batmagadanleadoff

The New York Times wrote: The implications of the team�s latest outside financing are not easy to forecast. But two people with knowledge of the team�s finances said that if a full lineup of minority stake investors was not in place by next spring, and cash not in hand, Wilpon and Katz might have to confront the prospect of selling the team entirely. We can only hope. But several anonymous insiders regarded as credible by the media have already stated that the Mets are on course to obtain another $200M in financing by selling between 10-20 small shares in the team. According to inside sources, the Mets are offering 3% interest on those minority stake investments. But with no path to ownership, it's tough to see the lure. The 3% gain is taxable. I'm too lazy to look this up, but I'm sure that our resident bonds expert Ashie --when he's feeling better -- could easily find some safe bond investments that pay 3% and are tax-free. And the potential new Mets investors will probably end up at the back of the line, way behind other better secured investors, should the Mets go belly up or declare bankruptcy, either by choice or involuntarily.

Nymr83 wrote: Here's a thought: Maybe the Mets held on to Reyes at last year's trading deadline, not because they intended to milk him for whatever he was worth through season's end, but because the Mets hoped to make a competitive offer for Reyes with money earmarked from Einhorn's doomed investment. If so, then it's likelier that it was Einhorn, and not the Mets, that broke off the $200M negotiations. Interesting thought. Probably something to that Thats a disturbing thought to me and, if true, would confirm our worst fears: that the decision to let Reyes go wasn't based on the belief that an oft-injured player whose game relies entirely on maintaining his current speed wasnt worth a 6 year risk, but was based on Wilpon's inability to afford the contract. Everything that we already know indicates virtually without doubt that the Mets couldn't afford Reyes at any reasonable price -- irrespective of my thoughts on the Einhorn deal, above.

From the Wilpons?

Here's a thought: Maybe the Mets held on to Reyes at last year's trading deadline, not because they only intended to milk him for whatever he was worth through season's end, but because the Mets hoped to make a competitive offer for Reyes with money earmarked from Einhorn's doomed investment. If so, then it's likelier that it was Einhorn, and not the Mets, that broke off the $200M negotiations.

I don't think any player's safe on the Mets. They're dangling Niese, and given his upside and low ML service time, (i.e. -- affordability and controllablity) you'd think that Niese is the type of player the Mets would wanna keep. I could see Davey Johnson's Mets pushing Niese ... but if these Mets are putting out feelers for Niese, they must have decided internally that they won't be competing for years. BTW, this is why I opined in another thread that Wright's time here is running out.

