2021-22 Tigers Hot Stove League

[KL2]

8 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

if that's true it could suck for us because that means the market will probably end up frozen as Correa holds out for something no-one wants to give him.

Teams also aren't stupid. They know talent wise, sure Correra is better than Lindor. But, Lindor played in 150 games every year. Corerra can't say that. That will hurt a bit. 

[1984Echoes]

7 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

tea leaf reading wise, I would guess Story is the guy that Avila would most like as 2nd choice. 

That's my board too.

1) Correa

2) Story

After those two... I would struggle with any other choice (happy we got a good SS but unhappy with all the peripheral/ aging/ etc... issues.) It's pretty simple for me. Correa. And if not Correa, Story.

[Motor City Sonics]

58 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

That's my board too.

1) Correa

2) Story

After those two... I would struggle with any other choice (happy we got a good SS but unhappy with all the peripheral/ aging/ etc... issues.) It's pretty simple for me. Correa. And if not Correa, Story.

So you would struggle with having Marcus Semien or Javier Baez over Zack Short, Isaac Paredes, the Castros or Ryan Kreidler ? 

 

The more I think about Correa, the less I like the idea of a 10 year/ 300 million dollar deal.  

[RandyMarsh]

Im still liking the 3 year opt out option, I think Correa is going to be really good short term so if he indeed is he will likely opt out for another contract especially if we front load it. Say we sign him to 10/300 but the first 3 years are at 35 million a year. That would mean that when his opt out comes he would be due 7/195, while that is still a ton of money if he indeed is a star the next 3 years like I suspect he is going to be he would command much more than that in 3 years as only a 30 year star SS that has now put up in this scenario several straight elite seasons.

It's definitely a risk though cause if he doesn't play like a star, particularly that 3rd year we're likely stuck with him but I think if all goes well this could be the best outcome for the Tigers. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by RandyMarsh

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

Im still liking the 3 year opt out option, I think Correa is going to be really good short term so if he indeed is he will likely opt out for another contract especially if we front load it. Say we sign him to 10/300 but the first 3 years are at 35 million a year. That would mean that when his opt out comes he would be due 7/195, while that is still a ton of money if he indeed is a star the next 3 years like I suspect he is going to be he would command much more than that in 3 years as only a 30 year star SS that has now put up in this scenario several straight elite seasons.

It's definitely a risk though cause if he doesn't play like a star, particularly that 3rd year we're likely stuck with him but I think if all goes well this could be the best outcome for the Tigers. 

I think any baseball player that takes an opt out at 30 on a contract that runs 7 more years at 9 figures is daylight crazy, but that doesn't mean I don't think it could happen.  Still if I'm Chris Ilitch do want I to play Russian Roulette with the gamble the player doesn't get hurt or starts to fade enough in 3 yrs that the player declines the buyout? 

I guess it all comes down to how much the next guy willing to sign is willing to take. I suppose if you can get Baez for <<$200M you are going be a lot less inclined to offer $300M to Correa even with a buyout designed to be attractive. The idea being that any team with an analytics staff should have some idea of where the point is that they can use the dollars not spent on one guy to buy a greater amount of WAR with a addition somewhere else in the lineup.

[KL2]

6 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think any baseball player that takes an opt out at 30 on a contract that runs 7 more years at 9 figures is daylight crazy, but that doesn't mean I don't think it could happen.  Still if I'm Chris Ilitch do want I to play Russian Roulette with the gamble the player doesn't get hurt or starts to fade enough in 3 yrs that the player declines the buyout? 

I guess it all comes down to how much the next guy willing to sign is willing to take. I suppose if you can get Baez for <<$200M you are going be a lot less inclined to offer $300M to Correa even with a buyout designed to be attractive. The idea being that any team with an analytics staff should have some idea of where the point is that they can use the dollars not spent on one guy to buy a greater amount of WAR with a addition somewhere else in the lineup.

The risk is fairly low. 

Unless Correra is hurt for 80 percent of it. He'd easily make back what he gave up at a contract at 30. Let's say he signs a sraight 300/10 at 30 AAV right now. He's gonna get at least 230 on another 10 at 30. 

[HeyAbbott]

On 11/20/2021 at 9:15 AM, Tiger337 said:

 It is essential that they have a shortstop.  Right now, they don't have one.  Correa is the best all around player among the available shortstops, but the others would fit too.   

It is clear they need a shortstop. What is not clear is that Correa is the one. There is a more fleeting likelihood that Correa will be an elite everyday player half way through his 1o year contract, assuming there aren't back issues as some rumors suggest.

