Master Index of Archived Threads


Signing Sugar

...as an extension with the Mets during the 2012 season.

5 votes

...as an extension with the Mets during the 2012-2013 off-season.

14 votes

...as an extension with the Mets during the 2013 season.

1 votes

...as a free-agent with the Mets during the 2013-2014 off-season.

0 votes

...as a free-agent with some other team during the 2013-2014 off-season.

4 votes

Edgy MD May 30 2012 05:57 PM

People don't want to make predictions, but a lot of opinions nonetheless going around. Let's get it out there. It'll be healthy.

seawolf17 May 30 2012 06:02 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Think: This off-season. Want: Immediately, for ten years and $400 million.

metsguyinmichigan May 30 2012 06:06 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Yesterday. Seriously, this is a priority. He's the face of the franchise, a true leader and a model citizen.

metirish May 30 2012 06:13 PM Re: Signing Sugar

I of course thought of this great Lizzy song, and hell the lyrics fit [youtube:1539n2es]LSwZM-UgnF4[/youtube:1539n2es]

Frayed Knot May 30 2012 06:31 PM Re: Signing Sugar

I'd sign Sugar as soon as humanly possible I wanna be signed by you by you, and nobody else but you ...

Nymr83 May 30 2012 06:34 PM Re: Signing Sugar

This offseason, 8 years 180 million.

Edgy MD May 30 2012 06:54 PM Re: Signing Sugar

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Yesterday. Well, I can tell you on reasonably good authority that he wasn't signed yesterday.

Nymr83 May 30 2012 07:00 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy DC wrote: metsguyinmichigan wrote: Yesterday. Well, I can tell you on reasonably good authority that he wasn't signed yesterday. The deal is signed but, as a good "company man", Wright and his agent have agreed to keep quiet until the press conference... To be held the day that 2013 Season Ticket renewal notices go out.

Ashie62 May 30 2012 07:02 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Nymr83 wrote: This offseason, 8 years 180 million. That..and now.

Edgy MD May 30 2012 07:06 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Eight of eight voters say he'll be extended before opening day 2013. What a lousy bunch of Met-hating pessimist you guys are!

Nymr83 May 30 2012 07:11 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy DC wrote: Eight of eight voters say he'll be extended before opening day 2013. What a lousy bunch of Met-hating pessimist you guys are! Well, according to the Mets Predicting thread all but 2 or 3 of us are behind their win pace

TransMonk May 30 2012 08:20 PM Re: Signing Sugar

The off-season. It is definitely a priority, but Sandy will make sure he does best by the team.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 30 2012 08:50 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Alderson's conviction on the matter seems to have grown, but the urgency hasn't, has it? It waits until winter.

Edgy MD May 31 2012 07:44 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Well, somebody bailed from the optimism bandwagon. As we have our first vote that has him signing with the Cartidgersox. Anybody want to own up to andn discuss that vote? Some options I didn't include in the poll: Wright will sign his next deal... [list][*]...as an extension with some other team during the 2012 season after being traded by the Mets in 2012. [/*:m][*]...as an extension with some other team during the 2012-2013 offseason after being traded by the Mets in 2012. [/*:m][*]...as a free agent with some other team during the 2012-2013 offseason after the Mets opt not to pick up his option. [/*:m][*]...as a free agent with some other team during the 2012-2013 offseason after being traded by the Mets in 2012, and the team he's traded to failing to extend him. [/*:m][*]...as an extension with some other team during the 2013 season after being traded by the Mets in 2013. [/*:m][*]...as an extension with some other team during the 2013-14 offseason after being traded by the Mets in 2012. [/*:m][*]...as a free agent with some other team during the 2013-2014 offseason after being traded by the Mets in 2012, and the team he's traded to failing to extend him.[/*:m][/list:u]

Benjamin Grimm May 31 2012 07:50 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I think (hope) that they'll get it done over the coming offseason. I think he wants to stay. I think they want to keep him. I think they're feeling less squeezed financially. (Although who knows for sure?) Hopefully the Mets will continue to play well. In the pre-season predictions thread I picked the team to have winning records in May and June and then a death-spiral in August and September. I think avoiding a horrific end to the season may be the most important thing. If the season ends on a toxic note, David's eye may start to wander. On the other hand, a good sustained run at the playoffs, even if they fall short, may give him a sense of unfinished business, and a reminder of how great it can be to have success in New York.

seawolf17 May 31 2012 07:54 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I don't like the "threat" angle the Mets are (inadvertently?) playing right now. "Well, you better come out to lots of games, or we won't have enough money to raise the payroll, which means... well, you know." Fuck you, Mets. Don't be a dick. You dealt Seaver. You let Straw go. You let Reyes go. Don't fuck this up.

Mets – Willets Point May 31 2012 11:54 AM Re: Signing Sugar

What's the deal with the "sugarpants" moniker anyway?

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 31 2012 12:02 PM Re: Signing Sugar

It used to be High Fructose Syrup Pants but Bloomberg banned it.

seawolf17 May 31 2012 12:08 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Sugarpants, eh? His name is David. So... David, like David Sunflower Seeds, which are a great alternative to sugary snacks, and Wright, like the Wright brothers, who flew airplanes, on which you should wear pants. Hence, "sugarpants."

Ceetar May 31 2012 12:09 PM Re: Signing Sugar

flying would be much more pleasant if i didn't have to wear pants.

Benjamin Grimm May 31 2012 12:12 PM Re: Signing Sugar

But not for everyone else.

Mets – Willets Point May 31 2012 02:40 PM Re: Signing Sugar

I'm sure no one would object if Ceetar wore a long kilt while traveling by airplane.

Ceetar May 31 2012 02:41 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Mets – Willets Point wrote: I'm sure no one would object if Ceetar wore a long kilt while traveling by airplane. 12.5% Scottish.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 14 2012 09:26 AM The David Wright's Next Contract Thread: Signing Signs

Shot at World Series more important than money as Wright mulls Mets future By MIKE PUMA David Wright is willing to make at least one prediction about his baseball future: The dollars probably won’t matter as much as the opportunity to win championships. After avoiding the topic of his contract for most of the summer, the Mets third baseman told The Post he is “optimistic” he will remain long-term with the only organization for which he has played, but he also needs to see in what direction the franchise is headed. Wright is enduring a fourth straight August with almost no hope of reaching the playoffs. The Mets are expected to pick up his $16 million option for 2013 once this season concludes, and then have the winter to negotiate a long-term contract with the 29-year-old, who is poised to test free agency if he doesn’t have a deal in place by next March. “The money issue for me, I don’t think that will be the deciding factor,” said Wright, who is batting .325 with 16 homers and 75 RBIs and .416 on-base percentage in the final guaranteed season of his six-year contract worth $55 million. More important, he says, is a chance to win the World Series. “You want to be able to win, and I’ve only experienced a little bit of that here,” Wright said. “In a perfect world, we get this thing turned around and going in the right direction and ultimately I get to experience the bad, the ugly and the good here, which includes winning.” Wright was asked to assess the Mets’ chances of reaching that goal. The Mets are 55-60 and third in the NL East as they prepare to open a three-game series tonight in Cincinnati. “We’ve taken a baby step in the right direction and I still think there’s a long way to go before you can say that we’ve kind of turned that corner where I think that we will,” he said. But Wright pointed to prospects Matt Harvey and Zack Wheeler as reason to believe the Mets can rebuild their pitching in the same manner as the NL East-leading Nationals. Wright said he has been “frustrated” by the last several seasons. That answer came in response to a question about whether he felt respected by the organization. One of Wright’s friends from outside the organization was later asked what the third baseman meant by the comment. “Very simple: Winners want to win and David desperately needs to win,” the person said. “Everything flows from that desire and need.” Wright said the Mets have respected his request to delay contract talks until after the season. That will leave the Mets with essentially a four-month window of exclusive negotiating rights with Wright. “I told these guys we’re not going to discuss it during the season, either this one or next, so I guess that’s a fair assumption,” Wright said. “If we’re not going to talk about it during this season or next season, then I guess the timing would be during this offseason.” Wright can only guarantee he will be listening closely to what the Mets have to say. “Coming up through the system, I have a tremendous amount of loyalty to this organization,” Wright said. “I can’t tell you what the future holds, but I’m hoping — optimistic — that something will get done.” Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/wil ... z23XCMtMaZ

seawolf17 Aug 14 2012 09:29 AM Re: The David Wright's Next Contract Thread: Signing Signs

Ten years, $400 million. Make it happen, Sandy.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 14 2012 09:29 AM Re: The David Wright's Next Contract Thread: Signing Signs

Sandy Alderson wrote: Then, there are his two stars, both approaching free agency. Third baseman David Wright will likely command a nine-figure deal after the team picks up his $16 million option for 2013. Dickey burnishes his case with each sterling outing. Even so, Alderson shrugged off the pressure to re-sign the pair this winter. “Nothing with respect to 2013 rides on what we do with those two players,” he said last week. He added, “Their situations will be at the top of our list. But if we have to exercise options, we have to exercise options.” http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2012/0 ... ickey.html

Edgy MD Aug 14 2012 10:55 AM Re: The David Wright's Next Contract Thread: Signing Signs

seawolf17 wrote: Ten years, $400 million. Make it happen, Sandy. Ummm....

Ashie62 Aug 14 2012 12:24 PM Re: The David Wright's Next Contract Thread: Signing Signs

This is David Wright one BIG payday. Im predicting St. Louis.

metirish Aug 14 2012 12:35 PM Re: The David Wright's Next Contract Thread: Signing Signs

Shot at World Series more important than money as Wright mulls Mets future I mean , that's nice and fits with David's goody two shoes persona but it's bullshit.

Edgy MD Sep 04 2012 12:10 PM Re: Signing Sugar

David confesses optimism. “My favorite player was Cal Ripken,'' Wright said. ‘”The biggest reason for that was, I like that he stayed.'' (Wright's agent begins weeping inconsolably.)

batmagadanleadoff Sep 30 2012 07:01 PM Re: Signing Sugar

September 30, 2012, 8:08 p.m. ET Maybe It's Time to Trade Wright By TIM MARCHMAN For nine years now, earnest, reliable David Wright has been the public face of the Mets. His career has spanned four managers, three distinct periods of awful, depressing baseball, two catastrophic late-season collapses and one postseason, and not once has he expressed a frustration or regret anything like what the team's fans feel. All he's done is play very well—better, even, than he sometimes gets credit for. Wright will end this year as the Mets' career leader in hits, runs, runs batted in, walks, doubles, total bases and sacrifice flies, and with about 40 wins above replacement. That's basically what Derek Jeter did through the same age, and the only players who did meaningfully better in New York in their 20s aren't just Hall of Famers, but icons: Mantle, Mathewson, Ott, Gehrig, Seaver, Ruth, Snider and DiMaggio. And for all that, if Wednesday is Wright's last game as a Met, it probably will be for the best. This isn't because of anything Wright has done or left undone—there's nothing bad to say about him—or even because of the Mets' finances, which, bad as they are, still will allow them to pay Wright as much as or more than any other team. Rather it's because of the radical changes in baseball over the past few years, which somewhat perversely give the Mets every incentive to move Wright while they can. The first, which dates back to the mid-1990s, is the trend of teams locking up their own best players to long-term contracts, which is making it increasingly rare for a franchise talent to hit the open market. (Josh Hamilton and Robinson Cano are the only players who could reach free agency over the next two winters who are of Wright's caliber.) Add this to the recent enormous increases in television rights fees and you get vast sums of money floating around with no obvious place to go. This is how you end up with the small-market Reds locking up Joey Votto, a one-dimensional first baseman, through age 41. Potentially the most significant change, though, is the introduction of the second wild card, which will dramatically increase the value of a win to rich teams like the Yankees and Angels, who now have to plan to be good enough not just to make the playoffs, but to avoid getting shunted into a one-game play-in. It's hard to say how big this effect will be, but in theory the best teams should be willing to pay a huge premium for the players who can help them avoid the coin-flip game. All of this makes Wright, a great player still in his prime who projects to be worth about twice the $16 million he'll make next year, hugely valuable on the trade market. How valuable? The Dodgers gave the Red Sox good prospects and took on over $100 million in essentially dead money just for the right to pay Adrian Gonzalez, an older and lesser player than Wright, a market-level contract, and it wasn't viewed within baseball as an obviously insane thing to do. Past all of this, a going-nowhere team like the Mets has every reason to move a valuable player like Wright for young talent. Under the new collective bargaining agreement, it no longer will be possible for one team to seriously outbid others for amateur draft picks or international prospects. Recent successes like Matt Harvey aside, the Mets don't have a great record of scouting or developing players, so if they want good, cheap young ones around whom to build a winner, some of them are probably going to have to come from outside the organization. There are really only two reasons not to trade Wright. One is that it would damage the team's hopes of contending during what's left of his prime, but they don't have any. The other is that it would outrage fans and leave Citi Field quieter than a toaster, but as the Journal has reported, it already is. The only way to win back the public will be to win, and even if the Wilpon family announces tomorrow that the team has been sold to a mad Russian oil tycoon, that's going to take a couple of years, by which time Wright likely won't be what he was. All of this is cold, but so is baseball: Mathewson, Ruth and Seaver all moved on from New York, and sooner or later, so will Wright. If the Mets trade him now, it won't undo any of what he's already done, which is enough to establish him as the sort of player who ought to have a statue made of him when he finally ends his career, and it certainly won't harm him a bit. The man turns 30 in December, and unless he turns out to be a Jeter-like freak, he probably has only two or three years of real stardom left in him. It might be nice to see him spend them in a place where fans turn up to the ballgames, and cheer when they do. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... 40996.html

batmagadanleadoff Sep 30 2012 07:12 PM Re: Signing Sugar

September 30, 2012, 8:08 p.m. ET Maybe It's Time to Trade Wright By TIM MARCHMAN David Wright talks Mets career Updated: September 30, 2012, 6:16 PM ET By Adam Rubin | ESPNNewYork.com In an exclusive interview with ESPNNewYork.com, Wright indicated he is unsure who will be his employer in 2014, much less at the end of his career. "No idea," he said. [...] Wright has resolved to test free agency during the 2013-14 offseason if no extension can be consummated this winter. He does not want in-season dialogue. [...] "I think we've demonstrated we have some talent in our minor leagues," Wright said. "Some of the young arms that have come up have been really impressive. But, at the same time, of course it's important that we can make a trade or sign a free agent and be able to spend some money. This is my philosophy on it. And that's why I'm going to sit down with these guys at some point and discuss it. Yeah, I'd like to know if it's going to be 'what you see is what you get' and we're going to base it solely on the minor leagues." What if the current payroll constraints will be in place for a while? "That would be something I'd have to think about, obviously," Wright said. With Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon in an interview room at Citi Field three weeks ago waiting to present Jones with a gift recognizing his final visit to Queens, Jones noted to reporters the Braves never let him get to spring training of a free-agency year without having locked him up. Asked if that is how an organization should approach things, Wright made a distinction between himself and Jones -- and Jeter for that manner. "I think it makes it a lot easier when obviously Chipper is in that situation and they win the division each year and have a chance to play for a World Series each year," Wright said. "Obviously we haven't experienced what they have." Read the rest of Adam Rubin's piece at http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_ ... s-continue

Ashie62 Sep 30 2012 08:41 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Two media assholes all about themselves.