Edgy DC wrote: It all starts with Bay, I think. That's a solid meathouse if health prevails and if Bay finds something of his old form. It'll take pressure off the younger players, and give the Mets a shot to stand toe-to-toe and punch with anybody like a good Brewers team. As far as pitching, we'll probably have to cross a lot more fingers. Absolutely. Bay's been so underwhelming as a Met, that it's easy to forgot how much of a star he was when the Mets signed him. Five out of the Mets projected starting eight have shown that they can hit major league pitching quite well. Granted, those five now come with questionmarks (declining production, injuries, sample size) but it doesn't require a huge stretch of the imagination to envision the 2012 squad as one of the better hitting teams in the league.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: If the Mets allocated just $12-14M of this year's payroll to Reyes, they'd be relying on the Rule 5 draft to fill out the rest of their roster. Okay ... there's a little bit of sarcasm there, but not too much. And expecting Reyes to sign for $12-14M isn't reasonable, in any event. I know that I was the one who inserted the term "reasonable" into this conversation, but really, it's a moot point. Reyes was gonna get what he got, if not more, and the Mets can't pay that amount. And for all of Sandy's rationalizing, perhaps implying that Reyes at $17M-18M a year didn't make economic sense to the organization, the Mets couldn't afford to match Miami even if they privately wanted to. Anyway, what's done is done. I've moved on. And from here on out, only time will tell whether or not the Mets are ultimately better off without Reyes at Miami's price, or higher. _____________________ Here's Adam Rubin reporting yesterday that Alderson went into the Winter Meetings with a budget of about $10M-$15M: Alderson suggested early in the meetings that the Mets had about $10 million to $15 million to spend this winter on external additions. He committed nearly $10 million to Francisco and Rauch, seemingly leaving no more than $5 million and change remaining. http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/7331119/new-york-mets-leave-winter-meetings-new-bullpen Megdal also reported on the $10 million to $15 million budget two days before Rubin: So Jose Reyes is a Marlin, and the 2012 Mets payroll keeps shrinking, with general manager Sandy Alderson acknowledging that he only has around $10-15 million to spend on new acquisitions, even without the outlay of cash to the former Met shortstop. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2011/12/4511608/what-can-2012-mets-get-15-million-and-maybe-david-wright The Mets couldn't have reasonably expected to sign Reyes and fill out the rest of the 25 man roster with that budget. And given Alderson's repeated comments that the Mets 2012 payroll would be about the same with or without Reyes, that $10 million to $15 million is all Sandy was given to sign not only Reyes, but every other player the Mets would need to complete their 25 man roster. Reyes's statement that the Mets never made him an offer is credible. The Mets couldn't have made an offer for Reyes. The money wasn't there. Instead the Mets appear to have fabricated this scenario where they were monitoring the developing negotiations with an eye towards submitting their offer at the appropriate moment. Also from Rubin's article, here's the "projected" Mets lineup: Torres assumes the leadoff role that was otherwise begrudgingly slated to be turned over to Pagan. The rest of the projected lineup: Daniel Murphy batting second and playing second base, followed by third baseman David Wright, first baseman Ike Davis, left fielder Jason Bay, right fielder Lucas Duda, catcher Josh Thole and shortstop Ruben Tejada. (Though Rubin doesn't clarify whether the lineup's his projection, or the Mets)

Gwreck wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: And if they lost $70M last year, then why shouldn't they lose another $70M or so in 2012? Not paying Castillo, Perez and Gary Matthews Jr. will save about $20M? Your point holds though -- they can expect attendance/revenues to keep going down. You're right. I wrote fast, and forgot to factor the reduction in payroll. But there's every reason to believe that non-payroll losses should continue ... and even increase unless the Mets contend deep into the season. Isn't that why the Mets are cutting payroll drastically? To offset the other losses?

If the Mets allocated just $12-14M of this year's payroll to Reyes, they'd be relying on the Rule 5 draft to fill out the rest of their roster. Okay ... there's a little bit of sarcasm there, but not too much. And expecting Reyes to sign for $12-14M isn't reasonable, in any event. I know that I was the one who inserted the term "reasonable" into this conversation, but really, it's a moot point. Reyes was gonna get what he got, if not more, and the Mets can't pay that amount. And for all of Sandy's rationalizing, perhaps implying that Reyes at $17M-18M a year didn't make economic sense to the organization, the Mets couldn't afford to match Miami even if they privately wanted to. Anyway, what's done is done. I've moved on. And from here on out, only time will tell whether or not the Mets are ultimately better off without Reyes at Miami's price, or higher.

Drunken sailor contract or not, I said the Mets couldn't afford Reyes, even at reasonable rates. Their posture about waiting for other teams to set the market for Reyes before negotiating was an excuse not to make an offer. So as not to embarrass themselves and show how broke they are.

Wright's a goner. If Wright hasn't already played his last full season as a Met, then 2012 will be his last. The only thing that's keeping him here, IMO, is the organization's look wait-and-see if the Mets are in contention come middle of next season. Otherwise, this is a total teardown. The Mets are broke. And if they lost $70M last year, then why shouldn't they lose another $70M or so in 2012? I agree that given the structure of Wright's contract, he should be traded after the 2012 season, if at all ... but if the wright offer comes along ...

