Master Index of Archived Threads


Payroll 2016

Centerfield Nov 04 2015 09:37 AM

A look back at the 2015 numbers: http://deadspin.com/2015-payrolls-and-s ... 1695040045 To summarize, the Mets were 21st out of 30 teams with a payroll of $101 million. Atrocious for a big market team. If the Mets wanted to get to #15, they would have to bump their payroll to about $115 million. Which, you would have to think would give you plenty of money to sign, say, Jason Heyward. If the Mets one day realized they play in NY, and allowed themselves a top 5 payroll, they would have to add at least $70 million to their books. With an additional $70 million, the Mets could sign Justin Upon for $25M/year to play right. Then sign Cespedes for $25M/year to play left. And then finish off by signing Jason Heyward at $15M/year to play center. Then they could package Conforto, Granderson, Duda, Lagares, Wheeler, Flores and Amed Rosario for Paul Goldschmidt. And they could give Arizona an extra $5 million cash just because they have it lying around. And if he wanted to, Sandy could personally deliver that $5 million by making it rain all throughout the Arizona front office. I get that this is not likely to happen. But imagine if the Mets actually spent like a big market team, and put some pieces around this once-in-a-lifetime pitching staff. Fred said he would spend money if attendance increased. Well we did our part. Now it's time to spend money. Don't let this fucker off the hook. Write about it. Blog about it. Write to your congressman. Let's put pressure on these fuckers this winter.

Ceetar Nov 04 2015 09:41 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Yawn.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 04 2015 09:43 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Ceetar yawns a lot. Of the choices above, I prefer the middle ground. Instead of loading the 2016 outfield with free agents, I'd rather see Conforto establish himself as a Mets star over the next six (or more) seasons. Sign Heyward (or someone like him) and a shortstop. And a reliever or two. (And, perhaps, Uribe and Colon.) Move Wilmer to second base and give Dilson a little more time. (He may eventually displace Flores, but I don't want to hand him a starting job just yet.)

Ceetar Nov 04 2015 09:47 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Mets drew 400k more fans last year, and presumably locked in a bunch of 2016 deposits and expect a bump next year. Say 800k. so 800x whatever the average ticket price works out to be. $30? Should expect a modest 20million bump in expected revenue and therefore expenditure, give or take a little based on leaving room for mid-season acquisitions or whatever. You could dig a little more into the exact numbers there, but it hardly seems like something with a lot of meat to write about.

Centerfield Nov 04 2015 09:48 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Exactly. (directed at BG) I am certainly not advocating scenario 3 (except maybe that whenever we throw in cash to make a trade happen, Sandy should go make it rain in that front office). And I think and hope that Conforto will be a star. But imagine having another $20 million or so to add pieces like Heyward, or Desmond, or middle relief. It could transform this team from a contender, to a dominant team. And you don't have to spend like the Dodgers. You just have to spend like the Royals.

Centerfield Nov 04 2015 09:51 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Ceetar wrote: Mets drew 400k more fans last year, and presumably locked in a bunch of 2016 deposits and expect a bump next year. Say 800k. so 800x whatever the average ticket price works out to be. $30? Should expect a modest 20million bump in expected revenue and therefore expenditure, give or take a little based on leaving room for mid-season acquisitions or whatever. You could dig a little more into the exact numbers there, but it hardly seems like something with a lot of meat to write about. I want you to understand that I am a fan of the New York Mets. And I am writing on a message board that I wish our team had the financial capability of the Kansas City Royals.

Ceetar Nov 04 2015 09:55 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: Mets drew 400k more fans last year, and presumably locked in a bunch of 2016 deposits and expect a bump next year. Say 800k. so 800x whatever the average ticket price works out to be. $30? Should expect a modest 20million bump in expected revenue and therefore expenditure, give or take a little based on leaving room for mid-season acquisitions or whatever. You could dig a little more into the exact numbers there, but it hardly seems like something with a lot of meat to write about. I want you to understand that I am a fan of the New York Mets. And I am writing on a message board that I wish our team had the financial capability of the Kansas City Royals. I wish I had a crystal ball to know which pitchers would get hurt in 2016. And I'd like to know which games the Mets will win and which they will lose so I can plan my trips to Citi accordingly.

d'Kong76 Nov 04 2015 10:18 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Deflecting the topic with wishes of crystal balls seem a little silly, no? OE: A crystal ball, not crystal testicles. That would be awkward.

TransMonk Nov 04 2015 10:20 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Given that this team went to a WS and increased attendance in 2015 with a 21st ranked payroll, I'm not sure what the business reasoning would be for increasing spending. I can surely see management saying, "if it ain't broke..." Obviously, I hope otherwise, but I don't expect a direct correlation between the increase in revenue and any increase in spending.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 04 2015 10:23 AM Re: Payroll 2016

As long as they fill their gaps with top-quality players, I don't care what the payroll is. If the Mets have a subpar team because they're not spending enough, that's a problem. But if they can finish in first place next year with a $110 million payroll, then good for them.

d'Kong76 Nov 04 2015 10:25 AM Re: Payroll 2016

This news was in another thread, but I figure I'll bring it to the money thread just for s & g's... http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realesta ... ice-market

d'Kong76 Nov 04 2015 10:30 AM Re: Payroll 2016

And just another slant, the Mets had approximately 15 players aged 25 and under this season. Of course the payroll is lower, the younger guys don't make as much? Just thinking out loud.

seawolf17 Nov 04 2015 11:22 AM Re: Payroll 2016

d'Kong76 wrote: And just another slant, the Mets had approximately 15 players aged 25 and under this season. Of course the payroll is lower, the younger guys don't make as much? Just thinking out loud. That's definitely a piece of it, and as such, it means that on one hand, they should have some payroll flexibility on the upper end, and on another hand, they need to figure out what they've got with some of these kids and get them on longer deals, and on yet another hand, that's an excuse for the Wilpons to be like "What? We only have to pay Harvey $500K, so that's all we're paying him." You have to take care of Harvey, Familia, and Duda before arbitration, and then get Flores, d'Arnaud, and deGrom signed for safety as well.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 04 2015 03:12 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Mets drew 400k more fans last year, and presumably locked in a bunch of 2016 deposits and expect a bump next year. Say 800k. so 800x whatever the average ticket price works out to be. $30? Should expect a modest 20million bump in expected revenue and therefore expenditure, give or take a little based on leaving room for mid-season acquisitions or whatever. You could dig a little more into the exact numbers there, but it hardly seems like something with a lot of meat to write about. Here are some actual numbers from SI's Kostya Kennedy Mets planning modest rise in ticket prices after reaching World Series Any number of words might have described the stands at Citi Field over the last few months of the Mets' 2015 season: giddy, joyous, bananas and, at the very end of the team's World Series loss to the Royals, deflated. Or try this one: full. These are all adjectives that before this season were rarely applicable in the first six years of their still relatively new stadium. “It was a great run, there’s no question about that,” Lou DePaoli, the team's Chief Revenue Officer, said on on Monday. It was the day after the Mets had blown their third late-game lead of the World Series and less than 15 hours since the final out of Game 5, yet neither DePaoli nor others around the club seemed to be in mourning. Bottom line, it had been a very good season, and it had been a very good season for the bottom line. “We’re feeling good about what we were able to accomplish this season,” DePaoli said, “and about what the future might bring.” Along with optimism about the team's young pitching staff and the finally shored-up farm system, New York's short-term financial future is brightened by the fact that it has already received 6,500 deposits for full-, half-, or quarter-season ticket plans for 2016. That’s a huge number, and it comes on the heels of a 2015 season in which Mets attendance shot up 18.1%, by far the biggest increase in the National League. So where do they go from here? DePaoli revealed to SI.com that Mets season ticket prices, which did not go up from 2014 to '15, will be raised by an average of 2.86% for next year. (Some tickets, of course, may see a higher increase, some lower.) That would bring Citi Field's average ticket price to $26.02, which would still be $2.92 below the MLB average in 2015. The idea behind pricing, naturally, is not simply to reap as much as you can per ticket, but to bring as many people as possible into the house. Big crowds are good for on-site mojo, and also excellent for the ledger. More people in the stands means more people paying for parking (revenue that the Mets share with New York City) and more people buying $6 beers and $5 sodas, and $20 hats, and teddy bears and cotton candy and key chains and sausage-and-peppers and…. So just how much can the Mets expect their attendance to jump in 2016? Wayne McDonnell, the academic chair at NYU’s Tisch Institute of Sports Management, Media and Business, researched a series of financial metrics tracing back to 1967, the year after Marvin Miller took over the players’ union and set about transforming baseball's economics. One piece of the research showed that after winning a World Series, a team saw an average attendance increase of 6.9% the following year. (That excludes seasons with games lost to work stoppages.) Because each team and park and situation varies, that number includes wild fluctuation, even in recent years. The White Sox' 2006 attendance, for example, leapt by 26.23% after their '05 title, the first for the franchise since 1917, while the Giants (playing before a stadium that was often already chock-full) actually dropped by -0.24% after winning in 2012, their second title in three years. But the Mets, despite opportunities, didn’t win the Series. And as DePaoli said, “Our own research indicates that losing in the World Series does not have the same impact as winning it.” But that too is circumstantial. For example: The Royals, who lost the 2014 series to San Francisco, saw a mammoth increase of 38.4% in 2015, the biggest jump in baseball. As for the Mets' attendance history, the team saw jumps of 24% in 1970 (after winning the World Series in ’69) and of 9.63% in '87 (after winning it in ’86.) But they also endured attendance drops of -9.94% and of -5.75% after losing in the 1973 and 2000 World Series, respectively. Those 6,500 ticket plan deposits, the modest price increase and the possibility of having a competitive team in 2016 indicate that, despite falling short in the Fall Classic, the Mets can indeed expect more fans to come out to Citi Field next season. And if the team can convert enough of those 6,500 deposits and lure in enough single-ticket buyers to yield an additional 5,312 fans per game next season (an increase of 16.74% over 2015), New York will draw three million fans for the first time since the ballpark's inaugural season in 2009. “That’s a number they can hit,” McDonnell said. “The signs are there.”

