Ceetar

Edgy MD wrote: I'm a-thinking of that opening serie between the Mets and Nats, and wondering if the two teams are going to score about five runs total over the three games. nah, short ropes early on for starters. we'll mash their bullpen.

If it was strictly about payroll reduction I'm unsure of why they'd sign Cuddyer instead of just trading Gee, whenever that is, for an OFer? I mean hell, there's probably a Cuddyer type player out there that someone would offload for Gee.

Gwreck wrote: The narrative is really fucking tired at this point. I'm sorry you think it's tired, but it remains accurate. There are only three ways for it to go away: 1. The Mets have a payroll commensurate with playing in the largest baseball market in the world; 2. The Wilpons sell the team; or 3. The Mets start winning playoff games. I don't think it comes off as tonedeaf What was the last time you thought the Wilpons or MLB did something that reflected poorly on the Mets? Honest question. Well, I don't get too worked up about image and how it reflects on the Mets. This isn't because I think highly of them, it's quite the opposite really. I think all 30 teams and MLB are mostly a bunch of tonedeaf money-grubbing out of touch assholes to begin with. So when they rearrange (or really demote, as Frayed Knot pointed out) the deck chairs manning committees it really doesn't change my opinion much. And certainly MLBs perception of the Wilpons finances and ability to manage them are infinitely more informed than the fans. I feel this way about much of corporate America. I really can't get worked up about this stuff, I just don't think it matters very much. As far as the narrative being accurate? well, no, not really. We don't really know how accurate it is, and it's certainly being over-applied. I figure the chances that the Mets decision not to go about Scherzer was strictly a financial one are pretty slim. I don't think the argument that everything the Mets do is about trying to be an 85 win 'second wild card' team so they can say "hey look, we're trying!" mess. I don't think there is anything special about New York that demands they build a payroll higher than their revenue. And whatever you want to argue about how the revenue/value dropped so low doesn't change that that's where it is. And yes, winning games is the only way it goes away. I don't know how much the Mets opening the purse strings and splurging would really fix the narrative besides maybe shifting it towards 'spending stupidly' or something. Even if the Wilpons sell, which is a crazy remote possibility, the new guy would literally have to have a Dodger spending spree for the broke narrative to go away.

I don't think it comes off as tonedeaf. plenty of people make a bad investment or two, I doubt the other 29 owners think of Fred as some broke dope. The narrative is really fucking tired at this point. The Wilpons are not completely broke nor are they in any danger of eminently needing to sell the team. (Especially just as they get the team to roughly profitable) This, if it does anything, only reinforces that. It's not that the Wilpons need to be 'invisible' it's that we need to stop talking about them. It is what it is at this point and until something changes it's likely the Mets will continue to spend only money THEY have not money Sterling has. No matter how many fans think they're GMs and have the gameplan to success. Every signing another team makes is because the Mets are broke. Every signing the Mets make is intended to placate the fans and pretend compete. It's a lazy narrative.

clearly they're going to be forced out any day now.

I like this one Those are the words the Mets� appropriate-hander lives by each and every time he requires the mound Appropriate-handed pitchers are the new market inefficiency.

I believe there was a line in Moneyball about the As having vending machines or something right? See? A double tie-in!

'supplements'

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/01/mets-charge-players-workouts-1000-dollars-mlb Basically, Barwis runs a respected program that many players, including the Mets, have gone to in the past (like last year, when they also paid for it) Previously this program was in Michigan. The Mets, noting that they were using Barwis anyway, figured why not hire him and bring him to PSL? I hear players prefer to spend winters in Florida than Michigan and a few of them have houses down there anyway. Oh, and there's some evidence that the Mets may be splitting the cost with the players. This isn't a Mets program, Barwis is a consultant running his own thing, he pays rent to the Mets to use PSL. I don't really know what the precise arrangement is between them. so yeah, make a prized program more accessible and maybe even help pay for it? Seems decently proactive to me.

Also, yes, Desmond is a good _ss_ but the Mets need offense more than they need plus production for that position. You don't generally get the offensive bang for your back at that position so it doesn't seem like it's worth overpaying in prospects or money.

