miller Star Tribune
April 12, 2022 — 8:42pm

Carlos Correa did nothing to celebrate an unusual anniversary on Saturday. But then again, not doing something is kind of the point.

On April 9, 2019, Correa headed for second base during a Josh Reddick at-bat, and beat the throw from Yankees catcher Austin Romine. It was his first stolen base of the season — and the last for, well, three years now.

That may seem odd for an All-Star player, particularly one who swiped 27 bases in his first two seasons in the majors. But there's a good reason for not stealing bases, or even attempting to steal one in that time, Correa said: "Staying healthy is the most important thing I can do."

A fervent student of baseball statistical analysis, Correa weighed the risks inherent in stealing bases against the benefits of being successful. He was being thrown out less than 20% of the time — Correa is 33-for-41 in his career, an 80.5% success rate — but feared that the physical toll might eventually cost him playing time.

"It's a decision I had to make. Every time you steal a base, there's a greater risk of injury, right? The tag can take you out, hitting the base, you can twist your ankle, break your hands," Correa said. "It's higher risk for little reward. I realized that I'm more valuable offensively and defensively than I am trying to steal bags."

Correa had to be carried off the field at Class A Lancaster after breaking his right ankle sliding into third base, a season-ending injury that he said made the risks more tangible.

"I'm not the fastest guy, either," Correa said. "If I was a [fast] runner, for sure, I would steal more because there are some free bags out there. But I'm an average runner. I'm not going to go out there and steal bags every day. I can steal a few, but I'm more valuable being in the lineup than getting nicked up."

I suspect the deal will look something like he gets four years with no risk-sharing. After that ,time missed due to leg is deducted pro-rata with some
Minimum (say $10 million).

The insurance coverage is critics here so it has to Be structured to allow insurance

If the Mets bail, Correa would have been better off not to exercise his Minnesota opt-out.

I wonder if he gamed this out with his agent beforehand.

You can have star players on your team or not have them. Obviously you’d prefer the cheap part of their career, but we are talking about free agents. So who’s the Moneyball star free agent these teams should have signed for $9MM/war or whatever you deem to be the right price?

I think it’s a valid question whether the Mets needed another star player (another star shortstop, at that) vs. taking a smaller risk to fill a more acute need. But then again, when you’re coming off a 101-win season there aren’t going to be *that* many acute needs. Almost everything other than catcher is about marginal improvement.

But then again, when you’re coming off a 101-win season there aren’t going to be *that* many acute needs. Almost everything other than catcher is about marginal improvement.

Another solid starting pitcher would be a big improvement. Right now you're probably looking at 25-35 GS from guys below Tyler McGill on the depth chart. Slotting in a solid 2 WAR pitcher to take 25 of those would likely be a 2+ win improvement.

That’s not a real concern. I don’t see any reason to think the Mets are done or that signing Correa will hamper them from doing anything they were planning anyway. If anything by definition it makes other players more expendable in trade.

[Scott] Boras said Thursday. “There’s been a lot of discussion about backs and ankles. There’s nothing about him that is currently any form of a medical issue. 
“All the conjecture and evaluation of him has been about physicians using their crystal ball for years to come.”

That's pretty much what anyone does when buying or selling future services. It's the point of Boras's binders.

That Boras quote comes perilously close to admitting there's a long-term issue, just not a short-term one. Which is much closer than I would expect him to get to admitting any issue at all.

Honestly, if the trend is going to be top players signing contracts that run until they're 40, I'd expect deals falling apart after physicals or injury-related escape clauses to become much more common phenomena.

Mets fan here and I was all-in for all moves, hedge-fund manager be damned, until Correa. Even dumping, de facto, deGrom. If this somehow doesn't work out, I'll be quite a bit happier than if it does. Part of that hope is hoping against having a "trash can" guy in the 25, but there's also that...what if we wait and save a bit toward Ohtani at Shea/Citi in a year or so. Cuz that would be ####### wonderful.

I'll take another year of Eduardo at 3B. No problem. I like the guy, even if he's not the bees' knees in terms of WAR, etc., if it means a chance at the combo dude. Gotta go for the Combo Dude.

That’s not a real concern. I don’t see any reason to think the Mets are done or that signing Correa will hamper them from doing anything they were planning anyway. If anything by definition it makes other players more expendable in trade.

Well, most of the good starting pitchers are signed. If you told me a few weeks ago the Mets had $300M lying around, I'd have told you paying Carlos Rodon $175M was a lot better idea than signing a SS they don't need for $300+M, who has an arthritic leg.

Correa was unplanned. Alex Cohen convinced Steve to jump in at the last minute, then when the Giants deal fell through he became a target of opportunity. Spinning this as a bad thing is lol.