Ceetar Nov 04 2015 03:23 PM Re: Payroll 2016

those numbers convert roughly to an extra 12 million in income. of course, it comes with other things. the purchases in the park, surely. Ad revenue both on SNY and in the park advertisements. That's where any gripe should come. It makes fiscal sense, regardless of ownership, to not spend more than you pull in and all signs point to that. But what numbers do you use? Does the stadium sponsorship come in? Ad revenue from SNY? I don't think they're counting that, and I contend that they should. I'm okay with them spending down loan and debt associated with the stadium and the team itself. Sure, if you want to apportion the sponsorship to paying the stadium loan, go for it. I don't need them paying off Sterling loans. But who's to say? No one has access to those numbers. We know they're spending the direct revenue from the team, but what about the rest of it? Have YOU seen their books? Why is even worth speculating? They run their business that I'm a fan of, and they're clearly doing a good job of it. They got a pretty damn good result and I'm happy with that.

Edgy MD Nov 04 2015 03:53 PM Re: Payroll 2016

I'm not sure what the payroll was, but that $101 million number certainly can't be accurate, as that's an opening day figure.

Centerfield Nov 04 2015 04:10 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Ceetar wrote: those numbers convert roughly to an extra 12 million in income. of course, it comes with other things. the purchases in the park, surely. Ad revenue both on SNY and in the park advertisements. That's where any gripe should come. It makes fiscal sense, regardless of ownership, to not spend more than you pull in and all signs point to that. But what numbers do you use? Does the stadium sponsorship come in? Ad revenue from SNY? I don't think they're counting that, and I contend that they should. I'm okay with them spending down loan and debt associated with the stadium and the team itself. Sure, if you want to apportion the sponsorship to paying the stadium loan, go for it. I don't need them paying off Sterling loans. But who's to say? No one has access to those numbers. We know they're spending the direct revenue from the team, but what about the rest of it? Have YOU seen their books? Why is even worth speculating? They run their business that I'm a fan of, and they're clearly doing a good job of it. They got a pretty damn good result and I'm happy with that. I think you are misunderstanding my point. I don't care if the Mets are profiting or losing money. I don't want to look at those numbers, nor do I think looking at them would be productive. Here is why. If the Mets are not spending because they are taking profits and using them for other business ventures, this will piss me off. If the Mets are not spending and not profiting, despite playing in NY and now coming off a World Series, this will piss me off. From 2000 to 2011, the Mets had no worse than a top 6 payroll. This is what you would expect from a team playing in the largest market in the US. From 2012 on, their payroll has dropped and now they are in the lower third. I would like to see this trend reverse, and the Mets to be funded like the big market team they are. If the owners cannot find a way to fund this team like a big market team, they should criticized for it.

Edgy MD Nov 04 2015 05:35 PM Re: Payroll 2016

The Mets hadn't been profiting in recent years. They are profiting now. So it's relevant, because they clearly needed to balance the books to get good with their creditors. They indeed had a top 6 payroll in 2000-2011, and were still derided as cheap. I don't see the criticism changing anytime soon no matter how circumstances change. But we should acknowledge — here at least — when they change. I haven't seen final numbers, but I imagine they had a payroll closer to $110 million than $101 million. They took on salary with like 11 straight transactions. Pretty much every transaction they did this year starting with trading Cory Mazzoni for Álex Torres added salary.

Lefty Specialist Nov 04 2015 06:11 PM Re: Payroll 2016

and more people buying $6 beers and $5 sodas, and $20 hats Clearly this person has never set foot inside Citi Field.

d'Kong76 Nov 04 2015 06:35 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Edgy MD wrote: The Mets hadn't been profiting in recent years. They are profiting now. Does anyone really know this? They got the cry-poverty books, the tax books, the MLB loan's books, the partner's books...

Lefty Specialist Nov 04 2015 06:43 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Don't forget the Putitinthe Books.

d'Kong76 Nov 04 2015 06:54 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Good one!

seawolf17 Nov 04 2015 06:57 PM Re: Payroll 2016

And Joe Petruccio's book, which is the most awesome book of all.

Edgy MD Nov 04 2015 07:24 PM Re: Payroll 2016

d'Kong76 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: The Mets hadn't been profiting in recent years. They are profiting now. Does anyone really know this? They got the cry-poverty books, the tax books, the MLB loan's books, the partner's books... No, I certainly have to say that I honestly don't. It's an inference. They sure seem to have had a pretty good year, winning the pennant on a relatively modest payroll. That certainly may have been offset in part (or even in whole) by the salary they took on, but my guess is they have something like balanced books depending on whether loan repayments are counted as an operating expense (which they should be). So, in the end, they probably break even or worse, but the idea that the organization was profitable this year apart from addressing the dept burden? I don't know but I feel safe assuming, yeah. Else, this baseball racket is a fool's enterprise. They are also in a position to project better future revenues, which to some extent, they can leverage. Of course, overdoing that, as much as Madoff, is what seems to have gotten them behind the eight ball.

d'Kong76 Nov 04 2015 07:55 PM Re: Payroll 2016

I over-quoted, I was responding more to this part and not this year. Edgy MD wrote: The Mets hadn't been profiting in recent years.

Mex17 Nov 04 2015 08:10 PM Re: Payroll 2016

http://espn.go.com/blog/newyork/mets/po ... r-activity $92 million to start + $15 million for an outfielder (Heyward, Fowler, Span, Parra, Rasmus) + $6 million to bring Uribe back + $2 million to bring Blevins back = $115 million Totally achievable.

Edgy MD Nov 04 2015 08:58 PM Re: Payroll 2016

d'Kong76 wrote: I over-quoted, I was responding more to this part and not this year. Edgy MD wrote: The Mets hadn't been profiting in recent years. I'm pretty confident in this. I mean, I don't think the owners have been selling off pieces of the team and soliciting emergency loans from impatient creditors as a ruse to pocket money.

Centerfield Nov 05 2015 09:14 AM Re: Payroll 2016

I don't know if you can be so sure about that. I definitely believe that the Wilpons have not been profiting in recent years, but I have no idea how the Mets franchise has done. There are several reports/rumors that the Wilpons' other businesses are suffering, and that they have been pumping Mets/SNY revenue into other avenues, rather than spending on the team. I have no way of knowing whether this is true or not, but it certainly would go a long way into explaining why a New York baseball team is in the bottom third of payroll in the league. Honestly speaking, I'm shocked that the rest of you aren't furious over this. It is well established that spending more gives a team a competitive advantage. It's not a guarantee, it's not dispositive, but it is unquestionably an advantage. It is so pronounced, that other sports have instituted salary caps to level the playing field. Fortunately for us, baseball has not. So by the mere fact that we play in NY, we get a big advantage over the other teams. The other big market teams exploit this. (The LA teams are 1 and 7 in payroll, the Yankees are #2. DC is #6 in payroll). We are the only ones that do not. And in fact, by putting us in the bottom third, we actually put ourselves at a disadvantage. This is mind boggling to me. For as long as there is no salary cap, MLB is handing us an absolute gift. But our owners, through either greed or incompetence, have bungled an advantage into an obstacle for us. We, as a NY team, have to find a way to beat teams that are outspending us, rather than vice versa. And I don't mean this post as a criticism of anyone here, because it seems a large part of the fan base feels that this not a big deal. I just can't understand how anyone is ok with this. We, as Mets fans, are blessed with the following: 1. The best homegrown rotation I have ever seen: Not just on the Mets, the best rotation ever. You dream about bringing up four aces at the same time. But it just doesn't happen. We have this right now. They are all young, all healthy and all dirt fucking cheap. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity. 2. Other Cheap, Young Talent: We are also blessed to have the best closer in franchise history, under control and cheap. We also have potential stars in LF, C and solid players/prospects for 1B and 2B. 3. We play in a big market in a sport with no salary cap. We are in a position to surround this great young core with established veterans to dominate. 4. An Excellent GM: One that is smart enough to spend money wisely. All we need is an owner capable of putting out a payroll that is in the top quarter. Even top third. And we would be the overwhelming favorite to win the WS. And possibly, to win for years on end. But instead, we have the Wilpons. Who through their mismanagement can maybe, possibly, muster up a payroll to put us in the middle of the pack.

Ceetar Nov 05 2015 09:21 AM Re: Payroll 2016

And we're capitalizing on it now. We just went to the World Series, which means the associated revenues will be HIGHER because we're in NY with 15million+ 'fans'. Arguably the most successful expansion franchise. If you spend with no concern it catches up with you and negates that advantage. The Yankees have managed to not completely suck by spending money, but they've been budget conscious for years. Let's give the Dodgers a few years to see if they continue this crazy spending spree. Let's see what happens if a key injury or two gives them a couple of albatrosses and a 83 win season and revenue starts trending the other way. There are a few gambles I'd have liked the Mets to take financial risks on, Kang for instance, but it's not like they're not signing players that should help.

Edgy MD Nov 05 2015 09:22 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Centerfield wrote: There are several reports/rumors that the Wilpons' other businesses are suffering, and that they have been pumping Mets/SNY revenue into other avenues, rather than spending on the team. I would like to read these reports, before getting furious over anything. Citing the opening day projected payroll as "the payroll" over and over is disconcerting enough. Let's please not get into offering rumor as fact. My team is National League Champion. With a break or three, they'd be marching in a World Series parade. I'm certainly not furious. If I was, then there's never any reason not to be furious. And I don't mean this post as a criticism of anyone here, because it seems a large part of the fan base feels that this not a big deal. My experience is that the fan base is with you. They despise the owners, revile them as cheapskates and ripoff artists, and feel victimized. At least they mostly did until August.

d'Kong76 Nov 05 2015 09:33 AM Re: Payroll 2016

So long as they remain a private family company no one really will knno what they're real financial picture is. As for getting MLB loans, they can saute, flambe, bake and deep fry the books to do that especially since they always have the Madoff loop hole. Poor people don't sell Chicago office buildings for an $80 million profit.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 05 2015 09:38 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Centerfield wrote: Honestly speaking, I'm shocked that the rest of you aren't furious over this. I can't imagine anything the Mets could do that would make me "furious". Well, I guess I would be furious if I found out that they were slipping poison into baby food, or something like that. But I simply don't do anger or angst over the operations of a baseball team.

