16
2013
Nationals, Braves and Phillies Are Focused On Winning, Mets Can Only Watch
An article by 
Not that the bullpen-needy Mets would have made a play for Rafael Soriano anyway, but the Washington Nationals’ acquisition of the Yankees’ 2012 insurance policy has them as the sexy pick to win the NL East.
It isn’t as if they needed much make-up after winning 98 games last season, but Soriano strengthens an already strong bullpen stronger. For his $28-million, two-year deal, Soriano will close, but the Nationals also have Drew Storen – their once closer-in-waiting – and Tyler Clippard, who saved 32 games last year, for late in the game.
The Mets, the only team not to sign a major league free-agent this winter, kicked the tires on Brian Wilson, who after Tommy John surgery, would be a gamble. Their closer is Frank Francisco, who ended last season with arm problems.
The Nationals’ manager, Davey Johnson, is adept at juggling a bullpen, although he was helpless as his pen blew a six-run lead to the Cardinals in Game 5 of the NL Division Series. That might have been the gnawing feeling that prompted them to sign Soriano.
The Nationals already upgraded with the acquisitions of starter Dan Haren and outfielder Denard Span. Washington also expects Stephen Strasburg to work at least 200 innings. Perhaps they learned from last summer’s mistake and will pace him out better.
Washington alienated a lot of people last year when they shut-down Strasburg, giving the impression they’ll make the playoffs every season. It’s not that easy, and the Nationals are showing that with what they’ve done this winter. One thing for sure, they won’t be a surprise this year.
The Braves won’t have Chipper Jones, but added outfielder B.J. Upton to their offense and Jordan Walden to their bullpen. They won 94 games last summer.
Philadelphia extended Cole Hamels last season, added John Lannan, Mike Adams and Ben Revere this Winter and expect to have Ryan Howard and Chase Utley for the entire season. They should better last year’s 81 wins.
It appears the Mets will be competing with Miami to stay out of the cellar, but you already knew that, didn’t you?
That Nationals are building the right way, with a mix of drafting, trades and free-agent signings. With today’s economics, a team must be strong at all three phases, which the top three teams in the NL East have shown.
The Mets are putting their eggs in the farm-system basket, which is traditionally the way to go, and still is the foundation. However, they don’t have all the farm pieces to go the whole route, as they can’t fill out their roster with them or use them to trade.
The Mets also don’t have any major league pieces left that they can trade without opening up additional holes. Gone are Reyes, Beltran, Pagan and Dickey. Wright is going nowhere.
As far as free-agency is concerned, they are balking on giving Scott Hairston – who hit 20 homers for them last year – a two-year deal.
The last time they had a good mix was 2007, the summer they blew a seven-game lead with 17 to play. They also blew a late lead in 2008, the last time they had a winning season.
That seemed like such a long time ago.
About the Author: John Delcos
I am an active member of the BBWAA and have covered Major League Baseball in several capacities for over 20 years, including ten in New York working the Mets' and Yankees' beat. I covered the Baltimore Orioles for eight years and the Cleveland Indians before that. I currently serve as an editor and senior staff writer for Mets Merized Online. Follow me on Twitter @jdelcos.
155 Comments + Add Comment
Recent Comments
- Connor O'Brien: on Lutz Is The Easy Choice To Replace Davis, But Satin Is The Right Choice: Whatever. It doesn't matter if I convince...
- sarge69: on Cowgill and Nieuwenhuis Continue to Struggle in Minors: Agree with you paradise, Den Decker has...
- Metsie: on Collins Pulled Hefner Because He Was Excited For Him: So basically Collins pulled him because he...
- wjessereid: on Summer Clearance: Possible Trade Strategies For The Mets: I'd rather have two position players ...
- Metsie: on Lutz Is The Easy Choice To Replace Davis, But Satin Is The Right Choice: SO which is it Connor he was...
Need Tickets To The Mets Game?
Check Out These Great MLB Links!
Photographs From Gordon Donovan
5394 Fans Follow Us On Twitter!
1269 Fans Like Us On Facebook!
2341 Fans Read Our Feed!
1702 Fans Subscribe via Daily Email!
Don’t exactly agree with you on the Phillies ‘focusing’ on winning. Their payroll is just 7 MIL short of the luxury cap. Amaro has gone on record saying they’re not going over that. I like some of their moves this off season – Revere and Lannan for example – but they’re relying on a double platoon in the corner OF and the health of some of their aging starts – one being their ace.
Hard to find fault with the Nats – one of the most complete rosters going in. Don’t think they’ve got any holes.
Braves certainly look good on paper for a 2nd place finish in the division.
Phillies will win more than the mets… Yet you still focus on payroll.. Nats won more than the mets with a lower payroll. Can you stop this nonsense about the payroll? Who gives a crap!!!! Wouldn’t you want YOUR owners to spend the money we fans spend on the team? JHC!!!!
well. plenty of people are on record as saying they won’t give the team one dime, so they can’t complain about the team not spending their money!
and you missed her point. it was that right now, the Phils are not doing anything it takes to win (as in getting players to fill their holes) because they are budget constrained 1st and foremost. So even though they had a huge hole in the OF and are at the end of a “win now” window, they did not go out and spend what it took to get a big, impact player for the OF.
‘Phillies will win more than the mets… Yet you still focus on payroll’
If dollars = Wins the Phillies had better win more than the Mets….
And just my opinion….no one says you have to like it. But you’re dislike is hardly a reason for me to ‘stop’.
It’s another battle for the cellar for our beloved Mets. Three years into this new plan and things can still get much worse before they get better. If Wheeler doesn’t deal like Verlander or Kershaw when he gets here, it might be Apocalypse Now for the Odd Couple, Fred and Sandy.
well, since the plan was keep the owners from losing the team, it seems to be working just fine.
and Fred is not going anywhere. Sandy might, but I expected him to leave after 2013 anyway, and absolutely no later than after 2014 when his contract expires. So really all for show if they want to make him some kind of scapegoat, when he pretty much has been doing exactly what he was brought in to do.
This.
You still have to make moves that make sense and have value in conjunction with organizational readiness that allows for such moves in all three phases independent of each other.
We know what the Mets are focused on….
the nats finally put it together last year, but not like they have been a dynasty. They were bad for 7 years in Washington (1 year at .500, the rest below, and the back to back 59 win seasons that happened to land them Stasburg and Harper). So there was a whole lotta misery trying to build up a team to compete with, and that was ready to add-on the final missing pieces like Soriano.
Phils did the same thing early in the decade, a lot of sucking before finally hitting the jackpot with a young core that all clicked together (later sustained by record revenues being plowed back in). How they survive this year as an old, injured, capped out team remains to be seen.
Braves though, they are the gold standard organization. Never a high budget, but absolutely make the most of it, particularly in drafting and player development.
But, if anything, the Braves downgraded. You mention they got Upton, but they lost Bourne to make room for him, not chipper.
Same as in 2006, the Mets are just at a much different point on the development spectrum as the other teams in the division.
Bourn is still talking with the Braves and both sides want a reunion.
The Dark Ages continues under M. Donald Alderson.
We’re in big trouble because the Mets will never be bad enough to fish low and get a top three pick. They will always have lid round picks in 10-15 range far after the phenoms and sure things are off the board. Plus they seem to always take reaches anyway.
That’s why it was big mistake to not declare a rebuild in 2011 -2013. Instead they made half hearted attempts to compete.
We will never have the luxury that the Nats did in getting Strasburg and Harper. And we dont have the front office that can draft like the Braves, or the money the Phillies have.
It’s going to be a long and winding road and we might need another miracle like in ’69 to win another title.
This is what happens when you half ass it like we’ve been doing.
If it makes you feel any better, Stanton was picked ~75th. Meaning every team passed on him at least once, if not 2-3 times.
not bad to go from that to hottest trade commodity in the game in only 5 years.
So your plan is to wait for a one in a million prospect or to do it the Marlins way? I don’t understand your point in context to what my comment was.
just pointing out that not all impact players are gone after the first few picks. Thought it might give you some hope!
That’s why it was big mistake to not declare a rebuild in 2011 -2013. Instead they made half hearted attempts to compete”
andrew, your wish might become true this year as we might lose 100 games and content to be top 3-5 in the draft.. With that being said, do you still trust depodesta to make the picks? He’s short of awful as a scout and has one of the worst track record in terms of draft picks of his not panning out.. I mean, Blake DeWitt…
“your wish might become true this year as we might lose 100 games and content to be top 3-5 in the draft”
Given the accuracy of your predictions, I think I’m going to go reserve me some playoff tickets.
Well, Share your prediction then, since yours are pin point right?? Playoffs and Mets don’t go together…
Unless there’s a a major disaster, like a plane crash, this team isn’t losing 100 games. Just like I said last year, you have no idea how bad a team needs to be to do that. It takes a lot more than a lousy outfield and bullpen to do that.
We’ve got a pretty decent starting rotation. that alone keeps you out of 100 losses. We have real power at 1B and LF and an All Star 3B.
The bullpen can’t get any worse. Add some of the young arms coming up, it might be half decent.
As for the outfield…I’ve seen a team start the season with the worst outfield in baseball and somehow make the World Series.
“That’s why it was big mistake to not declare a rebuild in 2011 -2013. Instead they made half hearted attempts to compete.”
No, bringing in guys like Jason Bay is a half hearted attempt. Singing someone just to “send a message” is half hearted. Singing anyone for any reason other than he makes your team proportionately better is half hearted.
Donal, you are seriously sooooo stupid, you came back even more dumb… We had Reyes, Beltran, Ike ready to come up, we had a good bullpen, we had even Wright, adding a guy who hit 36 HR was not a bad move, all you’re doing is econd guessing because the moved backfire and he became a POs. You cannot be this stupid, you cannot act like adding 37 POs on the roster while saving money for the owner is a good stragedy either… We’ve shed almost $70 million from the payroll and we’ve got probably one of the worst rosters in baseball…
I said at the time it was a bad signing. A righty pull hitter in a park that is death to exactly that kind of hitter. I didn’t expect him to bottom out so bad, but I knew he wasn’t the answer he was presented as.
Beltran missed the first half of 2010 because of the knee surgery. The starting pitching was a question mark and the relief pitching was lousy after 2009. Reyes played 36 games in 2009. All culminating into a 70 win team in 2009.
Everyone knew what the Bay signing was and it wasn’t about winning.
Either you’re with the rebuilding plan or you aren’t. If you aren’t, go root for Washington.
I wonder if WATCHING is the right description for what we are doing…
Looks more to me like we are just rolling over and playing dead to get the picks from my vantage point…
Hell we arent’t even willing to spend 4 Mil per year to stay where we were by signing Hairston!
Saving money is more important than winning games….
While we are forced to pay and watch bad baseball all in the name of the WIlpons not having to raid Jeffy’s trust fund to pay the bills!
And they may have to do that ANYWAY!
The Nats stayed with their plan and now its working out. They didnt jump the gun to see a few extra tickets, They should be commended. The Braves are a great organization, kind of like the cardinals, they havent sucked in a long time. The Phillies will be in the same boat as the mets very soon with a bloated payroll of underperfoming veterans who are always on the DL. The Mets traded for the equivalent of top picks that are major league ready now, saving several years of losing as DC did it.
HI Ray,
“The Nats stayed with their plan and now its working out. They didnt jump the gun to see a few extra tickets, They should be commended.”
By Washington sticking to a plan that must also have meant signing Adam LaRouche for $7 million and Jason Werth for $10.5 million though they went 69-93 in 2010, 59-103 in 2009 and 59-102 in 2009, etc., etc.
Don’t see similar moves with Sandy’s plan – except moves similiar to one the Nationals made – signing an injured Brad Lidge in 2012 for just $1 million.
“The Mets traded for the equivalent of top picks that are major league ready now, saving several years of losing as DC did it.”
In two years Washington went from a team that could not muster anymore than 69 wins in three seasons to a 98 game winner and division champion. Like the Mets, Washington also had a lot of young kids and seasoned veterans entering 2011. They made moves when their kids seemed to be major league ready as well.
Again, those same type moves are not being made by Sandy.
