Signing Sugar

[batmagadanleadoff]

Megdal weighs in on Rubin's interview with Wright.

David Wright on the death of optimism
By Howard Megdal
10:58 am Oct. 1, 2012

David Wright, the face of the Mets franchise, now feels at liberty to utter truths that are left unsaid, or denied, by the Mets organization itself. Wright has no idea if he will be a Met in 2013, let alone beyond that. He is unwilling to discuss an extension in-season next year, during the final year of his contract. So if the Mets cannot convince him to stay long-term, or cannot pay him, trading him this winter makes more sense than losing him for nothing next winter. "Just like players do a lot of times what's best for them, organizations sometimes have to do what's best for them also," Wright said, in an interview with Adam Rubin. "The ideal is you want to get a winning team on the field as quickly as possible. That's the front office's job to make those tough decisions. It would be tough for me personally. But, at the end of the day, I would understand." Speaking of a player the Mets let go for nothing, Wright was apparently as shocked as much of the fan base was by the departure of Jose Reyes, and it appears the loss of the franchise's best shortstop ever changed his thinking about the Mets' direction. "I always thought Jose would be back, that it was just a lot to do about nothing," Wright said. "We've known each other since 2001. You're talking about playing around or with each other for 11 years. Yeah, of course it opens your eyes. It makes you realize in a lot of ways there is an ugly business side to this�whether it's from the player's perspective or the team's perspective." Wright believes that building a team without the ability to add salary via free agency or trade is a problem. This is obvious to everyone, of course, but still isn't acknowledged by the Mets' organization, with plans in place to keep payroll at 2012 levels, leaving no room to add significant salary via trade or free agency for 2013. It appears that Wright, whose career and hopes of winning a championship rests on the direction of the Mets, has noticed. "I think we've demonstrated we have some talent in our minor leagues," Wright said. "Some of the young arms that have come up have been really impressive. But, at the same time, of course it's important that we can make a trade or sign a free agent and be able to spend some money. This is my philosophy on it. And that's why I'm going to sit down with these guys at some point and discuss it. Yeah, I'd like to know if it's going to be 'what you see is what you get' and we're going to base it solely on the minor leagues." Equally obvious has been the reason why: the sad state of ownership's finances, even after the Madoff settlement (which, remember, came due to ownership's lack of money). Wright acknowledged that, too. "Obviously some of the financial things that ownership has gone through have affected the ability to spend," Wright continued, referring to Mets ownership. "I don't think there's any question. I don't know that for a fact, but from what I understand and read it somewhat affected it." The interview itself, besides making for compelling reading, could serve as an attempt by Wright to publicly raise the stakes for the Mets to re-sign him. That seems unlikely, though: no one really needs to make the case that David Wright is important to the Mets, nor that losing Reyes and Wright in rapid succession will devastate the fan base while taking two of the best everyday players the Mets have ever developed from the team while both are still in their primes. More likely, David Wright saw how the Mets managed to disparage the reputation of Reyes, who Wright once described as his "baseball brother." Wright looks like he's trying to protect himself, in case the Mets, rather than ponying up the money and building Wright a winning team, smear Wright as some mercenary out for money as they usher him out the door, unable to keep him. It wouldn't be out of character for the organization, something Wright has almost certainly noticed, too. The very media savviness that has made Wright's stay in New York such a positive one, even when the owner took to the pages of The New Yorker to disparage him, was on display. And it sent the unmistakable message that if Wright isn't certain he's gone, he sure doesn't think it's certain he'll be back. Or as Wright put it, in response to the idea of joining, of all teams, the Yankees: "I don't know. I've never thought about putting on a different uniform. Hopefully that never happens. But you never know what the future holds. I don't know what's going to happen to me."

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/sports/2012/10/6537663/david-wright-death-optimism?sports-bucket-headline

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

seawolf17 wrote: The comparisons to Wright are Derek Fucking Jeter and Chipper Fucking Jones. Neither one of those organizations would have let either of those fucking guys get away. But this is the fucking Wilpons, so fuck that. Fuck. (NSFW)

Not sure these are good comparisons either. DFJ at 30 was on a team that had 7 World Series appearances in the previous 9 years (and had just missed another WS by one game). CFJ at 30 was on a team that had 11 straight playoff appearances with 3 more to come. The best comparison is finding a team has been dismal for half-a-decade and still hangs on to their best player despite few realistic chances of that malaise ending any time soon.

