Harvey's innings

[Zvon]

Edgy MD wrote: Adam Rubin reporting that the Mets will ride Harvey like a Turkish stallion in the playoffs, blast past any innings limits, and laugh and point whenever Boras sticks his head up above the water. He further reports that Harvey will sign with the Yankees at his earliest opportunity and become the first player ever to hit the disabled list over an injury that incurred while signing his contract. Yankees Pitching Coach Lawrence Lee "Larry" Rothschild will decry that the Mets over-worked Harvey's signing musles by forcing him to sign all those baseballs and programs for children. Dan Warthan will officially respond with the words "Ho, ho, ho." After missing all six years of his Yankee contract with the exception of occasional rehab games, the Mets will sign Harvey to an incentive laden minor league deal. He'll eventually get into good enough shape to proved 14 more-or-less successful garbage innings down the stretch, but the zip won't be there, and the pain won't go away, and Harvey will retire at the end of the 2025 season, focusing on his marriage and skin care product endorsements. It seems Rubin did a lot of ground work on that piece.

In the alternate universe things went differently due to a new procedure called Larry Rothchild Surgery.

[ashie62]

Not looking ahead but Harvey did look tired in his last start.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: Niese, Lagares, they considered/started the process with Duda. They're already doing that? Not to be rude, but defending the Wilpons just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. I'm not defending them, but the narrative is tired. If the Mets spend 100 it's why don't they spend 120? if they spend 120 it's why don't they spend 140? You said they need to extend players because it's what teams in big markets do, well, they're doing that. Why wouldn't it continue?

It is old and tired because the Mets payroll has been flat (or reducing ) for the past decade. The Mets team payroll for 2015 ($101,409,244) is 21st out of 30 teams and trails behind such small market teams as Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minnesota, and Seattle. The Mets 2015 payroll is less than their team payroll for 2005 ($104,770,139) which at the time trailed only the Yankees and Red Sox. So over the past decades, the Mets team payroll has essentially remained flat while their competition has continued to increase their salaries. Had my partners and I had done the same with the staff salaries for our 14 employees at our office, I feel certain that the majority of them would have left our employ and our business would have suffered as we were forced to hire undertrained, inexperienced staff that could not provide the high level quality of care that our patients have come to expect.

[dgwphotography]

Rockin' Doc wrote: Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: Niese, Lagares, they considered/started the process with Duda. They're already doing that? Not to be rude, but defending the Wilpons just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. I'm not defending them, but the narrative is tired. If the Mets spend 100 it's why don't they spend 120? if they spend 120 it's why don't they spend 140? You said they need to extend players because it's what teams in big markets do, well, they're doing that. Why wouldn't it continue? It is old and tired because the Mets payroll has been flat (or reducing ) for the past decade. The Mets team payroll for 2015 ($101,409,244) is 21st out of 30 teams and trails behind such small market teams as Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minnesota, and Seattle. The Mets 2015 payroll is less than their team payroll for 2005 ($104,770,139) which at the time trailed only the Yankees and Red Sox. So over the past decades, the Mets team payroll has essentially remained flat while their competition has continued to increase their salaries. Had my partners and I had done the same with the staff salaries for our 14 employees at our office, I feel certain that the majority of them would have left our employ and our business would have suffered as we were forced to hire undertrained, inexperienced staff that could not provide the high level quality of care that our patients have come to expect.

21st in payroll, yet 7th in Fan Cost Index. That sounds right...

[Edgy MD]

There's a lot of ways to describe the Mets payroll, but I certainly wouldn't call it flat.

[Edgy MD]

Season	25-Man Opening Day Payroll	40-Man Ultimate Payroll
2009	$149,373,987	$142,229,759
2010	$126,498,096	$127,560,042
2011	$142,797,166	$142,244,744
2012	$94,508,822	$103,710,802
2013	$93,684,590	$95,128,685
2014	$84,951,365	$92,856,260
2015	$101,344,283	$?? But certainly projecting far higher

[Guest d'Kong76]

There's a lot of ways to describe the Mets payroll, but I certainly wouldn't call it fat.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

My point was that it was virtually unchanged in total payroll expenditure for 2015 vs. 2005. There was a period in which they increased payroll (2007-2011), but then the team drastically reduced payroll so that it was either below below that of 2005 and eventually returned to that level this year. So I agree, flat wasn't the best description for the payroll over the past decade. It was more like a rollercoaster ride to nowhere in which the majority of their competitors passed them by.