Edgy MD Nov 05 2015 09:47 AM Re: Payroll 2016

d'Kong76 wrote: So long as they remain a private family company no one really will knno what they're real financial picture is. As for getting MLB loans, they can saute, flambe, bake and deep fry the books to do that especially since they always have the Madoff loop hole. Poor people don't sell Chicago office buildings for an $80 million profit. I'm certain they aren't poor, and I certainly haven't suggested they are. I don't think that's what is being discussed.

d'Kong76 Nov 05 2015 10:06 AM Re: Payroll 2016

The Wilpons ability to spend money on the Mets is exactly what we're talking about. I'm not going bang that drum all winter, but that's what this thread is about.

Edgy MD Nov 05 2015 10:13 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Well, I thought you were grilling me over the issue of the profitability of the team. Things are shifting now. Yes, I know the Wilpons have sold off other holdings.

Centerfield Nov 05 2015 10:13 AM Re: Payroll 2016

There are several reports/rumors that the Wilpons' other businesses are suffering, and that they have been pumping Mets/SNY revenue into other avenues, rather than spending on the team. I would like to read these reports, before getting furious over anything. Well, there is one in the Strat-O-Matic thread. But again, I think you are missing my point. Whether they are siphoning money out, or just managing the Mets poorly, it doesn't matter. The end result is that they don't spend like they should. And that fact alone, is worthy of criticism. Citing the opening day projected payroll as "the payroll" over and over is disconcerting enough. Let's please not get into offering rumor as fact. These are the numbers I found online. And a link was provided. The link explicitly states that these numbers are pursuant to an analysis conducted by the Associated Press. The site goes on to further state: A note on the AP's numbers: they are not exact, because contract details are closely guarded. But they are based publicly and privately reported salaries, prorated bonuses, and deferred money. Cash transactions and buyouts are reflected in the team payroll figures, so they will differ from the sum of given roster's player salaries. The figures will also change by year's end because of bonuses, trades, and call-ups. The cite is explicit about the source of the data, and what the data purports to be. I don't believe I've offered any rumor as fact, nor have I ever suggested that these numbers represent the final payroll after the season. There are a number of other sites offering their analysis. One is from a guy who calls himself "Steve the Ump". I chose to go with the Associated Press. Most of these lists are pretty consistent across the board, varying only slightly. My team is National League Champion. With a break or three, they'd be marching in a World Series parade. I'm certainly not furious. If I was, then there's never any reason not to be furious. My post says I am shocked the rest of you aren't furious over this. My point. That the Mets have to win despite their owners, rather than aided by them. That the Mets have to beat teams that spend more than them, rather than vice versa. If you're not furious that's fine. If you can look at the end result and ignore everything else, then that's your call. (You must have been furious before this year then.) I look at big picture and small picture. I look at the guys who have roles on the team, in the organization and analyze them individually. And when one aspect (such as the owner) does something I feel is egregious, I get mad. Your mileage may vary. And I don't mean this post as a criticism of anyone here, because it seems a large part of the fan base feels that this not a big deal. My experience is that the fan base is with you. They despise the owners, revile them as cheapskates and ripoff artists, and feel victimized. At least they mostly did until August. You know, it's funny. Oftentimes when we have these discussions, the end result is you asking me why I'm upset with you. I want you to see what you did here. My post is not directed at any one individual, and is explicit that it is not an attack on anyone's viewpoint. Your post: (1) Suggests my numbers are incorrect (2) States that I offer rumor as fact (3) And characterizes my position as one that despises the owners, reviles them as cheapskates and ripoff artists, and feels victimized. I assure you if you re-read my post, none of that is in there. For what it's worth, I do hate the Wilpons. But I don't think they are cheapskates, or ripoff artists, and I certainly don't feel victimized, whatever that means. And I don't expect anyone to necessarily agree with my personal feelings. What I said was that they are not doing their job, which is to fund the team like a big market team. And because of that, I am surprised others are not equally as upset.

Edgy MD Nov 05 2015 10:20 AM Re: Payroll 2016

(1) Suggests my numbers are incorrect They're a projection from the start of the year that is out of date. (2) States that I offer rumor as fact You offer rumor and suggest it's worthy of consideration. I don't think it is. Enough facts are known. (3) And characterizes my position as one that despises the owners, reviles them as cheapskates and ripoff artists, and feels victimized. I characterized the fans who feel this way as with you. It's pretty comfortably close to what you describe. This is silly. You don't know what victimized means? Are we going to get this granular? How exhausting.

Edgy MD Nov 05 2015 10:29 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Centerfield wrote: Centerfield wrote: There are several reports/rumors that the Wilpons' other businesses are suffering, and that they have been pumping Mets/SNY revenue into other avenues, rather than spending on the team. I would like to read these reports, before getting furious over anything. Well, there is one in the Strat-O-Matic thread. Report in the Strat-o-Matic thread wrote: The Mets have the TV cash coming in everybody else in baseball does, and then some — they started cashing in earlier, thanks in part, again, to a big loan from Bernie Madoff. They've just been siphoning off that revenue since Madoff went bust to keep the parent company afloat, the kind of thing that should bother MLB but so far hasn't. This does not say the Wilpons have siphoned money from the team to support external businesses. What this is trying to say (badly) is that the Mets have siphoned money from SNY to support the Mets. They've used revenue (and principle even) from a profitable business to invest in the team. Which, desperate as it may be from their point of view, is the sort of thing we'd want to support, isn't it?

Centerfield Nov 05 2015 10:36 AM Re: Payroll 2016

There are several reports/rumors that the Wilpons' other businesses are suffering, and that they have been pumping Mets/SNY revenue into other avenues, rather than spending on the team. I would like to read these reports, before getting furious over anything. Well, there is one in the Strat-O-Matic thread. The Mets have the TV cash coming in everybody else in baseball does, and then some — they started cashing in earlier, thanks in part, again, to a big loan from Bernie Madoff. They've just been siphoning off that revenue since Madoff went bust to keep the parent company afloat, the kind of thing that should bother MLB but so far hasn't. This does not say the Wilpons have siphoned money from the team to support external businesses. What this is trying to say (badly) is that the Mets have siphoned money from SNY to support the Mets. They've used revenue (and principle even) from a profitable business to invest in the team. Which, desperate as it may be from their point of view, is the sort of thing we'd want to support, isn't it? This is the quote I was alluding to: They made their fortune by being tax-dodging real estate speculators during the 1970s and 80s; they lost much, if not most, of that fortune to the one-two punch of the 2008 housing market crash and the collapse of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. That would be a case of what goes around coming around, except the Wilpons stayed afloat by using the Mets and the team-owned media partner SNY as their personal piggybank. But again! You're making me stray from my point!

Edgy MD Nov 05 2015 10:40 AM Re: Payroll 2016

I don't think the evidence has shown that the family has been withdrawing money from the team to cover outside depts. I think the evidence shows that they spent their money and the team's money poorly and invested their money and the team's money foolishly. And at the worst time.

Centerfield Nov 05 2015 10:44 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Edgy MD wrote: (1) Suggests my numbers are incorrect They're a projection from the start of the year that is out of date. (2) States that I offer rumor as fact You offer rumor and suggest it's worthy of consideration. I don't think it is. Enough facts are known. (3) And characterizes my position as one that despises the owners, reviles them as cheapskates and ripoff artists, and feels victimized. I characterized the fans who feel this way as with you. It's pretty comfortably close to what you describe. This is silly. You don't know what victimized means? Are we going to get this granular? How exhausting. The numbers are provided. The link explains the source and the limitations of the analysis. I don't think I ever suggested they were anything but what they are. And I certainly don't think this constitutes "rumor". We'll have to agree to disagree. The Wilpons' lack of spending is well documented, and not really refuted. (I don't believe you are refuting this are you?) Even if you shift the payroll slightly, the overall point of the post remains. And finally, I think you tried to color my position by comparing it to an irrational caller to WFAN. I believe the comparison was done intentionally in an attempt to undermine my point. Only you know if this is true or not.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 05 2015 10:54 AM Re: Payroll 2016 Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Nov 05 2015 11:03 AM

Centerfield wrote: A look back at the 2015 numbers: http://deadspin.com/2015-payrolls-and-s ... 1695040045 As was pointed out, that's the payroll as of Opening day. Yes, the Mets took on Cespedes's salary for August and September, and yes, the Mets added more payroll to deepen the bench and bullpen. But the Mets got practically a free pass on their biggest payroll liability when the insurance policy on Wright's contract kicked in. And they didn't have to pay Mejia, either. So overall, I don't know that the Mets really added any payroll at all, and from the stuff I've been reading and ownership's past practices during the Madoff era, my personal opinion is that they didn't add anything at all and were able to take on Yoenis thanks to the payroll windfalls they received. Just my opinion. Also, I believe the Gomez version of the nixed deal that sez the Mets backed out over money and that the Gomez's health angle was just a bullshit coverup Sandy was straddled so that the owners could save some face. It's the most logical version and extremely consistent with, well, everything. So that's where my head's at, and that's what informs my opinions. That Cespedes's Ruthian HR tear isn't sustainable (obviously) isn't really the point. Because sustainable or not, the Mets got a Ruthian number of HR's from just a single player in an incredibly short amount of time and that production impacted their season tremendously. And they're gonna have to replace that offense because who knows if the Mets win the division without Cespedes's Bambino imitation.

Ceetar Nov 05 2015 10:58 AM Re: Payroll 2016

batmagadanleadoff wrote: . Also, I believe the Gomez version of the nixed deal that sez the Mets backed out over money. It's the most logical version and extremely consistent with, well, everything. So that's where my head's at, and that's what informs my opinions. Except, you know, facts.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 05 2015 11:02 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: . Also, I believe the Gomez version of the nixed deal that sez the Mets backed out over money. It's the most logical version and extremely consistent with, well, everything. So that's where my head's at, and that's what informs my opinions. Except, you know, facts. Like you know the facts. There's no doubt that this issue is just another Rorschach test -- and I expected you, faster than anyone else to pop in here to defend the Great Wilpons.

Edgy MD Nov 05 2015 11:03 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Centerfield wrote: The numbers are provided. The link explains the source and the limitations of the analysis. I don't think I ever suggested they were anything but what they are. This is so simple. The numbers come from April 1. You use them to state: To summarize, the Mets were 21st out of 30 teams with a payroll of $101 million. But that's simply not true. You take a projection and cite it as a summary of what happened. It's not.

