Sandy Talks About the Future

[Edgy MD]

Megdal firing off round after round on Twitter.

[Ceetar]

yawn. It's a freaking GM. GMs rarely say anything specific. Buzzwords, hope and optimism, etc.

Of course, millions are going to watch and overanalyze the debate tonight too.

[Edgy MD]

�Overall, a disappointing season. We had some positive things, I think, but overall inconsistency. Certainly disappointed with the won-loss record. Lots of inconsistencies, first half/second half, home/road, individual performances. All of which I think led to the record that we will have after today�s game. �So the first half was of course positive. I think we exceeded many expectations. I thought that we played as well as we had expected coming out of spring training. For a variety of reasons, some of which are only hypotheses at this point, they�re not actual explanations, we did not play well in the second half. �There were a variety of things that happened. I�ll go back and probably point to four or five things. But ultimately, the second half was similar to the second half we�ve had over the last several years. I think if there�s one consistency among those four that we�ve been able to determine it�s that we really did not see significant contributions from additional players over the second half of any of those season. �Inevitably, you have injuries and other things that happen, maybe subpar performance. It�s nice to have somebody come in and take up the slack. And we had a couple people who had good second halves. We saw the emergence of Matt Harvey. Ike Davis played well in the second half. But overall, that wasn�t the case. �Lots of positive things did happen. I think we�ll start with R.A. Dickey, I guess, and David Wright. Jon Niese had an excellent season for us. Parnell out of the �pen was good. Chris Young finished well. We saw Harvey emerge, some other young players emerge. So I think there�s some positives from the season, certainly. I take all of those as positives. �The thing we�re trying to do here is three-fold: One is build through our farm system. The second is to retain our core players. And the third, really, is to add free agents and trade acquisitions on a fairly judicious basis. I would say over the first couple years, we�ve certainly looked to the farm system. Obviously not totally successful. We really have not, until now, been in a position to retain our core players. Which is the second prong of this approach. I think we�re in that place now. �Then the third, we really have not been able to be involved significantly in the free-agent market. We certainly have brought in players on a free-agent basis. But in terms of significant acquisitions, it�s somewhat limited. But I can see that changing, perhaps not immediately, but somewhere in the near-term. �So from my standpoint, many positives. But overall, a disappointing year.� Are you looking to make a more significant number of trades and free-agent signings than in years past? �Well, I think that it�s possible, given what we have, that we�ll be more active in the trade market. But that�s not a given necessarily. I mean, I really do believe that some of our players are on the verge of making bigger contributions. But it�s been two years. We have a better idea now of who we have at the major-league level, who�s coming from our player-development system, and the places where we need to look outside. �There are a couple of obvious needs that we have. So it�s very possible that we�ll be more active in the trade market, as well as potentially in the free-agent market. But I don�t want to give the impression that we�ll be out in the free-agent market, looking for significant additions. We have lots of payroll tied up in a handful of players. �That�s a situation that gradually has to resolve itself. We�re not really at that point.� Who are the core players? �The two that are popularly referenced are David Wright and R.A. Dickey. What we said over the last couple of months is we�re going to make every effort to retain those two guys. And I think we are in a position to be able to do that. Whether we are successful or not, time will tell. But I think we�re in a position to make a bona fide effort to do it. So I�m happy about that.�

[Frayed Knot]

I always used to get a kick out of the old days at the MoFo when Steve Phillips would be scheduled to go on FAN and everyone would tune in only to act like they'd been duped each and every time because "He didn't say anything" -- as if they were expecting him to lay out some menu of specifics:
- "Why, yes, Mike & Dog, in early November we be trading ______ and ______ over to the ______ in exchange for _______. Then, even though it's too early to even talk to FAs yet, we'll be signing _____ _______ to a $___ million deal over ____ years. And then during the winter meetings we'll be ..."

