Master Index of Archived Threads


All The Questions Answered Here

d'Kong76 Dec 14 2015 02:24 PM

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2598 ... -offseason

RealityChuck Dec 14 2015 02:47 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

The thing is, Sandy is playing a long game: He's thinking years down the road. David Wright's contract is going to be an issue in a few years, and signing Cespedes for seven years will only add more problems. He's also going to have to pay at least some of the starters (I've seen analyses that say that keeping all five would be around $100 million a year). A long-term contract for Cespedes would mean they couldn't afford a younger Jacob DeGrom (Harvey will be gone one he hits FA; Scott Boras will make sure of that). The team wants to continue to contend, not just contend next year.

Ceetar Dec 14 2015 02:49 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

RealityChuck wrote: The team wants to continue to contend, not just contend next year. Especially when next year might the easiest year to contend of the next few.

Edgy MD Dec 14 2015 02:53 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

RealityChuck wrote: The team wants to continue to contend, not just contend next year. I don't believe that for a second. It's not an either/or thing. Especially as unsourced reports rolled out last year that the Mets were "really" aiming for 2016 were taken as straight-from-the-mouth-of-Fred.

Edgy MD Dec 14 2015 02:54 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Edgy MD wrote: RealityChuck wrote: The team wants to continue to contend, not just contend next year. I don't believe that for a second. It's not an either/or thing. Especially as unsourced reports rolled out last year that the Mets were "really" aiming for 2016 were taken as straight-from-the-mouth-of-Fred. The now-or-later dichotomy is silly. Organizations can and do strive for both, to different degrees.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 14 2015 03:14 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

I think what he's saying is that the Mets don't want to go all in for 2016 at the expense of future seasons. Chuck isn't saying anything about "either/or".

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 14 2015 03:18 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

The article doesn't say anything any of us don't already know, it just comes to a dumber conclusion.

Edgy MD Dec 14 2015 03:19 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

See, now, there's two ways of reading "not just," and my way was the less authentic reading. You're right. In fact, I may have dyslexically read "not just" as "just not." My apologies for the mis-reading, Chuck.

d'Kong76 Dec 14 2015 03:22 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: The article doesn't say anything any of us don't already know, it just comes to a dumber conclusion. B-i-n-g-o

Centerfield Dec 14 2015 03:29 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

So the Mets certainly have the ability to acquire the offensive power they need through either a trade or free agency. But signing an expensive free agent to a long-term deal before knowing if he is truly needed— or unloading young players in trades before they have reached their maximum trade value—is not the right way to go about building a team that can be a World Series contender in coming years. This makes a lot of sense. In the coming years, this team can become a real World Series contender. Let's wait until then.

Centerfield Dec 14 2015 03:35 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

RealityChuck wrote: The thing is, Sandy is playing a long game: He's thinking years down the road. David Wright's contract is going to be an issue in a few years, and signing Cespedes for seven years will only add more problems. He's also going to have to pay at least some of the starters (I've seen analyses that say that keeping all five would be around $100 million a year). A long-term contract for Cespedes would mean they couldn't afford a younger Jacob DeGrom (Harvey will be gone one he hits FA; Scott Boras will make sure of that). The team wants to continue to contend, not just contend next year. David Wright's contract will expire in five years. The same year that deGrom becomes available for free agency. It will have no impact on the ability to keep deGrom, Syndegaard or Matz. Same thing for Cespedes if you can get him to sign for five (BTW, he is looking for a 6 year deal, I would not advise giving him an extra year just for the hell of it.) Heyward, had we gone that route, would have opted out several years prior. We can agree to disagree on this, but I think you spend the money now, when you have a legitimate chance to win the World Series. I would not "save" it for 5 years down the line when we have no idea what these pitchers and the rest of the team will look like. If the Mets cannot afford a top tier payroll now, what makes you think they can afford one then? And if you keep all these pitchers, who will hit for that team?

d'Kong76 Dec 14 2015 03:38 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Centerfield wrote: This makes a lot of sense. In the coming years, this team can become a real World Series contender. Let's wait until then. Well yeah, they haven't been to a World Series since 2000 so what's another year or two.

Nymr83 Dec 14 2015 03:42 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

the article wrote: Clearly New York has some ground to make up in the middle of their lineup if they are to mount another run at a World Series title in 2016. arguably yes, but "clearly"? a full season of Wright, Conforto, & d'Arnaud would already make for an improvement. the article wrote: The Mets would like to resolve these issues before shelling out a boatload of money for a big-bat free agent that they may not even need right now. wait a minute, a minute ago they "clearly" needed the big bat, now they don't? lazy writing.

