batmagadanleadoff

batmagadanleadoff wrote: And it's not like they've been utterly hapless. One first place finish in 26 years. In a division with mostly, just four other competitors. Until they changed the format two years ago, first place wasn't the bee's all. They went to the World Series and deep into the playoffs the year before as the wild card. If the Mets finished in first in 2007 and '08, they wouldnt'a hadda worry about qualifying as a Wild Card and the infamous and terrible collapses wouldn'ta happened. Is it too much to ask of the NL team from NY to top their division of four competitors more than once in 26 years? Because the Wilpons weren't given enough competitive advantages to field a team good enough to beat just four other teams? Even the Pirates won the NL East more often than the Mets in that time span, and the Pirates haven't been in the division in over 20 years. Who the hell has to primarily rely on a Wild Card finish to get into the playoffs? I'll tell ya who: poor teams from small markets. And even the team from Tampa Bay figured out how to compete against the behemoth Yankees. Do you know that the team from Tampa Bay, competing directly against Bosox and the Yanks has two first place finishes and two second place Wild Card qualifiying finishes in just the last seven seasons?

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Centerfield wrote: It also allows you to trade Colon and get the highest return, rather than off-setting his value by asking teams to cover his contract. This is a great example. It's almost a guarantee that one of Niese or Gee, plus Murph, will be gone by Opening Day, if not shortly after. And make no mistake about it -- those moves'll be salary dumps forced, by more than anything else, the Mets poverty. (You've heard of the Mets and the Jets and the Sets and the Nets. Well, say hello to The New York Debts! Hah!) It may be true that the Mets think they now have a surplus of pitching and need to cut someone on the staff loose. And Sandy may very well get a useful piece or prosepct for Niese or Gee. But the Mets are so broke that they hafta get rid of one of those two, even if they didn't want to. Their payroll is at about $100M, chump change for a NY team, but the NY Debts can't afford that payroll, and probably need to trim down to the sub $90M level they've established in recent years. They might not be able to move Colon 'cause he makes $11M and who'd wanna pay Colon that amount? And the Mets are too broke to trade Colon and carry, say, half of his salary going forward. So because of their poverty, the Mets have to get rid of pitchers like it or not and also their second baseman, who though flawed as he is, isn't anywhere near the top of the list of the things the Mets need to fix. none of these things are actually true though. None? Wow.

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's impossible to spend a lot of money wisely if, you know, you don't spend a lot of money. Yes, but luckily It's still possible to spend money wisely, even if it's not in bucketloads. And win. And by extension, get more money. Yeah, but that's extremely difficult --- a position the NY team should never be in. They gotta make every dollar count 'cause their payroll is in the bottom third. That's no room for error. None. Everything's gotta break. No injuries. No setbacks. Everybody plays at least as good as they did last year. And that's almost entirely unrealisitic and naive to expect. Money is what a team uses to fix those problesm .. to get another leftfielder when the first one doesn't pan out, etc. Yes, the margin for error is smaller, but it's not as minuscule as you make it out to be.

Centerfield wrote: It also allows you to trade Colon and get the highest return, rather than off-setting his value by asking teams to cover his contract. This is a great example. It's almost a guarantee that one of Niese or Gee, plus Murph, will be gone by Opening Day, if not shortly after. And make no mistake about it -- those moves'll be salary dumps forced, by more than anything else, the Mets poverty. (You've heard of the Mets and the Jets and the Sets and the Nets. Well, say hello to The New York Debts! Hah!) It may be true that the Mets think they now have a surplus of pitching and need to cut someone on the staff loose. And Sandy may very well get a useful piece or prosepct for Niese or Gee. But the Mets are so broke that they hafta get rid of one of those two, even if they didn't want to. Their payroll is at about $100M, chump change for a NY team, but the NY Debts can't afford that payroll, and probably need to trim down to the sub $90M level they've established in recent years. They might not be able to move Colon 'cause he makes $11M and who'd wanna pay Colon that amount? And the Mets are too broke to trade Colon and carry, say, half of his salary going forward. So because of their poverty, the Mets have to get rid of pitchers like it or not and also their second baseman, who though flawed as he is, isn't anywhere near the top of the list of the things the Mets need to fix.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's impossible to spend a lot of money wisely if, you know, you don't spend a lot of money. Yes, but luckily It's still possible to spend money wisely, even if it's not in bucketloads. And win. And by extension, get more money.