[Edgy MD]

Is Dickey a high priority to retain long-term? �Those are the two big issues. Retaining our own players is, as I said, one of the key tenets of the approach we�re trying to take. Those two would be the most obvious. They�re free agents at the end of 2013. Those are the two situations we need to address and expect to address.� Is the organization in a stronger place financially than it was a season ago? �Yeah, I think that�s unquestionably the case. The Madoff situation was resolved. The investments were made in the team. And I think that overall, just with those two issues behind us, the team is in a better position. That�s progress.� Any idea how much money you project to lose this year? �No. But unlike last year, I don�t intend to get involved in that discussion.� How will the better financial footing affect your future spending? �The first indication will be what happens with David and R.A. Because while those situations may not significantly increase our payroll this year, they will represent commitments on out years. Which I think is a fundamental shift in our situation. If you have the uncertainty that existed last spring, it would be difficult to make those long-term commitments. So I think that�s a fundamental shift. And I think that would be a good indication. �I think the fact that we�re talking about it, and talking about retaining our players in a different tone than we were last year, should be a positive signal.� Do you feel an urgency to get those deals done before spring training? �I think not only would we like to see these two situations resolved by the beginning of spring training, Opening Day, I think we�d like to see them resolved much sooner rather than later.� When will you open the dialogue? �How long does [this] game last?� (Ed: Nice one!) Have you had any discussions yet? �With the agents? No.� Or with David. �There have been some, I think, informal conversations with David. I wouldn�t say that they have been negotiations. That wouldn�t be our approach. That would be something that would be done with his representatives. But we�ve had some informal conversations.� How soon could this be done? By the World Series? Winter meetings? �I don�t see why it couldn�t happen quickly. Now whether it will or not, I don�t know. I don�t have any indication that it would get done quickly. But as you look at it from our standpoint, the sooner the better.� Is there a certain point where you need to have this done, or else trades become a possibility? �I think that there�s a preferred time frame from a baseball standpoint. As you get further into the offseason, with the uncertainty of the contract situation, then you do have to start thinking about other possibilities. That�s something we�re contemplating right now. but there�s that inevitability. �But from a non-baseball standpoint, getting these resolved earlier, and if we were able to do it positively, that would have a salutary effect on everything else in the offseason. So there are lots of reasons why it would be great, if things got resolved soon. Whether they will or not, I have no idea.�

[Edgy MD]

So it�s very possible that we�ll be more active in the trade market, as well as potentially in the free-agent market.

We will certainly be looking for tall players, as well as short ones and moderately sized ones.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: So it�s very possible that we�ll be more active in the trade market, as well as potentially in the free-agent market. We will certainly be looking for tall players, as well as short ones and moderately sized ones.

moneyball!

[Edgy MD]

Do you have to sell Wright and Dickey on the future here before they can sign? �I guess that�s going to be hard for me to assess. But what I intend to be, in any conversation that relates to the future of the Mets overall, is as honest as I can possibly be. I expect that that�s what they�ll want. I also think that there are factors that relate to New York that go beyond winning. That�s clearly the most important thing for any of us. �But I think there are some other important factors, too, that don�t relate to salary or money, that may have an impact. I�ll try to be as honest in that regard as well.� What would your message be? �My message would be �Look, I think we�re very definitely headed in the right direction. But at the same time, we will not in the near-future have unlimited funds. So recognize what our immediate situation is, what we expect to be our mid and long-term situations, and evaluate us on that basis.� So is there any imperative to show some sort of talent acquisition before they sign? �As a practical matter, that�s probably not going to happen between now and the time that these conversations take place. But I think it will be important for them to hear from me, and again, to some extent, we�ve had these conversations. So I expect there will be further discussions about it.� Wright wants this to be his last contract. That�s a long time. Can that deal work here? �Yeah. Would I rule that kind of contract out? No. I don�t know how long he expects to play. Presumably beyond 31 or 32.� Could Baltimore or Oakland winning help show the lack of a need for a huge payroll? �Yeah, to some extent. But look: The expectations in Baltimore this year, or the expectations in Oakland this year, or any year in some of these cities are very different than they are in New York. And I think we just have to recognize that.� You don�t like second-generation deals. Is Wright an exception to that philosophy? �I still hold a philosophy. But I think there are always exceptions to any rule. In my career, I�ve made exceptions in the past. I�m sure I�ll make exceptions in the future.� Is Wright an exception? �Well, look, we wouldn�t have had the last 15 minutes of conversation if that weren�t the case.� What number do you put this year�s payroll at? �The one that I use? We�re going to come in right around $100 million.� That includes salaries added during the year? �Now it also includes 40-man roster guys at the minor-league level. It includes say a buyout on previous contracts. So I think we had a buyout of about $3 million or so on Frankie Rodriguez. So all in, right around $100 million.� Could the payroll go 10 percent higher next year? �We�re having those conversations now. Met with Fred [Wilpon] and Saul [Katz] and Jeff [Wilpon]. Presented a number of different scenarios. We haven�t locked in to anything yet. There will be another meeting or two before we do that. So I can�t really give you an answer to that.�

