Mex17

Frayed Knot wrote: But you also don't want to just go spending money for the sake of spending it. Three winters ago the Mets set their eyes on FAs Matt Holliday, John Lackey, & Jason Bay and wound up with the wrong one. But 2 out of the 3 turned out to be 'wrong ones' (not good odds) and, although there were plenty of folks saying at the time that they preferred Holliday, those things are only truly knowable in hindsight. The larger point being that they shouldn't go spreading cash all over the place if the main goal is merely to prove that they still can and will, or because some other team is doing it (how'd it work out for Miami this past year?), or to do it as a way to convince the masses to put down their pitchforks and torches. Probably the best lesson from 'Moneyball' is the idea that it's easier to recover from the player you fail to sign than it is to recover from the one you sign at the wrong price. Agreed, but I think that there might be some ways in which to do it smartly this winter. Look specifically at the "Plan A" that I have in the thread I just started. The problem lately is that everything has been based on the free agent market. Cashen built though trades. Specifically, trading from minor league surplus that took time to build up. Sandy seems to be of the same mindset and we might have enough to pull one good one off this winter. Coulple that with some good but not stratospheric FA contracts and that might be the cocktail for success.

It's pretty clear to me that they really need to import at least two-thirds of a new outfield for next year (assuming LF will be a Duda/Bay platoon at least at the start). Maybe I can live with Nieuwenhuis platooning with a righty (I'll get to that later), but I think that would be far from ideal and a lot would have to go wrong this winter before that happens I would hope. So, with that in mind, I took the liberty of identifying some potential guys that they can go for. The FA's are listed in order of preference (one list each for CF and RF), and the trade targets (which are purely speculative, obviously I don't know what all the other GM's are thinking) are in no particular order. . . Oh, and unless I indicated otherwise, these guys are all righhanded bats. I think that this needs to be the priority, given their trouble against leftys this year. Also, I'm not thinking as much with regard to who to give up in a trade yet (although I have a few ideas in mind. . .we can get to that if the conversation takes off). I'm just thinking of potential targets as a first step. Free Agents: CF: Michael Bourn (Lefty, but more of a leadoff type. I was thinking more righthanded bat with pop insofar as for the middle of the order) Shane Victorino (Switch) B.J. Upton RF: Nick Swisher Delmon Young (primarily a leftfielder though) Trade Targets: CF: Jacoby Ellsbury (Lefty, same concept as Bourn. Red Sox look to be unloading) Peter Bourjous (candidate to platoon with Kirk) Coco Crisp (platoon with Kirk) Drew Stubbs (platoon with Kirk) Chris Young Dexter Fowler (switch) RF: Jose Bautista (Toronto went nowhere this year. . .maybe they want to dump salary?) Jeff Francoeur (we know what he is. . .can do better but can do worse) Josh Willingham (see Delmon Young. . .primarily a leftfielder) Corey Hart Justin Upton (not totally speculative. . .I remember hearing scuttlebut that he was/is on the market) Michael Cuddyer Plan A for me is Bourn/Upton (or Bourn/Bautista if Bautista is actually available). Ellsbury/Swisher is second. Bourn/Willingham might not be bad either. Discuss. . .

Edgy DC wrote: Welcome back, Mex. The distinction between the Mets and Dodgers that I recall being made by MLB is that the Mets re-invested money liberally into the team while the Dodgers' owners pocketed revenue. At any rate, I'm certainly not asking the Mets to behave like the Dodgers. I don't think that they need to go as far as the Dodgers are going, but I do think that they are going to have to loosen the purse strings more than incrementally this off-season in order to fill the holes that they need to fill if they are going to be percieved as viable (by the fans and, perhaps more importantly, by the two players that they are hoping to lock up long term who have the option of walking after 2013).

I think that this trade really throws down the gauntlet for the Wilpons, and by extention, is a significant test to Selig's credibility as Commissioner of Baseball. When control of the Dodgers was forcibly taken away from McCourt, a lot of people wondered why the same was not done to Wilpon. Speculation was that Selig's personal relationship with Fred played a role (Bud likes Fred, he does not like McCourt). What we were instead told was that the Mets situation was vastly different as opposed to the Dodgers, with the former being salvagable under current ownership, whereas the latter was not salvageable. Specifically, we were told that once: a) the Wilpons get out from under the threat of liability with regard to the Madoff clawback, and the Wilpons finalize the process of lining up minority owners, everything ought to be fine. The Dodgers were sold, in no small part due to the heavy hand of Selig coming down on McCourt, and we have seen what has transpired. The Wilpons are now out from under the threat of liability with the Madoff clawback. The Wilpons have also finalized the process of lining up minority investors. The Mets are in desparate need of TWO new starting outfielders and a completely revamped bullpen. They also need to commit to Wright and Dickey long-term. All of this will cost money. Based upon what we were sold, the money should be there now. We will be watching.

