Master Index of Archived Threads


State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Observer)

batmagadanleadoff Nov 14 2013 08:18 AM

Alderson hints at another cheap off-season for the Mets By Howard Megdal 12:18 pm Nov. 12, 2013 It's mid-November, a time of hope for baseball fans most everywhere. The general manager meetings are in full swing, as is free agency. For fans of the Mets, this is a time, once again, to temper expectations. Meeting Monday night with reporters at the G.M. meetings, Mets general manager Sandy Alderson explained his organization would not be pursuing a $100 million player this offseason. "We've been in that stratosphere once recently with David Wright," Alderson said. "Those were special circumstances. I think it would be difficult to duplicate that again--not from a financial standpoint, just in terms of team-building. I think it's difficult to concentrate those kinds of resources into very few players. It's not really the way you build a quality, sustainable, winning team, I don't think." Let's ignore that the consensus model for "a quality, sustainable, winning team," the St. Louis Cardinals, managed to accommodate Matt Holliday's seven-year, $120 million deal, Adam Wainwright's five-year, $97.5 million deal, and Yadier Molina's five-year, $75 million deal, all in St. Louis, a much smaller market than New York, and with a below-market local television contract. Ignore for the moment that the most expensive players this offseason happen to play positions, like corner outfield or second base, where the Mets could easily upgrade. That $100 million contract is a pretty arbitrary number. So it's fair to wonder where reporters got the idea that Alderson and the Mets would consider it. Oh, that's right. From Alderson, 42 days ago. Back in the heady days of late September, Mets fans could dream of Shin-Soo Choo, who some optimists talked up as a potential team target. Now, unless you believe the market won't come up with $100 million or more for Choo, that's not going to happen. “Let’s face it, the agents at this point expect that that is the market and not an aberration,” Alderson said. “We on the other hand hope it’s an aberration. Only time will tell.” An industry swimming in money across the board, and the Mets need salaries to go down? Good luck with that. Go back even further, way back to June of this year, and Alderson talked about a $90-100 million payroll, which, as he put it, "will be enough to be competitive because we can use the money on position players, which is our problem right now." That's no longer the prevailing thought, either, even though position players are still the team's problem right now, not to mention finding a way to compensate for the loss of Matt Harvey for 2014. And yet, even though payroll, and not ownership's deeply problematic finances, was supposed to be driving the team's spending, more than $50 million has come off those books. The Mets, like every other team in baseball, have $24 million in new money, thanks to a national television deal beginning next season. By the team's own accounting, payroll is still set to go down next year, and the Mets, as of now, say they're prepared to spend $30 million this offseason, down from $35-40 million reported a month ago. Subject to change, of course. Or as Alderson put it, "You have to deal with reality. I am not sure tonight, this moment exactly, what the reality is." He's not alone. Still, even if the Mets spend anything close to $30 million this offseason, it represents a step forward from recent offseasons, when the team has spent a fraction of that, late in the gane, only once ownership managed to secure enough capital to make it through the following season. We'll have to see if the Mets really do spend even this relatively small amount. Their promises to spend haven't meant much, not even month-to-month, for five years now, since it turned out Bernie Madoff wasn't a quality, sustainable, winning investment. Alderson opened with a joke Monday night. This was his strategy last year at the G.M. meetings, when he responded to a question about his outfield by asking, "What outfield?" This year, he told reporters he was upstairs "stacking our money." The punchline: "Don't get excited. They were all fives." But how high was the stack, he was asked. "Not as high as some people expect," Alderson said. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... eason-mets

Benjamin Grimm Nov 14 2013 08:29 AM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

Should we just create a Howard Megdal subforum?

MFS62 Nov 14 2013 08:41 AM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Should we just create a Howard Megdal subforum? How about a Howard Megdal sub-phylum, for all sportswriting creatures of his type? Later

Mets Guy in Michigan Nov 14 2013 09:29 AM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

Back in the heady days of late September, Mets fans could dream of Shin-Soo Choo, I call BS. Was anyone dreaming of Shin-Soo Choo? He's a guy firmly in the "might be kind of nice, if we sign him to a short contract for a decent price" kind of place. This is a weak free agent class. Overspending on a guy who is not worth it just to appease Howard and his ilk would be a mistake. It's how you get people like Jason Bay and Vince Coleman.

Ceetar Nov 14 2013 09:37 AM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Back in the heady days of late September, Mets fans could dream of Shin-Soo Choo, I call BS. Was anyone dreaming of Shin-Soo Choo? He's a guy firmly in the "might be kind of nice, if we sign him to a short contract for a decent price" kind of place. This is a weak free agent class. Overspending on a guy who is not worth it just to appease Howard and his ilk would be a mistake. It's how you get people like Jason Bay and Vince Coleman. I still contend Jason Bay wasn't a horrible choice, merely an iffy one that wasn't complemented by others. Free agent class is never going to be perfect, at some point, you need to make lemonade. irregardless of payroll.

