Master Index of Archived Threads


Koo gone, Wright "renewed"

Frayed Knot Mar 03 2006 01:01 AM

From Mets.com: "The Mets have sold the contract of left-handed reliever Dae-Sung Koo, who wasn't very effective in most of his 33 appearances with the Mets last season, to the Hanwha Eagles in Korea." Well, that's one lefty out of the sweepstakes. So long Mr. Koo. Also: The Mets "renewed" the contract of David Wright, for $374,000 Essentially, because Wright has no power in negotiations for another two years ("I've got no hand" says David, "I need to get hand!") he can negotiate for what he thinks he deserves but the club has the power to simply assign him a contract amount with or without his agreement if it doesn't want to meet that price. The Mets decided to not make a special case for Wright and instead stuck with "their formula" basing the amount on service time with a cost-of-living increase. As a result his salary was upped from last year's $322,500. Wright's only comment on the matter was "respectful disagreement". It's the team's first salary renewal since Butch Huskey in 1998. All other remaining contracts were dealt with as well - all for the "3 & under" guys. Reyes, with a year & change more service time than Wright, signed for $401,500

soupcan Mar 03 2006 07:31 AM

That's crap. Both of those guys should have been given significant raises. Would paying them each $500,000.00 have broken the Mets backs? No and it would have given them some good will with the players. I'll slip David & Jose a coupla bucks this weekend.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 03 2006 07:38 AM

Pass that hat around. Here's one of the few Mets' policies that makes some sense to me. Anything you'd pay players above and beyond what you are compelled to pay them is pure waste. The COLAs and c. they're tossing in is money pissed away in the cause of PR, not players' good will. When the time comes, they'll hold the Mets up for every cent they can lay their hands on, and more power to them, but there's no reason to throw money away trying to gain their good will or a future home town discount. They'll get whatever they can, and no one's going to say "I'll give the Mets a break because they gave me 20,000 dollars my third year when they didn't have to."

duan Mar 03 2006 07:47 AM

if that's the case how come the mets haven't had an arbitration hearing in YEARS. There's always a point where you say 'No'. He makes a case, they say, "by our reckoning you've been really really good and what we did in the past with guys like you is pay them 30% (or whatever the figure is) more then we have to. If we put you at 450k this year then if Victor Diaz has a good year we'll be locked into doing it for him too - Don't forget Jose's only getting 400k and he's been in the ML for a year more then you.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 03 2006 07:58 AM

duan wrote: if that's the case how come the mets haven't had an arbitration hearing in YEARS. Because they negotiate rather than arbitrate? Duan, I'm saying I agree with the Mets in this instance. But there's no advantage in offering players huge loads of money before they're arb-el, just these token figures.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 03 2006 09:02 AM

In a similar situation, the Phillies did the same renewal thing with their bright young star, Chase Utley, whose name is a sentence.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 03 2006 09:06 AM

And just to clarify, I'm not saying that it's counter-productive in dealing with potential arbitration cases. It probably helps to have a token of good will there. I'm just saying that it's not as if this move saves them a ton in persuading potential FAs to stick with the Mets because of 20,000 way back when.

Frayed Knot Mar 03 2006 09:46 AM

Renewal is a fairly standard practice everywhere. Wright's still 2 years away from arbitration and probably at least as far from being offered a long (or even long-ish) term contract. You can argue that he's a special case because of his success over his first year and a half but the Yanx & Marlins did the same with Jeter & Cabrera who had starts at least as good. Jeter, as I recall, did his share of grumbling over it at the time.

Elster88 Mar 03 2006 09:53 AM

There's no loyalty in this business, and yet Bagwell should retire because the Astros have been so good to him.

soupcan Mar 03 2006 10:21 AM

I'm a big believer in doing what's right in business even though it may not garner you the most money. If down the road an raise that the Mets were not compelled to give to Wright and Reyes does not produce any good will then shame on the players but at least Fred and Omar and whoever can always say that they were always more than fair when it came to compensation. That's how I handle my business and yes, I've definitely gotten burned in the past but I also have a core of very loyal employees. Its just money and yet a (relatively) little bit of can go a very long way.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 03 2006 10:24 AM

Can I come and work for you, Soupy?

soupcan Mar 03 2006 10:27 AM

Hmmmm, unfortunately I don't have any openings for Caustic Fucktard English Professors right now. I'll keep you in mind should anything come up.