Seems to me that Sandy has been taking the Gil Hodges approach. . .observe, learn, then (and only then) react.

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I think the KRod trade is a win. They weren't really trying to get players back, they were preventing the contract from vesting. Plus, we still do not know how Herrera will come back from TJ surgery. Maybe he contributes in 2013?

What do you want, notarized affadavits? Sorry I can't provide those. I'd probably have to re-read "Worst Team Money Can Buy" (or browse through it) for more ammo but I have a life to live. I think that you are more pissed at me then I am at you (over something that is not worth it). I can't be bothered with it.

I DON"T want to do that. You are the one making this an arcimonious exchange. And "Mitchell for McReynolds" (if you insist). Healy might not win a Pulitzer anytime soon but, again, I highly doubt that he pulled all of that out of his ass.

You complain about the other place but you are creating that very problem here and now.

I never realized that the words "slander" and "smear" had such disparate definitions. Why don't you start reading the links that I provided? Or are you not going to believe of word of them because they didn't pass through Jay Horowitz's desk? Or that they are someone's daydreams that were written down and published just for the hell of it? I like rational, but I can do without "pollyanna".

And I'm not attacking the man's character. I'm attacking his judgement.

Edgy, I think your desire for a perfect Met world, possibly combined with your disdain of the "evil media", has completely blinded you from what we have been talking about here. There have been several references (and not just by me) in this thread that Wilpon promptly got his hands in the operations that dealt with the on-the-field product as soon as he attained the 50% ownership. If you don't believe me, ask others. I am arguing that doing so was ridiculous in the aftermath of a world championship that was attained by the completely opposite type of arrangement between ownership and the "baseball department". And nobody is slandering anyone here. This is a casual internet message board, it's not the New York Times or anything (even it it was, language like this could easily appear in an Op-Ed piece without much of a problem I would think).

Frayed Knot wrote: But no team wins forever and nothing was going to keep Hernandez & Carter from getting old (or Cashen for that matter), or Gooden & Straw on the straight & narrow, or guarantee that the next generation is going to be as good as the last one. A true enough statement. But to force a 180-degree shift immediately after what you are shifting from resulted in what it resulted in seems a little. . .what? Arrogant? Out of touch? Completely insane?

Part II: http://www.gothambaseball.com/2009/09/the-new-york-mets-destined-to-fail-part-2/

What Zvon posted (and Frayed Knot paraphrased) is what happened. . whatever word or term you want to use to describe it is fine by me. But the basic truth of it is that it is not what Doubleday intended to have take place. The greater, and more important, truth is that the result of it has had a severe negative impact on the team's ability to succeed. Doubleday made things better via means of passive noninterference. Wilpon then attempted to re-invent a wheel that had already produced a World Champion. Which brings me back to my original point. Despite everything, I am still holding out hope that they can learn from their mistakes. Methinks that there is a jumble at the top right now. If one of the two Wilpons were to excuse himself from the stage voluntarily, and if authority was then properly shifted down the chain a bit (for real this time), then perhaps we can get back on the right track. By every account, in spite of the rather ruthless business tactic of 24 years ago, these are good men with noble intentions. But another "Apology Day" media blitz one day after the season ends ain't gonna cut the mustard this time. Fundamental change is needed. These could have been proofread a little better for grammar mistakes here and there (sorry, Healy, but it's true), but I don't think that the content was pulled out of the sky just for grins and giggles. http://www.baseballdigest.com/2009/07/08/the-new-york-mets-destined-to-fail-part-i/ http://www.baseballdigest.com/2009/07/08/the-new-york-mets-destined-to-fail-part-i/ http://www.baseballdigest.com/2009/10/05/the-new-york-mets-destined-to-fail-part-3/

Edgy DC wrote: I didn't cry anything. The accusation of swindling is baseless. You did and it's not.

Edgy DC wrote: Really, the baseless insinutation of "swindled" is about as anti-Semitic as anything reportedly mumbled by Nelson Doubleday. Doubleday and Wilpon bought the team together from Doubleday, Inc. If you think you don't like the Wilpons, imagine the Mets as a leveragable asset under a corporate owner treading water in a dying industry. Nonsense. At no time did I make any reference to Wilpon's heritage or faith. The fact is that Doubleday was attempting to sell his publishing company but wanted to retain the Mets (who were technically owned by Doubleday Publishing), so he needed to conduct a paper transaction from the company to himself personally. At NO TIME did he EVER intend to offer Wilpon 50% of the team. However, he must have had bad lawyers because Wilpon found a loophole that allowed him to buy half of it against the will of Doubleday. Who is really the anti-Semite, the guy who is talking about a topic unrelated to ethnicity that just so happens to to touch upon a stereotype or the guy who pounces upon that coincidence and cry anti-Semitism?

