Ceetar

I'd imagine the Mets (But not necessarily Alderson) would prefer more years and less money. It only makes sense. They're likely to lose money next year, even with Reyes, unless they make the playoffs (Practically out of the question w/o him). They may even lose money the year after that. But the goal is to get revenue above payroll, and presumably by raising revenue, which means building a team that's a contender or at least a big draw in say 2016. If they've done that, even if Reyes isn't as good as his peak, it'll be a lot easier to work around his contract versus the extra $5 million+ they'd lose in the immedicity if they went high $ less year.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: If Jose plays 90 games per year over the next six years, and is paid close to $20 million per year to do it, it would be far better for the Mets if he did that for someone else. That, I think, is the key. If he's healthy, the Mets are better with him. And if his injury rate accelerates, which it very well might, they're better off without him. he could also never miss a day. I doubt he plays merely 90/yr. Maybe 120-130 a year if he deals with some injuries, but injuries aren't exactly something you can measure. If you only take risks on guys that have never gotten injured, all you get is guys that haven't been injured yet. I especially don't know how you can guess that his injury rate accelerates, since his injuries have been one serious leg injury from which he recovered, and some minor hamstring tightness. some sore hamstrings are expected occasionally, but as he "slows down" he'll be less likely to tweak a muscle tearing around second base at the speed of light, his drives into the gaps will result in doubles instead of triples, and that's clearly still very valuable.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I feel so prepared for JoseJose's departure that I'm cycling though all kinds of potential upsides. Practice being an Optimistic Met Fan with me: "I don't like how so-called "speed guys" age generally, and think Reyes is already sliding defensively." "It's a relief to not have so much of the team's fortunes invested in one guy." "Sure we'll miss Reyes, but we can get 2 guys for what he'd cost!" none of those scenarios make the Mets better.

It's not about what Sandy thinks Jose thinks. But the "It's not ideal" quote, among many many others, is suggestive of what Sandy thinks.

"I don't think Jose ending up anywhere outside the Mets is ideal," Alderson said. "In terms of in the division or out of the division, ultimately that's not something we control." that quote doesn't sound like spin to cushion the blow. It makes it sound like a priority to me.

Yeah, I disagree, but that's perhaps better for the Non-Tender Pelf thread. I just mean that it doesn't seem like the Mets need to non-tender Pagan and play F-Mart to save 4 million in order to give that to Reyes.

seawolf17 wrote: Edgy DC wrote: It would mean likely shedding Pelfrey and Pagan and perhaps promoting not-yet-ripe rookies as their replacements. It would mean tossing Paulino over and living with Thole plus Nickeas plus rookies and journeymen. I agree with every one of your statements. Shed, shed, and toss. Except Alderson has pointed out that he feels he can afford to sign the other players they need AND Reyes. So the Mets aren't looking to pinch pennies from one to pay for another. Yes, it could get sticky if the the team plays worse next year, but it definitely will if they don't sign him.

Edgy DC wrote: Where the heck is Greenberg? I don't know, but it'd be a quite a coup if the Marlins are in the process of signing Reyes while he's out of the country. I'm sure those reports were all totally accurate.

There's a shot of Eddie Murray and a caption: "His at-bats are of miniseries-length proportions."

"I think the game is too long," Phils General Manager Lee Thomas said. "I hope fan interest isn't waning. I'm sure there are some people who don't like the longer games, and neither do we. They probably are 15 to 20 minutes too long." That was written in '93. Reminded me of this thread.

metirish wrote: @Ken_Rosenthal Ken Rosenthal Sources: #Marlins have made substantial offers to both Reyes and Pujols. #STLCards #Mets #mlb *snicker* I kinda doubt it. What, they're going to suddenly had $50++ million a year to the payroll?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I like em kinda I'll reserve judgement until I see them on the field, but I don't have a big problem with it being different than the norm.

Prince Fielder - Cubs Albert Pujols - Cardinals Jose Reyes - Mets Yu Darvish - Mariners Jimmy Rollins - Phillies C.J. Wilson - Cubs Aramis Ramirez - Tigers Carlos Beltran - Rays Edwin Jackson - Marlins Mark Buehrle - Braves Ryan Madson - Phillies Jonathan Papelbon - Blue Jays David Ortiz - Red Sox Kelly Johnson - Diamondbacks Roy Oswalt - Astros Heath Bell - Padres Francisco Rodriguez - Pirates Josh Willingham - Orioles Michael Cuddyer - Tigers Javier Vazquez - Angels

gutshot guess: Ricky Henderson.

for the worst I feel like i want to say Timo Perez.

Beltran

Edgy DC wrote: I prefer "millstone contract." Interesting in that, in a acquiring a big star moving toward free agency, teams aim to land a guy and lock him up in one fell swoop. But if the Mets traded for Santana, enjoyed that one year with him and let him go, they would have made off like bandits. Omar wins as a talent evaluator and loses as a businessman. I view the Santana contract as sorta the last good thing that happened to the Mets, and would still have done it again given the options, but yeah. If they'd just kept him as the one year rental, after that 2008 dominating second to last game, I can just imagine how much money he would've gotten.

Edgy DC wrote: Heyman sayeth that the Giants are cold. Marlins still hot. Tigers and Brewers warm. Nats are warmish. Mets are the Mets. It's all just noise! Is this on the Kelvin scale?

Edgy DC wrote: i think that's abundantly clear. I think reasserting is helpful to realize how differently the words are treated, despite often being pretty similiar.

I'm not being optimistic about it, I'm simply pointing out that the Mets have little to gain from pretending to find minority investors or from only offering options that are completely unrealistic. Just because a bunch of sports writers don't think it's a good investment that anyone would want to take doesn't mean the millionaires and billionaires out there think the same way. There is just so much murkiness and unknowns there, including not even knowing how the Madoff situation will be settled and for how much. Yes, it seems pretty likely they dropped payroll projections (at least, the numbers they talk about, it's yet to be determined) by 20+ million after they lost Einhorn, but that doesn't mean all is completely doomed and we're just in a waiting game here.

Edgy DC wrote: The Apple wasn't particularly funny, but it gets points for going the way it did before reading Kiernan's article. With no NBA, the Reyes Sweepstakes is going to get a lot of mid-week backpage ink, news or no. also, The Apple is an onion-style parody and supposedly Kiernan is a 'legitimate journalist'.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: No one thought they'd ever find a minority investor either. Ultimately they did though. How do you know? Err? I was listening? Everyone said the same line "Why would someone want to give the Wilpons money if these are the circumstances..etc etc" They weren't right then, so why should I think they're right now, about a significantly smaller sum of money?

No one thought they'd ever find a minority investor either. Ultimately they did though. Wouldn't they have reached an agreement if they were desperate? after all, it wasn't Einhorn (supposedly) that caused it to fail. And the Mets didn't then turn to a second bidder, but choice an alternative solution.

Edgy DC wrote: Screamers. Waddayagonnado? Trade them to the Yankees for a CrazyTradeProposer to be named later.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: MY RELENTLESS QUEST TO ASCEND THE 9-WIN PLATEAU Well, he's done that twice.