batmagadanleadoff

Centerfield wrote: Let's have a virtual drink together. Poured myself a Glenlivet. Master Distiller's Reserve. My wife got it for me in London. Perfect night to crack it open. Here's to you guys CPF. Pour me one. Then we gotta get cracking on figuring out what's the next thing that we oughtta complain about.

Centerfield wrote: Wilmer cries when he thinks he's traded. Wheeler calls Alderson and asks to stay. And Cespedes leaves millions on the table to come back. Something special going on here. You got a point here. Maybe it's the 24 hour Roosevelt Avenue dining scene.

Valadius wrote: $27.5 million for year one.... [W]here'd the money come from? The Mets are probably gonna hafta salary dump Granderson for a minor leaguer and two bags of balls to make room for Yo's contract.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: What would Bill Veeck do? I think that this is probably the mission statement, encapsulated. So what would Bill Veeck do? He'da given us an exploding scoreboard that'd be the talk of all baseball instead of that eyesore out in center field that looks like it was designed by a four year old. Jeff Wilpon? Exploding toilets.

Edgy MD wrote: Speaking for myself, I am not worn down into submission. I know.

d'Kong76 wrote: Fine, but in this case more years more foolish too. Maybe. But that should be a problem for the Pittsburghs and Kansas Cities of baseball. A big team market that can't hack what Cespedes wants for five years? The payroll should be double what it is, but instead everyone's been so bullied and worn down into submission that they think that it's all the money in the world if the Mets increase payroll by another ten or fifteen million. If the Mets get Cespedes on their terms, it'd be great. But if they lose out on Cespedes because they didn't match some other team's five year offer, look out below.

TransMonk wrote: TransMonk wrote: Yes, but it's "dumb" money. I don't want Cespedes in four years at that price. He will be 33 in the fourth year, that's "over the hill" now? That's not what I said. I just don't want HIM at 33 at $20M+. I'm not 100% sold on Cespedes...certainly not long term. He'll be blocking up the payroll and a roster spot at a time when I believe there could be better (and cheaper) options available. I'm all in on him for next year. Even three years wouldn't bug me. After that, I believe he would be be a liability rather than an asset. $20M is chump change to the Dodgers. And New York's a better market. If these Wilpons knew a third as much about the business of baseball as they know about real estate, these problems wouldn't exist. Anyone who thinks that a NY team with a bottom tier payroll can't hack a $20M outlay four years from now, well that's their lowered expectations doing the thinking. Jeez, I wouldn't be surprised if, four years from now, $20M wouldn't even buy a Jon Niese type pitcher.

TransMonk wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: It may be more about committing the years than the money. Bingo. Because more years costs more money.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: But now it appears that he'll fit quite nicely so long as the Mets don't have to commit as much money as they thought they would've had to. It may be more about committing the years than the money. I don't discount that money is an issue, but it's one thing to have Cespedes jamming up center field for one season than for five. I would try to structure the three-year contract as something like 25-16-16, if he'll go for it, of course. Yoenis would then be guaranteed $57 million if he sticks around, but will have incentive to opt out, if that's what the Mets are not-so-secretly hoping he'll do. I definitely see your point. Me, personally, I'd prefer Cespedes for three rather than five years, too -- something that I would've never imagined was possible before the recent reports. But if Cespedes (allegedly) doesn't fit, then he doesn't fit. Whether it's one year or five or anything in between. Anyway, it's not worth killing this point to death. We all have the Mets number and know what's really going on.