I don't see how not having a closer (again) qualifies as "good news", despite what you might feel about K-Rod's contract, the incident, or K-Rod himself.

Nelson got caught mumbling some anti-Jewish remarks at one point (or maybe more than one) although I forget the specific details. New York Observer story from 2000 recounted the episode here. Then, in the spring of 1994, a book about the ouster of baseball commissioner Fay Vincent by a group of owners led by Bud Selig and Jerry Reinsdorf quoted Mr. Doubleday, a Vincent ally, telling league presidents Bobby Brown and Bill White: "It looks like the Jewboys finally got you." A former employee told Newsday that Mr. Doubleday had said similar things in his presence, but only "when he was drinking." Mr. Wilpon, who is Jewish, stood up for Mr. Doubleday, saying: "It's not like Nelson to talk that way." After that, one person familiar with the team said, Mr. Doubleday disappeared from the scene and Mr. Wilpon took charge, with a more hands-on approach. He has installed loyal subordinates who have frequently come into conflict with executives loyal to Mr. Doubleday.

Frayed Knot wrote: Which says more, in my mind, about the presence of Cashen than it does about the presence of Doubleday. And quite a bit more about the enhanced presence of Wilpon once he bought (swindled?) an additional 49% of the team from Doubleday after 1986 and injected himself moreso into the operation.

MFS62 wrote: Bigot? In what way? Do you have any sources you can provide? Later Pick up the book "Lords of the Realm".

Frayed Knot wrote: I fail to understand the Met fan (mostly belated) love for Nelson Doubleday. He was (IMO) the typical rich guy to whom the team was an expensive toy and who CLEARLY became disinterested in owning the team after a while. Not that any of that makes him a bad guy necessarily (although at times was both a drunk and a bigot according to various sources) just hardly my idea of the ideal owner. He stayed out of the way and let Cashen build a champion.

Ashie62 wrote: At any rate Fred Wilpon is certainly involved. OK, but for how much longer does he want to be? Regardless of Harper not backing up his statement, the man is getting up there in years. We all know that he wants Jeff as the heir apparent, but it seems as if this transitional stage where the elder has not yet stepped back officially has caused a bottleneck in the organization. I think there is, at minimum, one too many chefs in the kitchen.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Jon Niese reminds one of Joe Price. This supposed to be an insult? Price was pretty decent, and had one sweet head of hair. (And "reminds one?" Maybe my least favorite writerly pretension; I mean, the damn thing leads with a first-person anecdote. Also, I feel pretty safe venturing that nobody else on Planet Earth has ever drawn a comparison between Jon Niese and Joe Price, including Joe Price.) Willie Aames played for the Reds?

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/2010/08/16/2010-08-16_voice_vision_badly_needed.html ---------------------------------------------------------------- Who's in charge here? The obvious answer seems to be Jeff Wilpon, at least partly because his father, Fred, clearly wants nothing to do anymore with running the club that he owns. ---------------------------------------------------------------- OK then, if that is really true, and Fred wants Jeffy to take over the reigns, then Fred should officially step aside now. The way the "Office of the Chairman" is set up right now is as follows (Anyone who has a yearbook can verify this): Fred is CEO and Chairman of the Board Saul Katz is President Jeffy is COO Perhaps someone with more knowledge of high-end corporate structures can further enlighten us as to what the differences amongst these three roles are, but I basically understand that the CEO/Chairman role is more "hands off"/big picture as opposed to COO (what the difference between "CEO" and "President" is I have no idea). Back in the old, successful, days, Nelson Doubleday was CEO/Chairman, Fred was President and Frank Cashen was GM/COO(again, look at old yearbooks to see for yourself). So, what it seems to me (like we don't already know this) is that Jeffy, in his current capacity, is the wrench in the machine. Since, right now, it is a pipe dream that the Wilpons sell the team, I think that the more prudent (and very achievable) thing to do would be for Fred to resign and give Jeff the CEO/Chairman role. Basically, kick the kid upstairs where he cannot gets in the middle of things quite as much. Then, whoever is GM (Ricco or whoever else) also gets the COO role. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. But at least try to set this thing up the in the way that worked before, for the love of God!!