Centerfield

So it's interesting. The fan reaction was tremendous. Certain other members of the media applauded him. But several groups were conspicuously silent. There has always been this feeling that certain members of the media are compromised. Now, you can't help but feel that this is true. Namely: 1. Metsblog. Used to be fan-run, now it's affiliated with SNY. Basically, there is no chance to be objective and call out the guy that signs your checks. So Matt Cerrone or anyone writing on that site is silenced. 2. The Daily News: Frequent collaborators with SNY, and many of the writers have recurring TV roles. This makes them more visible than they ever would have been otherwise. They are not going to speak out against the Wilpons. 3. SNY people. No chance. This includes "opinion" guys like Sal Licata or Nelson Figueroa. You don't speak out against your boss. 4. The 7 Line Army: Used to be a group of fans that spoke their mind. Now they have JV with the Mets to sell merchandise. A booth at CitiField. They're not going to risk that. Suddenly, you start to realize why the Wilpons skate without consequences. Instead of paying for ballplayers, they've paid for media.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Marc Carig. American Hero. https://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/mets-jeff-wilpon-1.15485312 That column is pretty much the one you've been waiting for, isn't it? Hopefully others, many others, will take up this narrative. Yes. Very close. In a perfect world I would have loved more numbers but the idea is spot on. And yes, hoping others will rally around it. bmfc doing his best on twitter to make it so!

Marc Carig. American Hero. https://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/mets-jeff-wilpon-1.15485312

I think I was mainly referring to the Michael Cuddyer offseason where they didn’t do nearly enough. After clarification I think I largely agree with you. So I guess at the end, this is the order: 1. Spend wisely (meaning money you choose not to spend is set aside for reinvestment) 2. Spend foolishly 3. Don’t spend at all

I’m not throwing down. Just disagreeing. Sorry about the tone. You said that it always feels like they will do something but they always end up doing something. That’s not true. Sometimes they do nothing. Then you equated transactions to being the equivalent of bringing in a pitching coach. That’s also not true and you know that. I realize free agents can fall short of expectations but they cannot make a team worse than doing nothing. Let me illustrate. Giving $5 million to Lincecum right now is foolish. That money is better spent on someone else. But if the choices are $5 million for Timmy, or $5 million to Fred’s boat payment, then you pick the $5 million on Timmy. Lincecum will probably give you nothing, but he can’t make you worse. You cut him if he stinks. But Tim gives you a much better chance at contributing than Fred’s boat. And this is my point. Bad free agent signings are bad because they prevent you from getting better players. But if the choice is bad free agents versus not spending at all and not investing elsewhere , you pick bad free agents.

And look, I get that a lot of you have made your peace with this. This is just how things are, nothing we can do about it. It makes me angry. Every off-season the injustice of it pisses me off. And the way the media lets them off the hook. No one is panning them. There are no anti-Wilpon articles. There are no "Wilpons must go" articles. It's only the fans that say and feel this. Can't understand why.

I never view providing evidence as "over-complicating". But the evidence points to the same result. If they are #7 before counting SNY revenue, they are comfortably top 5. If not top 2. I think it's worse than being incompetent or cheap. I think they are crooks. They are taking Mets revenue to payoff Madoff debt. It's a practice that was deemed to be not in the best interest of the game when it was Frank McCourt and led him to be stripped of his team. When their buddy Selig saw that the Wilpons were guilty of the same, instead of booting them, he gave the Wilpons a loan. They are crooked and corrupt. Dishonest. They should be out of baseball, but they remain, like a curse on this beloved team. They talk about CitiField being cursed, the only curse here is the Wilpons.

And you know full well that bringing in players is far more likely to improve a team than changing a pitching coach. Teams bringing in great players go from middle of the pack to division winners all the time. The other scenario has never happened. Ever.

Edgy MD wrote: Centerfield wrote: That’s silly and dismissive. It's certainly not meant as such. It's just as legitimate, and my point of view, that if you want a truly great team, build one from the ground up, and don't believe that that you have to rebuild every offseason. Transactions take a team south just as often as they take a team north, and in the case of the Mets, moreso. Building a great team is not picking between buying free agents and building one from the ground up. It's both. The Mets have done the "building" part. They have seven home grown starting pitchers. A home grown closer. Several home grown RP options. They have home grown position players at 1B, SS, C, RF and also currently at CF and 2B. They should be supplementing that core now. Free agent transactions can certainly take you north. A bad free agent signing can take you south, only because it saps money that would have been spent elsewhere. But a free agent signing cannot take you south if you otherwise don't spend the money. We are not arguing over who to spend on, it's whether to spend. And if the choices are spend, or not spend, choosing to spend literally cannot make you worse. If the Mets had two options right now, spend nothing, or re-sign Jason Bay, today, to his contract over again, re-signing Jason Bay cannot make the Mets any worse. And sure, you can talk about how a bad deal keeps us off the board next year. That's bullshit. There is no indication things will be any different next year, than this year, or years past.

