FAKE NEWS - Payroll 2018

[Centerfield]

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?

No.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/nyregion/05stadiums.html

I don't recall what the public-private split was on that deal.

65% private. Plus they got to keep the parking revenue which used to go to the city.

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.

I didn't imply anything. I outright stated this:

"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."

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.

Whether you think a luxury tax is greedy or unfair is not my point. My point is that using the luxury tax to keep payroll artificially low has been called greedy and unfair by others. It appears to be a legitimate argument. What does that say about our situation, where we are not anywhere close to that cap despite having one of the top revenues in baseball?

Do you get that? In other markets, they are saying "Spending $197M on payroll is greedy and unfair! The owners are terrible!" Here, the situation is so bad, we would be thrilled if the owners even approached that number.

The point is that our situation is not even debatable. It's absurd.

[ashie62]

A bit OT, but,

If San Diego & KC can offer to pay Eric Hosmer 3 yrs or 7 yrs at about 20 million per year why are the Mets not involved.

I see zero reason to go to a game this season as things stand now.

They truly are the Amazin Mets. oye

[nymr83]

Ashie62 wrote: A bit OT, but, If San Diego & KC can offer to pay Eric Hosmer 3 yrs or 7 yrs at about 20 million per year why are the Mets not involved. I see zero reason to go to a game this season as things stand now. They truly are the Amazin Mets. oye

there are plenty of places to plant your flag on the 'Mets are cheap' narrative. I really don't feel Hosmer is one of them, he just isnt that good.

[Centerfield]

Nymr83 wrote: Ashie62 wrote: A bit OT, but, If San Diego & KC can offer to pay Eric Hosmer 3 yrs or 7 yrs at about 20 million per year why are the Mets not involved. I see zero reason to go to a game this season as things stand now. They truly are the Amazin Mets. oye there are plenty of places to plant your flag on the 'Mets are cheap' narrative. I really don't feel Hosmer is one of them, he just isnt that good.

I’m not big on Hosmer either at that price. Maybe Logan Morrison or Duda are better options when you are talking about that much of a commitment.

Still, you need elite bats somewhere.

[ashie62]

Duda? Really? good lord I have seen enough of that show.

[Centerfield]

Not me. I love that show. Probably a lot more than that show deserves.

If the Mets get thunder elsewhere, I’d have no problem bringing the big guy back on a short term deal.

[Zvon]

Ashie62 wrote: Duda? Really? good lord I have seen enough of that show.

As the creator of the slogan I LOVE THE GLOVE™ I have to say that Duda's fielding has REALLY improved over the years and if he hits 30 dingers and drives in 80 for the length of his next contract, I'd be okay with that. But seeing what Dom Smith can do for us trumps that thought.

[Ceetar]

I mean, Duda is better than Hosmer.

Logan Morrison is not good.

Dominic Smith might still be the best choice, and the Mets don't intend to block him.

[nymr83]

yes, the Mets could use an elite bat. Hosmer is not an elite bat. Not even close.

Among players whose primary position was first base last year, he ranked 11th in OPS+ (minimum 300 plate appearances) - 11th at the position in his career year!

giving a contract like that to a guy like him is a franchise-killing move.

If Smith isn't ready i would be very happy to see a Duda Reunion!

[MFS62]

On December 10, 1992, Congress held hearings about whether to continue baseball's anti-trust exemption. During those hearings, a spreadsheet was introduced into evidence showing the revenue and expense streams of major league teams.
Following those hearings (the next day?), that spreadsheet was printed in the USA Today newspaper. I read it, but did not keep a copy and have been unable to find it since.
But I remember two key numbers, but we must remember these are in 1992 numbers which have increased dramatically since then.
The spreadsheet showed that the money each major league team receives from the national television contracts and revenues from the sale of official MLB merchandise totaled $78 million per year. Considering inflation, I'm sure that amount must be well over $100 million per year by now, with multiple national TV contracts and the increase of cost of goods.
That means that every major league team starts out each season with $100 million on the books.
That is before a fan buys a ticket and refreshments or pays for parking. It also does not include local tv and radio revenue or stadium advertising.
A WSJ report last year showed what each fans spends at each major league ballpark. For the Mets it was about $110.
So doing simple math, attendance of about 1.5 million per year results in an additional $165 million in fan-generated revenue.
That combined total is $265 million. (and I'm probably missing something or being conservative)
And we're told they can't exceed $150 million dollars?
Really?
Where is that other $115 million going?

Later

[Ceetar]

well, to pay Danny Meyer, buy hot dogs, staff workers, etc. that $110 per is what a fan spends, not the profit margin.

[MFS62]

Ceetar wrote: well, to pay Danny Meyer, buy hot dogs, staff workers, etc. that $110 per is what a fan spends, not the profit margin.

I did not say it was the profit margin. It was a component of my total revenue calculation.
Later

[Centerfield]

Forbes has actual revenue numbers. Over $300 million not counting TV.