Hi Joey, big difference. When the Nats signed Werth their payroll was only a fraction of what the Mets payrolls have been under Sandy. They had no big fat albatross contracts strangling the payroll. And the winter Werth was signed, significant dollars came off the payroll (ie, Dunn, Guzma, Taveras) That’s why they could afford to spend.
Even last year, the Mets total payroll was larger than the Nats!
The Mets just haven’t had the same type of payroll flexibility that the Nats have had. That should change next winter.
The Nats are actually in a pretty good financial situation compared to the Mets. Besides the fact they had no Madoff lawsuit to deal with, their owners are very rich and they did not pay for the bulk of their new stadium, unlike the Mets who paid for most of Citi Field (putting them in further debt).
HI Metro,
Again, that’s the point. The moves the Mets are making are financial in nature. Sandy cannot re-build properly with the debt being what it is and so that it was the Mets are not taking the steps other teams do.
That article I posted a week or so ago showed all but one team made money during a four year period concluding in 2010. It was pointed out that it’s not a matter of having the money or not to spend on the payroll, it’s a matter of wanting to spend it or not. That’s what Sandy is doing now. And I will say from his perspective as a business person, he is taking what he feels is the less riskier approach for the team not to lose money.
Washington’s payroll having been low is irrelevant. The Mets were making money with a high one being in a big market with tremendous television rights and so was Washington despite the fact that the Nationals give a large portion of their television rights to the Orioles as compensation for Baltimore allowing them to infringe on their territorial rights when moving from Montreal).
Hi Joey — Not sure I agree with you. You are saying all teams in MLB have the ability to spend more on their payroll based on some 2010 report, but how can that be??? LOL. The books of ML clubs are not open to the general public. And, yes, a few years ago the financials of a few clubs leaked out, but it was just a few.
Your viewpoint also ignores the fact that the Mets lost roughly 70 million dollars in 2011, and 20 million this past year. So, no, the Mets don’t have the ability to spend more. This is NOT an optional thing for Sandy. The Mets have NOT been in a situation like the Nats have been in recent years where the payroll was free of albatross contracts.
And I don’t know how you can say the Nats low payroll after 2010 didn’t matter. Of course it did. They had very few obligations on the payroll and so they could easily sign a Jayson Werth. Moreover as I said, they had their park paid for them. The Mets OTOH have to pay roughly 40 million each year paying down stadium debt.
Obviously it’s the Wilpons’ fault the team has been in the financial bind its been in the last few years. But Sandy had nothing to do with it. He’s been a “victim” of sorts of the Wilpons past mismanagement of the team. As I said, by next winter, Sandy will finally have money to spend and so we will be able to see for the first time what he can do with money to spend. But up to now, he’s had just peanuts.
Hi Metro,
You’ll have to do a search for my post to get to that article. I always attach links so to backup my information so that then becomes disputing the source of the material. Like today when I said that Alderson was looking to get rid of Beltran no matter what – by attaching an article in which he mentioned if he couldn’t get prospects monetary consideration would have been pursued as a possibility.
Now, if you feel that the earnings are not publicly known, suggest you look not just for that article I’m referring to but others that I have also posted from established financial sites like Forbes, Business Week, Wall Street Journal, etc. and you will see a breakdown of operating expenses, payroll expenses, revenue and bottom line profit.
You might recall that the article said the two clubs making the most money in 2007 was 1) Florida and 2) Washington. And even though all but one franchise didn’t make money in that four year period through 2010, even the Yankees lost money at the beginning only to see the profits really come through at the end of that time.
How could that be if MLB had to take over both the Dodgers and Texas? As we know, the Dodgers problems came from personal matters dealing with McCourt’s divorce settlement. With Texas, Hicks filed for chapter eleven bankruptcy because of the overall losses and debts owed by his parent company, Hicks Sports Group and was seen by Nolan Ryan as a good step in order to allow the Rangers to still be able to acquire players before the trade deadline as the sale was being completed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/24/texas-rangers-bankruptcy-_n_587327.html
In that referenced article, the author alluded that losing teams make money by simply spending less. It’s a matter of whether owners want to re-invest in the team, pocket all the profits for themselves or (as most all clubs do) do both.
That is why I said the Nationals’ payroll prior to 2011 didn’t matter. What they saved in expenses was off-set by less revenue. Remember what I wrote?
“The Mets were making money with a high one being in a big market with tremendous television rights and so was Washington despite the fact that the Nationals give a large portion of their television rights to the Orioles as compensation for Baltimore allowing them to infringe on their territorial rights when moving from Montreal).”
So even with a smaller payroll, they will never get more than 25 percent of the returns from co-owning a regional network with Baltimore. I’ve attached that article quite often but here it is again as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/sports/regional-sports-networks-show-teams-the-money.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
So as you can see, major league owners do not make their big profits through attendance, but television.
Coincidentally, the Mets were not losing money until Sandy came aboard as GM – they made money in 2009 and 2010 despite no longer having the luxurious dividend revenues each year from Madoff’s phony investments. Of course, that was not due to Sandy but the Wilpons and Selig saw it coming after the season was over because of the loss of that Madoff revenue plus the debts they had to pay got to the point that they knew they could not reach their financial obligations in November without help from MLB – they were unable to borrow any more from financial institutions. I also had attached articles confirming those reasons in more specific detail many times.
And because of that, Sandy did not come with a vision of re-building the team as he did saving it for the Wilpons due to the tremendous losses via Madoff which even small market teams didn’t have to contend with.
He is not doing both, saving the Wilpons and re-building at the same time for as we can see, he is not taking all the steps that Washington needed to take in order to be division champions this year via a mixture of young players, those entering into their prime years, and older, seasoned veterans.
You’re not seriously comparing the Nats situation to the Mets are you? Everything about the two organizations are so different in just about every aspect of building a franchise it’s not even worth discussing. How out of touch can you be to compare the two. And the Mets lost 50 million in 2010. 70 in 2011 and 23 last year. You must’ve forgotten the large debt they assumed to start SNY and the contract they’re locked into with SNY.
Joey — any financials you see on the teams are guesstimates at best and don’t including things like RSNs. The books of ML teams are closed to the public. As mentioned, yes, a few years ago some of the numbers leaked out for some of the teams, but I believe it was just 4. And today those numbers are out of date.
So there is no way someone can use guesstimates or an argument about MLB spending.
Again, it is absolutely ludicrous to say the Nats payroll prior to 2011 didn’t matter. It certainly did. It was small and there were no albatross contracts on it. Ricco had gazillions to spend that winter. You better believe it if they had Bay, Castillo and Perez on the books at the time, with a payroll amount equaling that of the Mets, there is no way they sign Werth.
I even take issue with our statement that the Mets were not losing money prior to 2011. Especially with the burden of the new stadium, I find that hard to believe.
But again, the books of teams are not open to the public, so even Forbes annual valuation and financial rundown of each ML team has to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
Joey — with all due respect, if you want to back up a point with a link, you don’t ask the other person to go look for YOUR previous post. You have to find it yourself as you are the one making the claim.
Again, there is no way anyone has comprehensive financials on all 30 teams in MLB. They are guesstimates at best and leave out things like RSNs. Nevertheless, I will look at anything you have, but you need to provide a link.
Maybe if you would read the proof and links provided to you before you bantered on the subject and call someone crazy, he might not have to refer to a link you refused to read the first time and would prove you wrong, save us all some grief around here having to repost link 10 times before you actually read them.
Maybe if you didn’t have such a severe case of ADDH and such stark reading comprehension issues you would know that Joey didn’t post a link to the report in question, that he said he couldn’t find it, and that he told me to look for it, LOL.
Better luck next time!
AH yes that sense in your warped world of reality…
YOU can’t find what was posted so I MUST have reading comprehension issues….
I fell bad for you as your going to have a very rough life my friend.
LMFAO. What about “You’ll have to do a search for my post to get to that article.” don’t you understand. Those are Joey’s words. LOL, you are a trip — into pure insanity!
Hi Metro,
And with all due respect back, when somebody has taken the time to research a subject and provide links to sources of the quoted information and statements to explain how he or she arrived at such opinion – one should have the courtesy of reading it
Now, of course, you did not ask me to go back to find those links all over again but I made the point for a specific reason. We have been discussing many topics personally and quite often the point is raised about not having come across information related to a specific point I had recently addressed and provided backup material to explain how I reached the conclusion that I did. The time to question the existence of such information is not shortly later when it is again brought up and when one does then not have the backup information readily available.
I don’t think you would want others to say they never came across material to back up a point you’re making when having already done that for them, would you? I finally had to make that point when you said I never addressed the question of what I thought Sandy Alderson was hired for – while everyone on MMO knows my opinion on that.
So please, as a courtesy, respond to my points when first raised and with the backup which we can both use for reference – not later on when that information is again being raised.
BTW – if you are dismissing the validity of figures reported in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Business Week, The Financial Times, etc. – sources of valid financial information and projections well respected and used by the financial industry – then there is nothing I can add to that.
Joey — Agreed, and I always read a news report that someone has linked to when it’s relevant.
(I will not, however, just wade through a long propaganda pdf piece that the poster doesn’t understand himself and hadn’t taken the time to point out the relevant parts. And that poster knows who he is!)
In this case, before I could even ask you to supply a link, you told me to go look for an old post of yours that had that news report linked to. Are you kidding me? You didn’t even reference a specific thread!
And you must have me confused with someone else. Because I don’t recall EVER discussing with you before the profit-loss analysis of all 30 MLB teams, You must have given the link to someone else,
I finally had to make that point when you said I never addressed the question of what I thought Sandy Alderson was hired for – while everyone on MMO knows my opinion on that.
Wait … are you saying because you’ve provided links to someone else in another discussion which I never saw I am supposed to know about it and not ask you for links myself? Sorry, but if that’s the way you feel, then we have nothing to discuss in the future because that’s not right. If someone asks you for links who has never seen the links before, then it is your responsibility to provide them, even if you have to do it multiple tines.
For example, Sandy offered Reyes a contract worth $100 million. damaja asked me to prove it, and I did, with a link, Then someone else in another discussion asked me to provide the link for the same bit of info, and I did (I think it was agee, but I can’t remember who).
So please, as a courtesy, respond to my points when first raised and with the backup which we can both use for reference – not later on when that information is again being raised.
Again, this particular discussion (the 30 teams’ finances) has never come up before between you and me.
As for projections — do you know Forbes doesn’t even include RSNs? Since they don’t, how can you say their guesstimates are accurate?????
So, if you can’t provide a link when first requested, then we have nothing to discuss.
Hi Metro,
This sounds like an experience I had with somebody else. When I first started reading MMO there was an individual who sharply disagreed with my positions yet kept it very cordial until I slowly began getting sarcastic responses which also inferred I had made false claims and had not provided links I claimed I did.
I do not wish to repeat that experience again.
Let’s just say I had no clue what you were talking about concerning at least half your post. You referenced previous experiences with me regarding a specific topic which I have ZERO recollection ever discussing with you.
As far as I’m concerned, if one is stating things which are highly debatable, then it’s expected that they should be able to verify the information if asked to. IF that is too much for you to do, then I am sorry, and I guess we’ll just have to avoid discussing anything highly debatable, which means just about everything when it comes to these Mets.
Hi Metro,
Remember I said that both you and Metsie were good guys? That’s why in this case, though I think he addressed the issue with wording more candidly than I would, what Metsie said was appropriate and most appreciated:
“Maybe if you would read the proof and links provided to you before you bantered on the subject and call someone crazy, he might not have to refer to a link you refused to read the first time and would prove you wrong, save us all some grief around here having to repost link 10 times before you actually read them.”
And as you might have noticed on the steroid issue, Metsie and I have been in sharp disagreement regarding the owners role in all that – along with the financial role of SNY in regards to the Wilpons and the Mets – so it can’t be said the two of us are simply in cahoots with each other.
Sorry, Joey, but I disagree. Of course you appreciated metsie butting in because he took your side, which of course he’s going to do because I’ve been pounding him into the ground in our discussions. But metsie is one heckuva confused, scatter-brained person who has serious issues reading and tracking a discussion. He references a link I :”refused to read the first time around” … LMFAO, there is NO link, which is the whole point of my asking you to provide one.
