Master Index of Archived Threads


Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Centerfield Jan 04 2019 08:21 AM

Says David Roth at Deadspin. https://deadspin.com/your-favorite-baseball-team-can-afford-any-free-agent-i-1830890838 You probably also know this: since Alex Rodriguez signed his then-record 10-year, $252 million contract with the Rangers back in 2001, Major League Baseball's revenues have more than doubled even when adjusted for inflation. Team payrolls, after a similar adjustment, have gone up by less than 40 percent; the richest contract in the game right now is the 14-year, $325 million deal Giancarlo Stanton signed in 2014. Basically, every team has the money to spend. But they have just as many excuses to just pocket it and not invest the revenue. I guess this goes a long way into figuring out how a relatively small city like Boston can lead the majors in payroll. While some teams that play in larger markets come in middle of the pack.

Centerfield Jan 04 2019 08:31 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

According to this list, Boston is the #7 TV market in the US. https://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets It is the 21st largest city by population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population I would imagine Boston benefits from the relatively dense population in its surrounding area. So 21st is probably misleading. But there is no logical reason why a team from Boston should be able to outspend any NY team. NY's population is 8.6 million people. Boston has a population of 685,000. NY outnumbers Boston by 8 million people.

smg58 Jan 04 2019 08:46 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

This quote cracked me up: "The Red Sox, one of two teams to go over the cap, will pay a penalty of a little under $12 million and slide back slightly in the June Draft. As Matt Collins points out at Over The Monster, that's $6 million less than they paid Pablo Sandoval not to play for them and roughly what they paid defective Cuban phenom Rusney Castillo to rust over and hit singles in Pawtucket. Boston also won the World Series, you will recall." I'm not sure what the league is getting at. Their players might not be old enough to remember 1994, but presumably they do. And plenty of fans do as well.

nymr83 Jan 04 2019 08:49 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

NY's population is 8.6 million people. Boston has a population of 685,000. NY outnumbers Boston by 8 million people. what is the "fan base" though? New York is split between 2 teams and has Philly fans to the south/southwest, Boston has all of New England?

smg58 Jan 04 2019 09:12 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Actually the most surprising thing about the article is the Yankees' apparent willingness to play along, even as the Red Sox make a mockery of the league-wide austerity.

Centerfield Jan 04 2019 09:22 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

NY's population is 8.6 million people. Boston has a population of 685,000. NY outnumbers Boston by 8 million people. what is the "fan base" though? New York is split between 2 teams and has Philly fans to the south/southwest, Boston has all of New England? Not sure. But the first list suggests they capture a large audience beyond the city as they are #7 market in the US. But it's hard to imagine any surrounding area making up the difference in population. NYC has 8.6 million people. Let's be conservative and allocate 70% of that market to the MFY. That still leaves 2.58 million for the Mets. And that's not counting LI, NJ, upstate NY and parts of CT.

Johnny Lunchbucket Jan 04 2019 09:39 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

This topic title reads like one of those lolcat memes. Mets Can Has Harper Home Runs LOL Thanx

Centerfield Jan 04 2019 10:04 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Yikes. All your typos are belong to us.

Edgy MD Jan 04 2019 10:16 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Territorial exclusivity is un-American boochit, as is so much of MLB's cartel operation is. And I have no problem believing the Sox benefit as much from it as anybody else.

metsmarathon Jan 04 2019 12:15 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

NY's population is 8.6 million people. Boston has a population of 685,000. NY outnumbers Boston by 8 million people. what is the "fan base" though? New York is split between 2 teams and has Philly fans to the south/southwest, Boston has all of New England? Not sure. But the first list suggests they capture a large audience beyond the city as they are #7 market in the US. But it's hard to imagine any surrounding area making up the difference in population. NYC has 8.6 million people. Let's be conservative and allocate 70% of that market to the MFY. That still leaves 2.58 million for the Mets. And that's not counting LI, NJ, upstate NY and parts of CT. the entire population of new england (minus connecticut) (~9M) is slightly more than the population of the 5 boroughs of new york city (~8.6M). lets do some math. for the purposes of this exercise, let's consider all of new york state to be fans of either the yankees or the mets. we'll add in 1/2 of connecticut, and 2/3 of jersey. which is unfair because jersey is too good of a state too have so many of us fall sway to the phillies. but whatever - it's an approximation, and i'm trying to be overly conservative... new york has 19M people. CT has 3.5M and NJ has 7M. of that, we allocate 1.75M and 4.7M respectively to the NY market. total available fanbase of 25.4M. applying the 70/30 split above, the mets should have about 7.6M to draw from. it's a bit shy of the 10.75 i'm allocating to boston, and far short of the 17.8M i'm giving the yankees. but it still a big enough number that the mets should be pretty big players in the payroll games. also, it goes without saying that as the mets fortunes improve, their share of the new york market can grow as well. in other words. spend spend spend.

