Everyone Team Can Afford Harper

[Centerfield]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

=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.

[batmagadanleadoff]

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.

[Edgy MD]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.htmlhttps://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]

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]

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]

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]

According to this list, Boston is the #7 TV market in the US. https://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-marketshttps://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_populationhttps://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]

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]

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]

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]

Exactly.

[RealityChuck]

=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.

[kcmets]

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



Rinse and repeat.

[Centerfield]

=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.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=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.

[Centerfield]

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]

LONG LIVE JOE BLOGGS!