Edgy MD Sep 30 2012 09:11 PM Re: Signing Sugar

What specifically about their articles do you object to?

Gwreck Sep 30 2012 10:12 PM Re: Signing Sugar

When is it about Joey Votto and 1.051 OPS that makes him a one-dimensional player?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Sep 30 2012 10:20 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Gwreck wrote: When is it about Joey Votto and 1.051 OPS that makes him a one-dimensional player? That's the part that stuck out for me. First basemen are first basemen, granted... but Votto's exhibited a fine glove with superlative on-base skills (even for the position), some speed, and good power. For Chrissakes, his worst wOBA of the last four years is .403.

metsguyinmichigan Oct 01 2012 06:59 AM Re: Signing Sugar

From Marchman: "All of this makes Wright, a great player still in his prime who projects to be worth about twice the $16 million he'll make next year." Wright is worth $32 million a year? That's crazy. "The man turns 30 in December, and unless he turns out to be a Jeter-like freak, he probably has only two or three years of real stardom left in him." Jeter-like freak? The only thing freaky about Jeter is that he has a cult of sportswriters who are in denial that he is an over-rated singles hitter with no range.

metsmarathon Oct 01 2012 07:37 AM Re: Signing Sugar

metsguyinmichigan wrote: From Marchman: "All of this makes Wright, a great player still in his prime who projects to be worth about twice the $16 million he'll make next year." Wright is worth $32 million a year? That's crazy. based on the fancy schmancy WAR - to - dollars conversion, wright's 7.4 fWAR (that's WAR as fangraphs.com calculates 'em) equates to about $35M on the free market. it's a little complex how they derive that, and some might argue flawed, too, but basically, you take the total salary doled out to free agents, and divide it by the total WAR they produced, and you derive an average $/WAR expectancy - where for every, say, $4.5 million dollars you spend on a free agent, you would expect, on average, a return of 1 WAR.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 01 2012 07:42 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I'd say there has to be a flaw somewhere, because nobody is going to pay $35 million per year to David Wright.

metsmarathon Oct 01 2012 07:44 AM Re: Signing Sugar

if you could guarantee 7.6 WAR per season for the duration of the contract, somebody probably would.

Edgy MD Oct 01 2012 07:45 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I think it's more than a little deceptive if you only count money awarded to free agents. Reyes may seem to be worth every penny he gets by that measure, but not necessarily when you see the productivity one can get out of a pre-arbitration player like Ruben Tejada for pennies on the dollar. Seawolf is arguing $40 million.

seawolf17 Oct 01 2012 07:49 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy DC wrote: I think it's more than a little deceptive if you only count money awarded to free agents. Reyes may seem to be worth every penny he gets by that measure, but not necessarily when you see the productivity one can get out of a pre-arbitration player like Ruben Tejada for pennies on the dollar. Seawolf is arguing $40 million. I honestly think his value to the franchise transcends money, in the Jeterian sense. They spent this weekend watching the Braves suck Chipper's teat, and then they're going to go trade their own guy? EFF THAT. $40M is extreme, obviously, but if he signed a ten-year, $250M deal today, I'd be cartwheeling across the quad.

metirish Oct 01 2012 07:53 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I had an exchange with Marchman on twitter about this, I noted that if you trade Wright then you trade Dickey too, right?

Edgy MD Oct 01 2012 08:00 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Maybe, I guess, and then Daniel Murphy becomes the anchor of your 2013 marketing campaign and you draw 3,643 fans to see you. I'm pretty sure that they'll go whole hog into re-signing both. If they fail, they'd sooner trade Dickey, hope they can get some big league-ready pieces, go into the season optimistic-if-things-break-right-they-can-contend, and trade Wright if he still remains unsigned near the deadline. But I'm pretty sure that they'll go whole hog into re-signing both.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 01 2012 08:28 AM Re: Signing Sugar

The other factor here, of course, is that they may not want to stay. The Mets will need to convince David that there are better days ahead, and that's certainly not an easy sell.

Edgy MD Oct 01 2012 08:31 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I think selling a vision of the future is probably easier than most sells. You offer me a guaranteed $30 million salary for eight years, I'm more than happy to believe that there will be ice skating on the moon.

seawolf17 Oct 01 2012 08:56 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy DC wrote: I think selling a vision of the future is probably easier than most sells. You offer me a guaranteed $30 million salary for eight years, I'm more than happy to believe that there will be ice skating on the moon. Egg-zactly. And I'm already on record as saying that Dickey should be dealt.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 01 2012 09:15 AM Re: Signing Sugar

They're not gonna offer him $240 million over eight years. Maybe $120 over six. And whatever they offer him, he can reasonably expect that someone else may come relatively close. And that somebody else may not have as bleak a short-term future as the Mets do. Sure, the Mets have Harvey and Wheeler and whoever else we may want to get excited about, but David Wright is 30, and the biological clock on his World Series hopes is ticking.

Edgy MD Oct 01 2012 09:21 AM Re: Signing Sugar

The Marlins didn't have so bleak a short-term future as the Mets did when Reyes jumped. Except it was. It's real easy for rich men to bullshit about the future they are building.

Ashie62 Oct 01 2012 09:28 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I guess I have to resign myself to an off season of Wright speculation. I didn't care about Reyes, Wright I do very much. I feel like if he is not wrapped up by opening day he has played his last game as a Met. Very difficult for me to gauge managements feelings on Wright and that kind of money. There are many cogent arguments that will be made about Wright's future with or not with the Mets. I feel shitty about this already..

Benjamin Grimm Oct 01 2012 09:50 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy DC wrote: The Marlins didn't have so bleak a short-term future as the Mets did when Reyes jumped. Except it was. Of course nothing is absolutely certain. But some situations appear to be better than others, and it's not hard to imagine that there are other teams whose situation looks better than the Mets does. If you don't make any decisions unless you know 100% what the future holds, then you can't make any decisions at all. Edgy DC wrote: It's real easy for rich men to bullshit about the future they are building. Yes, it is. And if Wright is as gullible as we have to hope he is, then they'll sign him.

metsmarathon Oct 01 2012 09:54 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy DC wrote: I think it's more than a little deceptive if you only count money awarded to free agents. Reyes may seem to be worth every penny he gets by that measure, but not necessarily when you see the productivity one can get out of a pre-arbitration player like Ruben Tejada for pennies on the dollar. Seawolf is arguing $40 million. or the yen on the dollar you can get with a mike trout. like i said, it has some arguments against it. but if you're using it to price a free agent, it's a decent way of looking at things. if you pay wright $20M per year, you expect him to give you 4 WAR per year (on average). you hope for more, obviously. for what it's worth, wright has more fWAR to this point in his career than either jeter or chipper.

Ashie62 Oct 01 2012 09:59 AM Re: Signing Sugar

How about 10 for 250 and Mr. Met cleans his penthouse weekly. It is going to take more cash to keep Wright than I thought. I suck at this and need a hug.

batmagadanleadoff Oct 01 2012 10:20 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Ashie62 wrote: I feel like if he is not wrapped up by opening day he has played his last game as a Met. I think this is very likely. If the Mets thought there was a strong chance that Wright will play out his option and sign somewhere else, they''ll probably trade him as soon as they are able to. I'm guessing the Mets are loath to spend $16M on Wright's 2013 option if they're only gonna have his services for that one season.

MFS62 Oct 01 2012 10:21 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Ashie62 wrote: I suck at this and need a hug. Homey don't play 'dat. Later

batmagadanleadoff Oct 01 2012 10:26 AM Re: Signing Sugar

"Sign the extension and me and dad promise that we'll trade for Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg a month from now".

Mets – Willets Point Oct 01 2012 11:35 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Tim Marchman wrote: Mathewson, Ruth and Seaver all moved on from New York Matthewson, one game with the Reds when he was well past his prime and moving into a managerial role. Ruth, 28 games with the Braves long after his decline from a star player. Seaver, still in his prime but his departure from New York due to strife and incompetence. These are not good comparisons to 30-year-old still in his prime Wright.

seawolf17 Oct 01 2012 11:47 AM Re: Signing Sugar

The comparisons to Wright are Derek Fucking Jeter and Chipper Fucking Jones. Neither one of those organizations would have let either of those fucking guys get away. But this is the fucking Wilpons, so fuck that. Fuck. (NSFW)

metirish Oct 01 2012 11:49 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Chipper was asked about that his last time through NY, simply put he said the Braves never let him get close to FA.

Edgy MD Oct 01 2012 11:52 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I can't speak to Chipper, but the Jankees let Jeter get "close" (at least by the definition that describes Wright as close) and they are doing so again.

batmagadanleadoff Oct 01 2012 12:07 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Megdal weighs in on Rubin's interview with Wright. David Wright on the death of optimism By Howard Megdal 10:58 am Oct. 1, 2012 David Wright, the face of the Mets franchise, now feels at liberty to utter truths that are left unsaid, or denied, by the Mets organization itself. Wright has no idea if he will be a Met in 2013, let alone beyond that. He is unwilling to discuss an extension in-season next year, during the final year of his contract. So if the Mets cannot convince him to stay long-term, or cannot pay him, trading him this winter makes more sense than losing him for nothing next winter. "Just like players do a lot of times what's best for them, organizations sometimes have to do what's best for them also," Wright said, in an interview with Adam Rubin. "The ideal is you want to get a winning team on the field as quickly as possible. That's the front office's job to make those tough decisions. It would be tough for me personally. But, at the end of the day, I would understand." Speaking of a player the Mets let go for nothing, Wright was apparently as shocked as much of the fan base was by the departure of Jose Reyes, and it appears the loss of the franchise's best shortstop ever changed his thinking about the Mets' direction. "I always thought Jose would be back, that it was just a lot to do about nothing," Wright said. "We've known each other since 2001. You're talking about playing around or with each other for 11 years. Yeah, of course it opens your eyes. It makes you realize in a lot of ways there is an ugly business side to this—whether it's from the player's perspective or the team's perspective." Wright believes that building a team without the ability to add salary via free agency or trade is a problem. This is obvious to everyone, of course, but still isn't acknowledged by the Mets' organization, with plans in place to keep payroll at 2012 levels, leaving no room to add significant salary via trade or free agency for 2013. It appears that Wright, whose career and hopes of winning a championship rests on the direction of the Mets, has noticed. "I think we've demonstrated we have some talent in our minor leagues," Wright said. "Some of the young arms that have come up have been really impressive. But, at the same time, of course it's important that we can make a trade or sign a free agent and be able to spend some money. This is my philosophy on it. And that's why I'm going to sit down with these guys at some point and discuss it. Yeah, I'd like to know if it's going to be 'what you see is what you get' and we're going to base it solely on the minor leagues." Equally obvious has been the reason why: the sad state of ownership's finances, even after the Madoff settlement (which, remember, came due to ownership's lack of money). Wright acknowledged that, too. "Obviously some of the financial things that ownership has gone through have affected the ability to spend," Wright continued, referring to Mets ownership. "I don't think there's any question. I don't know that for a fact, but from what I understand and read it somewhat affected it." The interview itself, besides making for compelling reading, could serve as an attempt by Wright to publicly raise the stakes for the Mets to re-sign him. That seems unlikely, though: no one really needs to make the case that David Wright is important to the Mets, nor that losing Reyes and Wright in rapid succession will devastate the fan base while taking two of the best everyday players the Mets have ever developed from the team while both are still in their primes. More likely, David Wright saw how the Mets managed to disparage the reputation of Reyes, who Wright once described as his "baseball brother." Wright looks like he's trying to protect himself, in case the Mets, rather than ponying up the money and building Wright a winning team, smear Wright as some mercenary out for money as they usher him out the door, unable to keep him. It wouldn't be out of character for the organization, something Wright has almost certainly noticed, too. The very media savviness that has made Wright's stay in New York such a positive one, even when the owner took to the pages of The New Yorker to disparage him, was on display. And it sent the unmistakable message that if Wright isn't certain he's gone, he sure doesn't think it's certain he'll be back. Or as Wright put it, in response to the idea of joining, of all teams, the Yankees: "I don't know. I've never thought about putting on a different uniform. Hopefully that never happens. But you never know what the future holds. I don't know what's going to happen to me." http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... t-headline

Mets – Willets Point Oct 01 2012 12:21 PM Re: Signing Sugar

seawolf17 wrote: The comparisons to Wright are Derek Fucking Jeter and Chipper Fucking Jones. Neither one of those organizations would have let either of those fucking guys get away. But this is the fucking Wilpons, so fuck that. Fuck. (NSFW) Not sure these are good comparisons either. DFJ at 30 was on a team that had 7 World Series appearances in the previous 9 years (and had just missed another WS by one game). CFJ at 30 was on a team that had 11 straight playoff appearances with 3 more to come. The best comparison is finding a team has been dismal for half-a-decade and still hangs on to their best player despite few realistic chances of that malaise ending any time soon.

Edgy MD Oct 01 2012 12:31 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Howard Megdal on the death of optimism sort of breaks the irony meter.

metsmarathon Oct 01 2012 12:41 PM Re: Signing Sugar

well, then i suppose it all depends on how dimly you view the future. with the arms the mets are growing, i think the future may well be bright. provided the mets will have the ability to build the team through free agency as well. if there's no free agent money in the coffers, and doesn't look to be any in the years coming either, then no, they should not keep wright, and they should trade him for budding offensive talent, and the same for dickey. if there is money in the free agent coffers, then there is reason to hope for the future, and to consider the mets akin to the nats extending zimmerman, or the reds extending votto, or the rockies extending tulo.

Centerfield Oct 01 2012 01:53 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Look, as much as we'd love to pretend emotion and loyalty have anything to do with baseball, logically speaking, the Wilpons' decision comes down to only two options: 1. Sign Wright long-term this Winter. 2. Get run over by CF multiple times.

seawolf17 Oct 01 2012 02:05 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Centerfield wrote: Look, as much as we'd love to pretend emotion and loyalty have anything to do with baseball, logically speaking, the Wilpons' decision comes down to only two options: 1. Sign Wright long-term this Winter. 2. Get run over by CF multiple times. Or, better, both.

Gwreck Oct 01 2012 07:08 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Mets – Willets Point wrote: Not sure these are good comparisons either. DFJ at 30 was on a team that had 7 World Series appearances in the previous 9 years (and had just missed another WS by one game). CFJ at 30 was on a team that had 11 straight playoff appearances with 3 more to come. The best comparison is finding a team has been dismal for half-a-decade and still hangs on to their best player despite few realistic chances of that malaise ending any time soon. Tony Gwynn in San Diego? Occasional good years (84, 98) and some bad ones in between?

seawolf17 Oct 02 2012 07:22 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Gwreck wrote: Mets – Willets Point wrote: Not sure these are good comparisons either. DFJ at 30 was on a team that had 7 World Series appearances in the previous 9 years (and had just missed another WS by one game). CFJ at 30 was on a team that had 11 straight playoff appearances with 3 more to come. The best comparison is finding a team has been dismal for half-a-decade and still hangs on to their best player despite few realistic chances of that malaise ending any time soon. Tony Gwynn in San Diego? Occasional good years (84, 98) and some bad ones in between? Gwynn was my first thought too. Michael Young is a good parallel fitting that definition as well.

