Frayed Knot

Lowe not impressed with the Met offer - and will continue to look around according to the NYPost and several other sources. Thing is, it's unclear if anyone will top the Met "Lowe-ball" offer of 3x$12 - the Phils are reportedly reluctant to overspend, and Boston & the Yanx are probably done pitcher-wise, at least as far as long-term solutions go. But get this ... An industry source says that Boras has told the Mets there's a mystery team in the mix!!!!. (now who could have seen THAT one coming?) So it looks like this may become a game of chicken, a game made all the more interesting by the fact that Boras also represents Ollie - the guy who's supposedly choice B in the NYM pitching plans. The Daily News chimes in with a story about how maybe more than one FA pitcher is possible depending on the price. That probably won't mean Ollie AND Lowe, but maybe one of them plus one of the lower-priced hurlers like Garland, Wolf, or Pedro. Also says that the Mets have had preliminary discussions w/Boras concerning Perez.

Cubs 2B Mark DeRosa - long rumored as part of a Jake Peavy trade - dealt to Cleveland for a trio of minor league pitchers.

Not low, but lower than they'd be under a true open market -- and yet the NFL with its hard cap and often elusive FA system has still managed to be the sport to virtually invent and exploit things like seat licensing and mandatory pre-season buys.

Also factor in whether Nady/Swisher adequately replaces Abreu. In addition to Wang they also get back Posada - providing he can still catch regularly of course. That was a huge blow as he missed virtually the entire year after having a career season in 2007. Also were without Matsui for much of the time although he's getting to be increasingly mediocre as is probably nothing more than a 4x/week DH this year.

="soupcan":388olj2s]I'd love to see Boras get his comeuppance as well but it just doesn't happen.[/quote:388olj2s] It does occasionally. A couple years back he was telling anyone who would listen that he had a multiple 5-year offers for Kenvin Millwood at something like $15 per. Millwood eventually settled for a one-year arbitration settlement for around $10 or so. And there have been others as well - usually with smaller/mid-range clients. It's the big boys who generate most of the publicity and those are the ones he hits on - but, of course, it's a lot easier when you've got the goods. What remains to be seen here is whether this year is going to be a downward trend after several years of rapidly rising salaries like happened a few years ago following the 1999-2001 spending boom. So far the only player for whom there was a serious bidding war was Teixeira. Sabathia certainly got a chunk of change but it's not clear whether than was necessary, and guys like F Rodriguez got a whole lot less than what was suspected even 2-3 months ago. Centerfield Dec 31 2008 08:24 AM ="soupcan":1gdt0nu9]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy.[/quote:1gdt0nu9] Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? metsmarathon Dec 31 2008 08:41 AM i only hate him when players i want the mets to get have him as their agent, and that drags out the process of signing said player, and typically means that, if we do get said player, its at a higher cost and because we offered the most money (as opposed to the fictional world i wish to live in where free agents choose the mets not for the most money but because they're the awesomest destination, and do so cheaply and before christmas). soupcan Dec 31 2008 08:45 AM ="Centerfield"]="soupcan"]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? I suppose its not him I hate but rather the escalating salaries that continue to move the players and the game farther away from the fan. As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game. Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 08:50 AM ="soupcan":f7bp71p6]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:f7bp71p6] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise Centerfield Dec 31 2008 09:08 AM ="soupcan"]="Centerfield"]="soupcan"]As a fan I hate him, but if I were an athlete he'd be my guy. Why do you hate him as a fan? As an owner or GM, he might be the scum of the earth, but do fans really have a rooting interest in negotiations between player and team? I suppose its not him I hate but rather the escalating salaries that continue to move the players and the game farther away from the fan. As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game. So you're saying you don't hate the playa, you hate the game. Benjamin Grimm Dec 31 2008 09:14 AM One reason not to like Boras: He represents Mike Pelfrey. If Pelfrey continues to develop into the pitcher we'd like him to be, we have little to no hope that he'll sign a contract like Wright and Reyes did. He'll do the arbitration thing each year that he can, and then he'll test the market. It makes it just a teeny bit harder to get attached to a home-grown player. attgig Dec 31 2008 10:29 AM ="Edgy DC":6u8g9kac]="soupcan":6u8g9kac]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:6u8g9kac] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise[/quote:6u8g9kac] not only demand, but supply. all these new ballparks have less seats. friggin owners. BUT, I would love to see how ticket prices changed from before Free Agency to the early nineties (when contracts started going into the millions). soupcan Dec 31 2008 10:58 AM ="Edgy DC":2ijnmyx6]="soupcan":2ijnmyx6]As a fan though - the higher the salary, the higher the operating costs of the team, the higher the cost of watching or going to a game.[/quote:2ijnmyx6] I don't believe that for a minute. Prices are driven by demand, not by salary expenses. Don't let the owners convince you otherwise[/quote:2ijnmyx6] I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor. ="Centerfield":2ijnmyx6]So you're saying you don't hate the playa, you hate the game.[/quote:2ijnmyx6] Word. Edgy DC Dec 31 2008 11:14 AM ="soupcan":osy3ctu2]I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor.[/quote:osy3ctu2] I don't think they mean a thing. All the restraints of a salary cap haven't made basketball and football tickets any more affordable. soupcan Dec 31 2008 11:29 AM ="Edgy DC":r44vyrx7]="soupcan":r44vyrx7]I don't mean to say that salaries are the only thing but they are a significant contributing factor.[/quote:r44vyrx7] I don't think they mean a thing. All the restraints of a salary cap haven't made basketball and football tickets any more affordable.[/quote:r44vyrx7] It's not like their salary caps have kept those other sports salaries low either though. Frayed Knot Dec 31 2008 12:07 PM Not low, but lower than they'd be under a true open market -- and yet the NFL with its hard cap and often elusive FA system has still managed to be the sport to virtually invent and exploit things like seat licensing and mandatory pre-season buys.

