Ceetar

Edgy MD wrote: It's not like 2017 was the sum total of his tenure. And the system isn't bare so much as it was in a growing cycle his first few years, and has been pruned the last three. We are hitting a dead spot, though perhaps it's injury related, but even so, it's on him. Of course, we could be talking about the Mets rich farm system next year. It's hard to take some of these things too seriously, when there's so much variation and randomness. I'm fine with an Alderson extension though, though I guess 2018 will tell us a lot.

let's not blame the bull here. He got scared and fell down in the vicinity of a bull.

if Ramos gets Kipnis, you do it.

I know he ran the team 15 years ago, but I really don't want to hear anything from Steve Phillips, especially not this tongue bathing.

Also, don't worry, the Trump tax breaks will undoubtedly benefit the Wilpons immensely and they'll obviously reinvest those savings in the Mets, just like all the big corporations will reinvest in their product and employees.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Who the hell even cares? I mean, what the hell is the point of all of this? That the Wilpons are OK because the 7Line Guy sez so? Maybe we should ask Jeff Wilpon's mom what she thinks of the Wilpons, next. How even old is the 7Line Guy? Twenty? What? His shilling opinion counts more than yours because he sells Mets t-shirts? No, the point is, and Darren's point, is that his opinion means basically nothing and asking him to chime in (and let's be honest, you/they're asking him to chime in with a very specific message that may or may not be his own. But I guess that's okay if he's not the owner right?) because you want him on your side in some fan revolt thing is not his game.

no one's throwing up a mission accomplished banner for Adrian Gonzalez, if they sign him it'd be to compete for the 2nd backup infielder bench spot.

Centerfield wrote: And it really is amazing how your reaction to everything is to justify and spin. You see liars and you’re drawn to them. You have this irresistible urge to give them a cover story. Me, I just see a guy who hated the Wilpons, got a licensing deal and shut the hell up to protect his bottom line. The licensing deal came so so much later. He hadn't been selling the 'sell the team' shirt for years before that. the brand changed. Darren doesn't suddenly like the Wilpons, but he did go from fooling around with the t-shirt thing to fully investing in it. And he has addressed it, multiple times. He was a never a rebel leader making shirts in rebellion, it was just a shirt someone suggested, he made it, and they moved on to focus the brand into something else. The same applies to the 'voice of the fans' thing. He's NOT the voice of some fan advocacy group looking out for everyone's best interest, he's just the founder and owner of a t-shirt company that morphed into a group outing close-knit group thing. Some of it, much of it, more out of his control than anything. The licensing deal is with MLB though, not the Mets. (And New Era?) I guess they could pull strings, and certainly pull the kiosk, but it's not like they're Mets employees. It's a loud, vocal, and organized group of Mets fans, but that's it. one group.

Edgy MD wrote: With Conforto himself downplaying Opening Day hopes less than a week ago, I think it's a smarter assumption that he'll be out. The lineup certainly matches up with the Cards a lot better with Conforto in the cleanup spot and Smitty knocked down to sixth. Well he hadn't even started the next step yet anyway, it was just the company line. was 4-6 months if I recall, and I think that took him to mid March? Of course there could be minor setbacks but it just seems they're playing it slow until they have more info and know how he's feeling and how full a Spring he gets. But Opening Day is outside the recovery window.

I'd pencil in Conforto if I was making up a lineup right now.

Edgy MD wrote: It can be argued that folks are angry with the Mets for them being conservative and refusing to gamble. all acquisition are a gamble, some more so. I'd agree with that statement, but I'd also agree that those same fans, three years down the road, would criticize the Mets for giving money to bad contracts and trapping themselves financially. In fact, I'd say many of the same fans blame Omar for exactly that. My point has always been that the Wilpons and Sandy are acting in a risk-adverse way, so that the team will never again be financially impacted by a Madoff situation. i.e. they never want the Mets to be operating in the red again, so they never want to be at risk of losing the team.

seawolf17 wrote: (I know all of this. I like nudging you all as much as you like nudging me.) So you're saying this odd obsession with these guys isn't going to end shortly? ;-)

Centerfield wrote: Also, I think the whole concept of "gambling" centers around the ability to make a conscious decision. Sandy is holding his cards instead of playing them. Sure it's a bit risky, but you know Sandy, he's wild and crazy. This is a much better public perception than "Hey look at poor broke-ass Sandy, waiting around hoping prices fall. Man, someone buy that dude a drink. He looks like he needs one." Sometimes I wonder if it's information overload. The opposite of gambling. Right now you 'gamble' on another pitcher but if you wait until he's thrown for 2 months and trade for him, you have much more accurate and current information. You also have a better picture of your own budget and needs.

G-Fafif wrote: I do get the feeling the industry is evolving faster than the Mets as constituted know how to keep pace. Perhaps the lack of transparency Carig decries is a symptom of that. There was a time when owners staying in the background was both normal and, juxtaposed versus certain loudmouth types, appreciated. Actions spoke plenty. They still will. I think the industry evolving stuff might actually be (somewhat) on Alderson. There seems to be some desire to not overpay. Is that payroll and budgeting, or simply not paying more than he perceives a guy is worth? Or did the Wilpons hire him because he believes the latter because of the former? Some if it seems wise, not overpaying for relievers, maximizing trade value, but other times, like when an incremental win or two is actually huge (like going from 86->88) he doesn't seem willing to take the shot.

