FAKE NEWS - Payroll 2018

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Fred also argued successfully to have had the franchise value lowered to buy Doubleday's shares. I'm sure do could have sold it on the open market for much more that Fred paid for his half.

Jeff's son will soon be entering the biz, you figure.

[Guest 41Forever]

I mean, I'd like the owners of Chick Fil-A to sell too as they're garbage people running the business in a way contrary to what i feel I "deserve" as a customer.

Aside from labeling people as "garbage" because you have philosophical and political differences, one could point out that you have, in fact, many options when it comes purchasing to fried chicken sandwiches. If you don't like the store that closes on Sundays or whatever, there are many other franchises that might treat you the way you think you deserve to be treated. And if enough people feel the same, the place you disagree with will either change its ways or lose customers and close shop.

A baseball team is a little different. While still very much a business, it is also a bit of a local trust and in all but a handful of places, a monopoly.

If it were just about winning and treating you as you think you deserve to be treated, you'd already be wearing a RE2PECT t-shirt.

[Ceetar]

41Forever wrote: I mean, I'd like the owners of Chick Fil-A to sell too as they're garbage people running the business in a way contrary to what i feel I "deserve" as a customer. Aside from labeling people as "garbage" because you have philosophical and political differences, one could point out that you have, in fact, many options when it comes purchasing to fried chicken sandwiches. If you don't like the store that closes on Sundays or whatever, there are many other franchises that might treat you the way you think you deserve to be treated. And if enough people feel the same, the place you disagree with will either change its ways or lose customers and close shop. A baseball team is a little different. While still very much a business, it is also a bit of a local trust and in all but a handful of places, a monopoly. If it were just about winning and treating you as you think you deserve to be treated, you'd already be wearing a RE2PECT t-shirt.

meh on local trust, and meh on monopoly. It's a business. it's entertainment. So are the movies, the NFL, going to the park, playing softball, playing competitive checkers.

It's really no different. we deserve nothing. Don't like how the Mets choose to entertain you? well, there's always burger king. or Shake Shack's chicken sandwich, or cook it yourself. Your favorite baseball team actively funding things with the explicit unAmerican purpose of discrimination? Eat/watch elsewhere.

We can complain and raise whatever causes we want about how things should happen, but it's not going to change anything.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm not so sure about #2. Marc Carig frequently appears on SNY, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if John Harper of the News criticized the Mets for their cheapness. I'm pretty sure he's done so in the past.

And here it is:

Mets better spend on free agents if they want to win, because there’s not much immediate help on the way

Not so much an explicit criticism of cheapness, but a call to spend.

But he does say this:

John Harper wrote: As I’ve been writing since last fall, there is no way the Mets can justify not spending significantly on free agents this off-season in this win-now window of theirs that is still open if they ever get lucky with injuries.

[Centerfield]

And he also wrote this:

Maybe owners Jeff and Fred Wilpon will react to the growing criticism of their intention to lower that payroll, as they have in the past, and realize what a mistake it would be not to spend after they had some $60 million in expiring contracts — more if you add in the savings of the salary-dump trades of last summer and insurance money on David Wright.

Which is about as direct as you might hope from someone who cashed checks from the Wilpons. Kudos to John.

He seems to be holding out hope, as I am, that the Wilpons will open things up and spend.

[Ceetar]

It's not irresponsible to ponder if immediately spending all the 'expiring contract' money in one go is the right way to approach things. I suspect Sandy feels the same, payroll constraints aside.

pipe dream to expect one-time payments/profits to be applied to a budget. Maybe, maybe, if there was an obvious one time/one year expense. like a 20m payment to Japan for the rights to Ohtani, which they lost on. Otherwise, seems unlikely. Best case we can hope for is that it was directly applied to debt that lowers future expenditures and hence raises revenue/payroll in future seasons.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Maybe they're holding back this year so that they can go big for someone like Bryce Harper next year.

I really don't think that's the case, but who knows? Maybe?

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Maybe they're holding back this year so that they can go big for someone like Bryce Harper next year. I really don't think that's the case, but who knows? Maybe?

I mean, this offseason sucks and next one is full of huge names. it was be irresponsible not to at least factor that into the budget, complaints about the size of that budget aside.

