Who's gonna be the General Manager?

[Benjamin Grimm]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: It's always been very clear to me that Fred is the biggest moron in the organization and it's almost always his interference and incompetence that fucks up the club.

Maybe we need to plant a resistor in the organization to take papers off of Fred's desk.

[Edgy MD]

Don't think for a minute there isn't one or more there already.

[Centerfield]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: It's always been very clear to me that Fred is the biggest moron in the organization and it's almost always his interference and incompetence that fucks up the club. Regular Johnny Lunchbuckets out there have trouble distinguishing those characteristics (Fred's entire career is about having "relationships" mainly with Bernie Madoff and valuing "feel" and appearance over substance and results) from the completely different set bad characteristics possessed by Jeff (snotty, insensitive, autocratic, undeserving, and probably, conflicted by having to appease his crazy old man).

Imagine if all of Jeff's shortcomings are fueled by insecurities fostered by his old man?

How crazy would it be if Fred died, and suddenly Jeff became a thoughtful, analytical, sensitive owner.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Well the Post article if accurate should be very distressing as it states pretty plainly that Incompetent Fred will have the say.

You may recall the only time a good GM was named in the Fred Era it was basically installed by MLB in the style of an aggreived lender.

[Edgy MD]

On the other hand, I tended to think Omar was installed by MLB as well. In a different sense of the word, anyhow.

[Centerfield]

Rumors are circulating about Mark Shapiro.

And it's interesting the opinions on Mark Shapiro, depending on who you listen to.

Andy Martino, writing for SNY, a guy who is paid by the Wilpons:

Shapiro, who publicly reaffirmed his commitment to Toronto after his name first surfaced in connection to the Mets job, is close with Omar Minaya. His father, highly respected veteran agent Ron Shapiro, is friendly with Fred Wilpon. Shapiro was once GM and president of the Cleveland Indians -- an organization steeped in analytics. His resume and stature in the game lend him the gravitas to replace a towering figure like Sandy Alderson.

https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/mets-gm-search-update-collins-asked-to-assume-larger-role-keep-eye-on-shapiro/294168810

Steeped in analytics! Stature and gravitas! Sign me up!

But wait, what do those who are not on the payroll say?

When Shapiro took over — joining new owner Paul Dolan — the Indians were a team that won 90 or so games a year, had attendance of over 3 million a year and boasted a $93 million payroll. Going forward payroll was slashed, bottoming out at $34 million in 2003 and not returning to the level he inherited until 2016. Attendance fell sharply along with the Indians win total during that time too. You’d think that’d be a bad thing but Shapiro earned a promotion for that, taking over as the team’s president following the 2010 season. The promotion implied to many that, to Paul Dolan, keeping costs low was more important than winning baseball games and making fans happy.

Well, that doesn't sound as good. But I'm sure it's just a coincidence that immediately after he went to the Blue Jays, the Indians won the division twice and are now on their way to a possible third.

But he did great in Toronto right?

The Jays were stuck with a lot of carryover money in 2016 and 2017, but they reduced payroll heading into this season and, thanks to some big trades and expiring contracts, about 2/3 of their guaranteed commitments are disappearing once the season ends. Their 2019 payroll is likely to be vastly, vastly lower than it has been for the past several years....It’s too early to say if the Blue Jays plan to add free agents or other established big league talent to complement those prospects or if, as happened in Cleveland in the early-to-mid 2000s, a bunch of third and fourth place finishes and losing records are in Toronto’s future. What we do know is this: the Blue Jays have gotten worse in each of the past three years, they will likely be bad for the next couple of years and their payroll is spiraling down as well. Shapiro is spending a lot of time focusing on increasing the Blue Jays revenue — ticket prices went up this year — and his job is in no danger whatsoever. Indeed, he’s now a hot property for the Mets.

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2018/09/11/of-course-the-mets-are-interested-in-mark-shapiro/

Oh.

Truth is, at the end of the day, it's likely not going to matter. Whether it's Shapiro, or someone like Shapiro. Whoever it is, payroll will likely not go up enough to make a difference, and the Wilpons, Jeff and/or Fred, will meddle enough to fuck it all up anyway.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, would you rather have wins or stature and gravitas?

Wins are better than stature. And wins are better than gravitas. But stature and gravitas? Sign me up!

[Centerfield]

I know that you're kidding, but it's surprising how many baseball fans lose sight of the fact that winning is the ultimate goal. I found the entire article informative, but this part stuck with me.

Craig Calcaterra wrote: Sure, if you are the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Cubs or the Dodgers you pretty much have to be in the business of credibly fighting for a World Series championship, but the rest of baseball is a bit more flexible about such things. We live in an age in which keeping payroll low, eschewing expensive veterans in favor of cheap young players and, in some cases, tanking is pretty darn desirable for baseball owners and the sorts of folks who take baseball owners’ side, philosophically speaking. Everyone would like to win, but if you’re not gonna win, raking in revenue while not spending much of it on baseball players is considered a very, very noble thing. If you can do it without catching hell, all the better.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I don't sense there are fans who root for revenue generation. They're not investors.

