Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


Assuming they really are still broke. . .

Mex17
Sep 02 2012 07:51 AM

Last week I posted that thing about agressively upgrading the outfield. In the ensuing thread, a few folks suggested that there is still an issue with a limited budget. I would hope that they are wrong (and I still contend that, based on the scenario that we were presented by Selig, it should not be the case anymore), but if they are correct, my feeling is then they should go completely the other way and flip Wright and Dickey for young position players, notably oufielders, that can hopefully be the basis for the next team (with a nucleus that could potentially revolve around Flores/Wheeler/Harvey/Niece/Davis).

You might say that they have already stated that they are going to prioritize locking up Wright and Dickey long-term. I might respond that Wright and Dickey have something to say about that and that Luca Brasi is not anywhere around pointing a gun to their heads forcing them to sign a thing until they are convinced that it is the right move for them (to my knowlege, neither of them breed horses either).

If you move Wright, then Flores is waiting in the wings and the likes of Lutz/Turner/Valdespin/Murphy can hold the fort down at the hot corner until then.

If you move Dickey, then the 2013 rotation shakes out this way. . .

Santana
Harvey
Niece
Mejia
Gee/Pelfrey/McHugh/Wheeler

Would this suck? Yes, it would. But I think that it would be smarter than putting mediocre crap around Wright and Dickey (assuming they actually do re-up). I would prefer going the other way, but would support this as well. Trying to play it down the middle is the worst choice of the three, IMO.

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 02 2012 10:10 AM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

Dickey's their best trading chip. If you're dead serious about rebuilding, about taking two steps backwards in the hopes of taking three steps forward sometime in the near future ... if you build the team with ice in your veins ... unemotional ... like a stone cold killer ... then you trade Dickey. You trade him a month and a half ago. Because it's very reasonable to think that a 37 year old pitcher (turns 38 next month) ain't gonna be pitching anywhere near like a Cy Young candidate the next time the Mets contend. Because who the hell doesn't need a Cy Young award caliber pitcher? I'll tell you who doesn't: a team that's 20 games out of first place and'll probably finish at least 20 games out of first next season, too.

bmfc1
Sep 02 2012 10:32 AM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

That's what Sherman advocates:
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/tra ... 0bKIuekl9J

G-Fafif
Sep 02 2012 10:41 AM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

Putting aside Sherman's need to generate buzz and the very real possibility that as the "national" baseball writer for the Post his insights may be a mile wide and an inch deep, I found this the money passage of his column:

And though the Mets have Matt Harvey and Zack Wheeler, they are not overly populated with high-end youngsters. If you suggest Jeurys Familia, Wilmer Flores, etc., then you just have Mets-colored glasses. Every team has prospects of that level. Harvey and Wheeler are distinct.


I don't want to write off anybody before they arrive, but I'm kind of thinking that "every team" bit carries some merit to it. I'm also intrigued that he threw Niese into his trade pile. Counterintuitive to a young, building team but if he can yield more in return -- and he's reasonably priced for others, not just us -- then it's something to think about (probably because I must admit I've thought about it).

Hell, everything is something to think about. Doesn't mean you'd do it, but it's September and we're out of it again.

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 02 2012 10:53 AM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

Putting aside Sherman's need to generate buzz and the very real possibility that as the "national" baseball writer for the Post his insights may be a mile wide and an inch deep, I found this the money passage of his column:

And though the Mets have Matt Harvey and Zack Wheeler, they are not overly populated with high-end youngsters. If you suggest Jeurys Familia, Wilmer Flores, etc., then you just have Mets-colored glasses. Every team has prospects of that level. Harvey and Wheeler are distinct.


I don't want to write off anybody before they arrive, but I'm kind of thinking that "every team" bit carries some merit to it. I'm also intrigued that he threw Niese into his trade pile. Counterintuitive to a young, building team but if he can yield more in return -- and he's reasonably priced for others, not just us -- then it's something to think about (probably because I must admit I've thought about it).

Hell, everything is something to think about. Doesn't mean you'd do it, but it's September and we're out of it again.


I just finished reading the Sherman article, and I also came away thinking that his "Every team has prospects of that level" line was his most memorable. And best. In fact, I re-read that paragraph as soon as I finished it, before continuing with the rest of the piece.

Edgy MD
Sep 02 2012 11:54 AM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

I don't think he has a clue what the Mets prospect situation looks like, or what they'll turn into.

