bobrob2004 Posted October 16, 2022 Share Posted October 16, 2022 41 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Fair choice, but for me it was Niko. A player whose limitations were completely obvious to everyone *except* Al Avlia from pretty much day one. He encapsulated poor pre-acquisition scouting, inability to raise a player's level, refusal to honestly evaluate current talent, and commitment to looking for the wrong player profile in the first place - all in one. I just wanted to make the pun. But there are several examples of players that Avila acquired that are not good enough to be an a roster and yet were given 50 chances for no good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted October 16, 2022 Share Posted October 16, 2022 (edited) 12 hours ago, sabretooth said: FWIW, I would not want a 10 year contract or any similar time frame, and I also doubt that he will get that length....but I freely admit that I could be dead wrong about that. I hope its something more like 5 - 7 years. I still think he's capable of getting the high end of what he's pursued in the past in terms of years and I dont know if Harris would be interested in that. But I could be wrong, although I suspect that if Harris' posture is more on the aggressive side, he'll cast a wider net than just Correa and probably look at other options as well (ie. Swanson, Boegaerts).... Edited October 16, 2022 by mtutiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casimir Posted October 16, 2022 Share Posted October 16, 2022 9 hours ago, bobrob2004 said: Can anyone name the starting 2019 Tigers infield without looking it up? 1B Carlos Pena 2B Warren Morris 3B Eric Munson SS Infantiago 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted October 16, 2022 Author Share Posted October 16, 2022 14 hours ago, Jim Cowan said: Correa isn't getting 10 years from anyone at this point, so that by itself doesn't rule the Tigers out. He might spend the rest of his career on 1 year deals if he continues to insist on Lindor's AAV, but I don't think that Harris will even do that. I think he will view that Twins contract as an overpay. That depends on both how he values a win, and how much that win is worth. There has been a lot of agreement the past few years that a theoretical win in the marketplace can be valued in terms of actual dollars, and that the value is right around $9 million. (For anyone who is interested, you can find numerous articles on the cost of a win in free agency at Fangraphs.) So if Harris agrees with this concept, he might conclude that a player projected to get five wins in a year could be worth as much as $45 million for the year. Of course it’s doubtful that after this season anyone will offer Correa a 1/45, since the market is almost certainly not there yet. But this is an example of how Harris might look at Correa’s 5.4 WAR of this season and conclude that the Twins got their $35 million worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted October 16, 2022 Share Posted October 16, 2022 (edited) 20 minutes ago, chasfh said: That depends on both how he values a win, and how much that win is worth. There has been a lot of agreement the past few years that a theoretical win in the marketplace can be valued in terms of actual dollars, and that the value is right around $9 million. (For anyone who is interested, you can find numerous articles on the cost of a win in free agency at Fangraphs.) So if Harris agrees with this concept, he might conclude that a player projected to get five wins in a year could be worth as much as $45 million for the year. Of course it’s doubtful that after this season anyone will offer Correa a 1/45, since the market is almost certainly not there yet. But this is an example of how Harris might look at Correa’s 5.4 WAR of this season and conclude that the Twins got their $35 million worth. Wins 90 to 95 might be worth $9M, but clearly wins 0, to say 80, cannot be because we don't have teams with 800 milllion payrolls. So I might argue the Twins did not get their money's worth because their team turned out not to be close enough to good to take useful advantage of 5 high cost marginal wins (i.e make the playoffs). I have to wonder if the revenue value to Minny for 78 vs 73 wins covered Correa's value in absolute economic terms either. Edited October 16, 2022 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted October 16, 2022 Author Share Posted October 16, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Wins 90 to 95 might be worth $9M, but clearly wins 0, to say 80, cannot be because we don't have teams with 800 milllion payrolls. So I might argue the Twins did not get their money's worth because their team turned out not to be close enough to good to take useful advantage of 5 high cost marginal wins (i.e make the playoffs). I have to wonder if the revenue value to Minny for 78 vs 73 wins covered Correa's value in absolute economic terms either. That suggests that the fault lies with the Twins for not winning with the team they put around Correa, not the fault with the Twins not valuing Correa correctly. The Twins clearly believed that they were competing for the inside track to win the Central, something most of us believed back then; nobody thought they were benefiting only by going from 73 to 78 wins. Had they won the Central by a game or two, most analysts would agree Correa would have been a big part of the difference, if not the whole difference, given how they got 1.0 wins from their shortstops in 2021. Edited October 16, 2022 by chasfh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Cowan Posted October 16, 2022 Share Posted October 16, 2022 Yes, I think that the whole premise that a "win" is worth $9 million is easily proven to be false by the simple fact that no one is going to pay $45 million for 5 "wins". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted October 16, 2022 Share Posted October 16, 2022 3 minutes ago, chasfh said: That suggests that the fault lies with the Twins for not winning with the team they put around Correa, not the fault with the Twins not valuing Correa correctly. The Twins clearly believed that they were competing for the inside track to win the Central, something most of us believed back then; nobody thought they were benefiting only by going from 73 to 78 wins. Had they won the Central by a game or two, most analysts would agree Correa would have been a big part of the difference, if not the whole difference, given how they got 1.0 wins from their shortstops in 2021. true enough, but it still means that if a 65 win a team pays 9 million/win out of the gate on their rebuild they are going looking at a 225 million payroll add to get to the playoffs (assuming 90 wins). From a $30millions base payroll like we've seen some teams bottom out with, that might be conceivable, for a team with a payroll already at >$100M, it has to be a depressing prospect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalTiger Posted October 16, 2022 Share Posted October 16, 2022 Once upon a time GM's traded minor leaguers for major league talent often hyping their youngsters up to do so. Then a new type of analytical GM thought came to the fore and and teams started holding they minor league talent tightly; which did hinder Al's one lane approach to rebuilding. Now I sense emerging a reluctance from Mega deals that will begin to play out this off season as teams realize the damage they cause and the overall failure rate. Sure Mega stars that hugely impact both the Box office and build the brand will be an exception but overall teams will seek smaller commitments to maintain trade flexibility year to year. I could be wrong but looking at the teams that spend without reward it should leave a mark. Carlos Correa did not put the Twins over the top, Max's 45 million went up in smoke in Flushing, The Padres won without Tatis, DD added solid mid priced free agents and won, The Indians are still playing without spending big..ditto the Rays, Texas has the most expensive Keystone combo and lost big anyways, Seattle and Atlanta are choosing to pay their youngsters early for the prime years instead of paying BIG for the declining years. The risk of going big too early for years 23-30 is now considered less risky than going big for years 31-38 and knowing bloody well the last two years are wasteful. All of this will / should in my estimation have an impact of free agency more and more each year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenacious D Posted October 16, 2022 Share Posted October 16, 2022 4 hours ago, SoCalTiger said: Once upon a time GM's traded minor leaguers for major league talent often hyping their youngsters up to do so. Then a new type of analytical GM thought came to the fore and and teams started holding they minor league talent tightly; which did hinder Al's one lane approach to rebuilding. Now I sense emerging a reluctance from Mega deals that will begin to play out this off season as teams realize the damage they cause and the overall failure rate. Sure Mega stars that hugely impact both the Box office and build the brand will be an exception but overall teams will seek smaller commitments to maintain trade flexibility year to year. I could be wrong but looking at the teams that spend without reward it should leave a mark. Carlos Correa did not put the Twins over the top, Max's 45 million went up in smoke in Flushing, The Padres won without Tatis, DD added solid mid priced free agents and won, The Indians are still playing without spending big..ditto the Rays, Texas has the most expensive Keystone combo and lost big anyways, Seattle and Atlanta are choosing to pay their youngsters early for the prime years instead of paying BIG for the declining years. The risk of going big too early for years 23-30 is now considered less risky than going big for years 31-38 and knowing bloody well the last two years are wasteful. All of this will / should in my estimation have an impact of free agency more and more each year. The issue will be how patient the Tigers will be. Correa signing makes sense—position of a need, fits within our payroll, won’t cost a draft pick and seems to align with Harris’ player philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted October 16, 2022 Share Posted October 16, 2022 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Tenacious D said: The issue will be how patient the Tigers will be. Correa signing makes sense—position of a need, fits within our payroll, won’t cost a draft pick and seems to align with Harris’ player philosophy. Why Correa over other options? Also, given the length that Correa is likely to pursue contract wise, I don't think it's at all clear whether he fits Harris' philosophy Edited October 16, 2022 by mtutiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenacious D Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 2 hours ago, mtutiger said: Why Correa over other options? Also, given the length that Correa is likely to pursue contract wise, I don't think it's at all clear whether he fits Harris' philosophy I want to prioritize fixing SS and the lineup. Correa is still young, won’t cost us draft capital and is looking for another team (presumably). Good walk rate and power. I don’t think the other free agent SS will ultimately switch teams (Swanson, Boegarts, Turner). Would be open to all of them, too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KL2 Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 2 hours ago, mtutiger said: Why Correa over other options? Also, given the length that Correa is likely to pursue contract wise, I don't think it's at all clear whether he fits Harris' philosophy Cause we're not gonna outbid the red Sox, dodgers and braves who all want to keep their own guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 (edited) 14 minutes ago, KL2 said: Cause we're not gonna outbid the red Sox, dodgers and braves who all want to keep their own guys And yet they're gonna outbid the Cubs or Yankees or whoever for Correa? Edited October 17, 2022 by mtutiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casimir Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 Iglesias is a free agent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatkoVarda Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 the 2023-24 FA options are not as good or numerous Correa still makes sense on a lot of levels its not my money if Baez and Rodriguez opt out (they won’t) the Tigers have zero dollars committed for 2024 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 16 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said: the 2023-24 FA options are not as good or numerous Are they numerous this year? The premise of shortstop free agent discussion since the offseason has begun on this site basically treats Correa as the only option. I like Correa and wouldn't mind if he came here. But I dont