Signing Sugar

[G-Fafif]

"You going to Wright's first game back?"

Not a question that could be asked by or of a Mets fan in a sane world.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Once again, Megdal writes as though this offer is on the table when it is still speculation. Also, he chooses not to quote Heyman's note that the Mets will be trying hard to sign Wright.

[ashie62]

I'm thinking the "industry Source" suggesting the Mets will or did open with a $100 million dollar offer is full of shit.

[metirish]

Swan Swan H wrote: Once again, Megdal writes as though this offer is on the table when it is still speculation. Also, he chooses not to quote Heyman's note that the Mets will be trying hard to sign Wright.

True, we have unfortunately seen this before.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Swan Swan H wrote: Once again, Megdal writes as though this offer is on the table when it is still speculation. Also, he chooses not to quote Heyman's note that the Mets will be trying hard to sign Wright.

I'm fine with Megdal basing his piece on the $100M figure. That's the figure that was publicized. But yeah, he should've made it clear that there's no public information indicating that the money was actually offered to Wright.

[Edgy MD]

Ashie62 wrote: I'm thinking the "industry Source" suggesting the Mets will or did open with a $100 million dollar offer is full of shit.

The "industry source was "people familiar with the team's thinking." And they didn't say "will" or "did" but "are expected to."

Megdal is running to a very specific place with some very abstract shoes. And of course it was the place he was planning on going anyway.

Get back to doing some reporting maybe. Letting Heyman (of all people) do the legwork while you get to stay home and distort seems like no contribution at all.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Can we get a moratorium on Vlad Guerrero references. He was NEVER going to sign here.

[metirish]

Not once Dr.Fred saw those back x-rays he wasn't.

[MFS62]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: 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.

I don't care who's on first or what's on second, as long as David Wright is on third.

Later

[batmagadanleadoff]

Two Separate Questions
Posted by: Howard Megdal - Posted in Business of Baseball, Today's Mets headlines on Oct 11, 2012

Briefly, on a couple of questions that some discussions on Twitter seem to conflate regarding David Wright. 1. What will it take to sign David Wright? 2. What should the Mets offer David Wright? What we know so far is that the Mets say they plan to offer Wright a six-year deal in the neighborhood of $100 million. Now, considering Joey Votto�s ten-year, $225 million extension (in terms of player value, a far more similar comp than Ryan Zimmerman), the lack of other third basemen available, and the onrushing TV money about to hit the sport in 2014, paying Wright exactly what he�ll make in 2013 for only another six years doesn�t sound like close to enough. Jayson Werth, just two years ago, got 7/$126 million. Carl Crawford got 7/$142 million. So in terms of question number one, though anything is possible, it seems very unlikely that David Wright�s agents think he is getting any less than 8/$160 million, and with good reason. Will he settle for far less than that? It is possible. Just seems awfully unlikely. But conflating that with question two is a mistake. There�s a very different conversation to be had, namely: should the Mets pay David Wright $20 million per year, beginning with his age 31 season, and ending with his age 38 season? Is that a good use of funds? In general, teams need to pay for premium production, with the contract evening out by teams overpaying on the back end. And really, it is an impossible question to answer without knowing, at least to some degree, if/when the Mets can ever spend money again in a competitive way. $20 million in a $90 million payroll is vastly different than $20 million in a $140 or $170 million payroll. But in terms of answering question one, I don�t think there�s much dispute that the Mets are far short right now of what it will take, an odd thing to see after the urgency of the sign David Wright message being put out by the team. And if the team has determined the answer to question two is well shy of the answer to question one, the urgency to conduct negotiations is happening for a different reason: public consumption, ahead of a trade. I�m sure the Mets would be thrilled to keep David Wright if he is willing to return for well below his market value. And there�s no shame in being rightly hesitant to pay him above his market value, especially given the team�s financial reality right now. But let�s remember that both questions are in play here.

http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2012/10/11/two-separate-questions/

[Edgy MD]

What we know so far is that the Mets say they plan to offer Wright a six-year deal in the neighborhood of $100 million.

He's a machine. You can't stop him. You can only hope to somehow restrict his press credentials.

[MFS62]

Is that the editorial "we", or is he talking about his pet rat?
If another real person, I'd sure like to find out who else thinks that.

