Ricco: It's Zobrist or dick for us this winter

[Guest d'Kong76]

So I can come in off the ledge then for now?

[Frayed Knot]

bmfc1: The Mets will add Ryan Rayburn or someone like that, a righty reliever, and go to Spring Training as the favorites in the East. I think that they think that they can pull a rabbit out of a hat again at the trade deadline, if needed, but other teams have seen that trick so it will be tougher to pull off a second time. I fear that they are relying too much on anticipated success by d'Arnaud and Conforto and the health of Wright. Getting a better bat for the OF would help prevent such reliance.

Boy Named Seo: I suspect they're trying to put the most competent team out without getting crippled by long contracts and I think they're succeeding in that regard. Gotta try and extend these pitchers long-term sometime soon. With Heyward or Upton on the books, it'd be harder for these Mets to do that. I also think they'll lean heavily on a trade or 2 again in July to fill whatever holes have opened up by then. Just how it is.



I agree that their strategy is mostly a case of trying to ‘plug the holes’, of improving the overall offense by reducing the downside rather than trying for the home run move to upgrade the top end with the huge commitment that goes along with it. Now of course whether you believe that to be a choice or a necessity is, as always, up for debate.

As I said a handful of times during the first half of the 2015 season, the half-season-long ‘Noffense’ wasn’t only that we ran into a couple key injuries but that the contingency plans for those holes failed so miserably. Some maybe were predictable in that players got exposed when turned into full-timers (Campbell), or not yet ready for the big time (Herrera, Plawecki), while others should have been better (Mayberry, Nieuwenhuis) but simply weren’t.

The bottom line was that, of the 23 non-pitchers to see time this past season, more than 18% of the entire year’s ABs (approx. 2 of every 11 ABs) went to the collective mob of Dilson Herrera, Nieuwenhuis, Ceciliani, Plawecki, Campbell, JM Jr, Recker, Muno, Monell, & EY Jr. (add in the pitchers and it’s 25% of all 2015 ABs). And that group of ten ranked 13th (Herrera) then 15th-23rd (of 23) in RC/G (IOW, not just less production but the worst rates of production - Lagares was 14th) while hitting a collective .191/.258/.299 over nearly 1,000 ABs and whiffing over 30% of the time. Not one of them hit over .211 individually (Dilson) and they combined for just 19 HRs

So (Seo) the plan this year, it seems to me, is to reduce the holes in the ‘secondary’ and have a lot fewer ‘give-away’ at bats because the depth is better. Specifically, Recker’s ABs go to Plawecki who’ll ideally get maybe 1/4 of the catcher time instead of fully half of it. Wright’s missed time in 2016 (in addition to being hopefully smaller) will go to whichever of Tejada / Flores / Walker / Cabrerra is sitting that day rather than Campbell. Mayberry, Cuddyer, Ceciliani, and maybe even Nieuwenhuis’s slack will be picked up by increased Conforto time plus the combo of Lagares and his (anticipated) future running mate.
There’ll certainly still be a black hole or two somewhere (there always is) but a number of last year’s full-timers or first backups are slated to be this coming season’s no-timers (Cuddyer, JMJ) or platoon players (Flores/Tejada, Plawecki, Lagares) who’ll then be the guys who move up to replace injuries.

And if all that doesn’t create an offense that’s better than DFL* in the first half like last year then, yeah, they’re going to have to go out and pull a mid-season deal again - something maybe they couldn’t do if they committed to a big deal now. But I don’t get the part about that being tougher to pull off; mid-season trades have been going on since the game began and it’s not like other teams can do something to prevent it simply because we did one last year. No guarantee that the next one will work out as well as it did in 2015 but those deals are always a gamble.



* dead fuckin’ last

[Fman99]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I WILL KILL YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS

Oh, so I'm the ONLY ONE who wants to take a crack at an unhinged blonde woman? YOU'RE ALL LYING TO YOURSELVES.

Hypocrites.

[Edgy MD]

If that's their strategy, as it seemingly is, the team is putting a lot of pressure on themselves to tie up these pitchers past their arbitration years. Perhaps when Bryce Harper hits the market in 2019, we're going to see a $40 million-a-year guy.

[Frayed Knot]

Well it doesn't mean this needs to be their strategy for ever and ever, only that it seems to be right now.

