Ceetar

Edgy MD wrote: Why is "reporting" in quotes? because 99% of the posts/tweets/links on it are literally just regurgitating and provide no additional context or even speculation.

all the McCutchen talk is basically that it's going nowhere though, and that the Mets might prefer a FA. And somehow writers fail to mention Lorenzo Cain when 'reporting' this.

well it's always depended how you spin the spun comments. There was a 'new' report of just $10 million avail yesterday too. And then I saw something today about taking on salary in trades to make up for not having as many prospects. We heard earlier in the offseason about the Mets preferring bigger annual value to longer term deals for relievers. My rounding it all out makes me think that Sandy is both prepared to spend as little as 10 and as much as 30-40 depending on the guy/deals. If he can get the costlier guys that he thinks are worth it, he will, but otherwise he'll value shop and be prepared to swap in and out later.

Nymr83 wrote: Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: not able to run it as it deserves. lol. it's their business. it's a business. they can run it anyway they want and _it_ and _us_ deserve literally nothing. They can run it the way they want, but I don't agree that the fans don't deserve better. MLB grants the Mets the sole (or in this case, dual with the Yankees) rights to a very large and potentially lucrative market. If the Mets current owners dont plan to do right by the fans, MLB should threaten to allow a team to move to Brooklyn or North Jersey, in the best interests of baseball. Not that we have necessarily reached that point. But MLB should be thinking of the fans happiness as being in the overall best interest of the game. well 1, the Mets are doing "right" by MLB. I'm pretty sure they're not unhappy with the Wilpons. And 2, letting a team move into their backyard, even if they were magically a rich and prosperous team that would spend 200m (they won't), would only really benefit the Mets, as it'd just be another set of rivalry games for higher attention and attendance. Attendance is such a small part of the picture these days anyway. It'd almost definitely be a 'rising tide lifts all boats' things, though I doubt either the Mets or the Yankees would sign off on it.

Zvon wrote: Hey Ceets, is your avatar from one of the Final Fantasy vid games? I just completed FF1 and am currently playing FF2 on an emulator. I got the FF2 bootlegged version that was canceled here in the states and only released in Japan until some later anniversary issue. I've only ever played the one released on Sega Genesis, I think it was FF7. I'm gonna run thru 'em all, in order, over the next year or so. These early versions are great, glitches and all. But FF2 was a serious departure and bombed in Japan. It tasks me sometimes, but I am enjoying it. It's from Dragon Warrior/Dragon Quest. I've played FF1,4,6,7,8,9.. and then sorta ran out of time. I'll get back to them. FF1 rocks. i've messed around with 2 and 3, but never finished them. I think I rented 2 once from Blockbuster when that was a thing and got pretty far along, but that was it. No final fantasy was on Sega. Nintendo only until 7, which was on PS1.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: not able to run it as it deserves. lol. it's their business. it's a business. they can run it anyway they want and _it_ and _us_ deserve literally nothing.

well, to pay Danny Meyer, buy hot dogs, staff workers, etc. that $110 per is what a fan spends, not the profit margin.

I'm on team "it's own identity" over just calling them the Mets. they're not the Mets, they're players that want to be the Mets. can keep sky chiefs though.

I mean, Duda is better than Hosmer. Logan Morrison is not good. Dominic Smith might still be the best choice, and the Mets don't intend to block him.

Well Harvey is first up for free agency, so his situation is more immediate. but there were definite hard calls for the Mets to extend at least 3 of those pitchers to big long term contracts years ago.

Centerfield wrote: Offer it now. Two years, $24 million. For years 2019 and 2020. If he bounces back, the deal could be a steal. If not, well, I doubt they are contending then anyway. why would he take that? He'd basically have to think he's done and it's his last paycheck. even a middling season and he's getting three times that, if not nearly that much just for 2019 on a QO from the Mets. maybe you could get him on 3/45. 2018-2020 but you'd probably need the last one to be a mutual option.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: What star level CF are we talking about here? I'd go get him if I knew who you were talking about. That guy. the fish one.

