Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Of course they could have afforded Bruce if he was their guy. He's scarcely more expensive than Cespedes prorated for two months.

Yeah, I suppose the Mets could continue to swap prospects to rent high-value players in the walk years of their contracts. Of course, Bruce isn't a free agent and would cost the Mets about $20M through 2016 (a season and a third). How do you get to pro-rate Bruce over two months? I doubt the Mets are in a position to pick up that kind of contract. If they're collecting on Wright's insurance policy, (and I'm not sure that that info gets disclosed) their true payroll is probably 10 or 15% lower than whatever's reflected in salary databases like Cot's. They didn't reinvest the Santana and Bay contracts. The Wright insurance money isn't going into the team. So the puny payroll, remarkably, still continues to shrink.

I don't think Bruce is happening.

[Ceetar]

Bruce definitely isn't happening now. Why would it? The Mets have Cuddyer, Cespedes, and Granderson. Next year, even if they don't extend Cespedes which might be the right move anyway, they have those two, plus Conforto and Nimmo. They don't NEED Bruce. Gomez helped them in a CF spot, but not with a busted hip. And that's without mentioning that the Mets are already paying a CFer in Lagares. You can't cherry pick when the finances play a part. Why would they pay two center fielders? were they going to move Gomez to a corner? No, not only would they still have a logjam there, he doesn't really have the numbers to play there. Sure, you gamble on the health and bounceback in center (not for Wheeler) but in a corner? no point.

Complaining the Mets didn't throw money at Bruce just seems like cherry-picking a reason to be angry. What about Johnny Peralta or Kang? THOSE are the guys that it's much easier to pin a money reason on. They're both gambles in their own way (And Kang isn't playing SS, but they played Flores so that's not really a reason) but the payoff is a hell of a lot higher than Jay Bruce.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't think Bruce is happening.

Neither do I.

I also have little doubt they would have traded for him if he was the deal they found preferable.

I'm unsure as to why Bruce is even an issue on August 10.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm unsure as to why Bruce is even an issue on August 10.

Me too. I'm not the one(s) who made Bruce an issue.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Wait, the Mets made a series of moves, including a very big one involving one prospect who was years away (and in the one area where have a surplus of talent) in exchange for arguably the best hitter on the market. Said moves appear to propel team into first place in mid-August for the first time since, what, 2009? and some of you guys are STILL unhappy?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'm unsure as to why Bruce is even an issue on August 10. Me too. I'm not the one(s) who made Bruce an issue.

Yes you did. That entire article you posted boiled down to this idea :

had the Mets subsequently added Jay Bruce and his $12 million 2016 salary, it would have dispelled at least the idea that they couldn't add that much salary.

[TransMonk]

Bruce definitely isn't happening now. Why would it? The Mets have Cuddyer, Cespedes, and Granderson. Next year, even if they don't extend Cespedes which might be the right move anyway, they have those two, plus Conforto and Nimmo. They don't NEED Bruce.

Don't forget Lagares. I would also throw out an idea that was mentioned in the TV booth last night: d'Arnaud may play some in the outfield next season as well in order to utilize Plawecki and Travis at the same time.

I can see where the Mets would have wanted to lean towards a trade that didn't congest the outfield any further next season. I'm not suggesting that any of the options already under contract for next year are better than Gomez or Bruce or that finances had nothing to do with it, but the Mets have too many players for the outfield as it is for 2016.

[batmagadanleadoff]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm unsure as to why Bruce is even an issue on August 10. Me too. I'm not the one(s) who made Bruce an issue. Yes you did. That entire article you posted boiled down to this idea : had the Mets subsequently added Jay Bruce and his $12 million 2016 salary, it would have dispelled at least the idea that they couldn't add that much salary.

I didn't read the piece as being about Bruce. In fact, I didn't even notice that Bruce was in the piece until I re-read it after I responded to Edgy's post. If anything, I think, Bruce was merely HM's latest prop to demonstrate the Mets poverty. You could probably substitute Gomez (or any $10M/year player, really) for Bruce to make the exact same point. Unless you believe that the Mets backed away from Gomez because of his hip.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Wait, the Mets made a series of moves, including a very big one involving one prospect who was years away (and in the one area where have a surplus of talent) in exchange for arguably the best hitter on the market. Said moves appear to propel team into first place in mid-August for the first time since, what, 2009? and some of you guys are STILL unhappy?