Another solid starting pitcher would be a big improvement. Right now you're probably looking at 25-35 GS from guys below Tyler McGill on the depth chart. Slotting in a solid 2 WAR pitcher to take 25 of those would likely be a 2+ win improvement.

Slotting in a solid 2-WAR pitcher probably reduces that to 15-20 GS from such pitchers, assuming you’re right about the first part. It’s an improvement but still a marginal one, like I said.

Slotting in a solid 2-WAR pitcher probably reduces that to 15-20 GS from such pitchers, assuming you’re right about the first part. It’s an improvement but still a marginal one, like I said.

How do you define "marginal"? Replacing Escobar with Correa would have netted you an extra 2.1 WAR last year. Adding a quality starter to avoid the replacement level dreck that often takes 30 starts could easily match that.

Correa was unplanned. Alex Cohen convinced Steve to jump in at the last minute, then when the Giants deal fell through he became a target of opportunity. Spinning this as a bad thing is lol.

Well, if the Mets are spending $325 on the whim of the owner's wife, that doesn't seem like a great operating model. Shades of Jeffy Wilpon.

I know you're high on the idea that Cohen is going to spend unlimited money on the team for the foreseeable future, but that's not how these things generally work out.

They’re starting the season with

Scherzer
Verlander
Quevedo
Carrasco
Senga

(Plus Peterson and McGill)

Signing another SP only takes starts from sub-McGill SP when two, maybe three (depending what you think of Peterson) of those guys is injured, and assuming that the guy you sign is also healthy. So if you think you’re getting a season’s worth of sub-replacement SP with the current rotation, signing an average SP probably only replaces about half of that, maybe less. About 1 WAR. I’d say that’s marginal but everything is marginal for a 101-win team.

They’re starting the season with

Scherzer
Verlander
Quevedo
Carrasco
Senga

Forgot about Senga. Strangely, Fangraphs doesn't have him on the Mets depth chart. Is he any good?

.
Well, if the Mets are spending $325 on the whim of the owner's wife, that doesn't seem like a great operating model. Shades of Jeffy Wilpon.

I know you're high on the idea that Cohen is going to spend unlimited money on the team for the foreseeable future, but that's not how these things generally work out.

You're really working hard to make a negative out of the fact that these owners have the willingness and ability to sign an extra star player on a whim. I'm not convinced. And the Jeff Wilson comparison is...saying more about your feelings than reality.

You're really working hard to make a negative out of the fact that these owners have the willingness and ability to sign an extra star player on a whim. I'm not convinced. And the Jeff Wilson comparison is...saying more about your feelings than reality.

Sorry, I've lived the erratic rich guy school of ownership first hand with George Steinbrenner. It seems great at first, but then it really wears poorly.

On the bright side, Cohen is even more of a sleeze than George was, so that's nice.

ZIPS projects Senga for a 118 ERA+ and 2.9 WAR in 140 IP (22 GS). Who knows with Japanese pitchers, and ignore the playing time projection, but I’ll take that as a Mets fan.

@173

The George Steinbrenner Yankees won seven World Series. It must have been excruciating for the fans.

The George Steinbrenner Yankees won seven World Series. It must have been excruciating for the fans.

I know. I mean appreciate contrarians but this is ridiculous. What's the issue? Most billionaires probably are pieces of #### who cares.

You know what i really enjoyed? A rich guy running his team ineptly for half a century followed up by a big company running it to get along dor a couple of more decades.

Does the amount of time that's gone by now suggest more serious concerns that this deal wont be anywhere near it was thought originally? We are about to be 4 days into this but then there was xmas holiday so maybe its that. Would it take a few days to precisely calculate what sort of risk the Mets are running with a long term contract?

Are the most recent reports still saying both sides are optimistic?

It doesn’t sound too optimistic to me at this point. Someone estimated a “55% chance” that he signs with the Mets but that’s also compounded by reports that I’m seeing that Correa doesn’t want a restructure. It’s hard to imagine what his options are going to be though, at the very least, I would think a 10+ year deal is out of the question now. Also had read that his representatives inquired with the Twins after the Giants fell through and their previously offered ten year deal wasn’t on the table anymore.

Maybe he does sign with the Mets, but I would be shocked at this point if it’s for anything close to the original deal. I could see something like a 5/175 with an opt out after two or three. Maybe I’m nuts on the AAV there, but his previous 26.25 million was likely low because of the length. Basically, you’d think of him as a 35 million dollar player for the first six, 17.5 for the last.

Anything less than that and it’s then obvious that there’s a clear and present injury concern. Then I don’t know what he does. 1 year, 25-30 million? For the rest of his career? It’s very interesting, and can’t imagine that he’d be set against restructuring if that’s what he’s looking at.

