Master Index of Archived Threads


Arbitration Eligibles

Mex17 Jun 27 2014 12:11 PM

Is there any way to reasonably surmise what types of raises everyone is due to get for 2015? I would like to have an idea of how much more expensive the people that we already have are going to be next season. The players that we are talking about specifically are: -Murphy -Gee -Parnell -E. Young -Duda -Tejada

Frayed Knot Jun 27 2014 01:02 PM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

I don't get too hung up with that kind of stuff and frankly never quite understood the obsession some fans have with playing team accountant. We have no idea what the budget is going to be going forward, or even if there is some hard and fast number, so this nine months in advance type of speculation is pretty much pointless in my mind - but feel free to engage if you want The biggest off-season question -- starting right about now really -- is what to do with Murphy. Is he more valuable as a keeper or as trade-bait? Is he worthy of a long-term contract or do they continue to take things year-by-year? My guess is that mgmt would prefer to either go one way or the other with him (meaning L-T contract or move on) rather than go on with single-year contracts. I suspect at least two of your group won't be here, Parnell & EYJ most probably. Gee, on account of his record for the last two years (albeit partial ones) would get a sizable bump - Duda & Tejada probably less so but just about all guys in their situations get some kind of jump just from upping their service time and having established themselves as everyday players. But in all I don't know that the high/low parameters on any of these guys are going to make or break other moves or how you'd know that even if you could accurately forecast their 2015 salaries.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 27 2014 02:12 PM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

Maybe just as important and more difficult to project, team will also have a lot of decisions to make when it comes to 40-man roster additions, and may need to make trades just to protect their talent.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 27 2014 05:57 PM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

It's a bit hard to guess when it's based on the season in progress, and said season isn't half over yet.

Mex17 Jun 28 2014 01:34 PM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

Firstly, with regard to fans playing accountant, my view is simply that is the reality that we deal with now. Players cost money, teams have to pay up to get the better ones, and you have to do it in a way that maximizes efficiency given whatever constructs you are dealing with economically (which is a Pandora's Box with regard to what those are and what they should be with regard to the Mets. . .I'll leave that to a future post or separate thread). It's just part of the game now. With regard to Murphy, I absolutely believe that, going forward, his greatest asset to the Mets is as a trade chip. His value at probably at it's peak right now and he is only going to get more expensive as the next few years go by. Alternatively, Flores has only had sporadic ABs at the major league level, but has in totality played close to a full season in AAA (543 ABs) and has produced (.315 average, .354 OBP, .519 SLG, .874 OPS, 20 HRs, 41 doubles, 5 triples, 111 RBI). It's time for him to get his shot. Behind Flores, Dilson Herrera has been having a very good year in the minors as well (he was just promoted to AA and is picking up where he left off after going .307/.355/.410/.765 at St. Lucie. . .and he can supposedly field the position as well). So, with not just one but two potential lower-cost replacements in the pipeline, where is the justification in throwing more money into Murphy (especially when you can flip him now at most likely a pretty good return)??? Colon is trade-bait too. Assuming health, the 2015 rotation without him shakes out like this: Harvey Gee Niece Wheeler deGrom/Montero/Syndergaard That's seven guys at reasonable-to-low cost without having to spend the $11 million that Colon is owed for next season. And, with Colon pitching well, my guess is that you get a decent return for him as well from a team in the race who needs another starter. So, if you move Murphy and Colon and add their 2014 salaries ($5.7 million for Murphy and $9 million for Colon) to the $7.25 million that is already coming off with the expiration of Chris Young's one year contract, you get a total of $21.95 to spend. If you want to non-tender Tejada (the only one out of that group who I would consider. . .he had redeemed himself a bit to the point where you can say he would be a serviceable backup but you can probably get the same out of Quintanilla or Tovar), then you can add his 2014 $1.1 million to the tally for a total of $23.05 million. So what can the Mets spend that on? I would say that it is a virtual certainty that they NEED to import a veteran, major league quality, starting shortstop with some life in his bat for 2015. Judging on the deals that Peralta and Drew (prorated) got, that costs somewhere between $14-$16 million per year. Fortunately, there are a few, in addition to Drew, that are going to be available as free agents (JJ Hardy, Jed Lowrie, Asdrubal Cabrera just to name a few. . .Hanley Ramirez as well but he might be a little more expensive). So, for the sake of argument, average that out to $15 million and theoretically give it to, say, Hardy (my personal choice and not such a bad one at that if you look at the past three full years where he has roughly been around 25 HR's, 30 doubles, 70-to-80 RBI, and a .240 to .270 batting average). They will also need another corner outfielder with pop to replace the failed Chris Young. Luckily, another one of those just defected from Cuba in the name of Yasmani Tomas. You might say that this is an unproven commodity and that he will need to be properly scouted, and you would be correct in pointing that out. But I would counter that the trend has been that these Cuban hitters have been pretty effective coming out of the gate more or less (I provide Puig, Cespedes, and Jose Abreu as examples). Cespedes and Abreu have, respectively, made $6.5 million and $7 million in the first year of their major league contracts (Puig only made $2 million, so I threw that out as an anomaly since it would have thrown the mean off). Even if you factor in an arguably 20% markup from Abreu's $7 million for Tomas if it gets to a bidding war now that the league has seen how immediate the results can be coming from Cuban defectors, you are still talking about around $8.5 million, which is still a bargain compared to what you would have to pay for an older, more established major league slugger like Nelson Cruz coming off a productive year. Add $15 million (for Hardy) and $8.5 million (for Tomas) together and you get $23.5 million. . .pretty darn close to the $23.05 million that you would save from excising Chris Young, Murphy, Colon, and Tejada!!!! The Mets can do that, potentially boost their offense significantly, and potentially not lose a thing if Flores hits and the young pitching holds up!!! The X-factor (internally. . .not counting other teams competing for the same players and the free will of the players themselves) to all this is what they need to spend to retain who they already have and want to keep. I know from Cot's that Granderson is getting a $3 million raise and Niece is getting a $2 million. I cannot yet tell what bumps the other arb eligibles are going to get, so that is why I asked my initial question.

