Ceetar

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: I don't really think about them much. They're not even on the 40man. They don't think about you much either. Believe me. Of course not. The different is I don't expect them to. I'll take what I can get and talk about the things I want, but I'm not going to go up in flames because the Wilpons used the wrong paint swatch in their building.

And the other thing is..Sandy Alderson. He's deep into a long-term plan, and while a new owner with money to burn will certainly help, it's not like he's going to be all "well NOW I'm going to sign Scherzer and Hanley and trade for Tulo and a doctor for him!" Worse would be if a new owner decided he needed fresh blood. Then we're basically resetting the plan. Alderson, while fallible, is a pretty good GM. He's a great ameliorate for disgust over Wilpon finances. batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's impossible to spend a lot of money wisely if, you know, you don't spend a lot of money. Yes, but luckily It's still possible to spend money wisely, even if it's not in bucketloads. And win. And by extension, get more money.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. No, I want them to accept that they can't afford to run a New York City sports franchise as it ought to be run, and they should sell to someone who can. same thing. Same thing? The Wilpons keeping the team and losing money and selling the team are the same thing??? no, wanting them to operate at a loss and wanting them to sell in order to get someone in here who will operate them at a loss is the same thing. And then what? They'll win if they spend more money? We know those things aren't directly correlated. They'll spend and suck but at least they SPENT! right? I see almost as much "Stupid Omar" stuff for doing just that as I do Wilpon hate.

d'Kong76 wrote: What's to like about them? I really can't think of anything. I don't really think about them much. They're not even on the 40man.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. On the hope that eventually all that money will generate a winning team and they'll make it back. No. Mets fans want the Wilpons to get the hell out of baseball. What's so hard about this? So you're saying it's not about the Mets then, you've just decided you hate the Wilpons. fine. Take it to a business forum, I thought this thread was at least tangentially about the Mets.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. No, I want them to accept that they can't afford to run a New York City sports franchise as it ought to be run, and they should sell to someone who can. same thing.

I didn't really read that rant. I don't see why you don't understand that losing, in addition to Madoff, building a new stadium, and that all happening during a recession, led to a decrease in revenue for the Mets and that winning, more than the Wilpons becoming cash-flush again, is the biggest thing that will correct it. And there are a billion examples of how investing the money in players FIRST doesn't always work out due to the nature of human beings, health, and the luck inherent in baseball. The Mets will have a higher payroll when it's financially responsible to do so. Yes, they'd probably be a little higher now if the Wilpons were funneling money from other avenues, like SNY, towards the team and not towards debt. Sort of the way, (supposedly, because I haven't delved into this discussion) the Dolans operate the Rangers, or did, at a loss because it's such a small portion of the overall portfolio. That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. On the hope that eventually all that money will generate a winning team and they'll make it back.

Centerfield wrote: So much focus has been about the Madoff scandal, and how the Mets owners have been affected by it. But let's remove Madoff for a second. How is it acceptable that a team playing in NY had to invest their money with a Ponzi scheme, in order to support a competitive payroll? Shouldn't they be able to support a large payroll without illegal returns? they weren't illegal until he got caught. Unless you want to play the 'there were in on it' game. But either way, it wasn't that they couldn't support a team without it, it's that they had an avenue to invest money that gave them the best return. Every single rich person does that. We don't deserve a super high payroll just because we're arrogant New Yorkers. It's a simple equation, either they put players and a team on the field that we enjoy watching and you do, or they don't and you don't. I still enjoy it. Could I enjoy it more? sure. That doesn't give me the right to demand they operate the team at a loss* or run it the way I think they should. And we don't know what their finances are. those are private. Are they running at a loss? or is that creative accounting (spoiler: all big businesses are creative accountants) that counts ancillary costs of the team as costs buy ancillary profits as Sterling profits? (i.e. does the Citi money count towards revenue when people say the Mets lost money last year?) But people have been saying they're going to be bankrupt and have to sell any day now for years. IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. The best we can hope for is the Mets win next year, and people flock to the team, and spend money. Revenue going up, at least with Alderson here, will likely lead to more spending as needed. THAT is what I'm focused on.