Beats the hell out of both the asking price (5x$18) and the widely rumored price (4x$15). Maybe we wind up getting trumped here, but I'd have trouble going more than 3 years. Guess that's what they mean by 'Going Lowe' on a bid.

They're kicking off at 6PM Thursday with the Larsen perfect game - apparently shown as it was shown then, including the commercials and everything. Mushnick's remarks from a column last week is that the now-ancient telecast is, at the same time, both better (2-hour game, limited crowd shots, no graphics overload, sideline reporters, etc.) and worse (no replays and other technology) than broadcasts of today.

Beating up a DJ is like the guy who shot someone in a movie theatre the other day for yapping too much: either may be justifiable depending on the specifics.

Dodgers reportedly batting their eyelashes in the direction of Adam Dunn, a move that, if made, would almost shirley erase Manny from their radar screens. Sumthin tells me that the Boras/Manny camp 'make-em-sweat' strategy of not returning those Dodger phone calls when the 2yrs/$45 deal was on the table is going to come back and bite them. Y'know Scott, sometimes feigning indifference by assuming that the better prom date is right around the corner will leave you home alone with a 4-pack of Bartles & James and the year 1 'Dawson's Creek' DVD.

But not odd.

="SteveJRogers":2f7n2l1e]Well, it was odd, and technically a Met "story" since the arguments center around the public paying for Citi Field from tax handouts and the Citigroup bailout, which really haven't been reported much (the Yankees have been) and discussed on other forums. So yeah it belongs in this thread.[/quote:2f7n2l1e] Making up and/or exaggerating shit then basing pre-determined conclusions around those reaches of logic does not = 'Odd' Yes there are roads, parking, and other "infrastructure" where NYC is footing the bill to help both stadiums defray costs. I don't like it, but those type of deals are made for all kinds of businesses on a regular basis so let's not act like we've uncovered the 'Pentagon Papers' here. ... plus, none of that means that the entire project "free" to the Wilpons ... nor does it mean that the Citi naming rights money is any different from any other advertising income ... nor does it mean that the bailout money makes each Citicorp transaction part of the public domain ... and it certainly doesn't mean all that because some whining asshole on some website somewhere wants to pretend it's that way simply so he can scratch some anti-Wilpon itch he's got deep in his shorts. Edgy DC Dec 30 2008 07:29 AM Wow, Steve bringing an argument from some other forum here just so he can disown it when it gets shot full of holes. That's new. Frayed Knot Dec 30 2008 09:08 AM But not odd. metsguyinmichigan Dec 30 2008 09:19 AM ="Edgy DC":264sqpks]Wow, Steve bringing an argument from some other forum here just so he can disown it when it gets shot full of holes. That's new.[/quote:264sqpks] I don't know. The guys on the iheartjeter.com forum said he was making some good points over there and that the guys on the Crane Pool Forum are just a bunch of haters who don't appreciate Steve or the Cap'n for all their intangibles. But over on the marianoisnotakiller.com boards they posted that Steve knows what he's talking about and the posters in the CPF should keep their Mets-loving pie-holes shut, and that it's common for people to electrify their pools and people should test the water first and we should just get over it. Now I'm not saying I agree with any of that, just saying what was posted.... Sorry, Steve. Just having some fun.

"I just had to do it since they have some rather trollish anti-Wilpon folks over there that I just had to share it over here" No you didn't.