[metirish]

Sure seems like he is saying things of substance , especially in regards to our "core" two

this I don't like though

Could Baltimore or Oakland winning help show the lack of a need for a huge payroll? �Yeah, to some extent. But look: The expectations in Baltimore this year, or the expectations in Oakland this year, or any year in some of these cities are very different than they are in New York. And I think we just have to recognize that.�

What expectations in NY?, I mean really.

[G-Fafif]

Something about these availabilities reminds me of an SNL bit from the Gulf War wherein reporters at an official briefing asked military brass questions like, "Can you give us an idea of when you plan to move troops in and what their targets would be?"

[Edgy MD]

metirish wrote: Sure seems like he is saying things of substance , especially in regards to our "core" two this I don't like though Could Baltimore or Oakland winning help show the lack of a need for a huge payroll? �Yeah, to some extent. But look: The expectations in Baltimore this year, or the expectations in Oakland this year, or any year in some of these cities are very different than they are in New York. And I think we just have to recognize that.� What expectations in NY?, I mean really.

I wasn't sure what to conclude from that. A lot of deliberate ambiguities, of course, but sometimes he snuck what looked like a concrete statement in there, but it when I tried to pick up on it, I couldn't get a handle.

Very sneaky, Alderson.

[Edgy MD]

Some guy on Twitter talking about Bobby Valentine wrote: "What's your relationship with Ben Cherington." "It's still a work-in-progress." Work in progress is Valentine-ese for "Fuck that asshole"

[ashie62]

Reading Alderson is like divining a fortune cookie

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Sure seems like he is saying things of substance , especially in regards to our "core" two this I don't like though Could Baltimore or Oakland winning help show the lack of a need for a huge payroll? �Yeah, to some extent. But look: The expectations in Baltimore this year, or the expectations in Oakland this year, or any year in some of these cities are very different than they are in New York. And I think we just have to recognize that.� What expectations in NY?, I mean really. I wasn't sure what to conclude from that. A lot of deliberate ambiguities, of course, but sometimes he snuck what looked like a concrete statement in there, but it when I tried to pick up on it, I couldn't get a handle. Very sneaky, Alderson.

I think he's saying that repeatedly making low-risk high-reward type signings or other such tactics of smaller market teams might work out sometimes, but an attitude of "sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, that's baseball" doesn't fly in NY.

[Edgy MD]