How do we evaluate Correa's expected value the next 5 years? I guess he's currently a 6 WAR player. Lets further assume given his drop off in sprint speed and the base running numbers that he's aging like a 30 year old. So make him 6 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.2 total: 28.3

Multiply by 80% since that seems the normal injury attrition rate : 22.7 War

Multiply by $12M doing this way and its still $260M+ for 5 years. I guess that seems high. Maybe the ankle is really bad.

What if $250 for 8 years with opt outs for both sides and some buyout for Correa to leave him with a good chunk if he misses a lot of games.

I know it sounds weird but offering a high dollar AAV for Correa on a say 5 year deal actually could be even better for him. Assuming he's still ambulant at age 32 he could be in for another payday in an even more inflated baseball environment.

Yeah, that’s the problem with trying to assign a dollar per WAR figure, it just doesn’t hold up across the board. With longer deals, it’s far more about the total money. No one’s getting 50+ million a season right now, you get Scherzer and Verlander on at 43.3 on short deals, Judge is 40 million for 9… Correa of course was just at 35 for 3. Partially why I’m thinking he’d want that number for at least five, or else he’s gonna feel like he made a huge mistake. I don’t really see a 250 for 8 happening, are the Mets even that concerned about the 4 years, 65 million on the backend? I think you might be prior to getting to this point, but based on Cohen’s comments, the Mets were thinking this was a done deal. I also don’t see opt outs for both sides ever happening, the player might as well just sign a much shorter deal then.

Basically, none of these seems like standard negotiating tactics. The more I think about it, given our limited information, I’m thinking whatever the issue is, it’s a concern in the very near future, not a fear for five plus years down the line. And that Correa and his team have greatly misrepresented his condition. I think I would actually be shocked if any deal close to the ones offered go through and I almost expect him not to sign with anyone for a little while now and then for something very similar to the contract he just opted out of.

I dont know. The only reason we havent seen a $50M/yr deal is because everyone is signing long term contracts, yes?

So $100M 2 years for Correa would make logical sense would it not?

Not clear that the negotiations are over dollars and years. Could be contract language to protect the team from a particular type of injury, the parameters of which could be difficult to hammer out. I’d actually be surprised to see a deal that significantly altered the top line numbers.

This is definitely all kinds of hilarious and weird. I can honestly say at this point I'm not even sure I'll be unhappy at any outcome. Thanks, baseball!

100 for 2 and writing in some language in case of injury seems logical, but also not something I can imagine Correa is eager to do. I can see a shorter length, higher AAV contract before I see something that invalidates or reduces money in the current contract if injury X happens. Any player isn’t going to want to make their money dependent on something they have little control over.

Again though, maybe a shorter contract isn’t what the teams would want either if this medical concern is a bomb with a fuse of unknown length. Which I feel like is likely based on the totality of events here. I might be wrong, but reading the reports about how Correa complained about tweaking something last year, combined with his Twins contract, I feel like something happened in the last year to worsen his condition. Maybe something that he didn’t even realize until he went to pass these physicals. I know lots of said this is only because it’s such a longer contract than what he signed before, and his deal with the Twins didn’t undergo as much scrutiny, but I don’t think that makes sense. Doctors aren’t psychics and if there’s a potential issue, I’m not sure how reliably they can guarantee it isn’t going to happen in one year or ten and 105 million isn’t something the Twins would want to completely gamble on. And more than that, it seems that the Twins did offer him a ten year deal prior to this new information.

I’m really talking myself into believing he’s almost unsignable (at least not for big money with multiple years). I guess we will see.

Is there some kind of thing that prevents the Correa camp from laying it out publicly, or is that just considered ill will? "This is what the Mets' have told us their medical concerns are, and this is why we say those concerns are not valid?"

I'm sure it's deep legal weeds, but why should I care? I REQUIRE ENTERTAINMENT.

Maybe Boras will have Correa take the Conforto route.

Is there some kind of thing that prevents the Correa camp from laying it out publicly, or is that just considered ill will? "This is what the Mets' have told us their medical concerns are, and this is why we say those concerns are not valid?"

Didn't they already do that after the Giants deal fell through?

According to some bozo on Twitter, it took a week to hammer out the language between JD Martinez and the Red Sox concerning his preexisting condition. Any dollars/years restructuring is likely to be minimal if the team can adequately protect itself.

I'm gonna guess 240 8 years. The previous calculation neglected that he shifts to third which loses 5 runs in positional bonus

[189] see [154] above.

Correa's MRI may or may not have shown (the beginnings of) arthritis or misalignment in the ankle. Boras has said everything is fine today and that the difference of opinion relates to the prognosis for years from now.