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: But I don’t get the part about that being tougher to pull off; mid-season trades have been going on since the game began and it’s not like other teams can do something to prevent it simply because we did one last year. No guarantee that the next one will work out as well as it did in 2015 but those deals are always a gamble.

I don't know what others think, but I've said stuff along these lines. Mainly as a warning to the "And if we need another big bat, we'll just get one at the trade deadline like we did this year" crowd. These trades are always tough. It's risky to just go into a season half-cocked thinking you can just go shopping at the Big Hitter Store in July. And that assumes you are even in the mix by that point, though I'd guess with this team and this division, you'd expect the Mets to at least be in the neighborhood.

The reason I think a deadline deal will tougher in particular in 2016 is because the 2016 free agent class looks incredibly weak. Rentals don't make up the entire market in July, but they are the players most likely to be traded. In 2015, there was an incredible amount of activity. The following nine players all changed teams:

Gerardo Parra
Yoenis Cespedes
Scott Kazmir
Ben Zobrist
Johnny Cueto
David Price
Troy Tulowitzki
Cole Hamels
Carlos Gomez

Of these 9 players, the first 6 were rentals and are now free agents.

2016's rental market will not be anywhere near as talented, nor as deep. Strasburg will be the one starting pitcher, but you'd think Washington would have to have a disastrous first half to think of moving him. Of the hitters only Edwin Encarnacion and Jose Bautista seem to be difference makers, but again, you'd guess Toronto would be hanging around. And sure, players under team control will surely be available, but the market will likely not be as deep as it was in 2015.

Plus, deadline deals mean giving up prospects. And we already traded away Michael Fullmer. We also gave up a lot of ancillary pieces for the other moves last July. If you continue to utilize this philosophy, your farm system will dry up pretty fast.

So, in summary: Fewer targets available + thinner farm system = Harder to do a deadline deal in 2016

It's funny that the "don't overspend" crowd has a lot of overlap with the "get a hitter at the deadline crowd". Getting a hitter at the deadline means you give up young players, and works against the philosophy of focusing on scouting and development.

This is why I've been pushing so hard to make a move this winter. When a talent-rich free-agent pool is available, when good young hitters who represent solid investments are all competing with each other, and when signing these guys don't mean giving up any talent in the minors.

[Centerfield]

d'Kong76 wrote: So I can come in off the ledge then for now?

No dude. Stay out here with me.

We got this great view of Edgy playing in traffic.

[Frayed Knot]

* Lots of players -- major, minor, and in-between -- are moved every single July; this coming season should be no different. There are just too many variables to make blanket statements about the state of the market 8 months in advance.
* My comment about doing a mid-season trade not being harder this coming summer was merely in response to the assertion that it will be because now "other teams have seen that trick". There was nothing unique or ground-breaking about the Cespedes deal that's going to change the way teams think in the future about deadline deals in general or about deals with the Mets in particular. Which isn't to say that coming up with a Cespedes-type at the deadline will be easy, or that it will work out as well next time (it almost surely will NOT), or that you should go into your season planning to do that.

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: * Lots of players -- major, minor, and in-between -- are moved every single July; this coming season should be no different. There are just too many variables to make blanket statements about the state of the market 8 months in advance.

I agree that there will be many trades. I am explaining why I think that it will be more difficult this year. I think there is a good chance there will be a tighter market, and I cited to the weak free agent class as a reason why. Is it determinative? No, but I think it will be a factor. But agreed that there will be a ton of variables, including injuries and the first-half success of several teams.

Frayed Knot wrote: * My comment about doing a mid-season trade not being harder this coming summer was merely in response to the assertion that it will be because now "other teams have seen that trick". There was nothing unique or ground-breaking about the Cespedes deal that's going to change the way teams think in the future about deadline deals in general or about deals with the Mets in particular. Which isn't to say that coming up with a Cespedes-type at the deadline will be easy, or that it will work out as well next time (it almost surely will NOT), or that you should go into your season planning to do that.

Agreed on all points here.

[bmfc1]

CF explains my point better than I did about it possibly being tougher to pull off the same trick. I wonder if other teams are planning on using that model (stay close, make a big strike at the deadline and save a half-season of salary, which might account for the slow free agent action).