[MFS62]

Centerfield wrote: Forbes has actual revenue numbers. Over $300 million not counting TV.

Inflation.
Thanks.

Later

[batmagadanleadoff]

41Forever wrote: 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....

I don't understand your stubborn and desperate determination to defend the Mets owners at all costs. And the thing of it is that you have even less evidence to support your position than the supposedly scant evidence you claim CF has. It's not necessary to inspect the Mets books with forensic expertise. The existing evidence, which is more than anecdotal, is devastatingly powerful. The Mets payroll is expected to rank around 20th this season, less than most teams, including the poor Kansas City Royals even though the Mets play in the world's greatest city. They sign a top tier still in his prime free agent, on average, every 10 or 15 years. And since Fred Wilpon assumed control of the team's day to day operations more than 35 years ago, the Mets have just two first place finishes.

How the hell do you defend this record? Why aren't the Mets outspending most of MLB's other teams every ... single ... season? If they don't have the money, then the ownership is incompetent. If the Mets do have the money, then the owners are cheap.

It's not that complicated.

[HahnSolo]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: How the hell do you defend this record? Why aren't the Mets outspending most of MLB's other teams every ... single ... season? If they don't have the money, then the ownership is incompetent. If the Mets do have the money, then the owners are cheap.

Why not both?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think they're selfish. They don't want to give up the prestige of owning a major league team even though they're not able to run it as it deserves.

I suggest that we get someone to sneak into Fred Wilpon's bedroom and whisper into his ear while he's asleep. "Fred... You can't take it with you. You're 82 years old. Remember 1986? Wouldn't it be great to win another World Series before you go? One where you wouldn't have to share the spotlight with that Nelson guy?"

Or instead of a Fred Whisperer, maybe we can hire a hypnotist?

[Zvon]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: 41Forever wrote: 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.... I don't understand your stubborn and desperate determination to defend the Mets owners at all costs. And the thing of it is that you have even less evidence to support your position than the supposedly scant evidence you claim CF has. It's not necessary to inspect the Mets books with forensic expertise. The existing evidence, which is more than anecdotal, is devastatingly powerful. The Mets payroll is expected to rank around 20th this season, less than most teams, including the poor Kansas City Royals even though the Mets play in the world's greatest city. They sign a top tier still in his prime free agent, on average, every 10 or 15 years. And since Fred Wilpon assumed control of the team's day to day operations more than 35 years ago, the Mets have just two first place finishes. How the hell do you defend this record? Why aren't the Mets outspending most of MLB's other teams every ... single ... season? If they don't have the money, then the ownership is incompetent. If the Mets do have the money, then the owners are cheap. It's not that complicated.

Bingo, bongo, swish! < That means "right on brother".

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: not able to run it as it deserves.

lol. it's their business. it's a business. they can run it anyway they want and _it_ and _us_ deserve literally nothing.

[Zvon]

Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: not able to run it as it deserves. lol. it's their business. it's a business. they can run it anyway they want and _it_ and _us_ deserve literally nothing.

A big market city does deserve a big market team, IMO.

Hey Ceets, is your avatar from one of the Final Fantasy vid games? I just completed FF1 and am currently playing FF2 on an emulator. I got the FF2 bootlegged version that was canceled here in the states and only released in Japan until some later anniversary issue. I've only ever played the one released on Sega Genesis, I think it was FF7. I'm gonna run thru 'em all, in order, over the next year or so.

These early versions are great, glitches and all. But FF2 was a serious departure and bombed in Japan. It tasks me sometimes, but I am enjoying it.

[Ceetar]

Zvon wrote: Hey Ceets, is your avatar from one of the Final Fantasy vid games? I just completed FF1 and am currently playing FF2 on an emulator. I got the FF2 bootlegged version that was canceled here in the states and only released in Japan until some later anniversary issue. I've only ever played the one released on Sega Genesis, I think it was FF7. I'm gonna run thru 'em all, in order, over the next year or so. These early versions are great, glitches and all. But FF2 was a serious departure and bombed in Japan. It tasks me sometimes, but I am enjoying it.

It's from Dragon Warrior/Dragon Quest.

I've played FF1,4,6,7,8,9.. and then sorta ran out of time. I'll get back to them. FF1 rocks.

i've messed around with 2 and 3, but never finished them. I think I rented 2 once from Blockbuster when that was a thing and got pretty far along, but that was it.

No final fantasy was on Sega. Nintendo only until 7, which was on PS1.

[nymr83]

Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: not able to run it as it deserves. lol. it's their business. it's a business. they can run it anyway they want and _it_ and _us_ deserve literally nothing.

They can run it the way they want, but I don't agree that the fans don't deserve better.

MLB grants the Mets the sole (or in this case, dual with the Yankees) rights to a very large and potentially lucrative market. If the Mets current owners dont plan to do right by the fans, MLB should threaten to allow a team to move to Brooklyn or North Jersey, in the best interests of baseball. Not that we have necessarily reached that point. But MLB should be thinking of the fans happiness as being in the overall best interest of the game.