Centerfield Dec 14 2015 03:57 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

That being said, Chuck's post raises the question on the "proper" way to run a baseball team. Contend every year? Or contend in spurts, with short rebuilding years between? Ideally, if you run your organization well, you can contend every year. Talent that is lost is replenished through a strong focus on scouting and development. Contracts expire allowing money to be re-invested in new talent. A team makes a run at the post-season year after year. The problem is, I have yet to see anyone accomplish this. In my opinion, down years and rebuilding are inevitable. You build your base. When they arrive, and hopefully fulfill their promise, you open up the books, surround them with elite talent, and give yourself a five year window of contention. And during that time you go for it. The idea, after all, is to win championships. As that core ages or becomes too expensive, you sell off pieces, rebuild, restock, and hope that your next 5 year window is only a season or two away. And I think having top tier resources helps, whichever model you may be pursuing.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 14 2015 03:58 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Centerfield wrote: The problem is, I have yet to see anyone accomplish this. The Atlanta Braves had a long stretch where this plan was working for them. What was it, twelve straight division titles?

Centerfield Dec 14 2015 04:04 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Centerfield wrote: The problem is, I have yet to see anyone accomplish this. The Atlanta Braves had a long stretch where this plan was working for them. What was it, twelve straight division titles? You're right! How soon I forget. 14 straight titles. I take it back. Win every year!

d'Kong76 Dec 14 2015 04:19 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Centerfield wrote: I take it back. Win every year! Sprinkled with a few more World Championships than they netted, please. Another good thing about winning every year in NY is that you can afford to not lose all cheap pitching with all the added revenue. Assuming the Mets will one day spend like a NY team.

Edgy MD Dec 14 2015 07:09 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

I like this thread.

Ceetar Dec 14 2015 07:16 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

d'Kong76 wrote: Centerfield wrote: I take it back. Win every year! Sprinkled with a few more World Championships than they netted, please. Another good thing about winning every year in NY is that you can afford to not lose all cheap pitching with all the added revenue. Assuming the Mets will one day spend like a NY team. and based on supply/demand, playoff ticket prices (At least secondary ones) will come down.

d'Kong76 Dec 14 2015 07:25 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Ceetar wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: and based on supply/demand, playoff ticket prices (At least secondary ones) will come down. Let's not get crazy, the fans will get it inathendough.

RealityChuck Dec 14 2015 07:51 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think what he's saying is that the Mets don't want to go all in for 2016 at the expense of future seasons. Chuck isn't saying anything about "either/or". Thank you. That was my point. We don't want Sandy to be Omar Mayana -- spending now but then missing the playoffs for nine years. If he breaks the bank for a long term deal for Cespedis, in five years everyone who has posted in this thread will be complaining about how we had to let Syndergaard and Degrom and Wheeler go because we're still paying for a washed-up Cespedis.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 15 2015 12:51 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Centerfield wrote: Centerfield wrote: The problem is, I have yet to see anyone accomplish this. The Atlanta Braves had a long stretch where this plan was working for them. What was it, twelve straight division titles? You're right! How soon I forget. 14 straight titles. I take it back. Win every year! The Cardinals are kinda doing that at the moment, aren't they? The Giants are kinda yo-yo doing that, with the every-other-year-ing.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2015 02:56 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

You know why the Braves were able to win so many consecutive division titles? I'll tell you why. Because Fred Wilpon is one pathetic owner and he'd continue to be pathetic even if him and his family never ever met Bernie Madoff. Believe me, that era of Braves dominance sez as much about the Mets as it does about the Braves.

d'Kong76 Dec 15 2015 03:44 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Believe me, that era of Braves dominance sez as much about the Mets as it does about the Braves. Never thought about it that way.