[Frayed Knot]

I wonder if other teams are planning on using that model (stay close, make a big strike at the deadline and save a half-season of salary, which might account for the slow free agent action).

I don't think anyone really goes into the season with that 'model' in mind. Ideally you only decide on that after you find yourselves in a situation such as the Mets did last year: in mid-July with a clearly defined spot that needs an upgrade (the worst offense in MLB) and yet keeping their heads above .500 and within striking distance of the division thanks to some monumental underachieving by the Natinals. That's when you make a decision to spend prospects in order to 'go for it'. In this case it worked flawlessly when Cespedes going ape on ML pitchers synched-up with the return/call-up/rebirth of Wright/d'Arnaud/Conforto/Granderson & co. and, in a blink, the worst became best.
But we've also seen times where those kinds of moves have been ill-timed and backfired (cough ... Kazmir ... cough) and, even this past year, had Sandy gone through with his first choice of the Carlos Gomez deal I think it's safe to say that things wouldn't have worked out nearly as well.

To sum up with my original point: what I think they're doing this winter by skipping over the 'star' market in favor of trying to plug the holes in the 'back end' of the roster* is to hopefully not find themselves in a situation where they're DFL in runs scored again if/when they get hit by injuries or under-achievements and feel they have to throw the trading-deadline hail-Mary again.





* and, again, I'm putting aside for purposes of this discussion whether you're in the camp that thinks the team can't spend or simply won't spend as the result is the same no matter what the cause

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: I don't think anyone really goes into the season with that 'model' in mind....In this case it worked flawlessly when Cespedes going ape on ML pitchers synched-up with the return/call-up/rebirth of Wright/d'Arnaud/Conforto/Granderson & co. and, in a blink, the worst became best. But we've also seen times where those kinds of moves have been ill-timed and backfired (cough ... Kazmir ... cough) and, even this past year, had Sandy gone through with his first choice of the Carlos Gomez deal I think it's safe to say that things wouldn't have worked out nearly as well.

Exactly. Build your team in the winter, when you have more options and it doesn't necessarily cost you prospects.

[bmfc1]

There might be a new model. Things change year to year.

[Centerfield]

and, again, I'm putting aside for purposes of this discussion whether you're in the camp that thinks the team can't spend or simply won't spend as the result is the same no matter what the cause

For clarification:

1. I don't know if it's "can't" or "won't" spend more. Either way the Wilpons suck. They're either cheap and won't spend, or they're incompetent and can't figure out how to fund a large payroll despite playing in NY.
2. They definitely can (or at least, could have) reallocated assets in order to afford a star outfielder this year even with the current payroll. (They spent $20 million plus on Cabrera/Colon/Blevins already. If they had gone Herrera over Walker, that would be another $10 million. And it's rumored that they have another $10 million to spend) Now, there may well be a restriction on long-term contracts imposed by a lender. Have no way of knowing this.
3. I do not buy even for a second that keeping payroll down this year will have any effect on the ability to sign the four aces to long term deals years down the road.

[Frayed Knot]

Centerfield wrote: They definitely can (or at least, could have) reallocated assets in order to afford a star outfielder this year even with the current payroll. (They spent $20 million plus on Cabrera/Colon/Blevins already. If they had gone Herrera over Walker, that would be another $10 million. And it's rumored that they have another $10 million to spend)

OK, but again, my point is that they are viewing the lack of adequate second options as a large reason why the 2015 offense was such a mess in the first place, particularly once Wright & d'Arnaud went down.
So what they've chosen to do going into the coming year is bank on the idea that upgrades such as Colon over Verrett, Walker over Herrera, Blevins over Leathersich, Flores/Tejada as platoon/backups rather than starters and other such depth-strengthening moves collectively add up to a better strategy than would whatever upgrade they'd get by putting all their eggs into the basket of the one BIG CATCH.
Disagree with that direction if you want, but I think that's the argument they'd give you if pressed on why they chose not to spend the majority of their allowance on one sexy move.

[Centerfield]

I understand what you are saying, and I understand the Mets' aims here. And I agree that this is the justification you would get from the Mets. You have absolutely nailed what the Mets are doing.

But that being said, let's be honest about what the Mets are looking to do here.