[Edgy MD]

The world doesn't work that way.

[nymr83]

I'm not saying it does, i'm just talking about what fans deserve

[Ceetar]

Nymr83 wrote: Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: not able to run it as it deserves. lol. it's their business. it's a business. they can run it anyway they want and _it_ and _us_ deserve literally nothing. They can run it the way they want, but I don't agree that the fans don't deserve better. MLB grants the Mets the sole (or in this case, dual with the Yankees) rights to a very large and potentially lucrative market. If the Mets current owners dont plan to do right by the fans, MLB should threaten to allow a team to move to Brooklyn or North Jersey, in the best interests of baseball. Not that we have necessarily reached that point. But MLB should be thinking of the fans happiness as being in the overall best interest of the game.

well 1, the Mets are doing "right" by MLB. I'm pretty sure they're not unhappy with the Wilpons. And 2, letting a team move into their backyard, even if they were magically a rich and prosperous team that would spend 200m (they won't), would only really benefit the Mets, as it'd just be another set of rivalry games for higher attention and attendance. Attendance is such a small part of the picture these days anyway. It'd almost definitely be a 'rising tide lifts all boats' things, though I doubt either the Mets or the Yankees would sign off on it.

[Edgy MD]

I'm all for he blowing up of territorial exclusivity. It's just one more un-American practice the anti-trust exemption lets MLB get away with.

On the other hand, there is a team in the Mets' back yard. Or maybe their side yard.

[Guest 41Forever]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm all for he blowing up of territorial exclusivity. It's just one more un-American practice the anti-trust exemption lets MLB get away with. On the other hand, there is a team in the Mets' back yard. Or maybe their side yard.

Eastern side yard represents!

[Zvon]

Hey Ceets, is your avatar from one of the Final Fantasy vid games? I just completed FF1 and am currently playing FF2 on an emulator. I got the FF2 bootlegged version that was canceled here in the states and only released in Japan until some later anniversary issue. I've only ever played the one released on Sega Genesis, I think it was FF7. I'm gonna run thru 'em all, in order, over the next year or so. These early versions are great, glitches and all. But FF2 was a serious departure and bombed in Japan. It tasks me sometimes, but I am enjoying it. It's from Dragon Warrior/Dragon Quest. I've played FF1,4,6,7,8,9.. and then sorta ran out of time. I'll get back to them. FF1 rocks. i've messed around with 2 and 3, but never finished them. I think I rented 2 once from Blockbuster when that was a thing and got pretty far along, but that was it. No final fantasy was on Sega. Nintendo only until 7, which was on PS1.

GAMING TIME OUT!

I don't recall having a Nintendo system at that time. If I do recall correctly it was a cartridge game tho. I had a PS1 but that was disc games, right?
Could there have been a converter or something?
Whatever FF game I was playing, I rented it and got into it so much I couldn't return it until it was completed (It was late two weeks, I think).
I had to pay fiddy bucks in late fees!
I COULD HAVE BOUGHT THE DAMN GAME FOR THAT MUCH!!!!

Here's me and my girlfriends son playing on the Sega Genesis system.
I'm doing my impression of Doc, and Ethan ,...I can't tell.
Might have been his impression of a Starting Lineup Mets figure.
Look at all that music I had another shelf of albums that is not in view,
and more cassettes in cassette cases.




Okay, back to your regularly scheduled FAKE NEWS

[Centerfield]

John Harper says the Mets might have more to spend than originally reported.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/mike-moustakas-play-mets-article-1.3738534

Fans have every right to be cynical about this, and I have no doubt they will be, but sources with knowledge of the Mets’ plans are telling me the front office will do more to improve the team this winter than is being portrayed publicly. I have to believe this is already at least partly a reaction to the pounding that owners Fred and Jeff Wilpon are taking publicly for their apparent intention to cut payroll.

Yay!

Nevertheless, one name I heard mentioned on Thursday was Mike Moustakas, the third baseman who hit 38 home runs for the Royals last season, and so far seems to have generated limited interest at best.

Um. Yay?

Bottom line, for the umpteenth time, is that the Mets shouldn’t have to look for bargains like some small-market team, that they should be committed to spending enough this winter to give them a chance to win big in 2018 — with good health from their starting pitchers. It’s hard to get answers as to why the Mets aren’t willing to operate with the financial might of a New York team. After all, they’ve spent at that level at different times over the years, with varying degrees of success.

It would be nice to know who he's asking, but I'm glad he's asking.

[Ceetar]

well it's always depended how you spin the spun comments. There was a 'new' report of just $10 million avail yesterday too.

And then I saw something today about taking on salary in trades to make up for not having as many prospects. We heard earlier in the offseason about the Mets preferring bigger annual value to longer term deals for relievers.

My rounding it all out makes me think that Sandy is both prepared to spend as little as 10 and as much as 30-40 depending on the guy/deals. If he can get the costlier guys that he thinks are worth it, he will, but otherwise he'll value shop and be prepared to swap in and out later.