Centerfield Dec 15 2015 04:33 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Mitigating Factors: 1. First 3 division titles were in the NL West. 2. Wilpons were co-owners during most of that time 3. There were 3 other teams in the NL East during that time 4. They did have 3 HOF pitchers and a HOF 3rd baseman. I wonder though, if Atlanta would have been able to hold that team together in today's market. Those pitchers are all $30 million/year. Chipper is worth $20 easy. That's $110 million on 4 players.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2015 05:39 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 16 2015 09:59 AM

Mitigating Factors: 1. First 3 division titles were in the NL West. 2. Wilpons were co-owners during most of that time 3. There were 3 other teams in the NL East during that time 4. They did have 3 HOF pitchers and a HOF 3rd baseman. Fred Wilpon was the Mets de facto owner, if not the outright legal majority owner of the Mets in every single season that the Braves and Mets were in the same division. Besides, you're gonna mitigate why the Mets went 20 years between first place finishes when they had every single economic advantage a baseball team could possibly have? Fred Wilpon is much worse than simply a Madoff problem. He's the worst thing that ever happened to the Mets and his idiot son hasn't even fully taken over yet. More bad will come.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 16 2015 07:14 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

The Braves between 1991 and 2005 won their division in every year except their first year in East '94. They had a grand total of one manager and one GM in that period. The Mets over the same period had 6 general managers and 8 managers. Moreover their strategy varied from one year to to the next, as did their seeming level of commitment to whatever philosophy they were behind. And whatever the payroll was they always operated as though they were pinned up against it -- that's a Wilponny theme that continues to this day, which is one reason it's not worth it to worry yourselves over a particular payroll figure: Whatever it is at a given moment, it's always the most you can spend. Mets went from a "baseball man" GM (Hunsicker) to an accountant (Harazin) to a scouting-based rebuild (McIlvaine) to Steve Phillips and his cellphone to a wannabe moneyballer (Duquette) back to a scouting guy (Minaya) The Mets either loved free agents or hated them. They sometimes coveted their prospects and other times used them as currency. They "went for it" more often than not, but cut every corner on the way there. I think above all they wanted to give an impression they were going for it whether or not they actually were, and to the Wilpons there was never any difference.

Vic Sage Dec 16 2015 09:23 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

oh yeah, Johhny. say it again... slowly. That's it. Right there. yeah...

d'Kong76 Dec 16 2015 09:31 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Kinda depressing, all there in plain black and white like that.

Ceetar Dec 16 2015 09:38 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

and yet the Mets are arguably the most successful expansion franchise.

d'Kong76 Dec 16 2015 09:45 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

What does that have to do with a decade-and-a-half of living in the shadow of the Braves? Tell us, Ceetar! Tell us!

Centerfield Dec 16 2015 09:54 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Moreover their strategy varied from one year to to the next, as did their seeming level of commitment to whatever philosophy they were behind.... Mets went from a "baseball man" GM (Hunsicker) to an accountant (Harazin) to a scouting-based rebuild (McIlvaine) to Steve Phillips and his cellphone to a wannabe moneyballer (Duquette) back to a scouting guy (Minaya)...The Mets either loved free agents or hated them. They sometimes coveted their prospects and other times used them as currency. I always assumed then that this back and forth in terms of philosophy was a result of two co-owners with different philosophies, who hated each other. One would win over, and they would follow the plan for a while, and then when it failed, the other had the ammo he needed to push his agenda. Now that they have had sole control for a while, it's pretty clear that this is just the Wilpon way. Back on the old board, Ms. Met used to be sold on some crazy theories, but one thing she nailed was her assessment of the Wilpons. Regarding payroll, you're correct. It's always been one excuse after another. TV contract is bad. We need to get out of it. TV contract is better, but man, if only we had our own network like the Yankees. Sure, SNY is nice, but our Stadium is old and outdated. We need a new one with more luxury boxes. This new stadium sure is expensive! We are rebuilding around young pitching. We will spend once they are ready. Attendance is so low. Come out to the games and we will spend more! Promise! Those pitchers we have will be expensive in 5 years. We need to save money to retain them! One thing I disagree about is the Wilpons being immune to public pressure. I think they are image conscious enough that if there is pressure to spend, they will do it. But as long as they can sell the idea of being "cost-conscious" and demonize "over spending", they will continue to spend as little as possible. I agree that the Wilpons care less about actual success, as much as they care about trying to make it seem like they are trying to succeed.