It's impossible to spend a lot of money wisely if, you know, you don't spend a lot of money.

You like everybody.

d'Kong76 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: One first place finish in 26 years. In a division with mostly, just four other competitors. That's literally half my life. Half! Oh, great. We're like the same age and all.

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. On the hope that eventually all that money will generate a winning team and they'll make it back. No. Mets fans want the Wilpons to get the hell out of baseball. What's so hard about this? So you're saying it's not about the Mets then, you've just decided you hate the Wilpons. fine. Take it to a business forum, I thought this thread was at least tangentially about the Mets. Oh. I see. Because the Wilpons aren't about the Mets. Not even tangentially. And this thread isn't about the Wilpons, who aren't about the Mets not even tangentially And the Mets puny payroll has nothing to do not even tangentially with the Wilpons finances. And that hideous scoreboard out in center field and its ridiculous sister scoreboard in right-center wasn't authorized by the Wilpons. And when the Mets once forced us mustard loving fans to put as much mayonnaise on our hot dogs as we put mustard on them just so that the team could save I don't know $45.00, that wasn't about the Wilpons either. Not even tangentially. And that stupid 42 in the rotunda, that just fell from the sky.

d'Kong76 wrote: on edit: and D'Kong, you can use my name whenever you like, my brother. We've been thru the wars together. But these kids today... That was se�or batmags, but thanks!! Great, Vic. But how do I know if you meant that me any you been through the wars instead of you and Kong? I wanna go home! [fimg=644]http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4328/1686/1600/ryan0163.jpg[/fimg]

Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. On the hope that eventually all that money will generate a winning team and they'll make it back. No. Mets fans want the Wilpons to get the hell out of baseball. What's so hard about this?

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: And it's not like they've been utterly hapless. One first place finish in 26 years. In a division with mostly, just four other competitors.

Vic Sage wrote: their finances aren't "theoretical"... they're actual, and have actual impact on my team's ability to win. And if you don't see that, then you're ceetarded. and again, FK, it's not "sptting in the wind". It's spitting on their Benz. And slashing their tires. Maybe sugar in the gas tank. It won't stop them from fixing the car back up and driving it home to their north shore mansion, but they may have to think about where they park it next time. Wanna know how I've been protesting? I haven't bought a single ticket directly from the Mets during the Citi Field era. Not one! Every ticket I've ever paid for came from the secondary market ... tickets already paid for ... from StubHub or friends and acquaintances that already paid for their tickets. The Mets still get my hot dog and yearbook money, though. Although I did buy one or two recent yearbooks on ebay.

Vic Sage wrote: their finances aren't "theoretical"... they're actual, and have actual impact on my team's ability to win. And if you don't see that, then you're ceetarded. and again, FK, it's not "sptting in the wind". It's spitting on their Benz. And slashing their tires. Maybe sugar in the gas tank. It won't stop them from fixing the car back up and driving it home to their north shore mansion, but they may have to think about where they park it next time. Great ideas, Vic. Hey, d'ya think I could borrow your log-on password for this site? This way, whenever I go off on another Wilpon rant, I can sign my posts with your handle, and then there'll be a civil and even constructive dialogue to follow, instead of the usual "Again with the Megdal" and "Who the hell are the owners supposed to be signing with this crop of free agents?" and "What, a team can't win the World Series with a payroll below $100M?" and "What, you don't like dijonnaise?"

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: He may be wrong when he's wrong, but when is Megdal wrong? We've certainly been over this. You've acknowledged as much yourself. He incorrectly predicted the outcome of the Picard suit against Sterling and the Mets. But I'm not about to dismiss his whole body of work going forward because of that. I'm not gonna cyber roll my eyes in sarcasm as soon as someone posts one of his pieces.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: All I ever get is blah blah blah in defense of the Wilpons Has ANYONE here ever defended the Wilpons? What forum are you reading? We may roll our eyes at how you keep pounding the same drum, but that's a far cry from "defending the Wilpons." I agree some, and not agree some. People here do defend the Wilpons. I'm not naming names or posting posts, 'cause if I did, this would turn into another shitstorm clusterfuck. But maybe I am repetitive. Especially in the context of this forum. It's a relatively small group of posters here, and most everybody here posts about daily or at least checks in about every day. So, yeah. In this fishbowl ...