Edgy MD Oct 02 2012 07:58 AM Re: Signing Sugar

He's about 1,000 plate appearances behind Wright, but a pretty good analog for David is his homeboy Ryan Zimmerman. He's been on the cover of the media guide for years, he's reliable in the middle of the order but can get his swing out of whack for four weeks at a time, he's capable of top-level defense but not can have bad years in the field too. Each has one Gold Glove, each has projected a squeaky clean image more or less convincingly, each has shown himself willing to fill at shortstop, and each has weathered some tough times with his team more or less stoically. Zimmeran signed for six years and $100 million with an option for a seventh year, plus a five-year, $10 million personal services contract when his career ends. This is also comparable to what Reyes got on the open market. Wright knows he's usually better than Zimmerman and usually better than Reyes. A lifetime or two ago, Yogi Berra turned down his bonus offer because Joe Garagiola got more and he had grown up with Garagiola and he knew he was the better player. Where you stand among your friends is important. Offer him 20% more --- say, six years and $118-120 million and I think they'll come to an agreement quickly enough.

Ceetar Oct 02 2012 08:03 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Wright has two gold gloves. two Silver sluggers as well. I could see him winning another this year though.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 02 2012 08:15 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I think that's a reasonable number, and if the Mets do sign Wright that's about where I expect the numbers to be. I also think that the Met will be willing to offer that much. The only thing is, how much does David want to stay? Or will he be tempted by greener grass?

Ashie62 Oct 02 2012 10:42 AM Re: Signing Sugar

He can get some really really green grass in Hawaii with all that money he's gonna get.

duan Oct 02 2012 04:27 PM Re: Signing Sugar

I don't think he'll sign for 6*120 this winter. If they're getting him this winter it's got to be for 7/8 years @ about 20 per or 3/4 at mega money. I'm thinking if we are going to sign him it'll take something like a 7 year deal for 140 million, plus options @ 10 (player) 20 (club) for the following 2 years.

Edgy MD Oct 02 2012 06:03 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Yeah, I think it'll be higher too. But I give 6/120 as the sort of numbers that'll get the Mets past the respect threshold and lead Wright's party to sit down in earnest.

Swan Swan H Oct 06 2012 11:16 AM Re: Signing Sugar

The Post reporting that things may be moving quickly on the Wright front.

Edgy MD Oct 06 2012 04:00 PM Re: Signing Sugar

The third baseman is represented by Sam and Seth Levinson. What does Keith Miller do? Does he just handle the non-baseball stuff? Is he still on board at all?

Ashie62 Oct 07 2012 12:47 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Swan Swan H wrote: The Post reporting that things may be moving quickly on the Wright front. This is encouraging if to be believed. Wright's peoples are looking to start at 7 years for 125 Million? Why not..

MFS62 Oct 07 2012 10:06 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Is this the same Post that reported that the Nets were going to announce the signing of Dwight Howard in a few days? Just let us know when the contract has been signed. Later

Swan Swan H Oct 07 2012 10:42 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Sure, I'll drop everything. Can you provide some emergency contact information in case we have trouble reaching you?

MFS62 Oct 07 2012 01:10 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Swan Swan H wrote: Sure, I'll drop everything. Can you provide some emergency contact information in case we have trouble reaching you? Hey, Swannie. That was a comment about the predictive powers of the Post. Not anyone here. Later

Edgy MD Oct 09 2012 09:12 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Heyman has the Mets intending to open with $100 million. Points out that Wright has stuck with the ACES agency, despite their ties to a PED ring. He doesn't come out and say it, but he seems to mean to imply that this speaks of Wright's sense of loyalty. http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/jon-h ... t-for-life I guess it can be argued that Wright and Reyes both might have left a little on the table by refusing to negotiate mid-season after torrid first halves, only to cool off in the second half.

Ashie62 Oct 09 2012 09:31 PM Re: Signing Sugar

I like David handing back the ball he just autographed. Work the 100 to 125 and dont flock it up.

Edgy MD Oct 09 2012 09:40 PM Re: Signing Sugar

I'm a little concerned that Baseball/Goatee Guy and Album-of-Portraits Guy are just vampires using him to keep their E-Bay business going.

Ashie62 Oct 09 2012 10:17 PM Re: Signing Sugar

From their hands to Steiner lol

batmagadanleadoff Oct 10 2012 02:56 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Howie's been a busy writer over the Columbus Day weekend. Getting those deals with Wright and Dickey over with, for better or worse By Howard Megdal 11:20 am Oct. 10, 2012 On Saturday, the New York Mets expressed urgency to get David Wright and R.A. Dickey, the team's best position player and pitcher, signed up long-term, indicating that they hoped to have deals in principle agreed to by the World Series. The initial offers to both players, however, don't indicate much urgency at all. Either the Mets are going to need to come up with more, quickly, or their offers are no different than the team's pursuit of Vladimir Guerrero back in the winter of 2003-04: window-dressing in lieu of an actual acquisition. Consider what Jon Heyman is reporting the Mets offered David Wright: "somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million." Now, this is awfully vague, but let's give that reading all the best possible imputations to maximize what the Mets are offering. Let's assume that keeps Wright's $16 million for 2013 as-is, and exists on top of his 2013 deal. If that $100 million (again, we don't know how far below $100 million "the neighborhood" stretches) is spread over six years, he'll be getting essentially no raise over his current salary. Over seven years, that's an average cut in pay over 2013's salary. Over five years, it would be a bump to $20 million per year, but five years simply isn't close to as much as he'd likely get on the free agent market. To get a sense of what Wright's value is likely to be, consider that he's coming off of an elite defensive season at a premium defensive position, along with a 143 O.P.S.+. Moreover, he is just 29 years old, and that season is right in line with his career O.P.S.+ of 135. Joey Votto, at age 28, following a 2011 that saw him finish with less total value than Wright in 2012 and an M.V.P. vote finish, sixth, likely at or below where Wright will land, signed a ten-year, $225 million extension. Votto plays first base, a less demanding defensive position with more talent around to fill it. It's hard to fathom Wright getting anything like half as much as Votto did. Heyman cites Ryan Zimmerman, the Washington Nationals' third baseman, as a comp for Wright. Zimmerman signed a six-year, $100 million extension this spring. But Zimmerman was coming off of an injury-plagued 2011 that limited him to 101 games, rather than a near-M.V.P. season. Moreover, Zimmerman's career O.P.S.+ of 121 is solid, but a good deal below Wright's 135. As for Dickey, Heyman cites a Mets source as looking to extend Dickey for "no more than two years." He also cites a rival G.M. as saying Dickey could command $15 million per year in annual salary, but adds the Mets "aren't believed to be thinking anywhere near that ballpark." The result of such thinking is almost certainly seeing Dickey pitch in a different ballpark. Though Dickey's age, 37, works against him, that he is a knuckleball pitcher works in his favor. And more to the point, he's been quite durable while pitching at an extremely high level for three years now. Last season, C.J. Wilson hit the free agent market following a strong season in 2011. It was just his second full year as a starter, and he pitched fewer innings, at a higher x.F.I.P., than Dickey did in 2012. He then received a five-year, $77.5 million contract from the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. That's the ballpark pitchers like R.A. Dickey are signed in, whether the Mets like it or not. Also, Heyman wrote: "The Mets may give talks about a month, until the point where they will pick up the two players' options in early November. If there are no new deals done by the time the team picks up the options (Wright's is for $16 million, Dickey's is for $5 million) the Mets may consider trades for the players. But particularly in Wright's case, the Mets might have to be overwhelmed to pull the trigger on a trade." If the Mets cannot extend Wright, that last sentence is almost certainly intended to prevent teams from lowballing them. The race will be on to either deal Wright, or lose him, like Jose Reyes, for nothing. Still, the pomp and circumstance surrounding comically low offers brings to mind not Reyes, who never received one at all, but Guerrero, the premier outfielder who was a free agent following the 2003 season. Guerrero had received a five-year, $65 million contract offer from the Baltimore Orioles, but appeared reluctant to sign it. Sensing an opportunity, the Mets swooped in, and after stories in the press about a possible offer, came up with one: for three years, $30 million guaranteed, or less than half the guaranteed value of the Orioles' deal. "If that's the case, it's not going to get it done for them," a source close to Guerrero said at the time, stating the obvious. Unsurprisingly, Guerrero did not become a Met, and ultimately signed with the Angels for five years, $71 million. You know, his market value. If the Mets are to avoid that fate with their two best players, they'll need to show the kind of urgency in increasing their offers to Wright and Dickey that they never did with Guerrero. Otherwise, the Mets are simply rushing to get the doomed-to-fail contract negotiations over with so their real work of trading Wright and Dickey can begin. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... t-headline

Swan Swan H Oct 10 2012 03:11 PM Re: Signing Sugar

So Megdal is taking the $100 million figure, and speculating that it could be for five, six or seven years? Does that make any sense? He's guessing to the sound of a grinding axe. Oh, and here's the quote from Heyman: The Mets are expected to open negotiations with an offer for somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million for star third baseman David Wright, people familiar with the team's thinking said. The Mets are believed to have some flexibility as they intend to try hard to keep their biggest star. They are expected to give negotiations at least most of October before even considering a trade for Wright. Megdal states this as follows: Consider what Jon Heyman is reporting the Mets offered David Wright: "somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million." Was this ever actually offered? Megdal says it was, or at least implies it by framing Heyman's statement in the past tense. Hacky.

batmagadanleadoff Oct 10 2012 03:24 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Swan Swan H wrote: So Megdal is taking the $100 million figure, and speculating that it could be for five, six or seven years? Does that make any sense? That makes sense to me. Megdal's covering every plausible length of proposed contract, assuming that the initial offer is for $100M, total. Megdal then reasons that $100M over six years, adjusted for inflation is no pay raise at all, and $100M over seven years is essentially a pay cut. Four years is too short an offer to make Wright a Met for life and $100M over eight years is too absurd, even by Mets standards to pass comment. I sort of agree with the premise of this piece -- namely that a $100M offer is ridiculously low, even if Megdal is still axeing his grind. At six years, Wright's probably worth in the neighborhood of $150M on the open market.

batmagadanleadoff Oct 10 2012 03:28 PM Re: Signing Sugar

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Swan Swan H wrote: So Megdal is taking the $100 million figure, and speculating that it could be for five, six or seven years? Does that make any sense? That makes sense to me. Megdal's covering every plausible length of proposed contract, assuming that the initial offer is for $100M, total. Megdal then reasons that $100M over six years, adjusted for inflation is no pay raise at all, and $100M over seven years is essentially a pay cut. Four years is too short an offer to make Wright a Met for life and $100M over eight years is too absurd, even by Mets standards to pass comment. I sort of agree with the premise of this piece -- namely that a $100M offer is ridiculously low, even if Megdal is still axeing his grind. At six years, Wright's probably worth in the neighborhood of $150M on the open market. And of course, beyond the financials, Wright also wants the Mets to convince him that they'll be playoff competitive in the near, if not immediate, term.

Ceetar Oct 10 2012 03:41 PM Re: Signing Sugar

'not a pay raise' seems like a perfect place to open a negotiation. "We want you here, let's keep paying you what we're paying you."

metirish Oct 10 2012 04:04 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Put me down for .....Wright is not signing long term with the Mets.......

G-Fafif Oct 10 2012 04:13 PM Re: Signing Sugar

"You going to Wright's first game back?" Not a question that could be asked by or of a Mets fan in a sane world.

Swan Swan H Oct 10 2012 04:52 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Once again, Megdal writes as though this offer is on the table when it is still speculation. Also, he chooses not to quote Heyman's note that the Mets will be trying hard to sign Wright.

Ashie62 Oct 10 2012 06:28 PM Re: Signing Sugar

I'm thinking the "industry Source" suggesting the Mets will or did open with a $100 million dollar offer is full of shit.

metirish Oct 10 2012 06:41 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Swan Swan H wrote: Once again, Megdal writes as though this offer is on the table when it is still speculation. Also, he chooses not to quote Heyman's note that the Mets will be trying hard to sign Wright. True, we have unfortunately seen this before.

batmagadanleadoff Oct 10 2012 10:20 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Swan Swan H wrote: Once again, Megdal writes as though this offer is on the table when it is still speculation. Also, he chooses not to quote Heyman's note that the Mets will be trying hard to sign Wright. I'm fine with Megdal basing his piece on the $100M figure. That's the figure that was publicized. But yeah, he should've made it clear that there's no public information indicating that the money was actually offered to Wright.

Edgy MD Oct 10 2012 11:15 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Ashie62 wrote: I'm thinking the "industry Source" suggesting the Mets will or did open with a $100 million dollar offer is full of shit. The "industry source was "people familiar with the team's thinking." And they didn't say "will" or "did" but "are expected to." Megdal is running to a very specific place with some very abstract shoes. And of course it was the place he was planning on going anyway. Get back to doing some reporting maybe. Letting Heyman (of all people) do the legwork while you get to stay home and distort seems like no contribution at all.

metsguyinmichigan Oct 11 2012 05:24 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Can we get a moratorium on Vlad Guerrero references. He was NEVER going to sign here.

metirish Oct 11 2012 05:49 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Not once Dr.Fred saw those back x-rays he wasn't.

MFS62 Oct 11 2012 06:57 AM Re: Signing Sugar

batmagadanleadoff wrote: And of course, beyond the financials, Wright also wants the Mets to convince him that they'll be playoff competitive in the near, if not immediate, term. I don't care who's on first or what's on second, as long as David Wright is on third. Later

batmagadanleadoff Oct 11 2012 10:02 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Two Separate Questions Posted by: Howard Megdal - Posted in Business of Baseball, Today's Mets headlines on Oct 11, 2012 Briefly, on a couple of questions that some discussions on Twitter seem to conflate regarding David Wright. 1. What will it take to sign David Wright? 2. What should the Mets offer David Wright? What we know so far is that the Mets say they plan to offer Wright a six-year deal in the neighborhood of $100 million. Now, considering Joey Votto’s ten-year, $225 million extension (in terms of player value, a far more similar comp than Ryan Zimmerman), the lack of other third basemen available, and the onrushing TV money about to hit the sport in 2014, paying Wright exactly what he’ll make in 2013 for only another six years doesn’t sound like close to enough. Jayson Werth, just two years ago, got 7/$126 million. Carl Crawford got 7/$142 million. So in terms of question number one, though anything is possible, it seems very unlikely that David Wright’s agents think he is getting any less than 8/$160 million, and with good reason. Will he settle for far less than that? It is possible. Just seems awfully unlikely. But conflating that with question two is a mistake. There’s a very different conversation to be had, namely: should the Mets pay David Wright $20 million per year, beginning with his age 31 season, and ending with his age 38 season? Is that a good use of funds? In general, teams need to pay for premium production, with the contract evening out by teams overpaying on the back end. And really, it is an impossible question to answer without knowing, at least to some degree, if/when the Mets can ever spend money again in a competitive way. $20 million in a $90 million payroll is vastly different than $20 million in a $140 or $170 million payroll. But in terms of answering question one, I don’t think there’s much dispute that the Mets are far short right now of what it will take, an odd thing to see after the urgency of the sign David Wright message being put out by the team. And if the team has determined the answer to question two is well shy of the answer to question one, the urgency to conduct negotiations is happening for a different reason: public consumption, ahead of a trade. I’m sure the Mets would be thrilled to keep David Wright if he is willing to return for well below his market value. And there’s no shame in being rightly hesitant to pay him above his market value, especially given the team’s financial reality right now. But let’s remember that both questions are in play here. http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2012/10/11/t ... questions/

Edgy MD Oct 11 2012 10:10 AM Re: Signing Sugar

What we know so far is that the Mets say they plan to offer Wright a six-year deal in the neighborhood of $100 million. He's a machine. You can't stop him. You can only hope to somehow restrict his press credentials.

