Payroll 2016

[Guest d'Kong76]

So long as they remain a private family company no one really will
knno what they're real financial picture is. As for getting MLB loans,
they can saute, flambe, bake and deep fry the books to do that especially
since they always have the Madoff loop hole.

Poor people don't sell Chicago office buildings for an $80 million profit.

[Benjamin Grimm]

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

I can't imagine anything the Mets could do that would make me "furious". Well, I guess I would be furious if I found out that they were slipping poison into baby food, or something like that. But I simply don't do anger or angst over the operations of a baseball team.

[Edgy MD]

d'Kong76 wrote: So long as they remain a private family company no one really will knno what they're real financial picture is. As for getting MLB loans, they can saute, flambe, bake and deep fry the books to do that especially since they always have the Madoff loop hole. Poor people don't sell Chicago office buildings for an $80 million profit.

I'm certain they aren't poor, and I certainly haven't suggested they are. I don't think that's what is being discussed.

[Guest d'Kong76]

The Wilpons ability to spend money on the Mets is exactly what we're
talking about. I'm not going bang that drum all winter, but that's what
this thread is about.

[Edgy MD]

Well, I thought you were grilling me over the issue of the profitability of the team. Things are shifting now. Yes, I know the Wilpons have sold off other holdings.

[Centerfield]

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.

Well, there is one in the Strat-O-Matic thread. But again, I think you are missing my point. Whether they are siphoning money out, or just managing the Mets poorly, it doesn't matter. The end result is that they don't spend like they should. And that fact alone, is worthy of criticism.

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.

These are the numbers I found online. And a link was provided. The link explicitly states that these numbers are pursuant to an analysis conducted by the Associated Press. The site goes on to further state:

A note on the AP's numbers: they are not exact, because contract details are closely guarded. But they are based publicly and privately reported salaries, prorated bonuses, and deferred money. Cash transactions and buyouts are reflected in the team payroll figures, so they will differ from the sum of given roster's player salaries. The figures will also change by year's end because of bonuses, trades, and call-ups.

The cite is explicit about the source of the data, and what the data purports to be.

I don't believe I've offered any rumor as fact, nor have I ever suggested that these numbers represent the final payroll after the season.

There are a number of other sites offering their analysis. One is from a guy who calls himself "Steve the Ump". I chose to go with the Associated Press. Most of these lists are pretty consistent across the board, varying only slightly.

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.

My post says I am shocked the rest of you aren't furious over this. My point. That the Mets have to win despite their owners, rather than aided by them. That the Mets have to beat teams that spend more than them, rather than vice versa.

If you're not furious that's fine. If you can look at the end result and ignore everything else, then that's your call. (You must have been furious before this year then.)

I look at big picture and small picture. I look at the guys who have roles on the team, in the organization and analyze them individually. And when one aspect (such as the owner) does something I feel is egregious, I get mad.

Your mileage may vary.

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.

You know, it's funny. Oftentimes when we have these discussions, the end result is you asking me why I'm upset with you. I want you to see what you did here.

My post is not directed at any one individual, and is explicit that it is not an attack on anyone's viewpoint.

Your post:
(1) Suggests my numbers are incorrect
(2) States that I offer rumor as fact
(3) And characterizes my position as one that despises the owners, reviles them as cheapskates and ripoff artists, and feels victimized.

I assure you if you re-read my post, none of that is in there. For what it's worth, I do hate the Wilpons. But I don't think they are cheapskates, or ripoff artists, and I certainly don't feel victimized, whatever that means. And I don't expect anyone to necessarily agree with my personal feelings.

What I said was that they are not doing their job, which is to fund the team like a big market team. And because of that, I am surprised others are not equally as upset.

[Edgy MD]

(1) Suggests my numbers are incorrect

They're a projection from the start of the year that is out of date.

(2) States that I offer rumor as fact

You offer rumor and suggest it's worthy of consideration. I don't think it is. Enough facts are known.

(3) And characterizes my position as one that despises the owners, reviles them as cheapskates and ripoff artists, and feels victimized.

I characterized the fans who feel this way as with you. It's pretty comfortably close to what you describe.

This is silly. You don't know what victimized means? Are we going to get this granular? How exhausting.

[Edgy MD]

Centerfield wrote: 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. Well, there is one in the Strat-O-Matic thread.

Report in the Strat-o-Matic thread wrote: The Mets have the TV cash coming in everybody else in baseball does, and then some � they started cashing in earlier, thanks in part, again, to a big loan from Bernie Madoff. They've just been siphoning off that revenue since Madoff went bust to keep the parent company afloat, the kind of thing that should bother MLB but so far hasn't.

