All The Questions Answered Here

[Guest d'Kong76]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2598639-why-the-new-york-mets-have-been-treading-lightly-this-offseason

[RealityChuck]

The thing is, Sandy is playing a long game: He's thinking years down the road. David Wright's contract is going to be an issue in a few years, and signing Cespedes for seven years will only add more problems. He's also going to have to pay at least some of the starters (I've seen analyses that say that keeping all five would be around $100 million a year). A long-term contract for Cespedes would mean they couldn't afford a younger Jacob DeGrom (Harvey will be gone one he hits FA; Scott Boras will make sure of that).

The team wants to continue to contend, not just contend next year.

[Ceetar]

RealityChuck wrote: The team wants to continue to contend, not just contend next year.

Especially when next year might the easiest year to contend of the next few.

[Edgy MD]

RealityChuck wrote: The team wants to continue to contend, not just contend next year.

I don't believe that for a second. It's not an either/or thing. Especially as unsourced reports rolled out last year that the Mets were "really" aiming for 2016 were taken as straight-from-the-mouth-of-Fred.

[Edgy MD]

Edgy MD wrote: RealityChuck wrote: The team wants to continue to contend, not just contend next year. I don't believe that for a second. It's not an either/or thing. Especially as unsourced reports rolled out last year that the Mets were "really" aiming for 2016 were taken as straight-from-the-mouth-of-Fred.

The now-or-later dichotomy is silly. Organizations can and do strive for both, to different degrees.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think what he's saying is that the Mets don't want to go all in for 2016 at the expense of future seasons. Chuck isn't saying anything about "either/or".

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

The article doesn't say anything any of us don't already know, it just comes to a dumber conclusion.

[Edgy MD]

See, now, there's two ways of reading "not just," and my way was the less authentic reading. You're right. In fact, I may have dyslexically read "not just" as "just not."

My apologies for the mis-reading, Chuck.

[Guest d'Kong76]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: The article doesn't say anything any of us don't already know, it just comes to a dumber conclusion.

B-i-n-g-o

[Centerfield]

So the Mets certainly have the ability to acquire the offensive power they need through either a trade or free agency. But signing an expensive free agent to a long-term deal before knowing if he is truly needed� or unloading young players in trades before they have reached their maximum trade value�is not the right way to go about building a team that can be a World Series contender in coming years.

This makes a lot of sense. In the coming years, this team can become a real World Series contender. Let's wait until then.

[Centerfield]

RealityChuck wrote: The thing is, Sandy is playing a long game: He's thinking years down the road. David Wright's contract is going to be an issue in a few years, and signing Cespedes for seven years will only add more problems. He's also going to have to pay at least some of the starters (I've seen analyses that say that keeping all five would be around $100 million a year). A long-term contract for Cespedes would mean they couldn't afford a younger Jacob DeGrom (Harvey will be gone one he hits FA; Scott Boras will make sure of that). The team wants to continue to contend, not just contend next year.

David Wright's contract will expire in five years. The same year that deGrom becomes available for free agency. It will have no impact on the ability to keep deGrom, Syndegaard or Matz.

Same thing for Cespedes if you can get him to sign for five (BTW, he is looking for a 6 year deal, I would not advise giving him an extra year just for the hell of it.)

Heyward, had we gone that route, would have opted out several years prior.

We can agree to disagree on this, but I think you spend the money now, when you have a legitimate chance to win the World Series. I would not "save" it for 5 years down the line when we have no idea what these pitchers and the rest of the team will look like.

If the Mets cannot afford a top tier payroll now, what makes you think they can afford one then?

And if you keep all these pitchers, who will hit for that team?

[Guest d'Kong76]

Centerfield wrote: This makes a lot of sense. In the coming years, this team can become a real World Series contender. Let's wait until then.

Well yeah, they haven't been to a World Series since 2000 so what's
another year or two.

[nymr83]

the article wrote: Clearly New York has some ground to make up in the middle of their lineup if they are to mount another run at a World Series title in 2016.

arguably yes, but "clearly"? a full season of Wright, Conforto, & d'Arnaud would already make for an improvement.

the article wrote: The Mets would like to resolve these issues before shelling out a boatload of money for a big-bat free agent that they may not even need right now.

wait a minute, a minute ago they "clearly" needed the big bat, now they don't?

lazy writing.

[Centerfield]

That being said, Chuck's post raises the question on the "proper" way to run a baseball team. Contend every year? Or contend in spurts, with short rebuilding years between?

Ideally, if you run your organization well, you can contend every year. Talent that is lost is replenished through a strong focus on scouting and development. Contracts expire allowing money to be re-invested in new talent. A team makes a run at the post-season year after year.

The problem is, I have yet to see anyone accomplish this.

In my opinion, down years and rebuilding are inevitable. You build your base. When they arrive, and hopefully fulfill their promise, you open up the books, surround them with elite talent, and give yourself a five year window of contention. And during that time you go for it. The idea, after all, is to win championships. As that core ages or becomes too expensive, you sell off pieces, rebuild, restock, and hope that your next 5 year window is only a season or two away.

