What's been puzzling to me is that surely Boras (if he was any good at his job) would have known about the injury/anticipated this sort of thing happening once a comprehensive physical was done, so I'm guessing he/Correa just hoped some teams wouldn't care/would miss the injury concern?

I'd have to think any team now (even the Twins) would have to consider that 2 different teams red-flagged the physical, and thus nowhere near 12/$315 (or even the Twins' original offer) would be on the table. But I guess it just takes 1 team to not care?

I would assume the Twins (and Correa if he would go back) are only interested in a short term deal with an opt out after each year.

I don’t think Boras or Correa knew. I think the results of the physicals were surprising to everyone. It also seems clear that there is a little wiggle room for interpretation for the results.

That said, the more time passes, the more I doubt that this is going to end with any sort of mega long term deal. But having given up 2 years, 70 million already, combined with the expectation that this was going to be his “set for life” deal, I don’t think that Correa and Boras are gonna stop trying. I just don’t see this ending well for them and wouldn’t be surprised he goes unsigned until around spring training (and then for around what he walked away from. )

What's been puzzling to me is that surely Boras (if he was any good at his job) would have known about the injury/anticipated this sort of thing happening once a comprehensive physical was done, so I'm guessing he/Correa just hoped some teams wouldn't care/would miss the injury concern?

At least you'd think after the issue with the Giants, they'd have waited before announcing the second deal until the physical had cleared. Now he really looks like tainted goods.

I suspect the sticking point may be differentiating items related to the prior injury, such as developing an arthritic condition, from a new injury to the same ankle. Correa/Boras may be willing to give the Mets some sort of out for the former but not the latter. Why should Correa lose money if the Mets 400 pound DH breaks Correa’s ankle in a clubhouse stampede for the post-game buffet?

I would assume the Twins (and Correa if he would go back) are only interested in a short term deal with an opt out after each year.

The Red Sox, with better pitching, would be all over this type of thing. But, alas, the Red Sox pitching looks scary bad.

But, then again, why not? Short term big money deals while they search for pitching help in the years to come shouldn't be a problem for them.

GO GET HIM, CHAIM!!

I would assume the Twins (and Correa if he would go back) are only interested in a short term deal with an opt out after each year.

Reports seem to be somewhat mixed, but some suggest that the Twins may be willing to take on more medical risk than the Giants or Mets.

Offer a 5/$175m contract, with two options: a player option of 5/$50m and a team option of 6/$140m. If he's healthy and productive after five years, the Mets are going to pick the option up. If he's not, he can choose the extra $50m or try to make more on the market. Worst case for the Mets/Correa, it's 10/$225 - although an AAV of $22.5 is nothing for the Mets. Best case for Correa he makes the original contract money.

What's been puzzling to me is that surely Boras (if he was any good at his job) would have known about the injury/anticipated this sort of thing happening once a comprehensive physical was done, so I'm guessing he/Correa just hoped some teams wouldn't care/would miss the injury concern?

Isn't the conventional wisdom that, if a team wanted to, they could find a reason to nix a deal in any physical - that by the time they've reached free agency, most athletes have got more micro-tears/strains/fractures than the rest of us develop in our lives? I suspect that this new age of 10+ year megadeals might lead front offices to pay more attention to things they would have figured was an acceptable risk, especially when you're talking about an ownership situation where a lot of people have veto power (Giants), or where the owner apparently impulsively signed off on something while on vacation and left the front office to hammer details out (Mets).

After all, how many of these very long contracts have there been? A-Rod's had opt-outs that folks figured would get exercised, and he broke down at the end, Pujols was visibly a mess by the end of his, and...? I suspect that management/players/agents are all sort of feeling out what the risk tolerance is going to be, especially since conditioning has probably improved enough that if someone like Albert Belle had played 20 years later, he wouldn't be an insurance write-off but more of a Chris Davis case, actively hurting the team rather than just the luxury tax.

(Obligatory "holy cow, Albert Belle was 20 years ago, boy am I old" moment)

Are these contracts not insured anymore?

Are these contracts not insured anymore?

I think that's been a thing of the past for a long time. And definitely not at that contract size.

Maybe Cohen has buyers remorse.
Impulse buy...then he read the reviews.

I think that's been a thing of the past for a long time. And definitely not at that contract size.

I think there was a shift after Albert Belle's contract -- but I have no source other than a hazy memory.

This may be no more than "we can play the press rumor game too. Let's see how interested your mystery teams are now."