Ceetar Nov 05 2015 11:09 AM Re: Payroll 2016

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: . Also, I believe the Gomez version of the nixed deal that sez the Mets backed out over money. It's the most logical version and extremely consistent with, well, everything. So that's where my head's at, and that's what informs my opinions. Except, you know, facts. Like you know the facts. There's no doubt that this issue is just another Rorschach test -- and I expected you, faster than anyone else to pop in here to defend the Great Wilpons. No, I just don't jump to preconceived conclusions based on a single statement from a Brewers beat writer presented with no evidence against actual quoted statements about Gomez having a bum hip and statistical trends of declining performance consistent with injury.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 05 2015 11:11 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: . Also, I believe the Gomez version of the nixed deal that sez the Mets backed out over money. It's the most logical version and extremely consistent with, well, everything. So that's where my head's at, and that's what informs my opinions. Except, you know, facts. Like you know the facts. There's no doubt that this issue is just another Rorschach test -- and I expected you, faster than anyone else to pop in here to defend the Great Wilpons. No, I just don't jump to preconceived conclusions based on a single statement from a Brewers beat writer presented with no evidence against actual quoted statements about Gomez having a bum hip and statistical trends of declining performance consistent with injury. Of course you don't. You, instead, jump to preconceived conclusions based on whatever Wilpon and the Mets say. Your definition of "facts" is whatever Fred and Jeff Wilpon say.

Ceetar Nov 05 2015 11:15 AM Re: Payroll 2016

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: No, I just don't jump to preconceived conclusions based on a single statement from a Brewers beat writer presented with no evidence against actual quoted statements about Gomez having a bum hip and statistical trends of declining performance consistent with injury. Of course you don't. You, instead, jump to preconceived conclusions based on whatever Wilpon and the Mets say. Your definition of "facts" is whatever Fred and Jeff Wilpon say. I've never once quoted either of those people, nor do their quotes appear on baseball-reference.com or fangraphs.com. Neither of them is the manager of the Brewers either.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 05 2015 11:19 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: No, I just don't jump to preconceived conclusions based on a single statement from a Brewers beat writer presented with no evidence against actual quoted statements about Gomez having a bum hip and statistical trends of declining performance consistent with injury. Of course you don't. You, instead, jump to preconceived conclusions based on whatever Wilpon and the Mets say. Your definition of "facts" is whatever Fred and Jeff Wilpon say. I've never once quoted either of those people, nor do their quotes appear on baseball-reference.com or fangraphs.com. Neither of them is the manager of the Brewers either. Of course Gomez had injury issues. That's what gave the Mets a plausible bullshit cover story. They're not so stupid that they were gonna announce that they backed out because Gomez puts ketchup on his hot dogs instead of mustard.

Ceetar Nov 05 2015 11:25 AM Re: Payroll 2016

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Of course Gomez had injury issues. That's what gave the Mets a plausible bullshit cover story. They're not so stupid that they were gonna announce that they backed out because Gomez puts ketchup on his hot dogs instead of mustard. It's neat how they forgot the part about how players have contracts and are owed money up until they looked at his medicals. "It's weird that you put his salary on this MRI, but that's a huge red flag for us."

Centerfield Nov 05 2015 11:50 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Edgy MD wrote: The numbers are provided. The link explains the source and the limitations of the analysis. I don't think I ever suggested they were anything but what they are. This is so simple. The numbers come from April 1. You use them to state: To summarize, the Mets were 21st out of 30 teams with a payroll of $101 million. But that's simply not true. You take a projection and cite it as a summary of what happened. It's not. Really? This is your criticism of my post? This is what you are focusing on? Unbelievable. First off, my use of "summarize" is meant to address the article. The article to which I provided a link. Wherein it clearly states what the numbers represent. If you did not take the time to read the article, and assumed it meant something it did not, the mistake is your's. Not mine. Secondly, this is not just some half-ass projection. These numbers are based upon analysis done by the AP. Are they exact? No. Is it pretty fucking close. I would guess so. You act as if I disregarded other information in order to use artificial data to support my point. Most importantly, how much do you think the year-end numbers moved? Do you think after the additional salary and suspensions/insurance it made a significant impact on the final totals? Do you the Mets moved into the top ten? No. They didn't. Where do you think the Mets might have finished? 21? 23? As high as 17? Even 16? The point of this thread is that the Wilpons don't spend enough. They don't spend like a big market team, and they piss away a competitive advantage handed to big market teams. Do you really think de minimus variations on the final numbers undermines this point? I want you to be honest and ask yourself if maybe, just maybe, you are looking to poke holes in my post anywhere you can find it because you don't want my thesis to be correct.

Edgy MD Nov 05 2015 12:03 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Centerfield wrote: Centerfield wrote: The numbers are provided. The link explains the source and the limitations of the analysis. I don't think I ever suggested they were anything but what they are. This is so simple. The numbers come from April 1. You use them to state: To summarize, the Mets were 21st out of 30 teams with a payroll of $101 million. But that's simply not true. You take a projection and cite it as a summary of what happened. It's not. Really? This is your criticism of my post? This is what you are focusing on? Unbelievable. Focusing on? No. Took the time to point out? Yes. And quite believable. I want you to be honest and ask yourself if maybe, just maybe, you are looking to poke holes in my post anywhere you can find it because you don't want my thesis to be correct. I just want to deal in facts. It's easy.

d'Kong76 Nov 05 2015 12:19 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Owners that could sell their team now for nearly a a whopping one billion dollars profit should not be allowed to be cheap. Shirley an appearance in the World Series has upped what they'll be worth in March 2016. Forbes March 2015 Team Valuations 1-New York Yankees $3,20 bil 2-Los Angeles Dodgers $2,40 bil 3-Boston Red Sox $2,10 bil 4-San Francisco Giants $2,00 bil 5-Chicago Cubs $1,80 bil 6-St Louis Cardinals $1,40 bil 7-New York Mets $1,35 bil 8-LA Angels $1,30 bil 9-Washington Nationals $1,28 bil 10-Philadelphia Phillies $1,25 bil

soupcan Nov 05 2015 01:07 PM Re: Payroll 2016

This thread has morphed into something other than what CF originally intended the discussion to be about but I'll just say that I don't want the Mets to become the Steinbrenner Yankees. Over-spending on free agents and trading away the blue-chip prospects is NOT what ultimately turned those '90's Yankees into the dynasty they became and we all know it. It's responsibly drafting, developing, making smart trades and then supplanting that core with the high-priced free agent or two. Or three. Which is exactly what the Mets did leading up to, and during, this season and got them exactly where we all want them be. I don't think they have to spend bazillions just because they can. Could the team use a big bat or two? Yup. A reliable middle-innings guy, a shortstop? Yup. But those items don't have to break the bank. And if they in fact don't break the bank then that lends the organization to be better situated for a sustained long term success.

d'Kong76 Nov 05 2015 01:14 PM Re: Payroll 2016

I'm not so sure it's morphed too much. From the first post in thread: Centerfield wrote: Now it's time to spend money. Don't let this fucker off the hook. Let's put pressure on these fuckers this winter.

soupcan Nov 05 2015 01:17 PM Re: Payroll 2016

d'Kong76 wrote: I'm not so sure it's morphed too much. From the first post in thread: Centerfield wrote: Now it's time to spend money. Don't let this fucker off the hook. Let's put pressure on these fuckers this winter. I stand corrected. I was mostly alluding to CF & Edgy going back and forth about this and that rather than the initial statement.

d'Kong76 Nov 05 2015 01:21 PM Re: Payroll 2016

I know, just sayin'. I think there is more of a middle of the road type feeling here with most everyone about the not spending for the sake of spending and certainly no longing to become the Yankees. But, the post-Madoff-hey-we're-broke-and-have-to-cap-spending- to-like-we-own-the-A's era has to end sometime. That sometime is now, at least it is for me.

soupcan Nov 05 2015 01:27 PM Re: Payroll 2016

d'Kong76 wrote: But, the post-Madoff-hey-we're-broke-and-have-to-cap-spending- to-like-we-own-the-A's era has to end sometime. That sometime is now, at least it is for me. But why? Isnt the goal to get the World Series? And they did. Unless you think it was a fluke, then why fix something that isn't broke? I like where they are. Was it painful? Hell yeah, but they're here now. They have the core pieces that got them here. If they continue to make smart trades, and add that free agent piece where they need to, I'm good. I want them to spend smartly and where they need to and occasionally sign that big name for big money. But to have an upper echelon payroll just because they can, doesnt make sense to me.

d'Kong76 Nov 05 2015 01:36 PM Re: Payroll 2016

soupcan wrote: But why? Isnt the goal to get the World Series? And they did. Unless you think it was a fluke, then why fix something that isn't broke? I like where they are. Was it painful? Hell yeah, but they're here now. They have the core pieces that got them here. If they continue to make smart trades, and add that free agent piece where they need to, I'm good. I want them to spend smartly and where they need to and occasionally sign that big name for big money. But to have an upper echelon payroll just because they can, doesnt make sense to me. It would be nice to know for the first time in how many years now that they didn't make a move or moves because of finances. The fans deserve more expensive opportunities met instead of brushed aside if they come the team's way. It's time to move on from that, or they should take their billion dollar profit and sell and just go away.

soupcan Nov 05 2015 01:48 PM Re: Payroll 2016

d'Kong76 wrote: It would be nice to know for the first time in how many years now that they didn't make a move or moves because of finances. The fans deserve more expensive opportunities met instead of brushed aside if they come the team's way. It's time to move on from that, or they should take their billion dollar profit and sell and just go away. When the opportunity arises, no more backing down because of finances. Got it. I agree.

