General Purpose Winter Meetings Thread

[batmagadanleadoff]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: If the Mets were acting like a big market team, they would have been in on the Cuban guy. He's young, got potential and costs less than Granderson. Take a flyer on him and eat the contract if it doesn't work out. Big market teams try out Matt Kemp, or Jose Reyes and scoff at the contracts they carry with them. They are big market teams. They can take the hit. Small market teams sign Michael Cuddyer, and forfeit a first rounder draft pick in the process. With Granderson, you know what you are getting and we reasonably got what we expected, at least for some stretches of the season. The Cuban guy is a total crap shoot, and the Mets' track record with international players with no MLB experience has not been especially good. I'd be gun shy after Kaz Matsui, too. It doesn't make sense to me to throw gobs of money at a player who is a complete unknown or one that is in his declining years just to prove to sports writers that you are a big market team. MLB is littered with players who sports writers belittled the Mets for not signing who turned out to be a waste of money -- Bourne, Choo are two recent examples. Seriously did you want Matt Kemp at that salary? Or even Jose at what he's signed for? If the rotation led by Harvey, Wheeler, de Grom and friends is kicking butt and we're in contention, no one is going to care that we didn't feel big market in December.

What do I want? I want the Mets to act like they're from the city they're from. Humongous payrolls. Hanley signings, even though he might suck at the end of his contract. And when that happens, you just dump him and move on. 'Cause you're the NL franchise from New York City and that's what you do. Because you can. Because you're a fat cat and you don't just order the most expensive item on the menu of Manhattan's top restaurant. You order the three most expensive entrees on the menu even if you can't finish all that food on your plate.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, I don't want that.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: If the rotation led by Harvey, Wheeler, de Grom and friends is kicking butt and we're in contention, no one is going to care that we didn't feel big market in December.

That's a different argument. If the team's good enough, then it's good enough and that's that. But if you think the Mets need a shortstop because their pitching won't be enough to carry that sinkhole, then defending the Mets financially because Hanley is past peak and there's no prime Ernie Banks on the market doesn't make sense to me.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Guest

[Guest d'Kong76]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: If the rotation led by Harvey, Wheeler, de Grom and friends is kicking butt and we're in contention

Another peeve that's making me nuts this off-season.
Would everyone please stop penciling in Harvey as a
major contributor until he shows something? He's already
been capped at 200 innings (he even acknowledged it, good
for him) and is one pitch away from a setback and two pitches
away from 2016.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Tommy John surgery has a pretty good success rate these days, but even pitchers that come back from the procedure usually need more than one whole season to do so. They typically struggle a bit and are inconsistent in their first season back. And those are the ones that do come back from the surgery.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

What do I want? I want the Mets to act like they're from the city they're from. Humongous payrolls. Hanley signings, even though he might suck at the end of his contract. And when that happens, you just dump him and move on. 'Cause you're the NL franchise from New York City and that's what you do. Because you can. Because you're a fat cat and you don't just order the most expensive item on the menu of Manhattan's top restaurant. You order the three most expensive entrees on the menu even if you can't finish all that food on your plate.

We used to do that stuff, and you get guys like Bobby Bonilla and Vince Coleman. And, to an extent, Pedro and Santana (though I'd argue that the Santana deal is in a different category.)

The team's best period of prolonged success was built from within, and then finished off with the big trades or smaller deals. I'm sure none of the sports writers were swooning when they acquired Howard Johnson, Knight and Cone.

And yes, that era was taken to the next level with the Carter trade, which is where I think Sandy is today.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: The team's best period of prolonged success was built from within

We can all sit around and post about that while watching
the Cubs in the post-season.

[Ceetar]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Boom! You fell right into the mindset trap! Don't care with the "big teams" did in December, unless spring training becomes winter training and we start playing in January. If there is nothing done to improve the team by April 1, it's a different conversation.

I'm even okay if they wait until 4/6 this year!

[Centerfield]

What do I want? I want the Mets to act like they're from the city they're from. Humongous payrolls. Hanley signings, even though he might suck at the end of his contract. And when that happens, you just dump him and move on. 'Cause you're the NL franchise from New York City and that's what you do. Because you can. Because you're a fat cat and you don't just order the most expensive item on the menu of Manhattan's top restaurant. You order the three most expensive entrees on the menu even if you can't finish all that food on your plate. We used to do that stuff, and you get guys like Bobby Bonilla and Vince Coleman. And, to an extent, Pedro and Santana (though I'd argue that the Santana deal is in a different category.) The team's best period of prolonged success was built from within, and then finished off with the big trades or smaller deals. I'm sure none of the sports writers were swooning when they acquired Howard Johnson, Knight and Cone. And yes, that era was taken to the next level with the Carter trade, which is where I think Sandy is today.