Why can't we? It's not black and white. I can revel in the happenings of the last two weeks or so, about as thrilling a two-week run as any in franchise history. And at the same time, I can still acknowledge that the Mets are embarrasingly broke and are run by owners who, by all reason, should be forced to sell the team by the league.

If the Mets win the pennant this year, something that's no longer implausible, they should give the MVP award to Sandy Alderson because Sandy Alderson is basically, steering the Titanic.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Why can't we? It's not black and white. I can revel in the happenings of the last two weeks or so, about as thrilling a two-week run as any in franchise history. And at the same time, I can still acknowledge that the Mets are embarrassingly broke and are run by owners who, by all reason, should be forced to sell the team by the league. If the Mets win the pennant this year, something that's not implausible, they should give the MVP award to Sandy Alderson because Sandy Alderson is basically, steering the Titanic.

But it's not the Titanic if they are in first place in mid-August and have a stud rotation all under control for several years. I'd argue the MFYs, despite pouring money into the team, are more similar to the Titanic with fossils aplenty and some very, very big contracts that are absolute anchors.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: But it's not the Titanic if they are in first place in mid-August and ...

Financially speaking ....

[Ceetar]

Carlos Gomez came into Friday 0 for 12 with eight strikeouts against Washington starter Jordan Zimmermann. But the reason he�s out of the lineup for the third consecutive game was a troublesome right hip that�s been bothering him for the past couple weeks. �I�ve been playing with a wrap around it for the last two weeks,� he said. �I don�t like to (complain) about it, but I haven�t been completely 100 percent. I�d be feeling it running to first base and it got worse, so we stepped back and I�m resting. �I could play through it, but it�s better to play one or two less days (than make it worse).�

That's from the Journal Sentinel in Milwaukee. With quotes from Gomez. About his hip. About it hurting. About not being 100%. About missing time. He had an MRI on his hip.

When you try to trade damaged goods, you don't get top prospects* in return.

The Mets have a bunch of homegrown players. And they have contributors via free agency in Cuddyer, Granderson, Colon. They've got guys in trades. Cespedes, d'Arnaud, Johnson, Syndergaard, Uribe.

I'm not really sure what the point of being at the top of the payroll standings does for the Mets exactly.

Whatever the cause of it (Yes, mostly money. Maybe all money. We don't know the specifics or how much), the Mets chose to run the team a different way than flat out spending. It's working. THAT is the goal, not the spending. The Mets will spend more, as needed, in the next few years because the financial boon from this run (provided they do actually make the playoffs) will make it impossible to 'hide' money. They've reported losses or minimal gains the last few years, in part due to creative accounting (hint: everyone does this), but they won't be able to fudge that when the flat out ticket sales eclipse the payroll. So they'll reinvest (some of) that money. It's not really that complicated. But the goal isn't to have a top payroll, it's to have a top team. Also, it's not like they're spending nothing.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: I'm not really sure what the point of being at the top of the payroll standings does for the Mets exactly.

I've been reading this line of thinking on this forum from you and a couple of others for what, years now, I think.

I guess you and a couple of others here must believe that it wouldn't make a difference if the Mets had an additional 30 or 40 or 50 million dollars a year to spend on payroll ... that those dozens of extra millions of dollars a year wouldn't be able to improve the team at all.

Ceetar wrote: We don't know the specifics or how much), the Mets chose to run the team a different way than flat out spending. It's working. THAT is the goal, not the spending.

We must have different standards. At no other time in the history of baseball has there been a stronger correlation between payroll levels and team wins. And the Mets, who play in the most lucrative market in the world ... do I have to finish this sentence? They haven't had a winning record in almost a decade. What's working?

[Guest d'Kong76]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I've been reading this line of thinking on this forum from you and a couple of others for what, years now, I think. I guess you and a couple of others here must believe that it wouldn't make a difference if the Mets had an additional 30 or 40 or 50 million dollars a year to spend on payroll ... that those dozens of extra millions of dollars a year wouldn't be able to improve the team at all.