What factors will influence the payroll? �What we can reasonably expect with whatever payroll we decide. So there are a lot of different factors. The players that we have going into next season, versus the players we have now or the players that we�ll have in 2014. There are different factors. It�s not all about one in particular.� In next year�s payroll, do the buyouts on Bay and Santana for 2014 ($9 million total) get included? �The buyouts typically are in the current year budget.� How willing would you be to trade starting pitching? �I think you�ve got to be real careful about dipping into your starting pitching. If you look at what happened to us, the five guys that started the season? We lost three of the five. So the depth there can be very important. And not just depth that you have at your Triple-A club with somebody who�s just coming up. �Ideally, you�d like to have depth like maybe a Chris Young gave us this year. Which is under his special circumstances. You�ve got to be careful about our starting pitching, which is certainly our strength at the moment. And was certainly our strength, more or less, most of this year.� If you deal big-leaguers from your roster now, do you need big-league ready players back? �Yes. We need some major-league ready players. There are some positions where we are not strong. Either the quality at the major-league level or in our system. And we need major-league ready players. Now that doesn�t mean to exclusion of a prospect. But we�d be looking for players that are close.� Did you ever consider blowing up the roster this season? �It�s a strategy that we�ve discussed. Again, I think every team is different. Every market is different. I�m not prepared to blow up the team and start over again. I don�t think we need to do that. so it�s unlikely that we�ll see any major explosions.� Could you do that in New York? �Look, with regard to probably 70 percent of any team�s roster, that can be done without any real negative reaction from fans. My attitude, if you think about it conceptually, is there are core players that fans identify with. It might be two players, it might be five, it might be six. Depends on how much success you�ve had, how many have come through the system. �But there�s a core group. But it�s probably not that large in number. Everybody else? It�s all about succeeding. It�s all about bringing in better players. It�s all about making the team better. So I don�t think you sever any sort of relationship with fans if those players are interchanged.� Still possible you can trade core guys? �It�s conceivable. And it would be something that we�d have to evaluate at the time.� But the 30 percent, the core, are the ones that generate value on the trade market? �Well, yes and no.� (Ed: Give this man a bonus!) How do you evaluate Terry Collins� work? �I think Terry�s done a fine job. As you know, we�re having the coaches back. Terry�s signed for next year. There are going to be questions about whether we�re going to extend him or not. That�s not something we�re doing yet. We haven�t had those discussions. We may not for a while. But I�m very pleased with the job that Terry did. The first half, second half situation has more to do with the players than it does with the manager or the coaching staff.� Will the future payroll flexibility be based solely on money coming off the books, or will there be more room to grow? �I hope both things happen. If you look at payroll, for me, there are really two components. There�s this core group of quality that most teams have. And then there�s the balance of the payroll. And right now, we have a lot of money tied up in a handful of players. So what I hope is that we do end up with more flexibility over the next couple of years. But also that we can grow the payroll to some extent.� Do you not want to backload deals for free agents this winter? �It�s a possible strategy, given the nut we have for 2013. (Ed: Poor Jordany!) But generally speaking, I don�t like to pay for today with deferrals tomorrow.�

[Ceetar]

Do you not want to backload deals for free agents this winter? �It�s a possible strategy, given the nut we have for 2013. (Ed: Poor Jordany!) But generally speaking, I don�t like to pay for today with deferrals tomorrow.�

Of course, he did just backload Jon Niese's contract (3-5-7-9-10*-11*)

[Edgy MD]

Well, yes and no. (See what I did there?) At least part of that is tracing the simple escalations he would get during those arbitration years.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Well, yes and no. (See what I did there?) At least part of that is tracing the simple escalations he would get during those arbitration years.

Of course. But those are non-existent now. He very well could've offered 6-6-6-6. 2013 being the money tight year and he didn't really give Niese more than he would've gotten.

Still says nothing of course. It's just an example of an exception Sandy has already made use of. I think it's entirely possible that Alderson could aim to negotiate a smaller number for 2013 with a spike in 2014 and a drop again in 2015 and behind. That's not quite backloading though.

[MFS62]

metirish wrote: Could Baltimore or Oakland winning help show the lack of a need for a huge payroll?

Speaking of Oakland, and the "unknown" young players who got them into the playoffs, weren't many (if not all) of those A's players scouted/analyzed/drafted by DePodesta?
Maybe he can work his magic with the Mets.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

Most of the current Oakland players are so new to their roster (over 100 of their games were started by rookie pitchers) and DePodesta's time with them far enough in the past that I doubt any one of the players there now can trace their Oakland bloodlines to him.
In fact I'd bet that Omar has more fingerprints on the Nationals roster. Starting SS Ian Desmond I know was his draft pick and I believe 4th OFer Roger Bernandina was an international signing under him as well.

[batmagadanleadoff]

What? You thought Megdal wouldn't weigh in on Sandy's state of the state?