[nymr83]

Yeah, when they sign Harper/Machado all will be forgiven.

But when was the last time the Mets signed the top free agent? Beltran?

[Ceetar]

Nymr83 wrote: Yeah, when they sign Harper/Machado all will be forgiven. But when was the last time the Mets signed the top free agent? Beltran?

It was a tossup between Jason Bay and Matt Holliday as the 'top' free agent according to some. Bay was technically 3rd on MLB Trade Rumors.

Not that I'm expecting Machado or Harper but even some of the other guys in 'need' spots are tantalizing and worth keeping a financial eye on.

[nymr83]

Machado, if he hits the open market with his skills at that age, is the caliber of free agent you see once every 10 years or so. If the Mets dont make a very competitive offer I would say they fucked up.

Wasnt Jason Bay widely considered the consolation prize/ clearly worse option after losing out on Holiday at the time? Or is that 20/20 hindsight?

[Edgy MD]

Not so much the consolation prize, but definitely the more risk-averse choice as demonstrated by his relative contract

Holliday: Seven years, $120 million, $17.14 million per annum

Bay: Four years, $66 million, $16.5 million per annum

Bay actually signed his deal first.

The deal also had the added attraction of Peter Gammons at his most inscrutable, reporting alternately that the Red Sox had a deal on the table for Bay during the prior season, but that he turned down, and that Bay "would rather play in Beirut than Flushing."

[Centerfield]

Bay was one of the top free agents that year but it was a shit class. Very rare that you can entice an elite hitter to jump ship on a four year deal.

The stats on Bay were pretty good. Relatively young, .921 OPS, All Star, 7th in MVP voting.

Sometimes it just doesn’t work out. I don’t think any of us could have imagined it going so badly.

He suffered a concussion right? One has to wonder how much of an effect that had. Basically ruined Ryan Church.

[Centerfield]

Actually, just read up on Bay and realized he was signed for his age 32 season. I guess that’s why he only got 4 years. So maybe it was just age. Or the Citifield dimensions. Or bad luck. Who knows.

[Centerfield]

Actually, just read up on Bay and realized he was signed for his age 32 season. I guess that’s why he only got 4 years. So maybe it was just age. Or the Citifield dimensions. Or bad luck. Who knows.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: Bay was one of the top free agents that year but it was a shit class. Very rare that you can entice an elite hitter to jump ship on a four year deal. The stats on Bay were pretty good. Relatively young, .921 OPS, All Star, 7th in MVP voting. Sometimes it just doesn’t work out. I don’t think any of us could have imagined it going so badly. He suffered a concussion right? One has to wonder how much of an effect that had. Basically ruined Ryan Church.

I'd be surprised if it wasn't the concussion. I think he had a second one a little later too.

Baseball's tough. I'd say signing Johan after having the pitching blow the season was clearly a good move, and signing Bay after an injury-plagued low-power season was certainly a reasonable play, though I suspect it's one a GM not up against the rails doesn't make.

The 'best' choice for the Mets in 2019 will depend a lot on how 2018 goes. Maybe Dozier's the better target, or maybe pitching. And the best options might not end up working out, for whatever reason.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

To me, Bay was one of those dumb things the Mets do to make a show of a point. Everyone hated Phillips because he gave him away as a young guy so once he gets old and Phillips is gone they open the checkbook as though to say, "See? We learned something!" barely considering it was way too late by then.

I'm not saying I hoped for or even expected as little as Bay gave us, or that he wasn't at least an okay choice given the alternatives but there was a very convincing bear case for him made on Baseball Prospectus that offseason that turned out nailed it: He was aging very quickly but still had the cheat-on-fastball skills to work the Green Monster 36 times a year.

Concussion, schmuncussion

[nymr83]

looking at the numbers, pre-Mets Jason Bay was a better player than i remembered - but Holliday was the better player and the Mets got burned by shopping at the discount store (if not the bargain bin as i initially remembered)

[Zvon]

I may not always have much to say about stuff most of the time, but I always have an image for everything.
ALWAYS AND EVERYTHING!