The second half Mets had pretty good second options. They had Johnson, Uribe, Cuddyer, Lagares and Plawecki. They had a 2 headed shortstop, one could hit, one could field. They had 6 starting pitchers, and a good bullpen (at least from the right side). And on top of all these great second options, they also had Yoenis Cespedes. A legitimate cleanup hitter. The second half Mets were a great team. Why? Because they had all those good second options and a monster in the middle of their lineup. And that great team won the division and went to the World Series with a legitimate shot to win.

So when the Mets say we are going to arm the 2016 team with better second options, but no cleanup hitter, they are making their goals clear. They are trying to be better than the disastrous first half Mets. They are not looking to improve upon the NL Champion second-half Mets. In fact, they're more or less resigned to the fact that they won't be as good.

They're trying to build a "pretty good" team. "Great" is not realistically on their radar. "Great" is only possible by accident. They've traded in their chance at "great" in exchange for "financial flexibility".

The Cubs took their great team, and set their goals even higher. They improved the team that left the field in October. They were like, you know what? We need another pitcher to add to Arrieta/Lester. And got him. And then they looked at their already loaded lineup and said, you know what, let's get Zobrist anyway. He's a really good hitter. And then they sat back and said, hey you know what is even better than adding one good hitter? Two good hitters! Let's get the best position player available on the market EVEN THOUGH WE ALREADY HAVE A MONSTROUS LINEUP. They watched the Mets celebrate on their field and have taken every measure to prevent that from happening again.

The Mets? They looked at that great team that left everything on the field in October and said "Wow, what a great team. Maybe we can get away with less." They looked at that roster and said "Let's choose one out of the two things that made us great. What was more important? The great hitter? Or the better second options? Let's go with better second options."

Status quo would be to bring back great second options and a great hitter. But that's not on the menu. Improvement? Improvement would mean great second options and two great hitters. But we've been so conditioned to think improvement is far-fetched, that when I type that, the idea seems downright laughable. Think about this for a second. When I talk about improving the team, the idea is laughable.

So they're getting us better second options. Fine. Whatever. We'll be better than the first half Mets. Probably not as good as the second half Mets.

YOUR 2016 METS! BETTER THAN WE WERE WHEN WE SUCKED!

FK says: "Disagree with that direction if you want". I do disagree. Because the direction is down. We could have gone up, we could have stayed the same, but we are instead, choosing to go down.

But you know what? It's ok. Because our division sucks. And so even if we take a step back, we should still be favorites to win depending on what else Washington does this winter. And if we can make the post-season, who knows, maybe we beat the Cubs anyway. Or maybe the Cubs don't even make it. It's baseball. Anything can happen. No way that '88 team should have lost to the Dodgers.

We have always suspected that ownership's goal was to field a team just good enough to compete for the playoffs. Never has that been more apparent than it is now.

[batmagadanleadoff]

They're trying to build a "pretty good" team. "Great" is not realistically on their radar. "Great" is only possible by accident. They've traded in their chance at "great" in exchange for "financial flexibility".

I think that what the Mets are trying to do, in a nutshell, is to assemble the best team that they can with an embarrassingly meager, especially for New York, budget.

While bullshitting everyone, still, that they have no economic constraints. As if Ben Zobrist is the cure-all for every single baseball problem that could possibly ail a team.


The New York Mets Operate Like A Ponzi Scheme
Mets ownership is taking team revenue and sending it to their creditors
By Howard Megdal on Dec 21, 2015 at 5:06 PM