And even the logic he uses speaks well for the Mets but he doesn't realize it --- if they have some prospects as good as "every team" has, plus two that few teams have, that's good.

I also don't think it's a question of going whole hog into the free agent market or whole hog into trading off their highest-end veteran assets. Plenty of meaningful strategic options exist between these two extreme poles.

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 02 2012 12:16 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

Edgy DC wrote:
And even the logic he uses speaks well for the Mets but he doesn't realize it --- if they have some prospects as good as "every team" has, plus two that few teams have, that's good.


Maybe if you're the Atanta Braves or the Nats, this is good. But if you're the Mets ... if you're flat broke and your team has so many holes that it's like one of those dams that's sprung leaks everywhere, you need more than two blue chip prospects. How would the Mets get ahead with a farm as good as every other team? Their farm need to be among the best. Prospects don't come with guarantees. Not even the blue-chippers.

Edgy MD
Sep 02 2012 12:36 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

Well, it's an opinion, and not a terribly nuanced one (and I would say not a terribly informed one) at that. But even in his opinion, without realizing it, he's not implying they're as good as any other, but that they're better than many or most.

Of course prospects don't come with guarantees. As Jason Bay proves every day except today, big ticket veteran outfielders don't either.

Ashie62
Sep 02 2012 04:00 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

The Foundation to save Dickey.

Ashie62
Sep 02 2012 04:01 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

Talk to AZ about Justin Upton..

smg58
Sep 02 2012 06:46 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

I do think the Mets have to be realistic about their chances of extending Wright and Dickey. One way or the other, you don't want to repeat the situation with Reyes where he just played out the string and left.

Edgy MD
Sep 02 2012 07:10 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

Well, they claim to be targeting them this offseason, so they can make such a decision after they're negotiations are through, with a year left to go.

Ceetar
Sep 02 2012 09:23 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

smg58 wrote:
I do think the Mets have to be realistic about their chances of extending Wright and Dickey. One way or the other, you don't want to repeat the situation with Reyes where he just played out the string and left.


true, but what one person does doesn't dictate what another person does either.

This is actually a little different in that Alderson had been here 10 minutes when he picked up Reyes' option and he wasn't coming off a crazy year. Whatever the feelings of R.A. and David, they have to know they're having what might very well be career years, and a minor step down next year (or worse) could cost them the extra millions they'd get by playing the market against each other. In other words, re-upping with the Mets now from their viewpoint is probably locking in at 90%.

Edgy MD
Sep 03 2012 04:49 AM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

Yeah, Reyes went into his option year coming off two seasons where he put up OPS's of about .750 and played little more than a season's worth of games between the two. He had every motivation to play out the option and try to improve upon that.

Fans will little remember what a big part of the 2007 and 2008 (to a lesser extent) collapses he was.

Ashie62
Sep 03 2012 04:14 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

Wright's second half is worth about a buck 98

Vic Sage
Sep 04 2012 11:49 AM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

player / 2012 contract / 2013 status ("-" = under team's control)

Johan Santana 23,145,011 / 25,500,000
Jason Bay 18,125,000 / 18,125,000
David Wright 15,250,000 / 16,000,000

Frank Francisco 5,500,000 / 6,500,000
R.A. Dickey 4,750,000 / 5,000,000
Jonathan Niese 819,500 / 3,050,000

Mike Pelfrey 5,687,500 / ARB
Andres Torres 2,700,000 / ARB
Manny Acosta 875,000 / ARB
Daniel Murphy 512,196 / ARB
Ike Davis 506,690 / ARB
Bobby Parnell 504,000 / ARB
Josh Thole 498,920 / ARB

Dillon Gee 502,000 / -
Ruben Tejada 491,209 / -
Justin Turner 491,209 / -
Mike Baxter 480,000 / -

Matt Harvey - / -
Jeremy Hefner - / -
Kirk Nieuwenhuis - / -
Garrett Olson - / -
Jordany Valdespin - / -

Tim Byrdak 1,000,000 / UFA
Ronny Cedeno 1,150,000 / UFA
Scott Hairston 1,100,000 / UFA
Ramon Ramirez 2,650,000 / UFA
Jon Rauch 3,500,000 / UFA
Kelly Shoppach 1,350,000 / UFA

smg58
Sep 04 2012 05:52 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

They'll be in a much better position to spend money after 2013, that's for sure.

