FAKE NEWS - Payroll 2018

[Centerfield]

Ben Grimm made reference to a line in Bill Madden's article today endorsing Joe McEwing.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/joe-mcewing-manager-mets-article-1.3544160

The line I'm referring to:

The Mets? Well, the treatment of Collins, all the question marks emanating out of this disastrous season, the apparent determination of ownership to cut payroll, combined with the relentless media scrutiny and expectations that come with managing in New York probably makes them the least appealing job.

I have no idea how a candidate views the Mets job, but where are we getting this idea that ownership is determined to cut payroll? As far as I can tell, all the speculation that payroll will drop comes from Alderson's non-committal statements in September.

“As far as the payroll’s concerned, the payroll ended up being closer to like $155 (million) this year, which was beyond what we had expected to spend this year. So I’m certainly not sitting here and willing to say, ‘OK, it’s going to be at least as high as it was (this) year,’ but we expect to be a competitive team next year. I know that is going to depend a lot on the health of our pitching staff, particularly our starting pitching and so forth. But the fact that we had so many dollars coming off the books, we recognized, and a good percentage of that, at this point undetermined, certainly will be reinvested in the payroll, but I can’t give you a specific number.”

I don't know how anyone can read that as an "apparent determination of ownership to cut payroll". Did I miss something from the owners? Look I'm happy to bash the Wilpons just as much as anyone else, but it doesn't seem like they've actually done anything yet.

As for the payroll itself, the Mets were 12th out of 30 teams before the selloff.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/heres-every-mlb-teams-opening-day-payroll-for-2017/

For what it's worth, I still see no reason why a NY team can't crack the top 10.

As far as results:

Top 10 Payrolls:
*5 teams made the playoffs (including the top 3 spenders overall)
*4 division winners
*LA Dodgers, the top spender, had the best record in baseball

Middle 10 Payrolls:
*3 teams made the playoffs.
*2 Division Winners
*Cleveland, 102 Wins, best record in AL

Bottom 10 Payrolls:
*2 teams made the playoffs, both Wild Cards

[Edgy MD]

Centerfield wrote: I have no idea how a candidate views the Mets job, but where are we getting this idea that ownership is determined to cut payroll?

Bill Madden never struck me as a guy who makes a lot of calls to muster the facts to back up his notions.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: Centerfield wrote: I have no idea how a candidate views the Mets job, but where are we getting this idea that ownership is determined to cut payroll? Bill Madden never struck me as a guy who makes a lot of calls to muster the facts to back up his notions.

Right? I mean Sandy has been talking like that every year. And yet payroll goes up every year. The Mets move up in the payroll standings every year.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think you're exactly right. Those comments from Sandy have taken on a life of their own, and people (including but not limited to Bill Madden) are blowing it out of proportion.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I don't root for payrolls anyway.

[Centerfield]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I don't root for payrolls anyway.

Which is your's (and every fan's) prerogative.

But the effect of payroll on a team's chances of success are real. If you spend, you can use this to your advantage. If you do not, you are at a disadvantage, and your road to the playoffs is harder.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I don't root for payrolls anyway. Which is your's (and every fan's) prerogative. But the effect of payroll on a team's chances of success are real. If you spend, you can use this to your advantage. If you do not, you are at a disadvantage, and your road to the playoffs is harder.

This is an overall trend type thing and not really super relevant year by year. If you get too granular with it you start falling into "This player's better because I spent more money on him". i.e. the money the Mets have spent in previous seasons is relevant to 2018 regardless of what 2018s payroll is exactly.

[Centerfield]

LCS Numbers:

3 (Dodgers, Yanks, Cubs) of the remaining 4 teams are in the top 10 payrolls, with Numbers 1 and 2 overall still alive. The fourth team (Houston) slots in at #18.

Dodgers:
*It will be their 2nd Straight LCS, and 5th in the last 10 years.
*Made the playoffs 5 straight years, and 7 out of the last 10

Yankees:
*It will be their first LCS since 2012, 3rd in the last 10 years
*Made the playoffs 6 of the last 10 years, including 1 WS championship

Cubs:
*playing their 3rd straight LCS, 3 in the last 10 years.
*made the playoffs 4 of the last 10 years, 1 WS Championship

Houston:
*First LCS since 2005, none in the last 10 years.
*made playoffs 2 of the last 10 years

[Centerfield]

Ceetar wrote: This is an overall trend type thing and not really super relevant year by year.

I agree that it's an overall trend thing. I don't know what you mean by "super relevant". I think overall trend things are relevant every year.

Smoking increases your chance of cancer. Wearing seat belt increases your chance avoiding injury. Spending increases your chance of winning. These likelihoods apply every year, no matter the results.

Ceetar wrote: If you get too granular with it you start falling into "This player's better because I spent more money on him". i.e. the money the Mets have spent in previous seasons is relevant to 2018 regardless of what 2018s payroll is exactly.