[Edgy MD]

Howard Megdal on the death of optimism sort of breaks the irony meter.

[metsmarathon]

well, then i suppose it all depends on how dimly you view the future.

with the arms the mets are growing, i think the future may well be bright. provided the mets will have the ability to build the team through free agency as well.

if there's no free agent money in the coffers, and doesn't look to be any in the years coming either, then no, they should not keep wright, and they should trade him for budding offensive talent, and the same for dickey. if there is money in the free agent coffers, then there is reason to hope for the future, and to consider the mets akin to the nats extending zimmerman, or the reds extending votto, or the rockies extending tulo.

[Centerfield]

Look, as much as we'd love to pretend emotion and loyalty have anything to do with baseball, logically speaking, the Wilpons' decision comes down to only two options:

1. Sign Wright long-term this Winter.

2. Get run over by CF multiple times.

[seawolf17]

Centerfield wrote: Look, as much as we'd love to pretend emotion and loyalty have anything to do with baseball, logically speaking, the Wilpons' decision comes down to only two options: 1. Sign Wright long-term this Winter. 2. Get run over by CF multiple times.

Or, better, both.

[Gwreck]

Mets � Willets Point wrote: Not sure these are good comparisons either. DFJ at 30 was on a team that had 7 World Series appearances in the previous 9 years (and had just missed another WS by one game). CFJ at 30 was on a team that had 11 straight playoff appearances with 3 more to come. The best comparison is finding a team has been dismal for half-a-decade and still hangs on to their best player despite few realistic chances of that malaise ending any time soon.

Tony Gwynn in San Diego? Occasional good years (84, 98) and some bad ones in between?

[seawolf17]

Gwreck wrote: Mets � Willets Point wrote: Not sure these are good comparisons either. DFJ at 30 was on a team that had 7 World Series appearances in the previous 9 years (and had just missed another WS by one game). CFJ at 30 was on a team that had 11 straight playoff appearances with 3 more to come. The best comparison is finding a team has been dismal for half-a-decade and still hangs on to their best player despite few realistic chances of that malaise ending any time soon. Tony Gwynn in San Diego? Occasional good years (84, 98) and some bad ones in between?

Gwynn was my first thought too. Michael Young is a good parallel fitting that definition as well.

[Edgy MD]

He's about 1,000 plate appearances behind Wright, but a pretty good analog for David is his homeboy Ryan Zimmerman. He's been on the cover of the media guide for years, he's reliable in the middle of the order but can get his swing out of whack for four weeks at a time, he's capable of top-level defense but not can have bad years in the field too.

Each has one Gold Glove, each has projected a squeaky clean image more or less convincingly, each has shown himself willing to fill at shortstop, and each has weathered some tough times with his team more or less stoically.

Zimmeran signed for six years and $100 million with an option for a seventh year, plus a five-year, $10 million personal services contract when his career ends. This is also comparable to what Reyes got on the open market.

Wright knows he's usually better than Zimmerman and usually better than Reyes. A lifetime or two ago, Yogi Berra turned down his bonus offer because Joe Garagiola got more and he had grown up with Garagiola and he knew he was the better player. Where you stand among your friends is important. Offer him 20% more --- say, six years and $118-120 million and I think they'll come to an agreement quickly enough.

[Ceetar]

Wright has two gold gloves. two Silver sluggers as well. I could see him winning another this year though.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think that's a reasonable number, and if the Mets do sign Wright that's about where I expect the numbers to be.

I also think that the Met will be willing to offer that much. The only thing is, how much does David want to stay? Or will he be tempted by greener grass?

[ashie62]

He can get some really really green grass in Hawaii with all that money he's gonna get.

[duan]

I don't think he'll sign for 6*120 this winter. If they're getting him this winter it's got to be for 7/8 years @ about 20 per or 3/4 at mega money.

I'm thinking if we are going to sign him it'll take something like a 7 year deal for 140 million, plus options @ 10 (player) 20 (club) for the following 2 years.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, I think it'll be higher too. But I give 6/120 as the sort of numbers that'll get the Mets past the respect threshold and lead Wright's party to sit down in earnest.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

The Post reporting that things may be moving quickly on the Wright front.

[Edgy MD]

The third baseman is represented by Sam and Seth Levinson.