Frayed Knot Jun 28 2014 02:07 PM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

Of course money matters, I just find the exercise of trying to figure it out down to the last dollar what the roster will look like nine months from now to be so wildly speculative that it's not worth the trouble, particularly since none of us know how many dollars are available or how and if the fortunes (on or off the field) of the club will change in the next year. Hell, we don't know what the payroll limits are for THIS year and we're right in the middle of this year. Sandy has claimed he can get the go-ahead to spend for the right player but isn't going to do it just to do it (Stephen Drew for instance). Or maybe that's all bullshit and the Wilpon's do have a hard and fast cap but don't want that info public, I dunno. And if they do have one will they have one again next year, and will it be the same, ... yadda, yadda. But back to the original question -- The main question with Murphy, as discussed, is not what his salary will be next year but whether you want to invest in him long term. Him getting a $2mil bump from his current $5.7 mil contract or a $8 mil bump is relatively small potatoes compared to the fact that he can be a FA after 2015 Gee is a year behind Murph in his timeline with Tejada and Duda a year behind that. So if you want to start estimating salaries why not just peg Gee to make next year what Muffy is making this year and bump Tejada & Duda up to Gee's present level then plug that into your spreadsheet and see how it all looks. That leaves both Parnell who I suspect either won't be here or won't get much of a raise at all if he is, and then EYJ who's a part-timer if everyone else is healthy. Point is, neither one of them is going to tilt the books much whether they win, lose, or settle in arbitration. Then you just have to figure out how this is all going to shake out 250-300 days from now. Good luck.

Edgy MD Jun 28 2014 05:38 PM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

The Met have nine guys lined up to start next season. Colon will be trade bait until the last day of his contract. It's hard to see down the road.

Mex17 Jun 29 2014 10:07 AM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

Frayed Knot wrote: But back to the original question -- The main question with Murphy, as discussed, is not what his salary will be next year but whether you want to invest in him long term. With regard to Murphy, I absolutely believe that, going forward, his greatest asset to the Mets is as a trade chip. His value at probably at it's peak right now and he is only going to get more expensive as the next few years go by. Alternatively, Flores has only had sporadic ABs at the major league level, but has in totality played close to a full season in AAA (543 ABs) and has produced (.315 average, .354 OBP, .519 SLG, .874 OPS, 20 HRs, 41 doubles, 5 triples, 111 RBI). It's time for him to get his shot. Behind Flores, Dilson Herrera has been having a very good year in the minors as well (he was just promoted to AA and is picking up where he left off after going .307/.355/.410/.765 at St. Lucie. . .and he can supposedly field the position as well). So, with not just one but two potential lower-cost replacements in the pipeline, where is the justification in throwing more money into Murphy (especially when you can flip him now at most likely a pretty good return)???