Elster88 Mar 03 2006 10:28 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 03 2006 10:30 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: there's no reason to throw money away trying to gain their good will or a future home town discount. They'll get whatever they can, and no one's going to say "I'll give the Mets a break because they gave me 20,000 dollars my third year when they didn't have to." Money always talks in the end when free agent time comes around. But who knows. The Mets could've thrown a little (but more than 20 grand) love David's way. It's not like they can't afford it. Maybe he'd be more willing to negotiate a long term deal before free agency if they treat him right now. A guy like David is the guy you want to stick around a while. Edit: typo

soupcan Mar 03 2006 10:29 AM

Elster88 wrote: Money always talks in the end when free agent time comes around. But who knows. The Mets could've thrown a little (but more than 20 grand) love David's way. It's not like they can't afford it. Maybe he'd me more willing to negotiate a long term deal before free agency if they treat him right now. A guy like David is the guy you want to stick around a while. That's all I'm saying.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 03 2006 10:37 AM

soupcan wrote: ="Elster88"]Money always talks in the end when free agent time comes around. But who knows. The Mets could've thrown a little (but more than 20 grand) love David's way. It's not like they can't afford it. Maybe he'd me more willing to negotiate a long term deal before free agency if they treat him right now. A guy like David is the guy you want to stick around a while. That's all I'm saying. And I'm saying that amount, such as the amount they're voluntarily paying him right now, over and above the amount they must pay him, is a token amount in the context of FA salaries. And anything above that token amount costs them real money, or real ill-will, down the line from future rookies: "You gave David x bazillion dollars when you needed only to pay him Y hundred thousand dollars, you can give me a piddling raise too, because I hit 3 HRs my rookie year, No? Did you say NO? You suck hairy moose bbbyyyy."

soupcan Mar 03 2006 10:40 AM

Well if that guy accusing them of sucking hairy moose cock had a year like Wright's at that age at that point in his career he would have a point. Case by case by resume-peddling friend.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 03 2006 10:57 AM

I think the part that always cracks me up about Widey's colorful image (I'm pretty sure Widey came up with it) is the necessary specificity that the moose cock is a hairy one, like a bald moose cock wouldn't be objectionable.

MFS62 Mar 03 2006 11:09 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: I think the part that always cracks me up about Widey's colorful image (I'm pretty sure Widey came up with it) is the necessary specificity that the moose cock is a hairy one, like a bald moose cock wouldn't be objectionable. Memo to self: Next time I run into Roger Clemens I'll ask him how different they taste. Later

Yancy Street Gang Mar 03 2006 11:11 AM

seawolf17 Mar 03 2006 11:36 AM

And as is typical CPF style, this thread degenerated quickly.

Elster88 Mar 03 2006 11:37 AM

It could be worse. At some boards you would've already gotten five post with pictures of actual moose balls. Or even worse....pictures of Sandra Oh.

Elster88 Mar 03 2006 11:38 AM

Dammit. Again a stupid remark randomly selected to head the new page.

seawolf17 Mar 03 2006 11:53 AM

I hate when that happens! Someone clicks on to Page 2 now and thinks "What do moose balls have to do with David Wright and Mr. Koo?" Of course, perhaps that's part of the fun.

Willets Point Mar 03 2006 12:02 PM

A Moose ball:

Yancy Street Gang Mar 03 2006 12:04 PM

Carried over from the previous page:

MFS62 Mar 03 2006 12:58 PM

Yancy, same complaint. Different reason. http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=1817 Later

Frayed Knot Mar 03 2006 01:30 PM

Back to topic; I don't guess we'll ever know, but I wonder what $$ figure young David and his agent had in mind? Half-a-mil maybe? Not sure how many 1+ year players have reached that. On a good note, the one thing that did NOT happen (though occasionally does in these cases ) is that the team didn't "punish" the player for not accepting their number by sticking him with an even lesser figure. "Oh ... so you don't want to sign for 374K eh? OK, in that case we're renewing you at $330K" We now return you to your discussion of large, hairy moosecocks, already in progress.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 03 2006 01:43 PM

