Are NBA contracts coming to MLB? Is this pretend anti-tanking?

Carlos Correa signing with the Minnesota Twins is interesting, even weird, on more levels than one.

First, of course, is signing with the Twins, who aren't going to jump back to baseball postseason relevance in the next three years.

Second, the interesting is that it WAS just a three-year contract. I don't think he's tainted by the Stros' cheating scandal. I think he DOES still have an injury cloud hanging over him, which is why the market was soft and nobody would apparently give him a long-term deal.

Third is the contract's structure — an opt-out after the first and second years in what's just a three-year contract, sometimes called a "pillow contract." That's pretty much brand-new to baseball, but has become more common with top-tier NBA players like LeBron James and Kawhi Leonard. 

That said? The new contract the Marlins gave to free agent Jorge Soler has the same structure. Soler? No injury problems, but that bigly career year with KC? My brain wonders about "assistance."  And, that may be why HE didn't rake more on the market.

But, why these types of contracts? In the NBA, it's obvious. With just five on the floor and 12 on the team, rebuilds are easier if you have the financial flexibility (and can convince the right people to come to your team). It's also how, even after the most recent union-owner contracts, how the NBA is more of a player's league, especially for those in the highest tier. That ain't the case in MLB. At least not now. Maybe the universal DH plus Correa's contract, and Soler's starts a trend. But, it still won't be as easy to rebuild.

I suspect something else may be at play.

Note the teams: Marlins and Twins. In light of the new collective bargaining agreement, and players wanting teams to stop tanking, contracts like this can let low-budget teams either actually not tank, or pretend not to tank, on a one-year basis. Add in the expanded playoffs and there you go. MLB's version of one-and-done. (With the Marlins, this could be considered an advanced version of the extremely backloaded contract they gave Giancarlo Stanton a few years ago. There, too, knowledgeable baseball fans figured this wasn't about long-term competitiveness.)

Who could be affected? Middle-market teams that don't want, even for three years, in case a player does not opt out, the contract of a Correa in case they hit new rounds of injury. Big-market teams wanting to stay under, or get back under, an only mildly increased lux tax line who see small-market to smaller mid-market teams ready to pay up on a dual gamble that either the player redeems himself enough to opt out or that the increase in ticket and merch sales is worth it.

That said, re bigger market teams? When I look at the likes of a Jason Heyward contract with the Flubs, I still don't get why no owner/GM has yet to push for a contract with mutual opt-outs, rather than player-option only. Sure, might have to pay a bit, or more, up front, but, per the scenarios I outline, it would be worth it.