Again, sorry, Joey, but I’ve never seen your previous link for a report regarding the finances of all 30 mlb teams. I was never in a previous discussion with you regarding this topic either. If you can’t provide a link again to someone like me who never saw your previous link, then any discussion with you will be pointless in the future.
Hi Metro,
Then so there will be no misunderstandings in the future, suggest you mention that you don’t recall seeing the article rather than implying there wasn’t any and claiming I said things without backing up. Also note that you were participating in the overall discussion though maybe not replying to what I had mentioned.
I was sensitive to this because of prior instances and a few days ago when it was suggested I was avoiding giving you my take on why Sandy Alderson was hired as GM while I have been professing my strong opinion on that on an almost daily basis – how often had I said just this past week that Sandy was not a baseball person but a business person and of how the general manager was now handling baseball as a business and not a game? For many, I know I’ve said it way too much.
As I’ve asked with others, how about you and I burying the hatchet and putting these hurt feelings aside?
OK?
Joey — I don’t know about you, but I don’t have time to read every thread. I don’t even have time to read every post on threads that I am commenting on. I will only read every post in a portion of a thread I am directly participating in. That’s it! So I have no clue even what past thread you are referring to. NONE. ZILCH.
The only links I remember are those specifically posted for me. For example, I remember that metsie posted a link to am FBI study (which didn’t support the point he was trying to prove) … and another to a poorly written study in a pdf and then refused to point out the relevant parts when asked to do so about 50 times. So, when people post things specifically for me, I remember them,
And I never implied that there wasn’t any article. Since I had never seen one linked to, and you told me right off the bat to go look for the link myself, I just took exception to your saying that as it was so unreasonable.
As for Sandy, I KNEW that you thought he was just a financial person and sent to cut the payroll. But that STILL even now doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in the context of him then proceeding to hire Ricciardi and Depo when they already had Omar and Ricco on the payroll. The Mets during 2011 were paying for 5 GM types in the front office at once. That is no way to make an organization more cost-effective.
At any rate, it is unreasonable for you to expect people to be aware of your entire posting history here at MMO. Because I feel that way, it’s best that you and I just don’t get into any discussions where we disagree. That doesn’t mean we can’t be internet friends LOL, as you seem like a nice person. Or that we can’t discuss totally neutral things. But on the hot issues, it will serve no good.
Hi Metro,
Yes, let us agree to still remain friends but I don’t see how we can avoid replying to things we don’t agree on since this is an open forum and there are bound to be subjects that we would like to advocate an opposite opinion on.
Though I like to say “hi” to those I’m replying to, I’ll respect your wishes on the issue and not have it appear as a direct response.
Joey — I didn’t mean not to make comments in general when there are hot topics. I meant refrain from replyng only directly to each other, Have a nice night
“I don’t have time to read every thread.”
But plenty of time to spam them apparently!
Hi Metro,
I don’t even know how to reply only directly to each other….
Do you mean just addressing the issue in general instead of saying “hi” to you?
Joey — a hi from you is always welcome. I am speaking about the topics we disagree on. Of course you can post about them anywhere in a thread — but just not in direct reply to a post of mine!
Metsie, you are the one always spamming a thread!
Hi Metro,
Don’t worry.
Telling a person he is should not reply on a disagreement is an insincere way of telling an individual he or she is not good enough to speak to him at all. Being dictated terms when one can or cannot speak shows a rudeness, lack of consideration and is personally belittling.
It cannot be compared to suggesting one research past posts after claiming the the points being disagreed upon were never backed up and no article containing that information was ever posted.
Telling a person he is should not reply on a disagreement is an insincere way of telling an individual he or she is not good enough to speak to him at all.
Joey, I’m confused. Are you saying I believe you are not good enough to speak to me at all? No, that’s not what I’m saying or believe. I suggested it merely for the sake of peace.
Well, Metro
No further explanation is required when one offers to bury the hatchet because he wants to continue their friendly disagreements in the same cordial spirit as before and is then told not to reply directly to him.
MMO is not the proper place to carry this on further.
I didn’t mean to avoid replying on ALL topics. Just the ones where it is clear you and I disagree.
But hey, Joey, if you want to do it anyway, go right ahead. Just don’t be angry if I ask you for a link to back yourself up. As I said, I don’t read every topic on MMO, and I don’t even read every post in some of the threads I participate in (only the comments I am replying to or them to me). I just don’t have the time and I’m surprised you do. You expecting others to know that you’ve posted a link in an entirely different thread maybe weeks ago is absolutely unreasonable. I’m sorry you feel this way.
Hi Metro,
You simply dismissed what I was referring to without even reading the article. That is why I suggested to review my past posts since you didn’t even as for the link to question the validity of the author.
Anyway, I found the article.
http://jockpost.com/business-baseball/
And again, that article about television being the big money maker in sports:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/sports/regional-sports-networks-show-teams-the-money.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Joey, but that’s the point — I had no article to read at the time! And before I could ask for a link, you told me to go find it myself!
And see, you said it again. You said I should have reviewed your past posts from ANOTHER unknown thread, and from WEEKS AGO, but that is a totally unreasonable request. It is also disrespecting the other person to ask them to do the legwork that is your job.
And only NOW you give some links?
However, I think the time to discuss this has passed. But I did take a quick look at the first link. No need to review the 2nd as I’ve known for a long time that RSNs are like gold to big market teams. Which is related to the point I made earlier in the thread. Those Forbes reports do not include RSNs. Which is why you see the Yankees and Red Sox losing money those years. Are you kidding me? They made more money than most teams. Their RSNs are 2 of the most successful around the country. That’s why you have to read those Forbes reports with a big huge grain of salt.
So,your second link somewhat undermines your first link, underscoring that any financial picture of a team that does not include RSN’s is highly unreliable.
At any rate let’s save this discussion for another day, another thread. Peace!
Hi Metro,
I knew those figures don’t include RSN’s, so that was why I attached that other article to further show how much more is being made by teams claiming they do not have the money to spend on high prices free agents and thus why I commented “And again, that article about television being the big money maker in sports”. Why accuse me of implying “I should have reviewed your past posts from ANOTHER unknown thread”?
But back to the two articles, I don’t see how the latter contradicts the former which included reports by Forbes to confirm all teams but one were making money because RSNs are considered separate equities and thus the journal only dealt specifically with the earnings of teams themselves. If anything, it under estimates the amount of money those dual-company owners actually made by owning or the selling of the television rights instead. That’s why I mentioned the lower past payrolls of the Nationals being irrelevant – they would have had the money to spend on high priced free agents even if those past ones were already high.
Also, how could those figures by Forbes not be credible? Forbes has a reputation within the business for credibility and high standards which they would not want to risk being tarnished by reporting guesstimates.
Now, just came across this interesting article about Kansas City owner David Glass and how we all thought being in such a small market he wasn’t making money. As the article points out that is not the case.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-on-baseball/21179082/david-glass-says-hes-broken-even-as-royals-owner
Same with the Marlins.
http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1970&Itemid=39
Just shows how much financial trouble the Mets are in if they were considered too risky to be extended any more credit by financial institutions and thus needed a loan from MLB and a bridge loan with the guarantee from MLB in order not to default on their end of the month financial obligation. Even now the Mets were still considered too much a risk and thus the Wilpons had to rely on SNY to re-finance their loans.
Peace to you too – and perhaps a small piece of SNY for each of us.
Joey — The reason those Forbes reports are very unreliable is …
1) Just about ALL information is GUESSTIMATES. They do not have access to real numbers for the majority of their reports. They can only guess. They have no clue what team may or not be ramping up a new minor league drafting and development program, for example, or an international scouting program … or building a new development facility with stadium in LA. These programs may cost tens of millions of dollars.
2) RSNs — Not only do the Forbes reports NOT include RSNs, but RSN numbers are private too. For example, we don’t really know how much the Yankees, Mets, or Red Sox team owners plow back into their team each year. Those numbers are not public. And if they’re missing RSNs, what else are they missing?
3) Known examples of faulty numbers — Take a look at the numbers for the Mets for 2011 season. Below is a link. (It says 2012 but the numbers are for 2011). We all know the Mets lost a ton of money in 2011. It’s been widely reported as 70 million. Their enemies — or anti-Wilpon folks — even use that 70 million number. Likely Megdal will tell you they lost more and are even worst shape than that!! Yet Forbes lists the Mets operating income for 2011 as -40.8 million. That appears to be at least 30 million off the mark.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2012/03/21/the-business-of-baseball-2012/
4) Really Bad valuations. Forbes never had the Dodgers listed as higher than roughly 800 million in value prior to March 21, 2012, the date of that report. It’s listed as $1.4 Billion, and only because up to that time, rumors had leaks at how high some of the bids were. Well just about one week later, on March 28, 2012, it’s announced the Dodgers were sold for $2 billion! So Forbes was off by $600 million!!! So the point is, their valuations are crap
5) Mike Ozanian. It appears he has a lot of input into these reports. He works for YES and is a extremely biased Yankee lapdog. Now I know that doesn’t disqualify him from working on these reports, but his presence just taints everything in my mind. But he is the least of my issues with the Forbes report. If the other issues listed above didn’t exist but he still worked on them, then I would have no issues using the Forbes reports. This is just a good opportunity to bash him.
People who like to trash small market teams for their lack of spending or praise big market teams for spending more often trot these Forbes reports out, but they are terribly unreliable. I will not use them for any argument regarding profit/loss or team valuations. The ONLY thing I am willing to use these for is as an EXTREMELY rough guide to ream REVENUES (minus RSN money). For example, it is OK to use these reports to say that The Yankees and Mets have more revenues than the Padres and Cardinals. But profits and valuations for any team are a big unknown.
So, if one expects to use them for anything else, it is a non-starter for me. We will just have to agree to disagree. I have mistrusted the Forbes reports on MLB teams for many many years because of these issues. This is nothing new for me.
Regarding the Mets financial situation in the Fall of 2011. Yes, we all know things were dicey with the team’s finances and they had to get a loan from MLB. BUT, I dispute the idea that they were on the verge of bankruptcy. The idea that 25 million dollars stood between the Mets and bankruptcy doesn’t even pass the smell test. If they had been 150 million short of cash, well then maybe. But 25 million is relatively small peanuts for Sterling Enterprises. At worst, they could have sold half the team OR other assets to get the 25 million cash. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Mets owners had 25 million in personal banking accounts to plow into the team.
As for more recent finances, the fact that they refinanced for MORE than the original loan amount says to me their situation has improved greatly. Banks would not have done that a year ago. They would not have extended them a new higher loan for roughly 700 million if the Mets owners hadn’t had the assets and collateral to back that loan. The Mets higher valuation in the wake of the Dodger sale likely helped a lot too.
Joey — I’m going to continue this at the bottom. Look there for my comments regarding your Royals and Marlins links.
2013 probably is the last hurrah for this Philly team – if it’s even that. Their team will soon collapse into a major and longterm rebuilding project within the next couple of years, loaded with aging and overpaid former stars, no impact help in the upper minors and no depth at all.
The Nats and Braves figure to remain strong going forward, though at least the Braves will run into a significant financial hurdle by 2015 when several of their core players will become quite expensive at about the same time.
The goal for the Mets will have to be making smart decisions and to know when it’s time to ” go in”. Which certainly isn’t 2013. And whether they sign Scott Hairston now or Shawn Marcum, Brian Wilson or another decent reliever is pretty much window dressing.
The real key will be how long it takes Matt Harvey, Zach Wheeler, Travis D’ Arnaud and others to become quality major leaguers ( and how soon). To know when it’s time to spend money ( and also trade prospects) and focus on upgrading the roster shortterm again instead of trying to bolster the farm system with high ceiling kids or bring down the payroll to small market levels.
Agree. We can play taps for the Phillies now, as I don’t think they’ll ever finish higher than third with their current roster.
It’s the Nats, maybe the Braves, and then everyone else in the division fighting for scraps.