And I think having top tier resources helps, whichever model you may be pursuing.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Centerfield wrote: The problem is, I have yet to see anyone accomplish this.

The Atlanta Braves had a long stretch where this plan was working for them. What was it, twelve straight division titles?

[Centerfield]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Centerfield wrote: The problem is, I have yet to see anyone accomplish this. The Atlanta Braves had a long stretch where this plan was working for them. What was it, twelve straight division titles?

You're right! How soon I forget. 14 straight titles.

I take it back. Win every year!

[Guest d'Kong76]

Centerfield wrote: I take it back. Win every year!

Sprinkled with a few more World Championships than they netted, please.
Another good thing about winning every year in NY is that you can afford to
not lose all cheap pitching with all the added revenue.
Assuming the Mets will one day spend like a NY team.

[Edgy MD]

I like this thread.

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: Centerfield wrote: I take it back. Win every year! Sprinkled with a few more World Championships than they netted, please. Another good thing about winning every year in NY is that you can afford to not lose all cheap pitching with all the added revenue. Assuming the Mets will one day spend like a NY team.

and based on supply/demand, playoff ticket prices (At least secondary ones) will come down.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Ceetar wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: and based on supply/demand, playoff ticket prices (At least secondary ones) will come down.

Let's not get crazy, the fans will get it inathendough.

[RealityChuck]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think what he's saying is that the Mets don't want to go all in for 2016 at the expense of future seasons. Chuck isn't saying anything about "either/or".

Thank you. That was my point. We don't want Sandy to be Omar Mayana -- spending now but then missing the playoffs for nine years.

If he breaks the bank for a long term deal for Cespedis, in five years everyone who has posted in this thread will be complaining about how we had to let Syndergaard and Degrom and Wheeler go because we're still paying for a washed-up Cespedis.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Centerfield wrote: Centerfield wrote: The problem is, I have yet to see anyone accomplish this. The Atlanta Braves had a long stretch where this plan was working for them. What was it, twelve straight division titles? You're right! How soon I forget. 14 straight titles. I take it back. Win every year!

The Cardinals are kinda doing that at the moment, aren't they? The Giants are kinda yo-yo doing that, with the every-other-year-ing.

[batmagadanleadoff]

You know why the Braves were able to win so many consecutive division titles? I'll tell you why. Because Fred Wilpon is one pathetic owner and he'd continue to be pathetic even if him and his family never ever met Bernie Madoff.

Believe me, that era of Braves dominance sez as much about the Mets as it does about the Braves.

[Guest d'Kong76]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Believe me, that era of Braves dominance sez as much about the Mets as it does about the Braves.

Never thought about it that way.

[Centerfield]

Mitigating Factors:

1. First 3 division titles were in the NL West.
2. Wilpons were co-owners during most of that time
3. There were 3 other teams in the NL East during that time
4. They did have 3 HOF pitchers and a HOF 3rd baseman.

I wonder though, if Atlanta would have been able to hold that team together in today's market. Those pitchers are all $30 million/year. Chipper is worth $20 easy. That's $110 million on 4 players.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Mitigating Factors: 1. First 3 division titles were in the NL West. 2. Wilpons were co-owners during most of that time 3. There were 3 other teams in the NL East during that time 4. They did have 3 HOF pitchers and a HOF 3rd baseman.

Fred Wilpon was the Mets de facto owner, if not the outright legal majority owner of the Mets in every single season that the Braves and Mets were in the same division. Besides, you're gonna mitigate why the Mets went 20 years between first place finishes when they had every single economic advantage a baseball team could possibly have? Fred Wilpon is much worse than simply a Madoff problem. He's the worst thing that ever happened to the Mets and his idiot son hasn't even fully taken over yet. More bad will come.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Guest

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

The Braves between 1991 and 2005 won their division in every year except their first year in East '94.

They had a grand total of one manager and one GM in that period.

The Mets over the same period had 6 general managers and 8 managers.

Moreover their strategy varied from one year to to the next, as did their seeming level of commitment to whatever philosophy they were behind. And whatever the payroll was they always operated as though they were pinned up against it -- that's a Wilponny theme that continues to this day, which is one reason it's not worth it to worry yourselves over a particular payroll figure: Whatever it is at a given moment, it's always the most you can spend.

Mets went from a "baseball man" GM (Hunsicker) to an accountant (Harazin) to a scouting-based rebuild (McIlvaine) to Steve Phillips and his cellphone to a wannabe moneyballer (Duquette) back to a scouting guy (Minaya)

The Mets either loved free agents or hated them. They sometimes coveted their prospects and other times used them as currency.

They "went for it" more often than not, but cut every corner on the way there. I think above all they wanted to give an impression they were going for it whether or not they actually were, and to the Wilpons there was never any difference.

[Vic Sage]

oh yeah, Johhny. say it again... slowly. That's it. Right there. yeah...

[Guest d'Kong76]

Kinda depressing, all there in plain black and white like that.

[Ceetar]

and yet the Mets are arguably the most successful expansion franchise.