Frayed Knot wrote: - and to stick to it even if the team finds itself 40-29 during the second week of June!!. Not happening. Not every happening to any team. An owner would have to be legitimately evil that supporting him would feel like kicking babies. (And for obvious reasons, no owner will make it that far before being ousted. See the NBA/Clippers) A winning season will bring in all the casual fans (especially with a pathetic Yankee team) who barely think twice about who owns the team, and might be hard pressed to remember their names. But there are also those of us that just don't freaking care. It is what it is, I just want to watch baseball not discuss theoretical finances that we know, and will know, next to nothing about.

d'Kong76 wrote: You don't need to go to Winter Meetings to sign an FA that no one else was bidding on (that I know of). you don't need to got the winter meetings to sign anyone. Everyone has cellphones. These 4 days are not special. The Mets DID do more than many teams, in signing a guy to shore up the bench who fits the role they needed.

well.. does this make Jets fans feel better?

Tulowitzki: I'm not at all endorsing this particular move. Long contract, hip surgery. Costs tons of good, young players. Gun to my head, I think I pass on this. Overall Philosophy: All I'm saying here is that I'd like the payroll to increase, while still keeping smart people at the wheel. Basically, do exactly what they are doing now but increase the budget by $30 million. This will lead to a better team. Sometimes it means passing on the big player to keep your prospects. Sometimes you have to let a few prospects go for the right guy. But an increased budget allows you to take risks without losing your minor leaguers (such as the Cuban guy). Can the Wilpons really sustain an increased budget? I have no idea, but I can't see why they couldn't. We are in NY. If they can't take a team in the largest market and figure out a way to generate revenue, it is inexcusable. Both LA teams, both Chicago teams, Philadelphia, Boston, even Toronto figures out a way to do this. I can't figure out why the Mets have to reside in the lower tier. Why are we accepting of this? Tulo: I understand if they make this move, but I'm not sure the Mets are in the right place to make that gamble. Overall: Sure, 30 more is great, but right now they need to have a high confidence of ROI on that 30million. Also, targeting a higher payroll is not the same as having one and if you spend all 30 of the 'new cap' now you don't have as much for next year. That's the truth whether we're at 100 or 250. I highly doubt those teams are generating revenue at the rate they're spending it. Not the Cubs/Phillies/Blue Jays anyway. In almost every case, it's the winning that brings in the revenue, not the signings. And I guess, that's where the conspiracy stuff comes in. If the Mets win 88 games and grab the second wild card and lose, it'll suck. BUT, they'll presell a TON of season tickets and committed income for 2016 by linking it to 2015 postseason rights. And just via the excitement of a team on the rise. Granted, they'd make a lot more by hosting a ton of postseason games at an average ticket price of probably $100 plus ($4mill plus a game just in fans through the turnstile) but the boost in fanbase and base revenue from a wild card loss is certainly something.

Edgy MD wrote: The biggest turnarounds in team history have been preceded by quiet off seasons. So have the biggest flops. I think it's important to distinguish the quality of moves from the volume of moves or the size of the moves. I think it's worth noting that the bench really sucked last year and so far it looks like it's going to be pretty decent.