Again if you are looking at now what your seeing us a team already built to win adding free agents. Zimmerman, Desmond, Wilson Ramos by giving up PROSPECT, Espinoza, Harper, span by trade by giving up PROSPECT, Morse, Strasburg, J. Zimmerman, Gio by giving up PROSPECTS, detwiller, clipboard, Rodriguez, storen,,,,,,,mmmmmmmm seems to me thus is his the team was built, by doing what Alderson is doing now, lol, they where losing before these players came aboard. They drafted great had bad high draft picks cause they stunk! Now they built a strong farm and the players not on the lust because of their surplus of prospects where able to be traded for other pieces. They added Werth which to me made and makes no difference to a bad contract. That’s the only bad contract in my view. Adam Laroche is the other only major signing and they won 98 games last year. They are ready to win and if they think Soriano can get them a championship then go for it, it’s a two year deal as well. Not to mention there payroll is still not very high. Both these teams payrolls are on par with what the Mets have and are spending. Sure the Mets will need to add free agents and should next year but they are not ready to do it now. Also the off season is not over yet so the roster is not complete. They have to add to fill the 40 man roster.
So complaining about the free agent thing is nutty when talking of these teams. The Braves are the same way with players and with payroll as well. Harvey has ten starts, no other young pitchers as even really pitched yet, Famillia got a cup of coffee and Mejia does not look ready. The Mets are the Nats 3 years ago, just building around a young staff, next year they will add a piece. Also these teams to not add key free agents all in one year. Mets will be in position to do this next year, if they do not then I’m mad, as for now they are on right and correct path as painful as it us, but when it’s built it will be here for years with waves of talent in minors behind it, so this will hopefully not happen again.
Hi Peter,
Saying the Nats are the Mets of three years ago is my point. They signed LaRoche and Werth three years ago. Where are the missing pieces to the Mets problems now?
Signing LaRouche and Werth is not as important as is the point that the Nationals did make moves to go after free agents to blend in with their young kids and used 2011 as a growing process for both the older and younger players to learn how to play together as a team. Shouldn’t we be looking to do the same, with 2013 as a year our own kids and new players use as a stepping stone to 2014?
That was part of Washington’s plan too. That’s another part of Sandy’s plan that isn’t
While that sounds nice Joe, Werth signed in 2011 and really has done not even close to what he is being paid hitting 232 with 10 dingers and 58 ribeye steaks and 19 steals, aside from the stolen bases i feel Duda can do that. Larouch has been good but had is best year last year. If it makes you feel better the Mets are the Nats four years ago.
The Nats clearly had more position player prospects, they where not good for a long time and built their system. Saying to add two players is via free agency for chemistry is reaching, all the players named where not obtained that way bottom line. In the Mets case they are going to have to spend in the outfield or trade, they have no top prospects for the outfield. Next year the Mets can add Carlos Gomez for instance who by the way I like more than BJ Upton, trade for a rightfielder like an Justin Upton if he is still available or of that nature, add a starter like Lester, JJ, Garza, Wainwright. There is a lot of options for the rotation next year and the Mets will only need one barring injury. They will have an obvious need at closer as well.
All this can be added with the payroll being around 100 mill because of contracts coming off. This is the most sensible thing to do. Let Harvey get a year, Wheeler get a taste, Darnaud get a taste, see if Duda is staying or going, see if Famillia can pitch in bullpen and possibly dominate,see if Tejeda and Ike get better . Then next year bring in pieces that will be with core for a few years via free agency and trade. Plus the Mets get another draft under their belt to deepen the system while possibly getting a top prospect at the trade dealine if Santana does his thing, or at least a B type prospect.
Do I think he need to add now? yes, but just a few veterans that fill some spots and not on crazy deals, preferred one year deals, Alderson is big time penny pinching on Hairston, I think 1 year at 4 mill is fair. They need a Veteran starter, 2 bullpen guys, and a right fielder. The off season is not over so I am not complaining yet. It is not a year to complain, but take it to the bank next year is for me. If they do not add one or two significant pieces next year I will possibly lean more toward what Metsie opinion is.
“Werth signed in 2011 and really has done not even close to what he is being paid hitting 232 with 10 dingers and 58 ribeye steaks and 19 steals”
That’s not Weth’s correct numbers. It seems like your only counting his 2011 numbers(and that would still be incorrect since he hit 20HR in 2011, not 10). He actually hit well last year since he hit .300 exactly, and if you combine both seasons, hit average is .256. I understand that even using the correct numbers for both years his production isn’t enough for what they paid for, but his contract does not look as bad when you use his correct numbers.
Hi Peter,
Remember I mentioned that it wasn’t so much who Washington signed and whether or not they were sound decisions to begin with but rather that it was the fact that Washington was spending in order to balance out their club with a good blend of youth and veterans – and used 2011 as a stepping stone for the mix of these players to grow together.
I don’t think Alex is a met fan
Just because you disagree with him and he’s critical of the direction of the team, does not mean that he’s any less of fan of than you are.
Just because you disagree with him and he’s critical of the direction of the team, does not mean that he’s any less of a fan than you are. *
by the way, Joe, is there any way you can make it so that we can edit our comments after we send them? That way if we see any mistakes we can edit our comments without having to post a new comment.
In fact I would turn it around and say fernando is NOT a met fan….
Alex is upset because he CARES about the team and it’s ability to win….
I think that shows a much better dedication to a team than someone who doesn’t care if we lose for the next 4 or 5 years because they want to see if Moneyball works NY or prefer to watch young kids more than great players and performers.
Once again, This is another year of evaluation. No team is stupid enough to come out and announce that. Almost every position right now has question marks. Most of them will be answered one way or another this year, Washington took their lumps for years and although everybody knew at the time they overpaid for werth, there were 2 reasons for this in my view:
First, they had a new owner with lots of money to spend. Signing Werth was announcement to the FA market that they were now Steak aisle shoppers, as boras puts it.
The second reason is they knew they had a young team getting ready to contend. Werth is a winner and he plays the game hard, He is someone for the kids to emulate and learn from,
As for LaRoche, He is one of the most underappreciated players in the game. A power hitting first baseman with a smooth glove, The scouting reports have compared his ceiling to Adams and that not such a bad thing, IMO,
If yo need two years to evaluate what you have and what you need then I’m sorry 5 years isn’t going to help you!
He came in evaluating Beltran and Reyes – Traded Beltran after he showed no knee issues and let Reyes go after he won a Batting title! He also traded K-Rod who was on the way to 46 Saves if he stayed with us.
Traded Pagan (our BEST remaining OFer) for Crap
Traded a Cy Young Pitcher for a Catcher and some A Ball maybe….
So if he is evaluating anything he is looking at who is the best and then getting rid of them as fast as he can!
The 2011 numbers where correct, so he hit 300 with 5 huge homeruns, and got hurt, he only had 300 at bats, 100 million dollars? come on now, he might have a good 2013 but the main point anyway is they win and won without him, and they won because of all the players named that are not on the team through free agency aside from larouche.
They were not correct. You said he hit 10HR while he hit 20 in 2011. And it’s just simply unfair to exclude a player’s entire 2012 season anyway. I’m not saying it changes a ton, but what I’m saying is that if we are going to judge a players contract, we should at least get the facts straight.
The only reason the Nationals and Tampa Bay are as good (on paper) as they are is because they SUCKED for so long. You really think Rizzo is that good, when the you get the 1st overall pick 2 years in a row and they happen to be Strasburg and Harper what do you expect. And before you tell me about all there other moves NONE would have happened if they didn’t have those 2.
Anybody remember Shawn Abner?
Metro12 – For example, Sandy offered Reyes a contract worth $100 million. damaja asked me to prove it, and I did, with a link
WHEN DID YOU PROVIDE A LINK???
By November 1st, no offer had been made…and Sandy never gave any parameters
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/gm-sandy-alderson-mets-plan-contract-offer-free-agent-ss-jose-reyes-article-1.970263
Speaking publicly for the first time about Jose Reyes since the shortstop became a free agent on Sunday, general manager Sandy Alderson reiterated what the Daily News reported on Friday: The Mets will not begin with an offer designed to overwhelm the shortstop, and the team does not expect a a resolution for SEVERAL months.
ONE MONTH LATER
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/12/05/alderson-mets-never-made-formal-offer-to-jose-reyes/
Alderson said the Mets NEVER made an official offer to Reyes, who is coming off a deal that paid him $32.4 million over five years.
“I don’t believe Mets’ fans will be surprised if these reports are true that Jose may not be back,” he said. “You have to draw a line somewhere and based on our experience, not just with Jose — but with multiyear contracts generally, and not just with our multiyear contracts, but ALL multiyear contracts generally”
So Sandy himself said he never made an offer…then sandy whines and cries about multi-year contracts…
but Metro12 still has proof that Sandy caved in and offered Reyes a 100 mil contract !!!
YES!!!
Alderson already admitted he never sent Reyes an offer. Is this really still being debated and ignored by some? Why?
KMaxx — If I hadn’t seen your comment mentioned on the right-hand sidebar, I would never have seen damaja’s post questioning the 100 million offer the Mets did make to Reyes. As I told Joey, I don’t read every thread here, and I basically ONLY read the posts in direct reply to me or, obviously, the ones I am replying to. I never saw damaja’s post till I saw yours and looked to see who you were replying to.
Well, I DID POST A LINK BEFORE FOR DAMAJA! And I’m pretty sure I posted it soon after he asked for it, not days later so that he might have missed it.
So. I will post is again. It wasn’t a formal offer, but Sandy made it clear to Greenberg what the parameters of an offer would be and it was up to 100 MILLION DOLLARS. Greenberg only had to pick up the phone, call Sandy and say OK and Jose would be a Met today.
Here is an excerpt from the linked article:
“He said, ‘I really want to play in Miami as long as you pay me $1 more than anyone else. … I really want to make the most money I can,’” team president David Samson told Miami businessmen during a speech Tuesday, according to Miami Today.
According to the report, Samson also bragged about securing taxpayer dollars to get a new Marlins stadium built.
“I don’t have to hold back now that the stadium is built — not that I ever have,” Samson reportedly said. “We’re not the smartest people in Miami. If you’re in this room, you’re instantly in the top 1 percent.”
As for Reyes, the Mets never made him a formal offer. But, according to sources, they made it clear they were willing to guarantee five years — with the deal ultimately rising in value to six years, $100 million if Reyes could stay healthy and a vesting option kicked in.
http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/39497/jose-reyes-is-a-ballplayer
BTW, this is at least the third time I’ve posted this link on this site in the last few months for those who asked for proof that the Mets made Reyes an offer.
And according to Sandy Alderson ( aka the horse’s mouth ) , they NEVER made that OFFER !
Your statement was Sandy made an offer, that some unnamed source said he was willing to go to 6/100
now try again, except with more feeling !
No, according to Sandy, they never made him a formal offer. BUT they did make an informal one in the sense that it was made clear to Greenberg what the Mets would offer Reyes and it was up to 100 MILLION DOLLARS.
Bottom line: Greenberg only had to phone Sandy and say OK, and Reyes would be a Met today. But he wanted to be a Marlin. LMFAO!
Try again damaja — with or without feeling IRDC!
“BUT they did make an informal one in the sense that it was made clear to Greenberg what the Mets would offer Reyes and it was up to 100 MILLION DOLLARS.”
100 million according to your un-named anonymous source.
Sandy Alderson after Reyes signed said there were limitations and fears he had with multi-year contracts, not just with regards to the mets, but in general as a matter of principle. This isnt a rumor, this is Sandy himself saying this…
You are hilarious, you say you dont take what a GM says seriously, but you take what an anonymous source says that a GM would say seriously!
LMAO
try again, but with more feeling
LOL, it is NOT my unnamed source. It is Rubin’s, LMAO!
Sandy Alderson has said often BEFORE and AFTER Reyes signed that there were certain exceptions to anything and that in certain circumstances players were worth giving the big bucks and multi-year contracts to.
