Master Index of Archived Threads


The Bay and Bonilla Thing

Edgy MD Apr 03 2013 07:40 AM

The Mets have been here before. In 2011, their two highest paid starting pitchers were Johan Santana and Oliver Perez, neither of whom threw a pitch for them.

metirish Apr 03 2013 07:45 AM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

I feel better now, thanks :) This stuff doesn't really bother me as such....it is what it is.....unfortunately the Bonilla one will go on and on and on for years.

Mets – Willets Point Apr 03 2013 07:51 AM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

This just means they are getting great efficiency from the outfield production.

Gwreck Apr 03 2013 07:52 AM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

Yeah, ummm, 2011 didn't work out so well.

metirish Apr 03 2013 07:57 AM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

What inspired this post anyway?, seems rather random.

Farmer Ted Apr 03 2013 08:03 AM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

One game of Cowgill wipes all that misery away.

Edgy MD Apr 03 2013 08:04 AM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

What inspired this post anyway?, seems rather random. The Bay-and-Bonilla thing keeps coming up. And I got the notion that it wasn't so unprecedented as all that, even if the extended buyout of Bonilla's deal is.

seawolf17 Apr 03 2013 08:06 AM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

But Bonilla's only like a million-plus a year, so the "highest paid outfielder" thing won't last for long.

Edgy MD Apr 03 2013 08:07 AM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

One can be reasonably certain. Don't know how many games they'll miss, but the Yankees currently have $67.5 million dollars worth of infielders on the shelf.

SteveJRogers Apr 03 2013 08:52 AM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

Edgy MD wrote: What inspired this post anyway?, seems rather random. The Bay-and-Bonilla thing keeps coming up. And I got the notion that it wasn't so unprecedented as all that, even if the extended buyout of Bonilla's deal is. Apples and oranges though. Santana was on the DL missing the entire season, Perez was a million dollar arm with a 10 cent head whom we cut loose. Bonillia has been an albatross on the books since 2000, and hasn't played in the bigs in over 10 years, Bay is a guy who came in and for whatever reason didn't work out and the Mets couldn't move him, and his contract. So pointing out Bonillia/Bay as a joke in the "Mets are inept at roster building" is completely different than bringing up Santana/Perez.

SteveJRogers Apr 03 2013 08:56 AM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

Edgy MD wrote: One can be reasonably certain. Don't know how many games they'll miss, but the Yankees currently have $67.5 million dollars worth of infielders on the shelf. Well, when you are paying for a player that hasn't been in the organization since the previous century, and hasn't played an MLB game since around the turn of the century (and more than a decade ago now), and he is one of your highest paid players, it is quite glaring as compared to simple injuries.

Frayed Knot Apr 03 2013 09:08 AM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

SteveJRogers wrote: Bonillia has been an albatross on the books since 2000, and hasn't played in the bigs in over 10 years, But it's not like Bonilla's been on the payroll this entire time; they simply opted to pay him money owed over time in the future instead of all up front at once. I have no earthly idea why this bothers people as much as it seems to.

Lefty Specialist Apr 03 2013 09:27 AM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

The Bonilla contract is like that bad burrito you had last night. It wasn't good then, and it's still causing intestinal distress today. Problem is you have to wait 22 years to flush the toilet.

TheOldMole Apr 03 2013 09:31 AM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

How uncommon is this? COntracts are structured in all sorts of ways.

Ashie62 Apr 03 2013 09:39 AM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

Frayed Knot wrote: SteveJRogers wrote: Bonillia has been an albatross on the books since 2000, and hasn't played in the bigs in over 10 years, But it's not like Bonilla's been on the payroll this entire time; they simply opted to pay him money owed over time in the future instead of all up front at once. I have no earthly idea why this bothers people as much as it seems to. It is a 30 year annuity...

Edgy MD Apr 03 2013 10:46 AM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

SteveJRogers wrote: Apples and oranges though. No it's not SteveJRogers wrote: Santana was on the DL missing the entire season, Perez was a million dollar arm with a 10 cent head whom we cut loose. Of all the cliches... are you really going to roll out "ten-cent head" again? Roger J. Stevens wrote: Well, when you are paying for a player that hasn't been in the organization since the previous century, and hasn't played an MLB game since around the turn of the century (and more than a decade ago now), and he is one of your highest paid players, it is quite glaring as compared to simple injuries. Steve. you're wrong about many things here. I don't know why you're going at this.

SteveJRogers Apr 03 2013 12:18 PM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

Frayed Knot wrote: SteveJRogers wrote: Bonillia has been an albatross on the books since 2000, and hasn't played in the bigs in over 10 years, But it's not like Bonilla's been on the payroll this entire time; they simply opted to pay him money owed over time in the future instead of all up front at once. I have no earthly idea why this bothers people as much as it seems to. Simple, Bonilla is viewed by the mainstream press, and mass audiences (Met fan or not) as a symbol of dumb Met moves (also see Mo Vaughn, Jim Fregosi, etc). If he had a more Carlos Beltran like Met career, or even Kevin McReynolds, this probably wouldn't be the source of much derision, mockery and consternation.