[nymr83]

Use the Force Jason

[Centerfield]

This is an article about the luxury tax acting as a de facto salary cap, and how that is unfair to players. In essence, the luxury tax is an artificial barrier allowing for owners to keep payrolls low, despite soaring revenues.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/giants/shea/article/How-Giants-other-teams-limit-payrolls-amid-12469266.php

The luxury tax is at $197 million. The Mets payroll last year was $155 million.

[Edgy MD]

Centerfield wrote: This is an article about the luxury tax acting as a de facto salary cap, and how that is unfair to players.

I screamingly agree. Don't let anybody tell you the luxury tax is about competitiveness. It's about cost controls.

Far worse are the salary slots for the draft and the limited budgets teams are permitted on foreign bonuses.

[Centerfield]

Think of the absurdity of our situation.

In other cities, the owners are criticized for artificially limiting their payrolls to $197 million. Revenues are soaring, but player salaries are capped. This is greedy and unfair.

In Flushing, the Mets have one of the highest revenues in baseball. But they went "over-budget" at $155 million, and are threatening to reduce payroll further.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: Think of the absurdity of our situation. In other cities, the owners are criticized for artificially limiting their payrolls to $197 million. Revenues are soaring, but player salaries are capped. This is greedy and unfair. In Flushing, the Mets have one of the highest revenues in baseball. But they went "over-budget" at $155 million, and are threatening to reduce payroll further.

as long as we're continually beating a dead horse, I still can't figure out if we're asserting the Mets are cheap or broke. And you seem determined to convince the Mets to carry $30 million in dead/crappy contracts just because they should be able to, which ultimately would put them in a similar group as the cap scrapers.

Remember that the Yankees are desperately shedding payroll to try to make moves. They have to get creative to make things happen because they have no wiggle room. If both teams end up at 85 wins and 3 games out of the playoffs this season, it's hard not to prefer the Mets future options if they're at $145 and the Yankees are at $195. I mean, the Mets payroll HAS gone up, and then they hit this window where a lot of stuff expired at once. Thanks to not having to pay minor leaguers and restrictive 6 year initial contract agreements it is in fact possible to transition (some) roster spots to cheap players and not actually lose anything production wise.

[Edgy MD]

It's winter. Sometimes the dead horses are the only ones in the corral.

[Centerfield]

It's not a dead horse.

Definition from dictionary.com:

Idioms beat /flog a dead horse, to persist in pursuing or trying to revive interest in a project or subject that has lost its usefulness or relevance.

The payroll issue is certainly relevant. In fact, I don't think there is an issue that is more relevant than payroll at the current time. Not position needs, proposed trades, favorite seasons, player wives, or even the cover derby. The most relevant and important topic surrounding the Mets is payroll.

Whether or not it's useful to discuss it is undetermined. But if you believe the reports, public perception and fan outcry seem to influence those decisions. So why not make tons of noise. It certainly can't hurt.

Back to your questions:

1. It doesn't matter if they are broke or cheap. The end result is they are not spending. Personally, I believe they are over-leveraged rather than miserly, but it doesn't matter. Either way is not acceptable, a violation of the "best interest of the game" clause, and has caused another owner to lose his team in the past.

2. Find me one instance where I have advocated they carry $30 million in dead/crappy contracts. It should be easy considering how many times I have beaten this dead horse.

3. The Yankees are desperately shedding payroll? I sometimes wonder what planet you live on.

4. Future Options: Let's humor your hypothetical. Both teams end up with 85 wins and miss the playoffs. The Mets are at $145 and the MFY's are at $195. Who is in a better position going forward? It depends. How high can the Mets go? How high can the Yankees go? If they can both go to $230M, then the Mets are better positioned. But if the Yankees can go to $230M, and the Mets max out at $155M, then the Yankees are better positioned. It's a simple concept. Whoever can spend more has the advantage.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: 4. Future Options: Let's humor your hypothetical. Both teams end up with 85 wins and miss the playoffs. The Mets are at $145 and the MFY's are at $195. Who is in a better position going forward? It depends. How high can the Mets go? How high can the Yankees go? If they can both go to $230M, then the Mets are better positioned. But if the Yankees can go to $230M, and the Mets max out at $155M, then the Yankees are better positioned. It's a simple concept. Whoever can spend more has the advantage.

we know how high the Yankees can go. 197 or so. whatever the cap is. They've very clearly made that point this offseason.

