And the Yanks didn’t produce Russell Martin they signed him last offseason

.I would also say they really did need to dismantle the team.They had a good core but it couldn’t get the job done.The ship has been sinking for a few years now.Instead of plugging holes via free agency,rebuild the ship.

The problem is they haven’t done a good job communicating with the fanbase about what they’re doing up until recently.They tried telling us even when Omar was here that the Madoff situation had no impact on the team and they were full of shit.

There have been countless cases of teams trading away good players and stars due to being unable/unwilling to sign the player after their contract expires. It happens every season. That said, the Mets were not a playoff team even with Beltran and Rodriguez. They finished 13 games behind the Wildcard. They wouldn’t have come close even with those two players. The deal for Wheeler was a no brainer.

That’s why I could even accept option four even if I don’t agree with it. That means Sandy has limited confidence in the youngsters (i.e., pitchers Neise, Gee, Parnell, Murphy at second, Thole behid the plate, a rejuvinated left fielder and now in center (he has improved the bullpen somewhat) unlike me. If the future is therefore years from now, Wright (and also Reyes) might have been the right players at the wrong time and thus a waste as far as the Mets are concerned. Although as a fan I disagree, that at least shows a purpose beyond the Wilpon’s own personal goals and though I might not like it, I could at least accept it.

But I can’t believe as a general manager Sandy believed the personnel he had last season was that bad and the fact that he did dismantle a contending club by getting rid of our top hitter and star closer is proof enough for me that he’s going with option three whether he wants to or not.

Plus the wildcard that has to be played, how good are the few guys?

if it is 2-3 mid level support types, you have to go for it.

If it is 2-3 top tier studs, that is going to be a bit more difficult!

1) Seeing the Mets as just a few players away from being a legitimate contender and does something about it by adding to the team.

2) Seeing the Mets as just a few players away from being a legitimate contender but does nothing about it by keeping the team as is.

3) Seeing the Mets as just a few players away from being a legitimate contender but because nothing will be done to help the team, rather than retaining the status quo a major portion of the team is dismantled and the team looks toward the future by acquring younger players and prospects and looking toward the future.

4) Seeing the Mets as more than just a few players away from being a legimate contender the team is dismantled and the team looks toward the future by acquring younger players and prospects and looking toward the future.

Depending upon one’s perspective about the current roster, options one and four would be acceptable. But never would fans, who were paying their money to support the team when they were able to (and thus not be the cause of the WIlpons debt), ever approve of options two and three unless they distance themselves from the emotion of being a fan and look at it from an owner’s perspective instead.

I guess it also depends on how much of the debt the new owners take on 9and of course, how much they put in on top of that).

Say the club is worth 600mill free and clear. If they put up 25mill + absorb 575mill in debt, in theory it is the same as paying market value without it (not taking into account time value here, just trying to look at the big picture!)

The new ownership that took over the Nationals during the 2006 season did exactly the opposite by not holding on to high priced free agents or going after new ones. They invested slowly and now we can see the fruits of their patience with those who came up through the system and high priced free agent signings.

But new Met owners do not have to gung-ho like Texas did or start from scratch like the transplanted Expos did. Recall what I posted earlier:

“This team might have been just a slightly below.500 club based on the roster it had going into 2011 but, as we well know, it is quite common that just one or two modest free agent signings, a shrewd trade and a minor league callup has often resulted in turning a mediocre club into a legite contender.”

So from my perspecive, new owners would not need to spend a lot of money that first year to turn this team around like Texas. But the more the Wilpons retain ownership, the more those possible owners will indeed be forced to go the route of Washington instead.

So, is it really that much different for the owner to write a check out of his personal funds than it is to borrow money like the Wilpons have done?

So in effect, every time they take out a new loan, they ARE putting money into the team

Keith also knew that the Doubledays were committed to investing in the team to build a winner. The Wilpons are committed to keeping the team and then buildng a winner. No amount of prospects can alter that fact.