I do think there's a class of fan that got hardons based on how efficiently their favorite team spends.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I can't imagine that those "sorts of folks" are fans of a particular team. I can see how an objective observer or an investor may understand that philosophy, but a fan should only care about revenue in the sense that it can provide the resources to build a winning team.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Craig Calcaterra wrote: Everyone would like to win, but if you’re not gonna win, raking in revenue while not spending much of it on baseball players is considered a very, very noble thing. If you can do it without catching hell, all the better.

This is like some 'some fans are from Venus and some are from Mars'
kinda moment or something? I'd like to hear from just one fan that finds
nobility in losing while still turning a good buck off it for Joe Ownerpants.

[Valadius]

[Edgy MD]

[fimg=600:3rnoist6]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuQyWxAWYAA06b6.jpg[/fimg:3rnoist6]

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: Craig Calcaterra wrote: Everyone would like to win, but if you’re not gonna win, raking in revenue while not spending much of it on baseball players is considered a very, very noble thing. If you can do it without catching hell, all the better. This is like some 'some fans are from Venus and some are from Mars' kinda moment or something? I'd like to hear from just one fan that finds nobility in losing while still turning a good buck off it for Joe Ownerpants.

not 'fans'.

That's rich people inner circle stuff. All 30* owners would love the attention and praise that comes with winning, but all 30 would take regular profits every year over a guaranteed win this season. ALL OF THEM. These guys probably had a party when the government cut taxes and high-fived. They sing the praises of their slave labor minor league and 6 year service time agreements any chance they get. The whole lot of them. Angry Mets fans rant about MLB forcing the Wilpons out, but the entire league probably felt more sympathy for them than you feel for your coworker when he takes a week off cause his father died.

It's why this second half is kinda important to the Mets. Them making the case for being within a reasonable shot is what will convince the Wilpons to go for it, as the expected return on going from average to reliably good is worth the investment. We just need someone in the interview to make that case, and to point out how a team meandering around .500 is going to be forced into overpaying long term for Thor, deGrom, etc without noticeable gain unless they invest everywhere. It's pretty obvious that they, and we, are not going to have a complete rebuild, and that they're going to have to continue to throw good money after bad year after year unless they bulk up now.

And i truly believe there are guys out there that are going to make that case, make it convincingly, and get hired.

[Centerfield]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I do think there's a class of fan that got hardons based on how efficiently their favorite team spends.

Yup.

My philosophy is this. I want the Mets to win on a sustained level and to ultimately win a championship. Whatever maximizes their chances to do this, for the most part, I'm on board. Because there are mountains of evidence that say spending more increases a team's chances at winning, I want my team to spend more. Because there are mountains of evidence that say the Wilpons are detrimental to winning, I'd like them gone.

There is a large contingent of fans that, despite wanting to win, are completely indifferent to whether or not the Mets spend like a big market club. I don't really get why. Maybe they believe there is no actual advantage offered by spending? I don't know. If they do, then they're wrong. But more often than not I get the feeling they know the truth, but elect to use twisted logic to justify a logically unjustifiable position.
*I'd rather they focus on scouting. (No one said they shouldn't do both)
*Look at San Francisco, they have a huge payroll and they're terrible. (No one claimed spending would guarantee winning)
*Look at Houston, they won it all with a mid-level payroll (No one claimed spending was a pre-requisite to winning.)

Then there are some fans that want the Mets to win, but if it means spending lots of money, they'd rather not. Like JCL said, I guess they like the fact that their team wins with an economic disadvantage. I don't get this, but to each his own. At least their position is consistent.

Then there are some fans that instinctively, without reason, take the side of ownership. They say questioning ownership is undermining your team. You'll hear stuff like "I'm a true fan" or "Hey, I just choose to believe". I don't really get this either.

[A Boy Named Seo]

Back to Shapiro, the way he and the Jays handled Vlad Guerrerro Jr. makes me think he would fit in perfectly here. Vladdy destroyed AA (1.120 OPS) and AAA (.978 OPS), but the Jays wouldn't think of calling him up, even though Josh Donaldson (same position, since traded) could barely walk. The Union even put out a statement saying the Jays were manipulating service time to save $$ and Shapiro didn't bat an ey. Vladdy is young (19) but Ronald Acuna and Juan Soto have done alright for themselves at 19 and Guerrerro might be better than both.

I fully get the service time argument from the team's side, but the financial motives to bury an elite player look pretty clear.

[Edgy MD]

Big-name prospects forcibly held back from appearing until late May also kicks the Rookie of the Year race right in the teeth.

[seawolf17]

Right, but if one of our guys wins a ROY award, then they have to pay him more money. So that's a non-starter for the Wilpons.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: Big-name prospects forcibly held back from appearing until late May also kicks the Rookie of the Year race right in the teeth.

I don't see a solution. Unless you say that a year of service time triggers no matter when you debut.

I guess you can have a carve-out for September callups or something then.

[Edgy MD]

I can see about 10 solutions. The main one is to end the six-years-of-control thing outright. Kill it with fire.