You are hilarious too! Because you know as well as I that I already addressed the issue of factual assertions in another thread. But since your memory is poor, here I’ll repeat it:
Let me make this clear – I was talking about things that are not factual assertions. If it is a factual assertion, I will take anything at face value. For example, if the GM says they went down to Virginia to talk to Wright after the season, then I am going to believe it. There is no reason not to.
What I will never take seriously are plans, projections, estimates, speculation, opinions, theories, or assessments made by a GM regarding something in the future or the subjective state of something in the present or future.
Factual assertions regarding things in the past = YES
Speculative hypotheticals and opinions = NO
LOL … try again … with or without feeling IRDC!
and you are using that source as proof that Sandy made an offer !!!
An Offer Sandy himself said he never made !!!!
this is what Sandy said:” at in certain circumstances players were worth giving the big bucks and multi-year contracts to.”
The only person who claims the offer went up to 100 is an anonymous source !!!
Yes !!!!
That makes sense, Sandy himself said he never made an offer….he only spoke to greenberg about the parameters, which could mean a 4 year / 60 mil contract ! or a 10 year 100 mil contract…or a 100 year 100 mil contract….
we will never know b/c the guy who knows how much was offered…never actually told us !
Yes !
Lets trust an anonymous source and treat it like scripture !!!
that makes sense…
no wait…it really doesnt !
try again with more feeling !
Listen starting at the 2:05 mark.
http://web.sny.tv/media/video.jsp?content_id=20021765
LOL, another nice find, Mr. NorthJersey!
I don’t think he’ll watch it though. The truth hurts him too much so he closes his eyes to everything!
if Sandy wanted to include an injury clause, isn’t that too complicated to be discussed informally over the phone in lieu of actual contract negotiations? As the attached points out, the Red Sox insisted on that clause in three long-term contracts – and got it with two of their players through negotiation.
In addition, too many on MMO from both sides of the fence agree one should be careful when it comes to statements made by any general manager, let it be Sandy or anyone else. Keeping that in mind, if Sandy was sincere in wanting Jose to stay a Met but was concerned with his health – why not begin initial negotiations during the winter/spring of 2010/11 to discuss protecting the Mets own interests when Jose was actually coming off two straight seasons of injury and his future physical status an uncertainty – with the inclusion of that injury clause?
Terms were worked out in Boston with Drew and Laceky’s agents. There is no way those could be negotiated if there were no formal negotiations. As the article notes, Jason Bay’s agent refused to consider such a clause so the Red Sox then offered him a contract at a lower salary – which we know he did not accept. Sandy attempted no such formal negotiatin with Reyes’ agent at the time when an injury clause could have really been used as a negotiating chip.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/03/27/contracts_designed_to_protect_teams_against_injuries/
Joey — Huh? Why do you say Sandy wanted to include an injury clause? He actually might have loved to, but he probably knew it would go nowhere with Greenberg since the Marlins weren’t insisting on one. So I doubt Sandy even proposed one to Greenberg.
It was an option year based on vesting. The same that, for example, Bay had with the Mets.
And why would someone need to see Reyes in person to write up an option year with vesting?
As for statements made by a GM, I only discount anything of a speculative, hypothetical nature regarding future or current plans — or off the cuff remarks and humor — but NOT factual assertions made about things in the past. It would be a little ridiculous to dismiss factual assertions about past events.
And I think it’s totally illogical to expect Sandy to have offered Jose a contract the first winter he was GM without ever having watched him play and with Jose coming off of years in which he suffered injuries. He as much said so in comments before the year started — that he wanted to see Jose for himself. Besides, I highly doubt Jose is going to accept a much smaller contract which was likely if he were to receive an offer BEFORE the season started.
And of course there were formal negotiations between Sandy and Greenberg. There just wasn’t a “formal” offer … but there was an informal one and for all intents and purposes it was an offer. All Greenberg had to do was pick up the phone, call Sandy and say YES, and Reyes would be a Met today!
Hi Metro,
Sandy said he was concerned with Jose’s health problems prior to the opening of spring training in 2011. In the attached interview around the time Jose became a free agent he also said he had an idea of what Jose wanted and was willing to negotiate with the understanding Jose was going to start off high (just like I suggested he would) and that the Mets were going to start low (just as I also suggested they would) and then things would take off from there.
So it was not a matter of informal discussions with Sandy resulting in the Mets not pursuing the matter any further because Jose was out-pricing himself. If anything, the author suggests Sandy wanted to see what the market set for Jose so he wouldn’t be over-bidding. Fair enough, but that tactic did backfire for the Mets then missed an opportunity to sign him during the spring when his market value was lower, before he went on to win the batting title.
In that SNY interview, Sandy did say he wanted a contract to include some sort of injury clause. Those have to be formulated in serious negotiations – not informal conversations – for the legalities to define what type of injury Jose should be responsible for are tremendous. What if he was spiked by an opposing player like Daniel Murphy was in 2011 with subsequent problems resulting from that going into future years? What if Jose collided into David Wright instead of Ike Davis because the catcher failed to call either player off? On the other hand, what if Jose again seriously pulled a hamstring or his knee just gave out on it’s own?
If Sandy was indeed sincere about wanting to re-sign Jose, then he blew it by waiting. But that is different from the contention that in informal negotiations Jose simply out priced himself with demands that the Mets could not meet so no formal offer was ever made. One contradicts the other.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/gm-sandy-alderson-mets-plan-contract-offer-free-agent-ss-jose-reyes-article-1.970263
Good morning Joey — Keep in mind that Miami’s initial offer was a lowball one and that Reyes was unhappy with it and there was a stalemate between him and the Marlins. It was only the last week (or weekend) of the process that Miami upped their offer. SO, Sandy’s was working for awhile until Loria decided to raise their initial offer to Reyes.
I don’t think signing Reyes in the spring would have been possible because it appeared Reyes wanted to test free agency. Remember,it was mentioned even before Sandy became GM that Reyes wanted “Crawford” money. He allegedly even phrased it that way. So he was looking for a huge payday to begin with. And, Sandy, never having watched Reyes play up close, and wary about his injury history, was never going to even offer the 100 MILLION he eventually did after that season. And remember, Sandy even tried to engage Reyes in contract negotiations mid-season and Reyes declined. So I don’t think a pre-season extension was ever going to happen,as both sides were not amenable to it.
As for an actual “injury clause” Sandy never mentions that in the SNY interview. He only talks about a vesting “option” which is different than the “injury clause” you were talking about. And I’m not sure why you think serious negotiations can’t be had over the phone. They are done all the time over the phone. I completely disagree with that premise.
As for the specific injuries you mention (ie, being spiked by another player), whatever restrictions in the contract regarding can certainly be agreed to by phone. There was no reason to meet in person at that point. In fact, here is what usually happens FWIG:
1) The GM and the agent agree by phone or in person (doesn’t matter) on a deal
2) The GM and the agent exchange a formal offer sheet which is signed.
3) The GM and the agent work out the particulars of a contract and the player gets a physical
4) The GM and the agent agree to a final contract and everything is sent over to MLB for their approval
5) The deal is finalized!
There is no reason that all these stages could not happen by phone, especially since we are not talking about a new player here. Reyes was a homegrown who the Mets knew very well. Sandy also knows Greenberg from his many previous years as a GM. So there is no need to meet in person at this particular stage.
Likely, the Marlins were negotiating with Greenberg by phone at that point in time. Right? Were they serious? Hell, yes!
I really don’t see any contradictions in Sandy’s behavior. There is no way Jose signs before the season. Sandy wanted to re-sign him, only at a reasonable price. Sandy’s plan may have succeeded if not for crazy man Loria. Remember, there were no other serious offers for Reyes besides the Mets one and Miami’s.
Some of you may not like how Sandy handled things, but I don’t see any contradictions.
Joey — on second thought, the part where everything gets sent over to MLB for approval before being finalized I think may only happen in trades. So skip that part. But that doesn’t impact my other points.
Hi Metro,
As far as the seriousness of those phone calls in November, Sandy said:
“We’ve had some conversations. I wouldn’t classify them as substantive — more than phone tag. … I don’t want to get into any detail. But I also while saying I don’t want to comment, I don’t want to give you the false impression that we are anywhere along the road. I still think it’s early, notwithstanding all the background noise from the last week.”
If they only reached the stage of than “phone tag” by that time, then how serious could that informal telephone conversation earlier in the season have been?
What many of us argue is that so many make the assertion that Sandy did not pursue anything further after that informal telephone conversation with his agent because he already knew the Mets could not afford what Jose wanted. This action in itself proves that it wasn’t that.
A long experienced contractual negotiator on an executive level, Sandy also knows way better than us that when a team seriously wants to re-sign a player, it is preferable to deal with him while one has exclusive rights – not only just during the season but for that period after it ends – as opposed to negotiating for one’s services against others too. And at that point, it was still nothing more than “phone tag”.
So the question comes down to how serious he was with wanting to re-sign Jose and how much of a real priority that actually was. We know he did not play the wait game with David, he was not doing that with R.A. either, but he was doing that with Jose – even months into the season when it was apparent health was not an issue. We know Sandy felt he had Tejada as an option – he says it in the attached as well. And as Sandy also said, they were still only playing phone tag even during the time he had exclusive negotiating rights after the season ended.
Sandy cannot control Jose’s agent or the general managers of other clubs. But he certainly can control the steps that his own ball club wants to pursue. His were not the actions of one wanting to seriously retain the services of his current shortstop. That was his prerogative. But to paint it as if it was Jose who walked away from the Mets is unfounded for Sandy either 1) took no serious steps to stop him at the door because re-signing Jose was not the priority he stated it was or 2) played the negotiation game poorly.
I don’t think it was the latter for Sandy is too smart to know how the game is played. His actions show it.
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/7235579/new-york-mets-gm-sandy-alderson-expect-quick-jose-reyes-resolution
Joey.Your just wasting your time hereall your getting is the runaround..
The question was answered quite clearly by MNJ….
There was NO FORMAL PROPOSAL!
They never got that far because he didn’t offer a 100M Guaranteed contract which was what he already had on the table….
Sandy tried to get options instead in these phone calls and was told why would I take unguaranteed when I already have it guaranteed….
But in the end Sandy actually spoke the truth and never offerred 100MIl or made any formal proposal at all….
And if he wanted to make a formal proposal for 100Mil unguaranteed the time to have done it would have been BEFORE Reyes was no longer exclusive and could get any other deals that would have trumped what Sandy wanted to offer him…
But he was too worried about Bidding against himself….
So he got what he wanted he had to bid against the Marlins instead….
And he LOST because of his own stupidity!
This guy is just going to run you around with half facts and semantical definitions of what an offer is…..
It wasn’t an offer it was a question asked of Reyes’ agent on what might be an ACCEPTABLE offer….
It wasn’t acceptable enough to trump the offer he already had because Sandy wanted someone else to bid before he did!
Hi Metsie,
I think you are putting Sandy Alderson down too much in this aspect – for I don’t think his intention was really ever to sign Jose instead of just being a bad negotiator. It appears it was not a case of not wanting to bid against himself as it was not wanting to really bid at all but making it appear so with the public, then making it seem that Jose and his agent were the stumbling blocks by asking for too much.
All his public statements were for show for they did not back up the actions really taken. One who wants to make it a priority to attempt re-signing a player does not do it in the fashion he did. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t willing to re-sign Jose, but not that it was a priority.
Also, the argument so many make is that Sandy was re-building and that Jose would not be a part of it. If that is so, then why the claims now that Sandy made an offer to Jose to begin with and still wanted to negotiate with him. Doesn’t that sound like a contradiction of three things:
1) Didn’t have the money to spend and thus could not afford to keep him – yet then he is negotiating knowing he had an idea of what Jose would eventually want.
2) Wanted to re-build and did not want to be stuck with an injury-plagued shortstop who relied on speed and past his peak – yet then starts to negotiate knowing it would have to be a long-term commitment.
3) Re-signing Jose was a priority.
And why didn’t he just trade Jose at the 2011 deadline if he wasn’t serious about keeping him – and at least get something more substantial in return? Because sending Jose packing on top of already dismantling the team of it’s top hitter and closer would have been even a worse financial and public relations disaster.