What does Keith Miller do? Does he just handle the non-baseball stuff? Is he still on board at all?

[ashie62]

Swan Swan H wrote: The Post reporting that things may be moving quickly on the Wright front.

This is encouraging if to be believed. Wright's peoples are looking to start at 7 years for 125 Million? Why not..

[MFS62]

Is this the same Post that reported that the Nets were going to announce the signing of Dwight Howard in a few days?
Just let us know when the contract has been signed.
Later

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Sure, I'll drop everything. Can you provide some emergency contact information in case we have trouble reaching you?

[MFS62]

Swan Swan H wrote: Sure, I'll drop everything. Can you provide some emergency contact information in case we have trouble reaching you?

Hey, Swannie. That was a comment about the predictive powers of the Post. Not anyone here.

Later

[Edgy MD]

Heyman has the Mets intending to open with $100 million.

Points out that Wright has stuck with the ACES agency, despite their ties to a PED ring. He doesn't come out and say it, but he seems to mean to imply that this speaks of Wright's sense of loyalty.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/jon-heyman/20525462/mets-expected-to-offer-about-100m-to-start-as-they-try-to-make-david-wright-a-met-for-life

I guess it can be argued that Wright and Reyes both might have left a little on the table by refusing to negotiate mid-season after torrid first halves, only to cool off in the second half.

[ashie62]

I like David handing back the ball he just autographed.

Work the 100 to 125 and dont flock it up.

[Edgy MD]

I'm a little concerned that Baseball/Goatee Guy and Album-of-Portraits Guy are just vampires using him to keep their E-Bay business going.

[ashie62]

From their hands to Steiner lol

[batmagadanleadoff]

Howie's been a busy writer over the Columbus Day weekend.

Getting those deals with Wright and Dickey over with, for better or worse
By Howard Megdal 11:20 am Oct. 10, 2012

On Saturday, the New York Mets expressed urgency to get David Wright and R.A. Dickey, the team's best position player and pitcher, signed up long-term, indicating that they hoped to have deals in principle agreed to by the World Series. The initial offers to both players, however, don't indicate much urgency at all. Either the Mets are going to need to come up with more, quickly, or their offers are no different than the team's pursuit of Vladimir Guerrero back in the winter of 2003-04: window-dressing in lieu of an actual acquisition. Consider what Jon Heyman is reporting the Mets offered David Wright: "somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million." Now, this is awfully vague, but let's give that reading all the best possible imputations to maximize what the Mets are offering. Let's assume that keeps Wright's $16 million for 2013 as-is, and exists on top of his 2013 deal. If that $100 million (again, we don't know how far below $100 million "the neighborhood" stretches) is spread over six years, he'll be getting essentially no raise over his current salary. Over seven years, that's an average cut in pay over 2013's salary. Over five years, it would be a bump to $20 million per year, but five years simply isn't close to as much as he'd likely get on the free agent market. To get a sense of what Wright's value is likely to be, consider that he's coming off of an elite defensive season at a premium defensive position, along with a 143 O.P.S.+. Moreover, he is just 29 years old, and that season is right in line with his career O.P.S.+ of 135. Joey Votto, at age 28, following a 2011 that saw him finish with less total value than Wright in 2012 and an M.V.P. vote finish, sixth, likely at or below where Wright will land, signed a ten-year, $225 million extension. Votto plays first base, a less demanding defensive position with more talent around to fill it. It's hard to fathom Wright getting anything like half as much as Votto did. Heyman cites Ryan Zimmerman, the Washington Nationals' third baseman, as a comp for Wright. Zimmerman signed a six-year, $100 million extension this spring. But Zimmerman was coming off of an injury-plagued 2011 that limited him to 101 games, rather than a near-M.V.P. season. Moreover, Zimmerman's career O.P.S.+ of 121 is solid, but a good deal below Wright's 135. As for Dickey, Heyman cites a Mets source as looking to extend Dickey for "no more than two years." He also cites a rival G.M. as saying Dickey could command $15 million per year in annual salary, but adds the Mets "aren't believed to be thinking anywhere near that ballpark." The result of such thinking is almost certainly seeing Dickey pitch in a different ballpark. Though Dickey's age, 37, works against him, that he is a knuckleball pitcher works in his favor. And more to the point, he's been quite durable while pitching at an extremely high level for three years now. Last season, C.J. Wilson hit the free agent market following a strong season in 2011. It was just his second full year as a starter, and he pitched fewer innings, at a higher x.F.I.P., than Dickey did in 2012. He then received a five-year, $77.5 million contract from the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. That's the ballpark pitchers like R.A. Dickey are signed in, whether the Mets like it or not. Also, Heyman wrote: "The Mets may give talks about a month, until the point where they will pick up the two players' options in early November. If there are no new deals done by the time the team picks up the options (Wright's is for $16 million, Dickey's is for $5 million) the Mets may consider trades for the players. But particularly in Wright's case, the Mets might have to be overwhelmed to pull the trigger on a trade." If the Mets cannot extend Wright, that last sentence is almost certainly intended to prevent teams from lowballing them. The race will be on to either deal Wright, or lose him, like Jose Reyes, for nothing. Still, the pomp and circumstance surrounding comically low offers brings to mind not Reyes, who never received one at all, but Guerrero, the premier outfielder who was a free agent following the 2003 season. Guerrero had received a five-year, $65 million contract offer from the Baltimore Orioles, but appeared reluctant to sign it. Sensing an opportunity, the Mets swooped in, and after stories in the press about a possible offer, came up with one: for three years, $30 million guaranteed, or less than half the guaranteed value of the Orioles' deal. "If that's the case, it's not going to get it done for them," a source close to Guerrero said at the time, stating the obvious. Unsurprisingly, Guerrero did not become a Met, and ultimately signed with the Angels for five years, $71 million. You know, his market value. If the Mets are to avoid that fate with their two best players, they'll need to show the kind of urgency in increasing their offers to Wright and Dickey that they never did with Guerrero. Otherwise, the Mets are simply rushing to get the doomed-to-fail contract negotiations over with so their real work of trading Wright and Dickey can begin.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/sports/2012/10/6538048/getting-those-deals-wright-and-dickey-over-better-or-worse?sports-bucket-headline