We maybe looking at a 100 game SS by year 4 with Correa. Maybe one of the other suspects (Story, Siemen, Baez, etc) might be a better bet.

 

Edited November 21, 2021 by HeyAbbott
Spelling and to complete one sentence.

[Archie]

1 hour ago, HeyAbbott said:

It is clear they need a shortstop. What is not clear is that Correa is the one. There is a more fleeting likelihood that Correa will be an elite everyday player half way through his 1o year contract, assuming there aren't back issues as some rumors suggest.

We maybe looking at a 100 game SS by year 4 with Correa. Maybe one of the other suspects (Story, Siemen, Baez, etc) might be a better bet.

 

I would rather they go with a second tier SS than overpay for one of the others especially for a long time.  There was talk about A. Simmons being available and I think I would take him for a year or maybe two.

[Tiger337]

I would stay far away from a 31-year-old defensive specialist with a .558 OPS.  

[buddha]

if they had drafted mayer, then maybe simmons would be a nice one or two year alternative.  but they have no shortstops that look like regulars in the system.

dont overthink it, just get the best player.  that's correa, imo.

i wouldnt give too many years to baez as i think he's going to be 265/295/450 in a few years.  but he'll get it from someone.

[KL2]

1 hour ago, Archie said:

I would rather they go with a second tier SS than overpay for one of the others especially for a long time.  There was talk about A. Simmons being available and I think I would take him for a year or maybe two.

why, they have no shortstops. Why go for a short term answer to have this problem in a year or two?

[Tiger337]

5 minutes ago, KL2 said:

why, they have no shortstops. Why go for a short term answer to have this problem in a year or two?

It would be an even bigger problem in a year or two, because it's unlikely that five good shortstops would be available at the same time again.  

[SoCalTiger]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

if they had drafted mayer, then maybe simmons would be a nice one or two year alternative.  but they have no shortstops that look like regulars in the system.

dont overthink it, just get the best player.  that's correa, imo.

i wouldnt give too many years to baez as i think he's going to be 265/295/450 in a few years.  but he'll get it from someone.

So assuming Baez is 20 mil/year and provides the 265/295/450 you suggest plus solid defense and posts daily is it worth 10 million more per year and 150 million more commitment for Correa to provide 277/350/480 with solid defense and misses time ? That comes to getting on base 30 additional times per year given 600 ABs, slightly better defense, slower runner and more prone to injury for 10 mil more per year and 150 million more in total commitment.

 

I am not arguing either way but just wondering if we aren't shopping for the same thing at Saks 5th Avenue we can get almost the same at Costco.

[buddha]

5 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

So assuming Baez is 20 mil/year and provides the 265/295/450 you suggest plus solid defense and posts daily is it worth 10 million more per year and 150 million more commitment for Correa to provide 277/350/480 with solid defense and misses time ? That comes to getting on base 30 additional times per year given 600 ABs, slightly better defense, slower runner and more prone to injury for 10 mil more per year and 150 million more in total commitment.

 

I am not arguing either way but just wondering if we aren't shopping for the same thing at Saks 5th Avenue we can get almost the same at Costco.

correa should have about 5 more years in his prime.  baez will have 3 and is already worse than correa.

look, if you guys want baez that's fine.  but i can envision a million posts for the next five years about javy waiving at balls over his head, making boneheaded defensive plays because he's not paying attention, and a steady decline in his defense that erodes his value.  but he will hit some monster home runs.

i think they should sign correa because he's a better player and is younger and will thus likely be a better player for longer.

[Tiger337]

4 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

So assuming Baez is 20 mil/year and provides the 265/295/450 you suggest plus solid defense and posts daily is it worth 10 million more per year and 150 million more commitment for Correa to provide 277/350/480 with solid defense and misses time ? That comes to getting on base 30 additional times per year given 600 ABs, slightly better defense, slower runner and more prone to injury for 10 mil more per year and 150 million more in total commitment.

 

I am not arguing either way but just wondering if we aren't shopping for the same thing at Saks 5th Avenue we can get almost the same at Costco.

I don't think it's a matter of paying 150 more million for the less healthy player. The Tigers wouldn't go into a contract of that length if they expected Correa to get injured. They would only give that contract if they expected him to stay healthy.  

[SoCalTiger]

So the "Golden Ticket " for shortstops now is Lindor's 341/10 year deal which is already looking bad after an ok 2021.