Sandy was not going to commit to Jose for it was too expensive and that was a business decision which doesn’t make him a bad guy or a good guy. The problem is not so much that being the route he took but with others wanting not to see that and thus needing to blame Jose for what happened. I don’t see what the problem is for anyone to acknowledge that.
“for I don’t think his intention was really ever to sign Jose instead of just being a bad negotiator.”
Well thats the point I made isn’t it?
If he really wanted him he would have made an offer before the Marlins got a chance to beat it…
He didn’t…and all this talk of phone calls and Options is really just an attempt to APPEAR to negotiate without negotiating…
Sandy never gave a formal offer for a reason….
Reyes might take it! And he really didn’t want Reyes to come back!
Something The circle jerk keeps insisting he did.
Hi Metsie,
Sorry I misread your intent.
Over the last few weeks we’ve again presented evidence using Sandy’s own words from that first press conference introducing him to the public, a blogger conference call nearly two months later, his interviews in spring training, through that informal talk during the season and onto November.
In the past we’ve also presented articles where he spoke frankly about his business philosophy – not to mention a history of the Mets bad financial state and how they had to be saved by MLB because twice they could not meet their end of the month financial obligations because they had exhausted their working capital and financial institutions refused to give them any more loans (which says a lot in itself when a big market baseball team is considered by financial institutions as too much of a risk to invest any further in).
Everything he has said contradicts his actions and the conclusions of many others- including that of either 1) not wanting to rebuild around an injury plagued Jose and yet wanting to then negotiate with his agent and 2) perhaps willing to rebuild around Jose but couldn’t because Jose was out pricing himself but then wanting to negotiate after admitting he had an idea of what Jose was seeking and where a compromise could be reached – though still never offering a formal proposal (Sandy knows nothing is legal or binding until put in writing).
Hi Joey — I’ve continued our discussion in this portion of the thread at the bottom of the page. Look there for my reply.
And I’m going to bookmark this thread so no one claim the proof of the offer was never posted here.
Metro – Quit wasting your time, the people who want to hate the Mets for the Reyes stuff will do it no matter what. They refuse to understand that not faxing over a formal offer doesn’t mean they never spoke with Reyes’ representatives and if there was never a conversation then Reyes’ reps are just as much to blame.
It’s the same idea as “the mets didn’t sign half their draft class!” It sounds dramatic but then you look at the fact the players they didn’t sign for the most part were in the bottom half of the draft. But that doesn’t sound as alarming so it’s not added to the quote.
A formal offer doesn’t dictate whether a conversation happened. And if the Mets had an idea of where they wanted to be and Reyes had other views, then making a formal offer that they knew would not be accepted – truthfully made no sense in the early stages of free agency.
Jessep — You are right that talking to some of them is like talking to a brick wall. But hey, I don’t mind revealing the TRUTH!
And, by the way, Sandy did speak to Greenberg within a day or two of the time he decided to go for the bigger contract. He told that to reporters the Sunday night before the winter meetings in 2011.
But bottom line is that if Reyes wanted to be Met, there was an understanding between Greenberg and Sandy — an informal offer — and Reyes only had to say YES and he’d be a Met today. To the tune of roughly 100 million dollars.
“Sandy did speak to Greenberg within a day or two of the time he decided to go for the bigger contract.”
Greenberg is also Tejada’s agent, Santana’s agent…its very well possible Sandy was talking to Greenberg about another client….and technically he could tell u that he spoke to greenberg…but since Sandy doesnt reveal any detail, saying he met with Greenberg is absolutely useless.
Try again, but with more feeling
No, he said he talked to Greenberg in the day or two before Reyes OK’d the Marlins offer specifically in regard to signing Reyes. Not for anything else.
Try again, with or without feeling. IRDC!
” Still, Reyes had enough interest in remaining a Met that the club remained in the running until late Sunday morning. Peter Greenberg, Reyes’ agent, said Mets GM Sandy Alderson called last Friday to report the team wanted to make an offer. When Greenberg told Alderson what the Marlins were offering, Alderson said he would be in touch.
As the two talked numerous times over the next 36 hours, Greenberg told Alderson that the parameters of what the Mets were talking “were not competitive” with the Marlins’ offer. ”
http://aol.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2011-12-07/marlins-long-pursuit-of-jose-reyes-ends-with-six-year-deal
Hehehe … thank you, NorthJersey!
As someone famous once penned: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet!
I remember seeing an interview right after Reyes signed with Miami – with SA speaking about this. I only saw it once – might have been on SNY.
If I remember correctly he said – and I’m paraphrasing here – he thought by late Friday they’d actually get a deal done with Reyes. Said it like it almost surprised him they’d be able to get it done. He went on to say by late Saturday it had all changed. Miami came in with their offer – topping their previous one – and it was all over.
I’ve tried to find this brief clip once or twice but was never able to locate it anywhere online.
…but there was no previous “offer”…
Sandy has said there was never an offer
Greenberg has said there was never an offer
Reyes has said there was never an offer…
And Sandy himself said he was no longer interested once he heard the Marlins went up to 106
So by Metro12′s account…his “offer” ( according to an anonymous source ) was going to be 100…but why even submit that when the Marlins offer 106 !
Then Sandy goes on the defensive and says that there are lines he wont cross for multi-year contracts !!!
but apparently he was willing to go up to 100 mil …just not 106 !!!
Yes !!!!
That makes sense !
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck
Sandy didn’t think it was worth going over 100 MILLION for Reyes, so he went looking for a little home town discount. He was mistaken. But hey, he tried.
Makes perfect sense to hold the line where he did.
“We were still waiting on them,” Greenberg said. Apparently, Alderson knew the financially troubled club COULD NOT COME CLOSE to matching the Marlins’ offer.
I guess 100 mil is not close to 106 mil !!!
o wait..maybe that offer wasnt 100 mil ?
lmaooooo
The offer was 100 million. It has been proven to you many times already. The article NorthJersey linked to was written BEFORE it was disclosed the Mets offer was for 100 MILLION!
Look at the dates and use your head!
LOL!
Oh, and according to Samson, Reyes was going to go anywhere that was offering just 1 penny more than anyone else! LOL.
So even a penny less wouldn’t have been “CLOSE” in Reyes’ eyes!
Yes !
that anonymous source !!!
Thats the smoking gun !!!
we’ll forget Sandy ever said he NEVER ONCE made an offer !
then we’ll forget Jose Reyes ever said he NEVER ONCE received an offer !
As a matter of fact, he never even got a PHONE CALL !
When Sandy wants to sign David Wright…he flies to his house !
http://metsblog.com/metsblog/sandy-alderson-recently-visited-with-wright-in-va-talks-are-progressing/
Reyes actually lives 20 minutes from Citifield…never got a phone call, a text, much less a visit!
and unlike David, Sandy said he was willing to let Reyes go out to the market first, find his BEST DEAL, than see if that would top what the mets were willing to pay. ( a number never disclosed by anyone …but for the sake of argument, lets say your anonymous source was right …100 mil tops )
Reyes went and got a 106 mil offer …
Sandy then REFUSED TO even submit an offer
if the difference was 6 mil, and Sandy refused to submit an offer, he is a MORON
if the difference was 20 mil ( which sounds more likely ) than Sandy ( via the wilpons ) never wanted to formally submit an embarrassingly low offer and face public shame
Here is what Sandy said in an interview on ESPN
======================
Did you ever make an offer?
“No.”
Why?
“Well, we talked CONCEPTUALLY about all the ELEMENTS of a contract. So I THINK there was an understanding on their part of what we were talking about in a complete contractual sense. But we did NOT make a formal offer.”
But your sources say Sandy was willing to go up to 100 mil !!!
are your sauces Francesco Rinaldi ?
You lose, damaja. For all intents and purposes it was an “offer” and others agree with me.
So sorry to burst your bubble. It must hurt to admit to yourself that Reyes jumped ship for just 6 million more and was disingenuous when he cried that the Mets did not make an offer.
LOL, and no sources. NorthJersey found proof right from the horses mouth. LIsten to it if you dare! Hahaha!
Unfortunately, Sandy HIMSELF in the video NJ posted said that the only way Reyes makes 100 mil is if some team options are executed. MEANING the offer was anywhere between 75-80 mil NOT 100 mil.
and Greenberg said Sandy STOPPED talking after he showed him the Miami offer…
===========================================
Still, Reyes had enough interest in remaining a Met that the club remained in the running until late Sunday morning. Peter Greenberg, Reyes’ agent, said Mets GM Sandy Alderson called last Friday to report the team wanted to make an offer.
When Greenberg told Alderson what the Marlins were offering, Alderson said he would be in touch.
As the two talked numerous times over the next 36 hours, Greenberg told Alderson that the parameters of what the Mets were talking “were not competitive” with the Marlins’ offer.
The two talked for the last time Sunday morning as Alderson was preparing to fly to the winter meetings. At the time, Reyes had yet to make his decision. But soon after Alderson touched down in Dallas, he told reporters that the Mets were out of it.
“We were still waiting on them,” Greenberg said. Apparently, Alderson knew the financially troubled club could not come close to matching the Marlins’ offer.
YUP
COMBINE THAT with the interview…where Sandy said that if some options were exercised and reyes stayed healthy, he could get up to 100 mil…this means the offer was MUCH less than 100 mill….
hell that could be a 5 year 75 mil offer with 2 team options at 12.5 mil a piece !!!
once again you lose,
pick a better argument !
I don’t know why a year later this is so difficult to understand. Based on the 2 people involved (Greenberg and Alderson) Reyes wound up taking the guaranteed money and the Mets in their talks with Greenberg was discussing parameters of a deal that would only achieve 6 years $100M by way of the use of incentives and options.
Since the Mets would not guarantee 6 years or $100M and the Marlins did the Marlins offer won out. Technically an offer was not made all the parties involved agree on this. Yet Greenberg agrees that they did have an outline of an offer that in the end was not competitive with the Miami winning offer.
Because Sandy never offered Reyes a contract guaranteed at 100 mil
When people refer to contracts signed, the sum total never assumes that all options are exercised. Everyone knows that.
Well everyone except Metro12
Your getting hung up on semantics. Again all the parties involved agree the Mets never made an official offer. The Mets GM said quite clear what he had been discussing was not a guaranteed offer but rather an incentive laden/options deal that IF Reyes was healthy would see him get the $100M he was seeking. Greenberg told the Mets GM his offer was not competitive with the Marlins offer.
Again the parameters of the deal would only reach $100M based on incentives and options. It was a deal that required both sides to take some risk and Reyes smartly took the guaranteed money.
If you rather not believe this fine. Go on doing so.
I actually DO believe this…
I also believe that an incentive laden contract with option years that kick in is NOT the same thing as a guaranteed contract.
No one says Johan got a 165 mil contract, they say he got a 137 mil contract.
Saying that Sandy’s offer was competitive with Miami’s is grossly misleading.
Sandy’s parameters are exactly what we did with Vlad Guerrero in 2003. How many players have ever signed a contract like that ? Sandy ( or his bosses ) knew that it was a low-ball offer that another team would match or surpass.
ONE option year was mentioned. NOT multiple ones. So apart from ONE option year, the rest would have been guaranteed.
It was competitive with Miami’s offer in the sense that if Reyes had stayed healthy, it would have been worth 100 MILLION dollars, just 6 million short of Miami’s offer. But Reyes wanted every last penny.
And here’s the difference between the vesting option in the offer the Mets made to Reyes and Johan’s option — Johan’s option is NOT vesting but Jose’s is. Johan’s option is simply a team or mutual option. No matter how little or how much Johan plays in 2013, the Mets can decide not to pick up the option. But with the proposed option to Jose, he had control over it.
And Sandy never negotiated with Guerrero.
Why would Sandy Alderson wait to call his agent to negotiate only when the Miami deal was being consummated if the informal asking price was was too high to pursue to begin with and was still out of the Mets reach?
Was it all for show?
Joey — Read the articles linked to. Sandy did NOT wait until the deal with Miami was being finalized. It’s clear from the timeline that Sandy was discussing an offer with Greenberg for many days immediately PRIOR to Reyes’ final decision to go to the Marlins. It’s in the article NorthJersey linked to.
