Payroll 2016

[Centerfield]

A look back at the 2015 numbers:

http://deadspin.com/2015-payrolls-and-salaries-for-every-mlb-team-1695040045

To summarize, the Mets were 21st out of 30 teams with a payroll of $101 million. Atrocious for a big market team.

If the Mets wanted to get to #15, they would have to bump their payroll to about $115 million. Which, you would have to think would give you plenty of money to sign, say, Jason Heyward.

If the Mets one day realized they play in NY, and allowed themselves a top 5 payroll, they would have to add at least $70 million to their books.

With an additional $70 million, the Mets could sign Justin Upon for $25M/year to play right. Then sign Cespedes for $25M/year to play left. And then finish off by signing Jason Heyward at $15M/year to play center.

Then they could package Conforto, Granderson, Duda, Lagares, Wheeler, Flores and Amed Rosario for Paul Goldschmidt. And they could give Arizona an extra $5 million cash just because they have it lying around. And if he wanted to, Sandy could personally deliver that $5 million by making it rain all throughout the Arizona front office.

I get that this is not likely to happen. But imagine if the Mets actually spent like a big market team, and put some pieces around this once-in-a-lifetime pitching staff.

Fred said he would spend money if attendance increased. Well we did our part. Now it's time to spend money.

Don't let this fucker off the hook. Write about it. Blog about it. Write to your congressman. Let's put pressure on these fuckers this winter.

[Ceetar]

Yawn.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Ceetar yawns a lot.


Of the choices above, I prefer the middle ground. Instead of loading the 2016 outfield with free agents, I'd rather see Conforto establish himself as a Mets star over the next six (or more) seasons.

Sign Heyward (or someone like him) and a shortstop. And a reliever or two. (And, perhaps, Uribe and Colon.) Move Wilmer to second base and give Dilson a little more time. (He may eventually displace Flores, but I don't want to hand him a starting job just yet.)

[Ceetar]

Mets drew 400k more fans last year, and presumably locked in a bunch of 2016 deposits and expect a bump next year. Say 800k.

so 800x whatever the average ticket price works out to be. $30? Should expect a modest 20million bump in expected revenue and therefore expenditure, give or take a little based on leaving room for mid-season acquisitions or whatever.

You could dig a little more into the exact numbers there, but it hardly seems like something with a lot of meat to write about.

[Centerfield]

Exactly. (directed at BG)

I am certainly not advocating scenario 3 (except maybe that whenever we throw in cash to make a trade happen, Sandy should go make it rain in that front office). And I think and hope that Conforto will be a star.

But imagine having another $20 million or so to add pieces like Heyward, or Desmond, or middle relief. It could transform this team from a contender, to a dominant team.

And you don't have to spend like the Dodgers. You just have to spend like the Royals.

[Centerfield]

Ceetar wrote: Mets drew 400k more fans last year, and presumably locked in a bunch of 2016 deposits and expect a bump next year. Say 800k. so 800x whatever the average ticket price works out to be. $30? Should expect a modest 20million bump in expected revenue and therefore expenditure, give or take a little based on leaving room for mid-season acquisitions or whatever. You could dig a little more into the exact numbers there, but it hardly seems like something with a lot of meat to write about.

I want you to understand that I am a fan of the New York Mets. And I am writing on a message board that I wish our team had the financial capability of the Kansas City Royals.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: Mets drew 400k more fans last year, and presumably locked in a bunch of 2016 deposits and expect a bump next year. Say 800k. so 800x whatever the average ticket price works out to be. $30? Should expect a modest 20million bump in expected revenue and therefore expenditure, give or take a little based on leaving room for mid-season acquisitions or whatever. You could dig a little more into the exact numbers there, but it hardly seems like something with a lot of meat to write about. I want you to understand that I am a fan of the New York Mets. And I am writing on a message board that I wish our team had the financial capability of the Kansas City Royals.

I wish I had a crystal ball to know which pitchers would get hurt in 2016. And I'd like to know which games the Mets will win and which they will lose so I can plan my trips to Citi accordingly.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Deflecting the topic with wishes of crystal balls seem a little silly, no?

OE: A crystal ball, not crystal testicles. That would be awkward.

[TransMonk]

Given that this team went to a WS and increased attendance in 2015 with a 21st ranked payroll, I'm not sure what the business reasoning would be for increasing spending.

I can surely see management saying, "if it ain't broke..."

Obviously, I hope otherwise, but I don't expect a direct correlation between the increase in revenue and any increase in spending.

[Benjamin Grimm]

As long as they fill their gaps with top-quality players, I don't care what the payroll is.

If the Mets have a subpar team because they're not spending enough, that's a problem. But if they can finish in first place next year with a $110 million payroll, then good for them.