Ceetar Dec 16 2015 10:00 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

d'Kong76 wrote: What does that have to do with a decade-and-a-half of living in the shadow of the Braves? Tell us, Ceetar! Tell us! well, we made the playoffs twice during that stretch (And also ended said stretch) and the World Series once. Just feels like the pitchers and Chipper had a lot more to do with it than the Wilpons. I mean, I was as annoyed as anyone they didn't get A-Rod (and/or Vlad) and other ancillary pieces to avoid the 99-00 team falling to pieces, but it felt like more of a misunderstanding of the true value of baseball players and of the growing market and salaries. It seems to me to be more a failure to be on the cutting edge or at least out in front of changing landscapes than it does some wicked conspiracy to try just hard enough to appear to be trying without actually trying. Which, btw, if you think is what they're doing, they're clearly failing at it. Not that I think they prioritize a playoff berth every year, but that's true of every team. Profitability and sustained competitiveness so fans stay interested in the product.

d'Kong76 Dec 16 2015 10:04 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Ceetar wrote: Just feels like the pitchers and Chipper had a lot more to do with it than the Wilpons. They certainly were talented (and had the benefit of strike zones never seen before or since) but the buck has to stop somewhere and the buck stops in Fred's back pocket and never sees daylight most years it feels like to many.

Centerfield Dec 16 2015 10:05 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Mitigating Factors: 1. First 3 division titles were in the NL West. 2. Wilpons were co-owners during most of that time 3. There were 3 other teams in the NL East during that time 4. They did have 3 HOF pitchers and a HOF 3rd baseman. Fred Wilpon was the Mets de facto owner, if not the outright legal majority owner of the Mets in every single season that the Braves and Mets were in the same division. Besides, you're gonna mitigate why the Mets went 20 years between first place finishes when they had every single economic advantage a baseball team could possibly have? Fred Wilpon is much worse than simply a Madoff problem. He's the worst thing that ever happened to the Mets and his idiot son hasn't even fully taken over yet. More bad will come. I don't know how much control Wilpon had over Doubleday. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I don't know. My larger point is that there was more to the Braves run than Wilpon incompetency. I agree completely about the Wilpons being the worst thing that happened to the Mets. Been saying that for a while now, and pretty much non-stop since the rumors came out that the Mets were not pursuing big name free agents this winter.

Centerfield Dec 16 2015 10:22 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: Just feels like the pitchers and Chipper had a lot more to do with it than the Wilpons. They certainly were talented (and had the benefit of strike zones never seen before or since) but the buck has to stop somewhere and the buck stops in Fred's back pocket and never sees daylight most years it feels like to many. They were talented. They were incredibly lucky to have three Hall of Fame starters mature at the same time. And just as that happened, they called up Chipper, who turned into a HoF third baseman. But they did not stop there. Once they had that core, they surrounded them with elite talent and fully committed to winning. After their first division title in 1991, the Braves drastically increased their payroll, taking them from 19th in baseball, all the way to 7th. From that point on, until the end of their run, Atlanta consistently funded the roster with a top tier payroll (anywhere from 2 to 7). Only after the Mets ended their streak in 2006, did Atlanta's payroll drop to down again to 15th. Man, I wish the Mets could one day be in a position to get a couple of elite young starting pitchers and a high ceiling position player develop all at the same time. What a tremendous opportunity that would be.

Centerfield Dec 16 2015 10:26 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

I think it's funny that d'Kong coined this thread title in jest, but in the end, it ends up being a great thread with lots of great input.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 16 2015 10:37 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Ceetar wrote: It seems to me to be more a failure to be on the cutting edge or at least out in front of changing landscapes than it does some wicked conspiracy to try just hard enough to appear to be trying without actually trying This is the most brilliantly phrased thing you've ever written here (bold italicized). Concise, punchy and right to the point -- nailing that 25 year essence of Fred in just a few words. Too bad you wrote it mainly to strike it down.

Ceetar Dec 16 2015 10:40 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: It seems to me to be more a failure to be on the cutting edge or at least out in front of changing landscapes than it does some wicked conspiracy to try just hard enough to appear to be trying without actually trying This is the most brilliantly phrased thing you've ever written here (bold italicized). Concise, punchy and right to the point. Too bad you wrote it mainly to strike it down. Because the idea that they're only making token moves to appear to be interested but don't actually fool anyone is absurd. What, they just lucked into the various success, however brief, over the years?