How high can the Mets go? probably about 155, in that scenario, as it seems unlikely revenue will drastically increase off an 85 win season. Unless it's just some weird fluke where Rosario and Smith are awesome in the second half but it's too little too late and everyone's dreaming big and excited. then maybe 165? But in this scenario the Mets don't even need that much, and aren't losing that much.

[Lefty Specialist]

Ceetar wrote: Remember that the Yankees are desperately shedding payroll to try to make moves. They have to get creative to make things happen because they have no wiggle room. If both teams end up at 85 wins and 3 games out of the playoffs this season, it's hard not to prefer the Mets future options if they're at $145 and the Yankees are at $195. I mean, the Mets payroll HAS gone up, and then they hit this window where a lot of stuff expired at once. Thanks to not having to pay minor leaguers and restrictive 6 year initial contract agreements it is in fact possible to transition (some) roster spots to cheap players and not actually lose anything production wise.

Well, one of those moves was bringing the best power hitter in baseball aboard.As for 85 wins, the Yanks will probably fly past that in early September. The Mets, unless they make some major moves, won't see it at all.

The Mets essentially brought back the 2016 team that won 87 games in 2017. That team won 70 games. So now they're essentially bringing THAT team back in 2018, less all the power hitters except Yo. So while the Yankees may have uncertainty, I'd prefer that to the certainty that the Mets will bite a corn dog in 2018.

[Guest 41Forever]

Centerfield wrote: Think of the absurdity of our situation. In other cities, the owners are criticized for artificially limiting their payrolls to $197 million. Revenues are soaring, but player salaries are capped. This is greedy and unfair. In Flushing, the Mets have one of the highest revenues in baseball. But they went "over-budget" at $155 million, and are threatening to reduce payroll further.

I don't know if it's fair to point out the revenues without noting the expenses as well. None of us have access to the Mets books, but expenses go beyond player payroll. Did the team assume more debt for the ballpark that what other teams have done? I don't recall what the public-private split was on that deal. If you are implying that the ownership is just pocketing the money, I don't know if that's fair. If you want to assume that the Wilpons can't afford to run the team the way it should be run and give way to people with deeper pockets, that's another debate.

The luxury tax has been around for, what, 15 or 20 years? It's a voluntary cap, unlike the hard caps that exist in the other three major sports. Player salaries continue to grow -- and more power to them, if that's what the market dictates -- so I don't know if we can call it greedy and unfair. Eric Hosmer is a nice player and all, but if there's a system where he's getting offered $21 million a year for seven years, it's hard to argue that the players are getting squeezed to tightly.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Guest

[Ceetar]

Lefty Specialist wrote: Well, one of those moves was bringing the best power hitter in baseball aboard.As for 85 wins, the Yanks will probably fly past that in early September. The Mets, unless they make some major moves, won't see it at all. The Mets essentially brought back the 2016 team that won 87 games in 2017. That team won 70 games. So now they're essentially bringing THAT team back in 2018, less all the power hitters except Yo. So while the Yankees may have uncertainty, I'd prefer that to the certainty that the Mets will bite a corn dog in 2018.

I'd take the under on the Yankees, and over on the Mets, based on rough roster expectations.

The Yankees 'bought high' on Stanton. 6.9 fWAR was a career high, but fine. Gregorious was worth 3.9. Headley was 1.9. Those are the salaries they shed to be able to fit in Stanton, but the net gain wasn't huge, if anything. And it's not like they just reached out and grabbed Machado to play third there, they're talking about giving Frazier more time, they brought back CC on a one year deal, which feels like going to the well one too many times. Their infield and rotation are suspect. They're hardly a juggernaut.

Meanwhile the Mets that 'brought back the same team' did not truthfully do that thanks to injury, and won't again in 2018 where top prospects Rosario and Smith are set to feature. Sure, they could be duds, or they could be assets. They have two healthy aces and lots of potential for a third or fourth or fifth at least above average pitchers and some live bullpen arms and some flexibility there. Let's not get all woe is me just yet.