Maybe you do. I don't.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: Smoking increases your chance of cancer. Wearing seat belt increases your chance avoiding injury. Spending increases your chance of winning. These likelihoods apply every year, no matter the results.

If you never smoke and have a few packs in 2018 it's unlikely you'll get cancer in 2018.

If you stop smoking now you still have an elevated risk of cancer in 2018.



You could sign Lorenzo Cain and have him preform worse than Juan Lagares would've in a different timeline where you don't sign him.

[Centerfield]

If you smoke in 2018, you have a higher risk of cancer than you would if you didn't. This applies whether or not you smoked before.

If you do not smoke in 2018, you have a lower risk of cancer than you would if you didn't. This applies whether or not you smoked before.

Juan Lagares is a nonsmoker and gets lung cancer. Lorenzo Cain smokes two packs a day but is cancer free. This example does not make the two prior statements untrue.

[Ceetar]

Sure, but the reason they did/didn't get cancer is perhaps unrelated to smoking. And it's your job to figure out which one's going to get cancer. Simply being like "Cain doesn't smoke!" doesn't actually give you a better shot at winning if he's baking in the sun 8 hours a day getting sunburnt or something.

What I'm saying is that money is one part of it but it sometimes reduces to zero in the winning equation.

This is especially true when it comes to relief pitching.

[Centerfield]

I don't think I'm really following your argument.

Smoking increases your risk of lung cancer. I'm not sure why this is controversial. This is why life insurance companies, who make their money gauging likelihoods, check whether or not you smoke.

If insurance companies were to insure winning, one of the factors they would consider is payroll.

[Ceetar]

my argument is that there are a myriad of ways to improve your team, and sometimes the best 'assessment' of who is the best fit isn't one that needs/can be bought.

What if Sandy learns about a MI guy that can play second who's available for trade, or what if the answer is Otani, or..

more specifically, what if the answer IS Lagares and not Cain. You have to actively not spend money to make that happen.

[Centerfield]

I've been thinking lately about these reports that the Mets payroll might be dropping. The cynic in me wonders if the Mets leaked this to see how the news would be received. So far, the press has been pretty ho-hum about this. Even Howard Megdal has been quiet. I hope that ownership does not view this as complacency among the fan base. I hope they don't think "Hey, it looks like everyone will be cool with Steve Cishek and RA Dickey!"

It's been widely understood that the Wilpons are sensitive, putting too much emphasis on public perception. That's largely why people believe that outspoken fans and media may have played a hand in bringing back Cespedes. True or not, I have no idea. But you know, it can't hurt.

So I figure I'll reach out to the media, and ask them for answers. Specifically:

1. Are the Mets really hamstrung financially?

2. If so, why is this the case? Why can't they spend like the Cubs or Nats?

3. If it's because of Madoff, take the Wilpons to task. Completely unacceptable to have this cloud hang over the team for nine years.

I started with David Lennon at Newsday. His email: david.lennon@newsday.com

I'll be collecting more info on others and emailing them as well. It worked for Andy Dufresne. Maybe it can work here.

I know that some of you guys don't really care about payroll, and that's cool. But if you do, maybe you can help me. Post contact information here. I was looking for Megdal's email but couldn't find it. Better yet reach out yourselves. Email, twitter, whatever way you see fit.

Not your cup of tea? That's ok. I'll keep my discussions on this limited to this thread.

I figure this is a better use of my time than grumbling about it here all winter.

[Ceetar]

pass on Megdal.

It's easy enough to guess usually


It's either mike.puma, mpuma, pmike, mikep, @nypost.com etc.

try jeff@sterl.com or fred@sterl.com if you like

[Guest d'Kong76]

I'm pretty sure Megdal lurks here, but we haven't exactly been most
welcoming to him over the years. Not everyone 'gets' us. Tough crowd haha.

Start a facebook group called "Are the Wilpons Still Cheaping Out the Fans"
or something! It could go viral or whatever the buzzword is this month.

[Centerfield]

Hey Matthew Ehalt, Mets beat writer for the Record,

Why do the Mets continue to be hamstrung financially? Why can’t a NY team spend at the level of the Nats, Cubs or Boston?

Is it still a product of Madoff? That was NINE years ago!

Don’t let the Wilpons off the hook. Take them to task!

Thanks for reaching out. It's hard to say exactly why the Mets have not spent like they have in the past, but the team did spend more this past year. I do understand the fans frustrations regarding the payroll. Have a nice day. --Matt

Whoa, what's with the blowoff Matt? Aren't you the beat writer for the Mets? How about some investigative journalism dude? How about you get some answers.

Not really. My actual response:

Hey Matthew,

Thanks for getting back to me. It would be great if you would consider looking into why the Mets are so cash strapped. It’s a question that’s front and center on many Mets’ fans minds.

