Carlos Correa to the Twins - 3 Years, $105 Million

I do take a perverse satisfaction in the Dodgers and Lakers (and their annoying fans) winning bubble titles so we caveat them for eternity like the Rockets and Astros titles for the rest of the nation

 

I'm not sure how many people feel that way nationally about the Dodgers title, but I do think the Lakers bubble title is pretty much seen as bogus.

 

Correa is a far more talented and I would argue better player.

Correa could still end up a 100 WAR player. That seems crazy but he will be at 40 WAR at the end of this season and he has missed already nearly two seasons of games. He is averaging almost 8 WAR per 162 games.

If he gets healthy and locked in, he could put up a handful of 8-9 WAR seasons, and a half dozen 4-6 WAR seasons..... that would put him in the 80-100 War range if he plays until 40.

Those are some "if's" but not that far fetched.

For an idea of how good that is, the 30th best player in MLB history for WAR is Albert Pujols with 100 WAR..... if we go down to 80 WAR, that is in the 50th to 65th highest WAR in MLB history and that is people like Pete Rose, Nolan Ryan, Jeff Bagwell. That would put Correa in the top 5 for SS.

It is a testament to just how talented and good Correa is that at not even 28 years old he has 40 WAR after missing an incredible amount of time.

He should be a Hall of Famer if he stays healthy, and he is likely the most talented Astros player ever - only Cedeno and Richard really come to mind as in that talent level.

Everyone things about his bat - but his glove is even better, arguably the best overall fielder in baseball, or on that short list.

 

Career ALDS OPS .985... but kinda need to have a team that can get there first

 

Didn't we keep Kaz Matsui's masseuse even after cutting him?

 

Why? Does anyone think the Dodgers wouldn't have made the playoffs in 2020 if it was a full season? If anything, it was harder to win that one because there were more playoff teams, making each team's odds of winning lower.

I can say with 99.9% certainty that if the Astros won, no one here would be questioning it's legitimacy and lots of people would be b****ing about other cities questioning it. When we were in the ALCS, no one was saying "well, this doesn't count".

 

I suspect the same number of people care in LA about it having a caveat as the number of people who care in Houston that the Rockets didn't play Jordan or that the Astros used trash cans.

I wonder if the Astros win the World Series this year, should it have a caveat because there was a compressed spring training and abnormal start to the sesaon?

 

The counterpoint to that argument would be this- it was actually a tougher championship for the Dodgers to win b/c they started with a best of 3 they would never otherwise have played, introducing an element of randomness that was more difficult. The 44% didn't affect the post season so really the argument is only that having a shortened regular season allowed for some fluke teams to make it (hello Marlins), but since the Dodgers have made the playoffs eleventy million years in a row they were going to make it regardless, so that point is inconsequential.
Yuck. Now I'm done defending the Dodgers.

 

Ha. I just wasted my time typing out the exact same point you just made.

 

Do you really think the general baseball public puts forth that sort of analysis? I mean it's great a handful of fans can parse out that level of detail but 95% of fans will look at the 60 game season and put a massive asterisks on it. And to that I say - good. F the dodgers.

 

95% of fans are going to say "Dodgers won the title. The end". No one except people who are invested in degrading a championship care about random reasons for asterisks.

 

What is MVP level to you?

I am talking Mike Trout, Judge type numbers, he has never approached that.

He has never hit over 30 HR's or had a 100 RBI season now I know this strictly about his bat but that's what he was sold as.

I don't care about WAR, and what was Altuves War when he actually won the MVP what are Trouts and Judge's WAR?

I am not saying Correa is a bad or mediocre player I thought he was supposed to be a Trout or Judge, and he has not had a year when he even was a Freeman level with the bat.

Tucker and Yordan have had more impressive seasons with the bat, that's the level I am talking about offensively.

I think he is better than Cal Ripken on defense alone but Cal Ripken would not be in the MVP discussion if he played today, he would just be a good shortstop.

 

So now we are going by small sample sizes?

What does that have to do with him being an overall great hitter?

 

You are completely ignoring the fact that he plays shortstop by saying you don't care about WAR.

If he played LF, then yeah his numbers aren't amazing, but he doesn't, neither did Ripken. Most people, not you clearly, realize the value in that.

Correas main issue is that he hasn't stayed healthy, he has been a superstar level player when he has played.

 

Who is Jordan? There was an MVP Jordan, but he wasn’t the best with the bat…

 

I am not ignoring anything.

Shortstop has nothing to do with him never hitting over 30 HR's or 100 RBI's.

This is not about his worth as a shortstop, it's about him being a true MVP type player and having that type of production.

What do you consider a superstar level player?

He was supposed to be transcended as a player, and he has just been a star shortstop and not even the best, with no argument.

Nobody has said he is not very valuable so miss me with that I am talking about a true upper echelon superstar, the fact that he had to go to the Twins shows he is not that level, do you think Judge or Trout would have trouble finding somebody to pay them what they want?

 

If only there was a statistic to define how many wins a player is truly worth to his baseball team? If only we could use those metrics to determine how much a player is actually worth? Maybe then we could use that info to construct teams in a logical way… as opposed to just paying big money for players that ultimately don’t add as much value despite gaudy stats?

If you had to choose between Bregman and Correa over the next 3 years at the same price, who would you choose? Keep in mind that Bregman has had the MVP-type stats that you’re hellbent on.

And using Judge/Trout as comparisons is just as silly on both sides of the spectrum. Judge getting paid after his career year means very little as far as his value going forward… and at age 31, will never reach or outperform his value of what he’s getting paid (much like Cole). And Trout, for all his accolades, is even worse than Correa in terms of carrying his team to the post-season (and is now most certainly even more injury prone than Correa).

 

You don't seem to understand the game of baseball very well