Later

[Edgy MD]

I've got no problem with him thinking that. But stating it as a known fact is so bush.

[batmagadanleadoff]

excerpt:

Wright is believed to be seeking a contract valued at at least $125 million over seven years. He hit .306/.391/.492 with 21 home runs and 15 stolen bases in 670 plate appearances this season while being selected to the All-Star team for the sixth time.

http://www.cbssports.com/general/blog/mlb-rumors/20480106/report-mets-could-have-new-deals-for-david-wright-and-ra-dickey-by-world-series

If this report is true, then the Mets supposed offer of 6/$100M wouldn't be much off the mark, at least as far as matching Wright's idea of how much money he seeks to average yearly. But that seventh year ......

[Guest Swan Swan H]

If this is seven years on top of the option year, that puts the end of the contract at his age 37 season. If they are talking 6/$100, I can't imagine they couldn't come around to 7/$125. It's $1 million per year more than the rumored starting number, and way less in years and salary than the Votto or Pujols deals.

[metirish]

Sugar is undervaluing himself if true.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Sssshhhhhhh. He might hear you.

[Ceetar]

Swan Swan H wrote: If this is seven years on top of the option year, that puts the end of the contract at his age 37 season. If they are talking 6/$100, I can't imagine they couldn't come around to 7/$125. It's $1 million per year more than the rumored starting number, and way less in years and salary than the Votto or Pujols deals.

And if it's _not_ on top of the option year, they're actually pretty close to each other.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

A bit of perspective - Alex Rodriguez, 37 years old as he sits on the bench today, is owed between $114 and $119 million (BB Ref vs. Cot's) starting next season.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Some more perspective: 7@125 is about what Wright earns now. I'm skeptical. He's worth $20M a year.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Some more perspective: 7@125 is about what Wright earns now. I'm skeptical. He's worth $20M a year.

Wright's made $14.25M last year, $15M this year, and has the option for $16M next year. $125/7 is $17.85M per - not a massive jump, but not insignificant considering it will be paying for his declining years. I agree that he's worth $20M, but 7/$125 is not insulting either.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm not so sure he's worth $20 million, but maybe I'm not aware of who all the other $20 million players are.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm not so sure he's worth $20 million, but maybe I'm not aware of who all the other $20 million players are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_paid_Major_League_Baseball_players

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'm not so sure he's worth $20 million, but maybe I'm not aware of who all the other $20 million players are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_paid_Major_League_Baseball_players

If Jason Bay can get $18M, Wright should get $20M just for breathing.

[metsmarathon]

he's worth well in excess of 20 now (if you look at his $/WAR equivalent). the rub is will he be worth that towards the end of the deal.

and i think that if he's put behind himself the nonsense that was 2009-11, and if he stays healthy, he'll likely have no trouble achieving that level of production for the duration. perhaps towards the end, he may not be a 4 WAR player, but i think he will be.

granted, those $/WAR calculations always seem flawed to me. if you pay a guy $20M a year, you're probably expecting him to deliver far more than 4 WAR. you're expecting more like 6 WAR.

and if you pay a guy close to $30M or even more, its a flat out disaster if he's not the MVP. [snicker arod snicker]

[batmagadanleadoff]

NY Mets may start talks with third baseman David Wright as early as next week, according to sources
In the final days of the season, Alderson vowed an aggressive push to re-sign the two �core players� as quickly as possible.
By Andy Martino / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Saturday, October 13, 2012, 12:37 AM