Centerfield Jan 04 2019 03:47 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Right. Anyway, back to the original article. The author is stating that every team is flush with cash and not spending is an election, not something out of their hands. It would be interesting if true. Kind of like a watered down collusion. One wonders, if George Steinbrenner were alive, would he have a $400 million payroll?

A Boy Named Seo Jan 04 2019 04:01 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Eh, probably not. The tax for first-year offenders is 20% for every dollar over the threshold, which is $206M this year. A $400M payroll would be $80M in taxes alone and as we know, billionaires HATE taxes. But your point's not lost. Certain owners splash the tax cash in the NBA. The Dodgers have exceeded it multiple times and dance around it nowadays like Fred Astaire. If you were already at $206M and needed a $12M guy you thought would put you over the top, a owner that wants to win NOW!!!! will prob take the hit on the $2.4M tax.

Gwreck Jan 24 2019 04:46 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Ken Rosenthal has a column at The Athletic today about the Mets and how they should sign Harper or Machado. Such a move would require moxie, creativity and, most importantly, cold hard cash. But if this truly is a new era for the Mets, they should be showing more interest in Harper and Machado than say, the A's and Rays. They should be trying to exploit an opportunity that is available only because Harper and Machado are lingering on the market, and because virtually every team in baseball is acting as if they are carrying infectious diseases. A week ago, when Van Wagenen challenged the rest of the NL East to “come get us,” it came off as false bravado. Go get Harper or Machado, and the GM can utter those words in earnest. And it would be no hollow threat.

Centerfield Jan 24 2019 07:01 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

And was immediately met with all sorts of spin articles from the local guys. It's crazy how the Wilpons control the narrative with some of these guys.

Edgy MD Jan 24 2019 08:42 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

I imagine they've shown more interest than the A's and the Rays. And I feel certain in saying that virtually every team in baseball isn't acting as if those two players are carrying infections diseases. Signing such players can be a high-risk proposition, so teams want to drive as hard a bargain as possible, and they also know that the stupid luxury tax means they'll be paying double for a big chunk of those huge contracts. But nonetheless, teams have pursued these guys, and some of them have pursued aggressively.

Gwreck Jan 24 2019 09:06 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

=Centerfield post_id=1782 time=1548381701 user_id=65] And was immediately met with all sorts of spin articles from the local guys. It's crazy how the Wilpons control the narrative with some of these guys.

Fortunately, not quite everyone is falling for it.



Tim Britton of The Athletic (arguably the best of the beat writers) knows what's up:

Van Wagenen thus frames the potential addition of a high-priced free agent as an either/or situation: Either the Mets could sign Harper or Machado or they could shore up multiple areas deemed deficient. We could debate whether New York would have been better off throwing $30-plus million per season at one player or spending $29.5 million on the trio of Jeurys Familia, Jed Lowrie and Wilson Ramos. What's clear is that the Mets do not view it as possible to have done both, even as they sit more than $40 million below the competitive-balance tax, even as their previous offseason moves have put them in precisely the position where one more significant addition could have the highest possible impact.