It’s hard to overstate the opportunity the New York Mets currently enjoy. It’s no less hard to overstate the absurdity of how little they are doing to capitalize on it. The Mets own the rights to the finest young stable of starting pitchers in baseball. Further, thanks to the strange economics of baseball—under which a player earns little more than the league minimum for his first three years and then enters a controlled arbitration process that limits raises for three years after that—the Mets’ quartet of great young hurlers will never be less expensive than they are now. The four—Matt Harvey, Jacob deGrom, Noah Syndergaard and Steven Matz, plus homegrown closer Jeurys Familia—will make around $9.5 million next year. Considering how much it costs to buy pitching on the free agent market—the San Francisco Giants, for example, have a starting five that will cost $70,616,666 next season—this theoretically frees up the Mets to leverage their young, cost-controlled pitching with enough offense to dominate baseball for the foreseeable future. But that’s not how this is going down. Because the New York Mets’ owners, Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, are drowning in debt. Back in 2008, the team’s investments with Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff were discovered to be a fraud. More than $500 million in assets Wilpon and Katz thought they had—and had borrowed against—vanished. Accordingly, just to stay afloat, they needed to take out a $430 million loan against the team and $450 million against their majority ownership stake in SNY (a network started with a loan from Madoff, incidentally). Ever since, the Mets have managed to get by annually by diverting revenue from their baseball and television operation into the financing of debt. Prior to the refinancing of the past two years, the annual interest on these two loans plus debt balloon payments of more than $43 million have exceeded team payroll itself. The refinancing of the two loans has extended their due dates out five years, so this arrangement is set to continue for a long time to come. And the debt balloon payments run until December 2045, when currently youthful pitching ace Steven Matz will be 54 years old. You can add in the settlement of the lawsuit brought by the trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims, Irving Picard. He sued Mets ownership, asserting they “knew or should have known” Madoff was a fraud. Ultimately, he settled with them once he determined that even if he won, Wilpon and Katz didn’t have the money to pay him. The settlement calls for payments in 2016 and 2017 that as of now come out to about $30 million each year. That such an arrangement is not in the best interests of baseball cannot be debated. Fred Wilpon, in what was his most recent press conference back in February 2013, happily acknowledged having diverted revenue toward both corporate and family debt. This is precisely what led MLB to strip Dodgers’ ownership from Frank McCourt, but then-Commissioner Bud Selig instead empowered Wilpon and even provided an MLB loan. Selig then looked the other way when Wilpon didn’t pay it back on time. Selig’s successor, Rob Manfred, has so far been unwilling to do anything about the arrangement either, noting recently that MLB teams ought to spend commensurate with their marketplace, but calling the fact that the Kansas City Royals have a higher payroll than the Mets a “fun fact.” Kansas City has a population one-fifteenth the size of New York City’s. Meanwhile, the very best offensive free agents on the market, like Jason Heyward, are headed elsewhere. Yoenis Cespedes, the team’s best offensive player during their magical late-season run to the World Series, has been described as too expensive by team officials. Second baseman Daniel Murphy, the team’s best hitter in the postseason, has also been deemed too expensive. Instead, the Mets filled their hole at second base by trading Jon Niese, who provided pitching depth, for Neil Walker. That deal allowed the Mets to add a second baseman at revenue-neutral prices. This off-season as a whole is a refutation of the public line by Wilpon and other senior officials that, should more revenue come to the Mets, they’d pass it on to consumers in the form of raising payroll. Per Forbes revenue estimates, the Mets were 27th out of 30 MLB teams in percentage of revenue spent on payroll last season. That was before the 2015 World Series run. And yet, while estimates of their postseason revenue alone range from $45-60 million and attendance increased by 19.6 percent, along with ratings on SNY having reached rough parity with the Yankees (meaning the network can charge more for advertising) there’s no sign that virtually any of this money is going back into the team. As of now, the team’s free agent moves—re-signing Jerry Blevins and Bartolo Colon to one-year deals, and adding Asdrubal Cabrera on a two-year deal—are largely paid for in 2016 payroll by the unexpected retirement of Michael Cuddyer. There’s no one to answer for this. Jeff Wilpon, team COO, hasn’t made himself available to a reporter since he was sued for sexually harassing a pregnant employee, Leigh Castergine, even though the suit has since been settled. Fred doesn’t talk on the record, either. The general manager, Sandy Alderson, is undergoing treatment for cancer. And the acting public face of the Mets, John Ricco, “doesn’t even know what the payroll is,” as one reporter familiar with the team put it. So the Mets have been blessed with a once in a generation baseball opportunity while being cursed by the ownership of Wilpon and Katz, multiple-time victims of Ponzi schemes. Given how the team’s finances currently work, it appears they’re now running a Ponzi scheme of their own.

http://www.vocativ.com/news/262818/the-new-york-mets-operate-like-a-ponzi-scheme/

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Come on. JUST like McCourt? That's ridiculous.

I mean, McCourt cursed more, and had a crazy wife. And weather! Nicer weather. And a different time zone and stuff.

