Centerfield

Looks like I’m as good at picking covers as I am at scouting prospects. Maybe I should ask Omar which cover will win.

Off topic, have you guys seen the clips online of Darvisg throwing left handed? Throws a fastball, slider and change up. These guys are super human.

As I said yesterday, I like Mr. 300 to win it all.

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

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.

I never said Harvey deserves anything. I see an opportunity for a bargain and I think the extension is a good gamble. I don’t know that any fan deserves a championship. I was being flippant there. I do believe that all fans deserve a team that is committed to winning a championship. And I think that such a pursuit should be goal number 1. Above monetary gains. If you want to maximize profits, go start a hedge fund. And any owner who does not so commit should be stripped of their team. There is no shortage of stupid rich guys who fit this profile. No reason one team should be handicapped with a bunch of imbeciles.

There will certainly be dead money. You trade for Votto anyway. Then deal Smith for a second baseman or pitching help.

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.

These things are not mutually exclusive. I just saw an opportunity for a bargain. In truth, deGrom, Noah and Familia all deserve extensions. Our window to compete should remain open indefinitely and Mets fans, for all we put up with, deserve a championship. But I’ll start with Harvey.

I’m cool with Votto.

Offer it now. Two years, $24 million. For years 2019 and 2020. If he bounces back, the deal could be a steal. If not, well, I doubt they are contending then anyway.

Nymr83 wrote: It doesn't seem like a very wise deal for a rebuilding team to invest all that money especially in a first baseman which at the end of the day is going to be the easiest position to shove some guy you find later on with a bat and no glove into. pretty sure they'll regret this one. He might be the token "face of the franchise" guy they use to sell tickets during the lean years. Plus maybe they feel like if he's good, they can unload him for prospects. I don't know. It's puzzling.

Yeah, look. At this point I'd take anyone over no one. And I would guess Cain has a few years left in him. My hesitation is that of all of our question marks, the one I have the most faith in is Nimmo. And that's what makes it tough. Will Cain outperform Nimmo? How good is TJ Rivera? Seemed like he could hit a little. Flores put up nearly an .800 OPS. Will our imported infielders outperform these guys? The questions are tough even if we had money to spend. That's why I'd be inclined to bring in the can't miss superstar, then roll the dice with a few of these guys.

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.

Hosmer offered 7 years, $147 from the Royals. Lots of money for KC. Kinda surprising. I don't see them as being realistic contenders. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2018/01/03/eric-hosmer-offered-seven-year-147-million-deal-return-royals/998796001/

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.

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.

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.

If I had to bet now, I think Mr. 300 takes the crown.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Can you imagine how we'd be feeling now, if everything since then turned out the same, except that Gary Carter struck out in the tenth inning of Game Six? I honestly don't know if the Mets would still comprise such a big part of my life. 1985-1988 were such impressionable years. I don't know what my childhood would have been like without the excitement and newness of 1985, the euphoria of 1986, the bitter disappointment of 1987, and the shock and heartbreak of 1988.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: 1969 was before my memory, but I agree that the regular season of 1985 was more fun than the regular season of 1986. But 1986 didn't leave any kind of bad taste in my mouth. Those Mets lived up to everything we could ask of them. The bad taste kicks in during the subsequent seasons. I'm on board with this too. 1985 was my first taste of greatness. What an amazing season. I remember feeling a twinge of disappointment in '86 from my heroes falling back to Earth. Following '85, there was no question Darryl Strawberry was going to hit 30 something HR's and challenge for the MVP. He fell back a bit in '86. And the difference was even more stark between '85 Gooden and '86 Gooden. '85 Gooden was like nothing I have ever seen. I remember spending a lot of '86 wondering when that guy would come back.