Gwreck Jan 24 2019 09:15 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Edgy MD wrote: and they also know that the stupid luxury tax means they'll be paying double for a big chunk of those huge contracts. Good thing the Mets are nowhere near that threshold, and still easily under it even if they signed one of the two to a $30M/year contract.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 24 2019 09:40 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

The luxury tax is a big scam that benefits the owners by giving them an excuse to keep payroll down, which is what baseball owners and all employers, in fact, have strived to do since time immemorial. It's how the world works. It's a penalty that isn't really much of a penalty at all. The data indicates that teams exceeding the luxury tax win more games and make more money. So there's every incentive to outspend opponents. If they're not even though they can or should is consistent with a theory of collusion. Also, the teams that exceed or have exceeded the luxury tax in the past tend to be the wealthiest teams in the game. Obviously. These teams make in the neighborhood of a half a billion dollars a year and can easily afford to pay the game's highest salaries. Yet the penalties for exceeding the tax are peanuts compared to baseball's overall revenue situation.

Gwreck Jan 24 2019 10:16 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

I think the point was that the luxury tax, without even considering its problems, is not a valid excuse for not signing one of these players.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 25 2019 05:30 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

=Gwreck post_id=1796 time=1548393372 user_id=56] I think the point was that the luxury tax, without even considering its problems, is not a valid excuse for not signing one of these players.

That was my point, too.




=batmagadanleadoff post_id=1795 time=1548391221 user_id=68]
Also, the teams that exceed or have exceeded the luxury tax in the past tend to be the wealthiest teams in the game. Obviously. These teams make in the neighborhood of a half a billion dollars a year and can easily afford to pay the game's highest salaries....

smg58 Jan 25 2019 05:46 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

=Centerfield post_id=583 time=1546642046 user_id=65]One wonders, if George Steinbrenner were alive, would he have a $400 million payroll?

I think the relevance of the absence of George Steinbrenner cannot be overstated. His kids are perfectly willing to let the Red Sox outspend them off the field and outclass them on it. It's what the league wants, because even the Red Sox aren't forcing everybody to keep up with them. It would be more than a little ironic if the mutiny is started by Yankee fans.

Fman99 Jan 25 2019 05:49 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Forbes is singing the same song and I can't see the fault in their argument.

bmfc1 Jan 25 2019 06:03 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Jeffy whined, "I don't know how many teams have two $30 million players”. He's referring to Cespedes' $29M contract. The Nationals have two: Scherzer and Strasburg. They offered Harper $30M so that would have been 3. Oh yeah, they don't have their own cable network and the Mets do. And the Mets are getting insurance money for Cespedes' injury. Per Puma: "In addition, the Mets won't be on the hook for Cespedes' full salary this season with insurance covering a significant portion of his payout as he rehabs from surgery to remove calcifications from both heels."

batmagadanleadoff Jan 25 2019 06:17 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Forbes is singing the same song and I can't see the fault in their argument. Hey, that's our old friend, Howie Megdal.

Lefty Specialist Jan 25 2019 06:20 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

=smg58 post_id=1803 time=1548420395 user_id=62] =Centerfield post_id=583 time=1546642046 user_id=65]One wonders, if George Steinbrenner were alive, would he have a $400 million payroll?

I think the relevance of the absence of George Steinbrenner cannot be overstated. His kids are perfectly willing to let the Red Sox outspend them off the field and outclass them on it. It's what the league wants, because even the Red Sox aren't forcing everybody to keep up with them. It would be more than a little ironic if the mutiny is started by Yankee fans.

Yeah, his kids don't have the fire in the belly that George had, for better or worse.

Centerfield Jan 25 2019 07:31 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

I've come to the realization that Fred's infatuation with the Yankees isn't really about winning. He's not jealous of their winning. If he were, he'd do what the Red Sox do, which is spend more and beat them. He's angry that they spend. That they're ruining it for the rest of the owners. It's hard to pretend like you have no money when the guy next door is spending like he prints the stuff.

RealityChuck Jan 25 2019 11:16 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

I think the big issue is not that the Wilpons are afraid of spending, but that they're wary of it. Most of the big contracts they handed out turned out to be busts (the exceptions are Beltran and Piazza). But big contracts to Cespedes, Wright, Santana, Martinez, Bonilla, Bay, and others turned out to be a lot of wasted money as people went on the DL. Most of the team's big contracts ended with disappointing results, so the Wilpons, quite rightly, don't want to jump in an get burned again.

kcmets Jan 25 2019 11:40 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

=RealityChuck post_id=1824 time=1548440168 user_id=82]Most of the team's big contracts ended with disappointing results, so the Wilpons, quite rightly, don't want to jump in an get burned again.