Posted by: Howard Megdal - Posted in Today's Mets headlines on Oct 04, 2012

I wanted to discuss Bobby Parnell today. but I think it�s important to set the parameters, as set out by Sandy Alderson, for retaining David Wright and R.A. Dickey this winter. First: he made it clear payroll will remain the same. What that statement alone means for 2013 is enormous. Payroll was $91.6 million this year. Alderson can say it was $100 million all he wants, with calculations that have at various times included draft bonuses, 40-man roster salaries, etc. Since you�re obviously always going to have a 40-man roster and draft picks, that�s a bunch of accounting tricks to make it seem larger. $91.6 million was what was spent on the major league roster in 2012, and that�s where things can change significantly, year-to-year. So, in light of that, consider: $50 million for Jason Bay and Johan Santana, including buyouts, which Alderson acknowledged are part of his 2013 budget. $6.5 million for Frank Francisco. $3 million for Jon Niese. And, with no raise, $16 million for David Wright and $5 million for R.A. Dickey. That�s $80.5 million for six players. Pay the rest the major league minimum of $490,000 in 2013, and that�s $9.3 million, for a total of $89.8 million. That�s no raise for Wright or Dickey. No Ike Davis, who is arbitration-eligible, no Daniel Murphy, who is arbitration eligible, no Kelly Shoppach or Scott Hairston, both of whom will make more than the major league minimum. 2013 also represents the only tactical advantage the Mets have over other teams in terms of an ability to negotiate a raise for Dickey and Wright. But once again, there�s just not room to give either player a raise, given the salary constraints Alderson cited for next season. This isn�t arguable. It�s not in dispute. So the Mets are going to Wright and Dickey, who have both indicated that they want to be paid market value, but more to the point, they want to win. And the Mets will have no additional help forthcoming for them in 2013, nor the prospect of a raise. Exactly how this will act as an inducement for either player to choose a long-term deal over reaching free agency next winter, as the best player and pitcher on the market in a league about to be flush with television money, is anybody�s guess. I suppose if they prefer security to the prospect of getting hurt in 2013 or struggling on the field, that�s the selling point for them to sign now. But Alderson�s Wednesday presser made it clear: that�s the extent of the sales pitch.

http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2012/10/04/the-math/

[metirish]

That's fucking depressing , I mean, those aren't made up numbers right?

[Ceetar]

metirish wrote: That's fucking depressing , I mean, those aren't made up numbers right?

the future numbers? yeah, those are made up.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't see much reason to be optimistic about 2013. And I can see why Wright or Dickey might not be enthused about staying.

I feel myself disconnecting from this team more and more.

[seawolf17]

Right, but Dickey and Wright are paid for 2013. Any new contracts would be for 2014 and beyond, so I don't see how that's germane to that particular discussion. Germane to the fact that they're going to continue to suck next year, yes, but once Santana and Bay are off the books for 2014, suddenly that's a big financial opening.

[Ceetar]

Dickey and Wright could get raises in lieu of options, but it seems unlikely.

Sandy's got plenty of work to do, but there are good pieces too. Even without a significant payroll increase, although I suspect from his comments it could go up some, acquisitions he wants to make coming through and all. No reason to write off 2013.

[Edgy MD]

metirish wrote: That's fucking depressing , I mean, those aren't made up numbers right?

Megdal? Depressing?

[metirish]

I'm not down on Megdal like a good few people are, he's digging, sometimes he's wrong and sometimes he's right, it rarely makes for comfortable reading if you love the Mets.

I'm not going to just dismiss what he writes/speculates just because it's him.

[Ceetar]

metirish wrote: I'm not down on Megdal like a good few people are, he's digging, sometimes he's wrong and sometimes he's right, it rarely makes for comfortable reading if you love the Mets. I'm not going to just dismiss what he writes/speculates just because it's him.

I dismiss what he writes because his arguments are, always, based on asserting things which I don't find to be tautologies.

[metirish]

tautologies?????

How long have you been waiting to use that word?

I had to look it up......