Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

[Guest d'Kong76]

Ceetar wrote: I can't tell if he's arguing that the Mets should or shouldn't spend money.

That's how Joel rolls... stuff like signing Wright was dubious but if
they didn't pay him he gets to write three pieces on the cheap/dumb/
un-yankee like Mets... he wins either way. It's the most crooked game in
the city and the lemmings lop it up.

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: I can't tell if he's arguing that the Mets should or shouldn't spend money. That's how Joel rolls... stuff like signing Wright was dubious but if they didn't pay him he gets to write three pieces on the cheap/dumb/ un-yankee like Mets... he wins either way. It's the most crooked game in the city and the lemmings lop it up.

You'd get different opinions everywhere, whether it's the NY tabloids, this forum or anywhere else. The Wright signing was dumb and also, the Mets couldn't, and still can't afford David Wright. They had a sub $90M payroll and they decided to pay a declining player already in his 30's at the start of the contract $18M a year to play on a team that wasn't going to win half its games no matter what Wright did and was years away from contending? I don't even see the issue or the controversy. (Actually, I do see the controversy. But no one said it doesn't take big balls to run a team and do the right thing). With those economic constraints, the Mets couldn't afford the luxury --- and that's exactly what it was, a luxury --- of keeping Wright around mainly because of his popularity and perhaps because fans made fun of the Mets career batting records -- puny for a team that's been around for half a century. Yeah, I know, you're already mocking that last one. But who knows what moronic reasons kicked in, because with eff and Jeff running things, any ridiculous notion is a possible driving force. They shoulda bailed on Wright while they were ahead and let Alderson do his magic trade stuff.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I agree it was a reach for the Mets to sign Wright to an extension like they did given their other financial issues but there's probably an argument to be made for it in terms of the larger picture (i.e.: The Mets could not be taken seriously without Wright, would invite the kind of public ridicule and calls for scrutiny they're getting now, there was every chance Wright could be worth the investment etc etc)

If they thought the Reyes backlash was bad, Wright would have been many many times worse. Also, no indication that without him on the books they'd necessarily devote the $$ to others.

[Ceetar]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I agree it was a reach for the Mets to sign Wright to an extension like they did given their other financial issues but there's probably an argument to be made for it in terms of the larger picture (i.e.: The Mets could not be taken seriously without Wright, would invite the kind of public ridicule and calls for scrutiny they're getting now, there was every chance Wright could be worth the investment etc etc) If they thought the Reyes backlash was bad, Wright would have been many many times worse. Also, no indication that without him on the books they'd necessarily devote the $$ to others.

or that they specifically passed on guys because he was on the books.

He still might be worth it. Overall he's got a pretty team-friendly deal. It's easy to point to the injuries, but spinal stinosis is not something you can predict. that's an argument against lost contract period, because a guy could get by a bus tomorrow.

I mean, he had an amazing year, followed by an average year that maybe would've been better had he not played through injuries and taken 30 days off, and then this year.

fwiw, Fangraphs has Wright at being worth $60 million so far while being paid about $40.

[Benjamin Grimm]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: and was years away from contending

Judging by the standings, the number of years until they would contend is a mere two.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Lazy question, and I heard the answer over the weekend but
already can't remember... how long before Wright's contract
insurance kicks it?

[TransMonk]

IIRC, the team can get back 75% of this year's salary once he's missed 60 games. So, I'm guessing within the next week?

[Edgy MD]

Doesn't fit the Sherman narrative.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Sounds about right... hard to call the Wright signing with the
insurance slant a bad business decision the way I see things.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Edgy MD wrote: Doesn't fit the Sherman narrative.

Nor uncle-mags.
With the insurance, his contract just wasn't as big a gamble
as some would like us to believe.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: and was years away from contending Judging by the standings, the number of years until they would contend is a mere two.

Wright already had an injury history at the start of the contract. And in actuarial terms, he was already past his prime. Two years is enough for me to put the idea in the "against re-signing Wright column". Did Alderson privately think the Mets would be contending in 2015 when he re-signed Wright? I wonder. Plus, the team's still broke, and Wright's being paid about 20% of the whole payroll.

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Doesn't fit the Sherman narrative. Nor uncle-mags. With the insurance, his contract just wasn't as big a gamble as some would like us to believe.

Like they knew Wright'd be reduced to a disability write-off. The likely risks were that the team would suck no matter what Wright did, or that Wright's production would decrease markedly.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Doesn't fit the Sherman narrative. Nor uncle-mags. With the insurance, his contract just wasn't as big a gamble as some would like us to believe. Like they knew Wright'd be reduced to a disability write-off. The likely risks were that the team would suck no matter what Wright did, or that Wright's production would decrease markedly.

OE -- These are the kinds of risks a big payroll team can afford to take. The Mets aren't that team.

[Guest d'Kong76]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Like they knew Wright'd be reduced to a disability write-off.