I have to disagree with the 'quite rightly' part. It's NYC (the tri-state area), they make

money hands over fist when a winning team is on the field and the stadium is rockin'.

If they signed a guy like Harper tomorrow they'd sell hundreds of thousands of more

tickets in a matter of weeks.



If the owners of the NEW YORK Mets can't afford to be in the top payroll tier of MLB,

they need to be shown the door.

Frayed Knot Jan 25 2019 01:07 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Most of the team's big contracts ended with disappointing results, so the Wilpons, quite rightly, don't want to jump in an get burned again. I have to disagree with the 'quite rightly' part. It's NYC (the tri-state area), they make money hands over fist when a winning team is on the field and the stadium is rockin'. But there's the "if they win" part which, because it isn't assured by signing player X, is why, as Chuck says, they're wary of that level of spending - and especially so in the post-Madoff era. The biggest profit incentive from owning an MLB team isn't that the team finishes in the black each year just by opening the doors but rather via the increase in the value of the franchise over time. But in those years that turn up in the red the partners have to cover the shortfall and, after having begged and borrowed just to tide them through much of the last decade, they certainly don't have the liquid backup they once had and are therefore more gun-shy about taking such a plunge. There's a difference between: 'Great if it works, disappointed if it doesn't' vs 'Great if it works, lose further control of the team if it doesn't'

Frayed Knot Jan 25 2019 01:07 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jan 25 2019 07:02 PM

...

Centerfield Jan 25 2019 06:38 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Have you read the recent articles on MLB revenue? The idea that a team loses money is a fallacy. Even more far fetched is the idea of a team losing value. The Mets were worth 2.1 billion. And this is separate from SNY. The Mets don't need to win to make money. In fact, just the opposite is true. They make money regardless of whether they win or not. This is why they can't be coaxed into spending more.

A Boy Named Seo Jan 25 2019 07:52 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

A 'win-now" approach doesn't even have to end in a ring. They'd make shit tons of money (heavier than a ton of bricks or feathers!) with repeat playoff appearances. If they actually won one, too, well that'd be awesome. I'm sure Dodgers fans' hearts hurt that they got to two World Series in a row and came up empty, but that team fields a winner every year, they dance expertly under the luxury tax threshold and the owners make the aforementioned shit-tons of money in the DS/CS/World Series.

Frayed Knot Jan 25 2019 07:55 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Have you read the recent articles on MLB revenue? The idea that a team loses money is a fallacy. That a team loses money overall? No, and that's not what I'm saying. That expenses can and sometimes do exceed revenues during certain periods, yes. And when this happens the owners need to go into their pockets to cover the shortfall. I'm not suggesting a go-fund-me account for them when this happens but I'm suggesting that, because they needed to heavily borrow and sell-off pieces of the team to keep things afloat during the Madoff crisis, since then they both have less backup in the piggy bank than they once had (particularly less than they thought they once had), more loans to pay back from that time, and probably bad memories from going through that period, this has made them more risk-averse these days. Even more far fetched is the idea of a team losing value. The Mets were worth 2.1 billion. And this is separate from SNY. I specifically said the opposite of that, that rising value over time is what owners are really in it for. But you don't see that money unless and until you sell. So if you need to cover expenses before then you either have to go into your own pocket, borrow against the current or future value, and/or sell off pieces of the team. I suspect they're more than a bit leery of taking any of those paths right now since they recently had to do all of the above and therefore are steering a more conservative path by getting out in front of fewer big deals that could conceivably come back to bite them if the winning and projected revenue increases don't come with it. Basically this in a longer-winded version of what Chuck said, that they are wary of spending more because they've seen too many bad contracts in the past and because bad investments once put them in danger of losing the team. Not that I'm claiming this is the smart way to do things going forward but it's a helluva lot more logical than the scenario where they can spend much more than they are currently doing -- what, $200 mil/yr? $300?, $500?!?, is there any limit? -- but simply choose not to because they prefer to lose and line their pockets than win and line them more. You can make more by spending more if the plan you put into place works. But I think the Wilpons have transformed themselves into the stereotypical football coach (although even those are getting better these days) who never want to go for it on fourth down and loathe gambles like fake punts and 2-point conversions because they are forever worrying about the negative reaction and at how it will set them back and invite criticism if the risk doesn't work.