MFS62 Oct 11 2012 10:39 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Is that the editorial "we", or is he talking about his pet rat? If another real person, I'd sure like to find out who else thinks that. Later

Edgy MD Oct 11 2012 10:42 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I've got no problem with him thinking that. But stating it as a known fact is so bush.

batmagadanleadoff Oct 12 2012 10:32 AM Re: Signing Sugar

excerpt: Wright is believed to be seeking a contract valued at at least $125 million over seven years. He hit .306/.391/.492 with 21 home runs and 15 stolen bases in 670 plate appearances this season while being selected to the All-Star team for the sixth time. http://www.cbssports.com/general/blog/m ... rld-series If this report is true, then the Mets supposed offer of 6/$100M wouldn't be much off the mark, at least as far as matching Wright's idea of how much money he seeks to average yearly. But that seventh year ......

Swan Swan H Oct 12 2012 11:27 AM Re: Signing Sugar

If this is seven years on top of the option year, that puts the end of the contract at his age 37 season. If they are talking 6/$100, I can't imagine they couldn't come around to 7/$125. It's $1 million per year more than the rumored starting number, and way less in years and salary than the Votto or Pujols deals.

metirish Oct 12 2012 11:28 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Sugar is undervaluing himself if true.

Swan Swan H Oct 12 2012 11:30 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Sssshhhhhhh. He might hear you.

Ceetar Oct 12 2012 11:45 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Swan Swan H wrote: If this is seven years on top of the option year, that puts the end of the contract at his age 37 season. If they are talking 6/$100, I can't imagine they couldn't come around to 7/$125. It's $1 million per year more than the rumored starting number, and way less in years and salary than the Votto or Pujols deals. And if it's _not_ on top of the option year, they're actually pretty close to each other.

Swan Swan H Oct 12 2012 11:54 AM Re: Signing Sugar

A bit of perspective - Alex Rodriguez, 37 years old as he sits on the bench today, is owed between $114 and $119 million (BB Ref vs. Cot's) starting next season.

batmagadanleadoff Oct 12 2012 12:18 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Some more perspective: 7@125 is about what Wright earns now. I'm skeptical. He's worth $20M a year.

Swan Swan H Oct 12 2012 12:24 PM Re: Signing Sugar

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Some more perspective: 7@125 is about what Wright earns now. I'm skeptical. He's worth $20M a year. Wright's made $14.25M last year, $15M this year, and has the option for $16M next year. $125/7 is $17.85M per - not a massive jump, but not insignificant considering it will be paying for his declining years. I agree that he's worth $20M, but 7/$125 is not insulting either.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 12 2012 01:45 PM Re: Signing Sugar

I'm not so sure he's worth $20 million, but maybe I'm not aware of who all the other $20 million players are.

batmagadanleadoff Oct 12 2012 01:49 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm not so sure he's worth $20 million, but maybe I'm not aware of who all the other $20 million players are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hi ... ll_players

batmagadanleadoff Oct 12 2012 01:50 PM Re: Signing Sugar

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'm not so sure he's worth $20 million, but maybe I'm not aware of who all the other $20 million players are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hi ... ll_players If Jason Bay can get $18M, Wright should get $20M just for breathing.

metsmarathon Oct 12 2012 01:57 PM Re: Signing Sugar

he's worth well in excess of 20 now (if you look at his $/WAR equivalent). the rub is will he be worth that towards the end of the deal. and i think that if he's put behind himself the nonsense that was 2009-11, and if he stays healthy, he'll likely have no trouble achieving that level of production for the duration. perhaps towards the end, he may not be a 4 WAR player, but i think he will be. granted, those $/WAR calculations always seem flawed to me. if you pay a guy $20M a year, you're probably expecting him to deliver far more than 4 WAR. you're expecting more like 6 WAR. and if you pay a guy close to $30M or even more, its a flat out disaster if he's not the MVP. [snicker arod snicker]

batmagadanleadoff Oct 13 2012 08:07 AM Re: Signing Sugar

NY Mets may start talks with third baseman David Wright as early as next week, according to sources In the final days of the season, Alderson vowed an aggressive push to re-sign the two “core players” as quickly as possible. By Andy Martino / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Saturday, October 13, 2012, 12:37 AM WASHINGTON — Mets officials and the agents for David Wright have not yet scheduled a meeting or begun formal contract negotiations, but could do so next week, according to people involved in the process. There have not yet been substantive talks between the team and R.A. Dickey’s representatives either — although in both cases, general manager Sandy Alderson engaged the veterans in informal discussions before the season ended. In the final days of the season, Alderson vowed an aggressive push to re-sign the two “core players” as quickly as possible. Given the fact that talks have not yet begun, is it still possible that either player could be signed this month? “Too early to tell,” one Mets source said. Both Wright and Dickey have one year left on their contracts in the form of club options for 2013, but the Mets are seeking big-picture resolution on both this fall. Alderson has made clear that, whatever the potential risks of a offering a long-term contract to a player — Wright — who will turn 30 next season, he is interested in committing the years and dollars necessary to retain the third baseman, who could command a contract of six or seven years and $120 million or more. There appears to be more internal debate about Dickey, although Alderson is said by associates to be sincere in his view of the 37-year-old Cy Young candidate as worthy of another multiyear deal. In some corners of the organization, there is concern about the knuckleballer’s age, and the injuries that he was able to pitch through during the past two seasons. Contract talks broke down last season, and if that happens again, Dickey could be shopped to other teams. But Alderson has already launched his pitch to Wright and Dickey, in conversations that took place in September. Presenting an honest assessment of the team’s ability to contend next year (in summary: Anything can happen, but it will probably take another year before the Mets can finish .500 or better), the GM has assured the players that he expects greater financial flexibility before the 2014 season, and believes that the organization’s young pitchers will be developed by that time. Next step: Engaging Seth and Sam Levinson, Wright’s agents, and Bo McKinnis, who represents Dickey, in informal negotiations. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... -1.1182522

Ashie62 Oct 13 2012 09:35 AM Re: Signing Sugar

metsmarathon wrote: he's worth well in excess of 20 now (if you look at his $/WAR equivalent). the rub is will he be worth that towards the end of the deal. and i think that if he's put behind himself the nonsense that was 2009-11, and if he stays healthy, he'll likely have no trouble achieving that level of production for the duration. perhaps towards the end, he may not be a 4 WAR player, but i think he will be. granted, those $/WAR calculations always seem flawed to me. if you pay a guy $20M a year, you're probably expecting him to deliver far more than 4 WAR. you're expecting more like 6 WAR. and if you pay a guy close to $30M or even more, its a flat out disaster if he's not the MVP. [snicker arod snicker] WAR is not everything.

metsmarathon Oct 14 2012 09:24 PM Re: Signing Sugar

he also hit the ball really well and played good defense. sigh.

batmagadanleadoff Oct 16 2012 06:03 PM Re: Signing Sugar

For David Wright, the market will bear a lot more than the Mets can By Howard Megdal 4:11 pm Oct. 16, 2012 The Mets might not be in a position to sign David Wright to a long-term extension. Unfortunate, but given the ownership group's ongoing financial problems, that's the way it is. Word leaked last week that the Mets are preparing an offer of six years guaranteed, in the neighborhood of $100 million. In all likelihood, that won't be close to enough. Adam Rubin speculated that Wright would receive around eight years and $160 million on the open market, which seems about right. The Mets may argue, if and when Wright follows Jose Reyes to greener pastures, that they didn't want to commit to Wright for as long as he wanted them to. After all, they need only point to the Yankees as a cautionary tale. Alex Rodriguez, recently benched, is 37 amd declining each year. And he's signed for another five years and $114 million. There are also the endless claims from the Mets that their own failed long-term contracts have prevented them from signing new players, from Oliver Perez and Luis Castillo back in 2010, to Jason Bay and Johan Santana now. But let the record show that if the cash-strapped, debt-plagued Mets let their best, most popular player go, it'll be because they didn't offer to pay him what he's worth. The object in any long-term deal, realistically, is to see the player perform at a level worth more than he'll earn in his peak years, thus making up for it when he likely falls short of his contract's value at the back end of the deal, as he ages. In Wright's case, his 2012 was worth $35.1 million, according to Fangraphs. This wasn't a fluke. Wright's 2008 season was worth $32 million, and his 2007 checked in at $36.2 million. Wright is on track to be one of the greatest third basemen ever, and that was true prior to his rebound 2012 season. Were Wright to be worth $30 million in 2014 and 2015 alone, he'd need to be worth approximately around $16 million on average over the remainder of his contract, a level he's reached in every full season he's played, with the exception of his injury-marred 2011. So it's fairly easy to see Wright rewarding a team for signing him for this high price, which means that the 6/100 level is actually likely to be well shy of what he'd get in an open market. It also probably underrates what he'll be worth in another way. Major League Baseball just signed new television contracts that will pay every team approximately $50 million more in revenue, starting in 2014. Coincidentally, if Wright plays out his option and heads to free agency, he'll be hitting the market just as every single team will have vastly more to spend over the next eight seasons, the length of the new television deals. It is hard to imagine this won't directly affect the price of premier free agents. And David Wright is almost certainly going to be the best one out there. It's just a shame that even if the Mets make their best offer, it's probably going to be one Wright has no business settling for. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... e-mets-can

Ceetar Oct 16 2012 06:08 PM Re: Signing Sugar

I just read these for the laugh these days.

Ashie62 Oct 17 2012 04:50 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Hey! This is Vinnie from NJ, first time caller longtime listener. Hey Vinnie, whats up? Ya know, I've been a Yankee fan since the cradle and lets face it Arod may be goin to Miami and the captain is gettin on too... Why not call the Mets about that Wright guy. He's no superstar but a very good playa. Say uh, we get Wright and we send them, say...Brett Gardner and Russ Martin. It's alot to give up but we need to rebuild. Whadya think Mike? Love it Vinnie! Now for the 20-20

Vic Sage Oct 18 2012 08:48 AM Re: Signing Sugar

what's irksome is Megdal uses theoretical bases for WRight's "worth", rather than real-world comparables. Ryan Zimmerman is a real-world comp, both in age and general production, and he signed a 6yr/$100m deal. Maybe Wright can squeeze more out of a NYC franchise than a DC franchise can afford, but its certainly reasonable to think its going to be in that range of 6-8yrs / $17m-$20m per, not $35m/yr, regardless of how much new tv money is floating around in the marketplace.

Ceetar Oct 18 2012 08:50 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Eno Sarris at Amazin' Avenue weighs in Using the third baseman on free agent contracts that are currently comparable to David Wright produces $100 million as a viable answer. Using true talent value estimations produces a number that's ten-to-twenty million more. That's good news if you like David Wright and you want him on the Mets. If the team can afford to throw $100 million out there as a first offer, it seems likely they can afford $120 million when push comes to shove.

MFS62 Oct 18 2012 09:32 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I think we're concentrating too much on the money. When the first discussions of re-signing Wright showed up in the papers, there were also comments that he would want to sign with a team that had a genuine chance of competing for a championship. I'm not sure if they were actual quotes from David, or stuff made up by the writers to take a shot at the Mets and downgrade the possibility of their re-signing him. But if he feels that way, I fear a "Gift of the Magi"-type situation happening. Sandy could spend so much (players, prospects and money) to upgrade the rest of the team that they wouldn't have enough money to pay Wright what he and his agents think he deserves. I'm anxious to see what Sandy can do to satisfy that part of his requirements if it is in fact real. Later

Edgy MD Oct 18 2012 12:49 PM Re: Signing Sugar

100% of players say they want a good situation. 90% find a way to convince themselves that the situation is right if the money is right. Of the remaining 10%, I would guess that 9% have no clue what a good situation looks like no matter how serious they are. If Sandy can put together the right packages for Wright and D'KAY, I'm sure he can paint a rosy enough picture of the future to accompany the offers.

Ashie62 Oct 18 2012 03:59 PM Re: Signing Sugar

They almost always go to the highest bidder. We shall see.

Frayed Knot Oct 27 2012 07:06 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Couple of comments from Joel Sherman today - I have spoken to more than 10 officials outside the organization in the past few days and every one of them thinks the Mets will end up extending Wright — and sooner rather than later because it will give them a base from which to move forward both this offseason and into the future. And he winds up suggesting that a package of 8/143 would be around a likely final figure including when the 2013 option is included - an option which needs to be triggered five days after the completion of the WS. In all, a deal that size would top both that of Ryan Zimmerman on a per year and length basis and also wind up as the highest total package in NYM history, just above that which was given to Santana.

Ceetar Oct 27 2012 08:52 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Sherman basically made that up. I doubt he heard more than "He's probably worth more than Zimmerman" and extrapolated from there. Also, he talks about the option deadline and then implies that the Mets would just add it in anyway and make the extension beyond that instead of including it, bumping up the figure even higher. It's sloppy math at best

Edgy MD Oct 27 2012 09:11 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Well, I imagine he did speak to 10 officials outside the organization. What authority, expertise, or knowledge they have is certainly a matter of conjecture.

Ceetar Oct 27 2012 09:30 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy DC wrote: Well, I imagine he did speak to 10 officials outside the organization. What authority, expertise, or knowledge they have is certainly a matter of conjecture. yeah, that's what I meant. Did you talk to them and say "What would you give Wright, right now?" or did he simply ask how much do you think he'll get, the same way we speculate what he's worth here?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 27 2012 09:42 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Ceetar wrote: Sherman basically made that up. I doubt he heard more than "He's probably worth more than Zimmerman" and extrapolated from there. Also, he talks about the option deadline and then implies that the Mets would just add it in anyway and make the extension beyond that instead of including it, bumping up the figure even higher. It's sloppy math at best I don't think Sherman makes stuff up. I'd say the deal goes down within the time frame and more or less near the figures, he mentions.

Ceetar Oct 27 2012 09:53 AM Re: Signing Sugar

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Ceetar wrote: Sherman basically made that up. I doubt he heard more than "He's probably worth more than Zimmerman" and extrapolated from there. Also, he talks about the option deadline and then implies that the Mets would just add it in anyway and make the extension beyond that instead of including it, bumping up the figure even higher. It's sloppy math at best I don't think Sherman makes stuff up. I'd say the deal goes down within the time frame and more or less near the figures, he mentions. did he mention a deadline? he implied that if they did sign him before the option pickup they'd add the option in anyway making the deadline a moot point. I bet he signs for less than that, at least less committed. maybe option years at the end get it to 8 (2020) years.

