K-Rod Traded

[Vic Sage]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Vic Sage wrote: ... i don't have to delude myself with pennant hopes in order to enjoy watching a Mets game. Wow. About as profound as anything I've ever read here.

not aiming at profundity.

But as an atheist, i long ago gave up magical thinking and have come to appreciate life on its own terms without expecting any greater glory to justify any of it. I watch baseball for a variety of reasons, and investing in playoff hopes doesn't always have to be one of them. Otherwise, i'd have to either start skewing reality to justify my continuing interest or lose interest whenever post-season chances fade. Unwilling to do either, i've attempted to develop a greater understanding of the game itself, as an intellectual matter, and to appreciate its aesthetics for its own sake, and to share that understanding and appreciation with others... family, friends, the Pool.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Vic Sage wrote: ... to appreciate its aesthetics for its own sake...

So simple, and yet so tricky and potentially fraught.

That's what I've been going for with my fandom over the last couple of years, with mixed results (mostly success, or slouching toward it, anyway... with some "if we win three, we're IN this" backsliding).

[Vic Sage]

want nothing and you can never be disappointed.

[Vic Sage]

Vic Sage wrote: want nothing and you can never be disappointed.

you may now rub my belly for luck.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: I agree Beltran will hurt more, but he's got no contract for next year that we need to escape. So the pressure to shed him isn't nearly as acute, and there's no harm in waiting a week or two to see how things shake out. And it won't kill us to keep him. I don't think you need to pretend that there's a relationship between shedding Rodriguez and signing Reyes. There is.

Of course there's a relationship between every single transaction. But it's never been a K-Rod or Reyes situation. It was never that he had to trade him to sign Reyes, or itw ouldn't happen, or that Reyes couldn't decide to leave anyway, regardless of K-Rod.

Reyes being resigned is going to be the result of a ton of different things, and freeing up payroll with Frankie is one small indirect part of it.


As for Beltran, there are multiple issues.

1The agreement not to offer him arbitration, making it seem 'wasteful' to many if they let him go and get nothing next year besides the 5+ million dollars they'll still owe him regardless.

However, Beltran, especially before Wright and Reyes return, has a much greater impact on the revenue of this team in August and September.

Those draft picks are also part of the 'incentive' to the team that would acquire him. Teams may be willing to give up prospects for a rental if they think they're getting similar prospects via draft.

The rumor about not getting compensation the same way next year based on a renegotiated CBA. I haven't heard this mentioned much lately, but presumably the people involved in labor negotiations have some thoughts on which way this will go.

I don't know how much opposing GMs value 'clutch', but Beltran's 1.3 playoff OPS in 22 games is certainly pretty looking.

No-trade. Beltran's experienced playoff races, and playing out the string. I don't know that he'sl ooking to go to he Pirates, or some other 'fringe' playoff team.

[Edgy MD]

Of course there's a relationship between every single transaction. But it's never been a K-Rod or Reyes situation. It was never that he had to trade him to sign Reyes, or itw ouldn't happen, or that Reyes couldn't decide to leave anyway, regardless of K-Rod. Reyes being resigned is going to be the result of a ton of different things, and freeing up payroll with Frankie is one small indirect part of it.

Seems pretty large to me. $17.5 million large.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Of course there's a relationship between every single transaction. But it's never been a K-Rod or Reyes situation. It was never that he had to trade him to sign Reyes, or itw ouldn't happen, or that Reyes couldn't decide to leave anyway, regardless of K-Rod. Reyes being resigned is going to be the result of a ton of different things, and freeing up payroll with Frankie is one small indirect part of it. Seems pretty large to me. $17.5 million large.

It's one of many factors. Only Sandy/Fred really know how large. It's not like Sandy hasn't stated they could sign Reyes next season, regardless.

[Edgy MD]

We all know. It's $17.5 million large. That's exactly how large it is.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: We all know. It's $17.5 million large. That's exactly how large it is.

you're mincing words. Only Sandy knows how important it was, and how much that large pile of $5 bills was going to affect his ability to sign Reyes.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I hear that my neighbor won $17.5 million in the lottery.

I say, "Sure, that's a lot of money, but only he knows exactly how much."

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

And even then... will he really know, until he's on his deathbed, reflecting on his life? Will he REALLY really know, even then?

I say, God only knows. And since I don't believe in God, nobody. Nobody knows. It's like Tootsie Pops that way.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

And only he knows what he's going to spend it on.

