Smart Move With Niese Contract

35 Comments + Add Comment

• Sloatsburg Mets Fan April 4, 2012 at 9:25 pm

  Good Deal! Would you really consider him a “hard throwing” lefty?
  • Satish Ram April 4, 2012 at 10:23 pm

    Hey SMF,

    Personally, I wouldn’t say so. His AVG fastball velocity last year was 90.5, he topped out at around 94 once in a while, and has touched 95 once.

    It would be a Scott Boras-esque stretch to call Niese hard throwing, but he is still extremely effective in my eyes.
• t agee April 4, 2012 at 10:37 pm

  No to hard throwing but not below average for a lefty that’s for sure.

  As for the deal itself though it’s a real winner for both Niese and the Mets.

  Sure Niese could wind up missing out on 3 big free agent years but he could wind up like Kazmir before signing the big deal too. 25 M eliminates that risk.

  For the Mets the key is getting an extra year and the option for two more and having to guarantee only one of those years and the last two still have to be earned.

  Very good deal for the Mets especially considering the LH started pitcher is the most difficult piece to acquire and always commands a premium in the market.

  Nice to see us lock up a solid LHP for an additional 3 years in his prime and good job by the previous FO in developing him.
• Joey D. April 4, 2012 at 10:52 pm

  “With the Mets resolving their most stressing financial problem is reaching a settlement in the Madoff scandal, their next most important step is to achieve as much economic certainty as possible. That would be in reaching long-term obligations with their young talent.”

  Hi John,

  I too thought the Wilpons were really in a financial bind until Marc raised the question of the financial situation possibly not being as bad as the organization let on (be it the Mets or Sterling Equties). In another forum he wrote:

  “Don’t be confused by what you have read about the Mets finances. As an attorney, it is my educated guess, and it just that, a guess, that the Mets made their financial situation appear more bleak than it actually is in order to be more sympathetic to a jury if the suit came to that. Baseball owners have always been notorious for not being straight about their profits and you think now all of a sudden the Mets were being straight with everyone that they were losing all that money? I don’t buy it for a minute. Now what I do think was happening was that the Mets were being extremely cautious to not comingle their own funds with the Mets. As you probably know that is not normal for a franchise so the case had a significant impact on the Mets day to day operations even if they said it did not. The Wilpon’s/Katz tandem made their millions in real estate so do you really think that they would have set up things like they did if they didn’t have a good reason for doing so? ”

  We obtained rejects and reclamation projects at bargain basement prices. Low paid employees in the front office were let go. Sandy insisted a team could not go after more expensive free-agents,etc. with a $70 million loss, let alone three consecutive years of financial losses. We were told the losses were due to declining attendance. But suddenly we have the money to sign Niese to a long-term contract? Sandy says to Mike Francesa that he had more money to spend last year but didn’t since the Mets were “out of it” (five games behind in the wild card and that’s considered out of it?) And add to that what DePodesta mentioned the other day:

  “A lot of the reports on our finances have been exaggerated. Ownership allowed us (even encouraged us) to be as aggressive as ever last year in the amateur market, and they continue to support our long-term vision.”

  Putting aside Marc’s hypothesis, doesn’t this infer the Wilpons were sacrificing the team to make it appear they were worse off than we were led to believe. using re-building, cut backs and claiming poverty as a smoke screen? And even if one agrees with the decision to get rid of KRod and Beltran or not trying to re-sign Ryes, can one feel OK with what have been the ulterior motive might have behind those moves – that the Mets were used as the sacrificial lamb to save themselves from a civil suit which at one point seemed they could be liable for up to a billion dollars

  It gets me angry thinking we were possibly being taken for a ride the past year. Even I thought they were dismantling the team because they were broke or close to it – not breaking it down for a smoke screen.

  We all know, the Wilpons have lost all credibility with their public statements. Add to that the sudden statements about having more money, the long-term contract with Neise. If they were broke before the settlement – or at least needed to compress their capital due to the uncertainness of the civil suit, would it have resulted in such drastic moves as we saw? And the situation suddenly being not so drastic? In time the true story might come out.
  • Joey D. April 4, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    P.S.