Cuomo mentions this in the State of the State, says they'll be the Syracuse Mets but like, immediately? or in 2019 when the Mets actually take over? Or is he just stating, in the state of the state, what we already know, that the Mets have agreed to terms? That seems more likely.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Well, one of those moves was bringing the best power hitter in baseball aboard.As for 85 wins, the Yanks will probably fly past that in early September. The Mets, unless they make some major moves, won't see it at all. The Mets essentially brought back the 2016 team that won 87 games in 2017. That team won 70 games. So now they're essentially bringing THAT team back in 2018, less all the power hitters except Yo. So while the Yankees may have uncertainty, I'd prefer that to the certainty that the Mets will bite a corn dog in 2018. I'd take the under on the Yankees, and over on the Mets, based on rough roster expectations. The Yankees 'bought high' on Stanton. 6.9 fWAR was a career high, but fine. Gregorious was worth 3.9. Headley was 1.9. Those are the salaries they shed to be able to fit in Stanton, but the net gain wasn't huge, if anything. And it's not like they just reached out and grabbed Machado to play third there, they're talking about giving Frazier more time, they brought back CC on a one year deal, which feels like going to the well one too many times. Their infield and rotation are suspect. They're hardly a juggernaut. Meanwhile the Mets that 'brought back the same team' did not truthfully do that thanks to injury, and won't again in 2018 where top prospects Rosario and Smith are set to feature. Sure, they could be duds, or they could be assets. They have two healthy aces and lots of potential for a third or fourth or fifth at least above average pitchers and some live bullpen arms and some flexibility there. Let's not get all woe is me just yet.

Centerfield wrote: 4. Future Options: Let's humor your hypothetical. Both teams end up with 85 wins and miss the playoffs. The Mets are at $145 and the MFY's are at $195. Who is in a better position going forward? It depends. How high can the Mets go? How high can the Yankees go? If they can both go to $230M, then the Mets are better positioned. But if the Yankees can go to $230M, and the Mets max out at $155M, then the Yankees are better positioned. It's a simple concept. Whoever can spend more has the advantage. we know how high the Yankees can go. 197 or so. whatever the cap is. They've very clearly made that point this offseason. How high can the Mets go? probably about 155, in that scenario, as it seems unlikely revenue will drastically increase off an 85 win season. Unless it's just some weird fluke where Rosario and Smith are awesome in the second half but it's too little too late and everyone's dreaming big and excited. then maybe 165? But in this scenario the Mets don't even need that much, and aren't losing that much.

Centerfield wrote: Think of the absurdity of our situation. In other cities, the owners are criticized for artificially limiting their payrolls to $197 million. Revenues are soaring, but player salaries are capped. This is greedy and unfair. In Flushing, the Mets have one of the highest revenues in baseball. But they went "over-budget" at $155 million, and are threatening to reduce payroll further. as long as we're continually beating a dead horse, I still can't figure out if we're asserting the Mets are cheap or broke. And you seem determined to convince the Mets to carry $30 million in dead/crappy contracts just because they should be able to, which ultimately would put them in a similar group as the cap scrapers. Remember that the Yankees are desperately shedding payroll to try to make moves. They have to get creative to make things happen because they have no wiggle room. If both teams end up at 85 wins and 3 games out of the playoffs this season, it's hard not to prefer the Mets future options if they're at $145 and the Yankees are at $195. I mean, the Mets payroll HAS gone up, and then they hit this window where a lot of stuff expired at once. Thanks to not having to pay minor leaguers and restrictive 6 year initial contract agreements it is in fact possible to transition (some) roster spots to cheap players and not actually lose anything production wise.

