Centerfield

Thanks KC. You know, as I re-read Sandy's quotes from last week, I don't think Carig is right. I don't think Sandy would say payroll would be higher unless he planned on delivering. Plus Fred Wilpon has said publicly that once attendance goes up, so will payroll. I think we are at the point where he can no longer excuse his nonspending. And if nothing else, that alone will force him to take the handcuffs of of Sandy.

It's crazy. I know it doesn't matter a lick when it comes to performance but it's crazy how old he looks. I don't get that. He's 36. He's four years younger than me. But he looks older than Bob Geren. He looks like one of those guys who shows up for some reunion event where everyone says "Wow, Michael Cuddyer looks great. I bet he could still play right now." Except everyone really knows he can't.

Mark Carig has an article in Newsday that indicates that the Wilpons don't intend to significantly increase payroll. It appears to be all speculation but sounds very plausible if you take into account recent history. Effectively he writes off Murphy and Cespedes. Heyward and Upton are off the table too. He thinks Parra and Span are more likely targets. I don't know how to link it from my phone, but should be easy for you guys to find. I don't know. Thinking about losing talent like Cespedes and Murphy while listening to management justify Gerardo Parra is pretty fucking depressing. I hate the Fucking Wilpons. I hope Carig is wrong.

Wow. That takes him off the table no? No way you give up the draft pick for Colby Rasmus.

For the record, I'd keep him around. I think he's allowed to pitch in the minors to prepare right? I'd see if he's got anything as he nears eligibility. If you have a need, try him out. He's down to his last shot before a lifetime ban anyway. And if you don't want the distraction, or you don't want him in your team, you can trade him. Someone will give something of value for a former closer that throws in the mid-90's.

d'Kong76 wrote: How do you solve a problem like Mejia? How do you say out loud get out of town? How do you find the words to tell Mejia? A roidertistickit! A bit of a dick! A clown! Applause

Maybe that was the issue and he has a bounceback year. It would be nice to platoon Granderson with an effective Cuddyer.

It's funny. I like Granderson too. I like the guy and told him he sucks. I defended Benitez all those years and never liked him.

Vic Sage wrote: what CF said... ditto. I should make that my avatar. I think to myself, well I can't be all that crazy. Vic agrees with me more often than not. If ever you get carted away in a straightjacket, I'm going to do a lot of self-reflection.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Beaters seem to think Muffy and Cespedes will go, we'll go get a LH-hitting center fielder to platoon with Lagares (Rasmus?), and pick up a LH hitting infielder and maybe some bullpenners. Rasmus will hit some home runs but he's never been a great on-base guy. Plus he's weird. I am wondering if and how Cecchini and Nimmo could fit into plans. That seems to be the most likely path. I'd be really disappointed if that's how this winter played out.

Wow, I didn't realize that Murphy only had one week to accept the QO. No brainer then. No way he takes it. Free draft pick!

I think he is arbitration eligible right? Does that make him a risk for non-tender? I know it's natural to want to dump the guy, but if he can be anything close to what he was without the roids, that's a very valuable piece to be getting mid-season. What say yous?

From what I can gather, ceetar assigns absolutely no value to the amount of money a player makes in assessing that player's value to a team. Nor does he distinguish corner outfielders with middle infielders. In fact, from the Salary thread, it's not clear whether ceetar really understands the concept of money. I think it would be really fun to know ceetar in real life and to do lots of business with him.

Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: So he did mean Cuddyer instead of Conforto. He's not counting on Conforto and still doesn't think the Mets should add a bat. I don't think I'll be starting a Ceetar-for-GM campaign any time soon. We're talking about day one. And I didn't say the Mets shouldn't add a bat, I said trying to target a 'middle of the order' bat is probably a poor way to go about things. Agreed. No good hitters for us! You know, instead of magic healing elixir, it might be cheaper to hire Mr. Miyagi to do that handrubbing thing.

Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Cuddyer-Lagares-Granderson? I assume you meant Conforto-Lagares-Granderson. We'll see how Spring goes. I'm not handing Conforto the job based off 3 good weeks back in August. Agreed! Let's hand the job to Cuddyer based upon his 4 atrocious months instead!