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: ALL OF THEM. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Which player that the Cubs signed did you want the Mets to get? Look, don't play me like that. You make it sound like I'm some childish SNY poster that wants his babba NOW NOW NOW. I have historically been one of the most patient of patient Mets but I've grown tired of the yearly charade. If Flynn, Brogna and 1986 do it for you in the off-season... then bully for you. I'm not saying you shouldn't be frustrated with the last X years, but your frustration does not dictate policy, particularly mid-offseason. Why does the Cubs making some moves last week, or the Dodgers, change anything? All 29 other teams will do things, and so will the Mets. the order in which they do things doesn't matter. And the 'charade' is at least partially fan/media driven. The Mets aren't really saying much more than platitudes and evasions, and certainly they seem empty without anything to back them up, but let's not pretend because we know the Mets have had financial problems that we have any idea how much they will or won't spend for the right players. Plenty of people wrote that they couldn't afford Cuddyer either. Or Granderson. Maybe it's all a grand conspiracy to be 'sorta good' and 'kinda in contention' and have just enough players to 'kind of look like they're trying to win' while not really going that extra mile, but I'm not quite sure what the motivation for that is. It seems more likely that it's not simply 'have prospects, and spend money on guys with a high probability of being good'=victory and that building a good team, and a sustainable one, is hard. But the overall trends look good. wise spending of money, signing players that are good players, over a period of time correlating to success via prospects like Harvey and Wheeler and deGrom. There were plenty of other 'Chris Young' type players they could've gotten last year instead of Granderson to man the Outfield. They could've hyped Puello and promoted him. They didn't. That speaks to wanting Granderson as part of a longer plan, as does signing Cuddyer and sacrificing a draft pick. It's hard to see that the Mets are just gonna coast to Spring Training without attempting to address SS, but it's not the obvious answers is just sitting there waiting to throw money at.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: The team's best period of prolonged success was built from within We can all sit around and post about that while watching the Cubs in the post-season. Which player that the Cubs signed did you want the Mets to get? ALL OF THEM.

Josh Lewin giving out awards, yours truly wandering around with 'CEETAR' on his back. Good times!

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Boom! You fell right into the mindset trap! Don't care with the "big teams" did in December, unless spring training becomes winter training and we start playing in January. If there is nothing done to improve the team by April 1, it's a different conversation. I'm even okay if they wait until 4/6 this year!

I think the minor league guys are just gone.

Edgy MD wrote: Didn't expect the Mets to be active. They're going to have to bump somebody from the roster. I thought they were at 39? oh right, Mayberry.

Edgy MD wrote: Hits den Dekker harder, I think. den Dekker's a lefty (Though I prefer Nieuwenhuis). One of them probably still mans the bench with Mayberry. Depending how you look at it, Flores/Tejada/Murphy up the middle and Recker as the C backup, you've got one more spot that you need to be able to backup 3B, so Campbell might still be okay.

RealityChuck wrote: Nominated for seven Golden Globes (the most of any movie), including best actor, best supporting actress, and best comedy/musical. The Golden Globes is a bit of a bogus award, but it's a nice honor. they're ALL bogus awards.

I voted no, but mainly because I'm concerned about his poor numbers in his major league career so far, coupled with injury. Assuming similar projections, I'd rather the hitter over the pitcher. I guess it's just that I like "my team's guy" but would quickly get behind the other guy that suddenly became "my team's guy"

Profar's got a 2.000 OPS in the World Series. you gotta make that deal no?

I'm surprised here at all the Gee votes even given his injured and rocky second half. To me, the one I'm most willing to part with has to be Colon as his lifespan here has one year left on it even if everything goes well. That doesn't mean I'd balk at trading either of the other two (or anyone else for that matter) in the right deal, but given the younger/cheaper/controllable status I'd prefer to trade Big Bartolo. I'm here. Any of these guys can blow up tomorrow. But Black Bart is seemingly most likely to turn his ankle getting out of bed tomorrow, and any run of success has a definite and rapidly encroaching sunset. Two sunsets: the first being the end of his contract and the second being his viability as a professional athlete, given his age and condition. It's a reality, even if I do joy in watching him dodge that reality as long as possible. I wonder if Colon has more trade value in say May, after he's proved it's still only civil twilight.

MFS62 wrote: Its based on impression. It seems like he can't hold a lead. And when he doesn't have his best stuff, he doesn't seem able to find a way to compensate. The other two can "battle". He can't. He loses it quickly and never gets back on track. I have no figures to back it up, but its a gut feel. I find myself screaming at the set more when he pitches than with any of the other starters. Wheeler will move out of the scream zone when he matures and gets better command. Later I blame Gary Cohen for this attitude. I feel like he's perpetuated (and it probably didn't originate with him) a stubbornness rumor in Niese that's not really based in fact. Sort of a "It rains it pours" type pitcher.