batmagadanleadoff Dec 16 2015 10:44 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: It seems to me to be more a failure to be on the cutting edge or at least out in front of changing landscapes than it does some wicked conspiracy to try just hard enough to appear to be trying without actually trying This is the most brilliantly phrased thing you've ever written here (bold italicized). Concise, punchy and right to the point -- nailing that 25 year essence of Fred in just a few words.. Too bad you wrote it mainly to strike it down. Because the idea that they're only making token moves to appear to be interested but don't actually fool anyone is absurd. What, they just lucked into the various success, however brief, over the years? I'm sure Fred wants to win. He just doesn't know how even though he's been given enormous advantages over his competition. They're not token moves. They're half assed moves. Or as Breaking Bad's Mike would've said -- half measures.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 16 2015 10:49 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: It seems to me to be more a failure to be on the cutting edge or at least out in front of changing landscapes than it does some wicked conspiracy to try just hard enough to appear to be trying without actually trying This is the most brilliantly phrased thing you've ever written here (bold italicized). Concise, punchy and right to the point -- nailing that 25 year essence of Fred in just a few words.. Too bad you wrote it mainly to strike it down. Because the idea that they're only making token moves to appear to be interested but don't actually fool anyone is absurd. What, they just lucked into the various success, however brief, over the years? I'm sure Fred wants to win. He just doesn't know how even though he's been given enormous advantages over his competition. They're not token moves. They're half assed moves. Or as Breaking Bad's Mike would've said -- half measures. It's like needing a first baseman and going after Mo Vaughn, fat, grossly overweight and more than a year removed from his last swing in anger even though baseball's best first baseman -- Jason Giambi -- was also on the market. And if Giambi didn't want to play for the Mets because the atmosphere here had gotten so polluted over the years that many top tier free agents (and I don't know whether Giambi was one of those) had no interest in signing with the Mets, well whose fault was that?

d'Kong76 Dec 16 2015 10:53 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Ceetar wrote: Because the idea that they're only making token moves to appear to be interested but don't actually fool anyone is absurd. Hardly absurd, we used to have a mole at Shea that used to report from the air conditioning ducts that they were indeed doing just that while drinking fancy champagne while counting the dough! Ceetar wrote: What, they just lucked into the various success, however brief, over the years? Yes, and one could make an argument that 2015 was one of the years.

Centerfield Dec 16 2015 10:56 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

d'Kong76 wrote: while drinking fancy champagne while counting the dough! Did he report who opened the bottle for them?

themetfairy Dec 16 2015 11:03 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

How big was the bottle? Comically big?

Ceetar Dec 16 2015 11:04 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Wait, is he wanting to win but unwilling to fully commit to it? why? how? Or does he hope he wins and just vetoes expensive guys he doesn't like? Why would GMs work like that? Why do most reports seem to indicate the Wilpons don't really meddle that much? He didn't just get Mo Vaughn though, there was also Roberto Alomar, who was literally 50% better than average the year before. Plus Vaughn was actually fine in 2002, similar to 2000. I don't know that the Mets were expecting 34 off an injury Vaughn to be '98 Vaughn. The real problem was all the starts they gave to Estes, Astacio and D'Amico. Did Giambi not want to come here? I dunno. I doubt that, if they'd paid him. I'm not sure if that would've been wise either.

d'Kong76 Dec 16 2015 11:11 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Ceetar wrote: Why do most reports seem to indicate the Wilpons don't really meddle that much? I give up. Uncle.

Ceetar Dec 16 2015 11:15 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: Why do most reports seem to indicate the Wilpons don't really meddle that much? I give up. Uncle. I know this is one of those "I won't believe this report because it doesn't fit my narrative" swing things, but it does seem like there are more 'Wilpons aren't involved in these decisions" comments than not.

Fman99 Dec 16 2015 11:38 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Ceetar wrote: and yet the Mets are arguably the most successful expansion franchise. Which is about as awesome has having the smallest cold sore on your face.

d'Kong76 Dec 16 2015 11:51 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

I have a narrative swing thing? *pumps up chest, gives a small roar*

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 16 2015 11:53 AM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Ceets we don;t really disagree -- I think the Wilpons want to win, and do try, and sometimes succeed, and aren't clever enough to be pulling wool over our eyes. What I meant was I don't think they're bright enough to discern the difference between things that work and processes that result in things that work, and that due to their being often threadbare and easily influenced by the appearance of things they by default shoot for the first option all the time. This also explains why for parts or all of the Braves Era they missed the boat on Moneyball, couldn't develop a decent prospect if their lives depended on it, underinvested in the draft and staffing, and challenged them seriously only once or twice in that 15 year stretch.

