Sir, This Isn't an Arby's-tration

[G-Fafif]

[G-Fafif]

[Fman99]

They should give him all the cash they were going to otherwise give to Correa and extend him out for several years.

[roger_that]

extend him out for several years

Why? To throw millions of dollars around needlessly and screw themselves if he comes down with a career-ending injury in the next two years?

[MFS62]

The only Arby eligible player they didn't sign is McNeil.

Squirrel is gonna' get a lot of acorns.



Later

[batmagadanleadoff]

=roger_that post_id=116758 time=1673707605 user_id=128]

extend him out for several years

Why? To throw millions of dollars around needlessly and screw themselves if he comes down with a career-ending injury in the next two years?

[Edgy MD]

As the Braves have demonstrated, frequently young, pre-free-agency players are signed above and beyond their arbitration value in exchange for an extension beyond their arbitration eligibility. That allows teams and players to split the risk.



It's a path the Mets have only occasionally taken, but their young stars have frequently been pitchers, with whom the risk-reward ratio is different. But Alonso and/or McNeil would definitely be candidates for that sort of contract.

[roger_that]

Edgy MD wrote: As the Braves have demonstrated, frequently young, pre-free-agency players are signed above and beyond their arbitration value in exchange for an extension beyond their arbitration eligibility. That allows teams and players to split the risk. It's a path the Mets have only occasionally taken, but their young stars have frequently been pitchers, with whom the risk-reward ratio is different. But Alonso and/or McNeil would definitely be candidates for that sort of contract.

As I keep saying, "money" needs to be defined differently in the Steve Cohen era, as does "risk" and perhaps half of the English language, but there's time enough (I think Alonso has two more years of eligibility for an Arby's sandwich) to extend him modestly. I think if they offer to extend him in a year's time for another three years (at superduperstar rates, naturally) that would be prudent on both the team's and the player's part.



Players can always be pissed if you take them too close to the edge, or if you don't offer enough years to suit them, and so opt to play out their contracts at 100% personal risk of falling into a manhole, but there's the beauty of free agency: you take the risk-free year, and pay gazillions to someone else.

[Edgy MD]

I don't think anything needs to be re-defined. There's an upside to locking up players before free agency whether you are the wealthiest or the least wealthy owner

[batmagadanleadoff]

This:

As I keep saying, "] extend him out for several years Why? To throw millions of dollars around needlessly and screw themselves if he comes down with a career-ending injury in the next two years?

This is nothing more than disingenuous revisionist history. You're simply trying to thread the needle between my post and Edgy's. For personal reasons.

[roger_that]

Edgy MD wrote: I don't think anything needs to be re-defined. There's an upside to locking up players before free agency whether you are the wealthiest or the least wealthy owner

Sure, and a downside too. The difference is the downside (paying a fortune for someone who suffers a career-ending injury) affects the least wealthy owner's plans sharply, and the wealthiest owner hardly at all. However much the Mets screw up, Cohen gets to go "Man! What rotten luck! OK, let's move on with the program from here" and never gets to bitch that he's spent his limit because he doesn't have a limit.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: I don't think anything needs to be re-defined. There's an upside to locking up players before free agency whether you are the wealthiest or the least wealthy owner Sure, and a downside too. The difference is the downside (paying a fortune for someone who suffers a career-ending injury) affects the least wealthy owner's plans sharply, and the wealthiest owner hardly at all. However much the Mets screw up, Cohen gets to go "Man! What rotten luck! OK, let's move on with the program from here" and never gets to bitch that he's spent his limit because he doesn't have a limit.

No. These are insurable risks. And the less wealthier teams have as much access to the insurance markets as Cohen's Mets do. Initially, you wrote a bad post and now you pretend to ignore me because you can't come up with a convincing response to my earlier post about insurance. I say "pretend" because you couldn't ignore my posts if your life depended on it. So when I diss your Doc Medich joke, for example, you run to Edgy and have the audacity to demand that my perfectly fair post be red-lit. Sadly, he complies.



Maybe an old geezer like Justin Verlander isnt insurable but a young pre-free agency superstud like Pete Alonso sure is. And insuring these players is standard operating baseball practice, not some esoteric 3D chess move than only gazillionaires like Cohen can afford.

[Lefty Specialist]

Extend Pete at the end of this season provided he doesn't fall down an open manhole and move on. Man's done enough to earn it.

[Edgy MD]

Edgy MD wrote: I don't think anything needs to be re-defined. There's an upside to locking up players before free agency whether you are the wealthiest or the least wealthy owner Sure, and a downside too.

I know there's a downside too. Upside and downside. That's why we don't have to redefine money, or redefine risk.



But, you know, Fman made the suggestion, so he can sell it.

[roger_that]

Edgy MD wrote: we don't have to redefine money, or redefine risk.

You need to learn how to deal with hyperbole better, my man. It's a useful trope, often amusing, when you don't waste people's time and attention taking it hyper-literally.