    Marc, hope you don’t mind me quoting you. I tried to be careful not to appear I was putting words in your mouth but if I did, my sincere apologies.
  • trs86 April 5, 2012 at 8:32 am

    I keep seeing this 5 games back stuff. When and where was that?
    When the Mets agreed to trade Krod they were 46-45, Atlanta was 54-38. The Mets would have needed to go 44-26 the rest of the way to get to 90 wins and have a shot at the wild card while EXPECTING a Braves team that was 16 games above .500 to play .500 ball the rest of the way. They were also behind Milwaukee, Arizona, and Pittsburg. So they were 1 game above .500 trailing 4 teams in the WC and behind a team that was 16 games above .500. Yeah that was worth keeping Krod and paying him 17M this year.

    When the Mets agreed to trade Beltran they were 53-51 and were behind Atlanta at 61-44. The Mets would have need to go 37-21 and expect the Braves, a team 17 games over .500 to play .500 the rest of the way. They were behind Atlanta, Arizona, Milwaukee, Pittsburg.

    Where are these 5 games?
    • USMF April 5, 2012 at 9:28 am

      I can’t say anything about the “5 game out” stuff, but I will say that at the time of the trade, the Mets were playing much better, the Offence was hitting and the Bullpen was strong.

      Now if Sandy kept K-Rod and Beltran, the team might have finished strong and the stands might have been less empty towards the end of the season. Finishing above .500 would have done wonders for fan perception of the team.

      But, then Beltran would still be gone and we wouldn’t have anything to show for it. K-Rod would still be here making a ton of money and he’d be the scapegoat for losing Reyes. Fans already had bad feelings towards K-Rod and this would have killed him.

      It’s a fine balance for a team between managing a team long term and managing them short term and keeping the fan perception positive. The most (off the field) moments in my Mets fan-hood are

      1. The passing of Bob Murphy (who is the main reason why I’m a Met’s fan)
      2. Trading David Cone
      3. Straw leaving
      4. Reyes leaving
      5. Not signing Vlad Guerrero

      I know Yankees fans who jumped off the 80′s Mets bandwagon because they blew up the 80′s team.

      Now if a Owner GM worries too much about what the fans want, then you get screwed too…look at the Bay, Perez and Putz signings. They were to keep the fans happy more than being smart player investments. Let’s face it… us fans are idiots, we don’t want to take steps back….imagine what would’ve happened if Omar caved in to the occupy SNY crowd and signed Man Ram?

      So giving up on the team last year, the team got demoralized, the fans stopped coming out. The Mets sank hard in the standings. Now the media says the team is horrible and fans believe it. While they aren’t great, they aren’t as bad as many are making them out to be.

      Now if the Mets finished strong…if they signed a good starting pitcher and/or kept Reyes, do you think the Mets would be having a hard time selling out Opening Day?

      It’s a fine balance, especially when dealing with Mets Fans. We except perfection with every move and every game. Anything less than perfect is a complete failure.
      • t agee April 5, 2012 at 9:39 am

        Good points USMF.

        The fact is we have to put our money into what will advance the long term interests of the teams, not artificially excite the naive portion of the Fan Base every off season.

        Extending a young LHP an extra 1-3 years for a total financial out lay of what it cost for Luis Castillo, with half of it what we would have had to pay anyway is a real investment in the future and about time.

        If it’s always and only about this year it’ll be wait till next year, every year.
        • USMF April 5, 2012 at 10:39 am

          That’s were Omar failed. He came in looking to build up the system and get excitement back.

          He got the excitement back, he did build up the system a bit. But because of the quick turn around, he spent heavy and neglected that farm system.

          He made the the big signings to help win now, but he never had the farm system in place to support the Mets depth wise. Now the lack of farm could be blamed on Phillips, but Omar listened to the fans and ownership and made the big risky moves instead of saying (or recognizing) that it might be a smarter move to step back for a year and get some better prospects and make a strong push next year.

          The only reason I give Sandy a pass for the last two years is because we do need a stronger farm to support a long term success. Omar didn’t have that system in place, Sandy has one that’s about half way there. Unfortunately it takes about two to three years to build that system up depending on what you have to start with.