A Boy Named Seo Jan 25 2019 08:05 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

I don't think they prefer to lose. I do think they prefer to spend less because they can't or they don't want to, and if they don't win, well that's ok with them.

Gwreck Jan 25 2019 10:18 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Even assuming all of the above, failing to sign one of these players is particulalry bad because of the unique opportunity to secure top talent in the free agent market while the players are still young. 26 year old stars don't hit the market that often, let alone 2 in the same year. Cespedes and Cano and Lowrie, and maybe even deGrom will all be long gone before Harper or Machado gets old and unproductive. This is the year to sign the player who finally puts the team over the top and upgrades the offense (the upgrade that has been badly needed for each of the past 7 offseasons and was not properly addressed in any). Because that player makes you better not just in the immediate short term but is also more likely than other potential FA signings to continue to help for years to come.

Edgy MD Jan 26 2019 08:18 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

=Gwreck post_id=1851 time=1548479910 user_id=56]Even assuming all of the above, failing to sign one of these players is particulalry bad because of the unique opportunity to secure top talent in the free agent market while the players are still young. 26 year old stars don't hit the market that often, let alone 2 in the same year.

And yet, 100% of all major league teams has failed to sign one of these players.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 26 2019 09:51 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Edgy MD wrote: =Gwreck post_id=1851 time=1548479910 user_id=56]Even assuming all of the above, failing to sign one of these players is particulalry bad because of the unique opportunity to secure top talent in the free agent market while the players are still young. 26 year old stars don't hit the market that often, let alone 2 in the same year. And yet, 100% of all major league teams has failed to sign one of these players.

Well yeah, if nobody ends up signing either Harper or Machado, then it's even Steven all around. And a pretty likely sign that the owners have colluded, too. But when those two are signed, everyone else is at a competitive disadvantage, especially Harper and Machado's division rivals.



And to FK's post, if the Wilpon's are reticent to go after the game's biggest, and thus, most expensive stars..... if the team from New York City can't afford the game's best players, then its owners should get the boot. You think baseball would let owners like the Wilpons buy the Mets today.?

Edgy MD Jan 26 2019 11:37 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

I don't think MLB should get a say. Just as I think nobody should get exclusive (or semi-exclusive) access to a regional market. It's all messed up. If you want folks to compete more aggressively, relegate the last-place team in each division.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 26 2019 12:21 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Edgy MD wrote: I don't think MLB should get a say. Just as I think nobody should get exclusive (or semi-exclusive) access to a regional market. It's all messed up. If you want folks to compete more aggressively, relegate the last-place team in each division. But MLB does have a say. If it could oust Frank McCourt, then the Wilpons should have been good riddanced 10 times over a long while ago. I'm not spending 30 bucks to park my car at Citi Field and five dollars for a soda when for the same five bucks, I could get two dozen cans of Coke at my supermarket when the owners are then gonna take my money to service their Madoff debt. The team's worth two fucking BILLION dollars. Force the owners to sell. Then they can pay back their Madoff debt and New York City will have a baseball team that, imagine that, can go after the game's best players.

Edgy MD Jan 26 2019 02:49 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

"I'm not spending 30 bucks to park my car at Citi Field and five dollars for a soda when for the same five bucks..." I understand.

Frayed Knot Jan 26 2019 04:19 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I don't think they prefer to lose. I do think they prefer to spend less because they can't or they don't want to, Don't disagree. I'm just pushing back against those essentially saying that money is so plentiful that 'can't' isn't even a possibility, and the process which I'm describing as 'overly cautious to even approach the limits for fear of what could go wrong' is a form of saying 'they don't want/choose not to'. and if they don't win, well that's ok with them. But here I don't agree. Even those local writers who have covered the sport/team forever and will take on the Wilpons for all sorts of stuff consistently describe the fan complaints of 'don't care about the team' or 'not interested in winning' as false narratives; to a man the scribes will say how the not winning and the criticism which comes with it kills them. The problem is that the 'Pons haven't been savvy enough to build any kind of consistent success on their own while still holding onto the belief in themselves as astute baseball men in addition to being owners to the point that they're reluctant to turn over the direction of the club to someone else who might be better at it. But not being good at it isn't the same thing as not giving a shit - even if the results often look alike.