Sports biz report: The stakes for the Mets and Cespedes By Howard Megdal 11:30 a.m. | Jan. 22, 2016 Let's be clear about what the stakes are for the Mets and Yoenis Cespedes. We're not talking about the team using anywhere close to the total amount of revenue power that comes with playing in New York, the largest MLB market even split in two, let alone that plus a 65 percent ownership stake in SNY, the sports network whose exponential rise in value after the trustee for the Madoff victims left Fred Wilpon, Saul Katz and the other partners who own the Mets for financially dead has given them an ability to hang onto their assets. We're not even talking about the Mets using most of the enormous financial windfall that came with their unlikely 2015 World Series run—an estimated $45-60 million in postseason revenue, a 19.6 percent jump in regular season ticket sales, all generating money that Fred Wilpon and Sandy Alderson had promised would be invested back into the team. No, even signing Yoenis Cespedes would put payroll for 2016 somewhere in the $130 million range. Put another way, that would leave the Mets on par with the Kansas City Royals, in a metro area approximately 1/10 the size of New York. It would leave them in the bottom half of MLB payrolls. That's how enormous the constraint has been from Mets ownership diverting payroll to finance debt for years. It has gotten bigger and more noticeable due to the 2015 windfall, but comparing Mets payroll to past Mets payroll doesn't capture the scope of it. Comparing them to the rest of baseball does. With the team's elite, cost-controlled young pitching, the Mets are still contenders in 2016. However, the potential of losing Yoenis Cespedes, a big reason the Mets finally found adequate offense in the final two months of the season, would only happen if the team failed to exercise its most basic due diligence as a competitive baseball team and business, and instead gave itself over once more to serve as a vehicle to service Wilpon/Katz debt. That the Washington Nationals, a team with a larger payroll already, a lack of television revenue due to an unfortunate deal made with MLB that has them in litigation, and a better starting outfield than the Mets have right now are willing to make a five-year offer to Cespedes says everything about the quality of player involved. That the Mets won't have to even match the Nationals, a rare thing when players generally go to the highest bidder, but simply get competitive, only further emphasizes the potential missed opportunity were they to let him go. Cespedes wants to stay in New York, reportedly willing to consider a shorter deal for the chance to do so. Meanwhile, the Mets have tried mightily to make it politically tenable to lose Cespedes, leaking to the Daily News information about his timeliness and smoking habits. They've attempted to portray him as a positional misfit—this, despite using Cespedes in center field during the team's glorious 2015 run, despite signing Alejandro de Aza, a non-center fielder, as a budget replacement to pair with the elbow-compromised Juan Lagares, despite Curtis Granderson in right field having just two years remaining on his contract, opening a spot for Cespedes in 2018, despite Granderson and left fielder Michael Conforto both hitting lefty, meaning that Cespedes can spell both of them against lefties for the next two years, despite indications that the designated hitter could come to the National League as soon as 2017, opening up a spot for Cespedes or another hitter next year. There's only one argument against the Mets signing Yoenis Cespedes. It isn't competitive, it isn't philosophical, it isn't logical. It comes down to whether the Mets owners are going to act in a minimally responsible way as stewards of a big-league baseball team. Sign Cespedes, and the team is still woefully shy of the basic fiscal upkeep that would come close to maximizing a team in New York. But fail to do so, in this moment, with this player and this team's very specific needs and opportunity, and it won't be any clearer than it is now precisely how damaging the owners' financial problems are to this baseball team. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2016/01/8588856/sports-biz-report-stakes-mets-and-cespedes

Ceetar wrote: I wasn't really trying to make a point, just pointing out he wasn't quite taking up a roster spot. Well then how many roster spots was Cuddyer taking up, if not one?

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: And how come the Mets never raised this issue of Cespedes not fitting last year when Cespedes was going Bambino on the competition and Cuddyer was an extra outfielder taking up a roster spot? It's always about the money. During the stretch between Cespedes first 2-hit game and his last, 8/3 to 9/25 Michael Cuddyer .343/.390/.500 Yoenis Cespedes .301/.344/.650 Doesn't this support my last post? If Cuddyer, who's now retired, was so valuable to the Mets over the last two months of 2015 doesn't this make Cespedes more valuable? More needed? Unless you're trying to make some other point with Cuddyer. I dunno.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: This was posted three hours ago: @Buster_ESPN Sources: Mets, Cespedes discussing an opt-out clause after the 1st year of a three-year deal. Would allow him to test market again Fall '16. I wish the Mets would get their story straight. Because part of the party line is that Cespedes just isn't a good fit given the Mets current makeup (even though Cuddyer's now out of the picture). But now it appears that he'll fit quite nicely so long as the Mets don't have to commit as much money as they thought they would've had to. And how come the Mets never raised this issue of Cespedes not fitting last year when Cespedes was going Bambino on the competition and Cuddyer was an extra outfielder taking up a roster spot? It's always about the money.