I believe my point, that the club has not financially invested in personnel at a rate that has kept pace with the majority of the teams throughout MLB. The net effect is that over the decade, the Mets dropped 20 spots in total team payroll, relative to their competitors. Virtually all of that decline has occured in the past 4-5 years.

[Edgy MD]

You also initially stated that the trend, such as it is, has occurred over decades, when in fact it's occurred since 2011, over four years. The facts are bad enough, but the difference is important.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I was responding to Ceetar's defense of the Mets ownership and his assertion that the "narrative" that Mets don't invest in making the team is "tired". I was illustrating that there was a reason why the story has persisted for so long, because there is a longstanding factual basis for the argument.

The fact that the Mets dropped 19 spots in total team payroll since 2009 still illustrates my basic point that the ownership of the Mets have not financially invested in making the Mets competitive. That trend certainly doesn't make me feel hopeful regarding the Mets retaining (or acquiring) the players they need to maintain and improve the team in the coming years.

[G-Fafif]

Rohan of the Times:

Harvey indicated that he knew "for a while" that 180 would be the limit. Dr. Andrews told him again about a week ago

Harvey, via Rohan, also says 180 is the number floating around because most MH has throw in a season is 179.

Why is Harvey talking to Dr. Andrews a week ago? I mean a normal person can talk to whatever surgeon he likes, but don't be that way. Be fine, damn it.

(My bedside manner would be beyond reproach.)

Rohan:

Matt Harvey says he's staying out of the debate, but also said multiple times he hired Boras for a reason, to protect his best interests

The following from Rubin:

Matt Harvey says he's focused on Tuesday. Asked if he'd pitch in playoffs, said he's focused on Tuesday. Asked who makes call. Same answer.

[G-Fafif]

DiComo, with editorializing coda:

Matt Harvey tells reporters that he's always considered 180 IP a limit, and won't answer questions about the playoffs. Can't believe this.

[batmagadanleadoff]

In the context of this exchange, the payroll's not flat. Its' worse than flat. Flat would be an extremely rosy colored description of the team payroll. The idea that it's flat because this year's payroll is about the same as it was in 2005 and that therefore, it's been flat in that time is too flattering. The 2015 numbers are raw, unadjusted for 10 years worth of inflation and 10 years worth of hellzapoppin' record-setting revenue increases for baseball teams. Adjusting for all of that, if the Mets payroll were $10M or -$15M less than what it was in 2005, it'd still be worse than flat.

[Lefty Specialist]

I'm done with Harvey. Trade his ass for a package of useful players who won't quit.

[Gwreck]

There are three possibilities I see here:

1. The Mets never properly documented the discussions with Harvey and the medical staff about innings limits and/or never had these discussions. Unlikely, but the Mets haven't earned the benefit of my doubt on much. Barring this,

2. If Harvey has now decided that he will not pitch after 180 innings, he is an insubordinate employee. The Mets will suspend his ass, dock his pay, and do who knows what. The union will file a grievance, which the Mets should win (barring the circumstances of #1 above or #3 below), and the Mets will need to trade him this offseason. Harvey becomes Mets fan enemy no. 1.

3. Harvey is in some fashion hurt.

[Edgy MD]

Rockin' Doc wrote: I was responding to Ceetar's defense of the Mets ownership and his assertion that the "narrative" that Mets don't invest in making the team is "tired". I was illustrating that there was a reason why the story has persisted for so long, because there is a longstanding factual basis for the argument.

It's pretty shortstanding, and certainly not decades.

And of course, trend lines being funny things, the payroll spending trend is up since 2013, which makes sense.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I was wrong about Harvey. He's not a douchebag. He's a goatsucking diva douchebag.

[batmagadanleadoff]

edited:

batmagadanleadoff wrote: In the context of this exchange, the payroll's not flat. Its' worse than flat. Flat would be an extremely rosy colored description of the team payroll. The idea that it's flat because this year's payroll is about the same as it was in 2005 and that therefore, it's been flat in that time is too flattering. The 2015 numbers are raw, unadjusted for 10 years worth of inflation and 10 years worth of hellzapoppin' record-setting revenue increases for baseball teams. Adjusting for all of that, if the Mets payroll were $10M or -$15M [crossout]less[/crossout] more than what it was in 2005, it'd still be worse than flat.