Centerfield Nov 05 2015 02:01 PM Re: Payroll 2016

It would be nice to know for the first time in how many years now that they didn't make a move or moves because of finances. The fans deserve more expensive opportunities met instead of brushed aside if they come the team's way. It's time to move on from that, or they should take their billion dollar profit and sell and just go away. When the opportunity arises, no more backing down because of finances. Got it. I agree. Exactly. Sandy Alderson even hinted to that in his book: “Madoff wasn’t even a topic of conversation in my interview for the Mets job. I didn’t raise it. Maybe I should have. The bottom line is, I would have taken the job anyway. It just added to the challenge.” That's about as candid as you will ever see Sandy get. It's time to take away the challenge. It's time to make it an advantage. If Jason Heyward wants Robinson Cano money, tell him to go fuck himself. But if he will sign for a reasonable value, time to go get him. Or another elite bat that will be reasonable. We are an elite hitter or two away from being a favorite to go back to the WS. Go get him. Via free agency, trades etc., but don't let budget constraints stand in the way.

Ceetar Nov 05 2015 02:09 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Centerfield wrote: If Jason Heyward wants Robinson Cano money, tell him to go fuck himself. But if he will sign for a reasonable value, time to go get him. Or another elite bat that will be reasonable. Unless he signs someone merely good for 'great' money, there will be allusions to it being because of finances. Cespedes, or Heyward, or whoever.

Centerfield Nov 05 2015 02:42 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Centerfield wrote: Honestly speaking, I'm shocked that the rest of you aren't furious over this. I can't imagine anything the Mets could do that would make me "furious". Well, I guess I would be furious if I found out that they were slipping poison into baby food, or something like that. But I simply don't do anger or angst over the operations of a baseball team. What if you found out the Mets got Fred and Barney fired from their Pebbles gig? I should have qualified my post. I fully expect BG not to be furious.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 05 2015 03:28 PM Re: Payroll 2016

To get off this fight or whatever is going on here, has anyone read that BASEBALL MAVERICK book? I admire the attempt but what a chore that thing is. I liked learning about the background on Alderson and stuff from Oakland but by the time he gets to the Mets its so bogged down with scattered details it barely tells a story at all -- recounting various interviews with Wheeler in Las Vegas, the 90-win thing, Duda in the clubhouse, all vaguely interesting in their own way but barely adding up to a unified story, other than the obvious point that the writer is way beyond objective on the subject.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 05 2015 03:50 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Centerfield wrote: What if you found out the Mets got Fred and Barney fired from their Pebbles gig? Good point! That would certainly do it!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 05 2015 09:50 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Is it weird that I'd rather they splash the pot in the international market (and not necessarily for the major-league-ready plug-and-plays, either)? I think whatever windfall they've got goes a lot further there, and that the new upper-minors talent deficit is more of a problem than any of the major-league-level concerns.

Vic Sage Nov 06 2015 09:30 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Yes, it's easy to say "spend smart, not just for the sake of spending." The reality, however, is that sometimes, when you're thisclose, you have to take a chance and overpay a guy you think will be a difference maker. Because you're not going to get those guys at a discount, or even at a reasonable price, if the bidding gets intense. At that point, it should be a matter of "who", not "how much". And a big market team has the ability to take that chance because, if they're wrong, they have the resources to cut their losses and move on, and not get paralyzed by a bad contract. That is the advantage we're supposed to have over a KC, for example. So, I'll give the Wilpons the benefit of the doubt and say, perhaps, the marginal and mid-tier FAs we've accumulated in recent years were because we just weren't "ready" yet... we weren't "thisclose". But now we've proven we ae. And they have the extra $$ from an exciting season and a deep post-season run. So lets see who they go after. Should they go after Cespedes for 7/$140M? Maybe not. I think his 5 week run from mid-August to mid-September was an aberration, not something to pay for, and he's a hacker with no clue what the strike zone is. But he's still a pretty good player overall, even if we can't bank on that sort of run again. The question remains whether he is the RIGHT player. That's the question, not "is he worth $140m"... value is all relative. He's worth (1) what a team is willing to pay him, and (2) what a team thinks he can add to put them over the top. I think he's worth more to a team that's close than to a team that's still rebuilding. Cespedes' free swinging ways make me nervous, but I trust Sandy to make this call. The bottom line is, though, that if it's not Cespedes, then who? Not another "role player", that's who. An impact bat, even if the deal ends up bad down the road. Shit, ALL deals are bad down the road; players decline and break down. But we're here at the beginning of the road, with a pitching staff for the ages, and if the `Pons squander this opportunity because they won't take the risk to add an impact bat, CF and I will go down and set their limos on fire. No more excuses. If they don't have the resources, then they aren't prepared to own a team in NY. If they do, then they need to use them. Mets 2016 - Go big or go home, Fred.

Ceetar Nov 06 2015 09:41 AM Re: Payroll 2016

The Mets are already over the top. It's not a stretch to say figuring out how to maximize the health of Wright, d'Arnaud, Cuddyer, and Duda, all who had injury-related hits to their seasons, is more important than adding (another) top 30 hitter.

Centerfield Nov 06 2015 09:44 AM Re: Payroll 2016

You know what? I take it all back. Ceetar is right. Instead of investing in a middle of the order bat, let's spend the money on magic healing elixir.

Vic Sage Nov 06 2015 09:50 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Well, that's ok then. The Wilpons are skilled at selling snake oil.

Vic Sage Nov 06 2015 09:54 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Ceetar wrote: The Mets are already over the top. It's not a stretch to say figuring out how to maximize the health of Wright, d'Arnaud, Cuddyer, and Duda, all who had injury-related hits to their seasons, is more important than adding (another) top 30 hitter. Of all the ceetarted things you've ever written here, this... well, this is another one. The way you "maximize the health" of those guys is to play them less or not at all. 3 of them are over 30, with no expectation of either greater health or significantly greater production on the horizon. and the 4th is a catcher with a resume splattered with injuries. Yes, by all means, instead of getting an impact bat, lets hope EVERYBODY has a great year!

Ceetar Nov 06 2015 09:58 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Centerfield wrote: You know what? I take it all back. Ceetar is right. Instead of investing in a middle of the order bat, let's spend the money on magic healing elixir. Invest in smart trainers, manage rest time, etc. We don't actually need a 'middle of the order' bat because Wright, d'Arnaud, Duda, and Granderson are all that. Cuddyer's a good hitter. Signing one big bat doesn't help if we lose another, and thinking about the games where those guys might not play is important. Does a Zobrist or Kelly Johnson type play up in value to keep us from Campbell-type AB? We should be more concerned positionally. We probably have someone that can play 2B between Flores and Tejada and Herrera, but is Lagares good enough for center? Does it hurt defensively too much to play Granderson there? or do we need to acquire one. Is there a SS to be had? even at overpaying prices? Can you roll with Flores/Tejada if you upgrade somewhere else? "Just overpay for a big bat" misses the whole point. Vic Sage wrote: Ceetar wrote: The Mets are already over the top. It's not a stretch to say figuring out how to maximize the health of Wright, d'Arnaud, Cuddyer, and Duda, all who had injury-related hits to their seasons, is more important than adding (another) top 30 hitter. Of all the ceetarted things you've ever written here, this... well, this is another one. The way you "maximize the health" of those guys is to play them less or not at all. 3 of them are over 30, with no expectation of either greater health or significantly greater production on the horizon. and the 4th is a catcher with a resume splattered with injuries. Yes, by all means, instead of getting an impact bat, lets hope EVERYBODY has a great year! yeah, nowhere did I say hope And your statement here actually reinforces my point. Signing one big bat that you're reasonably certain will have a good year here is not enough if you lose Wright to 150 AB of Campbell for lose Granderson for Kirk Nieuwenhuis for a month.

Vic Sage Nov 06 2015 10:07 AM Re: Payroll 2016

And just for clarity, who is the (other) top 30 bat you think we have on our roster now? Granderson? Until this season, his last 3 years he hit .232, .229., and .227, and he'll be 35 next year. Yes, he had a terrific 2nd half this year, giving him a very solid year overall, and a great post-season. But please forgive me if i don't think he can carry the offense next year. In fact, he didn't carry it this year, with the team floating at .500 until the July trading deadline, despite his solid June-July. IF you don't think Cespedes didn't have a seismic effect on this offense (which stopped producing at the same rate as it had been, when he cooled off), then we aren't watching the same team. And if we go into next season without a similarly impactful bat in the middle, we'll have similar problems scoring runs.

Ceetar Nov 06 2015 10:09 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Vic Sage wrote: And just for clarity, who is the (other) top 30 bat you think we have on our roster now? Granderson? Until this season, his last 3 years he hit .232, .229., and .227, and he'll be 35 next year. Yes, he had a terrific 2nd half this year, giving him a very solid year overall, and a great post-season. But please forgive me if i don't think he can carry the offense next year. In fact, he didn't carry it this year, with the team floating at .500 until the July trading deadline, despite his solid June-July. IF you don't think Cespedes didn't have a seismic effect on this offense (which stopped producing at the same rate as it had been, when he cooled off), then we aren't watching the same team. And if we go into next season without a similarly impactful bat in the middle, we'll have similar problems scoring runs. Yes, batting average. There's a stat that tells us anything useful.

Vic Sage Nov 06 2015 10:20 AM Re: Payroll 2016

When a guy goes from a .270-.280 hitter early in his career, and ends up hitting .220-.230 over a sustained period later in his career, its meaningful. He got 22 more hits this year in 30 more plate appearances (12 of them for extra bases), so yes, going from .230 to .260 was meaningful, and he's just as likely to turn back into a .230 pumpkin next year at age 35 as he is to sustain this hit rate...MORE likely, frankly, because that's what older players do in the post-steroid era.

Ceetar Nov 06 2015 10:36 AM Re: Payroll 2016

his BABIP was pretty much in line with his career averages, so I'd suspect his batting average to remain roughly where it was. He cut out the Yankee strikeouts and walked at a career high rate. This seems to have allowed him to buy into the Mets philosophy of hitting your pitch and what not. He saw more fastballs this year, probably as a result of patience. He also saw the fastest average fastball of his career (I suspect everyone did) which gives a good sign that he's not losing bat speed. He didn't make less contact. What he did was stop swinging at crap. He swung less in general, swung and missed 30% less, and made the same amount of contact. This suggests the ISO bump in power was a result of the patience, was a very obvious and conscience decision and speaks well to him being able to repeat it. In 2014 he hit a lot of balls at people. He was unlucky and also fished more, but his overall numbers offensively were still good. Nothing about this suggests we should expect a dropoff from Granderson.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 06 2015 10:42 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Ceetar wrote: Signing one big bat that you're reasonably certain will have a good year here is not enough if you lose Wright to 150 AB of Campbell for lose Granderson for Kirk Nieuwenhuis for a month. Having that additional "one big bat" on the team doesn't prevent Wright from getting hurt, but it certainly gives you more depth if he does get hurt.