Centerfield Jan 28 2019 09:33 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Signing a player to a long-term mega contract does not handcuff you from making future moves if they don't work out. I think the conversation would be more productive if we properly dismissed this misconception. It's an idea that owners want you to believe, and it's thrown around like it's common knowledge. But it's wrong. A team can sign players to long term deals, and reap the benefits if they're successful, and just eat the cost if they're not. And if the players are not successful or are no longer successful, then the team can just go out and sign better players. This is an article from March of 2018. It talks about the $61 million in dead weight the Red Sox were carrying. https://www.masslive.com/expo/erry-2018/03/ce33fa7563/how_are_boston_red_sox_paying.html $18.5 million for Sandoval. $12 million for Rusney Castillo. $16 million for Dustin Pedroia. Any one of these deals could be used as justification for not spending. For not going after the top talent. The Wilpons would have made excuses from here to LA and half the fans and media would have eaten it right up. But Boston didn't do that. They went out and signed JD Martinez. They spent $230 million, told the luxury tax to go fuck itself, then they won 108 games and won the World Series. And I know people will say "Well we're not Boston." That's true. Boston plays in Boston. Population 685,000. The Mets play in New York. Population 8.6 million. I get that there is some point where resources are finite and teams won't be able to erase mistakes, but the Mets are nowhere near that point. Baseball teams make shitloads of money. Some teams choose to spend it to win. The Wilpons do not.

Centerfield Jan 28 2019 09:44 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Frayed Knot wrote: But here I don't agree. Even those local writers who have covered the sport/team forever and will take on the Wilpons for all sorts of stuff consistently describe the fan complaints of 'don't care about the team' or 'not interested in winning' as false narratives; to a man the scribes will say how the not winning and the criticism which comes with it kills them. The problem is that the 'Pons haven't been savvy enough to build any kind of consistent success on their own while still holding onto the belief in themselves as astute baseball men in addition to being owners to the point that they're reluctant to turn over the direction of the club to someone else who might be better at it. But not being good at it isn't the same thing as not giving a shit - even if the results often look alike. Sure the Wilpons want the Mets to win. And I fully believe that they hate the criticism that comes from lack of winning. But do they care enough to eat into their profits? The answer is no. They want to keep their profits and win. And maybe this decision is a conscious one and they make this election knowing that they handcuff their team. Or maybe they're drinking their own kool-aid and are genuinely surprised when their team comes up short again and again and again. But at the end of the day, they would rather take home what they've been taking home rather than invest it into winning. And it's not like they're alone in this. I talk about teams that spend (LA, Boston, Wash, Cubs) but there are plenty that fall into the Wilpon mindset. Atlanta just won the division and won't make the financial investment to go the next level. Houston is the 4th largest city in the US, but until recently the owners acted like they played in Wyoming. And poor Pittsburgh. Their owners just outright lie to their fans year after year.

kcmets Jan 28 2019 09:47 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Add the CT and NJ fans and that 8.6 million grows quite a bit. I know people dismiss me as a broken record, but if the Padres can be in the mix of the potential big deals, so should the Mets -- and fuck Jeff Wilpon and his take/spin a few days ago.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 28 2019 09:59 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

I agree with what CF is saying, but quoting that 685,000 population of the city of Boston is misleading. The Red Sox market extends far beyond the city limits.

Centerfield Jan 28 2019 10:03 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

According to this list, Boston is the #7 TV market in the US. https://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets It is the 21st largest city by population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population I would imagine Boston benefits from the relatively dense population in its surrounding area. So 21st is probably misleading. But there is no logical reason why a team from Boston should be able to outspend any NY team. NY's population is 8.6 million people. Boston has a population of 685,000. NY outnumbers Boston by 8 million people. This was from earlier in the thread. NY teams also benefit from CT, NJ, upstate NY and Long Island, but not sure how to do that math.

kcmets Jan 28 2019 10:06 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I agree with what CF is saying, but quoting that 685,000 population of the city of Boston is misleading. The Red Sox market extends far beyond the city limits. Yes, Red Sox Nation is at least five states big.