What if the Nats threw in the towel? What if the division was won during Cespedes' tear? Maybe if the Nats were closer in early September, they don't fall apart, the Papelbon crisis doesn't happen and things turn out differently. I don't know what the answer is, but it's not unreasonable to think that the Met don't win the division without Cespedes.

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: You're just saying from a volume standpoint? Yeah, sure, he's a good hitter and if you're looking to sign another hitter, obviously. But I'm not sure teams not already somewhat considering him would suddenly jump in interest.\ Teams might not be interested in Cespedes because he might not fit cleanly into their existing lineups, or fill their needs. That's one of the arguments advanced for the Mets not to re-sign him. But the NL DH would suddenly create 15 new needs that weren't even under consideration before. Frankly, I think that it would be a bonanza for Cespedes and that he might've even been the most sought after FA of this off-season. But yeah, this is all just another guessing game. Well, Chris Davis would've probably been the most sought after guy as his position is the least valuable, but yeah, there are only so many players available. The Mets could make Cespedes as DH work but I think they're actually more apt to benefit from d'Arnaud there, particularly if they believe in Plawecki. rest the catchers, slide Wright in there a lot, etc. Yeah, I think there's truth in that. Sometimes I think that a good deal of the static this off-season over the Mets and Cespedes is, subconsciously, not so much about re-signing Cespedes, but as a premise to tee off on the Wilpons. Which the Wilpons deserve.

Ceetar wrote: You're just saying from a volume standpoint? Yeah, sure, he's a good hitter and if you're looking to sign another hitter, obviously. But I'm not sure teams not already somewhat considering him would suddenly jump in interest.\ Teams might not be interested in Cespedes because he might not fit cleanly into their existing lineups, or fill their needs. That's one of the arguments advanced for the Mets not to re-sign him. But the NL DH would suddenly create 15 new needs that weren't even under consideration before. Frankly, I think that it would be a bonanza for Cespedes and that he might've even been the most sought after FA of this off-season. But yeah, this is all just another guessing game.

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: I'm not sure Cespedes is a good enough player to pay as a pure DH. Not good enough compared to whom? The DH would create 15 more batting slots. You don't think there's a nice payday in store for a guy with 30+ HR power who isn't a defensive cripple and who has one of the best throwing arms in the game? You could do plenty worse than Cespedes as your DH. yeah, he'll throw out a ton of guys playing DH. No, but he'll get paid for his arm, too because a DH that can play the field is worth more than a DH that can't.

Ceetar wrote: I'm not sure Cespedes is a good enough player to pay as a pure DH. Not good enough compared to whom? The DH would create 15 more batting slots. You don't think there's a nice payday in store for a guy with 30+ HR power who isn't a defensive cripple and who has one of the best throwing arms in the game? You could do plenty worse than Cespedes as your DH.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Brandon Zimmo Ha. I remember that. But I thought Fred said "Zimbo" instead of "Zimmo".

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think if they instituted the DH this offseason the Mets would have signed Cespedes already. I doubt it. If the NL went DH, Cespedes would be that much more attractive and a shitload of NL teams that today, have little or no interest, would suddenly want Cespedes badly.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Also by then there's a chance Zimmo is an option.... Thoughts? Yeah. Who's Zimmo? Is he related to Harpo?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Nymr83 wrote: one possible explanation is that the DH does cause AL teams to allocate more of their payroll towards a 9th position player while paying the bench guys (who pinch-hit less with no pitcher in the lineup) less. This is exactly what's going on. The DH is another position, as likely to be filled by an everyday player as any other position player position. So it drives up costs. AL teams don't make up the difference by paying bench players less. If that were the case, the best bench players would all eventually wind up in the NL. And there's no evidence that AL teams compensate by paying pitchers less on account of that they don't have to bat. It's an extra cost. On the other hand, it's just one position, so you're not gonna find data showing that AL teams are spending ten or fifteen or twenty million dollars more on average than their NL counterparts. But it's an extra position and extra stuff costs extra money. And should the DH come to the NL with the Mets in their current state of poverty, they'll be at a disadvantage. Because teams like the Dodgers and the Nats and the Cards and Cubs will simply add another $10 or $15M to their payroll without breaking a sweat --well maybe not the Cubs because they already have Kyle Schwarber who looks like a DH more than anything else but you know what I mean -- while the Mets will jerk off their fans with more bullshit, all the while trying to come up with a DH plan without increasing payroll. They'll tell you that there are no all hit and no field players worth pursuing and that's why they're not spending money on a DH.