No one said they did.

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Doesn't fit the Sherman narrative. Nor uncle-mags. With the insurance, his contract just wasn't as big a gamble as some would like us to believe.

We can debate this all day long. People have different opinions. But when you make this into a personal thing, using big words like "narrative", I should just stop responding to your posts.

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Like they knew Wright'd be reduced to a disability write-off. No one said they did.

So then why are you justifying the signing --in hindsight -- by bringing up the insurance angle?

[Guest d'Kong76]

I'm not justifying anything... I'm saying it wasn't as big a
gamble as you make out (or want to believe).

[Centerfield]

Yes, but aren't we asking the Mets to act like a big-market team? I can understand getting on them for moves not made, but I can't hold them up for the money they spend.

I was all for the Wright extension. I hope they spend more.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Centerfield wrote: Yes, but aren't we asking the Mets to act like a big-market team?

No. We're asking the Mets to be a big-market team, not act like one. The Mets are that guy who goes out and buys a $2,000.00 suit even though he's about to get his lights shut off because he's can't pay the electric bill.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Like they knew Wright'd be reduced to a disability write-off.

I'm not sure what this sarcasm is getting at. You don't know the future. Nobody does. What is wise is to consider possible outcomes, estimate their likelihoods, manage risks, and live maturely with whatever results come to pass. This is what was done.

The Mets are that guy who goes out and buys a $2,000.00 suit even though he's about to get his lights shut off because he's can't pay the electric bill.

I don't see how you can possibly make this analogy honestly while decrying their refusal to buy more suits. This would be a fair, if bitter, way to describe the Minaya regime, not this one.

Some ugly-ass suits, at that.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Like they knew Wright'd be reduced to a disability write-off. I'm not sure what this sarcasm is getting at. You don't know the future. Nobody does. What is wise is to consider possible outcomes, estimate their likelihoods, manage risks, and live maturely with whatever results come to pass. This is what was done.

So criticizing the Wright re-signing is forbidden?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Like they knew Wright'd be reduced to a disability write-off. I'm not sure what this sarcasm is getting at. You don't know the future. Nobody does. What is wise is to consider possible outcomes, estimate their likelihoods, manage risks, and live maturely with ever results come to pass. This is what was done. The Mets are that guy who goes out and buys a $2,000.00 suit even though he's about to get his lights shut off because he's can't pay the electric bill. I don't see how you can possibly make this analogy honestly while decrying their refusal to buy more suits. This would be a fair, if bitter, way to describe the Minaya regime, not this one. Some ugly-ass suits, at that.

I don't criticize the Mets for not spending money. Not really. I criticize the Mets for not even having the money they need to be spending. Which they ought to have.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Guest

[Guest d'Kong76]

There's a difference between questioned and forbidden.

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: There's a difference between questioned and forbidden.

So what's the difference, in practical terms?

[Ceetar]

I didn't know Yogi posted here.


"The Mets giving Wright money is a clear example of them not having any money!"

[Guest d'Kong76]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: There's a difference between questioned and forbidden. So what's the difference, in practical terms?

I'm not going to play doc g-esque word games with you. If
something was forbidden you'd be censored or worse. You are
not, you're being questioned. Please.

[Edgy MD]

I demand that I be persecuted! This place sucks!!

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: and was years away from contending Judging by the standings, the number of years until they would contend is a mere two. Wright already had an injury history at the start of the contract. And in actuarial terms, he was already past his prime. Two years is enough for me to put the idea in the "against re-signing Wright column". Did Alderson privately think the Mets would be contending in 2015 when he re-signed Wright? I wonder. Plus, the team's still broke, and Wright's being paid about 20% of the whole payroll.

Two years, but three seasons later. It's semantics, but "two years" sounds like in the second year of Wright's contract instead of the third. It's too long to wait to justify the contract. It was the kind of contract the Phillies or the Dodgers or the Bosox could afford. The Mets can't anymore. And I'm guessing that Alderson knew that, but was obligated to act on the owner's impulses.

[nymr83]

The Mets need to spend money but need to be chastised for spending money on the 2nd best position player the farm system ever produced. Got it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nymr83 wrote: The Mets need to spend money but need to be chastised for spending money on the 2nd best position player the farm system ever produced.

That's right.

Nymr83 wrote: Got it.

You don't get it. By your logic, the Mets should pay Tom Seaver $25M to pitch for them. After all Seaver's the best player they ever produced. The team's broke. When you have a sub $90M payroll and you're years away from contending, you don't give 20% of the whole bankroll to a guy who's 30 at the beginning of the contract. Why is this so hard to understand? You can disagree. You can go and believe that Alderson was all for this. But you and Yogi don't even get what I'm saying.

Granted, the Mets may have a big out, if Wright's disabled to the point where insurance coverage is triggered. But they didn't know that would happen at the signing.