see it happening for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which I dont buy that Harris, based off of his past history, is going to be interested in handing out long term deals the likes of which Correa is pursuing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted October 17, 2022 Author Share Posted October 17, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, Jim Cowan said: Yes, I think that the whole premise that a "win" is worth $9 million is easily proven to be false by the simple fact that no one is going to pay $45 million for 5 "wins". It's their concept and I have no claim to it. I see where they are coming from on it. Edited October 17, 2022 by chasfh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted October 17, 2022 Author Share Posted October 17, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: true enough, but it still means that if a 65 win a team pays 9 million/win out of the gate on their rebuild they are going looking at a 225 million payroll add to get to the playoffs (assuming 90 wins). From a $30millions base payroll like we've seen some teams bottom out with, that might be conceivable, for a team with a payroll already at >$100M, it has to be a depressing prospect. A team that positions itself to be a 65-win team isn't paying anything for wins because they aren't playing for wins. Anyone paying top dollar for top free agents are either trying to elevate themselves into playoff contention, into a higher playoff seed, or to lengthen planned contending status by at least an extra year. To your point, a marginal win has different values to different teams. Edited October 17, 2022 by chasfh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabretooth Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 13 hours ago, mtutiger said: I still think he's capable of getting the high end of what he's pursued in the past in terms of years and I dont know if Harris would be interested in that. But I could be wrong, although I suspect that if Harris' posture is more on the aggressive side, he'll cast a wider net than just Correa and probably look at other options as well (ie. Swanson, Boegaerts).... All reasonable....I hope he does what you are saying, or what I'm saying...or anything that makes this team win for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 56 minutes ago, chasfh said: A team that positions itself to be a 65-win team isn't paying anything for wins because they aren't playing for wins. Anyone paying top dollar for top free agents are either trying to elevate themselves into playoff contention, into a higher playoff seed, or to lengthen planned contending status by at least an extra year. To your point, a marginal win has different values to different teams. Of course I picked the 65 number as relevant to our Tigers. If we signed Correa we would be a ~$100M payroll(last time I checked), 66 win team paying top dollar for marginal wins, would we not? Now I suppose if Harris does a Svengali act and somehow has the roster rebuilt into an 85 win team and then signs Correa, that's a scenario. But then you have to ask, if he got the roster from 65 to 85 wins without paying $9M/win, can he get it to 90 wins at the same lower marginal cost per win? 🤔 (and of course, to be clear, given that we don't care about Ilitch's money, but just considering the logic of the hypothetical) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted October 17, 2022 Author Share Posted October 17, 2022 5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Of course I picked the 65 number as relevant to our Tigers. If we signed Correa we would be a ~$100M payroll(last time I checked), 66 win team paying top dollar for marginal wins, would we not? Now I suppose if Harris does a Svengali act and somehow has the roster rebuilt into an 85 win team and then signs Correa, that's a scenario. But then you have to ask, if he got the roster from 65 to 85 wins without paying $9M/win, can he get it to 90 wins at the same lower marginal cost per win? 🤔 (and of course, to be clear, given that we don't care about Ilitch's money, but just considering the logic of the hypothetical) One question, I guess, is whether at the talent level we had available to us, was this a true 65-win team? There was a seemingly historic level of concurrent under-performance, especially by hitters, that might not play out so pessimistically next year, or even in a parallel universe this season. If they believe there is some middle ground between 2021 and 2022 performance that serves as these players' "true" level, maybe they think they might be able to build from around the edges a team that approaches or even exceeds .500. At that point, the marginal value of a superstar becomes possibly more relevant for us. All this is speculation, but I believe it's plausible and within the range of outcomes, at least at the edges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 (edited) 16 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: But then you have to ask, if he got the roster from 65 to 85 wins without paying $9M/win, can he get it to 90 wins at the same lower marginal cost per win? 🤔 That's basically his former employer's MO as well. The Giants have tended more toward value in free agency, often buying low and building up free agents versus handing out big long term deals with high AAVs. The degree to which he was involved in that (versus just executing Farhan's vision) isn't clear, but its at least a clue as to how he may view building a roster. Edited October 17, 2022 by mtutiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalTiger Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 4 hours ago, RatkoVarda said: the 2023-24 FA options are not as good or numerous Correa still makes sense on a lot of levels its not my money if Baez and Rodriguez opt out (they won’t) the Tigers have zero dollars committed for 2024 Maybe Rodriguez would consider ? He might match 3/45 and if he ( or his wife ?) regrets signing in Detroit . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 5 hours ago, SoCalTiger said: Maybe Rodriguez would consider ? He might match 3/45 and if he ( or his wife ?) regrets signing in Detroit . Of the two, Rodriguez seems like the most likely to opt out. But for him to do so likely means he pitches very well next year and makes an opt out a less desirable outcome than it currently seems at the moment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.