Who's gonna be the General Manager?

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: 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.

in any given season?

no.

[Centerfield]

Well, that was fast.

In that case, I don't think we can have a productive discussion. We disagree on a fundamental premise.

I believe increasing payroll gives teams an advantage in the regular season. I think the advantage has been well-established over the years. Although there have been discussions about how significant the advantage may be, I don't think any one in good faith believes that payroll and winning are independent of each other.

If you honestly believe that, then this explains why we cannot have a productive conversation.

[Ceetar]

because it's fundamentally wrong on a season to season basis.

Like, how much does Jacob deGrom make? How much does Yu Darvish make? How much does David Wright make? Shohei Ohtani? The best players in baseball are rarely the ones being paid the most money.


The Giants have the ~2nd highest payroll They're 68-78. On the talent, they don't have an advantage against roughly anyone.

The Rays have roughly the lowest 25 man payroll, but they're the 5th? best team in the AL.

Just strictly on "who's going to win games this year?" PECOTA projected the Giants and Rays to be roughly the same.

The Mets could give say, Alex Rodriguez 102 million dollars to play third next year, and they'd have the highest payroll and still not have an advantage over most teams. The Angels payroll ,according to https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/, is roughly the same as the Yankees. Does that mean they're roughly equivalent?

What did the Nationals get out of their high payroll this year? average stuff? Despite the second best pitcher in baseball? If the Mets and the Nats played each other 162 times, would there be a meaningful advantage to the Nationals? probably not.




to sum up,
Payroll size is a symptom of a good team, but it's not the cause of a good team. It's like pitcher's wins. Typically a good pitcher will rack up a lot of them, but it's not always true, and it's not really measuring what we want to measure.

[Centerfield]

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

I don't think my question is all that complicated. Let's break it down to a simple scenario.

You are appointed the GM of Los Angeles Angels. You are told that you have to make the playoffs in 2019. If you do not, they will cut off your left hand.

You are given two choices for your budget.

Choice A: $90 Million

Choice B: $180 Million.

Do you pick Choice A, Choice B, or are you indifferent.

Remember, you pledged to answer honestly.

[Ceetar]

Obivously B.

That's a different question though. I wouldn't wager my hand that a shadow team doing the exact same with choice A wouldn't end up being the better team.

[Centerfield]

Why would you pick B?

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: Why would you pick B?

I interpreted your question as a one-year, one-off type thing. A use it or lose it type situation, so why not use it? Sign two guys to fill every hole and then move 'em around or cut the ones that suck. outbid everyone by 25% for the piece you want. etc.

That's not how a baseball team is run of course, and if you then told me my payroll has to be the same in 2020, I'm probably not spending anywhere near all of it in 2019.

[Centerfield]

Does the extra $90 million increase the chances you make the playoffs in 2019?

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: Does the extra $90 million increase the chances you make the playoffs in 2019?

Probably?

It's impossible to tell for sure unless you're outlining the exact players. Rampant spending certainly increases your chances of signing the players you want. But signing Machado for $150 million instead of $120 doesn't make him 25% better. It's the getting the player that actually raises the playoff odds.

So sure, yes, if we're only examining it in this very granular spot, having $90 more to toss around increases your chances at making the playoffs.

[Centerfield]

Ok. Same scenario. You are the GM of the Angels, your left hand is on the line etc. You are now told to make the playoffs 3 out of the next five years.

Your choices for a budget are $900 million over those five years, or $450 over those five years. You can mix and match that money however you see fit.

Do you:

1. Still take the $900 million over the $450?

2. Does the extra $90 million each year (average) help you in attaining your goal of 3 playoff berths (or more) over the next 5 years?

[Ceetar]

yes, obviously, you haven't introduced any of the downside yet. Where's the part where they demand you trade your nearly as valuable infielder in order to afford that stud outfielder?

[Centerfield]

Ceetar wrote: yes, obviously, you haven't introduced any of the downside yet. Where's the part where they demand you trade your nearly as valuable infielder in order to afford that stud outfielder?

Nobody is making any demands on you. Remember, you are the GM of the Angels, not the Mets. All you are getting is extra money each year.

So if you agree that extra money is an advantage to making the playoffs in one year, and extra money is an advantage to making the playoffs in a 5 year period, are you willing to agree that generally, extra money is an advantage?