[Guest Swan Swan H]

So Megdal is taking the $100 million figure, and speculating that it could be for five, six or seven years? Does that make any sense? He's guessing to the sound of a grinding axe.

Oh, and here's the quote from Heyman:

The Mets are expected to open negotiations with an offer for somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million for star third baseman David Wright, people familiar with the team's thinking said. The Mets are believed to have some flexibility as they intend to try hard to keep their biggest star. They are expected to give negotiations at least most of October before even considering a trade for Wright.

Megdal states this as follows:

Consider what Jon Heyman is reporting the Mets offered David Wright: "somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million."

Was this ever actually offered? Megdal says it was, or at least implies it by framing Heyman's statement in the past tense. Hacky.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Swan Swan H wrote: So Megdal is taking the $100 million figure, and speculating that it could be for five, six or seven years? Does that make any sense?

That makes sense to me. Megdal's covering every plausible length of proposed contract, assuming that the initial offer is for $100M, total. Megdal then reasons that $100M over six years, adjusted for inflation is no pay raise at all, and $100M over seven years is essentially a pay cut. Four years is too short an offer to make Wright a Met for life and $100M over eight years is too absurd, even by Mets standards to pass comment.

I sort of agree with the premise of this piece -- namely that a $100M offer is ridiculously low, even if Megdal is still axeing his grind. At six years, Wright's probably worth in the neighborhood of $150M on the open market.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Swan Swan H wrote: So Megdal is taking the $100 million figure, and speculating that it could be for five, six or seven years? Does that make any sense? That makes sense to me. Megdal's covering every plausible length of proposed contract, assuming that the initial offer is for $100M, total. Megdal then reasons that $100M over six years, adjusted for inflation is no pay raise at all, and $100M over seven years is essentially a pay cut. Four years is too short an offer to make Wright a Met for life and $100M over eight years is too absurd, even by Mets standards to pass comment. I sort of agree with the premise of this piece -- namely that a $100M offer is ridiculously low, even if Megdal is still axeing his grind. At six years, Wright's probably worth in the neighborhood of $150M on the open market.

And of course, beyond the financials, Wright also wants the Mets to convince him that they'll be playoff competitive in the near, if not immediate, term.

[Ceetar]

'not a pay raise' seems like a perfect place to open a negotiation. "We want you here, let's keep paying you what we're paying you."

[metirish]

Put me down for .....Wright is not signing long term with the Mets.......