There's very little of that here. Please provide examples.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I guess you and a couple of others here must believe that it wouldn't make a difference if the Mets had an additional 30 or 40 or 50 million dollars a year to spend on payroll ... that those dozens of extra millions of dollars a year wouldn't be able to improve the team at all.

You mean like in 2010: "hey we had an off year full of injuries, let's sign a power All-Star bat with a 134 OPS+ who's only 30!"

Maybe it's just that I've made my piece with the Mets, at least for now, only spending what they pull in. Attendance is booming as are ticket sales. That'll continue, they'll spend. They've spent to improve the team the last few years. They filled holes in the middle of this one. They weathered injuries. They're in first place. I see no reason to believe they won't do something this offseason as well, but I don't really care if they push the budget to the max and leverage every inch of revenue. Isn't over-leveraging what got them into this mess?

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: There's very little of that here. Please provide examples.

Bullshit.

What for?

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: There's very little of that here.

A little. A lot. It's all subjective.

d'Kong76 wrote: Please provide examples.

What for? That'll result in a lot of pleasantries. Draw your own conclusions. Or pretend that I make this shit up.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Don't dismiss me bro, I'm just asking you to show your work.
You asked Ceetar how he drew his conclusions earlier in the thread.
My asking you to do the same is no different.

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: Don't dismiss me bro, I'm just asking you to show your work. You asked Ceetar how he drew his conclusions earlier in the thread. My asking you to do the same is no different.

What? You want me to name names? Have you no sense of decency?

[Guest d'Kong76]

Anonymous quotes would be fine.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'd prefer this thread not go there, myself.

Suffice it to say there's a little bit of exaggeration going on as a means to make a point.

That said I think the Mets must have had concerns that went beyond salary for Gomez since he was relatively cheap to begin with; and probably best-suited for our needs now and next year, if you also believe that Lagares may require elbow surgery (worth mentioning, he would seem to offer proof that you can play a diminished game while injured). Maybe, like Lagares, the concern was he'd require surgery eventually and they didn't anticipate having the financial ability to deal with that. At some level it's always about the money.

[Guest d'Kong76]

A little bit of exaggeration? It's been FIVE years!

And we all know it's about the money. We don't need to be told out
of the side of batmags mouth that (some) of the forum is stupid for
not seeing so. WE SEE IT!!

[Centerfield]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: There's very little of that here. Please provide examples. Bullshit. What for?

Because any time you say that "you and a couple others here" believe something, you should be able to say who. But I'll do it for you.

ceetar absolutely believes that $30-$50 million extra in available payroll is pointless. He has fought me about this constantly.

Mets Guy in Michigan believes that you. It comes across in his post earlier in this thread:

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: But it's not the Titanic if they are in first place in mid-August and ...

Other than that, I don't see anyone else falling into this camp.

For what it's worth, I think most people here agree with batmagadan. Being in first place is great, but the Wilpons are still terrible. Having a NY team with a bottom third payroll is unacceptable, regardless of your place in the standings.

It's great that the Mets are in first. And it's great to have a great rotation all under control for the next several years. But as a large market team, they should also be able to spend a boatload of money on established talent that takes this team from being competitive, to dominant. Asking anything less from your owners is to let them off the hook.

The counter-arguments about money poorly spent are distractors and irrelevant. No one here is advocating that the additional money be spent poorly. As far as I know, there is no requirement attaching the extra money to poor decisions.

What batmags, and Vic, and many others here want is for the Mets do everything that they have done to maximize their resources, and also have at their disposal, the financial capability of a big market team.

[duan]

I think Megdal is (as usual) overplaying the thing to the point where he undermines the actual legitimate point he's making.
In terms of Gomez, I think it's acceptable for them Mets to think
IF Carlos Gomez' hip is bothering him, and we see that there's a genuine attrition (and don't forget they may well have been able to compare to what they had when he was at the club) then what are the chances that he'll outproduce Cuddyer/Conforto/Lagares
and if he can't out produce them, what is the point and certainly it is not worth flipping Wheeler plus Flores for him - and certainly (small sample size accepted) his OPS of .630 since joining Heuston might indicate they had a point.
Of course, Yoenis Cespedes has an OPS of only .676 ... and by all accounts no dodgy hip.