[Frayed Knot]

Centerfield wrote: They're trying to build a "pretty good" team. "Great" is not realistically on their radar. "Great" is only possible by accident. They've traded in their chance at "great" in exchange for "financial flexibility". We have always suspected that ownership's goal was to field a team just good enough to compete for the playoffs. Never has that been more apparent than it is now.

Well I think we can all agree that it would be just terrific if they had the clout to fix/upgrade ALL the holes at once; to improve the roster at the backend AND sign top-notch FAs at the front end all while knowing that none of that will have any effect on the future of the young pitchers as they start to move into more expensive arb/FA years.
But we also know that that's not realistic at this time so, for right now anyway, they're opting to go for the multiple but smaller upgrades at several spots route rather than risk it all for the potentially bigger prize sitting behind Door #2

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: But we also know that that's not realistic at this time

Well, that's really the key here. I guess a bunch of you guys knew. And you've had time to come to grips with this reality.

I didn't know. I believed them when they said they were going to spend money. I believed in their plan to rebuild and open up the books. I thought it was a dick move for Wilpon to demand fans show up before he increased payroll, but now that it happened, I thought he had no choice.

And it's basically just this last month where I've come to realize that the Mets are not going to go for it. They'll probably never go for it. "Just good enough" is basically all they are interested in being.

So call me stupid, or naive, whatever. I guess I've learned my lesson.*


*Just to be clear, I'm not implying that you are calling me stupid or naive. Sorry if it came across that way. I should clarify that my tone is such in these posts because I'm aggravated at the Mets, not anyone here.

[Ceetar]

I don't understand the teeth gnashing over Heyward. Half his value is run-prevention and it's very clear that run-creation is the Mets need.

[Frayed Knot]

Centerfield wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: But we also know that that's not realistic at this time Well, that's really the key here. I guess a bunch of you guys knew. And you've had time to come to grips with this reality.

Well I don't claim to KNOW anything; it's why I tend to stay away from the threads where folks construct their dream team based on a specific budget number that's nothing more than a figure they pull out of the air, and why I said that you're free to choose whether you think it's a case of the team being unable to spend a particular amount or unwilling to because no one here, least of all me, knows what the "correct" amount is.

But I think it's safe to say that based on the payrolls over the last few years combined with what we know about Madoff, about the loans to cover those losses, about the lawsuit to recover even some of the gains they made with Madoff, about the debt taken on to finance the stadium just as the recession was blowing in and shooting the hell out of the windfall they were expecting, and maybe even going back to the money they spent buying out Doubleday & Cablevision (while thinking they had a bigger cushion to fall back on), that they're not currently able to spend at or anywhere near the top of the league. Add all that up and I think it's pretty clear that they weren't going to go after top FA stars this winter AND plug other holes at the same time with the smaller six & eight & 10 million dollar moves. You obviously wanted them to go with choice A over B but they went the other way.
Would I prefer them to do both? Sure
Are they going to be able to in the future? Maybe
Are they able right now to spend at least some more but are holding back for what they think is the right opportunity? I have no idea.

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: But we also know that that's not realistic at this time Well, that's really the key here. I guess a bunch of you guys knew. And you've had time to come to grips with this reality. Well I don't claim to KNOW anything; it's why I tend to stay away from the threads where folks construct their dream team based on a specific budget number that's nothing more than a figure they pull out of the air, and why I said that you're free to choose whether you think it's a case of the team being unable to spend a particular amount or unwilling to because no one here, least of all me, knows what the "correct" amount is. But I think it's safe to say that based on the payrolls over the last few years combined with what we know about Madoff, about the loans to cover those losses, about the lawsuit to recover even some of the gains they made with Madoff, about the debt taken on to finance the stadium just as the recession was blowing in and shooting the hell out of the windfall they were expecting, and maybe even going back to the money they spent buying out Doubleday & Cablevision (while thinking they had a bigger cushion to fall back on), that they're not currently able to spend at or anywhere near the top of the league. Add all that up and I think it's pretty clear that they weren't going to go after top FA stars this winter AND plug other holes at the same time with the smaller six & eight & 10 million dollar moves. You obviously wanted them to go with choice A over B but they went the other way. Would I prefer them to do both? Sure Are they going to be able to in the future? Maybe Are they able right now to spend at least some more but are holding back for what they think is the right opportunity? I have no idea.