The difference being, Sandy won't make the equivalent of the Carter trade.

I don't think the Bonilla/Omar situations apply. Those eras were characterized by spending money in a "win now" approach. You could say it was spending foolishly. Spending foolishly will not work.

Basically, you have four options:

1. Don't spend money - Don't Develop Talent: Your team will suck

2. Don't spend money - Develop Talent: Possibly win, but it's much harder

3. Spend Money - Don't Develop Talent: Win maybe, but not for long. You will eventually suck.

4. Spend Money - Develop Talent: Best chance at sustained winning

There have been periods of time where the Mets spent money, but it was often foolish spending, with no eye toward the future. For the first time since the Cashen era, the Mets now have a smart management team in place with a focus on developing talent. The problem is that the budget has been slashed.

There are teams that spend money wisely and develop talent. Take a look at the Giants and Cardinals. It's possible. Every team should strive toward this. Some teams, as a result of their market, cannot spend money. The Mets are not one of those teams.

Not only is it reasonable for Mets fans to want both, there is really no excuse why this shouldn't happen.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Well, except the fact that ownership cannot afford to spend on the team. When they have spent, they did so thanks to the equivalent of a Magic ATM and usually with the primary goal of appearing to go all out, rather than actually going all out, which to the Wilpons are probably indistinguishable beyond one being easy for morons to pull off and the other being difficult for smart people to do correctly.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: What do I want? I want the Mets to act like they're from the city they're from. Humongous payrolls. Hanley signings, even though he might suck at the end of his contract. And when that happens, you just dump him and move on. 'Cause you're the NL franchise from New York City and that's what you do. Because you can. Because you're a fat cat and you don't just order the most expensive item on the menu of Manhattan's top restaurant. You order the three most expensive entrees on the menu even if you can't finish all that food on your plate. We used to do that stuff, and you get guys like Bobby Bonilla and Vince Coleman. And, to an extent, Pedro and Santana (though I'd argue that the Santana deal is in a different category.) The team's best period of prolonged success was built from within, and then finished off with the big trades or smaller deals. I'm sure none of the sports writers were swooning when they acquired Howard Johnson, Knight and Cone. And yes, that era was taken to the next level with the Carter trade, which is where I think Sandy is today.

I'm not saying the Mets entire starting lineup should be comprised of past-prime former superstars getting top dollar for what they did in the past. And besides, Bonilla wasn't a bad signing. It was one of the few times (Beltran maybe the other) the Mets signed an his prime superstar free agent. Things don't always work out and all that jazz about hindsight. But at the time, Bonilla made sense. Coleman sucked, though Fred W. thought otherwise.

But the team from New York City should be able to get at least one of those guys, even if he's past peak, if they have a hole to fill. Hanley, by himself, shouldn't destroy a big market team's budget.

[Edgy MD]

Basically, you have four options: 1. Don't spend money - Don't Develop Talent: Your team will suck 2. Don't spend money - Develop Talent: Possibly win, but it's much harder 3. Spend Money - Don't Develop Talent: Win maybe, but not for long. You will eventually suck. 4. Spend Money - Develop Talent: Best chance at sustained winning

What about 4a: Develop Talent - Trade it for Established Expensive Players? Because that's sort of what's being proposed. With regard to Tulowitzki, certainly.

I love my team walking away from teams holding expensive contracts. "You need to dump that contract? I'll bet you do. It got your predecessor fired. And you don't want to be the next victim and neither do I. That contract is like Greg Brady's tiki. You want me to take that, I'll open with Adam Kolarek, and you start telling me how many millions --- I'm sorry, how man tens of millions --- you're going to throw in. You don't like Kolarak... Kolarek, whatever... I might be persuaded to part with Xorge Carillo. Now, I'm going to leave this piece of paper here, and while you write a bunch of zeros on it, I'm going to go over and talk to my good friends from Seattle. I'm Sandy F. Alderson. I don't need this crap."

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

d'Kong76 wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: The team's best period of prolonged success was built from within We can all sit around and post about that while watching the Cubs in the post-season.

Which player that the Cubs signed did you want the Mets to get?

[Ceetar]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: The team's best period of prolonged success was built from within We can all sit around and post about that while watching the Cubs in the post-season. Which player that the Cubs signed did you want the Mets to get?

ALL OF THEM.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Ceetar wrote: ALL OF THEM.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Which player that the Cubs signed did you want the Mets to get?

Look, don't play me like that. You make it sound like I'm
some childish SNY poster that wants his babba NOW NOW
NOW. I have historically been one of the most patient of
patient Mets but I've grown tired of the yearly charade.

If Flynn, Brogna and 1986 do it for you in the off-season...
then bully for you.