Centerfield wrote: Bay was one of the top free agents that year but it was a shit class. Very rare that you can entice an elite hitter to jump ship on a four year deal. The stats on Bay were pretty good. Relatively young, .921 OPS, All Star, 7th in MVP voting. Sometimes it just doesn’t work out. I don’t think any of us could have imagined it going so badly. He suffered a concussion right? One has to wonder how much of an effect that had. Basically ruined Ryan Church. I'd be surprised if it wasn't the concussion. I think he had a second one a little later too. Baseball's tough. I'd say signing Johan after having the pitching blow the season was clearly a good move, and signing Bay after an injury-plagued low-power season was certainly a reasonable play, though I suspect it's one a GM not up against the rails doesn't make. The 'best' choice for the Mets in 2019 will depend a lot on how 2018 goes. Maybe Dozier's the better target, or maybe pitching. And the best options might not end up working out, for whatever reason.

Nymr83 wrote: Yeah, when they sign Harper/Machado all will be forgiven. But when was the last time the Mets signed the top free agent? Beltran? It was a tossup between Jason Bay and Matt Holliday as the 'top' free agent according to some. Bay was technically 3rd on MLB Trade Rumors. Not that I'm expecting Machado or Harper but even some of the other guys in 'need' spots are tantalizing and worth keeping a financial eye on.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Maybe they're holding back this year so that they can go big for someone like Bryce Harper next year. I really don't think that's the case, but who knows? Maybe? I mean, this offseason sucks and next one is full of huge names. it was be irresponsible not to at least factor that into the budget, complaints about the size of that budget aside.

It's not irresponsible to ponder if immediately spending all the 'expiring contract' money in one go is the right way to approach things. I suspect Sandy feels the same, payroll constraints aside. pipe dream to expect one-time payments/profits to be applied to a budget. Maybe, maybe, if there was an obvious one time/one year expense. like a 20m payment to Japan for the rights to Ohtani, which they lost on. Otherwise, seems unlikely. Best case we can hope for is that it was directly applied to debt that lowers future expenditures and hence raises revenue/payroll in future seasons.

All about the Wallbangers. The text has that 'GAME OVER' screen feel to it (I can hear the words, You Don't Know Jack style, being plastered onto the loss) , and makes the focus Harvey looking dejectedly out to the outfield. Booze joke. Wallbanger, though not technically what was going on, is pretty descriptive of what was going on. The Cespedes photo is just bad. It's from the back, focused on his butt. It's the afterswing with is the most boring part of the home run unless there's a flip. Trespedes is a stupid word. The Harvey head is oddly placed and is an unnecessary 'we need to put the bad news in here' addition. You get the neat 'larger than life' feel by having the bat/head outside the borders but then cover it up with too much text and a crappy picture.

Perhaps this was/is just phase one of DePo's plan. full rebuild or whatnot.

Ashie62 wrote: I see zero Mets rumors & such on the interweb. I feel like the owners have the cloak of invisibility. I am very frustrated. then you're not looking. the Mets have been linked to a ton of players.

dgwphotography wrote: This - the Wilponzis figured they could lessen the supply, and be able to charge what they wanted with what they thought would be an increased demand. As a former member here once said, the stadium has great views, of the advertisements. I also remember a story of Jeffrey either moving the signage along the front of the Promenade, or making it larger, where it affected the views from the front of the section. Everything about the Wilponzis is about maximizing every last cent, while only giving us the appearance of contending... I mean, that's true of every team. The Steinbrenners just maximize every last cent a little better, or timed their late 90s success with the success of the league and the economy and all that, and got out ahead of the recession. And their sketchy investment deals were of the legal kind. presumably. The Promenade club is a joke, you have a window but you pretty much can't see the field/plate. But it's because of the camera wells I think. That club should probably be raised up about 3 steps worth and it'd be way better. Hell, if you want to be fun, raise it up a whole story, put a floor up above the promenade food court area, and make it a giant bar from which you can stand in front and watch the game.

the chief problems with the stadium are/were that they opened it undecorated and then decorated it in roughly the most unimaginative way because they're extremely dull people. Also that they chopped about 12k seats off because who needs cheap seats? This was a mistake Yankee Stadium made too, and failure and the recession pretty much corrected it, but I imagine both owners were imagining the cheapest seat being 50-100+ with maybe a few thousand $20 seats thrown in just to appease the masses. There also aren't enough escalators.