[Guest d'Kong76]

This news was in another thread, but I figure I'll bring it to the
money thread just for s & g's...
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20151028/CRED03/151029841/mets-owners-notch-victory-in-chicagos-office-market

[Guest d'Kong76]

And just another slant, the Mets had approximately 15 players aged
25 and under this season. Of course the payroll is lower, the younger
guys don't make as much? Just thinking out loud.

[seawolf17]

d'Kong76 wrote: And just another slant, the Mets had approximately 15 players aged 25 and under this season. Of course the payroll is lower, the younger guys don't make as much? Just thinking out loud.

That's definitely a piece of it, and as such, it means that on one hand, they should have some payroll flexibility on the upper end, and on another hand, they need to figure out what they've got with some of these kids and get them on longer deals, and on yet another hand, that's an excuse for the Wilpons to be like "What? We only have to pay Harvey $500K, so that's all we're paying him."

You have to take care of Harvey, Familia, and Duda before arbitration, and then get Flores, d'Arnaud, and deGrom signed for safety as well.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Mets drew 400k more fans last year, and presumably locked in a bunch of 2016 deposits and expect a bump next year. Say 800k. so 800x whatever the average ticket price works out to be. $30? Should expect a modest 20million bump in expected revenue and therefore expenditure, give or take a little based on leaving room for mid-season acquisitions or whatever. You could dig a little more into the exact numbers there, but it hardly seems like something with a lot of meat to write about.

Here are some actual numbers from SI's Kostya Kennedy

Mets planning modest rise in ticket prices after reaching World Series Any number of words might have described the stands at Citi Field over the last few months of the Mets' 2015 season: giddy, joyous, bananas and, at the very end of the team's World Series loss to the Royals, deflated. Or try this one: full. These are all adjectives that before this season were rarely applicable in the first six years of their still relatively new stadium. �It was a great run, there�s no question about that,� Lou DePaoli, the team's Chief Revenue Officer, said on on Monday. It was the day after the Mets had blown their third late-game lead of the World Series and less than 15 hours since the final out of Game 5, yet neither DePaoli nor others around the club seemed to be in mourning. Bottom line, it had been a very good season, and it had been a very good season for the bottom line. �We�re feeling good about what we were able to accomplish this season,� DePaoli said, �and about what the future might bring.� Along with optimism about the team's young pitching staff and the finally shored-up farm system, New York's short-term financial future is brightened by the fact that it has already received 6,500 deposits for full-, half-, or quarter-season ticket plans for 2016. That�s a huge number, and it comes on the heels of a 2015 season in which Mets attendance shot up 18.1%, by far the biggest increase in the National League. So where do they go from here? DePaoli revealed to SI.com that Mets season ticket prices, which did not go up from 2014 to '15, will be raised by an average of 2.86% for next year. (Some tickets, of course, may see a higher increase, some lower.) That would bring Citi Field's average ticket price to $26.02, which would still be $2.92 below the MLB average in 2015. The idea behind pricing, naturally, is not simply to reap as much as you can per ticket, but to bring as many people as possible into the house. Big crowds are good for on-site mojo, and also excellent for the ledger. More people in the stands means more people paying for parking (revenue that the Mets share with New York City) and more people buying $6 beers and $5 sodas, and $20 hats, and teddy bears and cotton candy and key chains and sausage-and-peppers and�. So just how much can the Mets expect their attendance to jump in 2016? Wayne McDonnell, the academic chair at NYU�s Tisch Institute of Sports Management, Media and Business, researched a series of financial metrics tracing back to 1967, the year after Marvin Miller took over the players� union and set about transforming baseball's economics. One piece of the research showed that after winning a World Series, a team saw an average attendance increase of 6.9% the following year. (That excludes seasons with games lost to work stoppages.) Because each team and park and situation varies, that number includes wild fluctuation, even in recent years. The White Sox' 2006 attendance, for example, leapt by 26.23% after their '05 title, the first for the franchise since 1917, while the Giants (playing before a stadium that was often already chock-full) actually dropped by -0.24% after winning in 2012, their second title in three years. But the Mets, despite opportunities, didn�t win the Series. And as DePaoli said, �Our own research indicates that losing in the World Series does not have the same impact as winning it.� But that too is circumstantial. For example: The Royals, who lost the 2014 series to San Francisco, saw a mammoth increase of 38.4% in 2015, the biggest jump in baseball. As for the Mets' attendance history, the team saw jumps of 24% in 1970 (after winning the World Series in �69) and of 9.63% in '87 (after winning it in �86.) But they also endured attendance drops of -9.94% and of -5.75% after losing in the 1973 and 2000 World Series, respectively. Those 6,500 ticket plan deposits, the modest price increase and the possibility of having a competitive team in 2016 indicate that, despite falling short in the Fall Classic, the Mets can indeed expect more fans to come out to Citi Field next season. And if the team can convert enough of those 6,500 deposits and lure in enough single-ticket buyers to yield an additional 5,312 fans per game next season (an increase of 16.74% over 2015), New York will draw three million fans for the first time since the ballpark's inaugural season in 2009. �That�s a number they can hit,� McDonnell said. �The signs are there.�

[Ceetar]

those numbers convert roughly to an extra 12 million in income.

of course, it comes with other things. the purchases in the park, surely. Ad revenue both on SNY and in the park advertisements.