Edgy MD Oct 27 2012 11:00 AM Re: Signing Sugar

time frame = "sooner, rather than later"

Benjamin Grimm Nov 01 2012 09:22 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Andy Martino wrote: Now that the Mets have exercised David Wright’s 2013 club option, the team and its signature player plan to intensify negotiations, discussing years and dollars as soon as this week, according to a person briefed on the process. Mets officials are determined to conduct talks in private, and avoid leaks that could complicate efforts to retain their third baseman. But a well-placed source outside the front office expects discussions to accelerate immediately. As the Daily News reported late last week, negotiations were slow through most of October, with no talk of years or dollars. On Tuesday, the Mets made the procedural move of picking up next year’s options on Wright ($16 million) and Dickey ($5 million), which they had to do this week. If either player agrees to a multi-year contract extension, the new deal will supercede the option. With that out of the way, talks are expected to proceed at a faster pace. As of Wednesday, neither player was close to signing, and there remained a genuine possibility that Dickey could be traded instead. All along, general manager Sandy Alderson has wanted a quick resolution to both situations, so he can proceed with planning for this offseason, and future years. With the team committed to pursuing an extension, Wright, who turns 30 in December, will soon decide if he wants to remain a Met for many years, perhaps his entire career.

Edgy MD Nov 01 2012 09:27 AM Re: Signing Sugar

The Mets want to proceed expeditiously, but plan on keeping things private, with no information leaking out, says a well placed source with intimate knowledge of proceedings who asked to remain nameless. Nice.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 01 2012 09:42 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Tracky is on it!

Edgy MD Nov 01 2012 09:53 AM Re: Signing Sugar

He's not that far from five-and-dime status, I guess.

Ashie62 Nov 10 2012 06:30 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Hurry the fuck up Mets

Benjamin Grimm Nov 14 2012 04:50 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Ken Rosenthal wrote: The Mets, trying to lock up their franchise player, have offered third baseman David Wright a contract extension, according to major league sources. Wright’s agents, Sam and Seth Levinson, responded by sending the team a counter-offer, sources said. Representatives from both sides declined comment, and the details of the proposals are not known. Wright, however, is believed to be seeking an extension that would approach, and perhaps surpass, left-hander Johan Santana’s club-record six-year, $137.5 million deal.

Edgy MD Nov 14 2012 07:08 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I don't want them sending a counter-offer. I want them locked in a sweaty room making amendments in pen.

MFS62 Nov 14 2012 07:16 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy DC wrote: I don't want them sending a counter-offer. I want them locked in a sweaty room making amendments in pen. Ans while they're in there, I'd serve hotdogs, sauerkraut, chili and beer. Then I'd lock the door and windows and tell them they can't get out to a bathroom until a contract extension has been signed by both parties. Later

seawolf17 Nov 14 2012 07:36 AM Re: Signing Sugar

MFS62 wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I don't want them sending a counter-offer. I want them locked in a sweaty room making amendments in pen. Ans while they're in there, I'd serve hotdogs, sauerkraut, chili and beer. Then I'd lock the door and windows and tell them they can't get out to a bathroom until a contract extension has been signed by both parties. Later Agree on all counts. Seriously, what else do you have going on right now, fellas?

Swan Swan H Nov 26 2012 08:16 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Evan Longoria signs an extension for $100 million over six years beginning in 2017. This will cover his age 31-36 seasons, the same ages that Wright's extension would cover should it begin in 2014. Ryan Zimmerman, as has been noted, signed for the same duration and total, but his covers his age 29-34 seasons and contains an $18 million team option for a seventh year. Longoria is already signed through 2016 for a total of $36 million over the next four years ($6.0, $7.5, $11.0, $11.5). There is a $3 million buyout in there that they may or may not have kicked in.

Ashie62 Nov 26 2012 11:22 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Ashie62 wrote: Hurry the fuck up Mets This

Edgy MD Nov 27 2012 05:21 AM Re: Signing Sugar

It's as comforting as ever to know Ashie agrees with Ashie. Meanwhups, Ken Rosenthal of Foxy Sports says an offer is on the table.

metirish Nov 27 2012 07:18 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy MD wrote: It's as comforting as ever to know Ashie agrees with Ashie. Meanwhups, Ken Rosenthal of Foxy Sports says an offer is on the table. Madgal on Twitter said it's an offer Wright can't accept.

Ceetar Nov 27 2012 07:24 AM Re: Signing Sugar

metirish wrote: Edgy MD wrote: It's as comforting as ever to know Ashie agrees with Ashie. Meanwhups, Ken Rosenthal of Foxy Sports says an offer is on the table. Madgal on Twitter said it's an offer Wright can't accept. I'm pretty sure I could run his twitter account, with how predictable his tweets are.

Frayed Knot Nov 27 2012 07:35 AM Re: Signing Sugar

metirish wrote: Edgy MD wrote: It's as comforting as ever to know Ashie agrees with Ashie. Meanwhups, Ken Rosenthal of Foxy Sports says an offer is on the table. Madgal on Twitter said it's an offer Wright can't accept. So either Medgel knows what's in the offer -- in which case he's got some REALLY good sources and we should take as gospel everything he says from now on OR ... he decided beforehand that the NYM offer was going to be something Wright's camp would reject -- in which case we should simply ignore everything he says from now on.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 27 2012 07:39 AM Re: Signing Sugar

From what I'm hearing, it doesn't sound like they're too far apart; a few more dollars and a contract that lasts through 2020 should get the deal done. The Mets might be able to get away with 2020 being an option year.

metirish Nov 27 2012 08:45 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Let's look at the Rosental report. Mets take risks with contract stalemates UPDATED NOV 27, 2012 7:15 AM ET The standoff between the New York Mets and third baseman David Wright continues. And for the team, the risk is only becoming greater. The Mets offered Wright a six-year, $100 million contract extension on Monday, according to major-league sources. It is an offer that Wright is certain to refuse. Wright, who is under contract for $16 million in 2013, prefers a deal of seven years or longer, sources say. The Mets’ proposal offered Wright only a slight raise, and matched the terms of the Ryan Zimmerman and Evan Longoria extensions, the latter of which was announced on Monday. Wright, who turns 30 on Dec. 20, is older than Zimmerman, 28, and Longoria, 27, but perhaps the safest long-term bet. Longoria is the best offensive player according to OPS-plus, a statistic that adjusts a hitter’s OPS to his league and ballpark. But he has appeared in more than 133 games in only two of his five seasons. Wright’s career OPS-plus is nearly as good as Longoria’s, and he has averaged 149 games in his eight full seasons. Zimmerman’s career OPS-plus is the lowest of the three, and he has not been as durable as Wright. A six-year extension would take Wright through 2019, same as Zimmerman. Longoria, on the other hand, is now under contract through ’22 — and with one of the game’s lowest-revenue clubs. The Mets, playing in New York, should be at the opposite end of the financial spectrum. The team, with its latest proposal to Wright, is taking a more aggressive approach than it did last off-season with shortstop Jose Reyes, who said that he never received an offer from the club after signing a free-agent contract with the Miami Marlins. Club officials say their off-season priority is to sign both Wright and Cy Young Award winner R.A. Dickey to extensions. But the winter meetings are next week in Nashville, and the team is making little progress on either front, sources say. A trade of one or both veterans is possible, but Dickey also is signed for only one more year, at a salary of $5 million. Players entering the final year of contracts generally yield less than full value in trades, rival executives say. The Mets would gain little more than salary relief from such deals, unless they included cash to get better prospects. Another option for the Mets would be to grant potential trade partners windows to extend Wright and/or Dickey, knowing that teams would make more tempting proposals if they were assured of keeping their desired player long-term. Such windows, though, might only complicate the negotiations, particularly if the trades became public and the teams were unable to reach agreements with the players. Then there is the Mets’ public-relations challenge. A trade of Wright would create the possibility that the team’s homegrown star could appear in the July 16 All-Star Game at Citi Field wearing another club’s uniform. To avoid such a scenario, the Mets could keep both Wright and Dickey into next season, continue trying to sign them to extensions and then — if the talks failed — trade them after the All-Star Game but before the July 31 non-waiver deadline. Such a strategy, however, would further depress the trade values of both players; teams are less willing to trade elite prospects because of a new rule that prevents them from receiving a high draft pick if they acquire a potential free agent in the middle of a season and he then signs with another club. But back to the central issue. The Mets’ stalemates with Wright and Dickey raise questions about the team’s willingness to add to its payroll, which has dropped from $149.4 million at the start of 2009 to the $94.3 million at the start of last season. Even if the Mets kept both Wright and Dickey, they would need to add other players to contend in one of the game’s most competitive divisions, the NL East. Mets GM Sandy Alderson said recently that the team would need to gain “a little more clarity” on their talks with Wright and Dickey between Thanksgiving and the winter meetings. The meetings start Monday. And right now, both situations are far from clear.

Swan Swan H Nov 27 2012 09:15 AM Re: Signing Sugar

A hot fresh tweet: Andy Martino ?@SurfingTheMets Can now report Mets have made Wright a 7 year offer well in excess of $100 mil, according to industry sources. Negotiations in process.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 27 2012 09:36 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I think that will get it done. (Depending on the amount of the "excess", of course.)

metirish Nov 27 2012 09:39 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I'm going with well in excess meaning $128 million , somewhere around $18+ million a year....

Swan Swan H Nov 27 2012 09:43 AM Re: Signing Sugar

More details (but not many more)

metirish Nov 27 2012 09:45 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Um, "well in excess" now "worth well above" $100 million.

Ashie62 Nov 27 2012 09:58 AM Re: Signing Sugar

198?

Ashie62 Nov 27 2012 10:20 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Per Rubin the Mets offered a 6 year extension of 6/100 expected to be declined.... [url]http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/58973/report-mets-finally-make-wright-offer Tampa Bay showed Longoria alot of love beyond the money... They made a partership, player and team, to try and be competitive every year, an approached he said he desired. Cmon Jeffy...

Swan Swan H Nov 27 2012 10:58 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Ashie62 wrote: Per Rubin the Mets offered a 6 year extension of 6/100 expected to be declined.... [url]http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/58973/report-mets-finally-make-wright-offer Tampa Bay showed Longoria alot of love beyond the money... They made a partership, player and team, to try and be competitive every year, an approached he said he desired. Cmon Jeffy... Old news - they're past that now.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 27 2012 12:17 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Adam Rubin wrote: NEW YORK -- The New York Mets have offered a contract extension to David Wright that would keep the All-Star third baseman with the club at least through 2020, a major league source told ESPNNewYork.com. The source said Wright had been offered at least a seven-year extension by the Mets, on top of the $16 million he is owed for 2013. A second source who has spoken with Mets officials said "they've been really optimistic" an extension will be reached with Wright. The 30-year-old Wright became the franchise's leader in hits, runs, walks and RBIs during the 2012 season. "There are offers going back and forth," the source said. A source familiar with the matter did not believe the deal would be finalized before next week's winter meetings. "It could, but it's certainly speculative that it will," a different source added.

Vic Sage Nov 27 2012 12:22 PM Re: Signing Sugar

if the baseline is the $17m/yr average deals for Longoria and Zimmerman, and the Mets are offering 7 years (on top of the year he still has), then that would be about $120M in total. While i wouldn't be thrilled with having a 38-year old making $17m, Wright does bring other things to the table (he'll soon hold all Met hitting records, and a face of the franchise equaling that of Seaver himself) that makes me think this would still be a good deal.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 27 2012 12:24 PM Re: Signing Sugar

I never had any doubt they would get something done with Shug.

Edgy MD Nov 27 2012 12:44 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Vic Sage wrote: While i wouldn't be thrilled with having a 38-year old making $17m... . Hopefully we'll get enough thrills between now and then, and the economy will have recovered enough in the interim, that $17 mills to the 38 year-old will feel like a generous tip at the end of a satisfying meal. John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I never had any doubt they would get something done with Shug. Then Megdal isn't working hard enough.

Swan Swan H Nov 27 2012 01:51 PM Re: Signing Sugar

More tweetage: Jon Heyman ?@JonHeymanCBS sources: Mets' offer to David Wright is 7 years about $135-140M Well, now.

metirish Nov 27 2012 01:53 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Not turning that down surely, sign that contract already.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 27 2012 01:53 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Swan Swan H wrote: More tweetage: Jon Heyman ?@JonHeymanCBS sources: Mets' offer to David Wright is 7 years about $135-140M Well, now. That should totally do it.

metirish Nov 27 2012 01:55 PM Re: Signing Sugar

It's an infinitely better offer that the 6/100.....

Edgy MD Nov 27 2012 01:58 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Benjamin Grimm wrote: That should totally do it. Nope. Now it's time to talk extras. Sweets for my sweet and sugar for my honey. Or for my Sugar. [list][*]All Star Boni.[/*:m] [*]Post-Season Boni.[/*:m] [*]Real estate options.[/*:m] [*]A big fat donation to the David Wright Foundation[/*:m] [*]Use of the facilities for DWF events.[/*:m] [*]Tickets for DWF beneficiaries[/*:m] [*]A big old C on the front of his jersey.[/*:m] [*]"Bono. I fucking want to meet Bono."[/*:m] [*]Whatever stupid shit Derek Jeter gets.[/*:m][/list:u] metirish wrote: It's an infinitely better offer that the 6/100..... Ah, there's that word again. Nice.

metsmarathon Nov 27 2012 02:00 PM Re: Signing Sugar

he should ask for a sweet tent. can't hurt, right...?

Benjamin Grimm Nov 27 2012 02:03 PM Re: Signing Sugar

I imagine there would be a no-trade to cover the year-plus until David becomes ten-and-five.

Frayed Knot Nov 27 2012 02:57 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy MD wrote: All Star Boni. If they're paying him that kind of money he'd better make some AS teams.

Frayed Knot Nov 27 2012 03:08 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Benjamin Grimm wrote: More tweetage: Jon Heyman ?@JonHeymanCBS sources: Mets' offer to David Wright is 7 years about $135-140M Well, now. That should totally do it. Yeah. It would be one thing for Dabid to walk away for a better offer elsewhere, or even to ride out the year in order to test the market next winter if he didn't get what most would consider a real offer (see: Reyes, Jose). But, assuming this info is even close to accurate, there's no way he's going to turn down this one and hold on to his image and the good will he's worked so hard at maintaining. IOW, the crap sandwich of bad pr would fall totally on his head if he doesn't accept this deal and I can't see him allowing that to happen. I sez it's all over but the details at this point.

Edgy MD Nov 27 2012 03:35 PM Re: Signing Sugar

If the report is accurate and the Mets didn't pee in his lap during the negotiations. If they're paying him that kind of money he'd better make some AS teams. Which one might wish would obviate any need for such boni, but there's no shortage of contracts out there that pay a guy like an All Star and then give him a bonus if he happens to play like one.

Vic Sage Nov 27 2012 03:51 PM Re: Signing Sugar

there's no way he's going to turn down this one and hold on to his image and the good will he's worked so hard at maintaining. IOW, the crap sandwich of bad pr would fall totally on his head if he doesn't accept this deal and I can't see him allowing that to happen. he'd also have to play out the season, risking debilitating or even career-ending injury. If he's getting more than Zimm and Longoria per year, no way he passes on this deal on the off-chance somebody will pay him a few bucks more (and i don't think they would; he's not worth $20m/yr for 7+yrs to anybody but the Mets).