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Don't get exorcised. It's like this every offseason until it isn't. Yeah, but I kind of have a feeling in the pit of my stomach that they're not going to do much and just magically hope that the pitching will be fabulous because they hired a pitching coach as manager. I think it takes just as much magic to believe in transactions. That’s silly and dismissive. If you want a great team, get great players. Hiring a pitching coach is not a realistic path to success. If that were true, the great players would be cheap and Mickey Callaway would cost a hundred million dollars.

And the feeling is justified. Every indication they’ve been sending out suggests this. At least in Callaway they have a “plan” to fix the pitching. They don’t even pretend to want to improve the offense. Everything we have heard so far isn’t even anywhere near enough to offset what we traded away. And I call bullshit on Sandy playing things close to the vest. The man telegraphs everything. Western Union, as Keith says. A few years ago the buzz was it would be Cuddyer then dick. And that’s what it was. The next year it was Zobrist or dick. And the only thing that saved that was the Cespedes market cratering and Yo coming back to them. And last year he was very positive about bringing back Yo, and that’s what he did. He was public about needing to trade Bruce and he tried desperately to do so. The idea of Sandy being covert and close to the vest is a myth.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Ceetar wrote: smg58 wrote: For the record, I would have beaten the Angels's offer for Cozart (who will be moving to third base). I would've considered that as well. Thirded. Last year WAS a career year, true, but his walk rate and hard-hit percentage had been trending steadily upward leading up to it; if there's regression to the mean, it should not be crippling, given what was paid. Hell, his contract has an AAV that's 4 mil more than a pretty good middle reliever's, and it's much cheaper than what we'll likely pay for Kipnis in prospect value. Yup. And as I mentioned in the other thread, he provides Rosario insurance.

Santana will hit a ton for them in that ballpark. He’s a nice addition for them but I think they overpaid. Even if the Mets has money to spend that feels like a lot. Also signed Neshek who is decent. I think they will be good enough to be “pesky”. Win about 80 games and screw up a contender but not be good enough to realistically compete. Kinda like the Marlins of the last few years.

Except for the times nothing happens.

smg58 wrote: They aren't done; they just signed Zack Cozart to play third for three years and $38M. This seems pretty reasonable. Is Cozart older? I would have been ok with getting Cozart for 3B and moving Asdrubal to 2B. Plus you could slide Cozart to SS if Rosario stumbles and that would make space for Florvera.

Ceetar wrote: I don't think they went over budget last year. “I can tell you from an operational standpoint, I look at it this way,” Alderson said. “If I persuade the owner that it’s best to spend an extra 10 to 15 million dollars to go for it — but I also assure him that if it doesn’t work out I can move 9 or 10 or 12 million dollars — having actually done it gives me a better case going forward.” https://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/mets-gm-sandy-alderson-hints-that-team-was-over-budget-1.14065413 Ceetar wrote: I also don't know what exactly Forbes is measuring, but I do know it's an incomplete picture. You are correct sir. Revenue and expenses of team-owned real estate (stadiums, stores, parking lots, etc.) owned by the team are included in our valuations, but the value of the real estate itself is excluded. We also do not include the value of regional sports networks owned by teams or their profits or losses. But we do include the rights fees (and pro-rated upfront bonuses) the RSNs pay the teams. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2017/04/11/baseball-team-values-2017/#b0441de24515 Because Forbes is taking into account revenue derived by the teams (including TV rights fees), but do not include the revenue from sports networks owned by the teams (like SNY), clubs like the Yankees and Mets actually have higher revenues than listed. And if those teams happen to play in large TV markets, like say, New York, then the revenue from those team owned stations would be considerable. It is reasonable to conclude that the Mets would move comfortably into the top 5 if you compare apples to apples.