Frayed Knot Apr 03 2013 12:54 PM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

SteveJRogers wrote: Simple, Bonilla is viewed by the mainstream press, and mass audiences (Met fan or not) as a symbol of dumb Met moves (also see Mo Vaughn, Jim Fregosi, etc). That doesn't make it NOT stupid, or make complaining about him getting paid now as if part of a continuing contract that simply hasn't ended yet NOT an intentional distortion of the facts.

Vic Sage Apr 03 2013 03:12 PM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

i have no resentment toward players who are still being paid by the Mets after their Mets career ended. None. I don't know why others do, but i think Bonilla gets a disproportionate amount of crap because of it. But this isn't about Bonilla or Bay. The fact that we're paying more to 2 OFers (ANY 2 OFers) that we had to buy out just to get rid of them than we are to any of our current OFers is worth noting if only for its symbolism. It is, as Mr. Rogers noted above (and as Edgy condescendingly dismissed as just "wrong"), distinctly different from paying a lot of money to guys on the DL, as the Yanks are (for example). Having guys on the DL is a mostly a matter of bad luck, and such players at least have the potential of coming back and contributing at some point. But guys with big contracts that were released because they suck so bad that we were willing to pay them NOT to play for us, is all about management. Bad management, making bad decisions. And those decisions are exacerbated by replacing those players with minimum wage prospects, suspects and castoffs, because we lack the resources to compete in the market for quality players. So we can all pretend the Bay/Bonilla thing is just a meaningless internet meme making the rounds just to make Willets' head explode, and most teams are constantly doing some version of this all the time, or we can recognize it as a symptom of the mistakes of the past regimes and hope it serves as a cautionary tale for the current one, and not a blue print for the future.

Mets – Willets Point Apr 03 2013 03:27 PM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

Vic Sage wrote: So we can all pretend the Bay/Bonilla thing is just a meaningless internet meme making the rounds just to make Willets' head explode, and most teams are constantly doing some version of this all the time, or we can recognize it as a symptom of the mistakes of the past regimes and hope it serves as a cautionary tale for the current one, and not a blue print for the future. You don't need to pick a fight. I understand and agree with you on what it means. I just don't need to be reminded of every day by sports writers saying "Hey, did you see that Bonilla & Bay are the highest paid OFers on the Mets!!! That's funny because, ha-ha, the Mets suck!!! And I'm clever cause I'm pointing out to you how much the Mets suck!!! Cause you haven't heard anyone else point out this sucky fact about the Mets suckiness!" It was the repetitive nose-rubbing with no added insight that I objected to.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 03 2013 05:01 PM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

Context tends to get lost especially when you're like SJ Jeter here and allow the jagoffs at esppn and twittering regards to set the agenda. But worth noting the Bonilla agreement allowed the club to spend while they still thought they could contend and economically at least on paper looked like a defensible move. It's also easy to forget the contract they paid to make go away wasn't theirs initially but the Orioles', I believe.

The Second Spitter Apr 03 2013 05:10 PM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: But worth noting the Bonilla agreement allowed the club to spend while they still thought they could contend and economically at least on paper looked like a defensible move. It's also easy to forget the contract they paid to make go away wasn't theirs initially but the Orioles', I believe. Further to this, there is some evidence which supports the view that Mets profited on the Bonilla annuity transaction overall because they invested the money with Uncle Bernie.

Edgy MD Apr 03 2013 05:24 PM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

Vic Sage wrote: (and as Edgy condescendingly dismissed as just "wrong") It's condescending? He wrote things that weren't right. Bobby Bonilla is not one of the Mets' highest paid players. (Higher? Maybe.) It's an obvious distortion and I'm not sure exactly how you politely you want that to be fielded. I try really hard. And a little strange for you to object to condescension.

metirish Apr 03 2013 06:44 PM Re: The Bay and Bonilla Thing

The Second Spitter wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: But worth noting the Bonilla agreement allowed the club to spend while they still thought they could contend and economically at least on paper looked like a defensible move. It's also easy to forget the contract they paid to make go away wasn't theirs initially but the Orioles', I believe. Further to this, there is some evidence which supports the view that Mets profited on the Bonilla annuity transaction overall because they invested the money with Uncle Bernie. I remember maybe last year we had a thread on this, at the time there was an article going around about the Bonilla deal....it was seen as being good for both the Mets as mentioned and Bonilla, of course his agent needed to convince him to look many years down the line.....to his dismay he couldn't convince other players to do similar deals.