Master Index of Archived Threads


Let's do some arithmetic

Mex17 Dec 11 2013 04:30 PM

$30 million -$7.25 million for Chris Young -$13 million for Granderson -$10 million for Colon +$4 million (estimated) saved through non-tenders =$3.75 remaining for a) a backup shortstop, b) a veteran set-up guy with the ability to close in a pinch, c) possibly a veteran backup catcher, and d) (I would like) a lefthanded bat with some pop who can come off the bench and get a key pinch hit and also play the outfield (Lucas Duda is not this person as he has proven that he cannot play an effective outfield, den Dekker could be but he is an unproven rookie). This assumes that we are living with Tejada for one more year and are not finding takers for Davis or Murphy. Can we really get what we still need with what is left to spend?

seawolf17 Dec 11 2013 04:37 PM Re: Let's do some arithmetic

The backup shortstop can be a minimum-salary/waiver pickup guy, as can the backup catcher, I suppose.

Mex17 Dec 11 2013 04:41 PM Re: Let's do some arithmetic

seawolf17 wrote: The backup shortstop can be a minimum-salary/waiver pickup guy, as can the backup catcher, I suppose. I'm not so sure about that considering that we are talking about one guy who they are not that confident in and another who is a pretty raw rookie.

Lefty Specialist Dec 11 2013 05:36 PM Re: Let's do some arithmetic

Backup catcher is Recker for $400,000 or so.

Mex17 Dec 11 2013 05:50 PM Re: Let's do some arithmetic

Lefty Specialist wrote: Backup catcher is Recker for $400,000 or so. You mean the guy with the whopping .194 career batting average? Wouldn't you rather have Buck back?

Frayed Knot Dec 11 2013 07:21 PM Re: Let's do some arithmetic

This whole math equation presumes that you (we, media folks, etc.) know what the precise budget restrictions are. Any such numbers that are or have been tossed around are not only not specific limits as stated from the club but are probably closer to guesstimates than they are to estimates. The club will spend either what they can spend or what they feel they should spend given the options available. Why fans feel the need to know in advance what the specific number is continues to elude me.

Lefty Specialist Dec 11 2013 07:36 PM Re: Let's do some arithmetic

Mex17 wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: Backup catcher is Recker for $400,000 or so. You mean the guy with the whopping .194 career batting average? Wouldn't you rather have Buck back? Well, I didn't say he'd be good, I said he'd be cheap.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 11 2013 07:58 PM Re: Let's do some arithmetic

Frayed Knot wrote: Why fans feel the need to know in advance what the specific number is continues to elude me. If we don't know the number, how are we supposed to complain about the number?

MFS62 Dec 11 2013 09:27 PM Re: Let's do some arithmetic

If they trade one of their arbitration eligible players for someone cheaper, the cash difference goes into that pot. Later

Frayed Knot Dec 12 2013 06:18 AM Re: Let's do some arithmetic

MFS62 wrote: If they trade one of their arbitration eligible players for someone cheaper, the cash difference goes into that pot. Again, this presumes that the payroll figure is a set, specific amount, something which generally isn't the case and Sandy has repeatedly said isn't accurate is this case. Of course there's a budget and there's a limit at some point, but the whole premise of this thread pre-supposes the idea that there's not only an exact limit that needs to be balanced but that we all know specifically what it is and so by manipulating our personal spreadsheets we can figure out how to move players around the chess board. If that's what you like to do then go for it, but I think you're wasting your time by pretending we know all the facts.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 12 2013 06:58 AM Re: Let's do some arithmetic

Kevin Burkhardt asked Sandy on Mets Hot Stove last night if the payroll could be expanded if the situation called for it, and Sandy gave a one-word answer: "Maybe." As Frayed Knot said, counting the dollars is pretty pointless given that there may be flexibility, and even if there isn't, we don't know the exact limit anyway. I'm certainly not going to worry about whether the Mets have enough money to sign a backup catcher.

MFS62 Dec 12 2013 07:29 AM Re: Let's do some arithmetic

Frayed Knot wrote: MFS62 wrote: If they trade one of their arbitration eligible players for someone cheaper, the cash difference goes into that pot. Again, this presumes that the payroll figure is a set, specific amount, No, it doesn't presume anything. If you trade away a $5 million/yr player and get a $2 million/yr player, you now have more money to spend. It is mathematically true whether there is a limit or not. Later

Edgy MD Dec 12 2013 07:35 AM Re: Let's do some arithmetic

Sometimes, maybe oftentimes, if you trade a $5 million player for a $2 million player, the difference goes into servicing debts. If we don't know the limit, and we only kinda think we do, cutting can be cutting to create leverage under that limit, or it can be cutting to reach that limit.

Ceetar Dec 12 2013 07:44 AM Re: Let's do some arithmetic

MFS62 wrote: MFS62 wrote: If they trade one of their arbitration eligible players for someone cheaper, the cash difference goes into that pot. Again, this presumes that the payroll figure is a set, specific amount, No, it doesn't presume anything. If you trade away a $5 million/yr player and get a $2 million/yr player, you now have more money to spend. It is mathematically true whether there is a limit or not. Later This is only true if you're up against that limit and need that extra $3 to sign a specific player.

RealityChuck Dec 12 2013 08:28 AM Re: Let's do some arithmetic

Ceetar wrote: MFS62 wrote: MFS62 wrote: If they trade one of their arbitration eligible players for someone cheaper, the cash difference goes into that pot. Again, this presumes that the payroll figure is a set, specific amount, No, it doesn't presume anything. If you trade away a $5 million/yr player and get a $2 million/yr player, you now have more money to spend. It is mathematically true whether there is a limit or not. Later This is only true if you're up against that limit and need that extra $3 to sign a specific player. For $3, you can go over the limit.

Frayed Knot Dec 12 2013 09:50 AM Re: Let's do some arithmetic

MFS62 wrote: MFS62 wrote: If they trade one of their arbitration eligible players for someone cheaper, the cash difference goes into that pot. Again, this presumes that the payroll figure is a set, specific amount, No, it doesn't presume anything. If you trade away a $5 million/yr player and get a $2 million/yr player, you now have more money to spend. It is mathematically true whether there is a limit or not. My objection is with the presumption that a certain amount of money saved on one player or transaction automatically results in an adjustment in the payroll total by that same amount. But things aren't that simple which, when added to this notion that we all know the exact amount of the total payroll, leads to bad conclusions.

MFS62 Dec 12 2013 11:31 AM Re: Let's do some arithmetic

All I meant that it was a net financial gain. But, as Edgy commented, that doesn't mean it has to be spent on player salaries. I could also go for other things, such as debt relief. Later