Edgy MD wrote: The problem is signing a guy and convincing yourself that he's one big bat and he's not. The idea that the team can absorb mistakes and move on is appealing, but for all teams, that thinking has its limits, and the critical mass of mistakes was a big part of what got the team in the mess in the first place. So I'll take wise over aggressive, no matter what the market size. I think they're going to be fine. And if they don't find their guy by opening day, they can keep looking as they did in 2015. I agree we should not sign a guy who is not actually good. I'm all for prudent spending. I just want to make sure the owners give Sandy the ability to do so. You know, it's not even really about actual spending. It's about the Wilpons giving Sandy the ability to spend. Because I trust he will invest it wisely. Wise should always win out over aggressive, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Sometimes it is wise to be aggressive. Mid-season moves are fine, but it's important to remember that these also have a price. And mid-season moves require prospects. For an organization that has said it's focused on scouting and development, moving prospects does not align with that theory. In the winter, players are available for just cash. Also keep in mind that Yoenis Cespedes might not be available in July 2016. And even if he is, we no longer have Michael Fullmer to trade for him. I think we will be fine too. I like the chatter we are hearing coming out of Flushing. Sandy knows we need offense and has hinted at an uptick in payroll.

You know what? I take it all back. Ceetar is right. Instead of investing in a middle of the order bat, let's spend the money on magic healing elixir.

Guys. Daniel Murphy. QO. Let's go. You will most likely get a draft pick out of this. Which fits into our scouting/development approach. Worst case scenario, you get Daniel Murphy, October Hero, for 1 more year. No brainer guys.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Centerfield wrote: Honestly speaking, I'm shocked that the rest of you aren't furious over this. I can't imagine anything the Mets could do that would make me "furious". Well, I guess I would be furious if I found out that they were slipping poison into baby food, or something like that. But I simply don't do anger or angst over the operations of a baseball team. What if you found out the Mets got Fred and Barney fired from their Pebbles gig? I should have qualified my post. I fully expect BG not to be furious.

It would be nice to know for the first time in how many years now that they didn't make a move or moves because of finances. The fans deserve more expensive opportunities met instead of brushed aside if they come the team's way. It's time to move on from that, or they should take their billion dollar profit and sell and just go away. When the opportunity arises, no more backing down because of finances. Got it. I agree. Exactly. Sandy Alderson even hinted to that in his book: �Madoff wasn�t even a topic of conversation in my interview for the Mets job. I didn�t raise it. Maybe I should have. The bottom line is, I would have taken the job anyway. It just added to the challenge.� That's about as candid as you will ever see Sandy get. It's time to take away the challenge. It's time to make it an advantage. If Jason Heyward wants Robinson Cano money, tell him to go fuck himself. But if he will sign for a reasonable value, time to go get him. Or another elite bat that will be reasonable. We are an elite hitter or two away from being a favorite to go back to the WS. Go get him. Via free agency, trades etc., but don't let budget constraints stand in the way.

Edgy MD wrote: The numbers are provided. The link explains the source and the limitations of the analysis. I don't think I ever suggested they were anything but what they are. This is so simple. The numbers come from April 1. You use them to state: To summarize, the Mets were 21st out of 30 teams with a payroll of $101 million. But that's simply not true. You take a projection and cite it as a summary of what happened. It's not. Really? This is your criticism of my post? This is what you are focusing on? Unbelievable. First off, my use of "summarize" is meant to address the article. The article to which I provided a link. Wherein it clearly states what the numbers represent. If you did not take the time to read the article, and assumed it meant something it did not, the mistake is your's. Not mine. Secondly, this is not just some half-ass projection. These numbers are based upon analysis done by the AP. Are they exact? No. Is it pretty fucking close. I would guess so. You act as if I disregarded other information in order to use artificial data to support my point. Most importantly, how much do you think the year-end numbers moved? Do you think after the additional salary and suspensions/insurance it made a significant impact on the final totals? Do you the Mets moved into the top ten? No. They didn't. Where do you think the Mets might have finished? 21? 23? As high as 17? Even 16? The point of this thread is that the Wilpons don't spend enough. They don't spend like a big market team, and they piss away a competitive advantage handed to big market teams. Do you really think de minimus variations on the final numbers undermines this point? I want you to be honest and ask yourself if maybe, just maybe, you are looking to poke holes in my post anywhere you can find it because you don't want my thesis to be correct.