I moved this discussion to the payroll thread since it's more on point here. dgwphotography wrote: Centerfield wrote: If you think about it, it's mind-boggling that the Mets went "over budget" last year. Considering they were still not top 10, AND they collected on Wright all year long. This. Does anyone know what the Mets' Fan cost Index was for 2017? I remember a few years ago, their payroll was ranked 23rd (IIRC), yet they were 7th in FCI. Don't really know what FCI is. But according to Forbes, the Mets had the 7th highest revenue in 2017. Yet somehow, they went over budget despite having a 12th ranked payroll and collecting David Wright insurance money (meaning their payroll was actually not nearly as high). This can only mean one thing. Their expenses are extraordinarily high. We know why this is the case. They refinanced their debt in the early part of this decade, pulled out hundreds of millions of dollars, and saddled that debt upon the Mets and SNY. This is why the 7th highest revenue team can't field the 7th highest payroll in baseball. Now, I wonder what they Wilpons did with those hundreds of millions of dollars? I don't think we can really tell. I mean, I'm sure that's all been reinvested in the Mets. It's not like the Wilpons, successful real estate investors, suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves in a situation where they had to pay somebody truckloads of money...

Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm sure that Fred and Jeff wouldn't like the possibility of paying David $20 million to be a reserve player who hits .180. And that could very well happen. The safer bet for them, financially, is to have them keep collecting that insurance money. I don't have much expectation/evidence that an 'on the field' Wright will hit .180. Maybe he won't be MVP Wright, but I think like worst case is he's rusty and out of practice and like, hits .240/.320/.466 with the juiced ball. There is very little chance that David Wright will be "worth" the salary they are paying him. Even the most optimistic of us can recognize that. Payroll is of central importance to the Wilpons. I can't imagine they don't want that insurance money. If you think about it, it's mind-boggling that the Mets went "over budget" last year. Considering they were still not top 10, AND they collected on Wright all year long.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: David Wright's availability and his capability are both enormous wild cards for the 2018 season. I have NO idea what to expect, but a season total of zero games would be disappointing, but not particularly surprising. I suspect the Wilpons are rooting for zero games.

They would be insane to do that. Just play Flores.

Ceetar wrote: The Mets team run creation was exactly the same as the Nationals. I don't know what run creation means. I do know that the Mets scored 84 fewer runs last year, which is more than 1/2 a run per game. I also know that the Nats had a .782 OPS and that the Mets had a .755 OPS. And again, that's including the production of the guys we traded away. Ceetar wrote: The pitching crashed, but Syndergaard back should bridge a ton of that. less garbage mop-up starters in a lost season. Maybe a veteran pickup, or maybe Wheeler or Matz or someone picks it up. It's not hard to see the pitching hold up this year, and that puts them right in the thick of it. Sure, it could. And Harvey might bounce back. But again, we are hoping for everything to go right. A few quality arms in the mix really improves those chances. One outstanding arm changes the equation even more.

Frayed Knot wrote: Centerfield wrote: This winter, if the beat writers are right, that same pitching staff will add Anthony Swarzak then go to battle. Well, Swarzak plus the pick of the crop from the bevy of relievers he added late last summer. Plus a theoretical full season from Familia & Ramos. Understood. And hopefully Syndergaard and Matz will be healthy, Harvey will bounce back, and we get some miracle with Wheeler. Certainly the staff as built could be effective, but you'd like a better off-season plan. The pitching wasn't just bad, it was like near the worst in all of baseball bad. Rotation and bullpen. What would be a reasonable bounceback? Middle of the pack? Top ten seems a stretch with the same guys no? A team that's serious about contending would bring in strong candidates to bolster both. And the offense. Where to even begin. 19th rated, and this is even with the production of Bruce, Granderson, Walker and Duda. As built, they are without question bottom third. What are we going to do to improve this? Not a single plan they are contemplating right now, is even remotely close to losing what they already had. Forget about actually improving upon that. And on the offensive side, the only "bounce-back" we can reasonably hope for is Cespedes staying healthy. (and hope Conforto heals quickly) So if the end result is middle tier pitching, and bottom tier offense, why exactly are we not rebuilding?

Ashie62 wrote: Walker wants a 4 year deal. Bejeezuz. Not happening with us. And not a single team has been rumored to be willing to go that far. Not even three. No expert is predicting he will get it. So in the same way Yoenis Cespedes wanted 7 years, he can ask for whatever he wants. But his ultimate asking price should be in the Mets' wheelhouse.

Word among the beat writers is that Alderson is basically done with the bullpen. And as we already knew, he's not addressing the rotation. The Mets ranked 28th in ERA this season. 27th for the starters, 29th for the bullpen. And this when they had Addison Reed. This winter, if the beat writers are right, that same pitching staff will add Anthony Swarzak then go to battle. I guess there is still one day left to the Winter Meetings. But as to the debate that started this thread, if I had to pick "Sandy is being coy" versus "Sandy is lowering fan expectations", well then...

I'm ok with "losing out" on Kinsler. In fact, I'm unimpressed by most of these names I'm reading. Kipnis. Harrison. None of these guys are any better than Neil Walker. And Walker doesn't cost you players.