Edgy MD Nov 06 2015 10:49 AM Re: Payroll 2016

The problem is signing a guy and convincing yourself that he's one big bat and he's not. The idea that the team can absorb mistakes and move on is appealing, but for all teams, that thinking has its limits, and the critical mass of mistakes was a big part of what got the team in the mess in the first place. So I'll take wise over aggressive, no matter what the market size. I think they're going to be fine. And if they don't find their guy by opening day, they can keep looking as they did in 2015.

Ceetar Nov 06 2015 10:52 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: Signing one big bat that you're reasonably certain will have a good year here is not enough if you lose Wright to 150 AB of Campbell for lose Granderson for Kirk Nieuwenhuis for a month. Having that additional "one big bat" on the team doesn't prevent Wright from getting hurt, but it certainly gives you more depth if he does get hurt. Are you signing a guy that can play third? Because I'd rather roll with Cuddyer-Lagares-Granderson and have a Murphy or Zobrist type guy who can play 40 games at third than Cespedes and 40 games of Eric Campbell or Casey McGehee or Aaron Hill. Much like last year, I'm looking for a more rounded lineup that features less holes than one big bopper. Granderson and Duda and hopefully Wright and d'Arnaud are very good players already and we've got other useful players to sprinkle in defensively and platooningly. And yes, like Edgy points out, a 'big bat' doesn't always end up being a big bat. There aren't a lot of locks out there that are even available by trade, where overpay has a whole other meaning, nevermind by free agency.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 06 2015 10:53 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Cuddyer-Lagares-Granderson? I assume you meant Conforto-Lagares-Granderson.

Ceetar Nov 06 2015 10:57 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Cuddyer-Lagares-Granderson? I assume you meant Conforto-Lagares-Granderson. We'll see how Spring goes. I'm not handing Conforto the job based off 3 good weeks back in August.

Centerfield Nov 06 2015 11:08 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Edgy MD wrote: The problem is signing a guy and convincing yourself that he's one big bat and he's not. The idea that the team can absorb mistakes and move on is appealing, but for all teams, that thinking has its limits, and the critical mass of mistakes was a big part of what got the team in the mess in the first place. So I'll take wise over aggressive, no matter what the market size. I think they're going to be fine. And if they don't find their guy by opening day, they can keep looking as they did in 2015. I agree we should not sign a guy who is not actually good. I'm all for prudent spending. I just want to make sure the owners give Sandy the ability to do so. You know, it's not even really about actual spending. It's about the Wilpons giving Sandy the ability to spend. Because I trust he will invest it wisely. Wise should always win out over aggressive, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Sometimes it is wise to be aggressive. Mid-season moves are fine, but it's important to remember that these also have a price. And mid-season moves require prospects. For an organization that has said it's focused on scouting and development, moving prospects does not align with that theory. In the winter, players are available for just cash. Also keep in mind that Yoenis Cespedes might not be available in July 2016. And even if he is, we no longer have Michael Fullmer to trade for him. I think we will be fine too. I like the chatter we are hearing coming out of Flushing. Sandy knows we need offense and has hinted at an uptick in payroll.

Centerfield Nov 06 2015 11:09 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Cuddyer-Lagares-Granderson? I assume you meant Conforto-Lagares-Granderson. We'll see how Spring goes. I'm not handing Conforto the job based off 3 good weeks back in August. Agreed! Let's hand the job to Cuddyer based upon his 4 atrocious months instead!

Ceetar Nov 06 2015 11:11 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Centerfield wrote: Also keep in mind that Yoenis Cespedes might not be available in July 2016. And even if he is, we no longer have Michael Fullmer to trade for him. I'm not sure there's someone available even this offseason who had as good as year as Cespedes last year.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 06 2015 11:24 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Cuddyer-Lagares-Granderson? I assume you meant Conforto-Lagares-Granderson. We'll see how Spring goes. I'm not handing Conforto the job based off 3 good weeks back in August. Agreed! Let's hand the job to Cuddyer based upon his 4 atrocious months instead! So he did mean Cuddyer instead of Conforto. He's not counting on Conforto and still doesn't think the Mets should add a bat. I don't think I'll be starting a Ceetar-for-GM campaign any time soon.

Ceetar Nov 06 2015 11:38 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Benjamin Grimm wrote: So he did mean Cuddyer instead of Conforto. He's not counting on Conforto and still doesn't think the Mets should add a bat. I don't think I'll be starting a Ceetar-for-GM campaign any time soon. We're talking about day one. And I didn't say the Mets shouldn't add a bat, I said trying to target a 'middle of the order' bat is probably a poor way to go about things.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 06 2015 11:43 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Beaters seem to think Muffy and Cespedes will go, we'll go get a LH-hitting center fielder to platoon with Lagares (Rasmus?), and pick up a LH hitting infielder and maybe some bullpenners. Rasmus will hit some home runs but he's never been a great on-base guy. Plus he's weird. I am wondering if and how Cecchini and Nimmo could fit into plans.

Centerfield Nov 06 2015 11:44 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: So he did mean Cuddyer instead of Conforto. He's not counting on Conforto and still doesn't think the Mets should add a bat. I don't think I'll be starting a Ceetar-for-GM campaign any time soon. We're talking about day one. And I didn't say the Mets shouldn't add a bat, I said trying to target a 'middle of the order' bat is probably a poor way to go about things. Agreed. No good hitters for us! You know, instead of magic healing elixir, it might be cheaper to hire Mr. Miyagi to do that handrubbing thing.

Ceetar Nov 06 2015 12:35 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: So he did mean Cuddyer instead of Conforto. He's not counting on Conforto and still doesn't think the Mets should add a bat. I don't think I'll be starting a Ceetar-for-GM campaign any time soon. We're talking about day one. And I didn't say the Mets shouldn't add a bat, I said trying to target a 'middle of the order' bat is probably a poor way to go about things. Agreed. No good hitters for us! You know, instead of magic healing elixir, it might be cheaper to hire Mr. Miyagi to do that handrubbing thing. again, do you have a suggestion of a good hitter that's attainable and fits? I mean, we're basically talking Heyward and Justin Upton right?

Edgy MD Nov 06 2015 03:54 PM Re: Payroll 2016

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Rasmus will hit some home runs but he's never been a great on-base guy. Plus he's weird. He's teenager-who-goes-trick-or-treating-long-past-age-appropriateness-without-a-costume weird. He's sets-fires-in-the-abandoned-lot-with-lighter-fluid weird. He's shows-up-to-parties-everybody-agreed-explicitly-beforehand-he-was-not-to-be-told-about-and-even-though-you-kept-your-eye-on-him-your-mom's-jewelry-is-missing-two-weeks-later-because-he-was-only-casing-the-place-for-a-return-visit weird. [fimg=550]http://cdn23.us1.fansshare.com/photos/colbyrasmus/colby-rasmus-959737647.jpg[/fimg] He's a suburban nightmare.

Centerfield Nov 06 2015 03:58 PM Re: Payroll 2016

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Beaters seem to think Muffy and Cespedes will go, we'll go get a LH-hitting center fielder to platoon with Lagares (Rasmus?), and pick up a LH hitting infielder and maybe some bullpenners. Rasmus will hit some home runs but he's never been a great on-base guy. Plus he's weird. I am wondering if and how Cecchini and Nimmo could fit into plans. That seems to be the most likely path. I'd be really disappointed if that's how this winter played out.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 06 2015 07:12 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Edgy MD wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Rasmus will hit some home runs but he's never been a great on-base guy. Plus he's weird. He's teenager-who-goes-trick-or-treating-long-past-age-appropriateness-without-a-costume weird. He's sets-fires-in-the-abandoned-lot-with-lighter-fluid weird. He's shows-up-to-parties-everybody-agreed-explicitly-beforehand-he-was-not-to-be-told-about-and-even-though-you-kept-your-eye-on-him-your-mom's-jewelry-is-missing-two-weeks-later-because-he-was-only-casing-the-place-for-a-return-visit weird. As of this afternoon, Rasmus is also cost-you-a-draft-pick weird. And where's the dog? Did anyone see the dog? THAT FUCKING RASMUS

Centerfield Nov 07 2015 08:45 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Wow. That takes him off the table no? No way you give up the draft pick for Colby Rasmus.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 07 2015 09:01 AM Re: Payroll 2016

We were saying the same thing about Cuddyer last year.

Vic Sage Nov 07 2015 10:39 AM Re: Payroll 2016

and we were right... there was no way we should have given up a draft pick for Cuddyer last year.

Rockin' Doc Nov 07 2015 12:03 PM Re: Payroll 2016

I like Jason Heyword the best of the available free agent outfield bats. Jason Hayward 26 years old. .268/.353/.431/.784 career averages. OPS+ 114 2015 salary $8.3 mil. Justin Upton 28 years old. .271/.352/.473/.825 carerr averages. OPS+ 121 2015 salary $14.7 mil. Colby Rasmus 29 years old. .247/.313/.443/.756 career averages. OPS+ 105 2015 salary $8.0 mil. I don't think Colby Rasmus stacks up favorably to Heyward and Upton. I would pass on Rasmus, personally. I like Heyward who should be entering his prime years and has been trending uprward the past 2 years. If unable to land any of the free agent outfielders, then another interesting option to me is possibly getting Howie Kendrick to play second base. Howie Kendrick 32 years old .293/.333/.423/.755 Career averages. OPS+ 108 2015 salary $9.85 mil. He could be a good repalcement for Murphy and fit nicely in the 2nd slot in the order should the Mets be unable to get either Heyward or Upton. I have confidence in Alderson to make the appropriate decisions either in the free agent market or through trade, so long as the owners don't tie his hands financially.