That's where any gripe should come. It makes fiscal sense, regardless of ownership, to not spend more than you pull in and all signs point to that. But what numbers do you use? Does the stadium sponsorship come in? Ad revenue from SNY? I don't think they're counting that, and I contend that they should. I'm okay with them spending down loan and debt associated with the stadium and the team itself. Sure, if you want to apportion the sponsorship to paying the stadium loan, go for it. I don't need them paying off Sterling loans.

But who's to say? No one has access to those numbers. We know they're spending the direct revenue from the team, but what about the rest of it? Have YOU seen their books? Why is even worth speculating? They run their business that I'm a fan of, and they're clearly doing a good job of it. They got a pretty damn good result and I'm happy with that.

[Edgy MD]

I'm not sure what the payroll was, but that $101 million number certainly can't be accurate, as that's an opening day figure.

[Centerfield]

Ceetar wrote: those numbers convert roughly to an extra 12 million in income. of course, it comes with other things. the purchases in the park, surely. Ad revenue both on SNY and in the park advertisements. That's where any gripe should come. It makes fiscal sense, regardless of ownership, to not spend more than you pull in and all signs point to that. But what numbers do you use? Does the stadium sponsorship come in? Ad revenue from SNY? I don't think they're counting that, and I contend that they should. I'm okay with them spending down loan and debt associated with the stadium and the team itself. Sure, if you want to apportion the sponsorship to paying the stadium loan, go for it. I don't need them paying off Sterling loans. But who's to say? No one has access to those numbers. We know they're spending the direct revenue from the team, but what about the rest of it? Have YOU seen their books? Why is even worth speculating? They run their business that I'm a fan of, and they're clearly doing a good job of it. They got a pretty damn good result and I'm happy with that.

I think you are misunderstanding my point.

I don't care if the Mets are profiting or losing money. I don't want to look at those numbers, nor do I think looking at them would be productive.

Here is why. If the Mets are not spending because they are taking profits and using them for other business ventures, this will piss me off.

If the Mets are not spending and not profiting, despite playing in NY and now coming off a World Series, this will piss me off.

From 2000 to 2011, the Mets had no worse than a top 6 payroll. This is what you would expect from a team playing in the largest market in the US.

From 2012 on, their payroll has dropped and now they are in the lower third.

I would like to see this trend reverse, and the Mets to be funded like the big market team they are. If the owners cannot find a way to fund this team like a big market team, they should criticized for it.

[Edgy MD]

The Mets hadn't been profiting in recent years. They are profiting now. So it's relevant, because they clearly needed to balance the books to get good with their creditors.

They indeed had a top 6 payroll in 2000-2011, and were still derided as cheap. I don't see the criticism changing anytime soon no matter how circumstances change. But we should acknowledge � here at least � when they change.

I haven't seen final numbers, but I imagine they had a payroll closer to $110 million than $101 million. They took on salary with like 11 straight transactions. Pretty much every transaction they did this year starting with trading Cory Mazzoni for �lex Torres added salary.

[Lefty Specialist]

and more people buying $6 beers and $5 sodas, and $20 hats

Clearly this person has never set foot inside Citi Field.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Edgy MD wrote: The Mets hadn't been profiting in recent years. They are profiting now.

Does anyone really know this? They got the cry-poverty books, the tax books,
the MLB loan's books, the partner's books...

[Lefty Specialist]

Don't forget the Putitinthe Books.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Good one!

[seawolf17]

And Joe Petruccio's book, which is the most awesome book of all.

[Edgy MD]

d'Kong76 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: The Mets hadn't been profiting in recent years. They are profiting now. Does anyone really know this? They got the cry-poverty books, the tax books, the MLB loan's books, the partner's books...

No, I certainly have to say that I honestly don't. It's an inference. They sure seem to have had a pretty good year, winning the pennant on a relatively modest payroll. That certainly may have been offset in part (or even in whole) by the salary they took on, but my guess is they have something like balanced books depending on whether loan repayments are counted as an operating expense (which they should be).

So, in the end, they probably break even or worse, but the idea that the organization was profitable this year apart from addressing the dept burden? I don't know but I feel safe assuming, yeah. Else, this baseball racket is a fool's enterprise.