I think it would get a lot of people’s attention.

Write to Matthew and tell him how much you would like to see that article:

Ehalt@northjersey.com

[Centerfield]

So I'm a few days into this project. Emailing beat writers, reaching out on twitter. Most have been courteous enough to respond, but none have given any indication that they will go any further with the story.

It's really pretty surprising to me that they don't think it's an issue.

No one seems to refute the fact that the Wilpons were pummeled by Madoff, and the subsequent lawsuits. Everyone seems to also accept that in the wake of Madoff, the Wilpons took out huge loans against the Mets and SNY, and used the proceeds of those loans for their unrelated real estate interests. And now, SNY and the Mets are saddled with interest payments on those loans. This makes overhead for the Mets artificially high, and therefore, constricts payroll.

There are a number of articles that reference the fans' frustration, and mention the constricted finances in passing, but no one seems inclined to take the Wilpons to task.

People are generally aware that diverting baseball revenues for private means is what caused Selig to take over the Dodgers. All the while Selig was extending a secret loan to the Wilpons who had done the exact same thing.

It seems like the Wilpons are, in a way, bulletproof.

You would expect the "hard hitting NY media" to rake them over the coals. But since Sandy's comment in September, there has been not one article criticizing the Mets owners. A big contingent of fans are upset, but the media ignores it.

Don't know what to make of it.

I guess, like many here, people just don't care about payroll.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Centerfield wrote: It seems like the Wilpons are, in a way, bulletproof. You would expect the "hard hitting NY media" to rake them over the coals. But since Sandy's comment in September, there has been not one article criticizing the Mets owners. Don't know what to make of it. I guess, like many here, people just don't care about payroll.

I care, to a point. It's just been old news for like almost two decades that the
The Wilpies are just terrible owners. Think about it, 20 years. I don't remember
at what point you joined mofo but it was a big thing in like '98 or '99. I was not
a big supporter of 'Sell the Team NOW!!!' and stuff like that back then but good
fuck the dude was right!?!

[Guest d'Kong76]

I have my time frame off by a couple of years, but I still care! haha

[Ceetar]

The media won't even reliably ask about the Mets interest in Otani which requires mostly public information and planning. I'm not surprised they have little interest in the type of journalism required to try to even come close to figuring out a private conglomerate's finances.

[Frayed Knot]

Centerfield wrote: but none have given any indication that they will go any further with the story ... It's really pretty surprising to me that they don't think it's an issue.

Not sure it's a lack of interest so much as it is a brick wall in getting any facts.
This is a private business so there's no way to know the levels of revenues, debt, expenses (beyond the 40-man roster portion of it).
No way to know what SNY makes (or loses), what the team makes (or loses), or what the whole operation costs to run.




P.S. SELL THE TEAM NOW!!! was still an asshole.

[Centerfield]

I guess that's what it is right? A story like this would take some real investigative journalism. They'd rather regurgitate the same "What the Mets need" type of story that they can churn out in 15 minutes.

But I'm surprised there aren't any "Wilpon Sucks" stories. It would take ten minutes to write "Wilpon owes it to the fans to fund a big market payroll. Whether it's Madoff or something else, I don't really know and don't care to investigate, but I know he's not spending money!"

That type of lazy column would get shared a bazilllion times.

[Ceetar]

They interact with Jeff and Mets employees, they don't interact with the average WFAN caller.

[nymr83]

Centerfield wrote: I guess that's what it is right? A story like this would take some real investigative journalism. They'd rather regurgitate the same "What the Mets need" type of story that they can churn out in 15 minutes. But I'm surprised there aren't any "Wilpon Sucks" stories. It would take ten minutes to write "Wilpon owes it to the fans to fund a big market payroll. Whether it's Madoff or something else, I don't really know and don't care to investigate, but I know he's not spending money!" That type of lazy column would get shared a bazilllion times.

Why are we ENCOURAGING more lazy writing? If they cant be bothered to do the research then they shouldn't publish baseless crap about the Wilpons.

[Frayed Knot]

Centerfield wrote: It would take ten minutes to write "Wilpon owes it to the fans to fund a big market payroll. Whether it's Madoff or something else, I don't really know and don't care to investigate, but I know he's not spending money!"

But the problem is, writing a column to say that the NYM payroll needs to be higher but without any specific information to estimate a particular figure other than just ... 'more', isn't much of a story.

[Centerfield]

True. But it at least spurs conversation, and perhaps puts the spotlight on an area that has been underreported.

I'd argue it has more journalistic value than "Here are ten guys in no way linked to the Mets other than this article that I just fabricated!"

[Centerfield]

This is encouraging:

[Benjamin Grimm]

Ricco is going to be the guest on Mets Hot Stove on Thursday. I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say.