Centerfield Nov 08 2015 08:09 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Mark Carig has an article in Newsday that indicates that the Wilpons don't intend to significantly increase payroll. It appears to be all speculation but sounds very plausible if you take into account recent history. Effectively he writes off Murphy and Cespedes. Heyward and Upton are off the table too. He thinks Parra and Span are more likely targets. I don't know how to link it from my phone, but should be easy for you guys to find. I don't know. Thinking about losing talent like Cespedes and Murphy while listening to management justify Gerardo Parra is pretty fucking depressing. I hate the Fucking Wilpons. I hope Carig is wrong.

d'Kong76 Nov 08 2015 08:30 AM Re: Payroll 2016

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ ... 1.11071967

Centerfield Nov 08 2015 08:51 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Thanks KC. You know, as I re-read Sandy's quotes from last week, I don't think Carig is right. I don't think Sandy would say payroll would be higher unless he planned on delivering. Plus Fred Wilpon has said publicly that once attendance goes up, so will payroll. I think we are at the point where he can no longer excuse his nonspending. And if nothing else, that alone will force him to take the handcuffs of of Sandy.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 08 2015 09:00 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Centerfield wrote: Thanks KC. You know, as I re-read Sandy's quotes from last week, I don't think Carig is right. I don't think Sandy would say payroll would be higher unless he planned on delivering. I totally agree with this. Privately, I've been thinking that the Mets will increase payroll for 2016, not only because they're coming off about as good as possible a season as they could've had -- but mainly because Alderson said he hopes the 2016 opening payroll will be higher than last year's opening payroll. I figure that Sandy wouldn't say that if he wasn't sure about the Mets willingness to spend for 2016. He's not, I figure, gonna make a public statement that has the potential to make the owners look bad. I figured that Sandy purposely set a low bar knowing in advance that payroll will increase and the owners, for once, will get to look like heroes for exceeding Sandy's modest wishes. Centerfield wrote: Plus Fred Wilpon has said publicly that once attendance goes up, so will payroll. This I totally discount. These words are meaningless. Fred's an out an out professional bullshit artist.

Edgy MD Nov 08 2015 02:19 PM Re: Payroll 2016

I don't think much of Parra, and he's coming off a bad season, but Span's a player. At least, he is when healthy. (I could say the same about Cuddy, I guess.) Is he healthy?

Ceetar Nov 09 2015 08:55 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Edgy MD wrote: I don't think much of Parra, and he's coming off a bad season, but Span's a player. At least, he is when healthy. (I could say the same about Cuddy, I guess.) Is he healthy? Span, hip surgery on 9/1, 4-6 month recovery time. So he will be recovered, and 'healthy' but hips make me nervous. I feel like it might be one of those injuries that even post surgery limits your rotation/swing/first step defensively.

Vic Sage Nov 09 2015 10:31 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Centerfield wrote: Mark Carig has an article in Newsday that indicates that the Wilpons don't intend to significantly increase payroll. It appears to be all speculation but sounds very plausible if you take into account recent history. Effectively he writes off Murphy and Cespedes. Heyward and Upton are off the table too. He thinks Parra and Span are more likely targets. I don't know how to link it from my phone, but should be easy for you guys to find. I don't know. Thinking about losing talent like Cespedes and Murphy while listening to management justify Gerardo Parra is pretty fucking depressing. I hate the Fucking Wilpons. I hope Carig is wrong. Why is Heyward off the table? He fits all the parameters. He's 27, just coming into the prime of his career; his WAR over the last 3 seasons has increased from 3.4, to 5.2, to 6.0 (Fangraphs); his speed allows him to hit just about anywhere in the lineup; his arm and overall defense are excellent, and he has experience in CF. The only reason we may not sign him is money (assuming he's not otherwise opposed to coming to a pennant winning team in NY), and that would be outrageous betrayal by the Wilpons, and proof that the notions we've had about their financial situation are true.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 09 2015 10:39 AM Re: Payroll 2016

I agree. Heyward looks to me like the kind of guy they should be going after. I hope that the reports that he's "off the table" are inaccurate.

Ceetar Nov 09 2015 10:40 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I agree. Heyward looks to me like the kind of guy they should be going after. I hope that the reports that he's "off the table" are inaccurate. And he was born in my town apparently. well, my mailing address town. my actual town is Johnny Van Der Meers.

Centerfield Nov 09 2015 10:59 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Heyward is actually 26 years old. He has good plate discipline, and as mentioned, fits exactly into the Mets' needs. It's possible that his contract negotiations spiral into ridiculous territory like Robinson Cano. But there is no reason for the Mets to not be right in the thick of things. This is not one of those "wrong side of 30" contracts people write about. Upton is young as well. We will learn a lot this winter. For the last few years, I think the Wilpons got away with not spending because of the "building from within" and "fiscal responsibility" party line. (For me, I think you can build from within AND spend money, but that's another story). Now coming off a World Series, rebuilding is over. It's time to win. Like I mentioned before, I think the Wilpons will open it up this winter. The early indicators are pretty good. And if they do, we're all good. If they don't, then they're fucking broke and need to sell the team to someone who has the means to do it justice.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 09 2015 11:04 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Heyward is a not really a center fielder, so not ideal given we have 3 corner outfielders already and seem to be in need of a RF hitting, fulltime CF or LH hitter to platoon with Lagares. Taking him on would likely mean moving other pieces around, like trading Grandy -- it could be done, but not sure they'd do it.

Edgy MD Nov 09 2015 11:12 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Trading Grandy... to make room for a younger more expensive guy who's not necessarily better. Least, he wasn't last year. Good player, but yeah, the fit isn't obvious.

Centerfield Nov 09 2015 11:12 AM Re: Payroll 2016

This post suggests that Heyward playing a corner OF position has more to do with circumstance than ability. Plus it has video of that great game-saving catch he made in CF against the Mets. The guy flat out covers ground: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/why-dont ... r-fielder/

Edgy MD Nov 09 2015 11:17 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Yeah, I imagine he can play center. I just mean it's not obvious, because of the lack of history there. It certainly works in theory.

Centerfield Nov 09 2015 11:21 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, I imagine he can play center. I just mean it's not obvious, because of the lack of history there. It certainly works in theory. Understood. Lack of history at the position. What that video also tells us is that if we had Heyward this year, the leprechaun would not have gotten a single hit in the NLDS.

Vic Sage Nov 09 2015 12:42 PM Re: Payroll 2016

If Cespedes can play CF, then so can Heyward... and he has. Heyward has played a few hundred innings in CF over the last few years, so, while it hasn't been his primary position, it's not like he doesn't have recent MLB experience there. Upton, on the other hand, hasn't played CF at all, and is a little older, and is nowhere near as productive. The only full-time CFers available are guys like Rasmus, Span, Fowler and Jackson, all of whom are strictly 2nd tier and are near or on the wrong side of 30 (Rasmus and Jackson are 29, Fowler 30, Span 32). They are backup plans, to platoon with Lagares. Our primary goal should be Heyward. And the problem with the Cano deal was that Cano was already over 31, and while still very productive, had at that point 3 consecutive years of decreasing OPS+. At his best, Cano was an 8+/year WAR player. Heyward isn't close to that yet and so doesn't warrant that sort of deal. But buying a guy's 27-32 years, at the cost of overpaying for years 33-37, is a much better sort of 10-year deal than buying a guy's 31-41 years, whatever the price. I think Heyward is probably worth an 8-year/$160m deal, and the Mets should be willing to pay that. Bu even if the bidding goes into Cano territory (10yr/$24m), Cano's deal was signed prior to the last 2 seasons, so that might be the going rate today for a player with a more modest track record but who is significantly younger and still trending upward, coming off a 6+ WAR season. The point is we shouldn't be scared off of him, if Sandy thinks he's the right fit, even if we have to overpay. This will give us a 5-year window with most of our aces and a lineup of Heyward, d'Arnaud, Comforto, Flores and Duda (with Granderson and Wright there early on at least), and Herrera, Nimmo, Cecchini, and Dom Smith in the pipeline. I like our chances. But if Heyward's already off the table, and we're looking at a 2nd tier CFer to replace Cespedes and platoon with Lagares, then i'm not excited, particularly with the Cubs' young studs on the upswing.

HahnSolo Nov 09 2015 12:44 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Any chance we can make an offer to pry Adam Jones from the Os? He's 30 and 3 years left on his deal at about $16mill per. Kind of feel like he'd fit in great in this lineup. They'll need a catcher with Wieters leaving via FA (we have d'Arnaud & Plawecki) They could use a starter (we have depth there…Matz?) And a prospect (Nimmo?) I have no idea if Matz/Plawecki/Nimmo would get me laughed off the phone or if that's giving up way too much. I realize Jones is one of their foundation guys, so they'll probably need to be blown away. I don't know, maybe Jones isn't the right guy, but I'd kind of like the Mets to be working the trade angle more than the FA angle here.

seawolf17 Nov 09 2015 01:16 PM Re: Payroll 2016

HahnSolo wrote: Any chance we can make an offer to pry Adam Jones from the Os? He's 30 and 3 years left on his deal at about $16mill per. Kind of feel like he'd fit in great in this lineup. They'll need a catcher with Wieters leaving via FA (we have d'Arnaud & Plawecki) They could use a starter (we have depth there…Matz?) And a prospect (Nimmo?) I have no idea if Matz/Plawecki/Nimmo would get me laughed off the phone or if that's giving up way too much. I realize Jones is one of their foundation guys, so they'll probably need to be blown away. I don't know, maybe Jones isn't the right guy, but I'd kind of like the Mets to be working the trade angle more than the FA angle here. I would do probably catcher/starter/young arm for Jones.

Ceetar Nov 09 2015 01:20 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Jones strikes me as a guy who's power would dry up at Citi Field and he doesn't walk enough, which means most of his value is going to be defensive and you'd be getting him perhaps just as that starts to ebb?

Edgy MD Nov 09 2015 01:34 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Vic Sage wrote: If Cespedes can play CF, then so can Heyward... and he has. Heyward has played a few hundred innings in CF over the last few years, so, while it hasn't been his primary position, it's not like he doesn't have recent MLB experience there. Upton, on the other hand, hasn't played CF at all, and is a little older, and is nowhere near as productive. Sure, it's meaningful, but hardly definitive. Mets have gone with a few guys with similar resumes in center: Coleman and Cedeño come to mind. Whether he can be a full-timer or a most-timer there is still an open question, I think. I'm not sure how we're getting that Justin Upton is nowhere near as productive. We're talking Justin, right?