WASHINGTON � Mets officials and the agents for David Wright have not yet scheduled a meeting or begun formal contract negotiations, but could do so next week, according to people involved in the process. There have not yet been substantive talks between the team and R.A. Dickey�s representatives either � although in both cases, general manager Sandy Alderson engaged the veterans in informal discussions before the season ended. In the final days of the season, Alderson vowed an aggressive push to re-sign the two �core players� as quickly as possible. Given the fact that talks have not yet begun, is it still possible that either player could be signed this month? �Too early to tell,� one Mets source said. Both Wright and Dickey have one year left on their contracts in the form of club options for 2013, but the Mets are seeking big-picture resolution on both this fall. Alderson has made clear that, whatever the potential risks of a offering a long-term contract to a player � Wright � who will turn 30 next season, he is interested in committing the years and dollars necessary to retain the third baseman, who could command a contract of six or seven years and $120 million or more. There appears to be more internal debate about Dickey, although Alderson is said by associates to be sincere in his view of the 37-year-old Cy Young candidate as worthy of another multiyear deal. In some corners of the organization, there is concern about the knuckleballer�s age, and the injuries that he was able to pitch through during the past two seasons. Contract talks broke down last season, and if that happens again, Dickey could be shopped to other teams. But Alderson has already launched his pitch to Wright and Dickey, in conversations that took place in September. Presenting an honest assessment of the team�s ability to contend next year (in summary: Anything can happen, but it will probably take another year before the Mets can finish .500 or better), the GM has assured the players that he expects greater financial flexibility before the 2014 season, and believes that the organization�s young pitchers will be developed by that time. Next step: Engaging Seth and Sam Levinson, Wright�s agents, and Bo McKinnis, who represents Dickey, in informal negotiations.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/wright-time-mets-david-article-1.1182522

[ashie62]

metsmarathon wrote: he's worth well in excess of 20 now (if you look at his $/WAR equivalent). the rub is will he be worth that towards the end of the deal. and i think that if he's put behind himself the nonsense that was 2009-11, and if he stays healthy, he'll likely have no trouble achieving that level of production for the duration. perhaps towards the end, he may not be a 4 WAR player, but i think he will be. granted, those $/WAR calculations always seem flawed to me. if you pay a guy $20M a year, you're probably expecting him to deliver far more than 4 WAR. you're expecting more like 6 WAR. and if you pay a guy close to $30M or even more, its a flat out disaster if he's not the MVP. [snicker arod snicker]

WAR is not everything.

[metsmarathon]

he also hit the ball really well and played good defense.

sigh.

[batmagadanleadoff]

For David Wright, the market will bear a lot more than the Mets can
By Howard Megdal 4:11 pm Oct. 16, 2012

The Mets might not be in a position to sign David Wright to a long-term extension. Unfortunate, but given the ownership group's ongoing financial problems, that's the way it is. Word leaked last week that the Mets are preparing an offer of six years guaranteed, in the neighborhood of $100 million. In all likelihood, that won't be close to enough. Adam Rubin speculated that Wright would receive around eight years and $160 million on the open market, which seems about right. The Mets may argue, if and when Wright follows Jose Reyes to greener pastures, that they didn't want to commit to Wright for as long as he wanted them to. After all, they need only point to the Yankees as a cautionary tale. Alex Rodriguez, recently benched, is 37 amd declining each year. And he's signed for another five years and $114 million. There are also the endless claims from the Mets that their own failed long-term contracts have prevented them from signing new players, from Oliver Perez and Luis Castillo back in 2010, to Jason Bay and Johan Santana now. But let the record show that if the cash-strapped, debt-plagued Mets let their best, most popular player go, it'll be because they didn't offer to pay him what he's worth. The object in any long-term deal, realistically, is to see the player perform at a level worth more than he'll earn in his peak years, thus making up for it when he likely falls short of his contract's value at the back end of the deal, as he ages. In Wright's case, his 2012 was worth $35.1 million, according to Fangraphs. This wasn't a fluke. Wright's 2008 season was worth $32 million, and his 2007 checked in at $36.2 million. Wright is on track to be one of the greatest third basemen ever, and that was true prior to his rebound 2012 season. Were Wright to be worth $30 million in 2014 and 2015 alone, he'd need to be worth approximately around $16 million on average over the remainder of his contract, a level he's reached in every full season he's played, with the exception of his injury-marred 2011. So it's fairly easy to see Wright rewarding a team for signing him for this high price, which means that the 6/100 level is actually likely to be well shy of what he'd get in an open market. It also probably underrates what he'll be worth in another way. Major League Baseball just signed new television contracts that will pay every team approximately $50 million more in revenue, starting in 2014. Coincidentally, if Wright plays out his option and heads to free agency, he'll be hitting the market just as every single team will have vastly more to spend over the next eight seasons, the length of the new television deals. It is hard to imagine this won't directly affect the price of premier free agents. And David Wright is almost certainly going to be the best one out there. It's just a shame that even if the Mets make their best offer, it's probably going to be one Wright has no business settling for.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/sports/2012/10/6538150/david-wright-market-will-bear-lot-more-mets-can

[Ceetar]

I just read these for the laugh these days.