          The Yankees would have never been able to make that strong run in the late 90′s if George didn’t get banned and the team was able to suck for a few years while they built themselves up.

          But I don’t ever want to call any portions of fans naive. I know there are three strong factions factions here. Some hate Sandy, some love Sandy and others want to sit back and wait to see what happens. Now it has turned into some petty name calling and bashing from both sides…but (when not being emotional) both sides have a valid points and a correct on many things, but both sides also have some flaws in there thinking (but that’s as much being emotional and defensive more than being naive). Sadly, any approach you take is still just a gamble and it could lead to winning or it could blow up in your face.

          Of course there are the “part timers” who have no idea what’s going on and only follow when things are good and don’t understand anything about the game, they are the worse one to deal with. I’d rather talk to a person who has an educated opinion that I disagree with than a uneducated person who agrees with me.

          I think we should all sit back and let things play out before we make snap decisions on either side of the issues (that goes beyond baseball and into mainstream life as well).
          • stick April 5, 2012 at 10:42 am

            I still say that of your 3 groups, the “love sandy” faction is far and away the smallest.
            • trs86 April 5, 2012 at 10:44 am

              And mostly absent on this site.
      • trs86 April 5, 2012 at 9:41 am

        How exactly did “The Mets sank hard in the standings”?

        They went from a team one win over .500 to a team 4 wins below .500. Not a big difference.
    • t agee April 5, 2012 at 9:28 am

      The Beltran deal was a no brainer but that and the K-Rod trade were both made before Rakoff lowered the potential exposure from 1B to 386 M.

      Even at the 386 figure without offsets how would it have looked to potential jurors let alone other Madoff victims if the Wilpon’s were making a whole bunch of large financial commitments well into the future?

      The Wilpon’s aren’t going to be taking any blame and their current FO isn’t going to be pinning it on them anyway and when you think about just exactly who has ever had anything negative to say about the Wilpon’s in the 25 years they’ve been running the Mets? No current or former employee that’s for sure, probably die to some sort of clause in the contract that precludes any of that stuff.

      Wiser to listen with your eyes than your ears.

      Also for those claiming we can build for today and tomorrow at the same time where was that sentiment the last 15 years when every decision was all about today. Where was the outcry over selling #1 draft choices that wouldn’t have taken one single thing away from our present but may have made out future a lot brighter?

      Alright we put the future first for the first time since we got rid of Bobby Bonilla the first time back in 1994. Get over it already. We were as likely to win a post season playoff berth as Pittsburgh was.
  • USMF April 5, 2012 at 8:46 am

    I think there is more than the Mets/Wilpon trying to appear broke, but we all should know that there are several ways to present the books to show profit or lose depending on how you want you team or company to look to the public. Remember when the books got leaked for Florida and Pittsburgh? Both teams have been crying poverty, but the numbers show that they were making a ton of money even though their stands were empty and they weren’t very competitive and they didn’t spend money on keeping star players.

    Raise your hand if you have ever worked for company that claimed profits to the stock holders and gave bonus money to management and the CEO got a huge bonus, but when it came time to hand out employee raises, the company was broke and then was forced to lay people of and cut spending? (I’ve been in two major corporations that have done that regularly the past 15 years)

    But I also believe that because of the legal issues the Mets were in, they couldn’t move money around from one area of Sterling to another. Now that the case is over, they have the freedom to put money into the Mets to help supplement the lose of income.

    Just reading reading a lot of stories about the Mets situation and even the comments from DePodesta, the Wilpons want to win and are willing to spend to do so…I think that while the Wilpons aren’t the worst owners in sports (or even baseball) they have gotten to involved emotionally and made several decisions that turned out bad. I hope that the past few years has showed Wilpon that he should demand a winner and sign checks over, but to stay away from the day to day operations of running the team.
• GW April 5, 2012 at 8:57 am

  Sweet, the back-end of our rotation is locked down now! Hard to find #4 starters elsewhere….

  sigh.
  • trs86 April 5, 2012 at 8:59 am

    I am guessing you are assuming he has no chance for improvement. Also, do you know how much a #4 starter cost on the open market? A whole hell of a lot more than 5M.
    • stick April 5, 2012 at 9:06 am

      and what a 25 YO experienced LH SP that has shown potential to dominate at times is worth on the open (trade) market.
      • t agee April 5, 2012 at 9:52 am

        It is strange to me the criticism that the new FO takes on every single move they make.