[Lefty Specialist]

Gwreck wrote: There are three possibilities I see here: 1. The Mets never properly documented the discussions with Harvey and the medical staff about innings limits and/or never had these discussions. Unlikely, but the Mets haven't earned the benefit of my doubt on much. Barring this, 2. If Harvey has now decided that he will not pitch after 180 innings, he is an insubordinate employee. The Mets will suspend his ass, dock his pay, and do who knows what. The union will file a grievance, which the Mets should win (barring the circumstances of #1 above or #3 below), and the Mets will need to trade him this offseason. Harvey becomes Mets fan enemy no. 1. 3. Harvey is in some fashion hurt.

As for #1, I'm assuming Harvey can count. He had to know that once he was pitching regularly he'd be bumping up against 180 innings. He didn't just say, "Oh shit, I'm almost to 180, I better tell Scott!" in the middle of August. There's been gallons of ink spilled about how the Mets were carefully limiting his innings, and gallons more about how Harvey didn't like those restrictions. He came across as a gamer, a warrior, then. Now he comes across as a bullshit artist more worried about his future payday then his team.

As for #2, the Mets won't force him to pitch. That'll be bad for everybody.

As for #3, if he's hurt, he could have said so and avoided all of this. So I don't think that's an issue. But Sandy should start soliciting offers right now and let a bidding war begin for his services in the offseason. Preferably someplace that the Mets won't play much. Colorado would be ideal (as punishment). Lots of good young players in Oakland. Send him far away.

[Frayed Knot]

Matt Harvey says he's staying out of the debate, but also said multiple times he hired Boras for a reason, to protect his best interests ... [and] says he's focused on Tuesday. Asked if he'd pitch in playoffs, said he's focused on Tuesday. Asked who makes call. Same answer.

He also said he had no idea the messages he and Boras were exchanging were considered classified and that he thought all agents had their own dedicated server.
He also regrets that most of the emails between he, his agent, and Dr. Andrews have been erased but he has no idea how that all happened.

[Guest d'Kong76]

[crossout]@juanlagares2 CF
#DavidWright 3B
@ynscspds LF
Uribe 2B
d'Arnaud C
Flores SS
Campbell 1B
@EYJr RF
Colon P

@kcmets #cpftoocool[/crossout]

Edited September 5, 2015 by Guest

[Guest d'Kong76]

[crossout:2c7c9nlm]d'Arboom for 3, next pitch Floreboom for another! Turned on
the tube just in time.[/crossout:2c7c9nlm]

Edited September 5, 2015 by Guest

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I have no use for a player that essentially quits on his teammates. If Harvey isn't hurt and he refuses to pitch down the stretch or in the post-season, then I think the Mets should trade him at the end of the season.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Wasn't Harvey bitching earlier this season about not wanting to be pitch-limited?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yes he's a ****y pussy.

[Lefty Specialist]

"Remember kids, Numero Uno is more important than you. And no refunds on those Dark Knight shirts."

[stevejrogers]

You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself as the villain.
-Harvey "Two-Face" Dent, The Dark Knight

[Frayed Knot]

"Show me a hero and I'll write you a tragedy" -- F. Scott Fitzgerald

[Edgy MD]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I was wrong about Harvey. He's not a douchebag. He's a goatsucking diva douchebag.

"The lighter the shirt I am wearing, the more my eyes pop."

[Chad ochoseis]

Gwreck wrote: There are three possibilities I see here: 1. The Mets never properly documented the discussions with Harvey and the medical staff about innings limits and/or never had these discussions. Unlikely, but the Mets haven't earned the benefit of my doubt on much. Barring this, 2. If Harvey has now decided that he will not pitch after 180 innings, he is an insubordinate employee. The Mets will suspend his ass, dock his pay, and do who knows what. The union will file a grievance, which the Mets should win (barring the circumstances of #1 above or #3 below), and the Mets will need to trade him this offseason. Harvey becomes Mets fan enemy no. 1. 3. Harvey is in some fashion hurt.

This is why this story is so puzzling. 1 would require way too much stupidity on the part of Mets management. As far as 2, Harvey has frequently shown himself to be a self-centered douchebag, but he's never shown himself to be a fool when it comes to managing his image. He'd have to know the kind of shitstorm that would result from him telling a writer that he wasn't planning to pitch more than 180 innings this season. Even if he really wants to sit out the playoffs, he's smart enough to keep his mouth shut and let Boras take the blame. For 3, it would be easier just to say "Harvey's hurt" and be done with it.

So I dunno. I'm guessing 4 - the media took a Harvey quote out of context and ran with it, Harvey will be there for the postseason, and there's nothing to see here.