Benjamin Grimm
Sep 04 2012 06:27 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

We said the same thing about after 2011, when Perez and Castillo's contracts came off the books.

Ashie62
Sep 04 2012 07:53 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

Benjamin Grimm wrote:
We said the same thing about after 2011, when Perez and Castillo's contracts came off the books.


Until Wilpon goes...Omar burned Fred for good.

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 06 2012 07:46 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

Lotsa financial stuff in today's press:




Wilpon's Mets are still shrinking
by Howard Megdal

10:53 am Sep. 6, 2012



In the New York Post, Josh Kosman reviews the finances of the Mets, and finds that Fred Wilpon's settlement of a Bernie Madoff-related suit against him didn't solve his financial problems. (In fact the settlement probably only happened because of those financial problems.)

Kosman also finds that the $240 million Wilpon raised in minority ownership money, a sale the owner famously attributed to "uncertainty" from that Madoff lawsuit, is all gone.

According to Kosman, the Mets lost $70 million in 2011, and they are on track to lose $23 million in 2012.

The difference between 2011 and 2012 was a massive reduction in team payroll, from $143 million in 2011 to $91.6 million in 2012, representing slightly more than the difference in losses between the two years.

So Wilpon and his partners are cutting losses by cutting salary.

Attendance is down somewhat from 2011 levels, though comparable, thanks to numerous ticket discounts and creative marketing. Clearly, lawsuit or no lawsuit, the Mets aren't drawing enough to even break even on their own; it took all of Wilpon and his partners' profits from S.N.Y. to break even in 2012.

The problem is that it's hard to see how they get out of this cycle. Absent a turnaround in play with a corresponding increase in attendance, team revenue isn't changing. Which in turn makes it hard for them to go out and get the players they'll need to contend.

Kosman points out that if the Mets can cut their losses further in 2013, the deficit from the team would drop accordingly. Since the Mets expect to clear about $21.5 million from S.N.Y. again next year (quick math: about $65 million in profits, minus the $43.5 million due in debt against Citi Field each year), a $15 million deficit from the team means $6.5 million in profit.

But how to reduce these losses is problematic. The only way the team managed to do so in 2012 was by reducing salary. And as I've previously written, the salaries owed in 2013 already, along with raises in arbitration, leaves essentially no room for any additions, let alone the kind of raises to R.A. Dickey and David Wright that would induce them to sign extensions that would keep them with the Mets beyond the 2013 season.

The Mets can clear $16 million from next year's payroll by picking up Wright's option, then trading Wright this winter (or, I suppose, by simply not picking up the option, though that would make no sense). They can clear $5 million by doing the same thing with Dickey.

Of course, those savings would presumably be offset by the cost of losing the team's best and most popular players, in terms of the toll it would take on attendance and marketing.

Jeffrey Toobin's contended that 200,000 fans are worth $25 million to the Mets; Forbes estimated more conservatively $23 in revenue per fan. Either way, the resulting drop would eat into the team's 2013 revenues considerably.

Right now, the Mets' plan appears to be to maintain salary at 2012 levels, while hoping some increase in attendance, perhaps fueled by tying season ticket sales to the 2013 All-Star Game. Both the 2012 Royals and 2011 Diamondbacks experienced bumps of about 100,000 fans in their All-Star Game seasons by doing the same thing.

That might help. But simply increasing attendance by roughly 100,000 would put the Mets back at 2011 levels, when the team lost $70 million. How much further would payroll have to drop to put the Mets in the black if those numbers stayed the same?

Without the prospect of further help from Major League Baseball, the Mets might be doing well just to hang on to what they have in 2013.

After that, many onerous salaries, like those owed to Jason Bay and Johan Santana, will be gone, and the Mets have exactly one salary, Jonathon Niese at $5 million, on the books for 2014. So their prospects for making some money get better, if they're content to keep reducing salary.

If they keep Wright around at $20 million per year and Dickey at $10 million per year, both conservative numbers, they'll only owe $35 million to three players. Players like Ruben Tejada and Ike Davis can earn a decent amount in arbitration if they develop and stay healthy, while replacing them at first base and shortstop will cost real money if they don't. How they'll fill most of the remaining everyday lineup is unclear, given the absence of position player prospects no more than a year away other than Wilmer Flores, who is a third baseman, it appears.