Edgy MD wrote: (1) Suggests my numbers are incorrect They're a projection from the start of the year that is out of date. (2) States that I offer rumor as fact You offer rumor and suggest it's worthy of consideration. I don't think it is. Enough facts are known. (3) And characterizes my position as one that despises the owners, reviles them as cheapskates and ripoff artists, and feels victimized. I characterized the fans who feel this way as with you. It's pretty comfortably close to what you describe. This is silly. You don't know what victimized means? Are we going to get this granular? How exhausting. The numbers are provided. The link explains the source and the limitations of the analysis. I don't think I ever suggested they were anything but what they are. And I certainly don't think this constitutes "rumor". We'll have to agree to disagree. The Wilpons' lack of spending is well documented, and not really refuted. (I don't believe you are refuting this are you?) Even if you shift the payroll slightly, the overall point of the post remains. And finally, I think you tried to color my position by comparing it to an irrational caller to WFAN. I believe the comparison was done intentionally in an attempt to undermine my point. Only you know if this is true or not.

There are several reports/rumors that the Wilpons' other businesses are suffering, and that they have been pumping Mets/SNY revenue into other avenues, rather than spending on the team. I would like to read these reports, before getting furious over anything. Well, there is one in the Strat-O-Matic thread. The Mets have the TV cash coming in everybody else in baseball does, and then some � they started cashing in earlier, thanks in part, again, to a big loan from Bernie Madoff. They've just been siphoning off that revenue since Madoff went bust to keep the parent company afloat, the kind of thing that should bother MLB but so far hasn't. This does not say the Wilpons have siphoned money from the team to support external businesses. What this is trying to say (badly) is that the Mets have siphoned money from SNY to support the Mets. They've used revenue (and principle even) from a profitable business to invest in the team. Which, desperate as it may be from their point of view, is the sort of thing we'd want to support, isn't it? This is the quote I was alluding to: They made their fortune by being tax-dodging real estate speculators during the 1970s and 80s; they lost much, if not most, of that fortune to the one-two punch of the 2008 housing market crash and the collapse of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. That would be a case of what goes around coming around, except the Wilpons stayed afloat by using the Mets and the team-owned media partner SNY as their personal piggybank. But again! You're making me stray from my point!