Edgy MD Nov 14 2013 09:56 AM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

The greater point is to be deliberate and not to be baited into signings by agenda-driven tools and media players who promise to bury you if you don't and gild you if you do.

MFS62 Nov 14 2013 12:10 PM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

Edgy MD wrote: The greater point is to be deliberate and not to be baited into signings by agenda-driven tools and media players who promise to bury you if you don't and gild you if you do. That means the FO team should lock themselves in a sealed room, with a bank of phones and no other outside contact. Those cretins are everywhere. Later

Edgy MD Nov 14 2013 12:16 PM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

No, it means we shouldn't be part of the waves of entitled, attention-starved, instant-gratification demanders or otherwise endorse their work. I like Choo, somewhat. But I may not recognize him if he was sucking french fries next to me in the food court. I'm not going to pretend the Mets are putting me on an emotional roller coaster over him.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 15 2013 10:20 AM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

Edgy MD wrote: The greater point is to be deliberate and not to be baited into signings by agenda-driven tools and media players who promise to bury you if you don't and gild you if you do. I thought that the greater point was that once again, the Mets can't afford any impact players, despite what they bullshit. They spent the last half of last season confirming their interest in Choo, a second-tier free agent, and when the rubber hits the road, the Mets aren't even in the same universe with Choo price -wise. They're like the average Joe who can only dream of owning a Ferrari. And Choo's not a Ferrari. (Disclaimer -- Personally, I couldn't give two shits whether the Mets signed or didn't sign Choo unless my life depended on the Mets making the playoffs in 2014. But that they can't afford him is indicative of a whole other set of circumstances. Who the hell is in charge here? What other competitive advantages does this team need that it doesn't already have and in spades? They play in NYC. The franchise might now be worth more than $2 billion. They own their own sports cable network and it broadcasts mainly to the largest market in the country. Not enough for the Wilpons?)

Edgy MD Nov 15 2013 10:34 AM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

That's your point. And Megdal's.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 15 2013 10:39 AM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

I can't help but think that November 15 is a bit too early to judge the success or failure of the Mets offseason.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 15 2013 11:05 AM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

Has Mets ownership finally lost the press? By Howard Megdal 12:20 pm Nov. 14, 2013 Wednesday afternoon at the general manager meetings in Orlando, during an off-season the Mets have long claimed would be different than those that came before it, came a number of strong suggestions that nothing much had changed. One thing was decidedly different this time around, though, having to do with the willingness of the reporters who cover the Mets to accept claims from the team's owners that increased spending is just around the corner. That willingness had all but disappeared. It all started with Jeff Wilpon meeting with reporters Wednesday morning. He made the following statement to a small group: "We’ve got a couple more meetings. And there might be hopefully something cooking later. Right now, it’s quiet. Sandy (Alderson) has been in meetings all morning. He’s got a couple more meetings this afternoon. So we’ll see where we are.” The Daily News' Kristie Ackert promptly tweeted the following: "Jeff Wilpon said #Mets were busy meeting last night. Something could be coming today." Now as Andy Martino, also of the Daily News, pointed out, "he did not explicitly say that the team was going to sign a player or complete a trade before 11:59pm on Nov. 13, 2013." But generally speaking, when an owner hints at "something cooking later," he isn't just getting the fans excited for no reason. After all, what kind of public-relations strategy is it to raise expectations to a level that can't be met? Well, it's been the strategy the Mets have been employing for years now, one that at least gets them some hopeful-sounding headlines without costing the team salaries it cannot pay. (Remember September's pursuit of Shin-Soo Choo? Or last winter's pursuit of Michael Bourn? Or the 2011 pursuit of Jose Reyes?) Wednesday, we got to see it play out over a few hours, rather than an entire winter. And no, in case you were wondering, the idea to have Jeff Wilpon go out and tease an acquisition that wasn't coming didn't originate from some unified strategy with the general manager. When Sandy Alderson walked past reporters shortly after Wilpon's comments, he was asked about them. Here's how Mike Puma of the Post described Alderson's response: "Sandy Alderson seemed geniunely surprised when told that his boss indicated the Mets were close on something. Alderson made a strage facial expression and walked away." Then came the damage control. The Mets, thrillingly oblivious, published their promotional schedule, giving fans eager to see a viable major league outfield ... Huey Lewis and the News, in a postgame concert. And oddly, a few hours later, came a one-two punch. First, Kristie Ackert of the Daily News wrote a mea culpa for, in her words, having "interpreted Jeff Wilpon's words wrong earlier." No other reporter who heard Wilpon speak offered any similar clarification. (Dave Lennon of Newsday, a veteran baseball reporter, said, "We'll politely call it a misunderstanding.") The Daily News ascribed the misunderstanding to an overeager fan base: "Well, you can see where Wilpon’s words might be interpreted that way, especially by a fan base so eager to know which players the Mets will acquire, in an offseason where they promise to be more active." One reason the fan base could be so eager is the coverage of the Daily News itself, which published a report Wednesday under Ackert's byline describing the Mets as "going hard after (and may be the leader for) Nelson Cruz," a power-hitting outfielder on the free agent market. Other outlets were more skeptical, ones who haven't done things like declare that "the chatter linking the team to [Shin-Soo] Choo is spreading" way back in September, roughly a month before the Mets eliminated that possibility by preemptively taking themselves out of the running for a $100 million player. Or by retroactively claiming the Mets had $125 million to spend last winter on "the right players." (Where that money went, with payroll going down again, is anybody's guess.) And here was Martino on Twitter, on the Mets' pursuit of Curtis Granderson: "More people I talk to, more of a feeling Mets are serious on Granderson." So it fell to the cruelly accurate Adam Rubin at ESPN to talk to other people, who quickly debunked the Granderson and Cruz rumors. "I would not believe everything you read," Rubin quoted a team insider as saying. By nightfall, the Mets appeared to leak word to columnist Jon Heyman that they'd had a secret meeting with Jhonny Peralta, a shortstop whose price range doesn't sound very Mets-compatible. By then, though Martino began to sound as if he'd had enough: "the Mets will only be taken seriously, by the industry and public, when they follow through on pledges to spend more money, and win more games." Lennon, who predicted the Mets would sign Shin-Soo Choo (at least in part due to the team's own declarations) just days before the team declared themselves out of such bidding, made a similar point in his column. By the end of the evening, Mets ownership had lost the formerly supportive Wall Street Journal. Back in July 2012, while the Mets were anything but solvent, Brian Costa wrote this, in a piece headlined "Baseball's Black Eye No More": "One year ago, when the Mets and Dodgers met here, the series was dubbed the Bankruptcy Bowl. ... But the four-game series that concluded Sunday night at Dodger Stadium served as a reminder of how much has changed since those uglier, darker days for two of the sport's marquee franchises. They may not occupy the penthouse of their respective divisions, but the Mets and Dodgers are at least out of the poorhouse." Costa went on to write that "the biggest threat for the Mets was litigation related to investments with Bernie Madoff, which has since been resolved." The fact that this resolution came about only after the guy negotiating with for the Madoff victims determined that the Mets' ownership was out of money never came up. It is now clearer than ever that the Dodgers are out of the poorhouse, and the Mets are not. So Costa filed a column for Thursday's Wall Street Journal that might have seemed familiar to readers of Capital, tweeting out, "The return of the free-spending Mets, long-awaited and rumored to be here, is but a myth." In it, he wrote: "But the Mets still have bank debt in the range of $250 million due in June 2014. They are working to refinance it this winter, but if you don't think that impacts their payroll plans, I've got a Frank Francisco jersey to sell you." Any takers? http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... featured-3