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: ALL OF THEM. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Which player that the Cubs signed did you want the Mets to get? Look, don't play me like that. You make it sound like I'm some childish SNY poster that wants his babba NOW NOW NOW. I have historically been one of the most patient of patient Mets but I've grown tired of the yearly charade. If Flynn, Brogna and 1986 do it for you in the off-season... then bully for you.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be frustrated with the last X years, but your frustration does not dictate policy, particularly mid-offseason. Why does the Cubs making some moves last week, or the Dodgers, change anything? All 29 other teams will do things, and so will the Mets. the order in which they do things doesn't matter.

And the 'charade' is at least partially fan/media driven. The Mets aren't really saying much more than platitudes and evasions, and certainly they seem empty without anything to back them up, but let's not pretend because we know the Mets have had financial problems that we have any idea how much they will or won't spend for the right players. Plenty of people wrote that they couldn't afford Cuddyer either. Or Granderson.

Maybe it's all a grand conspiracy to be 'sorta good' and 'kinda in contention' and have just enough players to 'kind of look like they're trying to win' while not really going that extra mile, but I'm not quite sure what the motivation for that is. It seems more likely that it's not simply 'have prospects, and spend money on guys with a high probability of being good'=victory and that building a good team, and a sustainable one, is hard.

But the overall trends look good. wise spending of money, signing players that are good players, over a period of time correlating to success via prospects like Harvey and Wheeler and deGrom. There were plenty of other 'Chris Young' type players they could've gotten last year instead of Granderson to man the Outfield. They could've hyped Puello and promoted him. They didn't. That speaks to wanting Granderson as part of a longer plan, as does signing Cuddyer and sacrificing a draft pick. It's hard to see that the Mets are just gonna coast to Spring Training without attempting to address SS, but it's not the obvious answers is just sitting there waiting to throw money at.

[Edgy MD]

The biggest turnarounds in team history have been preceded by quiet off seasons. So have the biggest flops. I think it's important to distinguish the quality of moves from the volume of moves or the size of the moves.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: The biggest turnarounds in team history have been preceded by quiet off seasons. So have the biggest flops. I think it's important to distinguish the quality of moves from the volume of moves or the size of the moves.

I think it's worth noting that the bench really sucked last year and so far it looks like it's going to be pretty decent.

[Guest d'Kong76]

You guys believe what you want... I'm done thinking
things will work out with this team. They never do.

[Centerfield]

I think this is one of those threads that is getting muddled by multiple different perspectives. I'm not sure who I'm arguing with and who I'm supporting, though I think KC is somewhat in my corner.

To clarify:

Tulowitzki: I'm not at all endorsing this particular move. Long contract, hip surgery. Costs tons of good, young players. Gun to my head, I think I pass on this.

Overall Philosophy: All I'm saying here is that I'd like the payroll to increase, while still keeping smart people at the wheel. Basically, do exactly what they are doing now but increase the budget by $30 million. This will lead to a better team. Sometimes it means passing on the big player to keep your prospects. Sometimes you have to let a few prospects go for the right guy. But an increased budget allows you to take risks without losing your minor leaguers (such as the Cuban guy).

Can the Wilpons really sustain an increased budget? I have no idea, but I can't see why they couldn't. We are in NY. If they can't take a team in the largest market and figure out a way to generate revenue, it is inexcusable. Both LA teams, both Chicago teams, Philadelphia, Boston, even Toronto figures out a way to do this. I can't figure out why the Mets have to reside in the lower tier. Why are we accepting of this?

[Edgy MD]

I think the Jays are operating at a loss right now.

I think increasing the budget by $30 million is great, but I don't have $30 million and neither do you and neither does the organization.

Really, I think the idea is to build a good enough team to get in the black and start spending larger when the revenue tilts. That's all they can do. We've known all along (or since Omar Minaya got fired) that the team had to start over. Had to. They spent like drunk sailors, counted on returns from a world championship that never came and from a crook so cold that he stole from Elie Wiesel, and it all blew up.

This is the reality. We certainly don't have to accept it. But it's not mystery either.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Centerfield wrote: Can the Wilpons really sustain an increased budget? I have no idea, but I can't see why they couldn't. We are in NY. If they can't take a team in the largest market and figure out a way to generate revenue, it is inexcusable. Both LA teams, both Chicago teams, Philadelphia, Boston, even Toronto figures out a way to do this. I can't figure out why the Mets have to reside in the lower tier. Why are we accepting of this?

That's just it-- I don't think even the most sanguine-minded of our fans here and "outside" like it. But as far as accepting it? Well, what's the alternative, really? I mean, hell, once the Wilpon regime ends, in all likelihood, I'll have a smile on my face for days. But if we're feeling trapped in a bad marriage, our options are basically to focus on and enjoy the good stuff, let it turn you into a curdled, knee-jerky so-and-so, or get the hell off this crazy thing, aren't they?

