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).
|
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:
|
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:
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. . . |
||
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.
|
batmagadanleadoff Sep 02 2012 12:16 PM Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . . |
|
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.
|
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. . . |
|
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.
|
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)
|
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. . . |
|
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:
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... -shrinking
|
batmagadanleadoff Sep 06 2012 07:48 PM Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . . |
|
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/r ... 4leJwx8MAO
|
Edgy MD Sep 06 2012 07:50 PM Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . . |
|
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. . . |
|
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.
|
Ceetar Sep 06 2012 08:17 PM Re: Assuming they really are still broke. . . |
|
Will it?
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. . . |
|
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.
|