As MLB free agency heats up, the San Francisco Giants appear to be taking a more measured approach. While fans might be itching for a big-name signing, recent history offers a compelling reminder: not every splashy deal turns into a home run. In fact, some of the most high-profile contracts in recent years have aged poorly-and the Giants narrowly avoided being on the hook for several of them.
Let’s take a closer look at three major contracts the Giants wisely sidestepped, and why those decisions, frustrating as they may have seemed at the time, now look like smart long-term moves.
Carlos Correa: The One That Got Away-and That’s Okay
Giants fans will never forget the Carlos Correa saga. For a moment, it looked like San Francisco had landed its franchise shortstop-a 13-year, $350 million megadeal was reportedly in place. Then came the failed physical, the deal collapsed, and the whole episode left the fanbase stunned and the front office under fire.
But fast forward a few years, and that twist of fate might have been a blessing in disguise.
Correa eventually signed with the Minnesota Twins, only to be traded back to the Houston Astros. He’s now owed $96 million over the next three seasons. While his performance in Houston has been solid, that’s still a hefty price tag for a player with a history of injury concerns and fluctuating production.
Meanwhile, the Giants pivoted and landed Willy Adames, who stepped in as the everyday shortstop and delivered a strong first season in San Francisco. Despite a slow start, Adames powered through to hit 30 home runs-offering a reliable glove and serious pop at the plate. That’s the kind of production you want from your shortstop, without the long-term financial risk.
Sean Manaea: A Misstep Avoided
Sean Manaea’s name might ring a bell for Giants fans. He spent a season in San Francisco, bouncing between roles-sometimes starting, sometimes coming out of the bullpen after openers. It was an odd fit, and ultimately, the Giants let him walk.
Now with the New York Mets, Manaea is locked into a two-year, $50 million deal. But after an injury-plagued 2025 campaign that saw him post a 5.64 ERA, that contract is starting to look like a major overpay.
The Giants’ decision not to commit long-term to Manaea looks smart in hindsight. His inconsistency, both in role and performance, made him a risky bet. And while his 2024 season with the Mets showed promise, the regression in 2025 reinforces why San Francisco opted to move on rather than double down.
Kris Bryant: A Cautionary Tale
Kris Bryant’s brief run with the Giants in 2021 was electric. He arrived at the trade deadline and helped power San Francisco to one of the most memorable regular seasons in franchise history. Naturally, there was buzz about bringing him back long-term.
But the Giants passed, and Bryant signed a seven-year, $182 million deal with the Colorado Rockies.
Since then, it’s been a tough road for the former MVP. Injuries have derailed his time in Colorado, and even when he’s been on the field, the production hasn’t matched the paycheck. For the Giants, the decision not to re-sign Bryant now looks like a textbook case of knowing when to walk away.
Big Spending Isn’t Always Big Winning
There’s no denying the excitement that comes with a major free agent signing. It energizes the fanbase, signals ambition, and can change the outlook of a franchise overnight. But as these three cases show, big contracts come with big risks-and sometimes, the best moves are the ones you don’t make.
The Giants’ current approach may not make headlines, but it reflects a front office that’s playing the long game. They’re being selective, cautious, and strategic. That might not satisfy every fan’s offseason wishlist, but in a league where financial flexibility and roster depth are more important than ever, it’s a philosophy that could pay off in the seasons to come.