We don't understand fully how Cohen's vast wealth influences what we think of as "wise" or "prudent" or "excessive" or "foolish" or many, many other terms (NOT literally half the English language, of course--again, I was exaggerating for comical effect) we apply to the Mets' strategy. I don't even think we understand how Cohen thinks of his investment overall in the Mets. For all I know, he intends to lose money in the year-to-year baseball operations, and is focused purely on the long-term value of the franchise: if the team itself is worth twice what he paid for it in X years' time, does it matter (to him) that he paid a few measly hundred million in salary every year more than he "should have" while he was holding the investment?



I don't mean that he is deliberately wasting money, mind you, merely that what seems an imprudent risk to you or me is manageable for Steve Cohen. He's evidently not going to extend McNeil and Alonso and every other Met who had a good, healthy season with untold wealth far into the future just because he can literally afford to, but he might be (probably is) willing to take risks that other owners won't take. I argued above that a year from now seems like a sensible, prudent time to extend Alonso for a generous if limited number of years, but I also argued that money doesn't mean anything to Cohen (again--hyperbole. Please forgive.) We don't know (I certainly don't) how Cohen balances risk and reward, so we need to adjust our discussion of what's risky and what's acceptable in terms of long-term contracts. Cohen's willing to blow the doors off our expectations of team-budgeting (see Correa signing) and he has limits to the extent he's willing to blow doors off (also see Correa signing). It will take a while, maybe a long while, before we understand his thinking well enough to know what's "risky" for the Mets.

[Edgy MD]

I don't need to understand hyperbole better.



If nothing matters, because Cohen's super-rich, and bad moves are good moves, because he's rich, then there's little point in discussing anything here.



We all understand the owner is fabulously wealthy.

[kcmets]

Lefty Specialist wrote: Extend Pete at the end of this season provided he doesn't fall down an open manhole and move on. Man's done enough to earn it.

Pretty much what is going to happen.

[roger_that]

Edgy MD wrote: I don't need to understand hyperbole better. If nothing matters, because Cohen's super-rich, and bad moves are good moves, because he's rich, then there's little point in discussing anything here. We all understand the owner is fabulously wealthy.

Didn't say you need to understand it better. I said you need to deal with it better, and to stop pretending its literal meaning needs to be addressed. It's merely annoying, not half as clever as you seem to think.



The point to be understood here (and elsewhere) is what Cohen's fabulous wealth does to change some of our assumptions, long entrenched for good reasons, about what the Mets can and cannot, should and shouldn't, do. It may be that what you've become accustomed to thinking of as a smart policy may not be so smart anymore, but I have no idea which specific policies those are at this point, just that some re-thinking is very likely in order for us all.



Under the Wilpons' regime, I got used to thinking that signing a superstar like Alonso years before the absolute last minute was desirable but I also knew that it would happen much more rarely than I do under Cohen's leadership. The question is: How much does Cohen's wealth affect the equation? Do you want to sign all decent players to long-term contracts? How long is long-term now? How much is the salary ceiling? IS there a ceiling, or does Cohen want to establish a new, higher ceiling?



These are interesting questions to me. Maybe to you, not so much.

[Edgy MD]

No, I don't need to "deal with" hyperbole better. Nor do I need to be told what I need. I'm dealing fine. If someone writes something I agree with, I agree. If someone writes something I don't agree with, I disagree. If anybody seems curious as to why, I'll let them know why.



It's kept me out of jail so far.

[kcmets]

Edgy MD wrote: It's kept me out of jail so far.

That's gonna put a chink in our SIM Score haha....

[batmagadanleadoff]

=roger_that post_id=116790 time=1673781682 user_id=128]
I argued above that a year from now seems like a sensible, prudent time to extend Alonso for a generous if limited number of years....

[Bob Alpacadaca]

Edgy MD wrote: As the Braves have demonstrated, frequently young, pre-free-agency players are signed above and beyond their arbitration value in exchange for an extension beyond their arbitration eligibility. That allows teams and players to split the risk. It's a path the Mets have only occasionally taken, but their young stars have frequently been pitchers, with whom the risk-reward ratio is different. But Alonso and/or McNeil would definitely be candidates for that sort of contract.

Agreed. Alonso is an elite power hitter who seems to love playing in New York and appears to embrace a leadership role. Lock him up now and ensure someone doesn't come in with a crazy offer in two years.

[Lefty Specialist]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=116803 time=1673812382 user_id=68]
=roger_that post_id=116790 time=1673781682 user_id=128]
I argued above that a year from now seems like a sensible, prudent time to extend Alonso for a generous if limited number of years....

[Fman99]

Bob Alpacadaca wrote: Edgy MD wrote: As the Braves have demonstrated, frequently young, pre-free-agency players are signed above and beyond their arbitration value in exchange for an extension beyond their arbitration eligibility. That allows teams and players to split the risk. It's a path the Mets have only occasionally taken, but their young stars have frequently been pitchers, with whom the risk-reward ratio is different. But Alonso and/or McNeil would definitely be candidates for that sort of contract. Agreed. Alonso is an elite power hitter who seems to love playing in New York and appears to embrace a leadership role. Lock him up now and ensure someone doesn't come in with a crazy offer in two years.

^