Boras seems to be walking a fine line as to what he is claiming. However, Boras did say that Correa was examined after the season by the Twins' team doctor, who is an orthopedic surgeon on the staff of the Mayo Clinic, and that the doctor wrote “a long letter passing him, and with that came a recommendation for over a 10-year contract.”

Are the mets going to have a team meeting to explain why they haven't signed Correa?

Guess the giants arent so dumb.

Correa's MRI may or may not have shown (the beginnings of) arthritis or misalignment in the ankle. Boras has said everything is fine today and that the difference of opinion relates to the prognosis for years from now.

Boras seems to be walking a fine line as to what he is claiming. However, Boras did say that Correa was examined after the season by the Twins' team doctor, who is an orthopedic surgeon on the staff of the Mayo Clinic, and that the doctor wrote “a long letter passing him, and with that came a recommendation for over a 10-year contract.”

A little context before I cite The Athletic from the day after the Mets came to terms with Correa. In September he attempted his first stolen base in about 4 seasons. Why no attempts? I can't find the article I read, but he flat-out decided some time ago that the risk to his repaired ankle wasn't worth it. He was quoted saying something like, "It's more important I stay in the lineup than get some SBs." Makes sense. So this past September he attempted a stolen base for whatever reason, his first since (I believe) April 2019. Now for The Athletic:

As much as the Twins hoped to retain Correa, a team source said the club hadn’t had an opportunity to thoroughly examine him since his original physical in March. The only extended examination Correa received during the season was when he was thought to have broken his finger on May 5 after getting hit by a pitch in Baltimore.

No examination was made following a Sept. 20 contest in which Correa appeared to be injured following a hard slide into second base, according to a team source. Thrown out stealing, Correa lay on the ground for an extended period before ultimately getting up on his own and limping off the field. Correa remained in the game.

That night, he told reporters he was OK after having a brief scare with his surgically-repaired lower right leg.

“He just hit my plate,” Correa said, referring to the hardware in his leg. “I had surgery and he hit it. Just kind of felt numb. Vibrating. So I was just waiting for it to calm down. It was a little scary, but when I moved I knew I was good.”

Correa appeared in 12 of the team’s next 13 games and continued to hit, batting .319/.373/.468.

Of course, a stolen base attempt isn't the only situation where he could harm his ankle, but the description above suggests the ankle might be easily susceptible to re-injury. Gotta think whatever happened on that steal attempt isn't much worse than, say, sliding into a catcher's shin guards. Plenty of other situations we can all imagine, too.

[194] see Correa quotes in [157]

NY Post: "Carlos Correa issue could ‘creep up’ toward end of Mets deal: medical expert"

[...] The fact that this happened eight years ago, and he hasn’t had any real issues with it since usually means that it’s actually holding up pretty well,” Dr. Brandon Erickson, an orthopedic surgeon at the Rothman Orthopaedic Institute who has not examined Correa, said Wednesday in a phone interview. “Sometimes with a ligament injury, the ankle can be just a little more unstable than the other side. Sometimes it can lead to a little bit of early arthritis in the ankle, which may be what he’s starting to develop over time.” [...]

Whenever you sign somebody to an over 10-year contract, there’s always an inherent level of risk with anything that’s popped up in the past,” Erickson said. “Honestly, we can give our best guess, but it is just that — it’s just a guess. So that’s the hard thing with it because you just don’t know.” [...]

[His past ankle injury] did come up in September when he got tagged on the area in his lower leg where he has the plate, as he later told reporters it felt “numb” and “vibrating.” But Erickson, who sustained a similar injury during his college football career, said that was not unusual.

Right, those articles are the reason I don’t think this is about arthritis in five or ten years. I think that it’s fairly likely he did something to his ankle on that slide that he was unaware of the extent of until his most recent examinations. And if that’s the case, that’s he’s a ticking bomb so to speak and we only have a couple weeks of play to go off of to assess durability, then the potential for any sort of long term deal is in great jeopardy.

Also, Boras claiming the doctor is recommending a ten year plus deal sounds like some serious exaggeration at best. Maybe the doctor “passed” him, but I’d love to hear a doctor actually offering their advice on a contract. “This is without a doubt the healthiest patient I’ve ever seen! A truly special specimen, if I could, I would give him ALL the money just for being a tribute to the greatness of man!”

By the way, now this article says a source has the odds down to 51% that the Mets deal gets done, so we’ve lost another four percent in a day or so. I believe you’d call this “becoming increasingly unlikely.”

By the way, now this article says a source has the odds down to 51% that the Mets deal gets done . . .

Can one now wager on the Correa contract?

Flip!