About a year ago, Baseball Prospectus's Kevin Goldstein wrote that Lucas Duda has the defensive range of lawn furniture. And though Duda has shown signs of big-time raking ability, he also proved Goldstein right, especially over Duda's last month or two of play. Duda's definitiely a work in progress with tremendous upside; it's also possible that in the outfield, Duda gives back everything he creates with his bat. He might be best suited for DH. 2011 oWAR 2.2 2011 dWAR (-1.4)

batmagadanleadoff wrote: So who's in Center? Torres? Is this what we got, for now? C Thole 1B Davis 2B Turner 3B Wright SS Tejada LF Bay CF Torres RF Duda

So who's in Center? Torres?

Did you know that Jon Rauch was once Baseball America's top minor league prospect, ahead of Albert Pujols? Capsule reviews on the Mets new acquisitions, from ESPN: Mets' flurry of relievers equals few wins DALLAS -- Unable to secure Jose Reyes, lacking the money to pursue a big name free agent, perhaps unwilling to trade David Wright and commit fully to a rebuilding project, the New York Mets instead turned to Plan D, or maybe Plan E or F, at the winter meetings: Collect a bunch of right-handed relievers for the bullpen. In a flurry of moves over an hour or so, the Mets signed relievers Frank Francisco (2 years, $12 million) and Jon Rauch (1 year, $3.5 million), and reportedly traded center fielder Angel Pagan to the San Francisco Giants for reliever Ramon Ramirez and outfielder Andres Torres. Frank Francisco got a two-year, $12-million deal to be the Mets' new closer, one of several New York moves. Certainly, bolstering the bullpen without blowing K-Rod money makes sense: In 2011, Mets' relievers posted a 4.33 ERA, 28th in the majors. Their .267 batting average allowed ranked 28th, their 24 blown saves ranked tied for 23rd (18 more than NL East rival Philadelphia) and their .344 on-base percentage allowed ranked 28th. They fared a little better in categories like strikeout rate and strikeout-to-walk ratio, but no matter how you slice it the pen wasn't good. A quick capsule of the players they acquired: Francisco: He'll assume the closer duties, relying on his 93- to 96-mph fastball and split-finger. He's solid if unspectacular and earned the coveted "closer" label primarily by lucking into the job with the 2009 Rangers. He was a flyball pitcher early in his career, but has increased his ground-ball percentage the past two seasons. The biggest concern is that he usually lands on the disabled list once or twice a season and hasn't pitched more than 52 innings in any of the past three years. So even if you make him the closer, you'll likely need a backup closer for 15-20 innings or so. Rauch: Once named Baseball America's top prospect in the minor leagues (ahead of Albert Pujols), Rauch will be joining his fifth team in five seasons. He's a serviceable middle guy who has closed at times (58 career saves), but has been pretty hittable in recent seasons: 256 hits in 251 innings since 2008, with just 197 strikeouts. He's also been prone to the long ball at various times in his career, including allowing 11 with the Blue Jays in just 52 innings last season. Frankly, I don't see Rauch as any improvement over currents Mets relievers Bobby Parnell, Pedro Beato, Tim Byrdak or Manny Acosta. He's mediocre depth, which I guess isn't the worst thing but doesn't exactly have Mets forgetting Jose Reyes. Ramirez and Torres: Pagan and Torres is an exchange of center fielders who played well in 2010, but poorly in 2011. Both were in danger of being non-tendered, although on Monday Mets manager Terry Collins had been talking about using Pagan as his leadoff hitter. The biggest issue with Pagan was that his defense notably slipped from 2010. Torres' bat is a question mark, but he'll draw walks and is a more consistent defender. Still, in the end he's nearly 34 with a career .244/.318/.403 line. He's not going to get better. Ramirez is a fastball/slider/changeup type with a career ERA of 3.16 over five-plus seasons. He was terrific in his year-plus with the Giants and there's no reason to necessarily assume it was home-park effect -- he dominated on the road in 2011, with a .157 average allowed. So, yes, the Mets now have eight or nine relievers to choose from. The Mets were 67-6 when leading after eight innings and 60-10 when leading after seven innings. Those don't seem like high totals, but actually are worse than the league average, so even though there's nothing flashy in these three relievers, the bullpen should be a few wins better in 2012. Sorry, Mets fans: We mean 4-5 wins or so, not 10 or 12. That's an important improvement, sure, but only a small step if the Mets wish to contend in an NL East that could end up being much tougher in 2012. While blowing fewer late-innings leads will certainly be less frustrating, the big question remains: How many late-inning leads will they have? http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/19020/mets-flurry-of-relievers-equals-few-wins