Gwreck Jan 29 2019 07:12 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

The census uses something called Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and a larger Combined Stastical Area. For the latter, the NYC CSA is ~23 million. The Boston-Providence-Worcester CSA is 8.2 million. Add in the Hartford CSA, the Springfield MA CSA and the Portland ME CSA (essentially, the entire population of New England) and it's still only about half.

Centerfield Jan 29 2019 07:54 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

That's great info. Anyway, back to the larger point, which is that if Boston is able to do it, then there's no reason the Mets can't do it as well.

Gwreck Jan 29 2019 07:57 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Exactly.

RealityChuck Jan 30 2019 10:59 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

=kcmets post_id=1825 time=1548441643 user_id=53] =RealityChuck post_id=1824 time=1548440168 user_id=82]Most of the team's big contracts ended with disappointing results, so the Wilpons, quite rightly, don't want to jump in an get burned again.

I have to disagree with the 'quite rightly' part. It's NYC (the tri-state area), they make

money hands over fist when a winning team is on the field and the stadium is rockin'.

If they signed a guy like Harper tomorrow they'd sell hundreds of thousands of more

tickets in a matter of weeks.



If the owners of the NEW YORK Mets can't afford to be in the top payroll tier of MLB,

they need to be shown the door.

But considering how many times that they've been burned by big contracts that didn't pan out, it's natural that they are reluctant to spring for more of them. When you keep getting burned, you avoid the fire.



It's the merry-go-round -- They sign someone to a big contract to much acclaim, the player is injured and, toward the end, the same people who hailed the contract in the beginning will complain how big a mistake it was and how it's preventing other moves.

kcmets Jan 30 2019 11:15 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

Sell an office building, spend proceeds on your NEW YORK team. Rinse and repeat.

Centerfield Jan 30 2019 11:57 AM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

=RealityChuck post_id=2087 time=1548871140 user_id=82] They sign someone to a big contract to much acclaim, the player is injured and, toward the end, the same people who hailed the contract in the beginning will complain how big a mistake it was and how it's preventing other moves.

It's funny. I write things. Chuck doesn't read them, or chooses to ignore them. Goes on believing what he wants to believe, then makes up fake arguments with things I would never say.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 30 2019 12:20 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

=RealityChuck post_id=2087 time=1548871140 user_id=82] =kcmets post_id=1825 time=1548441643 user_id=53] =RealityChuck post_id=1824 time=1548440168 user_id=82]Most of the team's big contracts ended with disappointing results, so the Wilpons, quite rightly, don't want to jump in an get burned again.

I have to disagree with the 'quite rightly' part. It's NYC (the tri-state area), they make

money hands over fist when a winning team is on the field and the stadium is rockin'.

If they signed a guy like Harper tomorrow they'd sell hundreds of thousands of more

tickets in a matter of weeks.



If the owners of the NEW YORK Mets can't afford to be in the top payroll tier of MLB,

they need to be shown the door.

But considering how many times that they've been burned by big contracts that didn't pan out, it's natural that they are reluctant to spring for more of them. When you keep getting burned, you avoid the fire.



It's the merry-go-round -- They sign someone to a big contract to much acclaim, the player is injured and, toward the end, the same people who hailed the contract in the beginning will complain how big a mistake it was and how it's preventing other moves.


Well, the Mets aren't exactly winning by not spending money, either. Two first place finishes in 30 seasons. Yada, yada yada.

Centerfield Jan 30 2019 03:16 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

The thing is, there are millions of Chucks. Guys who believe that this is a hot take and somehow this makes them smarter than the average fan. But it's not. This is the average take. This is the Joe Bloggs answer. The ones who read, get educated, know exactly the opposite is true. But the Chucks will never, ever take the time to read up and find the truth. Because they're Joe Bloggs.

Edgy MD Jan 30 2019 03:21 PM Re: Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

LONG LIVE JOE BLOGGS!