I don't think it's mincing words at all. That money has a tremendous real world value expressed in dollars or win shares or what have you. It's worth more as potential in pocket than it is invested in Rodriguez.

I don't get this default to "only Sandy knows" over and over. Good is good and bad is bad. Are you contending that good is bad because we're only going to make a worse investment with it? Because chances are huge we won't.

[metsmarathon]

Ceetar wrote: Of course there's a relationship between every single transaction. But it's never been a K-Rod or Reyes situation. It was never that he had to trade him to sign Reyes, or itw ouldn't happen, or that Reyes couldn't decide to leave anyway, regardless of K-Rod.

i really wish you would not go back to this line of thinking.

of course it is possible that the mets could have retained both krod and reyes. but the real issue is that if krod were to have gotten his $17.5M, then there would be exactly that much less of the total available budget to spend on other areas. and those other areas includes jose reyes. without krod, there is suddenly $17.5M to spend on, among other things, jose reyes. the only way this is not the case is if you believe that the mets budget would increase by $17.5M if they had to pay for krod, but otherwise would be $17.5M lower. that they would pursue the same players with the same contractual offers regardless of his presence.

since we're doing analogies, lets pretend you're remodeling your bathroom. you have a pot of money available to spend on the project. one contractor offers to do the job on the cheap, but is including a solid shower stall, which increases the total cost of the project by some 20%. now, if you don't have that extra 20%, you can get him to substitute the golden shower for a cheaper plastic model for a few hundred. but if you do have the budget to afford the golden shower, wouldn't you want to spend that extra cost on better cabinets and tile? maybe if you have a whole ton of money, you can get the upgraded cabinets and tile as well as the gold stall, i guess. but as long as you can afford to pay for the solid gold shower stall, you can almost certainly spend that money more wisely. like a towel warmer, or radiant heat in the floor, or a solid gold toilet. frankie rodriguez is that golden shower. he might've kept us from getting nice tile or a sturdy vanity, or maybe he would've kept us from getting a toasty towel or warm feet, but he would've kept us from getting something, even if that something is a golden shitter.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

"What's this about a golden shitter? How much doyouwan for this golden shitter, exactly? When would I have to say 'yes'... youknowifIwassinterested?"

[Edgy MD]

No, no. This is the takeaway:

frankie rodriguez is that golden shower.

[Ceetar]

I don't see why you're insistant on extrapolating on what I'm saying. All I'm saying is this news does not mean "yay, now we get Reyes!" We could still not get him. We could've gotten him anyway.

It's also not a given that the 17.5 is more value than K-Rod provides. (If you need an example, What if last year the Yankees had decided not to spend the 15mill on Mariano and had used it to sign Feliciano and Soriano? Not quite teh same as they're all relievers, but the guy you spend the money on could be Mo Vaughn or just trip and break his leg for that matter) The percentages suggest it's much much more likely. But that's all a GM really controls, percentages. (Paraphrasing Sandy here)

The almost certain probability that this ultimately makes the Mets better in the long run is not exciting. It's merely a good financial decision, but in terms of how I feel about the team in general, at this moment, it's hardly more than buying an energy efficient refridgerator. Sure, that money saved probably allows me to keep Netflix even with the price going up, but the fridge could still end up causing brown outs or end up being a faulty model.

[TransMonk]

[soupcan]

Why would you blame the brown-out on the energy efficient fridge?

It's much more likely to be your wife's blow dryer.

[stevejrogers]

seawolf17 wrote: [idiot wfan caller] I think the two PTBNLs should be Fielder and Braun. [/idiot wfan caller]

I need to interject my favorite example of idiot sports radio speculation about a PTBNL, and this one comes from a host on WEEI in Boston on the day David Cone was traded to the Blue Jays. Guy thought that there actually could have been a possibility Cone was to be Harry Chitied back to the Mets.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Wait, but what if they have fireworks at the Parnell press conference later?

Wait wait... INDOOR fireworks! Excited yet, or ar--

Ceetar wrote: It's also not a given that the 17.5 is more value than K-Rod provides.

/Head explodes

[Ceetar]

soupcan wrote: Why would you blame the brown-out on the energy efficient fridge? It's much more likely to be your wife's blow dryer.

more likely the extremely faulty wine fridge that only keeps temp in one section and needs to be WD40d every other month at least.

I'll let you decide which player the wine fridge is.