There are several reports/rumors that the Wilpons' other businesses are suffering, and that they have been pumping Mets/SNY revenue into other avenues, rather than spending on the team. I would like to read these reports, before getting furious over anything. Well, there is one in the Strat-O-Matic thread. But again, I think you are missing my point. Whether they are siphoning money out, or just managing the Mets poorly, it doesn't matter. The end result is that they don't spend like they should. And that fact alone, is worthy of criticism. Citing the opening day projected payroll as "the payroll" over and over is disconcerting enough. Let's please not get into offering rumor as fact. These are the numbers I found online. And a link was provided. The link explicitly states that these numbers are pursuant to an analysis conducted by the Associated Press. The site goes on to further state: A note on the AP's numbers: they are not exact, because contract details are closely guarded. But they are based publicly and privately reported salaries, prorated bonuses, and deferred money. Cash transactions and buyouts are reflected in the team payroll figures, so they will differ from the sum of given roster's player salaries. The figures will also change by year's end because of bonuses, trades, and call-ups. The cite is explicit about the source of the data, and what the data purports to be. I don't believe I've offered any rumor as fact, nor have I ever suggested that these numbers represent the final payroll after the season. There are a number of other sites offering their analysis. One is from a guy who calls himself "Steve the Ump". I chose to go with the Associated Press. Most of these lists are pretty consistent across the board, varying only slightly. My team is National League Champion. With a break or three, they'd be marching in a World Series parade. I'm certainly not furious. If I was, then there's never any reason not to be furious. My post says I am shocked the rest of you aren't furious over this. My point. That the Mets have to win despite their owners, rather than aided by them. That the Mets have to beat teams that spend more than them, rather than vice versa. If you're not furious that's fine. If you can look at the end result and ignore everything else, then that's your call. (You must have been furious before this year then.) I look at big picture and small picture. I look at the guys who have roles on the team, in the organization and analyze them individually. And when one aspect (such as the owner) does something I feel is egregious, I get mad. Your mileage may vary. And I don't mean this post as a criticism of anyone here, because it seems a large part of the fan base feels that this not a big deal. My experience is that the fan base is with you. They despise the owners, revile them as cheapskates and ripoff artists, and feel victimized. At least they mostly did until August. You know, it's funny. Oftentimes when we have these discussions, the end result is you asking me why I'm upset with you. I want you to see what you did here. My post is not directed at any one individual, and is explicit that it is not an attack on anyone's viewpoint. Your post: (1) Suggests my numbers are incorrect (2) States that I offer rumor as fact (3) And characterizes my position as one that despises the owners, reviles them as cheapskates and ripoff artists, and feels victimized. I assure you if you re-read my post, none of that is in there. For what it's worth, I do hate the Wilpons. But I don't think they are cheapskates, or ripoff artists, and I certainly don't feel victimized, whatever that means. And I don't expect anyone to necessarily agree with my personal feelings. What I said was that they are not doing their job, which is to fund the team like a big market team. And because of that, I am surprised others are not equally as upset.

I don't know if you can be so sure about that. I definitely believe that the Wilpons have not been profiting in recent years, but I have no idea how the Mets franchise has done. There are several reports/rumors that the Wilpons' other businesses are suffering, and that they have been pumping Mets/SNY revenue into other avenues, rather than spending on the team. I have no way of knowing whether this is true or not, but it certainly would go a long way into explaining why a New York baseball team is in the bottom third of payroll in the league. Honestly speaking, I'm shocked that the rest of you aren't furious over this. It is well established that spending more gives a team a competitive advantage. It's not a guarantee, it's not dispositive, but it is unquestionably an advantage. It is so pronounced, that other sports have instituted salary caps to level the playing field. Fortunately for us, baseball has not. So by the mere fact that we play in NY, we get a big advantage over the other teams. The other big market teams exploit this. (The LA teams are 1 and 7 in payroll, the Yankees are #2. DC is #6 in payroll). We are the only ones that do not. And in fact, by putting us in the bottom third, we actually put ourselves at a disadvantage. This is mind boggling to me. For as long as there is no salary cap, MLB is handing us an absolute gift. But our owners, through either greed or incompetence, have bungled an advantage into an obstacle for us. We, as a NY team, have to find a way to beat teams that are outspending us, rather than vice versa. And I don't mean this post as a criticism of anyone here, because it seems a large part of the fan base feels that this not a big deal. I just can't understand how anyone is ok with this. We, as Mets fans, are blessed with the following: 1. The best homegrown rotation I have ever seen: Not just on the Mets, the best rotation ever. You dream about bringing up four aces at the same time. But it just doesn't happen. We have this right now. They are all young, all healthy and all dirt fucking cheap. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity. 2. Other Cheap, Young Talent: We are also blessed to have the best closer in franchise history, under control and cheap. We also have potential stars in LF, C and solid players/prospects for 1B and 2B. 3. We play in a big market in a sport with no salary cap. We are in a position to surround this great young core with established veterans to dominate. 4. An Excellent GM: One that is smart enough to spend money wisely. All we need is an owner capable of putting out a payroll that is in the top quarter. Even top third. And we would be the overwhelming favorite to win the WS. And possibly, to win for years on end. But instead, we have the Wilpons. Who through their mismanagement can maybe, possibly, muster up a payroll to put us in the middle of the pack.