Edgy MD Nov 15 2013 11:06 AM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

There's not much about payroll there.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 15 2013 11:09 AM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

Edgy MD wrote: There's not much about payroll there. I know. No matter where I stick Megdal's pieces, it never goes smoothly.

Ceetar Nov 15 2013 11:32 AM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

batmagadanleadoff wrote: They spent the last half of last season confirming their interest in Choo, a second-tier free agent, and when the rubber hits the road, the Mets aren't even in the same universe with Choo price -wise. The media proclaiming Choo as a good fit and talking about how the Mets might want to get him is not the same as "confirming their interest in Choo"

Benjamin Grimm Nov 15 2013 11:43 AM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

Had they "confirmed their interested in Choo" that would have been tampering, and they would have been tsk-tsked by the commissioner.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 15 2013 11:44 AM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: They spent the last half of last season confirming their interest in Choo, a second-tier free agent, and when the rubber hits the road, the Mets aren't even in the same universe with Choo price -wise. The media proclaiming Choo as a good fit and talking about how the Mets might want to get him is not the same as "confirming their interest in Choo" You might be right. Besides, the Mets wouldn'tve been permitted to publicly state their interest in Choo before the signing period.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 15 2013 11:45 AM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Had they "confirmed their interested in Choo" that would have been tampering, and they would have been tsk-tsked by the commissioner. You're right. too.

Frayed Knot Nov 15 2013 12:00 PM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

So then if I've got this all straight, the upshot of this is that the Mets did NOT spend half the season proclaiming their love for Choo, an over-30 guy who is a second tier FA and almost certainly NOT worth $100 million ... but we're pissed at them anyway for not pursuing him.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 15 2013 12:19 PM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

Frayed Knot wrote: So then if I've got this all straight, the upshot of this is that the Mets did NOT spend half the season proclaiming their love for Choo, an over-30 guy who is a second tier FA and almost certainly NOT worth $100 million ... but we're pissed at them anyway for not pursuing him. You're right, too.

Frayed Knot Nov 15 2013 01:39 PM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

So I guess we can just stick this column in the 'wah-fucking-wah' pile and forget about it then.

Ashie62 Nov 15 2013 02:54 PM Re: State of the Mets Payroll (From a Really Impartial Obser

It is scary that Medgal's audience finds this forum...