They are also in a position to project better future revenues, which to some extent, they can leverage. Of course, overdoing that, as much as Madoff, is what seems to have gotten them behind the eight ball.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I over-quoted, I was responding more to this part and not this year.

Edgy MD wrote: The Mets hadn't been profiting in recent years.

[Mex17]

http://espn.go.com/blog/newyork/mets/post/_/id/113061/mets-payroll-obligation-for-2016-nearly-90m-before-any-winter-activity

$92 million to start

+ $15 million for an outfielder (Heyward, Fowler, Span, Parra, Rasmus)

+ $6 million to bring Uribe back

+ $2 million to bring Blevins back

= $115 million

Totally achievable.

[Edgy MD]

d'Kong76 wrote: I over-quoted, I was responding more to this part and not this year. Edgy MD wrote: The Mets hadn't been profiting in recent years.

I'm pretty confident in this. I mean, I don't think the owners have been selling off pieces of the team and soliciting emergency loans from impatient creditors as a ruse to pocket money.

[Centerfield]

I don't know if you can be so sure about that. I definitely believe that the Wilpons have not been profiting in recent years, but I have no idea how the Mets franchise has done. There are several reports/rumors that the Wilpons' other businesses are suffering, and that they have been pumping Mets/SNY revenue into other avenues, rather than spending on the team. I have no way of knowing whether this is true or not, but it certainly would go a long way into explaining why a New York baseball team is in the bottom third of payroll in the league.

Honestly speaking, I'm shocked that the rest of you aren't furious over this.

It is well established that spending more gives a team a competitive advantage. It's not a guarantee, it's not dispositive, but it is unquestionably an advantage. It is so pronounced, that other sports have instituted salary caps to level the playing field.

Fortunately for us, baseball has not. So by the mere fact that we play in NY, we get a big advantage over the other teams. The other big market teams exploit this. (The LA teams are 1 and 7 in payroll, the Yankees are #2. DC is #6 in payroll). We are the only ones that do not. And in fact, by putting us in the bottom third, we actually put ourselves at a disadvantage.

This is mind boggling to me. For as long as there is no salary cap, MLB is handing us an absolute gift. But our owners, through either greed or incompetence, have bungled an advantage into an obstacle for us. We, as a NY team, have to find a way to beat teams that are outspending us, rather than vice versa.

And I don't mean this post as a criticism of anyone here, because it seems a large part of the fan base feels that this not a big deal. I just can't understand how anyone is ok with this.

We, as Mets fans, are blessed with the following:

1. The best homegrown rotation I have ever seen: Not just on the Mets, the best rotation ever. You dream about bringing up four aces at the same time. But it just doesn't happen. We have this right now. They are all young, all healthy and all dirt fucking cheap. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity.
2. Other Cheap, Young Talent: We are also blessed to have the best closer in franchise history, under control and cheap. We also have potential stars in LF, C and solid players/prospects for 1B and 2B.
3. We play in a big market in a sport with no salary cap. We are in a position to surround this great young core with established veterans to dominate.
4. An Excellent GM: One that is smart enough to spend money wisely.

All we need is an owner capable of putting out a payroll that is in the top quarter. Even top third. And we would be the overwhelming favorite to win the WS. And possibly, to win for years on end.

But instead, we have the Wilpons. Who through their mismanagement can maybe, possibly, muster up a payroll to put us in the middle of the pack.

[Ceetar]

And we're capitalizing on it now. We just went to the World Series, which means the associated revenues will be HIGHER because we're in NY with 15million+ 'fans'. Arguably the most successful expansion franchise.

If you spend with no concern it catches up with you and negates that advantage. The Yankees have managed to not completely suck by spending money, but they've been budget conscious for years. Let's give the Dodgers a few years to see if they continue this crazy spending spree. Let's see what happens if a key injury or two gives them a couple of albatrosses and a 83 win season and revenue starts trending the other way.

There are a few gambles I'd have liked the Mets to take financial risks on, Kang for instance, but it's not like they're not signing players that should help.

[Edgy MD]

Centerfield wrote: There are several reports/rumors that the Wilpons' other businesses are suffering, and that they have been pumping Mets/SNY revenue into other avenues, rather than spending on the team.

I would like to read these reports, before getting furious over anything.

Citing the opening day projected payroll as "the payroll" over and over is disconcerting enough. Let's please not get into offering rumor as fact. My team is National League Champion. With a break or three, they'd be marching in a World Series parade. I'm certainly not furious. If I was, then there's never any reason not to be furious.

And I don't mean this post as a criticism of anyone here, because it seems a large part of the fan base feels that this not a big deal.

My experience is that the fan base is with you. They despise the owners, revile them as cheapskates and ripoff artists, and feel victimized. At least they mostly did until August.