This does not say the Wilpons have siphoned money from the team to support external businesses. What this is trying to say (badly) is that the Mets have siphoned money from SNY to support the Mets. They've used revenue (and principle even) from a profitable business to invest in the team.

Which, desperate as it may be from their point of view, is the sort of thing we'd want to support, isn't it?

[Centerfield]

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. Well, there is one in the Strat-O-Matic thread. The Mets have the TV cash coming in everybody else in baseball does, and then some � they started cashing in earlier, thanks in part, again, to a big loan from Bernie Madoff. They've just been siphoning off that revenue since Madoff went bust to keep the parent company afloat, the kind of thing that should bother MLB but so far hasn't. This does not say the Wilpons have siphoned money from the team to support external businesses. What this is trying to say (badly) is that the Mets have siphoned money from SNY to support the Mets. They've used revenue (and principle even) from a profitable business to invest in the team. Which, desperate as it may be from their point of view, is the sort of thing we'd want to support, isn't it?

This is the quote I was alluding to:

They made their fortune by being tax-dodging real estate speculators during the 1970s and 80s; they lost much, if not most, of that fortune to the one-two punch of the 2008 housing market crash and the collapse of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. That would be a case of what goes around coming around, except the Wilpons stayed afloat by using the Mets and the team-owned media partner SNY as their personal piggybank.

But again! You're making me stray from my point!

[Edgy MD]

I don't think the evidence has shown that the family has been withdrawing money from the team to cover outside depts.

I think the evidence shows that they spent their money and the team's money poorly and invested their money and the team's money foolishly. And at the worst time.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: (1) Suggests my numbers are incorrect They're a projection from the start of the year that is out of date. (2) States that I offer rumor as fact You offer rumor and suggest it's worthy of consideration. I don't think it is. Enough facts are known. (3) And characterizes my position as one that despises the owners, reviles them as cheapskates and ripoff artists, and feels victimized. I characterized the fans who feel this way as with you. It's pretty comfortably close to what you describe. This is silly. You don't know what victimized means? Are we going to get this granular? How exhausting.

The numbers are provided. The link explains the source and the limitations of the analysis. I don't think I ever suggested they were anything but what they are. And I certainly don't think this constitutes "rumor". We'll have to agree to disagree.

The Wilpons' lack of spending is well documented, and not really refuted. (I don't believe you are refuting this are you?) Even if you shift the payroll slightly, the overall point of the post remains.

And finally, I think you tried to color my position by comparing it to an irrational caller to WFAN. I believe the comparison was done intentionally in an attempt to undermine my point. Only you know if this is true or not.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Centerfield wrote: A look back at the 2015 numbers: http://deadspin.com/2015-payrolls-and-salaries-for-every-mlb-team-1695040045

As was pointed out, that's the payroll as of Opening day. Yes, the Mets took on Cespedes's salary for August and September, and yes, the Mets added more payroll to deepen the bench and bullpen.

But the Mets got practically a free pass on their biggest payroll liability when the insurance policy on Wright's contract kicked in. And they didn't have to pay Mejia, either. So overall, I don't know that the Mets really added any payroll at all, and from the stuff I've been reading and ownership's past practices during the Madoff era, my personal opinion is that they didn't add anything at all and were able to take on Yoenis thanks to the payroll windfalls they received. Just my opinion. Also, I believe the Gomez version of the nixed deal that sez the Mets backed out over money and that the Gomez's health angle was just a bullshit coverup Sandy was straddled so that the owners could save some face. It's the most logical version and extremely consistent with, well, everything. So that's where my head's at, and that's what informs my opinions.

That Cespedes's Ruthian HR tear isn't sustainable (obviously) isn't really the point. Because sustainable or not, the Mets got a Ruthian number of HR's from just a single player in an incredibly short amount of time and that production impacted their season tremendously. And they're gonna have to replace that offense because who knows if the Mets win the division without Cespedes's Bambino imitation.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Guest

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: . Also, I believe the Gomez version of the nixed deal that sez the Mets backed out over money. It's the most logical version and extremely consistent with, well, everything. So that's where my head's at, and that's what informs my opinions.

Except, you know, facts.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: . Also, I believe the Gomez version of the nixed deal that sez the Mets backed out over money. It's the most logical version and extremely consistent with, well, everything. So that's where my head's at, and that's what informs my opinions. Except, you know, facts.

Like you know the facts. There's no doubt that this issue is just another Rorschach test -- and I expected you, faster than anyone else to pop in here to defend the Great Wilpons.

[Edgy MD]

Centerfield wrote: The numbers are provided. The link explains the source and the limitations of the analysis. I don't think I ever suggested they were anything but what they are.