        People are actually complaining about us getting one of the best prospects in baseball and locking up a solid LH starting pitcher in his prime for 25 M, half of which we would have had to pay anyway while guaranteeing that he will be an option for us for an additional 3 years while we are financially committed to paying him for just one of those years.

        Very strange.
        • trs86 April 5, 2012 at 9:54 am

          Spend money, don’t spend money, spend money, don’t spend money…. it gets kind of old.
          • GW April 5, 2012 at 10:02 am

            A chance for an improvement yes, a chance for a regression yes, a chance to get hurt yes.

            Not an awful deal but not making the team any better in the long run. The Giants do a good job of locking down young pitchers with similar deals (yes yes the Cain deal is too long) but they do it with proven pitchers not on the pitcher’s potential to improve.
            • trs86 April 5, 2012 at 10:04 am

              Sure there is some risk that he could not develop or get injured. That is what you are paying your guys to determine but that’s also why the deal wasn’t for 50M either.
              • GW April 5, 2012 at 10:10 am

                Indeed, if it were 50mm I think we could all agree it was crazy.
              • t agee April 5, 2012 at 10:17 am

                Niece’s 3 arbitration years would have cost 12 M anyway and even if he got hurt and missed a year wouldn’t have been non tendered so basically it cost an additional 13 M for an extra year and the right to keep him at an already agreed upon price for an additional two.

                How is that a bad deal?

                You have to give something to get something and all you can really give young players is guaranteed dollars which more or less their going to get anyway but by guaranteeing them you can also get additional years at a discount and without guaranteeing the big bucks and there is every chance that Niese will continue to evolve as time goes on.

                Now the two year club option wasn’t something I had heard of before but if you apply the Niese deal to what could have been done back in 2006 with Jose instead of going 4/24 + 1 year we had gone say 5/35 + 2 years we’d have him here for two more seasons all for the cost of an extra 11 M because we gave him something. Guaranteed dollars.

                You got to give to get.
                • GW April 5, 2012 at 10:39 am

                  Once again, with your Reyes example, its a proven vs. an unproven player.

                  Once again, not saying its the worst deal in the world. Just not something we should be patting the front office on the back about.
                  • trs86 April 5, 2012 at 10:50 am

                    Proven cost you more money.

                    Keep in mind that when they signed Reyes to an extension he was in his first truly productive season. Before 2006 he had a .277 .303 .395 .698 slash line.

                    If Niese had came out this year and got his ERA down to 3.50 with 15 wins then the Mets most likely lose 10M in the process.
  • Donal April 5, 2012 at 9:48 am

    If Niese is really the #4 starter on this team, I will be estatic. He’s a lefty with a good curve, good cutter and can vary speeds. Imagine what the staff would look like with 3 pitchers notably better than him.
• Joey D. April 5, 2012 at 11:42 am

  Hi all,

  Toward the end of July the Mets had pulled to within FIVE GAMES OF THE LOSS column in the wildcard hunt.

  To say at the time that this was just a .500 club ignores all that happened before that time. After that miserable 5-14 start, the Mets went 50-37, playing 13 games above .500 for more than half a season. A few days after the trades they reached their high point at 55-51. But with their ace closer and top hitter taken from them, they stumbled and went 22-34 the rest of the way.

  The team was playing great ball but not only did the front office do nothing to help strengthen them by, if nothing more, getting rentals (not at the expense of our top prospects, of course) they instead sent KRod and Beltran packing.

  Without KRod, the bullpen pressed and we began giving up more late inning runs. Because more runs were being scored against us, we had to score more than the 4.4 runs per game we did with Beltran. The fact that the Mets still averaged 4.4 runs per game after Carlos was traded loses sight of the fact that with his .300 bat in the lineup, they would have scored more.