[Guest themetfairy]

Centerfield wrote: For what it's worth, I think most people here agree with batmagadan. Being in first place is great, but the Wilpons are still terrible. Having a NY team with a bottom third payroll is unacceptable, regardless of your place in the standings. It's great that the Mets are in first. And it's great to have a great rotation all under control for the next several years. But as a large market team, they should also be able to spend a boatload of money on established talent that takes this team from being competitive, to dominant. Asking anything less from your owners is to let them off the hook.

I love you, man!

[Guest d'Kong76]

I mostly agree too. But, when he says the forum doesn't get it
all he's doing is looking to poke some of us with a stick.

Fuck it, won't be the first time he's made me take some time
off. Let's go Mets.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: The counter-arguments about money poorly spent are distractors and irrelevant. No one here is advocating that the additional money be spent poorly. As far as I know, there is no requirement attaching the extra money to poor decisions. What batmags, and Vic, and many others here want is for the Mets do everything that they have done to maximize their resources, and also have at their disposal, the financial capability of a big market team.

It's not a fucking roadmap. A lot of the money is spent poorly. Spending poorly and then covering up that poor spending with more spending is one of the melange of things that got the Mets into this sticky situation. You're almost obligated to throw more money after bad money to try to justify it all in aggregate. (again, see Jason Bay. Good decision in a vacuum, probably a poor one combined with everything else)

So what can you do but spend the money with the maximum return? Go for it when you've got a shot (The Johan Santana example. Bad in a vacuum, probably good overall)

Regardless, the Mets and Wilpons OWE US NOTHING. It's a business. There are very few, if any (Dodgers?), run the way you propose. The Mets, through a collection of mostly unavoidable circumstances, got themselves into a sticky situation financially where they DON'T have the mythical 'vast resources' of a NY team in a big market. (again, some creative accounting here, of which we're so far removed from we really, Megdal included, have no idea about)

But guess what? the Mets (and by Mets I mean the Mets not Sterling/Wilpon/etc) ARE IN FACT doing everything they can to maximize their resources and revenue streams. Many of the signs point towards light at the end of the tunnel and coming out of the 'rebuilding period' or whatever you want to call it. To suddenly demand they sling money around like the Dodgers in advance of maximizing those resources and revenues is foolish. Yes, maybe if they had money to burn and less loans they could do that and taking a higher percentage shot this/recent years, but they didn't. It's over. The Wilpons will own the team the rest of our lives. The next few years are set up to be pretty good and it seems endlessly tiring to constantly harp on HOW the Wilpons aught to spend their money

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'm going to disagree with the "unavoidable" part, except where the fact that the Wilpons being incompetent means fucking things up is unavoidable.

[Ceetar]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm going to disagree with the "unavoidable" part, except where the fact that the Wilpons being incompetent means fucking things up is unavoidable.

I mean, everything's avoidable. They could've put more of the stadium burden on the fans/city. They could've decided to build, and pay for, it a few years earlier rather than right as the economy was collapsing. They could've been the smartest people in (on?) Wall Street and dumped Madoff before he was caught.

But it feels unlikely.

[Guest d'Kong76]

The sad thing is is that some 'fans' want to cheapen what's been going
on the last (what is it 11 of 15) days with more talk of cheapness. We're
all a little (a lot) OCD about the Mets in our own ways... but is now really
the time to be beating the Mets still suck drum? I don't think so, stick up for
whatever side ya'll want.

[Centerfield]

CF and Ceetar Financial Discussions (Cliff's Notes Version)

CF: I want owners who support a large payroll and spend wisely.

Ceetar: Yes, but a large payroll doesn't insure success.

CF: Agreed. But it increases a team's likelihood of success and sustained excellence.

Ceetar: But it doesn't always work. Look at the (insert name of bad team). The money is not helping them.

CF: Agreed. I want the owners to support a large payroll and spend it wisely. Not like (bad team).

Ceetar: But lots of teams spend poorly! Look at (another team) and (another team)! They also spent poorly. Don't you think (bad team) regrets signing (overpaid player)? Bad bad.

CF: Yes. Spending foolishly is bad. I want to spend wisely.

Ceetar: We are in first place!

CF: Yay!

Ceetar: The owners owe you nothing.