Gary Cohen Disparaging Murph?

[Ceetar]

metsmarathon wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: I'd like that, but see no reason why he would do it. i think that murphy gets a substantially lesser deal with a compensation pick attached to him than he would otherwise, and that's why he might accept the QO.

still plenty of protected teams though.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Well, let's just back burner this and sweep the Cubs and win the
World Series and then...

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm not sure how "substantial" the difference might be, but it's entirely possible that Murphy's free agent contract would pay less than $15 million per year, so he might opt to take a one-year deal to stay with the Mets and maybe have another exciting playoff run. The drawback to doing that, of course, is that he'd be deferring free agency for a year and after 2016 he'll be a year older than he is now, and probably not coming off of a scalding hot postseason.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Centerfield wrote: Give him 5-6 years. Go for it for the next 4 years. Rebuild after that.

Things I'd suggest for a Mets Cespedes contract: No no-trade clause. (He won't be a five-and-ten until after the sixth year of the contract since he has only four years of service so far.) And front-load it instead of back-loading it. I don't know why so many contracts are back-loaded; you commit yourself to paying more for a player in his late thirties than in his early thirties, and with that ballooning contract he's less tradeable as well.

Even with front-loading, Cespedes could become an albatross in 2020 and 2021, but at least he wouldn't be an albatross making $30 million per year.

Is there any reason why players would prefer to get their money later rather than sooner? Inflation? I can't imagine that inflation has too big an effect on someone making that much money. If the price of a gallon of gas or a carton of milk turns out to be a bit higher in 2021, I don't think it has too big an effect on multimillionaires.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Centerfield wrote: Part of the reason I want this ride to keep going is that I don't know when the Mets will put this complete a team out there again. Right now, we have all four aces healthy, the entire starting lineup healthy, we have 2 extra starters in the bullpen, and a deep bench. All of this materialized because our young talent developed while the old guard was still here.

All of this also materialized because the Mets had an insurance policy on David Wright that kicked in, saving them 75% of his 2015 salary, and because the Mets didn't have to pay Mejia. That's how Sandy was able to strengthen the bench and take on the rest of Cespedes's 2015 salary. But what next year? Will the Mets still be the same broke? Because if they're gonna be as broke next year as they were at the beginning of this season, the Murphy re-signing would be a non-issue. And Cespedes beyond this year -- a child's dream.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Centerfield wrote: Part of the reason I want this ride to keep going is that I don't know when the Mets will put this complete a team out there again. Right now, we have all four aces healthy, the entire starting lineup healthy, we have 2 extra starters in the bullpen, and a deep bench. All of this materialized because our young talent developed while the old guard was still here. All of this also materialized because the Mets had an insurance policy on David Wright that kicked in, saving them 75% of his 2015 salary, and because the Mets didn't have to pay Mejia. That's how Sandy was able to strengthen the bench and take on the rest of Cespedes's 2015 salary. But what next year? Will the Mets still be the same broke? Because if they're gonna be as broke next year as they were at the beginning of this season, the Murphy re-signing would be a non-issue. And Cespedes beyond this year -- a child's dream.

even if that was all true, the Mets made, conservatively, 3 million from each of 4 playoff games just from ticket sales and are guaranteed a 5th.

And then there's parking (easily another half million+), and in-game merch sales.

Then there is all the increased 2016 season ticket sales to guarantee 2015 playoff tickets, and these are important because they actually raise the expected 2016 revenue in which to measure payroll against.

And then there is the inevitable raised rates for advertising both at the park, on giveaways, and on SNY.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Centerfield wrote: Part of the reason I want this ride to keep going is that I don't know when the Mets will put this complete a team out there again. Right now, we have all four aces healthy, the entire starting lineup healthy, we have 2 extra starters in the bullpen, and a deep bench. All of this materialized because our young talent developed while the old guard was still here. All of this also materialized because the Mets had an insurance policy on David Wright that kicked in, saving them 75% of his 2015 salary, and because the Mets didn't have to pay Mejia. That's how Sandy was able to strengthen the bench and take on the rest of Cespedes's 2015 salary. But what next year? Will the Mets still be the same broke? Because if they're gonna be as broke next year as they were at the beginning of this season, the Murphy re-signing would be a non-issue. And Cespedes beyond this year -- a child's dream. even if that was all true, the Mets made, conservatively, 3 million from each of 4 playoff games just from ticket sales and are guaranteed a 5th. And then there's parking (easily another half million+), and in-game merch sales. Then there is all the increased 2016 season ticket sales to guarantee 2015 playoff tickets, and these are important because they actually raise the expected 2016 revenue in which to measure payroll against. And then there is the inevitable raised rates for advertising both at the park, on giveaways, and on SNY.

That's true. And it might help. Not that I'd know. But we'll find out soon enough.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Do we really know the insurance policy and not paying Mejia was
the real reason they made some moves? I don't think so, but I'm
all ears to someone who really knows.

[Edgy MD]

Reasons to backload:

• Revenues/luxury tax limits are likely to be higher later on.
  
• You get a competitive advantage during the player's prime. Pay them a lower rate right now and you have a few bucks left over to surround your big shot dude with complementary talent.
  