IOW, what Noble is delicately saying is that the batch of Kool-aid someone seems to be feeding Olney is long past its expiration date. ]$22.1 million on Jones' $36.2 million, four-year contract. Holy bronze gloves Batman, that's even more than I thought!!!

="SteveJRogers"]An under reported story of how the Wilpons aren't paying a single cent for Citi Field They're not? Not one? ]... based on their "share" coming from Citigroup's naming rights Since when does that cover the entire amount? ]which is now the public, no it isn't ]and how one Baseball-Fever.com poster seems intent on demolishing Citi Field and rebuilding Shea Stadium because of it. Well then I take it all back, that certainly makes it the story of the year.

]but in 2010 and 2011, Andruw could be more useful to us... Except that with the money being more or less equal - and it sort of is: $15 for AJ vs $18 for LC - it doesn't really matter if they spend it all in one year or spread it out over three. Actually, it's probably better spread out so there's not the same pressure to play the guy just based on the contract. Jerry sat the ailing Castillo down the stretch last year. Could he do the same with a player paid 2.5x as much that his GM just traded for? Plus, if Castillo bounces to to even close to what he was for like 8 of the last 9 seasons, then his pay for the final two years is more in line with his output and/or can be dealt without having to eat the entire thing. He was still useful as recently as the back-half of 2007. With Jones, unless he performs some sort of miraculous turnaround, it looks like every penny spent on him is useless.

Castillo is more useful to us at this point than is Andruw.

="Centerfield"]I'm not sure what relevance Delgado's three years before joining the Mets has to this discussion. His three years since joining the Mets have been inconsisitent. Only in that we'd risk falliing into the same trap of paying someone for their past performance while getting an aging/declining version - at which point we'd blame Omar for assembling a great 2006 All-Star lineup only doing so for the 2010 season and, Jeez how did he not he see that one coming?!? Delgado, in his three years leading up to the Met trade, was nearly as dominant offensively as Manny has been over his last three and now we question whether he's worth holding onto for half what we're proposing to throw at ManRam. Yeah Manny's better, but he's also more volatile, misses more games, and is older to the point where he'd be more likely to decline faster than the decline we've seen from Carlos. And, like Carlos only maybe moreso, it's not like there's a reservoir of other skills to make him worthwhile once the bat starts to slide towards less-killer status. ]The reason I advocated dumping Delgado was because of this idea that we were "set" at first base. I wanted to pursue Texiera because he was the best option available. If we got him, we wouldn't need Delgado and would have to trade him for something valuable or, at the very least, clear his salary. I don't object to the idea of dealing Delgado (particularly for Teixeira). I've said before that it's worth a look if for no other reason that because he represents the best balance between those I'd consider at least close to untouchable (our SS, 3B & CF) and those we have with lesser or no value (our catchers, 2Bmen, and corner OFs) ]Now, since [the Teixeira] option is gone, the next best option is to get Manny. It's a bigger risk than Texiera because of his age and intangibles, but it's a shorter commitment, and fits the Mets' needs position-wise a bit better. The more money, poor fielding, questionable attitude make him a less attractive option than Tex, but since he's the best thing available, and there doesn't be much of a bidding war to get him, I want him on my team. What I'm questioning is what I consider the overly enthusiastic offers being made here with talk of the likes of 3 years and $25/per. I'd balk at 2x$20 and would prefer to keep it to one year.

So is that the hockey gf that was subject to the 'sloppy seconds' talk of a few weeks back? Cuthbert, or whatever?

="Edgy DC"]Thing is that Ollie costs us a pick also, because by signing him the Mets sacrifice the pick that would be coming back to them as compensation. That's one way of looking at it. Two picks actually: the one they'd get from a signing team plus the supp. ]Question is: if the Mets sign Lowe, do they give up their second rounder to the Dodgers, even if the team grabbing Ollie gives them a first rounder? Or do the Dodgers get that pick instead of the Mets sloppy seconds? Signing Lowe means that the team with the better rated FA between Rodriguez & Lowe (I'm assuming it's KRod) would get the Met 1st round pick while the other gets our 2nd rounder. See also the discussion in the Teixeira thread. Whatever picks a team gains from losing a FA are untouchable by other teams. ="Seo"]Lowe is a type A FA and would cost us a supplemental because our #1 already goes to the Angels for Rodriguez. Not quite - see above or re-read Noble. Supplemental picks are just that, extra picks gained for losing a FA or not signing a draft pick from the last draft, and they're not subject to being lost. The Mets would lose their 2nd rounder for inking Lowe in addition to their 1st for Rodriguez. On the other hand they'd gain [Team X's] 1st or 2nd round pick (subject to several conditions) plus a supplemental if Ollie walks so it would come out pretty much even. Hypothetical: - Mets lose 1st round pick (~#25) to Angels for KRod - Mets lose 2nd round pick (~#70?) to Dodgers for Lowe - Mets gain 1st or 2nd from Team X (as low as #16, maybe as high as #80) for losing Ollie plus a supplemental (#35-ish) Keeping Ollie and making no other compensation-required FA signings means only the 1st round loss to LAA

Penny for your Sox ... Brad Penny to Boston for 1 yr/$5mil -- pending a physical which could yet throw a wrench into the works. As mentioned elsewhere, this could keep them from chasing the likes of Lowe, Wolf, Ollie, etc. thus reducing the demand pool by one more team.