[Frayed Knot]

Getting back to the supposed Eff & Jeff rift for a minute:
The linked Puma article wasn't much of anything really, mostly just reiterating in short form what Sherman had written about more extensively a week or so earlier and linked a page or two earlier in this thread --
https://nypost.com/2018/09/05/what-wilpons-need-to-learn-if-they-actually-want-mets-to-win -- and it didn't around to the conclusion that Sherman did which is the need for a true baseball man to be installed between the 'Pons and their GM

I'm not sure that a lot of fans outside of Chicago & Oakland realize, for instance, that Theo Epstein and Bill Beane aren't even GMs anymore. Both moved up to 'Club President' positions years ago and in turn hired their own GMs to do, well, GM stuff while they run the overall franchise and report to the owner(s). Not that every other club runs that way or needs to run that way to be successful, but when you've got owners with buttinski tendencies having a buffer would shield the GM from interference in day to day operations and, more importantly, would be the man to set the overall trend/philosophy/direction for the team.
But there's little to indicate Fred is ready or willing to cede that kind of control and therein lies the problem: that you've got owners who think of themselves as baseball people as well and don't think they need someone to do what they feel they are already capable of doing themselves. Not that they're quite on a Jerry Jones/Cowboys kind of level (he's his own actual GM) but towards that end of the scale.

[MFS62]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Back to Shapiro, the way he and the Jays handled Vlad Guerrerro Jr. makes me think he would fit in perfectly here.

You're not the only one:
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/course-mets-interested-mark-shapiro-162135371.html

Later

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: There is a large contingent of fans that, despite wanting to win, are completely indifferent to whether or not the Mets spend like a big market club.

I'm indifferent because I want to watch Mets baseball and how much they spend is so divorced from my enjoyment that it's hard to care much. I want them to bring in the right players, and it's not always straight cash. In fact it's rarely cash. It's evaluating needs and which players aren't going to break and a lot of luck involved in those too.

I mean, I wanted the Mets to sign Yu Darvish, and I was skeptical about spending money on Arrieta. But the better move very well might've been
Jhoulys Chacin. There was vicious attacks launched at the Mets for choosing Vargas over Arrieta or Darvish, for not winning the Ohtani sweepstakes, but no one even mentions Chacin, who costs the same as Vargas. (no one mentions the lefty aspect of Vargas, though I wonder if that played in)

There's also the knowledge that teams that spend 'like a big market club' still do usually end up in a rebuild process when those mistakes they overpay for build up. You sign Darvish and he breaks and is added to the Cespedes and Wright contracts, and suddenly any owner is questioning spending more money that's going to get exponentially more expensive at the cap for possibly limited return is worth it, and then you're staring a rebuild in the face.

Like going forward, the Mets should spend for Machado, it's a highly logical way to go, though it does require a few pivots with guys like Frazier. There ARE other avenues to success though, and if the Mets bring in players that I think will be fun to watch and give this team good chances to win, I'm going to enjoy 2019.

[Centerfield]

Ceetar wrote: Centerfield wrote: There is a large contingent of fans that, despite wanting to win, are completely indifferent to whether or not the Mets spend like a big market club. I'm indifferent because I want to watch Mets baseball and how much they spend is so divorced from my enjoyment that it's hard to care much. I want them to bring in the right players, and it's not always straight cash. In fact it's rarely cash. It's evaluating needs and which players aren't going to break and a lot of luck involved in those too. I mean, I wanted the Mets to sign Yu Darvish, and I was skeptical about spending money on Arrieta. But the better move very well might've been Jhoulys Chacin. There was vicious attacks launched at the Mets for choosing Vargas over Arrieta or Darvish, for not winning the Ohtani sweepstakes, but no one even mentions Chacin, who costs the same as Vargas. (no one mentions the lefty aspect of Vargas, though I wonder if that played in) There's also the knowledge that teams that spend 'like a big market club' still do usually end up in a rebuild process when those mistakes they overpay for build up. You sign Darvish and he breaks and is added to the Cespedes and Wright contracts, and suddenly any owner is questioning spending more money that's going to get exponentially more expensive at the cap for possibly limited return is worth it, and then you're staring a rebuild in the face. Like going forward, the Mets should spend for Machado, it's a highly logical way to go, though it does require a few pivots with guys like Frazier. There ARE other avenues to success though, and if the Mets bring in players that I think will be fun to watch and give this team good chances to win, I'm going to enjoy 2019.

Centerfield wrote: But more often than not I get the feeling they know the truth, but elect to use twisted logic to justify a logically unjustifiable position.

[Ceetar]

"The total size of the payroll is so divorced from my enjoyment" is neither twisted logic, or logically unjustified. It's subjective and an opinion.

[Centerfield]

If I engage you in this, do you promise to answer honestly?

[Ceetar]

I always answer honestly.

[Centerfield]

You said you want to watch Mets baseball, do you also want the Mets to win?

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: You said you want to watch Mets baseball, do you also want the Mets to win?

I mean, yes, that's more fun.

[Centerfield]

Do you believe that a team with a higher payroll is at an advantage when it comes to winning in the regular season?


*Note that I am not asking if higher payroll guarantees anything, nor am I asking if higher payroll is more important than any other factor. Just simply, do you think it's an advantage or not.