Gwreck Nov 27 2012 06:07 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Wright gives statement, says today's reports are "inaccurate." http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/11/d ... urate.html "I have said from Day 1 that I want to play my entire career with the New York Mets. I remain hopeful that goal can be achieved. However, I am disappointed by the reports that I have read today which are inaccurate," said Wright.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 27 2012 06:43 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Boo.

metirish Nov 27 2012 06:55 PM Re: Signing Sugar

All we need now is for the Mets to say something similar and then the deal is signed two days later.

Ashie62 Nov 27 2012 07:18 PM Re: Signing Sugar

metirish wrote: All we need now is for the Mets to say something similar and then the deal is signed two days later. I like it when a plan comes together.

Frayed Knot Nov 27 2012 08:19 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Wright gives statement, says today's reports are "inaccurate." http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/11/d ... urate.html "I have said from Day 1 that I want to play my entire career with the New York Mets. I remain hopeful that goal can be achieved. However, I am disappointed by the reports that I have read today which are inaccurate," said Wright. Now if this all turns out to be nothing more than front office leaked rumors designed to make it look like the team is making a decent offer, this whole thing could get blow'd to bitty bits.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 27 2012 08:51 PM Re: Signing Sugar

I think DW is referring to Mike Puma's report today that getting a bigger deal than Santana had was "important" to Wright.

Ashie62 Nov 27 2012 09:46 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Quite a few moving parts...

Benjamin Grimm Nov 28 2012 04:54 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Right now, as far as baseball goes, this is the only thing I care about.

Swan Swan H Nov 28 2012 07:17 AM Re: Signing Sugar

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think DW is referring to Mike Puma's report today that getting a bigger deal than Santana had was "important" to Wright. Yup. Nothing wrong with getting as much as you can, but wanting a number just because it's more than the other guy sounds petty. If it's not true I'm sure it must rankle, and if it is true you start to wonder how it got out there.

bmfc1 Nov 28 2012 07:43 AM Re: Signing Sugar

http://didwrightsignyet.com/

Frayed Knot Nov 28 2012 07:48 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Swan Swan H wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think DW is referring to Mike Puma's report today that getting a bigger deal than Santana had was "important" to Wright. Yup. Nothing wrong with getting as much as you can, but wanting a number just because it's more than the other guy sounds petty. If it's not true I'm sure it must rankle, and if it is true you start to wonder how it got out there. That's why I'm wondering if someone on the mgmt side is preemptively leaking things intended to make Sugar seem like the bad guy if things break down - and by doing so winds up increasing the chances of things breaking down. But again, if the dollars being talked about are even close to accurate then I suspect this is only a matter of i-dotting and t-crossing.

Edgy MD Nov 28 2012 07:50 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Nobody ever gives a shit about the j's and x's. They need love too.

Edgy MD Nov 28 2012 08:50 AM Re: Signing Sugar

$140 million? That's a biggish number.

Ashie62 Nov 28 2012 11:50 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy MD wrote: $140 million? That's a biggish number. Does that include the 16 million he gets this coming season?

Swan Swan H Nov 28 2012 12:14 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Ashie62 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: $140 million? That's a biggish number. Does that include the 16 million he gets this coming season? The last quote I read about did include the $16 million for next year in the numbers in the $140 million range.

Frayed Knot Nov 28 2012 01:17 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Mike Puma's latest: Agent Levinson -- “We don’t anticipate a deal any time soon,” to the website MLB Trade Rumors (why the hell would anyone talk to them?!?) adding that discussions were ongoing. Wright -- “I wish I could elaborate" (about his previous comments about "inaccuracies"), "but it was important to me from the very beginning that these negotiations remain confidential and private,” Wright said in an email to The Post. “I plan on sticking to that.” Puma adds that snags are apparently centered around the amount of deferred money.

Edgy MD Nov 28 2012 01:24 PM Re: Signing Sugar

It's hard not to think of every extra dollar the Levinson's milk out of the House of 'Poncakes adding to the likelihood that any potential Dickey deal gets scuttled.

Ashie62 Nov 28 2012 07:41 PM Re: Signing Sugar

The Mets are not doing this the way Tampa did Longoria.

Edgy MD Nov 28 2012 07:54 PM Re: Signing Sugar

And you know all about that.

metsmarathon Nov 29 2012 07:01 AM Re: Signing Sugar

if hte mets did this the way tampa did things, they would have offered him the 7 year - $100M extension after the 2009 season. though, that might not have looked like such a smart move at the time. or for the two years immediately thereafter.

metirish Nov 29 2012 07:05 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Every time I open this thread it is in hope that I see a big fat "SIGNED" report.

metsmarathon Nov 29 2012 07:35 AM Re: Signing Sugar

write signed and it will all be ok.

MFS62 Nov 29 2012 08:18 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Aren't all the major league teams getting that additional $10 million per year in national tv contract money real soon? Yes, there's money coming off the books next year (I'm not sure how much because of the structure of the Bay buyout), but have any of the writers even mentioned the use of the new tv money? Why can't the Mets add that (or part of it) to the back years of any contracts they are offering? Later

Ceetar Nov 29 2012 08:22 AM Re: Signing Sugar

MFS62 wrote: Aren't all the major league teams getting that additional $10 million per year in national tv contract money real soon? Yes, there's money coming off the books next year (I'm not sure how much because of the structure of the Bay buyout), but have any of the writers even mentioned the use of the new tv money? Why can't the Mets add that (or part of it) to the back years of any contracts they are offering? Later it's more than $10. I think it's like $25..

Ashie62 Nov 29 2012 10:30 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy MD wrote: And you know all about that. Longoria had said he didnt want to eat up all the payroll and management is committed to working with Longoria moneywise to try and keep this small market team competitive each season. No.. the Mets do not seem to be taing this approach with Wright or the deal would be done and the chances of R.A remaining a Met might be better than they look now.

Edgy MD Nov 29 2012 10:35 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Firstly, as noted above, Longoria is in a very different situation. Secondly, the scenario you describe (whether or not it's accurate) is not so much about the team behaving differently so much as the player.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 29 2012 11:38 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Ask not what the Mets can do for David Wright By Howard Megdal 11:15 am Nov. 29, 2012 It's decision time for the New York Mets and David Wright. Andy Martino reported in the Daily News Thursday morning that the Mets have presented "their best offer" to David Wright, and it would pay the third baseman a guaranteed $140 million over eight years. That's $16 million for 2013, an option already picked up by the Mets, along with $124 million over the following seven years. The payout, purely based on money and years, is a bit shy of the eight years, $160 million many observers believe Wright would earn on the free agent market next season. But it also means Wright avoids the risk of playing out another season without getting anything new in return. As presented to the media, it's a very fair offer. This being the Mets, though, there's more to the story. Martino also reported that the deal is backloaded. He didn't have specifics, but suggested that the structure of the contract was similar to that of Jose Reyes with his now-former team, the Miami Marlins. Reyes, remember, signed a six-year, $106 million deal with the Marlins last winter, but earned just $10 million in each of the first two seasons, $16 million the third year, and $22 million in each of the final three years. It is worth remembering that a dollar in hand today is worth more to Wright or anyone else than a dollar tomorrow. So the extent to which the contract is backloaded has a real effect on the total value of the package, particularly if Wright (accurately) believes he can earn the same contract from another team, paid out more evenly. $140 million is not $140 million, regardless of contract. But there's more. Just as the Mets management used to do with their players in the years they were heavily invested in Bernie Madoff's schemes, they are apparently asking Wright to defer a portion of his contract payout. How much deferred money is unclear, but this, too, has a real impact on the total value of the deal. For instance, the deferrals Johan Santana agreed to called for $5 million to be deferred each season for seven years, with 1.25 percent compound interest. So $5 million of his 2008 salary was withheld, earned interest, and gets paid out to Santana on June 30, 2015. That may sound like a good deal for Santana, but it isn't. It brings the overall value of his contract down from $137.5 million to $123.1 million, a drop of more than 10 percent of the total value. If the Mets are asking the same of Wright, along with the backloaded structuring of a deal, what appears to be a $140 million offer could easily be more akin to another team offering him $100 million, paid out without deferrals and evenly over the life of a contract. Exactly how much the Mets are asking Wright to sacrifice is unknown without the particulars of the deferrals and contract structure. But it's not safe to assume the Mets have made a fair market deal without those particulars. And you can bet if those particulars do manifestly change the nature of the offer, the team won't leak them. It was a six-year, $100 million deal, remember, that Ken Rosenthal described back on Monday as "an offer that Wright is certain to refuse." What the Mets are doing, in terms of these negotiations and attendant leaks, makes sense above all as a public-relations strategy. If Wright signs, they get an off-season trophy, something in short supply in Flushing in recent winters, and they get it at a better-than-market rate. If Wright refuses, they get to paint him as a greedy and disployal villain, earning themselves a pass at least with whatever portion of the fan base will buy that Wright, an exemplary team guy, is just being selfish here. The "best offer" rhetoric seems to set the Mets up either finalize a deal with Wright for real, or to try to deal him at baseball's winter meetings, which begin Monday. For now, the Mets and their fans wait, and hope that Wright, who has gamely provided the public face of this team for years while ownership insulted his talent and the front office pressured him to play hurt, will take one more for the team. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... vid-wright

Ceetar Nov 29 2012 11:44 AM Re: Signing Sugar

"market value" is not "What people speculate Wright could get given an averagish Wright season in 2014" it's more akin to what other players of his ilk get, the Zimmerman's and the Longoria's et al. No comparisons are perfect of course, tax rates, cities, teams, even the players themselves are not identical, but it's a lot more telling than projections about 2014. It's easy for someone 'close to' the people making the decisions to fictionally spend that $160/8 on Wright a year from now.

Edgy MD Nov 29 2012 11:45 AM Re: Signing Sugar

It diminishes me to read that guy, but then I do anyway.

metirish Nov 29 2012 12:32 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Martino also reported that the deal is backloaded. He didn't have specifics, but suggested that the structure of the contract was similar to that of Jose Reyes with his now-former team, the Miami Marlins no specifics?, a minor detail, do carry on.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 29 2012 12:42 PM Re: Signing Sugar

metirish wrote: Martino also reported that the deal is backloaded. He didn't have specifics, but suggested that the structure of the contract was similar to that of Jose Reyes with his now-former team, the Miami Marlins no specifics?, a minor detail, do carry on. That's what Martino wrote: But league officials briefed on the talks revealed new information about the structure of the Mets’ offer. Those sources said that the proposed extension was backloaded with a structure similar to the contract Jose Reyes got from the Marlins last winter. Reyes, who was later traded to Toronto, made $10 million in the first year of his deal, and will earn $10 million in the second. From there, the annual value skyrockets to $16 million and $22 million. While the numbers in the offer to Wright are different, and specifics are not known, the structure is similar to that of the Reyes contract, according to those sources. There is deferred money in the potential deal, consistent with the Mets’ past agreements with Carlos Beltran and Johan Santana. Both of those players, who represent the largest contracts in team history, deferred about $5 million of their annual salary during many of their seasons in New York. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... z2DdsLbDnp Edgy MD wrote: It diminishes me to read that guy, but then I do anyway. I don't see anything wrong with this Megdal piece, even if the author overstates the obvious -- namely that one can't accurately assess a contract without knowing the details regarding backloading and deferrals -- the payment schedule.

Edgy MD Nov 29 2012 12:45 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Extra, extra: The Mets are the only team that seeks to backload contracts. In fact, they're the only known entity that seeks to put off paying their obligations as long as possible. If this goes down, I do hope they'll invite Steve Phillips to the signing, as I imagine Wright is that last asset remaining from his tenure. And heck, invite Minaya as a way to thank him for signing the last Wright contract. I don't see anything wrong with this Megdal piece, even if the author overstates the obvious -- namely that one can't accurately assess a contract without knowing the details regarding backloading and deferrals -- the payment schedule. Welcome back. I guess it's so common --- or the target is so easy --- that he gets a free pass for it. But see a lot wrong with the snarky insinuation that there's something nefarious and pathetically typical in the Mets GM acting in his team's interests. Deferred compensation and backloading are as common as pine tar in baseball, as he himself kinda makes clear in citing the Reyes case. Make a phone call, Howard.

metirish Nov 29 2012 01:03 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Thanks Batmags.....I was taking the piss a little.....anyway, I thought Wright couldn't turn down this contract but reading this if true then he could. It is worth remembering that a dollar in hand today is worth more to Wright or anyone else than a dollar tomorrow. So the extent to which the contract is backloaded has a real effect on the total value of the package, particularly if Wright (accurately) believes he can earn the same contract from another team, paid out more evenly. $140 million is not $140 million, regardless of contract. But there's more. Just as the Mets management used to do with their players in the years they were heavily invested in Bernie Madoff's schemes, they are apparently asking Wright to defer a portion of his contract payout. How much deferred money is unclear, but this, too, has a real impact on the total value of the deal. For instance, the deferrals Johan Santana agreed to called for $5 million to be deferred each season for seven years, with 1.25 percent compound interest. So $5 million of his 2008 salary was withheld, earned interest, and gets paid out to Santana on June 30, 2015.