I get all that. I thought that with revenue increasing around baseball in general and the post-season revenue, there would definitely be an increase in spending. Plus, I thought that the payroll was artificially low during the rebuild, but once the pitchers and Conforto arrived, they had the ability/willingness to open up and spend.

So from your post, am I correct in concluding that you are in the "Using Mets money to finance their personal debt" camp?

[Centerfield]

Ceetar wrote: I don't understand the teeth gnashing over Heyward. Half his value is run-prevention and it's very clear that run-creation is the Mets need.

I wanted Heyward because he would have represented nearly a 150 point improvement in OPS over the incumbent, Juan Lagares. This improvement would have offset the approximately 300 points we lost from Beast-Mode Cespedes to Lagares.

No other improvement comes close to that.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: I don't understand the teeth gnashing over Heyward. Half his value is run-prevention and it's very clear that run-creation is the Mets need. I wanted Heyward because he would have represented nearly a 150 point improvement in OPS over the incumbent, Juan Lagares. This improvement would have offset the approximately 300 points we lost from Beast-Mode Cespedes to Lagares. No other improvement comes close to that.

Well, Zobrist, Upton. Improvement from Conforto and Lagares.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Where do you play Upton, Cee?

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Where do you play Upton, Cee?

left and let Conforto get some more seasoning? or push Granderson to center on occasion?

I mean, there are 2+ outfield positions. You find room for the guys that mash. If a talented prospect gets blocked, that's the breaks.

[Frayed Knot]

So from your post, am I correct in concluding that you are in the "Using Mets money to finance their personal debt" camp?

Not having the slightest clue about the condition of their personal finances, about those of the team, or about laws and guidelines (both USA & MLB) which govern what is or isn't permissible involving cases like this, I have no freakin' idea about what happens with 'Mets money'.
I did read a small note in October estimating that post-season income would, for the first time in years, push the team's bottom line for 2015 a 'small amount' into the black. Not much to go on considering that info was neither confirmed nor specific, but assuming the "first time in years" part is correct then they couldn't be using NYM profits to shore up their personal woes because there haven't been any profits - something which, given loan paybacks, stadium debt, et al, may well be true. Of course then you get into whether maybe team profits are being hidden in the SNY part of the equation (not unheard of in the sports accounting world) but now we're even further in total guesswork.

Bottom Line: Damned if I know.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Come on. JUST like McCourt? That's ridiculous. I mean, McCourt cursed more, and had a crazy wife. And weather! Nicer weather. And a different time zone and stuff.

lol.

I don't necessarily have a problem with that because it's all Wilpon and Katz money anyways, and they can do whatever they want with their money. It's theirs, and the Mets are a private company without any shareholders or publicly traded stock prices to concern themselves with. It's no different than any other business. That my favorite pizzeria had their best year ever money-wise doesn't give me the right to demand that the owner upgrade the lousy air-conditioning instead of splurging for a new Mercedes-Benz. All I can do is to stop eating at that pizzeria. My problem, though, is that MLB ousted McCourt for doing what the Mets owners are doing.

Another reason why Wilpon seems to have hunkered down and dug in to maintain ownership of the Mets at all costs, besides the vanity and the psychic value that comes from owning a professional team, especially a jewel like the Mets, is that the owners' equity in the team, at least as a percentage of the value of the team, is low. They took out multi-hundred million dollar loans to pay back those non-Mets expenses and used the team as collateral or security for those loans. What the owners essentially did is to mortgage the Mets to pay back the Madoff incurred debt. The "mortgage" arrangement now links the Madoff related debt to the team. It means, I suppose, that if the owners ever do sell, the "mortgage" debt would get paid first as a condition of the loan, just like a home mortgage, and the owners wouldn't receive anywhere near the full value of whatever the team sells for -- just like a homeowner that sells a million dollar home with an outstanding $600K mortgage pockets no more than $400K from the sale of the home. Maybe, as Wilpon sees it, there's not enough profit in selling the Mets right now. That's the problem, as I see it. That MLB would let the owners use the Mets as security on such an enormous loan, especially when the underlying debt on the loan isn't baseball related.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Guest

[Guest Mets Willets Point]

I haven't read this whole thread, but have the Mets made an offer to Dick yet?