Hurry, let's chat about De Aza before it's too late

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I didn't do that. You asked a question and I answered it. You didn't do ... what? Your last sentence in your prior post.

Yeah. I wan't saying that you specifically were being contrary for the sake of being contrary. My bad if that's how that post reads. I was generalizing there, and not addressing any specific poster.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, I follow, thanks.

de Aza's signing hasn't been de Announza'd yet, despite a handful of sources saying it's a done deal, for what must be like 24 hours now.

If business shuts down on Christmas Eve, this one might drag out a bit, or perhaps even not go down at all.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, I follow, thanks. de Aza's signing hasn't been de Announza'd yet, despite a handful of sources saying it's a done deal, for what must be like 24 hours now. If business shuts down on Christmas Eve, this one might drag out a bit, or perhaps even not go down at all.

got the press release about 5 minutes ago. It's official.

[Edgy MD]

I feel like I just made that happen, somehow.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Edgy MD wrote: I feel like I just made that happen, somehow.

Thanks.

[Centerfield]

This article:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-20/the-mets-and-the-cubs-aren-t-underdogs

And this one:

http://www.amazinavenue.com/2015/3/30/8288295/new-york-mets-wilpon-madoff

Provide some more insight.

Basically, the Wilpons lost a shit ton of money in Madoff. Estimates say $500 million. This caused them to take out additional loans.

The loans (originally $430 million) were leveraged against the Mets and SNY.

Why are the Mets losing money? Because the owners borrowed a shit ton of money, used it to cover their own losses, and now the Mets have to cover those interest payments.

If what is in these articles is correct, it goes a long way to explaining why a New York team cannot afford to be competitive.

[Mex17]

Wasn't the entire point of starting SNY was that a team Owned and Operated TV station is a financial bonanza for said team (and such a bonanza leads to investing back in the team)? Isn't that the reason why the Dodgers and Yankees have money to burn? Then why (if I am reading the comments correctly) are we talking about "SNY revenue" as different from "Mets revenue". I understand that it technically is but in practice it does not seem to be that way for others.

But steering this back to baseball for a moment, why were they so hell-bent on not blocking Lagares (and/or Nimmo if you want to logically extend it) with a two year commitment to Span yet they were completely fine in blocking Herrera with a four year, more expensive, commitment to Zobrist?

And would De Aza really have been off the market if they waited until January to see Span work out? I don't think so, not with Cespedes/Upton/Parra/Gordon/Fowler still out there as dominoes that need to fall.

I actually do not hate the De Aza signing but I do think that it was premature. I see the baseball logic that is being put forth (and this really could just be a baseball decision to pursue this path as opposed to financial limitations. . .even though I understand where the skepticism is coming from). We will see it it works and we will also see where they go from here prior to February (with regard to another veteran bullpen piece and another righthanded bench player ala Raburn. . .or if Cespedes somehow drops in our laps).

I don't know if this column by Sherman was discussed, but at the very least it explains the logic being pursued (although it was clear that he wanted Span).
http://nypost.com/2015/12/12/mets-will-use-cuddyer-dollars-to-double-down-on-2015-formula/

[nymr83]

But steering this back to baseball for a moment, why were they so hell-bent on not blocking Lagares (and/or Nimmo if you want to logically extend it) with a two year commitment to Span yet they were completely fine in blocking Herrera with a four year, more expensive, commitment to Zobrist?

Span could easily have been a health issue that they weren't interested in touching.

from a dollars and cents perspective (and cents are the opposite of sense in baseball) Lagares makes good money and Herrera doesn't so its easier to justify blocking him, and this isn't a "cheap Mets thing" its how most of pro sports operates.

And would De Aza really have been off the market if they waited until January to see Span work out? I don't think so, not with Cespedes/Upton/Parra/Gordon/Fowler still out there as dominoes that need to fall.

i dont really agree with that logic, because not everyone is looking for the same thing. if you wait on him he could sign elsewhere as another team may like the price/1 year commitment. guys dont always sign in the order of talent or close to it.

[Edgy MD]

Last I saw, Span (and Scott Boras) has been hunting for three years.

Last I saw with regard to Zobrist, the Mets were pretty shy with regard to a fourth year, but obviously his versatility was part of his appeal, so he could play at a position where he was doing the most helping and the least blocking, should somebody be coming on strong. Anyhow, now they got a one-year guy.

I think four years for a second-baseman, I think of Luis Castillo.

[nymr83]

Another bad deal Castillo. Many long term deals turn out bad, you need to pick the least bad ones and do it, there may not be a worthwile one every offseason. Heyward really might be the exception because of his age and that's the only guy I would have really wanted. But even he could just end up "on"

[batmagadanleadoff]

If you wanted to, you could probably talk yourself out of ever getting any free agent.

[Centerfield]

You know, one thing about the De Aza move was that they managed to keep it completely under wraps until it happened.

So there is that.

[Guest d'Kong76]

We'll have to remember that when the 'Memories of De Aza' thread gets posted.