If the pitching prospects pan out, they can field a team for more like $60 million without any improvements. If Dickey and Wright leave, they'll have to come up with a third baseman and top-tier offensive threat, along with a number one starter.

But once again, that's assuming fans keep coming in 2014 at roughly the same levels they did in 2011, 2012 and (the Mets hope) 2013.

The Mets are staring down the barrel of approximately $320 million left from the $430 million debt against the team (the Mets paid off $110 million of it from the $240 million in minority sales) due back in June 2014. It is awfully difficult to see how an ownership group simply holding on can pay back that massive debt; the trustee suing Wilpon and his partners on behalf of the Bernie Madoff victims settled in large part because he didn't believe they could pay him the $83 million awarded to him in a pretrial ruling anytime soon. Presumably, if ownership can convince its debtholders to roll that debt over, it will be at a higher interest rate, cutting into any new surplus from the shorn salaries even further.

Wilpon might hang on. But for as long he does, it seems, the Mets will be a big-market team with a small-market payroll.


http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... -shrinking

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 06 2012 07:48 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .



Mets loss falls to $23M, but no help to payroll: source
By JOSH KOSMAN
Last Updated: 1:18 PM, September 6, 2012
Posted: 12:04 AM, September 6, 2012


The Mets are expected to cut their 2012 season loss by two-thirds from last year, to roughly $23 million — in line with expectations but not enough to support anything but a modest uptick in payroll in 2013, The Post has learned.

The loss could continue to shrink next year, according to one source close to the situation, who estimated the red ink may drop to about $15 million.

“They are pretty near their [pre-season] expectations,” the source said.

But even with the losses at that level, cash-strapped owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz appear to have just over $21 million in free cash — from their profitable SportsNet New York cable operation — to sink into the club, the source said.

That would suggest, unless SNY profits soar, that the expected $8 million decline in 2013’s projected loss would give the Mets just that much more money to add to payroll.

The Mets cut their 2012 payroll by $50 million from 2011, to about $100 million.

Fans, who are suffering through the team’s sixth straight season of missing the playoffs — and, perhaps, the Mets’ fourth straight season with a losing record — had hoped an increased payroll would help keep All-Star David Wright, plus add some bona fide stars.

The money might not be there.

“There will be room to make gradual increases in payroll, but nothing dramatic,” the source said.

To be sure, the days of the Mets’ financial emergency are over. The team has repaid some of its loans and is on firmer financial footing, the source said.

In large part, that’s due to the profitable SNY operation, which had profits of nearly $100 million in 2011.

Wilpon and his partners own 65 percent of SNY — meaning their share is about $65 million.

Wilpon’s Queens Baseball Corp., meanwhile, owes $43.5 million annually for Citi Field — which comes out of SNY profits.

That leaves $21.5 million, slightly less than this year’s expected losses.

Next year, if losses are reduced to about $15 million, that would leave a $6.5 million surplus.

However, attendance is down 3.6 percent from last year, has dropped every year the team has been at Citi Field and could drop again in 2013.

Mets GM Sandy Alderson told The Post last month that he expects David Wright and R.A. Dickey to sign long-term contracts with the team this winter.

“This year we’re at $100 million, but I’m hopeful we’ll be in the same range if not somewhat higher,” Alderson said, adding he hasn’t discussed the subject with principal owner Wilpon.

The Mets declined comment on its finances.

The team last March sold minority stakes for $240 million — which went, in part, to repay $65 million in loans, $110 million to help refinance bank debt and $43.5 million to the city for stadium debt.





http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/r ... 4leJwx8MAO

Edgy MD
Sep 06 2012 07:50 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

The problem is that it's hard to see how they get out of this cycle. Absent a turnaround in play with a corresponding increase in attendance, team revenue isn't changing.


Better performance is needed to improve revenues. This is, of course, generally true most everywhere.

Ashie62
Sep 06 2012 07:51 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

Bring back Magadan, he's cheap and can bat leadoff..

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 06 2012 07:51 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .



9/06/2012 @ 5:18PM |
The New York Mets Are On The Right Track


Before you can move ahead, you need to cut your losses. That’s about where the New York Mets are right now, both on the field and off.