This is so simple. The numbers come from April 1. You use them to state:

To summarize, the Mets were 21st out of 30 teams with a payroll of $101 million.

But that's simply not true. You take a projection and cite it as a summary of what happened. It's not.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: . Also, I believe the Gomez version of the nixed deal that sez the Mets backed out over money. It's the most logical version and extremely consistent with, well, everything. So that's where my head's at, and that's what informs my opinions. Except, you know, facts. Like you know the facts. There's no doubt that this issue is just another Rorschach test -- and I expected you, faster than anyone else to pop in here to defend the Great Wilpons.

No, I just don't jump to preconceived conclusions based on a single statement from a Brewers beat writer presented with no evidence against actual quoted statements about Gomez having a bum hip and statistical trends of declining performance consistent with injury.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: . Also, I believe the Gomez version of the nixed deal that sez the Mets backed out over money. It's the most logical version and extremely consistent with, well, everything. So that's where my head's at, and that's what informs my opinions. Except, you know, facts. Like you know the facts. There's no doubt that this issue is just another Rorschach test -- and I expected you, faster than anyone else to pop in here to defend the Great Wilpons. No, I just don't jump to preconceived conclusions based on a single statement from a Brewers beat writer presented with no evidence against actual quoted statements about Gomez having a bum hip and statistical trends of declining performance consistent with injury.

Of course you don't. You, instead, jump to preconceived conclusions based on whatever Wilpon and the Mets say. Your definition of "facts" is whatever Fred and Jeff Wilpon say.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: No, I just don't jump to preconceived conclusions based on a single statement from a Brewers beat writer presented with no evidence against actual quoted statements about Gomez having a bum hip and statistical trends of declining performance consistent with injury. Of course you don't. You, instead, jump to preconceived conclusions based on whatever Wilpon and the Mets say. Your definition of "facts" is whatever Fred and Jeff Wilpon say.

I've never once quoted either of those people, nor do their quotes appear on baseball-reference.com or fangraphs.com. Neither of them is the manager of the Brewers either.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: No, I just don't jump to preconceived conclusions based on a single statement from a Brewers beat writer presented with no evidence against actual quoted statements about Gomez having a bum hip and statistical trends of declining performance consistent with injury. Of course you don't. You, instead, jump to preconceived conclusions based on whatever Wilpon and the Mets say. Your definition of "facts" is whatever Fred and Jeff Wilpon say. I've never once quoted either of those people, nor do their quotes appear on baseball-reference.com or fangraphs.com. Neither of them is the manager of the Brewers either.

Of course Gomez had injury issues. That's what gave the Mets a plausible bullshit cover story. They're not so stupid that they were gonna announce that they backed out because Gomez puts ketchup on his hot dogs instead of mustard.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Of course Gomez had injury issues. That's what gave the Mets a plausible bullshit cover story. They're not so stupid that they were gonna announce that they backed out because Gomez puts ketchup on his hot dogs instead of mustard.

It's neat how they forgot the part about how players have contracts and are owed money up until they looked at his medicals. "It's weird that you put his salary on this MRI, but that's a huge red flag for us."

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: The numbers are provided. The link explains the source and the limitations of the analysis. I don't think I ever suggested they were anything but what they are. This is so simple. The numbers come from April 1. You use them to state: To summarize, the Mets were 21st out of 30 teams with a payroll of $101 million. But that's simply not true. You take a projection and cite it as a summary of what happened. It's not.

Really? This is your criticism of my post? This is what you are focusing on? Unbelievable.

First off, my use of "summarize" is meant to address the article. The article to which I provided a link. Wherein it clearly states what the numbers represent. If you did not take the time to read the article, and assumed it meant something it did not, the mistake is your's. Not mine.

Secondly, this is not just some half-ass projection. These numbers are based upon analysis done by the AP. Are they exact? No. Is it pretty fucking close. I would guess so. You act as if I disregarded other information in order to use artificial data to support my point.

Most importantly, how much do you think the year-end numbers moved? Do you think after the additional salary and suspensions/insurance it made a significant impact on the final totals? Do you the Mets moved into the top ten? No. They didn't.

Where do you think the Mets might have finished? 21? 23? As high as 17? Even 16? The point of this thread is that the Wilpons don't spend enough. They don't spend like a big market team, and they piss away a competitive advantage handed to big market teams.

Do you really think de minimus variations on the final numbers undermines this point?

I want you to be honest and ask yourself if maybe, just maybe, you are looking to poke holes in my post anywhere you can find it because you don't want my thesis to be correct.