[seawolf17]

Ceetar wrote: yes, obviously, you haven't introduced any of the downside yet. Where's the part where they demand you trade your nearly as valuable infielder in order to afford that stud outfielder?

I don't think anyone's saying that more money is *everything.* But having a larger budget is unquestionably a benefit. I can't see how it makes any sense to say different.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yes, it's the budget that's important, not necessarily the payroll. It's certainly possible for a team to be fortunate enough to win with a primarily young and cheap roster. But success is more likely when a team has the budget flexibility to add players or swallow bad contracts when necessary.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: yes, obviously, you haven't introduced any of the downside yet. Where's the part where they demand you trade your nearly as valuable infielder in order to afford that stud outfielder? Nobody is making any demands on you. Remember, you are the GM of the Angels, not the Mets. All you are getting is extra money each year. So if you agree that extra money is an advantage to making the playoffs in one year, and extra money is an advantage to making the playoffs in a 5 year period, are you willing to agree that generally, extra money is an advantage?

Or the Yankees I guess.

I think I already stated extra money is obviously an advantage in building a team. That's not what you asked when you went off on this tangent.

Ceetar wrote: yes, obviously, you haven't introduced any of the downside yet. Where's the part where they demand you trade your nearly as valuable infielder in order to afford that stud outfielder? I don't think anyone's saying that more money is *everything.* But having a larger budget is unquestionably a benefit. I can't see how it makes any sense to say different.

I didn't. I said that the team with the larger payroll isn't necessarily the better team. They don't necessarily have the advantage, once the offseason is done and games begin, in the division/league. I mean, hell, the Mets spent more last offseason, by far, than the Nationals, though the Nationals retained the higher payroll. There's definitely a more specific advantage to a immediate spending, and given the way service time works right now, the farther removed you are from actually committing to that money the less of an advantage, and often a detriment, it is. Think Pujols.

I also said that said payroll is so far removed from my actual enjoyment of the team and the game that it's importance to me is very limited.

[Centerfield]

Ceetar wrote: I think I already stated extra money is obviously an advantage in building a team.

Given that we agree that extra money is an advantage in building a team, please pick which applies:

(a) I want the Mets GM to have extra money to build a roster.

( I do NOT want the Mets GM to have extra money to build a roster.

© I am indifferent to whether or not the Mets GM is given extra money to build a roster.

[Ceetar]

you're boring me.

What's "Extra"? beyond the arbitrary revenue of the Mets? Sure. That'd be nice. I'm not sure what right I have to demand it though.


the correct answer is C of course. I want the Mets to acquire Machado or a similarly talented level of player to add to the roster on the infield. I don't care what they pay him.

[Centerfield]

Centerfield (way back on page 3) 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 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.

Emphasis added.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: Centerfield (way back on page 3) 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 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. Emphasis added.

emphasis all you like, as long as you look in a mirror.

[Centerfield]

Honestly. Sometimes I have no idea where you are going with your arguments.

Anyway, I think it's apparent to you, and anyone who takes the trouble to read through our exchange, that an increased budget is an advantage. That's why I advocate for it.

No one can tell you the right way to be a fan. But you, other fans like you, members of the media etc., who pretend like money doesn't matter...I don't get it. But to each his own.

[Ceetar]

Never pretended money doesn't matter. It's just not a one to one relationship, and is a rather murky one at that. Also, I don't throw a fit and spike my blood pressure every time the Mets sign someone when there was someone else out there that might not even be better but would've commanded more money. Or they don't get as much back as I expected and I desperately try to find a way to blame it on the Wilpons saving 20 bucks.

It's boring and sloppy, isn't based in logic, reason, or even a quote. Like the trade deadline these past two years. We've gotten zero indication that the Mets could've gotten better prospects by eating some of the salary (and no one's explained why the other team would do that) but we see assert it like it's fact.

But whatever, if building up this narrative around the murky details about the Mets finances interests you, have at it. It's extremely boring to me and I'd rather just discuss the players I think they can/should/will get.

[Vic Sage]

I think Grimm put his finger on the disconnect here.

While a team's PLAYER PAYROLL may not have a direct cause-and-effect relationship to wins in any given year (as Ceet notes, there are teams who spend and don't win, and teams that win and don't spend), but a team's BUDGET is very much a central factor in being able to sustain winning over time. It's not what a team spends, it's what they are WILLING to spend in any given year, based on the circumstances. Are they willing to cut a big contract player who is a bust and move on to acquire another big contract player, despite the sunk costs? Are they willing to go the extra mile and overpay for a specific FA, or pick one up at the trade deadline, because the GM believes he'll put us over the top? Are they willing to eat the back-end of a big contract in order to get a middle-aged player who is great now, even if he won't be later? Does the team take its profits and invest in international scouting and player development, or do they just pocket it, or use it for their other companies? Is the team willing to spend on getting the best staff and tech to help the team win?