Ceetar Nov 29 2012 01:19 PM Re: Signing Sugar

The insinuation that they were doing crooked things with Madoff is still there. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. It was the return on the money invested that mattered, and it's not like they're the complete idiots bumbling along they're made out to be sometimes. If they're backloading and deferring and investing that money, it's with a very clear mind to get ahead, the same it was back then. That they're still doing it only suggests it remains a viable strategy. (Although Santana's was presumably destined for Madoff depending on the timing) It's NOT accurate that Wright can get the same contract elsewhere (for one, it's a year way. for two, he's not actually permitted by baseball rules to discuss that with other teams, meaning it's just speculation) What's with this 'current value' stuff lately? seems like a new buzzword. I get the concept behind it, but there's plenty of value and security in putting money away too. That deferred money Santana's "giving up"? it's only actually giving up money if he could turn a profit by investing it into future value beyond bank interest right? Sure, a dollar down to me or you lowers our debt and therefore mortgage interest payments and all that, but presumably Wright and Santana aren't quite burdened with this stuff. he's choosing a conservative investment, but investing with the Wilpons, and will end up earning more than his contract's cold hard numbers all the while extending the date in which he'll earn a paycheck and helping out his teams financial flexibility.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 29 2012 01:26 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Ceetar wrote: What's with this 'current value' stuff lately? seems like a new buzzword. Present value. Some crazy money theory cooked up by the newfangled wave of economists. It's like the sabermetrics of finance. I will gladly pay you Tuesday, for a hamburger today.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 29 2012 01:40 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Coleman: Is Mets’ Offer To Wright Worth Its Weight In Gold? November 29, 2012 1:41 PM By Ed Coleman Not so fast there, people. David Wright has himself a pretty nice deal on paper or in print, doesn’t he. Or does he? Well, it depends who you talk to, and right now the only people talking are the Mets, making sure they get their point across after taking heat from fans concerning their inaction during what seemed like long and somewhat dormant negotiations for both Wright and R.A. Dickey. Wright had three wishes that he desired as he approached this off-season looking at a contract extension that could possibly take him to the end of his career. First, as he stated many times during the season, he wanted to remain a Met-for-life like the Ripkens, Jeters, etc. that have preceded him, be a one-uniform guy. Secondly, it was his desire that the negotiation process remain confidential, free from outside pressures that constantly seem to derail talks, especially here in New York. Hard to do? Yes. But that’s already been broken, because one side talked and it wasn’t Wright’s. And finally, Wright wanted to know what the plan was, the team’s commitment to winning, if he was going to sign up long-term for it. Wright wants to finish what he started with this team and bring a championship to the organization during his time. There have been a lot of comparisons drawn to Evan Longoria’s recent contract extension, but how valid they are can certainly be debated. Longoria is 27 and coming off an injury-shortened season in which he hit 17 HR and had 55 RBI in 74 games. He also plays for a team that has had 3 consecutive 90-win seasons. Longoria has also played in more than 133 games just twice in his 5-year career. Wright will be 30 on December 20, has been an island in a depleted Met lineup for several seasons now, and has averaged 149 games per during his 8 seasons thus far. The MLB Players Union has valued Longoria’s new contract at 10 years and $131 million - the present day value reduced from $136.6 million due to deferred money. And therein lies the sticking point with Wright’s contract. There are significant deferrals in Wright’s deal, as well as back-loaded money towards the end of the contract. If money’s back-loaded, it’s within the confines of the deal, just toward the back end. If it’s deferred, it’s outside or after the context of the deal. So what rubs the Wright camp the wrong way is to say that the deal is worth $140 million – that’s inaccurate, and not even close in present day value. And it’s why Wright wanted to keep these dealings confidential. If indeed Johan Santana’s franchise-record $137.5 million contract is a benchmark that the Wright camp is shooting for, it won’t be topped when you factor in the considerable deferred money. Is Wright happy with the way this was handled? No. Is he angry? No. Somewhat disillusioned? Yes. Do I think a deal will eventually get done? Yes, probably within a week’s time. But it might have been already done if people had kept their lips sealed.... http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/11/29/ ... t-in-gold/

metirish Nov 29 2012 01:49 PM Re: Signing Sugar

I need to take a blow after reading that.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 29 2012 01:51 PM Re: Signing Sugar

That's what the BJ's Clubhouse is for!

Edgy MD Nov 29 2012 01:53 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Ed Coleman wrote: But it might have been already done if people had kept their lips sealed.... People never took the Go-Gos seriously enough.

metsmarathon Nov 29 2012 02:10 PM Re: Signing Sugar

what was the present value of the santana deal, 'yknow, after hte deferred money is accounted for? what utter nonsense. OE: per cot's contracts, the present day value of santana's deal is $123.1M due to the deferrals. but, y'know, why avail oneself of hte information that freely obtainable on the internets when you can just blast and blast and blast away at a talking point.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 29 2012 02:24 PM Re: Signing Sugar

I think we just need to get the ghost of Dick Young to step in and screw this whole thing up.

Ashie62 Nov 29 2012 04:20 PM Re: Signing Sugar

I hope we are not halfway there..

Benjamin Grimm Nov 30 2012 04:40 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Ed Coleman says... DONE DEAL! http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd ... b&c_id=mlb Matt Weber, MLB.com wrote: The Mets and third baseman David Wright came to terms on a seven-year, $122 million extension on Friday to keep the six-time All-Star and face of the franchise in Flushing, according to Ed Coleman of WFAN Radio in New York. The Mets have yet to make an announcement on the deal. Wright, who will turn 30 on Dec. 20, will make $16 million in 2013, the final year of his existing contract. Then he'll make $122 million over the next seven years. The deal will make Wright the highest-paid player in club history. In total, Wright's new deal will be for $138 million over the next eight years. Johan Santana's six-year, $137.5 million contract from 2008 had previously been the club's most expensive deal. Coleman, WFAN's Mets beat reporter, reported the deal just before 2 a.m. ET on Friday. Wright, who grew up a Mets fan in Virginia, was drafted by New York with the 38th pick in the 2001 First-Year Player Draft, and made his Major League debut in 2004. In his nine-year career in Flushing, he has taken over the franchise lead in hits, with 1,426, and RBIs, with 818. He hit .306 with 21 homers and 93 RBIs in 156 games for New York in 2012.

metsguyinmichigan Nov 30 2012 04:54 AM Re: Signing Sugar

If Coleman is right, that's something to celebrate!!!

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 30 2012 04:56 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Like I said, never a thing to worry about.

metirish Nov 30 2012 05:45 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Great news, I'm in my car waiting to go in to work, just tuned to the Fan to hear the news.... Carton " David Wright is a Met for life, makes no sense to me maybe it does to you", STFU asshole.

metirish Nov 30 2012 05:50 AM Re: Signing Sugar

"@JonHeymanCBS: #mets deal with wright at $138M, 8 yrs is confirmed. pending physical"

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 30 2012 06:12 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Awesome. So, then... where's Dickey going?

metsmarathon Nov 30 2012 06:22 AM Re: Signing Sugar

why is the $16M he was already due being factored into the silly math of "biggest contract evarrrrr", if only to allow the story to stay the same that he wanted in excess of santana money, when clearly, he did not.

metsmarathon Nov 30 2012 06:27 AM Re: Signing Sugar

also, hooray!

bmfc1 Nov 30 2012 06:30 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Hooray, good job... now add. They didn't get better by keeping him. They had him already. Make the team better around him.

Ceetar Nov 30 2012 06:45 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Hope David is buying the drinks for everyone down in Florida for Murphy's wedding tomorrow.

Edgy MD Nov 30 2012 07:13 AM Re: Signing Sugar

If you're not already working on a script to the hi-LAR-rious blockbuster comedy Murphy's Wedding, I sure am. >>>> "Hey, Daniel, guess what I got you for your wedding --- ME!" >>>> "Fuck you, David." >>>> "You got eight years to that buddy. Why don't you take care of the missus first." >>>> "Will somebody call this asshole a cab. I can't believe everybody likes you." >>>> "ROCK 'N' ROLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!" __________________________________ I agree that this was always gonna happenl, which is why the haters are setting it up that the Mets are assholes anyway.

Ceetar Nov 30 2012 07:52 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Mets – Willets Point Nov 30 2012 07:52 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy MD wrote: I agree that this was always gonna happen, which is why the haters are setting it up that the Mets are assholes anyway. Well, there was the precedent of that other player who should have been a Met for life not being signed last year.

Edgy MD Nov 30 2012 07:53 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Sure, but many of the other circumstances were different, including the signals from the parties.

smg58 Nov 30 2012 07:54 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Nice job by Sandy to get the first priority taken care of before December.

Ceetar Nov 30 2012 07:55 AM Re: Signing Sugar

smg58 wrote: Nice job by Sandy to get the first priority taken care of before December. yup, and Winter Meetings next week right? Frees him up.

Edgy MD Nov 30 2012 08:00 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Whipped us up a sweet side of Bixler while the main dish was in the oven, too.

MFS62 Nov 30 2012 08:06 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I don't care Who's on first or What's on second, as long as David Wright's on third. (Well, I do, but it doesn't flow.) Later

Nymr83 Nov 30 2012 09:18 AM Re: Signing Sugar

finally, good news from Metsland

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 30 2012 09:29 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy MD wrote: Whipped us up a sweet side of Bixler while the main dish was in the oven, too. I think I'd rather give macaroni and cheese a roster spot.

metsmarathon Nov 30 2012 09:45 AM Re: Signing Sugar

bixler's no mashed turnips is he?

Edgy MD Nov 30 2012 09:57 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Well, my subtler point is that hopefully this hasn't held put too many other operations. What's Paddy Power's line on whether Dickey gets extended?

Ceetar Nov 30 2012 10:09 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy MD wrote: Well, my subtler point is that hopefully this hasn't held put too many other operations. What's Paddy Power's line on whether Dickey gets extended? As soon as he visits the Wifey Watch thread, presumably.

RealityChuck Nov 30 2012 10:28 AM Re: Signing Sugar

MFS62 wrote: I don't care Who's on first or What's on second, as long as David Wright's on third. (Well, I do, but it doesn't flow.) Later I don't know about that.

Valadius Nov 30 2012 01:28 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Nymr83 wrote: finally, good news from Metsland This.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 30 2012 01:44 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Yes, this is the best off-season news we've had in years.

Zvon Nov 30 2012 03:30 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Yay!

Ashie62 Nov 30 2012 04:52 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Awesome! on to R.A and the OF..

metsmarathon Nov 30 2012 07:56 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Ceetar Dec 01 2012 07:34 PM Re: Signing Sugar

themetfairy Dec 01 2012 09:27 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Dancing for joy -

Ceetar Dec 02 2012 08:41 AM Re: Signing Sugar

If you want to take shots at the Wright extension, I guess 3am Sunday Morning on some paper/site no one goes to for sports coverage, if they've even heard of it, is the place to do it. [url]http://spectator.org/blog/2012/12/01/mets-make-wrong-move-with-wrig

Gwreck Dec 02 2012 09:08 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Ceetar wrote: I suppose there's just no way to let this issue go, is there? The Mets seem to have functioned just fine without a "captain" for years and years.

Ceetar Dec 02 2012 09:16 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Gwreck wrote: Ceetar wrote: I suppose there's just no way to let this issue go, is there? The Mets seem to have functioned just fine without a "captain" for years and years. no, they've functioned just fine with Wright as the unofficial captain for years and years. It's not an "issue", it's a tribute and a PR move.

Valadius Dec 02 2012 10:30 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I fully expect to see a 5 on the outfield wall one day.

SteveJRogers Dec 02 2012 11:14 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Valadius wrote: I fully expect to see a 5 on the outfield wall one day. If he ends up with a career like Larry or George Brett, sure.

Frayed Knot Dec 02 2012 12:34 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Now that this contract is in the bag, I think anything short of a disasterous ending/ugly divorce means that Wright will be the last man to wear #5 for the Mets. Ending it in an HoF career (way too premature for that talk) would be a nice topping but not totally necessary IMO. And hopefully such an occurrence will end the talk about settling for retired numbers of those with <50% or <25% careers as Mets (#17, #8) just to get the total up, although I suspect it won't.

SteveJRogers Dec 02 2012 01:15 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Frayed Knot wrote: Now that this contract is in the bag, I think anything short of a disasterous ending/ugly divorce means that Wright will be the last man to wear #5 for the Mets. Ending it in an HoF career (way too premature for that talk) would be a nice topping but not totally necessary IMO. And hopefully such an occurrence will end the talk about settling for retired numbers of those with <50% or <25% careers as Mets (#17, #8) just to get the total up, although I suspect it won't. Well, if we are using the bar that the Mets have set with #41 and possibly #31 (assuming he does get in, and with a Met cap on his plaque this summer) and putting everyone else whom has ever been debated (#36, #1, #7 (Kranepool), #45 (both McGraw and Franco), #8, #17, #16, #18, etc) into their Hall of Fame. It would be a safe bet that barring Larry-esque career numbers that #5 might just get the #8 or #24 treatment.

Ceetar Dec 02 2012 02:59 PM Re: Signing Sugar

#15 as well.

Frayed Knot Dec 02 2012 03:02 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Even if you're making the point that the Mets have established some sort of pattern to date with this stuff (and I don't know that they have) speculating, as we are, that Wright finishes his career as a Met in good standing, his status as a life-long NYM with multiple ASGs (currently has 6), GGs (2), Silver Sluggers (2), and Top-10 MVPs (4) would put him in a category all his own even if he were to fall short of HoF standards. Even Seaver wasn't a full-time Met and the only one who really was with any kind of lengthy career was the mediocre-ish Kranepool. I'll put it this way: if all that happens [u:13dkenfb]I would[/u:13dkenfb] advocate for retiring #5 for the same reasons I [u:13dkenfb]have not[/u:13dkenfb] for 17, 8, 24 & 31.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 02 2012 03:16 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Me too. And geez, Steve, there's a world of difference between 17 years of David Wright and 1.5 years of Willie Mays.

metirish Dec 03 2012 05:44 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Our own Seawolf just won a David Wright signed Mets blue cap on twitter......congrats

seawolf17 Dec 03 2012 05:47 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Yeah, how cool was that? Then they asked me to direct-message them but I can't because they're not following me. I guess I'll just wait for a regular response.

Edgy MD Dec 04 2012 07:18 AM Re: Signing Sugar

So, I haven't read the morning papes... his bloodwork come back OK? We having a press conference today or what?

Benjamin Grimm Dec 04 2012 07:22 AM Re: Signing Sugar

It looks like the official announcement will be Wednesday in Nashville.

Edgy MD Dec 04 2012 07:24 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Whoah. Nashville. Way to stick it up Dickey's ass.

Frayed Knot Dec 04 2012 07:30 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy MD wrote: So, I haven't read the morning papes... his bloodwork come back OK? Alcohol content was a bit high.

Ceetar Dec 04 2012 07:43 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Frayed Knot wrote: Edgy MD wrote: So, I haven't read the morning papes... his bloodwork come back OK? Alcohol content was a bit high. Daniel Murphy throws one hell of a wedding after all.