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Wait, but what if they have fireworks at the Parnell press conference later? Wait wait... INDOOR fireworks! Excited yet, or ar-- Ceetar wrote: It's also not a given that the 17.5 is more value than K-Rod provides. /Head explodes

It's just not. potential value is not value. I repeat, what if that money gets spend on someone who has a 2011 season like Santana? Even smart GMs sometimes sign bad guys, or guys get injured.

You obviously would rather take the chance with it over the ceiling Frankie provides, but stop speaking absolutes, because that's not how it works.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: I don't see why you're insistant on extrapolating on what I'm saying. All I'm saying is this news does not mean "yay, now we get Reyes!" We could still not get him. We could've gotten him anyway.

It means it's $17.5 million dollars more likely. That's how the game works.

It's also not a given that the 17.5 is more value than K-Rod provides.

It so totally is.

Ceetar wrote: (If you need an example, What if last year the Yankees had decided not to spend the 15mill on Mariano and had used it to sign Feliciano and Soriano?

Are you contending that good is bad because we're only going to make a worse investment with it? Because chances are huge we won't.

I guess you are.

Yes, the Mets, despite the huge amount of better things to do with the money, could still mis-spend it, out of bad luck or poor wisdom. But this isn't optimism. At all. And if you think that a team shouldn't avoid tremendously bad investments because they're only going to find worse ones, then you shouldn't be a GM. K-Rod (God forbid) could die in a car wreck just as easy as the guy they otherwise sign. That risk is on both sides of the equation, for God's sake.

Ceetar wrote: The almost certain probability that this ultimately makes the Mets better in the long run is not exciting.

Is it the emotional argument or the logical one you're going to stick to, because you keep conceding the latter to return to the former only to re-assert the latter.

[soupcan]

Ceetar wrote: more likely the extremely faulty wine fridge that only keeps temp in one section and needs to be WD40d every other month at least. I'll let you decide which player the wine fridge is.

Well now you're just changing your statement.

A faulty wine fridge is certainly not energy efficient and therefore your point is moot. Buying it would not be a good financial decision.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Guest

[TransMonk]

soupcan wrote: A faulty wine fridge is certainly not energy efficient and therefore your point is moot. Buying it would not be a good financial decision.

[Edgy MD]

Cars or toilets or fridges. We've narrowed this down to one point. What we're talking about is hard goods.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Wait, but what if they have fireworks at the Parnell press conference later? Wait wait... INDOOR fireworks! Excited yet, or ar-- Ceetar wrote: It's also not a given that the 17.5 is more value than K-Rod provides. /Head explodes

Yes instead of trading him we should have re-upped him at $22 million. No, $22 billion.

[soupcan]

I thought that was David Cone for a second.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Wait, but what if they have fireworks at the Parnell press conference later? Wait wait... INDOOR fireworks! Excited yet, or ar-- Ceetar wrote: It's also not a given that the 17.5 is more value than K-Rod provides. /Head explodes Yes instead of trading him we should have re-upped him at $22 million. No, $22 billion.

Well, but hold on-- if you'd been a little more patient, you could have spent that $22 billion bailing out Italy unconditionally, or attempting to relaunch New Coke worldwide. YOU NEVER KNOW.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Yes, the Mets, despite the huge amount of better things to do with the money, could still mis-spend it, out of bad luck or poor wisdom. But this isn't optimism. At all. And if you think that a team shouldn't avoid tremendously bad investments because they're only going to find worse ones, then you shouldn't be a GM. K-Rod (God forbid) could die in a car wreck just as easy as the guy they otherwise sign. That risk is on both sides of the equation, for God's sake. Ceetar wrote: The almost certain probability that this ultimately makes the Mets better in the long run is not exciting. Is it the emotional argument or the logical one you're going to stick to, because you keep conceding the latter to return to the former only to re-assert the latter.

I'm really not sure I'm _arguing_ anything. I'm confessing and opinion that I don't find this anything to get excited about. Yes, their is risk on both sides of the equation. But I'm not going to get excited about the unknown one merely on a pile of cash that may or may not be used.

And really, this has nothing to do with Rodriguez. The Mets no longer have him. It's over. I'm not overly excited about the Mets ability to spend 40 million instead of 30, or however it ultimately works out. If the Mets bring in a pitcher, say Kuroda, as the first name off the top of my head, and I think he can help, I'm not going to be less excited about it if he makes 9 million instead of 6. When Sandy Alderson selects a player from the Brewers, and I can look him up and think "Hey, maybe that guy could get some people out with that curve ball!" I'll get excited about it.