Edgy DC wrote: You know, for 24 hours, Pagan was (according to Terry) our designated leadoff hitter. Now we're down to Tejada (despite his youth and any reluctance the team may have in putting him even more in Reyes' shadow); orMurphy (despite his general relative lack of speed, post-op gimpiness, and lack of demonstrated baserunning acumen); orTorres (despite his questionable on-base skills). Nieuewnhius may come fast. Reyes' absence might expose Terry Collins as another in an uninterrupted line of wee ball ****bunters. White Willie sez: the Mets would miss Pagan ... but said he ... would use the speedy [34 year old to be] Torres [lifetime OBP - .318; 2011 OBP - .312] in the leadoff spot, where Pagan would have played. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/sports/baseball/mlb-baseball-roundup-mets-winter-meetings-bullpen.html

As far as predicting the impact that the Marlins' new stadium will have on attendance, my baseball friends in the Miami area (ed., small sample size) have always maintained that Miami's rain storms, brief but regular, more than anything else is what's kept fans away from the game. So we'll see if they were right what with Miami's new retractable roof. As far as games played by Reyes over the next seven years, wouldn't it make a difference if he lands on the DL for 50 or 60 games next season as opposed to, say, six years out?

Do you suppose that that commercial about the dry erase board rules and no more cantaloupe will still be in the SNY rotation come 2012?

Now we have to sign Chris Young so we can stand Young and Rauch back to back to see who's the tallest Met ever. I'd pose Young and Rauch with Herrera's head poking out from behind the two of them. And the midgets' heads poking out from behind Herrera.

Like any of this is gonna matter. Now me, I'd go after Tim Wakefield and after that, a bunch of midgets. Channel Bill Veeck. Have Jeff Wilpon sit in that booth near the Shake Shack where fans can "dunk him into the pool" by hitting the target. Maybe slip a piranha into the pool once in a while. But never more than one piranha. Otherwise, Jeff'll catch on eventually. Turn the infield running paths into a moat when Miami visits. I'm talkin' like high tide moatness. That'll sell some tickets!

So you're guessing that the Mets offered 106 with incentives before Miami guaranteed 106? You could be right. It's a logical guess. But nobody reported it like that, yet.

Edgy DC wrote: Megdal is also pimping a new anti-Wilpon book. Good. Fans need to hear the other side of this agenda driven drivel that the Wilpons are good guy competent baseball owners. Enough with the dragging out of Sandy Koufax every coupl'a months for some good ole Fred tales.

Sandy said on Mets Hot Stove last night that the Mets offered Jose a incentive-based package that would have paid as much as the Marlins will pay him, but only if Jose remained healthy. I don't know when (or if) that offer may have been made, but that's what Sandy said. What i had hoped and suggested the Mets do was to make such a contingent offer such that, if healthy, Jose would make alot MORE than the Marlins offered. It's not enough to offer contingent money = guaranteed money. And i totally understand Jose turning it down for guaranteed money. I think, ultimately, Sandy will be proved right about Reyes' value in the long run, but in the short run its a PR disaster for the team, and whats going on now is just spin for the sake of damage control. If the Mets contingent and incentive laden offer merely matched, in money, Miami's guaranteed offer, then the Mets essentially didn't offer Reyes anything. It was a Bizarro Godfather offer: We'll make him an offer he has to refuse. (Because we can't afford him at anything near market and this way, maybe we fool some fans into thinking we made an effort).

I don't know who Hank McCoy is, but I like that post.

I did that post-61 stats only team leaders research a few months ago, on this very thread. The Mets are also dead last in runs scored.