Edgy MD Dec 04 2012 11:36 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Physical passed.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 04 2012 07:03 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Mets press release wrote: The New York Mets today announced that they have agreed to terms with David Wright on a new contract through 2020. Wright will be in Nashville, Tenn. at Baseball's Winter Meetings for an 11:00 a.m. (CT) / Noon (ET) press conference tomorrow which will be carried live on SNY and Mets.com. "I'd like to thank Fred Wilpon, Saul Katz and Jeff Wilpon for their commitment to me since I was drafted," said Wright. "I've grown up in this organization and made life-long friendships with teammates, uniform personnel and front office staff. I'm grateful for the opportunity to finish what I've started and help bring the Mets and our fans a World Series title." Wright, who will turn 30 on December 20, became the Mets all-time leader in hits, runs scored, walks and RBI in 2012. He was already the club leader in doubles, total bases and game-winning RBI. "We're thrilled for the organization and our fans that David will be a Met for many years to come," said Mets COO Jeff Wilpon. "As great a player as David's been with us on the field - one of the greatest and most popular Mets ever - he's been equally outstanding in the community." Wright was named to his sixth All-Star team in 2012. He is a two-time Louisville Silver Slugger Award winner (2007-2008) and has won two Rawlings Gold Gloves (2007-2008). He has won the Schaefer Mets Player of the Year award in six of the last eight seasons. "We said signing David to a contract that would keep him in a Mets uniform was our top offseason priority," said Mets General Manager Sandy Alderson. "Today is a historic day for the franchise and an important step in securing a winning future for this team and our fans." Over his nine-year career with the Mets, Wright owns a .301 batting average with 790 runs scored, 322 doubles, 19 triples, 204 home runs, 818 RBI and 166 stolen bases in 1,262 games. His 204 home runs rank third in team history behind Darryl Strawberry (252) and Mike Piazza (220). "I think it's a great statement that David wanted to stay with the organization that drafted him," said Mets Manager Terry Collins. "David is the leader of this team in the clubhouse, on the field and in the community." Wright hit .306 (178-581) with 91 runs scored, 41 doubles, 21 home runs, 93 RBI and a .391 on-base percentage last season.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 04 2012 07:07 PM Re: Signing Sugar

The New York Mets today announced that they have agreed to terms with David Wright on a new contract through 2020. Wright will be in Nashville, Tenn. at Baseball's Winter Meetings for an 11:00 a.m. (CT) / Noon (ET) press conference tomorrow which will be carried live on SNY and Mets.com. "I'd like to thank Fred Wilpon, Saul Katz and Jeff Wilpon for their commitment to me since I was drafted," said Wright. "I've grown up in this organization and made life-long friendships with teammates, uniform personnel and front office staff. I'm grateful for the opportunity to finish what I've started and help bring the Mets and our fans a World Series title." Wright, who will turn 30 on December 20, became the Mets all-time leader in hits, runs scored, walks and RBI in 2012. He was already the club leader in doubles, total bases and game-winning RBI. "We're thrilled for the organization and our fans that David will be a Met for many years to come," said Mets COO Jeff Wilpon. "As great a player as David's been with us on the field - one of the greatest and most popular Mets ever - he's been equally outstanding in the community." Wright was named to his sixth All-Star team in 2012. He is a two-time Louisville Silver Slugger Award winner (2007-2008) and has won two Rawlings Gold Gloves (2007-2008). He has won the Schaefer Mets Player of the Year award in six of the last eight seasons. "We said signing David to a contract that would keep him in a Mets uniform was our top offseason priority," said Mets General Manager Sandy Alderson. "Today is a historic day for the franchise and an important step in securing a winning future for this team and our fans." Over his nine-year career with the Mets, Wright owns a .301 batting average with 790 runs scored, 322 doubles, 19 triples, 204 home runs, 818 RBI and 166 stolen bases in 1,262 games. His 204 home runs rank third in team history behind Darryl Strawberry (252) and Mike Piazza (220). "I think it's a great statement that David wanted to stay with the organization that drafted him," said Mets Manager Terry Collins. "David is the leader of this team in the clubhouse, on the field and in the community." Wright hit .306 (178-581) with 91 runs scored, 41 doubles, 21 home runs, 93 RBI and a .391 on-base percentage last season. well-done!

Farmer Ted Dec 05 2012 07:51 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Schaefer? For real in a press release?

Edgy MD Dec 05 2012 08:04 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Wouldn't that be something? I almost read right past that. Almost.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 05 2012 09:51 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Farmer Ted wrote: Schaefer? For real in a press release? Sadly, no.

bmfc1 Dec 05 2012 10:09 AM Re: Signing Sugar

What is that cap DW is wearing at his press conference?

Mets – Willets Point Dec 05 2012 10:12 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Grimm must have had a job where he churned out boilerplate for press releases at some point.

Swan Swan H Dec 05 2012 10:29 AM Re: Signing Sugar

bmfc1 wrote: What is that cap DW is wearing at his press conference? New alternate cap, to go with the blue uni tops.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 05 2012 10:29 AM Re: Signing Sugar

bmfc1 wrote: What is that cap DW is wearing at his press conference? New orange brimmer for '13. I read that his girly is there. What's she like?

Mets – Willets Point Dec 05 2012 10:31 AM Re: Signing Sugar

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I read that his girly is there. What's she like? She's out of your league, dude.

Swan Swan H Dec 05 2012 10:36 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Hell, she may be out of Wright's league.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 05 2012 10:45 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Good heavens Miss Sakamoto.

Edgy MD Dec 05 2012 03:13 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Whoah...

metsmarathon Dec 05 2012 05:59 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy MD wrote: Whoah... LOL

Ceetar Dec 05 2012 06:37 PM Re: Signing Sugar

you know he's looking at Molly.

Edgy MD Dec 05 2012 08:45 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Howie Megdal, come out and play.

Farmer Ted Dec 06 2012 08:14 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Verducci = Donnie Fucking Downer. Nice to see David Wright step up again to play in the World Baseball Classic. But keep this in mind, Mets fans, now that Wright is wrapped up for the next eight seasons: At age 29, Wright is about the same player Scott Rolen was at the same age. But here is Rolen's average season for the next eight years: .273, 11 home runs, 57 RBIs, 105 games. That's not $138 million of value.

metirish Dec 06 2012 08:18 AM Re: Signing Sugar

What a dick, seriously, fuck off Verduochebag.

metsmarathon Dec 06 2012 08:35 AM Re: Signing Sugar

other comparables for wright include carl yastrzemski, chipper jones, carlos beltran, gary sheffield and george brett. those comparables of his who have retired to date (yaz, sheff, brett, and del ennis), and thus have a complete career, averaged 26 WAR from their age 30 season to the end of their career. using the current $/WAR value, this translates to an expected value of $117M. hell, even scott rolen, felled by injuries, logged 22 WAR from age 30 onward, good for $99M at current exchange rates. scott rolen is a bit of a stealth hall of fame candidate. oh, in other news, robinson cano is basically hte same player as carlos baerga. sorry yankee fans. you're screwed. using similarity scores as presented on bbref to project out a player's career is bunk. just stop it.

Frayed Knot Dec 06 2012 09:44 AM Re: Signing Sugar

metsmarathon wrote: ... using similarity scores as presented on bbref to project out a player's career is bunk. just stop it. Or, more accurately, using ONE player on the similarity list to project out a player's career is especially bunk if the majority of that list shows otherwise. And hey look, he's not wrong to say that this might not all work out before the deal is done. It's just that picking and choosing your evidence skews things towards the pre-determined conclusion, and doing so with a guy whose demise was so obviously caused by chronic shoulder injuries makes it even more so.

Edgy MD Dec 06 2012 11:25 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Danny Frisella died at David's age. Sorry, Mets fans. But that's silly. He's an infielder. Like Ray Chapman or Danny Thompson.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 11 2012 02:21 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Details about the contract, from Jayson Stark at ESPN: The Mets will defer $15.5 million of the $138 million in David Wright's new eight-year extension, according to sources familiar with the details of the contract. However, the deferred dollars were reduced significantly from the amount the club initially wished to defer. The Mets will defer $3 million of Wright's $11 million salary in 2013, then $2.5 million annually from 2014 through 2018. Because of the deferrals, the total deal is valued at $134,015,678 by the Major League Baseball Players Association, sources said. The team originally pressed for a greater percentage of deferred money, a demand that nearly caused discussions to unravel, according to a baseball official who was consulted on the negotiations. However, subsequent negotiations succeeded in reducing the deferred money to a level that was amenable to both sides. Wright's contract calls for him to earn $11 million next year, $20 million in each of the following five seasons, then $15 million in 2019 and $12 million in 2020. The contract also includes numerous award bonuses. Wright would earn an additional $500,000 if he wins the MVP award, $1 million if he wins it a second time, and $1.5 million if he wins it a third time during the life of the deal. He would receive an additional $200,000 for any season in which he finishes second through fifth in the voting. He also would collect $100,000 for making the All-Star team, another $100,000 if he receives the most All-Star votes in the league and $100,000 apiece if he wins a Sporting News, Baseball America or Associated Press player of the year award. The contract calls for $100,000 bonuses if Wright wins the Gold Glove, Silver Slugger or Hank Aaron Award. It also contains postseason MVP provisions. Wright will donate $1.38 million over the life of the contract to a charity designated by the Mets.

Edgy MD Dec 11 2012 02:34 PM Re: Signing Sugar

That's a funny last line. Reads like a shakedown.

metsmarathon Dec 11 2012 02:40 PM Re: Signing Sugar

eventually the deferrals have to come home to roost, no? pretty soon, the mets are going to have a $100M payroll just from deferred payments alone.

seawolf17 Dec 11 2012 03:09 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy MD wrote: That's a funny last line. Reads like a shakedown. It kinda does. "That charity may or may not involve the Wilpon Family Trust Fund."

Ashie62 Dec 11 2012 04:56 PM Re: Signing Sugar

metsmarathon wrote: eventually the deferrals have to come home to roost, no? pretty soon, the mets are going to have a $100M payroll just from deferred payments alone. The money is supposed to be invested to pay for itself, like Madoff used to do.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 23 2012 02:29 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Mark Carig, Newsday wrote: David Wright has earned right to be face of Mets, and he plans to be In the earliest stage of a ballplayer's career, he essentially is the property of his organization, his salary determined by the club in control of his rights. It is the lasting remnant of baseball's infamous reserve clause. As a player establishes himself, he accumulates various rights, beginning with salary arbitration and ending with free agency. Relatively few reach this end of the spectrum. Even fewer reach it without ever having to change uniforms. David Wright is one of the chosen ones. He sealed his destiny with an eight-year, $138- million contract that represented much more than an endorsement of his skills as a third baseman. It is the culmination of a relationship that has evolved on that spectrum. He stands alone now as the public face of the franchise. During the next eight years, fans will learn how Wright will adapt to his unquestioned stature within the organization and whether his presence ultimately will lead to a turnaround. But Wright, 30, already has offered brief glimpses of how he envisions his new role. "I want to do everything I can to meet the goals that I have and the goals the organization has,'' he said this past week. Wright took an active role during his contract negotiations with general manager Sandy Alderson and chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon. He insisted upon a detailed explanation of the organization's revival plan. He studied the team's minor-league prospects and spoke freely about the types of players he thought should be brought in as free agents. During that process, he was clued in on the fact that trading away reigning National League Cy Young Award winner R.A. Dickey remained a distinct possibility. When the deal finally was made official, Wright did not hesitate to offer his endorsement. The Mets had lost a 20-game winner and the anchor of their starting rotation, but Wright emphasized the acquisition of two elite prospects in the process. He personally called catcher Travis d'Arnaud and pitcher Noah Syndergaard to welcome them to the organization. From finding places to dine in New York to searching for spring training lodging in Port St. Lucie, Wright let both know his line is open. "I told Sandy and I told Jeff this,'' Wright said. "I'm willing to obviously go all in and give you everything that I have. And in return, they told me that they would do the same.'' Even before the extension, as Wright moved from one end of the player spectrum to the other, the Mets had sensed that kind of loyalty. Without it, there would have been no new contract. "I thanked his parents, I really did,'' Jeff Wilpon said earlier this month at the winter meetings. "I know Fred [Wilpon] wanted to make sure I thanked his parents, because if they didn't raise him to be the man he is, we wouldn't have committed to him.'' Through the new contract, that loyalty has been codified, and Wright said he's prepared to show it. That means staying on the right side of a blurry line. "Am I lucky and do I feel privileged that Sandy has shown me and talked about the plan moving forward? Of course,'' Wright said. "But by no means am I going to be -- unless he asks me my input on something -- I'm not going to be in his ear trying to convince him to do this or that. If he asks my opinion, I'll be more than happy to share it. But I think there has to be that kind of separation of powers there.'' Nevertheless, Wright is aware of the areas in which he's uniquely qualified to exert his influence. The franchise's stability emerged as Wright's primary concern when he began talks on his new contract. He signed only after gaining assurances from Wilpon and Alderson that the Mets eventually will be positioned to spend on talent. Only one more year separates the Mets from their first taste of payroll freedom. When that time comes, Wright said he's prepared to do his part. "Of course I'm going to do everything I can, whether it's helping the front office when they're signing and trying to recruit other players or whatever it is,'' he said. Wright also must convince the fans, and to do that, he must remain an All-Star-caliber player for his voice to hold any sway. He faces a tough sell. Lingering questions loom over the team's financial outlook, and years of losing have eroded the goodwill between the club and its fans. But in Wright, the Mets have a player capable of leveraging an uncommonly strong bond with his fans. It is a delicate responsibility bestowed upon the few who reach the end of the spectrum -- when player and franchise are almost one and the same. "I think that I have a special relationship, a special connection, not only with the organization but with the fans,'' Wright said. "I've been here for nine years already and I'm going to be here for another eight. I feel like growing up a Mets fan, being raised a Mets fan, I do have a certain perspective as to what this fan base, what this organization, kind of yearns for and the direction that we're heading.''

metirish Dec 23 2012 03:29 PM Re: Signing Sugar

It's still weird that Jeff calls his dad Fred. Not saying it's wrong,just weird.

Ashie62 Dec 23 2012 03:57 PM Re: Signing Sugar

They snowed Wright and David hung R.A out..period.

Edgy MD Feb 19 2013 05:48 AM Re: Signing Sugar

The buzz makes it sound inevitable that the captaincy is going to happen this spring. Only open questions seem to be who signs off on it and whether he wears a C.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 19 2013 06:40 AM Re: Signing Sugar

I hope he wears a Cap'n Crunch hat.

metirish Feb 19 2013 06:50 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy MD wrote: The buzz makes it sound inevitable that the captaincy is going to happen this spring. Only open questions seem to be who signs off on it and whether he wears a C. What would Jeter do? Utter nonsense.

MFS62 Feb 19 2013 07:17 AM Re: Signing Sugar

metirish wrote: Edgy MD wrote: The buzz makes it sound inevitable that the captaincy is going to happen this spring. Only open questions seem to be who signs off on it and whether he wears a C. What would Jeter do? Utter nonsense. When Michael Kay discussed the idea of a Mets Captain a few years ago, he said the "C" on the Yankee uniforms is classier; the Mets' one was too big. Yes, he did say that. Later

Edgy MD Feb 19 2013 07:18 AM Re: Signing Sugar

It's all unfolding perrrfectly.

SteveJRogers Feb 19 2013 07:57 AM Re: Signing Sugar

MFS62 wrote: metirish wrote: Edgy MD wrote: The buzz makes it sound inevitable that the captaincy is going to happen this spring. Only open questions seem to be who signs off on it and whether he wears a C. What would Jeter do? Utter nonsense. When Michael Kay discussed the idea of a Mets Captain a few years ago, he said the "C" on the Yankee uniforms is classier; the Mets' one was too big. Yes, he did say that. Later Are you sure that wasn't his attempt at ironic humor?

MFS62 Feb 19 2013 08:28 AM Re: Signing Sugar

SteveJRogers wrote: MFS62 wrote: metirish wrote: Edgy MD wrote: The buzz makes it sound inevitable that the captaincy is going to happen this spring. Only open questions seem to be who signs off on it and whether he wears a C. What would Jeter do? Utter nonsense. When Michael Kay discussed the idea of a Mets Captain a few years ago, he said the "C" on the Yankee uniforms is classier; the Mets' one was too big. Yes, he did say that. Later Are you sure that wasn't his attempt at ironic humor? No. It was just his YLDBaggery. Later

metsguyinmichigan Feb 19 2013 09:46 AM Re: Signing Sugar

seawolf17 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: That's a funny last line. Reads like a shakedown. It kinda does. "That charity may or may not involve the Wilpon Family Trust Fund." Thinking about this, it's like giving David a big tax break -- kinda like free money, no?

Edgy MD Mar 21 2013 05:18 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Frayed Knot Mar 21 2013 06:58 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Anthony DiComo-mlb.com: "Wright will not wear a "C" on his uniform... And there was much rejoicing

Benjamin Grimm Mar 21 2013 07:46 PM Re: Signing Sugar

Ashie62 Mar 22 2013 09:43 AM Re: Signing Sugar

Edgy MD wrote: I was thinking Cappy Dick..