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 29 2014 11:48 AM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

Yes I think they might move Muffy, but takes 2 to make a deal and Sandy appears to drive hard bargains.

Frayed Knot Jun 29 2014 01:40 PM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

Yes, trading Murphy--either this July, next July, or somewhere in between--is certainly [u:3qaixlx7]AN[/u:3qaixlx7] option. But again, I don't think the ultimate answer to that question is dependent on his potential arbitration number and even less so on that of the rest of that crew.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jun 29 2014 03:53 PM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

Since the team's main need is offense, and Murphy is one of our best offensive players, what would you hope to get back by trading him? I understand the Beltran trade, as he was a free agent and seemed -- at the time -- to be in steep decline. And I understand trading Dickey, given his age, the likelihood that we had just seen his peak performance, and that he was looking for a larger contract through his late 30s. But Murphy doesn't seem to be either of those scenarios. He's young. He hits well at Citi Field. And even in arbitration it's not like he's going to be a $15 to $20 million guy, right? When we start dumping guys just because they are approaching arbitration years, I start to get really worried. If we are going to start trading, I think it would be better to start dealing from our strengths, which would be young pitching, to get power hitters.

Frayed Knot Jun 29 2014 06:15 PM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: When we start dumping guys just because they are approaching arbitration years, I start to get really worried. If we are going to start trading, I think it would be better to start dealing from our strengths, which would be young pitching, to get power hitters. Which is why I'm stressing that I don't see dealing Murphy as related to his arbitration status but rather his upcoming FA years. At some point, and maybe as soon as this coming month, Sandy and his lieutenants are going to have to look into their crystal ball and decide whether Muffy is someone you want to pay FA dollars to and, more importantly, commit to for five or more years starting at age 31 (by Opening Day 2016) And while I'm not saying that you CAN'T just sign him for 2015 and have this discussion again a year from now, I suspect that they'd prefer to decide on one extreme or the other. If you do deal him you're either looking for existing help at another position where we're weaker - say a serious upgrade at SS, or you're looking to flip him to some team in the hunt for in-season help in exchange for a hot and nearly ready prospect. The former of those trades tend to be more common during the winter while the latter is more likely to be an in-season deal, but certainly there are exceptions. The Yanx, for instance, currently just 1.5 games out with ancient and .230-hitting Brian Roberts manning 2B, would be a prime candidate to want him if offered. Of course they don't have anything we'd want that I know of, but if Sandy can identify teams in that type of position (contending and needing a 2B/3B/1B with a lefty bat) he'd be silly not to listen to what they offer particularly with the cushion of not needing to deal him in order to drive the hard bargain as JCL suggests.

Edgy MD Jun 30 2014 10:47 AM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Since the team's main need is offense, and Murphy is one of our best offensive players, what would you hope to get back by trading him? Talent. If the package they like isn't there, they won't move him. But I certainly think they could.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 30 2014 01:26 PM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

I actually think they will move him, and maybe even should move him, if of course the right deal could be made. As pointed out above Flores is a fine hitter, inexpensive and in need of a job, if Muffy could get us a shortstop or outfielder or leadoff hitter we so desperately need we should look into it.

Frayed Knot Aug 24 2014 09:27 AM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

Joel Sherman on dealing Muffy One thing he points out is how many long term deals for 2Bmen have gone sour in recent years: Uggla (5 yrs/$62 mil), Brandon Phillips (6/$72.5), Aaron Hill (3/$35), Richie Weeks (4/$39), with the really big deals for Pedroia & Cano still too early to read

Trachsel My Tears Aug 24 2014 09:38 AM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

Isn't the problem with Murphy that he's at a position he doesn't play particularly well, and the Mets can't think of playing him at 3b, which he probably can play better? Think: which teams badly need a 3b-man, and that's where he will go, assuming they have something that the Mets need. If you can do it at a trade deadline, and if your target team is in a pennant race, you're going to get full value for him, and maybe a bit more.

Frayed Knot Aug 24 2014 04:25 PM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

Well sure. Murphy's strengths and weaknesses are hardly a secret -- they're discussed here in this thread, and by Sherman in the linked thread, and in a lot of other places. It's the high BA and number of hits vs the shaky defense plus his low walk & power totals. The lack of position could be seen by some as a positive in that a team could use him in multiple positions even if he's not going to give you GG level play in any of them.

Edgy MD Aug 24 2014 04:29 PM Re: Arbitration Eligibles

He's probably a defensive plus at first, even at third, and a defensive minus at second.