The Impact of Contract Insurance on Future Mega-contracts

RobertS975

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
367
With the lofty contract expectations being proposed on SOSH and elsewhere for Shohei Ohtani's next signing, it raises huge issues for what sized contract would be insurable. Virtually all large MLB contracts are insured to some degree by the team. It may well prove to be a major factor in limiting the size of contracts.

Carlos Correa's initial proposed contract with SF never came to pass because it was deemed uninsurable due to prior injury history. Most likely, the same thing happened with the Mets contract proposal. Kershaw didn't pitch in the WBC because he couldn't get insurance against injury during the tournament and the Dodgers wouldn't take the chance and give him permissiontoplayuninsured.

The talk of contracts north of $700 million for Ohtani may not come to fruition unless the insurance companies are willing to insure that contract. A team typically pays about 10% of the contract for insurance. The policies generally don't cover 100% but more likely 80% of the annual contract. And as a rule, an insured contract policy is written for no longer than 5 years. So that leaves the second half of a 10 year contract potentially uninsured. And in Ohtani 's special case, should he sustain an injury that kept him from pitching but allowed him to DH, what would that mean from a policy payout point of view? Nobody pays $70 million + AAV for a DH!

Maybe there's a team that will take the risks of a huge contract and hope that Ohtani's rotator cuff and ulnar collateral ligament stand the rigors of time. But I strongly suspect that contract insurance limitations will come into play with the immense payouts that may come to reality.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,219
Carlos Correa's initial proposed contract with SF never came to pass because it was deemed uninsurable due to prior injury history.
Do you have something to back this up? What I recall from the time and what I'm seeing in the below linked article say that SF was concerned about his medicals themselves, not that they couldn't get it insured.

https://www.mlb.com/news/why-carlos-correa-s-deal-with-giants-fell-apart

And he still signed for 6/200 in the end with MIN, I think it was more about the teams involved being concerned about his long-term health as opposed to insurers having the same concern. The Mets didn't draft and then not sign Kumar Rocker because of insurance (there's not much money involved relatively), it was because they didn't like his physicals.
 

phrenile

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
13,902
Do you have something to back this up?
He didn't a few weeks ago.
I suspect that what transpired with Carlos Correa last off season with the initial announcement of $350M with the Giants and then $315M with the Mets was that those teams were unable to get adequate insurance for those contracts rather than anything new found on his physical.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
71,219
It's of course never so public, HIPAA etc., but it seems like a very flimsy way to start a thread after all the mega-deals we just saw last winter.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,820
It would be an interesting topic for discussion but the past couple of times I've delved into the topic, I've not really found any great information that's publicly available other than some marketing materials from companies who offer to insure athletes.