[Edgy MD]

Centerfield wrote: Centerfield wrote: The numbers are provided. The link explains the source and the limitations of the analysis. I don't think I ever suggested they were anything but what they are. This is so simple. The numbers come from April 1. You use them to state: To summarize, the Mets were 21st out of 30 teams with a payroll of $101 million. But that's simply not true. You take a projection and cite it as a summary of what happened. It's not. Really? This is your criticism of my post? This is what you are focusing on? Unbelievable.

Focusing on? No. Took the time to point out? Yes. And quite believable.

I want you to be honest and ask yourself if maybe, just maybe, you are looking to poke holes in my post anywhere you can find it because you don't want my thesis to be correct.

I just want to deal in facts. It's easy.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Owners that could sell their team now for nearly a a whopping one
billion dollars profit should not be allowed to be cheap. Shirley an
appearance in the World Series has upped what they'll be worth in
March 2016.

Forbes March 2015 Team Valuations
1-New York Yankees $3,20 bil
2-Los Angeles Dodgers $2,40 bil
3-Boston Red Sox $2,10 bil
4-San Francisco Giants $2,00 bil
5-Chicago Cubs $1,80 bil
6-St Louis Cardinals $1,40 bil
7-New York Mets $1,35 bil
8-LA Angels $1,30 bil
9-Washington Nationals $1,28 bil
10-Philadelphia Phillies $1,25 bil

[soupcan]

This thread has morphed into something other than what CF originally intended the discussion to be about but I'll just say that I don't want the Mets to become the Steinbrenner Yankees.

Over-spending on free agents and trading away the blue-chip prospects is NOT what ultimately turned those '90's Yankees into the dynasty they became and we all know it.

It's responsibly drafting, developing, making smart trades and then supplanting that core with the high-priced free agent or two. Or three. Which is exactly what the Mets did leading up to, and during, this season and got them exactly where we all want them be.

I don't think they have to spend bazillions just because they can. Could the team use a big bat or two? Yup. A reliable middle-innings guy, a shortstop? Yup. But those items don't have to break the bank. And if they in fact don't break the bank then that lends the organization to be better situated for a sustained long term success.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I'm not so sure it's morphed too much.
From the first post in thread:

Centerfield wrote: Now it's time to spend money. Don't let this fucker off the hook. Let's put pressure on these fuckers this winter.

[soupcan]

d'Kong76 wrote: I'm not so sure it's morphed too much. From the first post in thread: Centerfield wrote: Now it's time to spend money. Don't let this fucker off the hook. Let's put pressure on these fuckers this winter.

I stand corrected.

I was mostly alluding to CF & Edgy going back and forth about this and that rather than the initial statement.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I know, just sayin'. I think there is more of a middle of the road
type feeling here with most everyone about the not spending for the
sake of spending and certainly no longing to become the Yankees.

But, the post-Madoff-hey-we're-broke-and-have-to-cap-spending-
to-like-we-own-the-A's era has to end sometime. That sometime is
now, at least it is for me.

[soupcan]

d'Kong76 wrote: But, the post-Madoff-hey-we're-broke-and-have-to-cap-spending- to-like-we-own-the-A's era has to end sometime. That sometime is now, at least it is for me.

But why?

Isnt the goal to get the World Series? And they did. Unless you think it was a fluke, then why fix something that isn't broke?

I like where they are. Was it painful? Hell yeah, but they're here now. They have the core pieces that got them here. If they continue to make smart trades, and add that free agent piece where they need to, I'm good.

I want them to spend smartly and where they need to and occasionally sign that big name for big money. But to have an upper echelon payroll just because they can, doesnt make sense to me.

[Guest d'Kong76]

soupcan wrote: But why? Isnt the goal to get the World Series? And they did. Unless you think it was a fluke, then why fix something that isn't broke? I like where they are. Was it painful? Hell yeah, but they're here now. They have the core pieces that got them here. If they continue to make smart trades, and add that free agent piece where they need to, I'm good. I want them to spend smartly and where they need to and occasionally sign that big name for big money. But to have an upper echelon payroll just because they can, doesnt make sense to me.

It would be nice to know for the first time in how many years now
that they didn't make a move or moves because of finances. The fans
deserve more expensive opportunities met instead of brushed aside if
they come the team's way. It's time to move on from that, or they should
take their billion dollar profit and sell and just go away.

[soupcan]

d'Kong76 wrote: It would be nice to know for the first time in how many years now that they didn't make a move or moves because of finances. The fans deserve more expensive opportunities met instead of brushed aside if they come the team's way. It's time to move on from that, or they should take their billion dollar profit and sell and just go away.

When the opportunity arises, no more backing down because of finances.

Got it. I agree.