So offer the following :

Correa - 5/175 - Makes him the highest paid shortstop per year at 35/yr and free agent again at 32.

Story - 5/150 - 30 mil per year despite questions about playing outside Coors. Free agent again at 34

Semien - 4/120 - 30 mil / yr , offer to play shortstop , and free agent again at 35

Baez - 5/125 - 25/year  and free agent gain at 34

 

Send them all out on the same day and tell all first come first served with a time limit. No takers start looking for a trade partner and allocate the funds elsewhere and/or go hard for Chris Taylor. 

[SoCalTiger]

6 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I don't think it's a matter of paying 150 more million for the less healthy player. The Tigers wouldn't go into a contract of that length if they expected Correa to get injured. They would only give that contract if they expected him to stay healthy.  

Stay Healthy Like Zimmerman ? Of course its expected but there is no way of knowing except past history.

[SoCalTiger]

11 minutes ago, buddha said:

correa should have about 5 more years in his prime.  baez will have 3 and is already worse than correa.

look, if you guys want baez that's fine.  but i can envision a million posts for the next five years about javy waiving at balls over his head, making boneheaded defensive plays because he's not paying attention, and a steady decline in his defense that erodes his value.  but he will hit some monster home runs.

i think they should sign correa because he's a better player and is younger and will thus likely be a better player for longer.

I am not advocating for Baez over Correa but one is demanding 10 years and the other might only require 4 or 5 and Baez is only 2 years older so Baez contract would be for years 29,30,31,32 and maybe 33. So the question is "how much more value "does Correa really represent for a much much larger commitment and opportunity cost with less $ for additional players ?

[buddha]

20 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

I am not advocating for Baez over Correa but one is demanding 10 years and the other might only require 4 or 5 and Baez is only 2 years older so Baez contract would be for years 29,30,31,32 and maybe 33. So the question is "how much more value "does Correa really represent for a much much larger commitment and opportunity cost with less $ for additional players ?

i hear ya.  i'd rather pay correa but i get your point on cost.

[RatkoVarda]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

It would be an even bigger problem in a year or two, because it's unlikely that five good shortstops would be available at the same time again.  

exactly; the supply and demand stars have aligned for the Tigers; and 5 good SS are available; ABOSULTELY need to get one or make a trade in the ensuing shuffle 

[KL2]

48 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said:

So the "Golden Ticket " for shortstops now is Lindor's 341/10 year deal which is already looking bad after an ok 2021.

So offer the following :

Correa - 5/175 - Makes him the highest paid shortstop per year at 35/yr and free agent again at 32.

Story - 5/150 - 30 mil per year despite questions about playing outside Coors. Free agent again at 34

Semien - 4/120 - 30 mil / yr , offer to play shortstop , and free agent again at 35

Baez - 5/125 - 25/year  and free agent gain at 34

 

Send them all out on the same day and tell all first come first served with a time limit. No takers start looking for a trade partner and allocate the funds elsewhere and/or go hard for Chris Taylor. 

It's not a video game. 

Those guys aren't taking these short little deals that are crazy team friendly. 

[Tenacious D]

Any discussion of Correa being injury prone is lazy.  The last two seasons, he missed 2 games in 2020 and 14 in 2021.  Or, put another way, he played in 93% of his team’s games during that time.

I’ll take the proven All-Star with a career .849 OPS in over 70 postseason games on my team everyday.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

I don't think it's a matter of paying 150 more million for the less healthy player. The Tigers wouldn't go into a contract of that length if they expected Correa to get injured. They would only give that contract if they expected him to stay healthy.  

yeah - but what they expect probably has close to zero to do with what will happen! 

But going back to Buddha's argument, it's true Correa is younger but what I care about is how long you sign the guy for relative to his current age - or better put, how old is he at the end of the deal. If I can get Baez or Story on deal that doesn't end with them any older than the deal I would have to give Correa, then I'm OK with it. IOW to me Correa for 10 is a worse deal to walk into than Story or Baez for 6, esp at equal or greater AAV.

[TigerNation]

1 hour ago, SoCalTiger said:

Stay Healthy Like Zimmerman ? Of course its expected but there is no way of knowing except past history.

Past history is not really a way of knowing either.

[Longgone]

3 hours ago, SoCalTiger said:

Of course its expected but there is no way of knowing except past history.

Athletes get hurt, it's a risk for all of them. Unless you have a chronic issue, having a past injury isn't really predictive of future injuries.