After all, how many of these very long contracts have there been? A-Rod's had opt-outs that folks figured would get exercised, and he broke down at the end, Pujols was visibly a mess by the end of his, and...?

To be fair, Stanton was a mess from day one. :-)

Again, nobody expects these guys to be productive from 37-40 -- hopefully not sitting there getting paid $140 M while putting up a 47 OPS+ but a banged up 300 PA bat wouldn't stress anybody out. I assume what the Giants then Mets want to avoid is a Pujols plantar fascitis sort of issue where Correa is a 4-WAR player at 30 and a 2-WAR player at 32 and worthless at 35 because it hurts to walk. (Pujols remained a solid defensive 1B so I'm sure it didn't hurt to walk but you know what I mean.) Or for SS examples, see Fregosi, Tulo, Nomar ... and maybe Story and Baez and Seager.

This may be no more than "we can play the press rumor game too. Let's see how interested your mystery teams are now."

Could be, but ..... it's been 16 days. How long does this hold up last before we start wondering if the two sides actually finalize this thing?

How do you imbed a hyperlink. I've tried and failed to this - is there some glossary I'm missing that explains how ?

Vague memories on insurance:

1. They were the original source of the "these guys ain't no good after 36" factoid.

2. They have always only insured against essentially career-ending injury, one that makes it impossible for the guy to take the field. If the docs decided he was healthy enough to play, it didn't matter if or how well he played.

3. While I'm sure Belle changed the landscape, I'm pretty sure the David Wright contract was insured so it's not like Belle ended all insurance. I think Fielder's was also insured.

4. At this point I assume premiums are high, coverage is limited and the absence of coverage for pre-existing conditions list quite long. Also with teams worth over $1B and a guaranted $230 M plus half your local revenues rolling in, self-insuring isn't that big of a deal anymore.

Re #4 when you think about it, pending a physical, the Mets had already signed onto paying Correa $100+ M at the end of his career for very little in return. It's a very small step from there to self-insuring. The difference between paying $100 M for 5 WAR and $100 M for 0 WAR is not worth a big insurance premium. And back to #2 -- Pujols, Miggy, Griffey dragged their butts out there day after day. The chances of insurance paying out is really not very high.

Open the page you want to link, highlight the address and ctrl-C. Come back to b-r and click the "bracket a bracket" button just above the comment box. Paste the address into the box that opens, hit enter, type a label into the new box that opens, hit enter.

How do you imbed a hyperlink. I've tried and failed to this - is there some glossary I'm missing that explains how ?


Here's what I'll do -- I'll include a bunch of spaces between each step. Say you were going to link to Google.com:

[ u r l = http://www.google.com ] Link [ / u r l ]

Just without all the spaces with what's between the brackets. Remove those spaces and it should type up as: Link

Could be, but ..... it's been 16 days. How long does this hold up last before we start wondering if the two sides actually finalize this thing?

Most of that was the holidays though. But sure, I assume there's a real hang-up in the negotiations that they are not making progress on. But it was just yesterday or the day before that we had the "other teams circling, waiting for Correa-Mets deal to fall through" rumor that, esp given its source, many around here suspected was trying to pressure the Mets into finishing the deal. So this may be just the next day's "we aren't budging and now everybody knows we got a serious problem" message.

Damn Dag, you woulda had time for another book if you hadn't spent it all typing out those URL codes by hand. :-)

How do you imbed a hyperlink. I've tried and failed to this - is there some glossary I'm missing that explains how ?

1. Copy the link you'd like to embed.

2. In the comment box here, press the <a> button to insert your link and all the necessary formatting will be added.

3. Optionally, use the Title field you will be presented or select the portion of your comment you would have become a link before Step 2.

1

2

Newlink2


So this one finally worked. So when the box comes up you need to backspace over the http: before pasting - is that right ?

It seems like on insurance MLB should insure a huge group of players (all the guys with big contracts ) and spread the risk out. There's safety in numbers for the insurance guys and it would probably avoid a lot of the "physical" requirements. They'd just insure a big pool of 200 guys and accept that there's an occasional Correa in the mix.

So when the box comes up you need to backspace over the http: before pasting - is that right ?

For me, the http:// that's in the box is already selected/highlighted. If that's the case for you, then either delete it or just paste the address you want there and the http:// will get replaced.

Why is it called “self-insuring” when it’s actually just “not having any insurance”? The whole concept of insurance is to avoid having to take the whole risk yourself. Thus just deciding you’ll be on the hook is, definitionally, not insurance. Am I missing something here?

