Master Index of Archived Threads


Maybe We Should Discuss Payroll After All

Centerfield Dec 21 2016 03:33 PM

Adam Rubin weighed in this morning saying McCutcheon is unlikely. No surprise there. But the interesting part was that he was saying that a barrier to the trade is that the Mets can't squeeze him into the payroll, forget even putting together a package that the Pirates would take. according to Foxsports.com, the likelihood is slim that the Mets would shed the payroll in order to make that deal viable. And that does not even address whether the Mets would be willing to part with the requisite package to land McCutchen. Link: http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0 ... 51855042-4 This is more or less in line with what we have been hearing. That the Mets are handcuffed until they can shed some salary. I know we have not discussed this much since we were able to retain Cespedes and because payroll has risen over the past few years. But Alderson and the Mets seem to be sending the message that this is as high as they can go (at least for now). So the question is, why is this the case? Last year, the Mets checked in around $156 million, good for 12th in baseball. See the link below. http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/2016/ I'm not sure what "Retained" means in that chart, but most reports say they were in this range. Projections have them coming in around this range in 2017 as well. So, the question is, why aren't they higher? They are a NY team, coming off 2 straight post-seasons, attendance is high, they have a new stadium, and their own TV network. Yet there remains a significant gap between the Mets and the top five. The luxury tax sits at $195 million. Teams like the Mets should be bumping up against that margin, but as of now, they are $40 million away....and looking to shed payroll. What gives? And before you answer, let's address a few points: 1. The Talk of Shedding Payroll is not Speculation, it comes from Alderson himself Sure, Rubin's report might be speculation, but this line of reasoning came from Sandy directly. From December 7: Alderson said he would be reluctant to add payroll before moving some of the Mets' financial commitments. "I don't think I'd want to do that," Alderson said. "It's like buying a new house without selling your old one. Sometimes you get stuck in the transition. It's not a good place to be." http://www.nj.com/mets/index.ssf/2016/1 ... _drop.html People have said Alderson never says what he means, but keep in mind, there is no strategic reason to make this statement. In fact, it works against you. Alderson is basically admitting he needs to move Bruce or Granderson, and that hurts his leverage in attempting to accomplish just that. What could possibly be his motivation for saying this? The only thing I can think of is to dampen fan expectation, dampen the writers' speculation, and to do it when the goodwill of the Cespedes signing is fresh in everyone's mind. 2. No one is looking to "Spend just to spend" Because anytime anyone advocates opening up payroll, they are met with "no need to spend just to spend" arguments, let's be clear that is not what I am proposing here. Sure, you can argue that 5 years and $83 million for Fowler seems like a lot. But there are good, reasonable deals to be made with an extra $40 million. Hell, you can even make some bad deals if you have $40 million. Take for instance, Wilson Ramos who signed for 2 years, 12.5 million. Even with incentives, that only takes him up to $18 million. $6 million a year is what LOOGY's are going for these days. Wouldn't Ramos have been a big upgrade? Even if he's not available until June, you make that deal. He didn't even have draft pick compensation tied to him. And right now, we sorely need a lefty in the pen. Hell, we could afford Joey Votto and still have $15 million left to blow on strippers and coke. I mean, it's nice to be out of the bottom third, and I'm not angry like I was then, but I think this is still a question worth asking.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 21 2016 04:01 PM Re: Maybe We Should Discuss Payroll After All

I'd like to think (although I have no evidence for this) that they want to get back to $140 million as a baseline but then be willing to add salary during the season for whatever kind of upgrade they may need.

Centerfield Dec 21 2016 04:55 PM Re: Maybe We Should Discuss Payroll After All

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'd like to think (although I have no evidence for this) that they want to get back to $140 million as a baseline but then be willing to add salary during the season for whatever kind of upgrade they may need. I thought the idea was to get down to about $140 million, so they could then turn around and sign a few relievers and Kelly Johnson to get back to the $150's. But that they are unwilling or unable to go above their current payroll, so they are precluded from doing anything until they unload Bruce.