He may be wrong when he's wrong, but when is Megdal wrong? He writes long-view pieces about the Mets, and it's impossible to do so without referencing the team's financial predicament. The Mets poverty is so encompassing that it impacts every aspect of the organization. Megdal gets it; he's dead on, even if that comes off as repetitive to many here.

John Mayberry Mayberry is the kind of player a team like the Athletics would creatively utilize. With the Phillies since 2009, however, he has been consistently miscast. He has faced right-handed pitching in more than three-fifths of his career plate appearances despite posting a .668 OPS against them (think Elvis Andrus). He also possesses poor instincts and scant range defensively, but that didn't stop the Phillies from putting him in center when Ben Revere was hurt before the [2013] All-Star Break. Mayberry is a mediocre player who can be quite useful when in capable hands. The Phillies don't have anyone on payroll with such hands. Michael Cuddyer By the Black Ink measure, Cuddyer had his career high at age 34, winning the batting title and leading the league in an offensive category for the first time. By somewhat more sophisticated measures - more sophisticated than batting average, you say? - it wasn't exactly a paradigm-shifting performance. His TAv was very good but not exceptional, his .382 BABIP was 70 points better than his career rate and he managed only four home runs in the second half. Tack on his defensive "contribution" and he was arguably a bit overpriced at $10.5 million, and will be even less of a bargain this year [2014] if he slides further down the defensive spectrum.

Vic Sage wrote: All i'm saying here is that an owner of a franchise in NYC that can't afford to spend enough to be in the top 1/3 of payrolls instead of the bottom 1/3 should be facing an outcry demanding he sell the team. There should be skywriting and billboards and photobombs and every other form of fan revolt conceivable. It should not be dismissed easily with "well, that's the way it is", and it especially shouldn't be lauded as a good strategy of wise restraint. I've been pleading this case for years here, to no avail. All I ever get is blah blah blah in defense of the Wilpons and more excuse mongering to the point that you'd think I'm the bad guy for the Mets woes. As if Megdal's the problem. And there should be a neverending unrelenting stream of skywriting and fireworks and photobombs because this is the most indefensible and despicable thing that anybody ever did to the Mets, and that includes trading Seaver to Cincy.

Can the Wilpons really sustain an increased budget? I have no idea, but I can't see why they couldn't. We are in NY. If they can't take a team in the largest market and figure out a way to generate revenue, it is inexcusable. Both LA teams, both Chicago teams, Philadelphia, Boston, even Toronto figures out a way to do this. I can't figure out why the Mets have to reside in the lower tier. Why are we accepting of this? That's just it-- I don't think even the most sanguine-minded of our fans here and "outside" like it. But as far as accepting it? Well, what's the alternative, really? I mean, hell, once the Wilpon regime ends, in all likelihood, I'll have a smile on my face for days. But if we're feeling trapped in a bad marriage, our options are basically to focus on and enjoy the good stuff, let it turn you into a curdled, knee-jerky so-and-so, or get the hell off this crazy thing, aren't they? Also... this offseason isn't over yet, and we're apparently in on a Korean (and maybe a Cuban or two). "... For the first time in franchise history, they�re thinking entirely in question marks. What do we do? How much longer? How do we stop this? When will this end? In general, fans are loyal as hell. We root for laundry and we know it � we don�t care. It�s part of our DNA. We�re always coming back. It�s just one of the things that makes human beings so freaking strange. We�ll divorce people before we divorce our favorite teams. But an irredeemable owner? That�s the only person who can nudge a fan base to a collective breaking point. When you support a pro team with an unspeakably awful owner, at some point you take a step back, do the math and mutter things like, 'I was 19 when he bought the team, I�m 34 right now, and I�m gonna be 54 in 2034 � AND WE ARE STILL GOING TO SUCK BECAUSE THIS GUY F-?-?-?-?-?-? SUCKS AND HE�S NEVER LEAVING AND WHAT THE HELL AM I GOING TO DO?'� http://grantland.com/the-triangle/daniel-snyder-washington-redskins/