Hanley, Johnny Peralta? Castro? Reyes? Crawford? There's not really a lot of good SS.

if I was rich and the opportunity to own a piece of a baseball team came up? I'm jumping at that.

no, because they could afford Desmond, in a vacuum, if they thought that's what they needed. Look, if Tulowitzki had Desmond's contract and the Rockies were actually looking to move him like the Nats were, I'd easily give up Syndergaard and a lower level pitching prospect AND say Flores or den Dekker or someone like that to fill a stopgap hole for him. The Mets would be in at that price as well. Besides, Jim Duquette reported that the Mets were closer than was reported on Desmond, so clearly it just went a different way. You can believe whichever leak you want that fits your narrative of course, but so many facts don't jive. But that's not the case. The MAIN problem right here is that there aren't really any easy answers to upgrade SS. Maybe they could've paid for Hanley despite his growing Not-a-SS'-itis, he wouldn't be worse than Flores defensively. That's where I wonder about payroll levels, not with guys like Drew and Desmond and Kang.

d'Kong76 wrote: Should probably have started a Wilpon's Finances in 2015 thread at the beginning of the year. No need. Unless every thread mentions it we're letting them off easy.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'd give up Muffy & Gee for Dezzy. yeah, that's sorta a gimme. Of course, I'm not sure the Nationals want either player.

yeah. The guy answers his own question and doesn't realize it. Flores was supposed to hit and if he hits it's okay if he plays SS badly. Well, perhaps that time at other positions was to get him AB to figure out if he would hit and such, to see if you could play him at SS? Perhaps the 'many times' they've anointed him the starting SS this WINTER is merely posturing and positioning?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I can totally understand not wanting to deal Syndergaard for only one guaranteed year of Desmond. Where Megdal says that the Mets could have simply requested a negotiating window, he neglects to mention that those windows are the exception, and most deals (for whatever reason) don't include them. You can't assume that the Mets had that option. And you can't assume that it was money that prevented this deal from happening; it's just one of several potential reasons. Not just that, but that the Nationals got a deal they wanted while Sandy was negotiating, however tepidly. The other 29 teams are doing things too.

Because they're all the same piece. Read one, read them all. Yes, some people attribute every move or non-move to the Mets maybe not having money. Is maybe the Mets would've gone after Desmond if they could've afforded to eat the losses with no consequences really that interesting a take?

heh, didn't even have to read beyond the title this time.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Yeah, 2. I think Sherm says the Giants like Gee but might not get him if Shields comes to them at the right price. If Shields goes and signs with some other club, Giants get hotter for G. I don;t think the Mets want or need Shields. It's just one of the creative solutions people are so drawn to. The idea being if you can't upgrade SS/offense, upgrade run prevention (which also makes bad defense up the middle less damaging?) . And also hoard even more arms in a supply and demand sense. Now you're dealing from an even bigger position of strength when demanding a SS. It's not a horrible one, does seem unlikely though.

My guess is that it's this: "2. Or is it that the Giants don't want to trade for Gee until they know Shields is no longer an option for them?" Some mumblings about how the Mets should sign Shields. Hell, if it bumps up the value for Gee it's even better.

it's pronounced Teh-ah-tim-eh I have literally no memories of him.

well, that's the low end of a 3-year arc and 103 OPS+ for a SS with at least a decent glove is pretty valuable, but yeah, it's not like Desmond has a long history of being awesome.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: The Rays did get something like what they were looking for from us-- the package the A's gave up made it seem a pretty atypical Beane trade, at least on its face. Yeah, I'm okay with that... but if the price had been negotiable down to 2-3 sub-Syndergaard pitching prospects, or Montero/Plawecki, say... Maybe it might've been. until the A's jumped in. My biggest concern with Sandy is that sometimes he seems aghast at current market prices. I agree in this case that this wasn't a good deal to overpay on, but at some point he's going to have to and I hope he's prepared to do so

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: Unless it's about the bathroom guy/gal in the back bathroom. We can't figure out why McFaddens feels that's necessary. That was kinda creepy last year, forgot about that. I don't go to McFaddens during the season (At least I don't pee there?) but I think they have an attendant there too. McFadden's doesn't know if it's playing classy bar and grill or dive bar for angry sports fans.