I'm guilty of getting caught up in potential Cubs rumors, but this one I can say has a little more validity to it. Let's first back up to things that have happened prior to this:
- Correa was seeking a big deal, apparently big enough that the Tigers shied away from it in favor of Baez. Possibly a record-breaking deal, according to some past sources.
- Hoyer has mentioned that he is done focusing on pitching and will move to other needy parts of the roster, specifically the infield.
- It's no secret that the Cubs could use a top-tier shortstop, considering the defense that will be needed and the extra power in the lineup is a need.
- Correa has mentioned (before the offseason started) that Wrigley is a great place to play and a lot of players would be interested in going there. He separately stated that he wanted to play for a "rebuilding team", something the Cubs are of sorts.
Putting things together before this last big announcement, we can already see some "mutual interest" building. Correa wants a rebuilding team-the Cubs are rebuilding of sorts. The Cubs could use a top-defense shortstop, Correa is a top-defense shortstop. And so forth.
That leads us to the big (or as big as you can get during a lockout) announcement. A source has lately told insider Levine this statement: “The Cubs have the money to sign Correa, however, the only hesitation is about the length of the deal – not the annual average value of the contract.”
This goes along with similar statements made by Levine: "The Cubs have a serious interest in Correa" and "there is mutual interest between Correa and the Cubs"
Ok. A lot to process. Correa is reportedly looking for a 10-year record breaking deal, something the Cubs are somewhat hesitant to do, and I don't blame them. If Correa signed a 10-year deal with the Cubs, he'd be 37 by the time he became a free agent, and before then his defense and offense would be likely declining. I'm certainly not saying the Cubs should sign him to a 1-2 year deal, but I do think that 10 years is a little much.
So, would either the Cubs or Correa compromise? If the Cubs compromised, they would get a shortstop that would be there and really solid when they start competing again (I think as soon as 2023-2024) but would likely be declining in the latter years of his contract. Would it be worth it?
If Correa compromised, then what would be the lowest he would go? 6-years? 8-years? I would prefer a 5-7 year deal, since he's looking in the long range, but would Correa compromise? What would be in it for him? The Yankees and Dodgers also need a shortstop, and both have money to spend, so why should he compromise and sign with the Cubs?
Well, obviously the Cubs are a better team with a better fanbase, but besides that he has the opportunity to play in front of an amazing fanbase that wants him there and be able to play with another team once he hits his free agency.
You can view the original tweet here:
#Cubs have serious interest in Carlos Correa but don't want to go 10 years in contract length, sources tell @MLBBruceLevine. https://t.co/yrOINa1apz pic.twitter.com/Wl0DVPUWoG
— 670 The Score (@670TheScore) December 21, 2021
And my tweet:
Reasons why Correa should sign with the Cubs:
— Cubbies Gazette (@cubbies_gazette) December 22, 2021
-Great franchise team
-Great city
-Unbeatable fanbase
-Stroman wants you there
-I want you there
-Everyone wants you there (everyone that matters at least)
Comments
Post a Comment