="Frayed Knot"]Back to topic; I don't guess we'll ever know, but I wonder what $$ figure young David and his agent had in mind? Half-a-mil maybe? Not sure how many 1+ year players have reached that. On a good note, the one thing that did NOT happen (though occasionally does in these cases ) is that the team didn't "punish" the player for not accepting their number by sticking him with an even lesser figure. "Oh ... so you don't want to sign for 374K eh? OK, in that case we're renewing you at $330K" We now return you to your discussion of large, hairy moosecocks, already in progress. Like I said, I like this policy. It rewards young players like Wright and Reyes who plainly outperform your typical rookie, yet if you get a swelled-head asshole at some point who insists that he get some fraction of what Wright and Reyes got because the asshole feels he too performed better than a typical rookie, giving him a proportional number will soothe his feelings over and not blow your budget out of the water.

Rotblatt Mar 03 2006 01:51 PM

I'm with Sal on this one--I think it's a good policy. If we can't reach an agreement with them on a new contract, we renew the old one with a little bit of a boost based on service time. I have no doubt that we'll be able to lock Wright in to a lucrative, long-term deal before he reaches free agency. Unless, of course, our team sucks hariy moose cock by then.

Frayed Knot Mar 03 2006 01:53 PM

Well, I think Wright's point (and that of those who are objecting here) is that he's NOT being rewarded for a stellar rookie-ish season. Essentially they're giving him a salary based on service time more than on what he accomplished in that short span. If there were another player with the same year-and-change time but mediocre stats how much less could they pay him ... 350K?, $340K? ML min is already something like 325K so that's the point you're starting from. Like I said, the 2nd yr salary based on service time is pretty much standard practice around the league apparently - but the counter argument is that Wright's the type of guy for whom you'd make the exception. They chose not to.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 03 2006 01:59 PM

Last year's Rookie of the Year, Ryan Howard, will be getting $355,000 from the Phillies.

Frayed Knot Mar 03 2006 02:15 PM

]I don't guess we'll ever know, but I wonder what $$ figure young David and his agent had in mind? Half-a-mil maybe? Not sure how many 1+ year players have reached that. Upon a little research: Jeter: $550K following R-o-Y season & coming off a much lower ($130K) ML min. Only 1 year of service (as opposed to Wright 1-1/2) I remember the Yanx renewing Jeter in his 3rd year (at $700K) when he wanted more causing some grumbling on his part. He was then arb-elg for the next 3 years as they went 1 season at a time and didn't go long- term w/him until his FA year. Pujols: $600K off one of the great R-o-Y years of all time and a $200K ML min Also just 1 year ML service StL went long-term w/him after his 3rd season

Nymr83 Mar 03 2006 04:07 PM

the mets are doing the wRIGHT thing for the team's budget, the players get huge salaries out of you during and after arbitration and the good ones get insane signing bonuses as well, the team should take advantage while it can because you know the player will.

ScarletKnight41 Mar 03 2006 04:17 PM

]("I've got no hand" says David, "I need to get hand!") I'm amused with Mr. Wright's use of a Seinfeld reference with respect to this situation.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 03 2006 04:30 PM

ScarletKnight41 wrote: ]("I've got no hand" says David, "I need to get hand!") I'm amused with Mr. Wright's use of a Seinfeld reference with respect to this situation. I'd guess that's Mr. Knot, not Mr. Wright, whose subtle allusive wit so pleases you.

duan Mar 03 2006 04:53 PM

Bret; sorry I'd like to apologise for my inability to read your posts correctly earlier. I think there's give and take here - but I also think how the mets have acted is defendable. Sorry again for not reading your post correctly.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 03 2006 11:32 PM

Duan, de nada--I should apologize to you for being unclear. But thanks just the same.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 04 2006 12:23 AM

Big hairy moose cock is Ralph's expression.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 04 2006 12:29 AM

Really? I was sure "big hairy moose cock" came out of your mouth. So to speak.