Various news local news outlets, including the New York Post and ESPN New York, reported the Mets will show an expected loss of $23 million this season. That’s progress from the roughly $100 million the club reportedly lost during the 2010 and 2011 seasons. Much of the difference can be chalked up to a reduction in payroll: the club jettisoned Carlos Beltran and Francisco Rodriguez late last year and then let Jose Reyes leave after the season.

Madoff debt still hangs over the franchise. But with the losses narrowing and the capital base injected with a fresh $240 million from minority investors, the Mets position is getting steadily stronger. The contracts of Santana, on the books for over $21 million a year, and Jason Bay, the colossal bust who signed as a free agent in 2010, are up after next season (though the Mets do get hit with some $8 million in buyout costs to keep them away in 2014). Bill Maher and the other minority investors may have bought in at just the right time.

The chances of re-signing David Wright and R.A. Dickey are good. And plenty of other signs exist that the Mets on-field product may soon be strong enough to generate the attendance and suite sales numbers the owners envisioned at Citi Field from the beginning. Despite a post All-Star break free fall, the Mets’ 65-72 record has generally exceeded expectations after the club watched Reyes walk to the Miami Marlins, Mike Pelfrey go down early to a season-ending elbow injury, and Johan Santana fade out of sight after a strong first half. Santana even left a precious parting gift before he went -the first no-hitter in franchise history. Sometimes the positive omens are impossible to miss.

Young players like shortstop Ruben Tejada, first baseman Ike Davis and pitcher Jonathan Niese seem to respond to energetic manager Terry Collins. Pitcher Matt Harvey has impressed since his callup from Triple-A last month. If the Mets’ other top pitching prospect, Zack Wheeler (obtained for Beltran), is ready to join him in 2013, the club could have one of the NL’s top starting rotations.

There’s still work to be done. But if the Madoff saga has a silver lining, it’s in forcing the Mets to do what they should have done earlier: ramp up the talent base and build something sustainable rather than spin your wheels trying to win every year. With a little bit of patience, you’ll not only sell out those suites, you’ll sell them out for several years.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper ... ght-track/

Ashie62
Sep 06 2012 07:55 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

They had to fucking build Citifield....Brilliant!!!!!!

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 06 2012 08:05 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

Although I post articles on the Mets finances frequently, most of my interest in following this storyline has waned. I get it. Money will be tight for the near future and if the Mets are to be competitive soon, it'll be on the backs of relatively cheap ballplayers exceeding expectations or developing ahead of schedule.

But unless some writer shows me a path where all of this leads to the Wilpons selling the team .... I just don't hardly give a shit anymore. It's all mostly Megdal essentially repeating the same mantra every time he writes anything about the Mets: The Mets are broke and didn't I tell you so? Yeah, Howie, you did. You said that already. And I'm truly happy that you continue to cover this angle with the passion with which you do. But again, unless we're gonna get new owners ....

Ceetar
Sep 06 2012 08:17 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

Will it?

just from the post article, which hardly has full access to the books and what not and what counts as losses and what doesn't (naming rights? no?)

That leaves $21.5 million, slightly less than this year’s expected losses.

Next year, if losses are reduced to about $15 million, that would leave a $6.5 million surplus.


well okay, so they can spend $7 million or so if the projections for 2013 hold? But what if Sandy Alderson suggests the benefits to the team by spending $17 million more than this year would greatly improve the team, the record, and therefore the projected income? Especially factoring in that a ton of money comes off after next season, so an extra bit next year doesn't affect the teams ability to get into the black long term, win or lose?

batmagadanleadoff
Sep 06 2012 08:18 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
But again, unless we're gonna get new owners ....


Like maybe some oil sheik who'll build a new stadium with his own money. A new stadium, with a nice scoreboard -- a modern take on the original Shea scoreboerard, and a Mets hall of fame as big as the you know who rotunda. A modern masterpiece of architecture that pays homage to the orange and blue Shea shingles. A brickless backstop. Because the brick wall backstop was way cool when the Cubs were the only team that had one. I repeat, the brick backstop was charming mostly because no other team had it. Including the Mets. But when eff and Jeff decided to install the 48th iteration of the brick wall backstop, the charm of it all went out the window.

Ashie62
Sep 06 2012 09:13 PM
Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . .

The new generation of stadiums that seem to care more about what you can eat drink and do other than actually watch the game has soured me on baseball.

Its supposed to be

LETS GO METS!