Also... this offseason isn't over yet, and we're apparently in on a Korean (and maybe a Cuban or two).

[Frayed Knot]

Not to change the subject or anything, but here's a Jim Callis (mlb.com, formerly of BA) rundown of the best prospects traded away (sometimes more than once) at these just concluded winter meetings - guys who, a few years from now, might fall into the category of: 'I can't believe they gave up HIM back in '14 for one year of that broken down old fart who never did anything for us!!'
Or we may never hear from them again ... who knows.

[Ceetar]

Tulowitzki: I'm not at all endorsing this particular move. Long contract, hip surgery. Costs tons of good, young players. Gun to my head, I think I pass on this. Overall Philosophy: All I'm saying here is that I'd like the payroll to increase, while still keeping smart people at the wheel. Basically, do exactly what they are doing now but increase the budget by $30 million. This will lead to a better team. Sometimes it means passing on the big player to keep your prospects. Sometimes you have to let a few prospects go for the right guy. But an increased budget allows you to take risks without losing your minor leaguers (such as the Cuban guy). Can the Wilpons really sustain an increased budget? I have no idea, but I can't see why they couldn't. We are in NY. If they can't take a team in the largest market and figure out a way to generate revenue, it is inexcusable. Both LA teams, both Chicago teams, Philadelphia, Boston, even Toronto figures out a way to do this. I can't figure out why the Mets have to reside in the lower tier. Why are we accepting of this?

Tulo: I understand if they make this move, but I'm not sure the Mets are in the right place to make that gamble.

Overall: Sure, 30 more is great, but right now they need to have a high confidence of ROI on that 30million. Also, targeting a higher payroll is not the same as having one and if you spend all 30 of the 'new cap' now you don't have as much for next year. That's the truth whether we're at 100 or 250. I highly doubt those teams are generating revenue at the rate they're spending it. Not the Cubs/Phillies/Blue Jays anyway. In almost every case, it's the winning that brings in the revenue, not the signings.

And I guess, that's where the conspiracy stuff comes in. If the Mets win 88 games and grab the second wild card and lose, it'll suck. BUT, they'll presell a TON of season tickets and committed income for 2016 by linking it to 2015 postseason rights. And just via the excitement of a team on the rise. Granted, they'd make a lot more by hosting a ton of postseason games at an average ticket price of probably $100 plus ($4mill plus a game just in fans through the turnstile) but the boost in fanbase and base revenue from a wild card loss is certainly something.

[Vic Sage]

I think increasing the budget by $30 million is great, but I don't have $30 million and neither do you and neither does the organization

All i'm saying here is that an owner of a franchise in NYC that can't afford to spend enough to be in the top 1/3 of payrolls instead of the bottom 1/3 should be facing an outcry demanding he sell the team. There should be skywriting and billboards and photobombs and every other form of fan revolt conceivable.

It should not be dismissed easily with "well, that's the way it is", and it especially shouldn't be lauded as a good strategy of wise restraint.

And its not that spending more guarantees anything, but its supposed to be one of the competitive advantages a big-market team should have, and we as fans that pay the highest prices in the league for EVERYTHING have a right to expect. And when they don't, its entirely appropriate to call them on it, not excuse them for it. And not because fan protests will force a change of direction, much less a sale, but because it makes us feel better to call them on it. Let the truth be spoken for its own sake. It will help us sleep better at night.

[Edgy MD]

Go ahead and protest. I just walk away from a product if I don't like it. You don't like it, you don't pay. (Prices will fall.) But skywriting is fine if you want to do that.

I, again, think it's important to distinguish the quality of moves from the volume of moves or the size of the moves. Or we can just turn multiple threads into payroll protests for multiple years.

[Ceetar]

well..

does this make Jets fans feel better?

[Guest d'Kong76]

What players do we want that the Cubs got and does this
make Jets' fans feel better are not the right questions.

This is the winter meetings thread. The meetings are over.
The Mets did nothing except start floating out the notion that
they tried, they may stand pat, and they'll keep trying. Yay!

We got Cuddyer and Philberry! Woo hoo! (don't want to Yay
twice in the same post)

Oh, and Sandy lives out in San Diego... no flight back, he's
gonna swing by the ol' homestead and rest up from all the
heavy lifting he did this week.

[Edgy MD]

d'Kong76 wrote: The Mets did nothing except start floating out the notion that they tried, they may stand pat, and they'll keep trying. Yay!

Well, they signed Mayberry. They got a guy in the Rule 5 draft. (And they lost five, which is a real compliment to... somebody.)

We got Cuddyer and Philberry! Woo hoo!

There you go. Philberry.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Well look who's joined Wound Lickers Anonymous.