Centerfield wrote: And it is folly to think the offense will be better if Cespedes is healthy. They lost Bruce, Duda, Granderson and Walker. No player can offset four. Can we stop with this direct comparison to last year? that's not actually how it works. some players will be better, some worse, etc. Granderson was worthless the first 6 weeks or so (thought he was one of the best the rest of the, limited, way) Bruce is 1-dimensional, he's easy to replace. They haven't really lost Walker yet, plus that's part time too. Duda was good but let's not forget that Smith IS highly regarded. Rosario is also high regarded, and hopefully is replacing a lot of garbage Reyes AB. There is some hope Plawecki could add more value than they got at C last year, plus maybe d'Arnaud finds his stroke? sometimes happens late for catchers. Cespedes could play more games. Conforto could play more games. Nimmo complemented by Lagares may actually be an above average CFer. And they're almost definitely going to sign a legit second baseman, so it feels weird to criticize them for not having done so yet. They had the same weighted run creation as a team last year as the Nationals, so the bridge is not that huge.

Centerfield wrote: Yankees trying to put a package together to get former Met prospect Michael Fulmer. Would be a huge addition to the staff and maybe the piece that puts them over the edge. They have the prospects to make the move. You get the feeling the Yankees will outperform the Mets this winter even if you don’t count Giancarlo Stanton. this winter perhaps. luckily baseball is a summer sport. They got Stanton dropped in their lap and still had to shed payroll to make it happen, and then they just seem to be signing the same guys back. Going to the well one too many times? Specifically inregards to CC.

Centerfield wrote: I think I was mainly referring to the Michael Cuddyer offseason where they didn’t do nearly enough. After clarification I think I largely agree with you. So I guess at the end, this is the order: 1. Spend wisely (meaning money you choose not to spend is set aside for reinvestment) 2. Spend foolishly 3. Don’t spend at all you mean the...the offseason prior to the 2015 season? that one? They've been linked to roughly every second baseman. Some good, some meh, but it'd be surprising if they didn't get one. If the Mets were okay with a budget just under the luxury tax I don't think they'd just give Walker the 4 years because that's what he's asking for initially when there are so many other guys available too. The other things they need are 1. a top flight catcher (not easy or necessarily available) 2. a good hitting CFer. Cain maybe, but there aren't a lot of these either, if they're serious about real defense. And nimmo and Lagares aren't worthless. 3. a backup first baseman that has flexibility elsewhere. For better or worse, they're going to give Rosario and Smith their reps, something most Mets fans begged for last year (and we wouldn't be much more informed if they'd each gotten another 100pa) These were high rated prospects and even if their promotion docked the system, we haven't actually reaped the rewards yet. So the guy they sign for this role is tricky..is he going to play 1B a lot or a little? is he going to be a 'veteran' that expects 500 pa or a role player that's fine filling in? Or is it just Wilmer Flores?

That's not a quote about a hard budget as much as it is a justification for additional gambles. I mean that Forbes is estimating/analyzing those revenue streams but is not completely aware of how they're divied up or the specifics of the loan payments against them. It gets murky. I mean, the Mets DO owe money on Citi Field and I'm fairly confident the Wilpons count the money they have to pay against that as a Mets cost, not a personal one. Even if they technically paid off that debt with an external loan from Bank of America that's consolidated with other debt, etc. I'm not saying this is good, or right, or whatever. I do think it's fairly consistent since they got the Mets back above water, in the way they spend. Theoretically this will only get better though, as they keep the Mets in a positive state, as they pay back debt, and as the Mets actually gain in value and (hopefully) leverage at least decent team into success and profit. And that's what I mean when I say i don't really care about the payroll, it's that I've made my peace with the strategy, nothing I rant about is going to change it, the Wilpons are in no danger of losing the team through fan pressure or financial ones. I can only watch and enjoy my team.

I don't think they went over budget last year. I also don't know what exactly Forbes is measuring, but I do know it's an incomplete picture.

smg58 wrote: For the record, I would have beaten the Angels's offer for Cozart (who will be moving to third base). I would've considered that as well.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I don't think in any way that $15-$20 mils is a drop in the bucket for those dudes. They're rolling in it. Don't like some debt and the idea that they don't want to run the Mets at a loss distract you from the idea that they're filthy rich.

I think the Wilpons want to not lose money on the Mets, whatever that means. Once that's accomplished, I think they want the team to do well, compete, and hopefully make the playoffs. They can't bank/budget on Wright's salary being insuranced and acquire players to cover that, so it's either not spend the money and reap $20 million or so in extra profit or get Wright back for some on the field value. Wright won't necessarily be 'worth' his salary, but $15-$20 in insurance profit is a drop in the bucket to the Wilpons and I can't imagine that's what their preference is. I think the analogy here is like if the Mets are 4 back in early September rooting for them to not make the playoffs because we don't think they have what it takes to win it all and we don't want to spend money on NLDS tickets if they're just going to lose in that round.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm sure that Fred and Jeff wouldn't like the possibility of paying David $20 million to be a reserve player who hits .180. And that could very well happen. The safer bet for them, financially, is to have them keep collecting that insurance money. I don't have much expectation/evidence that an 'on the field' Wright will hit .180. Maybe he won't be MVP Wright, but I think like worst case is he's rusty and out of practice and like, hits .240/.320/.466 with the juiced ball.

They like David. And him playing a bunch of games makes the team much better and reflects well on them.

Edgy MD wrote: I envision more than that. I mean, I envision 120 including 11 or so postseason games but I think the 'can play 45' fits solidly in a higher probability bracket that makes it at least worth thinking about when imaging who plays where.