Depends on the deal obviously. If available for reasonable terms (the definition of which varies between the three pitchers) I'd go Perez - Lowe - Wolf in that order.

X-Rockie, X-Astro OFer Wily Tavarez signs a two-year deal with Cincy. He's good at stealing bases and also .... ummmm, I'll think of something. And Kevin Mensch heads for Japan. The Japanese just might get a look at his monsterously huge head and add a second rising sun to their flag. I think that thing has its own gravitational pull.

A look at the (very) young Met prospect from Adam Rubin's blog (NYDN): As a 14-year-old at the Agua Linda Academy in Valencia, Venezuela, Wilmer Flores already stood out against players preparing to sign contracts as international free agents, belting 90 mph fastballs at the young age and clearing a 300-foot wall to the opposite field. Organizers at the academy were so impressed with Flores� arm, they debated grooming him for professional baseball as a pitcher before opting for shortstop. Flores, still so young that his childhood braces remain on his teeth, signed with the Mets in 2007 for $750,000. He has drawn comparisons to Miguel Cabrera. Flores became the youngest player to ever represent the short-season Brooklyn Cyclones when he finished the 2008 season in the New York-Penn League. Flores proved to be a dangerous hitter in the rookie-level Appalachian League because of his pitch-recognition skills, which once even led Danville to intentionally walk him with runners at first and second. Facing a lot of 20- and 21-year-old pitchers, he carried himself like an older player, whereas many teens would have been free swingers. Flores� patience improved as the season progressed. He began taking more pitches, getting a sense of the pitcher�s approach against him and began to look for the offspeed pitches - which he steadily received. Flores has a plus-arm at shortstop, though he doesn't flash it on routine plays. Kingsport manager Pedro Lopez had to teach the teenager how to dive for balls because Flores was so young. Scouts weren�t impressed with the speed of his first step, and timed him at 4.6 seconds down the line. A lack of range at shortstop might be partly explained by fatigue because of playing every day at his age, except for a brief interruption after tweaking a hamstring. Flores did show a tendency to expand the strike zone on pitches up. He predominantly pulled the ball. "He expands his zone a bit, and he likes to hit early in counts, but he makes it work,� one scout said. �I saw him hit some crazy pitches. He's the best guy I saw in the league.� The combination of Jose Reyes as the Mets� long-term shortstop and Flores� power potential and growing body size could result in him eventually moving to third base or a corner outfield spot, though the Mets typically leave their shortstops and center fielders at those positions until close to their big-league promotions. Just 17 years old, he�ll likely begin in the low-A South Atlantic League, though he could find himself as high as Double-A Binghamton by his 18th birthday. �Some people say, �I don�t know if he�s a shortstop.� He�s going to be playing shortstop until he shows cannot play shortstop or he outgrows it,� said Tony Bernazard, the Mets� VP for player development. �This kid is 6-3, 175 pounds. He shows good actions at shortstop, good instincts. He�s advanced in terms of the anticipation of the game.�

'Randy Johnson is a Giant' is somewhat of a redundant headline. He's probably been called that since he was in the 4th grade. On the other hand, there must have been plenty in in the Castro district of SF who were excited to hear that someone called 'The Big Unit' was coming to their city.

And the last of the teams getting screwed by the Yanx signing Teixeira winds up being Milwaukee, plus, to a lesser extent, Toronto. With Sabathia, Burnett, & Teixeira all being Type-A FAs, obviously only one team can get the Yanx 1st round pick (mid-20s somewhere) in next June's draft. That team turns out to be the Angels based on Teixeira being the top-rated of all those FAs. Sabathia ranks next so the Brews get the Yanx 2nd rounder, while Toronto gets their 3rd round choice (probably up above pick #100) as compensation for losing Burnett. All three teams also get supplemental picks (in the same order I believe) after the end of the first round. So those Brew fans who consoled themselves by figuring they'd get a top-25 pick and a top-40 out of losing big CC wind up with one in the mid-60s or so to go along with the top-40. Oh well.