• You have time to plan for the expense, unloading other albatross deals and replacing them with younger/cheaper guys.
  
• You can make $$ now on the deal while the player is young and excellent, garnering post-season revenues that can be put toward future contracts
  
• If that doesn't work out, you can will the shitty butt end of the deal to your successor.
  
• You might be able to trade all or part of that contract to another team, thus sharing the cost of the later years of the deal.
  
• You can amortize some of the premium.
  
• Maybe the dude will retire before the end is nigh. It fucking could happen.

Obviously, there are plenty of good reasons not to backload a contract, but it's human nature (if not necessarily good business sense) to kick problems down the road, figuring or hoping you will solve them before the marker comes due.

[Edgy MD]

d'Kong76 wrote: Do we really know the insurance policy and not paying Mejia was the real reason they made some moves? I don't think so, but I'm all ears to someone who really knows.

Paging HVAC Guy!

[Guest d'Kong76]

I think he retired, took some union buyout package and moved
to Sanibel Island last I heard... *clink*

[Gwreck]

Your overall point about the Mets making more money for being in the playoffs is correct. But this is not:

Ceetar wrote: the Mets made, conservatively, 3 million from each of 4 playoff games just from ticket sales and are guaranteed a 5th.

60% of the ticket sales from all 4 of those games go to the players' pool, not to the Mets, as per the CBA.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I had no idea some player's pool got that sweet a gate %. I'd charge
$9 for a beer and $25 to park too if my tickets sales weren't going in
my pocket.

(half kidding about the latter part)

[Gwreck]

d'Kong76 wrote: I had no idea some player's pool got that sweet a gate %.

Players pool gets:
50% of gate of each WC game
60% of gate of each of the first 3 games of all 4 division series
60% of gate of each of the first 4 games of both LCS
60% of gate of each of the first 4 games of the WS

The rest of the gate goes not directly to the clubs hosting the game but into some sort of pool that is then distributed to the participating clubs. I think; I can't remember exactly how the distribution goes thereafter.

[ashie62]

I'm keeping it simple and rooting for a Mets WS title from whomever it may come.

[Frayed Knot]

d'Kong76 wrote: I had no idea some player's pool got that sweet a gate %.

It's merely the formula for determining how large the pool money is for the post-season participants. The more money the games take in the bigger a pile they get to divvy up.
Note that the players' portion is determined from the take in the early games in each series rather than the later ones. That's from an old idea to prevent the players from each team getting together and "arranging" for the series to run to the maximum so as to increase their shares. This way a longer series benefits the league and owners but not the players directly.

[Ceetar]

Gwreck wrote: Your overall point about the Mets making more money for being in the playoffs is correct. But this is not: Ceetar wrote: the Mets made, conservatively, 3 million from each of 4 playoff games just from ticket sales and are guaranteed a 5th. 60% of the ticket sales from all 4 of those games go to the players' pool, not to the Mets, as per the CBA.

well sure, but the Mets ultimately get money from that as well right? Mets ticket prices and income obviously much higher than say Kansas City, but they're making a pretty penny from this. And really the big thing is the 2016 purchases and expected attendance increases beyond already purchased tickets. They drew 400k more fans in 2015 so factoring that into expected revenue is pretty significant, never mind what they project beyond that based on the actual success. They'll eclipse 3 million fans next year and their 'max' is only like 3.5.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Gwreck wrote: Kind of funny though how the QO seems like a right move now when I know it was being dismissed out of hand both in many places as well as this forum. Although, prior to this postseason performance, there was a much higher chance of Murphy accepting the QO.

This is the second biggest reason I've been so happy about Murph going SuperMurph... it increases the odds we can safely offer that QO.

And Cespedes? Upton? You want sustained success, put the money into international signing/buying out arb years. Grow the talent base again, and trade the excess to build those future complete teams.

(Oh, and Bart gets the Wakefield honorific: one year deals as long as he wants.)

[seawolf17]

Frayed Knot wrote: Yeah, Knight was a full three years older in '86 than Murph is now so they shouldn't be treated as equal situations

I was just thinking about it from a "HOW COULD THEY LET THE WORLD SERIES MVP SIGN WITH THE YANKEES" kind of thing that we're going to see this winter.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Is there any reason why players would prefer to get their money later rather than sooner? Inflation? I can't imagine that inflation has too big an effect on someone making that much money. If the price of a gallon of gas or a carton of milk turns out to be a bit higher in 2021, I don't think it has too big an effect on multimillionaires.

I've always wondered about this too. When I sign guys to extensions in OOTP, I always frontload them so if things get dicey later, I'm protected, but they still get their money.

[Edgy MD]

I answered above.

I certainly agree about front-loading, but we don't exist in the same world as MLB GMs, and we're not playing for the same stakes.

[Frayed Knot]

Some in the Yanx front office used to refer to their penchant for overspending on large contracts with onerous back ends as 'Ma�ana Economics', the idea that, whatever the drawbacks, for now it allows them to stick with their supposed budgets and they'll deal with any fallout from it 'Ma�ana'.