Ceetar Dec 16 2015 12:09 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Ceets we don;t really disagree -- I think the Wilpons want to win, and do try, and sometimes succeed, and aren't clever enough to be pulling wool over our eyes. What I meant was I don't think they're bright enough to discern the difference between things that work and processes that result in things that work, and that due to their being often threadbare and easily influenced by the appearance of things they by default shoot for the first option all the time. This also explains why for parts or all of the Braves Era they missed the boat on Moneyball, couldn't develop a decent prospect if their lives depended on it, underinvested in the draft and staffing, and challenged them seriously only once or twice in that 15 year stretch. Of course that's true of the other three teams as well. I think there was some solid process after Moneyball, though not as fast. Duquette started it and Minaya didn't dismantle it, though maybe they didn't push it as hard as they should've. Perhaps the Wilpons get giddy when things start to work, like in '09/'10 after failures but with still a good team and a new stadium. Maybe that's when they get too involved, desperately clinging as things start to fade and they trust the GM less and they mess up the process. They probably waited at least a year too long to switch again, but the Alderson signing seemed like good process and so did promoting Terry. Minor league coordinator who knew a lot of the prospects we knew were coming up. Seemed like good process and he turned out to be..fine enough. I can't speak to the 90s process as I wasn't paying as much attention and didn't know as much as I do now. The Mitchell Report made it seem like they had the right process (amphetamines and steroids) they just had the wrong guys taking them.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 16 2015 12:26 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Regarding the "Alderson signing" as noted elsewhere I don't think the Wilpons decided one day they needed a team of people who knew what they were doing at the helm so much as their lenders demanded they get some.

Ceetar Dec 16 2015 12:39 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Regarding the "Alderson signing" as noted elsewhere I don't think the Wilpons decided one day they needed a team of people who knew what they were doing at the helm so much as their lenders demanded they get some. I don't think I buy that story. I'm sure there was pressure, maybe even MLB pressure, to get financially profitable again, at least from a strict team-revenue vs. team-payroll standpoint. (Plus the rough adherence to this as a budget could support that view) and maybe they let them know Sandy was willing to GM again. Maybe they even suggested he'd be a good fit, but I definitely don't think they forced their hand or demanded that they hire him. And from Sandy's side, I don't think he would've taken the job had it been an assignment from MLB.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 16 2015 01:19 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Since Fred does whatever Bud asks of him -- don;t wear those service hats, hire a minority GM, etc etc -- he didn't need to be "forced." They certainly required MLB's cooperation in getting him to come over considering they employed him at the time.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 16 2015 01:26 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

Yeah, I don't think Sandy was "forced" on Fred. I think Bud suggested Sandy and Fred said okay.

Ceetar Dec 16 2015 01:27 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Since Fred does whatever Bud asks of him -- don;t wear those service hats, hire a minority GM, etc etc -- he didn't need to be "forced." They certainly required MLB's cooperation in getting him to come over considering they employed him at the time. glad they don't wear those hats. And I think they liked Omar with or without MLB. MLB should probably do more pushing of minority candidates than they've done. They did interview 5 other people and chose Alderson, though I don't think any of the other 5 got GM jobs since, so perhaps you could call them token interviews in a fixed race. But MLB saying "Hey, Alderson's looking to GM again, interview him" is a lot different than them manipulating the process to keep the Wilpons around by making sure they toe the line. At least in the sense that most of the owners were probably pretty buddy-buddy with the commissioner and it's how they get favors like supporting pet causes and All-Star games done.

Edgy MD Dec 16 2015 01:31 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

I like Omar too. But he stunk up the house. I think we all know how farcical the GM search was. It was a façade of a procedure leading to Alderson from the first beat. In my fantasy, Fred called the shots. "I want Alderson, Bud. And maybe you can grease the skids a little by paying him a nice little exit bonus, and promising him a fat job after he's done saving my neck. WHY should you do that? Seriously? Because I let you force Minaya down my throat, from whence he wrecked my whole organization. You OWE me, you little shit. You get me Alderson or I go straight to Sports Illustrated and tell them how you strong-armed me into your little affirmative action sideshow. Really? WATCH me." "And you know, since you're being such a dick about it, I want Ricciardi and DePodesta too." Yeah, it totally happened that way.

d'Kong76 Dec 16 2015 01:39 PM Re: All The Questions Answered Here

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I don't think the Wilpons decided one day they needed a team of people who knew what they were doing at the helm so much as their lenders demanded they get some. Absolutely. Ceetar wrote: I don't think I buy that story. Of course you don't. Oh wait, I forgot... I gave up. (climbing back on wagon)