Vic Sage Nov 09 2015 02:30 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Upton's WAR over past 3 seasons = 3, 4, 3.6 Heyward = 3.4, 5.2, 6.0 I don't want to overstate the difference here, but looking at WAR, i'd say Upton has been a very productive and consistent corner OFer (and i'd be happy to have him), but that Heyward has been slightly better, is 2 years younger, is better defensively, throws better, runs better, and has major league experience in CF, and has not yet hit the offensive plateau that Upton seems to have.

Edgy MD Nov 09 2015 02:37 PM Re: Payroll 2016

OK, I see the distinction here. You're using WAR, which incorporates defense, which gives Heyward the edge. When you were using the phrase "nowhere near as productive," I was understanding it to be an offensive comparison.

Vic Sage Nov 09 2015 02:39 PM Re: Payroll 2016

I don't know, maybe Jones isn't the right guy, but I'd kind of like the Mets to be working the trade angle more than the FA angle here. i don't understand that view. Why give up players instead of $$, if you don't have to? How often does a 26-27 year old 5-tool stud OFer come onto the open market?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 09 2015 02:43 PM Re: Payroll 2016

HahnSolo wrote: Any chance we can make an offer to pry Adam Jones from the Os? He's 30 and 3 years left on his deal at about $16mill per. Kind of feel like he'd fit in great in this lineup. They'll need a catcher with Wieters leaving via FA (we have d'Arnaud & Plawecki) They could use a starter (we have depth there…Matz?) And a prospect (Nimmo?) I have no idea if Matz/Plawecki/Nimmo would get me laughed off the phone or if that's giving up way too much. I realize Jones is one of their foundation guys, so they'll probably need to be blown away. I don't know, maybe Jones isn't the right guy, but I'd kind of like the Mets to be working the trade angle more than the FA angle here. I think this is an interesting angle.

Edgy MD Nov 09 2015 03:04 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Vic Sage wrote: I don't know, maybe Jones isn't the right guy, but I'd kind of like the Mets to be working the trade angle more than the FA angle here. i don't understand that view. Why give up players instead of $$, if you don't have to? How often does a 26-27 year old 5-tool stud OFer come onto the open market? I'm less convinced that he's a stud so much as the best available guy on the market. Coming into his prime, though.

HahnSolo Nov 09 2015 03:14 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Heyward is definitely intriguing and best available, but my gut says he's re-signing with St. Louis

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2015 03:33 PM Re: Payroll 2016 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 09 2015 03:36 PM

Edgy MD wrote: Vic Sage wrote: I don't know, maybe Jones isn't the right guy, but I'd kind of like the Mets to be working the trade angle more than the FA angle here. i don't understand that view. Why give up players instead of $$, if you don't have to? How often does a 26-27 year old 5-tool stud OFer come onto the open market? I'm less convinced that he's a stud so much as the best available guy on the market. Coming into his prime, though. Like the Wilpons are gonna pay for a stud. It's obvious that they can't even afford Murphy or Cespedes, let alone Murphy and Cespedes, but hardly anyone could admit that so instead they blame the market because there aren't any Willie Fucking Mayses out there. Like the Mets could afford a Willie Fucking Mays.

Edgy MD Nov 09 2015 03:36 PM Re: Payroll 2016

That's an agenda post. My statement stands.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2015 03:37 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Edgy MD wrote: That's an agenda post. My statement stands. Talking to me? What the hell is an agenda? That the owners are fucking broke but if anyone dares mention it, it's an agenda?

Centerfield Nov 09 2015 03:38 PM Re: Payroll 2016

I would certainly be open to trading for Adam Jones if it didn't include Matz. Maybe Wheeler? But the O's most likely don't take that. So the point is likely moot. Also, I don't understand the preference for trades. If you trade Matz you create another hole, which, in all likelihood, will cost money. So you end up paying for Jones, and paying for Matz' replacement. Who in the end, will likely not be as good as Matz. Plus trading young players defies the organizational mantra of player development. Guys, it's not our money. And it's money that they should be spending on payroll.

Edgy MD Nov 09 2015 03:49 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Trades can sometimes be a preferable target in that they sometimes get you a shorter contract for a player that might otherwise expect you to extend beyond your comfort zone, and the value of the contract is a known going in.

Vic Sage Nov 09 2015 03:50 PM Re: Payroll 2016

I'm less convinced that he's a stud so much as the best available guy on the market. That may be true. I'll trust Sandy on this. But if a 5+WAR season is considered an "all-star" year by stat guys, Jason's had 2 consecutive seasons of that, and he's still just 26, so I'd put my money on him. or more accurately, Fred's money.

Edgy MD Nov 09 2015 03:53 PM Re: Payroll 2016

So tiresome. batmagadanleadoff wrote: That's an agenda post. My statement stands. Talking to me? I think you know. batmagadanleadoff wrote: What the hell is an agenda? I think you know. batmagadanleadoff wrote: That the owners are fucking broke but if anyone dares mention it, it's an agenda? I think you know this one too, but no.

Ceetar Nov 09 2015 03:57 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Vic Sage wrote: I'm less convinced that he's a stud so much as the best available guy on the market. That may be true. I'll trust Sandy on this. But if a 5+WAR season is considered an "all-star" year by stat guys, Jason's had 2 consecutive seasons of that, and he's still just 26, so I'd put my money on him. or more accurately, Fred's money. depends how much of All-Star you consider defense, etc. I don't think Adam Jones is it, and i do kinda like Heyward, but the argument for a trade is that the Mets do in fact have pieces, like Niese and Plawecki, that are more valuable to someone else, and you might be able to increase the overall value for your 25 guys that way. And perhaps it's possible to find a guy that fits the team in a more flexible way with fewer risks. Our money or not, broke or not, if you can get similar production without committing 7 years to a player that's not special. Heyward's very good, and can probably play a plus, or at least averagish CF, for at least a few more years, but there are other ways to go.

Centerfield Nov 09 2015 04:03 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Edgy MD wrote: Trades can sometimes be a preferable target in that they sometimes get you a shorter contract for a player that might otherwise expect you to extend beyond your comfort zone, and the value of the contract is a known going in. Sure. That's the upside. The downside is that you give up a prospect that you've been reading about, hoping for, and just when you see a taste of what he can offer you, he's gone. GONE! I mean, Matz for Jones. Are you ok with that? I'd much rather keep Matz and sign Heyward. Look at our rotation. How can anyone break that up? Fuck. If it came to it, I think I'd rather keep Matz and hope for Lagares to get better.

Centerfield Nov 09 2015 04:08 PM Re: Payroll 2016

I got it. Wheeler, Duda, Lagares and Plawecki for Adam Jones. Then go sign Chris Davis. Get it done Sandy!

Ceetar Nov 09 2015 04:14 PM Re: Payroll 2016

rather target Matt Carpenter. Johnny Peralta. Xander Bogaerts.

Edgy MD Nov 09 2015 04:44 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Centerfield wrote: I mean, Matz for Jones. Are you ok with that? Heavens, no.

Edgy MD Nov 09 2015 04:45 PM Re: Payroll 2016

Centerfield wrote: I got it. Wheeler, Duda, Lagares and Plawecki for Adam Jones. Heavens, no AGAIN!

Centerfield Nov 10 2015 09:17 AM Re: Payroll 2016

You know, it occurs to me, if you want to open up a corner OF position, you could slide Granderson over to CF and platoon him with Lagares. Plus have Juan come in for late-inning defense. I don't know how Curtis would be in CF, but he's only 2 years from having played it regularly for the MFY's, and he still seems pretty fast. Arm aside, I thought he played very well in RF this year.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 10 2015 11:40 PM Re: Payroll 2016

I think it says a lot about Granderson's ability to handle center field, and the Mets' feelings on the matter, that Cespedes was passing as a center fielder for two months with this squad over Granderson.

Ceetar Nov 11 2015 08:30 AM Re: Payroll 2016

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I think it says a lot about Granderson's ability to handle center field, and the Mets' feelings on the matter, that Cespedes was passing as a center fielder for two months with this squad over Granderson. I have no doubt Cespedes is a better CFer than Granderson, but I don't know that it'd be the end of the world if the Mets did something that forced Curtis there in 2016.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 11 2015 08:56 AM Re: Payroll 2016

It'd put an old guy with a shitty arm and poor range where a young guy with a good arm and great range used to be. It'd be catastrophic.

Centerfield Nov 11 2015 09:58 AM Re: Payroll 2016

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: It'd put an old guy with a shitty arm and poor range where a young guy with a good arm and great range used to be. It'd be catastrophic. Understood that it's not a perfect solution. But the alternative is downgrading from Cespedes to Lagares. This give you a drop of .300 points of OPS. And this is assuming Conforto and Granderson repeat their performances in 2016. I get that you are not happy about putting Granderson in CF. How do you propose to offset the offense that was lost?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 11 2015 10:07 AM Re: Payroll 2016

This morning I'm leaning to Desmond at SS, Span/Lagares in CF, Flores/Hererra to 2B, banking on a little more pop from Wright, Conforto, Duda & d'Arnaud. That could do it on paper. That's just free agency solutions though; I think they ought to explore Hahn's Adam Jones idea but that's still more moving around stuff.

Centerfield Nov 11 2015 10:28 AM Re: Payroll 2016

I think your idea is far more likely to materialize than mine. One thing I didn't realize until last night is that Desmond is fast. He'll steal 20 bases a year. Couple him with Span, Granderson and Herrera and suddenly you have a running team. Sucks that Washington extended the QO on Desmond.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 11 2015 10:31 AM Re: Payroll 2016

If the Mets were to sign Desmond, would that cancel out the draft pick the Mets would get for losing Murphy? Or would they lose their first round pick, but retain the supplemental pick they'd get for Murphy?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 11 2015 10:33 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Yes Mets get the pick from the Muffy signee & Washington gets Mets' slot. That's a likely drop in the order, but not a huge swing either way.

Ceetar Nov 11 2015 10:34 AM Re: Payroll 2016

Benjamin Grimm wrote: If the Mets were to sign Desmond, would that cancel out the draft pick the Mets would get for losing Murphy? Or would they lose their first round pick, but retain the supplemental pick they'd get for Murphy? they'd lose their first round pick, retain the supplemental.