Ceetar wrote: Sandy: "We like Bartolo Colon and aren't looking to trade him." Did Sandy say that? 'Cause if he did, it's probably a preemptive strike. I mean, who the hell would want to carry Colon's $11M 2015 contract? The Mets are probably stuck with Colon, unless he's fabulous going forward. And if Colon breaks down, well you know that the NL franchise from NYC won't have the moolah to replace him if it's a matter of money to get another starter. And why is a team that's in the poorhouse even paying so much money for just one player - a 40+ year old pitcher who could stand to lose 100 pounds, no less? Colon's scheduled to make more than 10 percent of the whole payroll, ferchrissakes -- and this is a team loaded with pitching hopefuls.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: What do I want? I want the Mets to act like they're from the city they're from. Humongous payrolls. Hanley signings, even though he might suck at the end of his contract. And when that happens, you just dump him and move on. 'Cause you're the NL franchise from New York City and that's what you do. Because you can. Because you're a fat cat and you don't just order the most expensive item on the menu of Manhattan's top restaurant. You order the three most expensive entrees on the menu even if you can't finish all that food on your plate. We used to do that stuff, and you get guys like Bobby Bonilla and Vince Coleman. And, to an extent, Pedro and Santana (though I'd argue that the Santana deal is in a different category.) The team's best period of prolonged success was built from within, and then finished off with the big trades or smaller deals. I'm sure none of the sports writers were swooning when they acquired Howard Johnson, Knight and Cone. And yes, that era was taken to the next level with the Carter trade, which is where I think Sandy is today. I'm not saying the Mets entire starting lineup should be comprised of past-prime former superstars getting top dollar for what they did in the past. And besides, Bonilla wasn't a bad signing. It was one of the few times (Beltran maybe the other) the Mets signed an his prime superstar free agent. Things don't always work out and all that jazz about hindsight. But at the time, Bonilla made sense. Coleman sucked, though Fred W. thought otherwise. But the team from New York City should be able to get at least one of those guys, even if he's past peak, if they have a hole to fill. Hanley, by himself, shouldn't destroy a big market team's budget.

Tommy John surgery has a pretty good success rate these days, but even pitchers that come back from the procedure usually need more than one whole season to do so. They typically struggle a bit and are inconsistent in their first season back. And those are the ones that do come back from the surgery.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: If the rotation led by Harvey, Wheeler, de Grom and friends is kicking butt and we're in contention, no one is going to care that we didn't feel big market in December. That's a different argument. If the team's good enough, then it's good enough and that's that. But if you think the Mets need a shortstop because their pitching won't be enough to carry that sinkhole, then defending the Mets financially because Hanley is past peak and there's no prime Ernie Banks on the market doesn't make sense to me.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: If the Mets were acting like a big market team, they would have been in on the Cuban guy. He's young, got potential and costs less than Granderson. Take a flyer on him and eat the contract if it doesn't work out. Big market teams try out Matt Kemp, or Jose Reyes and scoff at the contracts they carry with them. They are big market teams. They can take the hit. Small market teams sign Michael Cuddyer, and forfeit a first rounder draft pick in the process. With Granderson, you know what you are getting and we reasonably got what we expected, at least for some stretches of the season. The Cuban guy is a total crap shoot, and the Mets' track record with international players with no MLB experience has not been especially good. I'd be gun shy after Kaz Matsui, too. It doesn't make sense to me to throw gobs of money at a player who is a complete unknown or one that is in his declining years just to prove to sports writers that you are a big market team. MLB is littered with players who sports writers belittled the Mets for not signing who turned out to be a waste of money -- Bourne, Choo are two recent examples. Seriously did you want Matt Kemp at that salary? Or even Jose at what he's signed for? If the rotation led by Harvey, Wheeler, de Grom and friends is kicking butt and we're in contention, no one is going to care that we didn't feel big market in December. What do I want? I want the Mets to act like they're from the city they're from. Humongous payrolls. Hanley signings, even though he might suck at the end of his contract. And when that happens, you just dump him and move on. 'Cause you're the NL franchise from New York City and that's what you do. Because you can. Because you're a fat cat and you don't just order the most expensive item on the menu of Manhattan's top restaurant. You order the three most expensive entrees on the menu even if you can't finish all that food on your plate.