Nymr83 wrote: one possible explanation is that the DH does cause AL teams to allocate more of their payroll towards a 9th position player while paying the bench guys (who pinch-hit less with no pitcher in the lineup) less. This is exactly what's going on. The DH is another position, as likely to be filled by an everyday player as any other position player position. So it drives up costs. AL teams don't make up the difference by paying bench players less. If that were the case, the best bench players would all eventually wind up in the NL. And there's no evidence that AL teams compensate by paying pitchers less on account of that they don't have to bat. It's an extra cost. On the other hand, it's just one position, so you're not gonna find data showing that AL teams are spending ten or fifteen or twenty million dollars more on average than their NL counterparts. But it's an extra position and extra stuff costs extra money.

Edgy MD wrote: No. But you're throwing the kitchen sink at this now. One post, you're sarcastically laying me out with "That's not me talking. That's not my idea. That's science. Math and shit." Now you're dismissing me for using "fancy math talk." Which is it? You've rejected the mean for 2015 and 2014's projected starting salaries, and you've rejected the median for the same. What data would you accept? Art Shamsky? If that isn't the reddest herring in history, I don't know what. Stop being such a literalist. Art Shamsky's a frolic and a detour that's got nothing to do with nothing and you know it. I'm not rejecting anything. Really. I just think that DH's raise payroll. You can disagree. Really. You've got medians and everything. DH's probably reduce payrolls. I'm just a crazy motherfucker. But if I found that Grantland piece before I wrote my post instead of after, half of this thread never happens and you accept the same statement because coming from Grantland, it was vetted and everything. But it's me, not Grantland. And you're already dug in. So go ahead and insist that DH's don't raise payroll. Because there's a median point.

Edgy MD wrote: Yes, you've made that clear. You reject the average. The mean. It's skewed. That's why I offered you the median.... Which is just about useless here. Just because it's a tool, doesn't mean it has to be used. You wouldn't hammer nails into your wall with a screwdriver handle just because you had a screwdriver, would you? Median is a terrible way to measure the disparity between discrete data points. And it's an ineffective tool in understanding data that includes outliers. But most of all, why would I care about the median when I'm mostly concerned with the top of the distribution -- the action above the median? Payroll differences caused by having to pay for a DH occur mainly because of the action at the high end, where the biggest spenders spend big (i.e. free agent) money for everyday players with a track record of excellent hitting. This is so plainly obvious, even from the data that you present, that I don't know why you bother with all this fancy math talk when it's as plain as your eyeballs could see. And the teams at the lower end, or below the median, that can't or won't spend with the big spenders are suddenly at a disadvantage because in baseball, as in life, money matters and the less you have of it, the more disadvantaged you are. Maybe not in the pursuit of happiness, but try and get Clayton Kershaw to pitch for your baseball team without enough money. Try and get on an airplane without the money to buy a ticket. Try and buy a pair of shoelaces, or even just one shoelace -- a half of a pair -- without any money. So the bottom spending teams have to get creative. Earl Weaver did that all the time, platooning Ayalas and Lowensteins and god knows who else and running circles around everybody in the process. But that was 40 years ago when very few teams knew what the fuck they were doing. That plan might still work but those market inefficiencies don't exist the way they existed in Weaver's day. But hey, you never know. This time of year, 1969, no one ever imagined that a corner outfield platoon of Art Shamsky and Ron Swoboda would be a part of a winning formula for 100 regular season wins. So the bottom spending teams are disadvantaged at one more position because they can't spend with the big boys, because they have to hope that the big spenders spend their money stupidly, because if they're gonna come up with a platoon on the cheap, they have to nail it twice instead of once, because if they don't have the money to spend big on a DH in the first place, they'll have even less to spend on a backup plan if their plan A fizzles. They're also at a disadvantage because the big spenders also have the option of coming up with a creative DH on the cheap even though for the small spenders, that's their only option. So with a DH, a team either spends significantly more money on payroll, or is at a disadvantage. And you're telling me that this is all wrong because of a median point?