28. If an entity set aside a reserve in order to cover anticipated losses, rather than pay premiums, would that fit the definition (not just concluding we'll take the hit ourselves, but actually preparing for it).

A self-insurance scheme probably still buys insurance against catastrophic losses, while planning for and accepting all but the very extreme tail outcomes.

Why is it called “self-insuring” when it’s actually just “not having any insurance”?

"Self-insurance" assumes having a large pool of risk to diversify. If a company employs 20,000 people, or operates 1,000 trucks, they can assume that over the long run their medical claims, or their auto insurance claims will average out, and they can save money by self-insuring.

When you have 3 or 4 hug FA contracts, there's no pooling effect. You're not "self-insuring" b/c the law of averages doesn't work on 3 or 4 risks. You're just flying naked.

28. Self-insuring means taking on the risk yourself. Correct. Most companies do that by establishing reserves. Once you reach the amount you think you need "reserved", you do an analysis each period which looks at claims paid out and new risks incurred and adjust your reserve accordingly

Maybe Correa can join the touring company of Stomp.

#28 ... it's also not quite "risk" in the normal sense. It's "what if my cat knocks my ming vase off the shelf?" or "I wish I hadn't paid $10 M for that Warhol forgery" not "I've got cancer and can't possibly afford the treatments." Baseball games still get played, somebody still stands at SS (now required!), fans still buy tix regardless of whether the SS is making $30 M or $750 K.

So "self-insurance" here is having to spend (more of) your own money if you want to replace the vase. I don't imagie anybody is actually setting aside money to have an extra $30 M lying around in case Correa comes up lame. They've decided this year's payroll is $230 then "oh crap. OK do we go over to replace him? Didn't think so." As far as I know, Correa's salary would still count against the CBT even if it's insured. And of course if the team receives $30 M from the insurers, they can just pocket it if they want. I have no idea what the rules might be around "retirement" -- i.e. if the insurer has agreed to pay off the last 3 years, can the player then officially retire and still get his money but, since he's retired, that no longer would count against the CBT?

Maybe Correa can join the touring company of Stomp.

Seems a bad idea for a guy with a bad ankle.

So "self-insurance" here is having to spend (more of) your own money if you want to replace the vase.

So…not insurance. That’s just deciding to do the thing insurance is supposed to prevent.

Yes. We all make those decisions on our deductibles. That's self insuring. In the case of full self- insurance, you just set the deductible super high. And if I were a team that's what I'd do - take a very high deductible and insure the excess. Maybe self insure for $10-15 million and get insurance to cover the top $20. Why this way? Because if you lose Correa for a full season getting a $20 million check helps you go get a decent player to cover the gap.

#10 One of the biggest players in the reinsurance market went bankrupt quite some time ago. Nobody moved in. And while you can get the remaining players in the reinsurance field to take parts of the contract most are reluctant to take exposure beyond a few million dollars -- and those positions require high premiums.

Many teams have entered into mutual reinsurance agreements, but they're pretty risk adverse. Nobody wants to be a part of a long term contract with a significant health concern.

The point of insurance is that you make an arrangement with an entity that has enormously more money than you do by which, probabilistically, they will come out slightly ahead (especially since they will invest the money you give them and get a return on it, instead of you doing so yourself.) They make money from you by buying your risk, because a sudden unexpected expense of six or seven figures might be catastrophic to you but will be barely annoying to them. They make a lot of money, and minimize the risk to themselves, by making that same arrangement with a great many people.

We all know that, of course. But when you consider it, it should be obvious why a billionaire might not worry too much about insurance. He's much more likely to be buying risk than selling it. (But Carlos Correa's ankle is apparently too much of a risk for even Steve Cohen to buy.)

I never really understood it from the insurer's perspective other than as a PR move (Lloyd's always got a mention on crazy insurance policies). Your business relies on getting millions of people/businesses to pay you thousands of dollars every year -- we are now talking several billion dollars in premiums ever year. Why deal with puny marginal stuff like a $5 M premium on Correa? I suppose it's good for the individual agent that sells the policy.

Think of what you pay in home insurance and multiply that by 150 M or so. Car insurance by, what, 200M or more. Health insurance paid by you or your employer multiplied by 100 M. Business property insurance by however many. How many trillions are we up to? Properly pricing a Correa policy is probably 10 times the effort of pricing some business's health policy. Why bother?

Maybe Cohen has buyers remorse.

Should I sell the New York Mets? I will abide by the results of this poll.

Yes: 57%
No: 43%