The only way we can know what the Wilpons are willing to do, however, is to assess what they have done. And it doesn't seem to many of us that they are wiling to use the advantage of flexibility that a big-revenue franchise would otherwise provide, whether its because their money is all tied up in debt (i.e., they don't have any), or because they'd rather run at a HIGHER profit and hope to win rather than run at a lower profit and actually increase their chance win.

[batmagadanleadoff]

It's not murky. The more money a team spends, the better it does. That's a proven fact. The correlation might not be perfect, but it's positive. This holds even for teams spending enough to trigger the luxury tax. Teams also generate more revenue the more they spend on payroll. This has been proven in studies by MLB itself and by outsiders.

And of course, a team can't spend more without the budget to do so. A team can succeed with a smaller payroll but it's harder to do so, and is a strategy that is more luck reliant

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's not murky. The more money a team spends, the better it does. That's a proven fact. The correlation might not be perfect, but it's positive. This holds even for teams spending enough to trigger the luxury tax. Teams also generate more revenue the more they spend on payroll. This has been proven in studies by MLB itself and by outsiders. And of course, a team can't spend more without the budget to do so. A team can succeed with a smaller payroll but it's harder to do so, and is a strategy that is more luck reliant

over the long term, not in a given year.

And yes, but we don't know the budget, we can only guess at the budget, it's a damn murky mess of creative accounting that no one even bothers to ask about. This offseason there are a lot of good players and the relationship between 2018-2019 spending and 2019 quality might be a little more direct, but hell the Mets were one of the bigger spenders last offseason and it didn't really work out.

We don't know the budget so I don't know why it's interesting to discuss how much they'll spend over discussing that they should be targeting Machado level production as in infield acquisition. It simply being Machado is the easy way to achieve that, but there are certainly other acquisitions/trades/maneuvers that will work. (And, of course, you can never really know who is going to be perform in the future.)

[Benjamin Grimm]

But you really do have to have a sense of the budget to know whether or not a pursuit of Machado is even realistic.

I'd love it if the Mets made a serious effort to sign Machado, but I don't expect it. And maybe I'm wrong not to expect it. I hope so!

[Centerfield]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: But you really do have to have a sense of the budget to know whether or not a pursuit of Machado is even realistic.

Yup.

Also, understand this. There is no way ceetar is "indifferent" about budget and payroll. Fans who are indifferent to budget/payroll simply ignore those discussions. That's not ceetar.

He actively argues against it. Goes out of his way to reiterate how little it matters. Characterizes those who care about it as hysterical by using phrases like "I don't throw a fit and spike my blood pressure".

This isn't someone who doesn't care. This is someone who wants to affirmatively downplay the importance of the budget.

There are those in the media who subscribe to this school of thought. I always thought they did so to endear themselves to the owners. Maybe get an inside track or something. But there are is a contingent of fans who do this also. Again, I have no explanation as to why they do this.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: But you really do have to have a sense of the budget to know whether or not a pursuit of Machado is even realistic. I'd love it if the Mets made a serious effort to sign Machado, but I don't expect it. And maybe I'm wrong not to expect it. I hope so!

oh, so we only talk about realistic things here in Mets fandom?

[Benjamin Grimm]

No, but it's worthwhile to know what is and isn't realistic.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: No, but it's worthwhile to know what is and isn't realistic.

Machado is possible. But he'll be highly sought after so 'realistic'? I dunno. depends how you define it.

We start threads and debate endlessly based on a random journalist suggesting a player the Mets could acquire. That's less realistic than the talented ones that fit a need.

[Benjamin Grimm]

First up: Doug Melvin

Mets kicking off GM search with longtime baseball exec

Mike Puma wrote: The Mets’ general manager search will include at least one name with extensive experience in the position. Doug Melvin, the former Rangers and Brewers GM, has been contacted by the Mets and will interview with club officials either this week or next, according to an industry source. The 66-year-old Melvin has been serving as a senior adviser to the Brewers, who clinched the NL Central title on Monday.