Hi Metro,
Those few days you talked about were seen by me as the time the Marlins and Reyes were ironing out that deal. If you want to take that equation out of it, fine with me. We are still both talking about a few days before Jose signed with the fish.
But that doesn’t answer my question about beginning negotiations with the insistence of an injury clause at the time it was most opportune for the Mets to discuss it. If Jose’s agent balked after sitting down and listening to Sandy’s offer regarding the terms of that clause and refused to consider it in any future negotiation – then I would have no trouble with Sandy sending Jose that box of chocolates. But by that, I don’t mean making telephone calls a few days before the Miami signing to discuss such an option when the Mets then had to compete against other teams for Jose’s services.
Joey — Just read the article (not the video interview) that NorthJersey linked to. It clearly says that days after Sandy first made his offer to Greenberg that Reyes hadn’t even made up his mind yet. He only decided on Sunday night. And Sandy had been in discussions with Greenberg since the Friday before. So your impressions are incorrect.
As for the “injury clause” you keep talking about, AFAIK, no one has claimed that. Where are you getting that from? There was no injury clause such as the one the Red Sox had with Lackey. It was a vesting option! (For proof of this view the video that NorthJersey linked to).
So read the article and look at the video. It will give you a clearer insight into the process.
Hi Metro,
Pardon me for not realizing I was responding to something you wrote before I wrote about the injury clause. No way you could have answered in advance of me asking. LOL
My apologies.
Hey Joey … no problem! It’s sometime hard to keep track of the various parts of a discussion going on simultaneously!
I’m calling it a night. Have a good one. We’ll continue this tomorrow or another day!
yes and Sandy Alderson stating that he never made Reyes an offer doesnt mean he never made him an offer !
LMAO
Yes, and Sandy essentially said it was an offer for all intents and purposes, while not a “formal” offer.BOTTOM LINE: All Reyes’ agent had to do was pick up the phone and say YES and Reyes would be a Met today with a 100 million dollar contract. But noooooooooo … Reyes wanted every last penny!
LOL!
Joey — Regarding your Royals link — they based that article on the Forbes reports and gave no other evidence for their contention that the Royals are a highly profitable business. I tend to agree with Glass that a 70 million payroll is probably the break even point for an average small/mid-market team. The article by Dayne Perry (whom I am familiar with a I’ve been reading him for many years) is just an opinion piece on a blog. There isn’t any original reporting in it. No additional evidence other than pointing to Forbes.
As for the Marlins, no need for an article here. While I don’t trust Forbes numbers — even for the Marlins — and will never use them … I’ve read and seen enough of the Marlins’ antics to make me believe that they at least don’t lose money,. Loria is a scoundrel who likely pockets millions off his team. No one has to convince me that the Marlins do not operate in good faith. I would need to see more proof, however, for the Royals.
Hi Metro,
Since it comes down to not trusting the numbers Forbes provides, I guess it now a matter of vetting Forbes to see how they come up with those figures to back up your contention of inaccurate guesstimates. The author had addressed those issues you raise:
Q – Does Forbes disclose the approach used to calculate the team values or provide any additional details on how the value is derived?
A -We use multiples of revenue. These multiples are based on past transactions of teams in similar markets and stadiums. If a team is about to move into a new stadium, or get a new media deal, we attempt to adjust the multiple accordingly.
Q – Where do the revenue and operating income numbers come from for each team? Are they reported somewhere or are they estimated by Forbes?
A – Some of our P&L figures come from team executives with first-hand knowledge of the numbers, some from bankers and others with second-hand knowledge and some are estimates based on our compilation of attendance, lease, media and player expense information.
However, I will do a search on the subject of Forbes to find credible financial sources that can confirm the figures – even if only estimates – are as inaccurate and unreliable as you contend – or even if Forbes has simply been guilty of unreliable estimating on a regular basis in other areas (has to be a trend, not an exception to the rule). Will let you know what I come up with pro or con.
Any websites you know of would be appreciated.
Joey — Before you do that, did you look at what they had for the Mets for the 2011 season? We know the Mets lost around $70 million. That’s what the Mets said and that’s what even the Wilpons’ enemies said. Forbes only has their loss at 40 million. So that’s one example right there.
And so what if you find an example of a team or two that is accurate? If there are no RSN numbers … if they were so far off on the 2011 Mets … if they were so far off on the Dodgers’ valuation … then how do you know what’s right and what’s wrong.
I mean, chances are they guessed right for a few teams. So what? That doesn’t make every other team correct.
The Forbes reports aren’t totally useless. The REVENUE figures have some value (if you account for the fact they exclude RSNs). But other than that, I would discount almost everything else.
And, by the way, why do I give some credence to revenue figures? Because many streams of revenue are public (such as revenues from MLB broadcasting deals which are distributed to each team) and others can be easily derived from things like ticket prices and attendance. But costs are much much harder, if not impossible, to get.
Hi Metro,
Yes, I did that and also the questions raised about the accuracy of the reports with other teams to.
Came across several sites that raise the accuracy issue.
The Padres vehemently deny what was reported.
In the the podcast regarding Cleveland (click on the link in the article itself) he Forbes executive describes how they go about doing this. He even explains that with some small market teams it is not as much “pocketing” the money as it is keeping it in reserve to offset financial losses in future years.
Baseball Prospectus questions the accuracies of Forbes reporting but concludes they are probably very close to being accurate.
The issue of RSNs comes up in terms of the value of the team and why profits are not reflected in the team’s own bottom figures.
So now it becomes a matter of one’s own opinion on whether or not Forbes is doing it’s homework accurately and professionally or is compiling information like an amateur.
And it also becomes a matter of trust. Since we do not have access to the books – as you correctly point out – how can we prove that Sandy Alderson was being completely up front with that $70 million figure? It’s his word against Forbes and I think it would be good for all of us to back away from our pre-disposed opinions and give a few minutes to ponder that question. Forget about the Reyes comments, roster promises, Howie Medgal, etc – put those aside and think only in terms of the financial picture as we can see it. Did Sandy provide figures to show how that $70 million figure was derived? Did it include the selling of television rights to SNY, merchandising and other sources of revenue?
As Forbes contends, that type of information is available. As Sandy contends, the bottom line is that the Mets lost $70 million in 2011. Go start the vetting but back it up with figures, not hypothetical innuendo pro or con. I think we most all will conclude that it is over our heads and becomes a matter of whom we actually trust in reliability. That’s why I say to put any preconceived biases for the moment.
http://www.gaslampball.com/2011/3/23/2068477/forbes-claims-padres-most-profitable-in-mlb-padres-president-says
http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/?podcast_url=http%3A%2F%2Fcbscleveland.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F03%2Fmike-ozanian-3-22-12.mp3&podcast_name=Mike+Ozanian&podcast_artist=Bull+%26amp%3B+Fox&station_id=113&audio_link=true&config_file=config.xml&dcid=CBS.CLEVELAND
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6146
Joey …
So now it becomes a matter of one’s own opinion on whether or not Forbes is doing it’s homework accurately and professionally or is compiling information like an amateur.
To be clear, I don’t think they are unprofessional. It’s just that they don’t have access to all critical info and so therefore cannot be accurate. And even with some teams they may not even be “ballpark.” They bite off more than they can chew with their reports.
Since we do not have access to the books – as you correctly point out – how can we prove that Sandy Alderson was being completely up front with that $70 million figure? It’s his word against Forbes
Joey, that is an inaccurate portrayal of where the numbers are coming from. The losses for 2011 didn’t come just from Sandy. They were widely reported by parties who are very anti-Wilpon such as Megdal and Kossman of the New York Post. Even Sandomir of the NYT’s . So it’s not Forbes vs. Sandy. It’s Forbes vs. just about everyone else.
“…figures to show how that $70 million figure was derived? Did it include the selling of television rights to SNY, merchandising and other sources of revenue?”
No one on the outside will ever know the exact cause of that loss. Not Forbes. Not Megdal. Not you or I. Unless it’s leaked by some renegade executive, those particulars for most MLB teams are simply unknowable. At least the expenses side of the equation. It doesn’t matter if we know only some of the revenues that went into the equation. If we don’t know ALL the revenues, and can ONLY guess at the expenses, then it’s a fruitless exercise.
Go start the vetting but back it up with figures, not hypothetical innuendo pro or con. I think we most all will conclude that it is over our heads and becomes a matter of whom we actually trust in reliability.
But it’s impossible to back things up with figures when all of them are basically unknowable. It will forever be guesstimates on our part as to the EXACT profits and losses. As I said, revenues are a little easier to deduce. But without the other side of the balance sheet, then it’s pretty useless to come to firm conclusions.
That doesn’t mean we can’t make general conclusions about a team’s financial condition. But we’ll have to use circumstantial evidence — and NOT Forbes guesstimates. For example, it’s fair to say that the Marlins don’t have a lot of money, but at the same time Loria is a scoundrel who likely pockets a lot of money from revenue sharing and MLB. It’s also fair to say that the Phillies have been doing well in recent years. But I wouldn’t use Forbes figures. I’d go by their payroll spending, their attendance, some of the contracts they’ve handed out etc. It’s also fair to say the Mets were in deep financial doo-doo at this time 2 years ago. And I think it’s fair to say that they’ve turned the corner as evidenced by the refinancing. (I know you will disagree here, but that’s the way I see things.) Of course, Sandy is tight-fisted with the money, but I’m not too sure all of that is because of a tight budget. It’s at least partly by choice.
So, one can make all sorts of valid arguments regarding a team’s financial condition — but I would not use Forbes as the primary source. I would ONLY use it if it backed up the circumstantial evidence.
Hi Metro,
Fair enough except for one part that I disagree with.
Did the Mets actually make their books open to the public to confirm that $70 million figure that Sandy said? Unless I am missing something, all there is to go by are Sandy’s statements.
If they did not have access to confirm that $70 million figure, it doesn’t mean that Forbes got it wrong – it just means they too are speculating and we have to apply the same principles of doubt – or trust – to all parties. It can’t be split.
Had Sandy not been giving us the double-talk about so many other issues, then perhaps I might have faith in his integrity to be honest. But I don’t and he has only himself to blame for that. It’s no different than your opinion with Forbes based on what see is the use of circumstantial evidence (I assume because with the information that is available there are still too many dots that need connecting).
So it still comes down to whom we have more faith in…, or perhaps whom we have less distrust in.
Joey —
No, the Mets have never opened their books to the public and I don’t think any other team in MLB history has ever done so! (There might be a rare exception, but it will be very very rare.)
I will look for a link for you over the next few days … but I don’t want to search for one today! It’s Sunday and a day of rest for me. But I will look for one in the next few days that mentions the Mets losses for 2011 but where the source is NOT Sandy.
Now where could the number have come from if not from Sandy? Just remember that the Mets over the last two years have had to go through a lot of processes where they have had to give out detailed financial information:
1) AFTER (and not before) the settlement was struck with Picard, the Mets had to hand over financial information to the trustee before the settlement could be finalized. Someone from Picard’s office could have leaked particulars. Remember, this was in the Spring of 2012. So it likely included 2011 numbers. And we know Picard’s office regularly leaked to Sandomir and the NYT;’s, so the idea that someone from there leaked the financial particulars is not a wild one.
2) The Mets have had numerous negotiations over the last few years with potential minority investors — from Einhorn to Cohen to the 1-800-Flowers guy, to Maher, to many others,. Well as part of those processes, they’ve had to turn over detailed information on 2011 as well. Someone from one of those parties (ie, their lawyers) could have leaked the information.
3) The Mets have had many dealings with their bank lenders in recent years regarding new loans, old loans, and refinancing. Obviously, as part of those negotiations, they would have had to hand over detailed financial info. Someone from inside one of those banks could have leaked that info. That’s where I think Kossman of the NY Post gets some of his information.
So you see, there are many many ways that the media could have gotten some information on the Mets actual 2011 losses than from Sandy or someone else inside the Mets.
Again, I will look for a link for you over the next few days.
