Sandy Talks About the Future

[Ceetar]

metirish wrote: tautologies????? How long have you been waiting to use that word? I had to look it up......

it just came to me. I think I heard it used recently though, so probably struck a chord. Fond memories of 8th grade logic class.

[Edgy MD]

He clearly gathers his facts after drawing his conclusions, and assembles them so as to lead there.

And his conclusions, effectively, were drawn years ago.

[Vic Sage]

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

Tautologies, at least in the context of making a persuasive argument (i.e., rhetoric, rather than logic), are a rhetorical device that in essence means to say the same thing twice and pretend its a logical statement, and is considered a FLAW and critique of an argument; in that light, the absence of tautologies in Megdal's argument is a GOOD thing.

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.

when players are on their last year, they are looking for (in commercial real estate parlance) a "blend and extend" deal, in which they forego free agency for a raise IMMEDIATELY and a long term commitment. If the Mets are going to force wright and/or dickey to just play out their current deal, and thus run the risk of injury during the season at below-market prices, there is absolutely no reason for them NOT to go to free agency the following year and take the best deal in the market at that time with a contending team (if that's their priority). The Mets only edge is that they can buy out this last season and lock them up now. If they don't (or won't or can't), then Wright and Dickey are gone after next year, like Reyes, and they should be traded over the winter rather than let them walk away for nothing.

[seawolf17]

Vic Sage wrote: when players are on their last year, they are looking for (in commercial real estate parlance) a "blend and extend" deal, in which they forego free agency for a raise IMMEDIATELY and a long term commitment. If the Mets are going to force wright and/or dickey to just play out their current deal, and thus run the risk of injury during the season at below-market prices, there is absolutely no reason for them NOT to go to free agency the following year and take the best deal in the market at that time with a contending team (if that's their priority). The Mets only edge is that they can buy out this last season and lock them up now. If they don't (or won't or can't), then Wright and Dickey are gone after next year, like Reyes, and they should be traded over the winter rather than let them walk away for nothing.

No, I'm saying they sign the extension now, but factor that raise into 2014 and beyond, when the financial picture has changed because we've rioted and tossed the Wilpons into Flushing Bay. If they agree to make the average value, say, $20 million a year, then toss in an extra $5 million somewhere along the line to "offset" the "lower" 2013 salary.

[Edgy MD]

Adam Rubin wrote: We can save ourselves a lot of time, respectfully, if anybody who is going to get more than, say, $2M a season in FA, we just didn't discuss

Not sure I should believe this.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: We can save ourselves a lot of time, respectfully, if anybody who is going to get more than, say, $2M a season in FA, we just didn't discuss Not sure I should believe this.

Adam Rubin, to himself: "Run with the "They're broke angle. You might not have to write a bunch of posts about possible ways to get Justin or B.J. Upton. You can probably just repost something from last offseason and take a vacation. Or spruce up your resume for Jeff."

[Vic Sage]

seawolf17 wrote: Vic Sage wrote: when players are on their last year, they are looking for (in commercial real estate parlance) a "blend and extend" deal, in which they forego free agency for a raise IMMEDIATELY and a long term commitment. If the Mets are going to force wright and/or dickey to just play out their current deal, and thus run the risk of injury during the season at below-market prices, there is absolutely no reason for them NOT to go to free agency the following year and take the best deal in the market at that time with a contending team (if that's their priority). The Mets only edge is that they can buy out this last season and lock them up now. If they don't (or won't or can't), then Wright and Dickey are gone after next year, like Reyes, and they should be traded over the winter rather than let them walk away for nothing. No, I'm saying they sign the extension now, but factor that raise into 2014 and beyond, when the financial picture has changed because we've rioted and tossed the Wilpons into Flushing Bay. If they agree to make the average value, say, $20 million a year, then toss in an extra $5 million somewhere along the line to "offset" the "lower" 2013 salary.

oh, your just talking about back-loading the contract. gotcha. nevermind.
Except... radically back-loaded deals like that run a significant risk of turning into the Santana/Bay-type albatross deals we're suffering from now, as we seriously overpay aging players in decline.
But, if we're cash poor, i see little alternative to it.

of course, they could just start an anonymous smear campaign against Mr. Wright, in attempt to lower his value and drive away suitors, then float low ball numbers to his agent without actually making a formal offer, while leaking "reasonable" numbers in the press, and then paint him as a selfish pig when he takes an actual offer from a team with a shot at contention willing to pay him fair market value, so we lose him for nothing, but everybody's ass is covered. cuz, you know, that's worked so well before.

[Ceetar]

Another factor is it'd be foolish to spend all of Bay's and Santana's money at once. Bay's is a waste, but Santana's money will actually be need to replace what's probably/hopefully a somewhat productive player.

But either way, with all that money coming off, it's going to look bad even though it shouldn't, if the payrolls lower in 2013 than 2012. A way to offset that is to bump it up a little _this_year, as then you're workingwith a 2-year subset of players.