Is this the last we will see of Carlos Correa?

Realistic Options for Corrrea:

Hou
Sea
Oak X
LAA X
Tex

TB X
Bos X
NYY
Tor X
Balt

CWS X
Det
Clev X
KC X
Minn X

SF X
LAD
SD X
Col X
AZ X

Mil X
STL X
Reds X
Cubs
Pitt X

ATL X
Phil
NYM X
Mia
Wash X

Leaves Hou, Sea, Tex, NYY, Balt, Det, LAD, Cubs, Phil, & Mia.

A few yrs away from winning: Tex, Balt, Cubs, and Mia.

Leaves:
Hou
Sea (does he want to play in the NW + Div rival)?
NYY (the Yankees fan base HATES him but that shouldn't stop them)
Det (reunited with Hinch)
LAD (they could resign Seager + have Turner)
Phi (they really need pitching)

Available SS: Correa, Seager, Story, Baez & Semien (has played SS).

Who's willing to potentially pony up the yrs and $ he's looking for? My guess Detroit or the Yankees.

 

The way Miami aborted the Stanton deal is both a case study of being leery of non-contending teams forking over huge mega-deals, and an example of how no contract is truly untradeable (given that the receiving team is willing to pay for the contract).

 

I could be ok with losing correa if we spend that money on Simien on a 3 year deal, or go young at SS and pay someone like sterling Marte. That way, correa is replaced by an equally dangerous offensive threat (albeit without the established postseason chops). If there is any differential in annual salary (not sure there would be with Simien), spend the difference on pitchin.

 

What? Stanton was coming off an MVP season when they traded him. Terrible example.

 

The Yankees' top prospect is a SS. Their #3 prospect is also a SS. They're ranked #15 and #53 on MLB's top prospect list. I would be surprised if they added Correa given their available internal options and other glaring holes in their roster.

 

I agree if there ever was a time Crane would spend on a long term deal, Carlos is going to be it. He's one of the few times you could justify the value because he's still young and combines elite offense and defense at a position where you are lucky to get one of those. If Crane was going to let sentiment, a player's marketability, or "intangibles" as part of signing someone, Carlos has that as well.

I just don't think there's any indication Crane will do a giant long-term contract. Baseball's salary structure is messed up in many ways. Owners get control of the most productive years at salaries that are an order of magnitude (or more) below free market rates and that's not an accident. Crane is willing to spend, but he does it to fill shorter term needs. If they don't think Pena is the solution at short, I could see them spending fairly big money for a short stop, just not 8-10 years.

Carlos bet on himself and it's going to pay off for him.

 

So you’re saying it was right they traded him after he just decided to commit to the team/city for that long contract?

 

Good post, but I see Miami as a viable destination if they have the money to spend. They have a very interesting young core with Trevor Rogers, Sandy Alcantara, Sixto Sanchez, Jesus Luzardo on the mount... and Jesus Sanchez, Bryan De La Cruz, Lewin Diaz, and Jazz Chisholm in the lineup. If they add Correa at SS, they'd have a very exciting team... and they are playing in a weak division with chance to climb the ladder. Correa becomes the veteran (again, 26 y/o) leader to lift the talented youngsters to win and provide validation to the franchise.

 

Yep, I'd rather they sign someone on a short deal at shortstop, and spend that "saved" money on pitching. Only guy they didn't re-sign that really hurt was Charlie Morton. And I understand why, he had an injury history (similar to Correa). But with Charlie pitching for the Astros the last two years, one could make a very compelling argument that the Astros would have won a couple more World Series. This team needs more high-end pitching IMO, both starters and relievers, much more than it needs Correa.

 

No...I'm saying that using Stanton as an example "that no contract is truly untradeable" is a terrible example since he just won the MVP. Try trading Pujols the last 3 or 4 seasons of his deal. That would have proven your point... not Stanton coming off 59 bombs, OPS north of 1.000 and an MVP.

 

Not really. Pujols signed a 10 year deal when he was 32 years old. Stanton signed a 12 year deal when he was 27.

As far as Stanton goes, I’m not necessarily talking about the production… but the type of franchise that chooses to trade somebody with that many years left, in the prime of their career. Correa (or any player) runs that risk when signing any huge deal with franchises that aren’t necessarily built for contending long-term. Stanton also is being p

Also, if the Stanton deal was an 8 or 10 year deal, and he was on the market now (5 years in, with 3-5 to go), it would likely still be tradeable even with the previous injuries.

 

The inability to sign High Draft Picks or Latin 15 year olds in Free Agency.

Because of a $300 Million Salary.

I think because of Payroll Cap, the need that money to resign their own players and sign Picks and Latin Rookies.

 

What 15 year old Latinos have they ever signed? The list you provided had one on it (Santana) and that was 27 years ago.

And, current MLB rules prohibit the signing of any international player who has not turned 16.

 

You are forgetting one thing... Stanton has a no trade clause that he already used once denying a trade to the Cardinals. So he may be untradeable because of that no trade clause if he refuses to leave New York. Even if the Astros didn't give Carlos a no trade clause, in 3-4 years when he reaches 10 years service time he would have 10 and 5 rights and the ability to veto any trade possibly making him untradeable.

 

It’s typically not as big of a problem if the player is still productive and has an opportunity to play on a contending team (the usual case when teams try to trade a player within a long-term deal).

 

They could also sign a top FA and trade them to fill those gaps and not wait and hope they succeed.

 

The only thing stopping the Yankees is whether or not they'll bust through the salary cap.

Can't always rely on the prospects, even "can't miss" prospects can flame out or underwhem. Remember when Gleyber Torres was supposed to be the second coming of A-Rod? He's regressed on defense every year and has created the hole at SS the yanks need to fill.

 

Astros Brass already believes in Jeremy Pena, maybe has a similar production and impact to Carlos Correa.

 

So you'd be "surprised" if the Yankees, who desperately want to win and have a LONG track record of throwing $$ to fix their weaknesses tried to add Correa??

Their two SS prospects are just that "prospects" and unproven!! They come up empty in the playoffs again they're going to do what they do best and that's go after big FA.

They can use those unproven prospects in potential trades. They're also the wealthiest team in baseball and at some point are going to do exactly what the Dodgers are doing (and what they've done in the past) and that's go into the luxury tax.

Will they go after Correa and other big FA? Who's to say but they also have a LONG track record of being unpatient and when they see the LAD and BOS and the Cubs all winning WS as of late it's just a matter of time when their payroll gets up close to 300 million.

So when it comes to the Yankees one should never be "surprised" when they spend $$ on big time FA to address weaknesses.

 

I agree with you on Miami. If they feel they're close they very well might throw a bunch of $$ at Correa.