  But we kept on hearing how the Mets and Sterling Equities were broke and needed to downsize desperately. Now, it seems, they wanted to give the appearance of being broke and that included making the Mets the sacrificial lamb. All the reasons for the moves – including “rebuilding” were BS. They were moves non-related to baseball. The team’s spirit was broken and all the good they accomplished became a distant memory. They no longer believed in themselves.

  That’s why many of us criticize the moves the front office made and the effect it has had on the organization and don’t believe obtaining one of the better pitching prospects was worth it.

  The argument that both KRod and Beltran would have walked at the end of the season and thus the Mets would still be a weaker team going into this season despite whatever they did in 2011 has to be looked at in many ways. Hitting wise, Davis was coming back and the fences were moved in – so that offsets the loss of Beltran. Pitching wise, they needed to fill the bullpen and get a real closer. Sandy has done some to resolve that problem but not enough and certainly could have gotten after stronger pitching and bench strength.

  But they didn’t so in order to continue the appearance of having no money. If they stuck to their story and said we are are happy with the settlement but still have a long way to go getting our financial house in order – then it could be argued they had no choice. If anything, that gets us fans who didn’t show up last season off the hook with the claim that attendance was both the culprit and the solution.

  The only bright spot is that the BS is over and they can start really investing back into the ball club. But I think it is shortsighted to defend their actions as anything more than trying to con the public – and a jury.
  • trs86 April 5, 2012 at 11:46 am

    But yet when the trades happen we were either 1 game above .500 chasing a team that was 16 games above .500 or 2 games above .500 chasing a team that was 17 games above .500. Those are horrible odds. Your comment of they gave up when 5 games back isn’t true and was never true. They did that after the trades were made.
• Joey D. April 5, 2012 at 12:20 pm

  “Your comment of they gave up when 5 games back isn’t true and was never true.”

  Tr,

  As late as July 29th, the Mets were only six games behind the Braves in the loss column for the wild card. I do not have the time to go through a day to day search to see when that was indeed just five.

  “They did that after the trades were made.”

  As I also said, they still continued to play well after the trades but that was only for a very short stretch.

  They got that close due to all they accomplished after starting off 5-14. The fact that after they peaked at 55-51 and then collapsed and went 22-34 has nothing to do with the trades?

  Agree with the moves or not – but please don’t say they were never in the race. Six games back in the loss column with 56 games to go in the season is not indicative of a team out of it.
  • trs86 April 5, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    Joey I provided you with their records at the time of both trades. They were one game over .500 and 2 games over .500 chasing a team that was 16 games over .500 and then 17 games above .500.
    • Joey D. April 5, 2012 at 5:32 pm

      Trs,

      I did acknowledge that they actually continued their good play for a short stretch after the trades before collapsing.

      The bottom line is with 56 games to go they were only six back in the loss column. Wouldn’t it have been better to let the team make it’s own destiny rather than having the front office take that opportunity away from under them? And to look at it from the perspective of either winning it all or nothing – well, even if they finished around 85-78, don’t underestimate what an unexpected, winning season for a young team means in terms of a building block for the future.

      And many teams build for the future while remaining competitive at the major league level – except for Oakland and, I’m afraid, the 2011 Mets. I just hope the trend doesn’t continue in 2012 for the highly paid David Wright and Johann Santana looked awfully good today.
• Metsie April 5, 2012 at 1:01 pm

  You know what scares me most about this contract?
  It makes Niese just that much more tradable at the deadline!

  I have said many time that Niese can be a Cy Young type in time, so far his numbers have mirrored Halladay who became the pitcher he was after 4 years of experience.

  If Niese does that and shows it this year I just hope Sandy doesn’t turn this into another lets get quantity for quality future for now type of deal he seems to love!
  • trs86 April 5, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    His contract indeed does make him more tradable. It will be interesting to see how they approach it.

    That being said, how the hell do you spell tradeable/tradable… it’s always on spell-check.
    • Metsie April 5, 2012 at 1:20 pm

      This blog doesn’t have a spell check and most of my posts are on a touchscreen tablet if you must know!
    • Joey D. April 5, 2012 at 5:35 pm

      Let’s just hope the Wilpons return to those thrilling days of yesteryear when they didn’t trade off good stars to save money. If anything, that was their one saving virtue.