Hi Metro,
I’ll do the same myself – am quite curious. Until then, it is all hypothesis for those same sources you mention were also available to Forbes and their little band of miscreants as well.
BTW – it’s been five days since I wrote “That article I posted a week or so ago showed all but one team made money during a four year period concluding in 2010″ and you replied “You are saying all teams in MLB have the ability to spend more on their payroll based on some 2010 report, but how can that be??? LOL.” – which began this whole thing in the first place! LOL. Am curious, after all that has since been exchanged, do you think that’s not the case (other than for the amounts reported by Forbes)? A simple yes or no would be fine. My answer is still yes.
Joey, I cannot give simple YES or NO answers, LOL. There are rarely simple YES or NO answers when it comes to the Mets!
If those sources were also available to Forbes, then Forbes wouldn’t have a loss total so different than what others reported. I doubt they do the legwork finding sources that local and beat reporters do on a team. That’s because Forbes would have 30 teams to investigate and it would be too massive a job to do that type of investigation that someone like Kossman may do. And they likely don’t have the connections that someone like Sandomir has either. Not saying they would have no way to get it, just that their sources and connections may not be as good as someone who covers the Mets and NY teams all years round like Sandomir and Kossman.
As for the finances of all 30 teams and their ability to spend more, no I don’t think that’s the case in general. First off, it varies from year-to-year depending on their previous year’s attendance and record as well as other factors. One year maybe 1/3 of the teams are breaking even, 1/3 are spending a little more than they can handle and are in a little debt, and 1/3 are spending less than they can and pocket some money. Then the next year you might have approximately the same breakdown but some teams have changed from one category to another. So it’s hard to make generalizations such as the one you made, and the generalization you make — even if correct one year — can be totally wrong the next.
Joey — And here’s one very specific example of how Forbes would likely have missed the boat on …
At the end of 2011 the Mets redid the outfield walls. And they built an entirely new seating area — that Citi Party area. They didn’t even finish that until late the next spring. Well, the Forbes report that covers the 2011 season is put out in early March. They likely did not include any expenses for all those construction costs at Citi Field that offseason.
I’m telling you, those Forbes figures are ballpark guesstimates at best. They just don’t have access to REAL numbers.
Hi Joey — I wasn’t talking about phone calls in November. I was talking about the phone calls Adlerson had with Greenberg in the days leading up to Reyes’ actual decision to go with the Marlins. These occurred in early December. The negotiations in December were serious. There were no serious negotiations in November because Sandy told Greenberg that he would wait to see where the market developed and then hopefully he would be given a chance to make the last bid.
If they only reached the stage of than “phone tag” by that time, then how serious could that informal telephone conversation earlier in the season have been?
I’m not sure what you are talking about. No one said there were serious negotiations earlier in the season or preseason. Preseason, neither Reyes or the Mets were inclined to strike a deal. Reyes wanted to test free agency. And Sandy wanted to see Reyes play first and also see how his health was. So there were no serious negotiations preseason because neither side wanted to strike a deal then.
Then, during the season, Sandy approached Greenberg about a deal, but was rebuffed and told by Greenberg that Reyes didn’t want to negotiate during the season! So I think it was clear at that time that Reyes wanted to test free agency. And yet STILL Sandy was hopeful of resigning Reyes.
What many of us argue is that so many make the assertion that Sandy did not pursue anything further after that informal telephone conversation with his agent because he already knew the Mets could not afford what Jose wanted.
Who is saying this? After the informal conversations in November, then Sandy had serious negotiations with Greenberg in early DECEMBER to try to sign Reyes. Yes, he had a limit that he wouldn’t exceed, but he still hoped to sign him. There are 3 links in this thread which show Sandy was in serious negotiations with Greenberg in early December.
it is preferable to deal with him while one has exclusive rights – not only just during the season but for that period after it ends
I’m sure Sandy agrees. But remember, Reyes refused to negotiate during the season, and he wanted to test the waters. He always wanted “Crawford money” and so there was no way he was going to accept substantially less than that without first going to free agency.
We know he did not play the wait game with David, he was not doing that with R.A. either, but he was doing that with Jose
That’s because neither was a free agent. So Sandy was not vying with any other team. He could plunge right in. But with Reyes, he had to wait till his market developed.
But to paint it as if it was Jose who walked away from the Mets
IMO, they walked away from each other … but Reyes a little more than Sandy. As I’ve said, all Greenberg had to do was call Sandy that first weekend in December, accept the 100 MILLION package that Sandy offered, and Reyes would be a Met today.
One thing you seemed to have completely forgotten that I want to reiterate — Sandy approached Reyes in the middle of the season to see if he would negotiate a deal and Reyes is the one who turned the Mets away! So for you to chastise Sandy on anything he did DURING the season regarding Reyes is totally unreasonable.
Hi Metro,
It is common for players not wanting to negotiate during certain points of the season. David said he would not negotiate a contract extension once the season started, either, because he did not want to be distracted. Sandy knows this too.
So as it stood, there was no attempt by the Mets to begin significant negotiations until late June and that was when Jose told his agent he didn’t want to be distracted. We don’t know what Jose would have said had they wanted to open up negotiations earlier in the season. There is no proof that until that time Jose didn’t want to negotiate with the Mets before testing the free agent market – Sandy never gave him that opportunity. There is, on the other hand, proof that Sandy didn’t want to negotiate with Jose before he tested the free agent market just by Sandy admitting he wanted Jose to get offers and then come back to him.
Hi Joey — Since you are aware that Reyes rebuffed the Mets in the middle of the season, then how come in the post I was replying to, you chastised Sandy 3 times for not being serious in the middle of the season? See where I’m going with this?
And as for spring training, there was just no feasible way a deal would ever get done between the two parties. Reyes firmly had free agency and Crawford-type numbers in his head. He wasn’t going to settle then:
“Jose Reyes sat right there in that chair and looked me in the eye and told me he was looking for the same deal Carl Crawford signed. He sat right there in that chair. He said it on the air loud and clear, that he expects to get paid like Carl Crawford. This isn’t speculation, this isn’t from some blogger, this is from Jose Reyes himself who sat right there and said it to me. Now, is he gonna get a Carl Crawford type deal? Who knows, I don’t know. We’ll find out.”
http://metsmerizedonline.com/2011/05/francesa-on-jose-reyes-wright-mets-reputation.html
So, sure, if you want, put Sandy’s post-season negotiating strategy under a microscope, but you have to at least lay off his actions prior to and during that season.
Hi Metro,
I just stuck with the timeline of facts and Sandy’s own chronological statements about both Jose and the financial situation the Mets were in – plus that of having Ruben Tejada – along with his background of contradictory statements and that is why it is either a case of Sandy not being as serious as he wanted Met fans to believe or that he miscalculated his moves badly and lost.
There is no evidence to show that Jose might have been just as guilty and was also giving fans nothing more than lip service. If he was, using a poker expression, Sandy never called him out on his bluff. Thus whatever one says about Jose is purely hypothetical. There was nothing on his part to base it on. And that includes Jose’s agent early on conveying to the Mets that he was seeking “Crawford” type money as Fred Wilpon said in that interview. So what? As Sandy said in November an extremely high first offer is to be expected.
Joey, but it is an undisputed fact that Jose and his agent rebuffed the Mets in the middle of the 2011 season. The Mets therefore cannot be criticized at least during that time frame for how they treated Jose.
Sure, Sandy miscalculated. But that was a risk he was willing to take. And I don’t think he miscalculated all that much. If not for Loria’s big bid — and no one thought the Marlins were going to go crazy that winter — then Sandy would have had the highest offer, roughly 85 million guaranteed with an option that would bring the total package to 100 MILLION.
The only thing I’m accusing Reyes of is going for the highest dollar. And not giving the Mets a home town discount. Frankly, he wanted the most money, plain and simple. He is not unique. There are many players like him.
If I think about it a little more, no one is to blame. It just wasn’t meant to be. Even if the Mets had been in better financial shape, I think the contract that Miami gave Jose was way too high. If the Mets had ended up signing signing for that amount or more, there would be Mets fans whining about him in 2-3 years when his performance declines. So they may have dodged a bullet by not signing him.
Joey — This excerpt from the article that NorthJersey linked to further supports the idea that Reyes was originally looking for “Crawford money” …
Speculation early on was that Reyes would score a Carl Crawford-type, seven-year, $142 million deal but the shortstop’s second hamstring injury this past season cost him, Greenberg admitted.
“He lost some value in the second half (when he went on the DL again),” he said. “He’s still a rich man,” Greenberg said.
While Greenberg doesn’t come right out and say it, it can be inferred from this exchange with the reporter that Crawford money was Reyes’ original goal.
Hey Joey — I did a quick search for the Mets losses in 2011, and this is what I found:
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/27/inside-the-new-york-mets-financial-ledger/
The above link is Kosman of the NY Post reporting on 2012 losses and says the $23 million lost in 2012 is 1/3 the amount lost in 2011. So that means roughly $70 million for 2011.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/27/inside-the-new-york-mets-financial-ledger/
The above link is even more interesting. It’s from April of that year but it’s from Fortune, and it includes sources who saw financial information regarding the Mets sale of minority shares. It says that they lost $50 million in 2010, and they project 2011 losses to be $70 million, which makes sense considering attendance dropped.
Why this second link is so important is because this is the information they were giving their potential partners, so there was no reason to lie. They could be in hot water with MLB and the partners themselves if it were later shown that the numbers the Mets gave them were not accurate. Also, if the Mets were going to give false numbers, they would lower the numbers. The lower the losses, the more value the Mets franchise, and the sweeter deal they would be able to strike for themselves with their new partners.
As I said, even their enemies like Megdal was reporting $70 million.
So really, Forbes is the ONLY one who reported a loss of just $40 million in 2011. Everyone else including Fortune reported much more.
Hi Metro,
Thanks for the links. I agree that other than Forbes, the reports all focus on the $70 million loss. I would like to know how Forbes arrived at such a different figure – but I bet the Wilpons wished that Forbes was right in their assessment.
This is just a thought – and only a thought – but the New York Post (again, via an “un-named” source” had reported that the Wilpons put $38 million of their own money into the team in 2011. That has to be accounted for in some capacity and could Forbes had taken that into account for their bottom line figure? Again, I’m not saying, I’m just asking.
But you know what I just did? I sent a tweet to Forbes asking why the $30 million difference. Will let you know if they tweet back with the explanation.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/mets_next_pitch_WTbeypwaj93Lp1Mb58gOQN
Hey Joey, good for you for trying to get an answer from them. You might want to try contacting Mike Ozanian. He wrote the intro to last March’s Business of Baseball report. He’s got a facebook page. Am really interested if they reply to you. I’d contact Ozanian myself, but I can’t stand him!
As for the $38 million, I doubt that type of money goes into Forbes equations, though I’m not sure. I mean, how would they know about it unless they monitor every team almost every day of the year for news tidbits like that? I would think the logistics of doing that would be impossible. Furthermore, if a principal owner plows personal money into a business to cover shortfalls, I’m not sure that it’s proper to count that against losses on a balance sheet for a business. It may be against accounting principles. After all, it’s not revenue. That’s something someone with an accounting background may know.
Be sure to let us know if you get an answer.
Hi Metro,
I was looking for his name on twitter but just could not find it – or was just too tired to look further!
I’ll of course let you know but this will be most all I’m going to do with tweeting – don’t have the courage to confront Sandy LOL.
As far as Jose rebuffing Sandy, as mentioned, that is not unusual for players to do. However, I can concede the possibility that with his season going so well, Jose and his agent felt they had the upper hand in waiting – whereas, had Jose been having just an average year, they might have sat down at that time. Then again, had he been having just an average season, would Sandy have contacted Jose’s agent to begin negotiations at that time?
But that doesn’t mean Jose was going to go for the highest bidder. And yes, it was at that point where he said no more home team discount. That too could be because he was fed up with no negotiations up to that point. And yet Sandy was still willing to negotiate after the end of the season, having an idea of what Jose was looking for.
That’s what I mean – it’s all speculation at this point on both our parts. We both can raise counterpoints to each other. That’s why I can say there is no evidence to point to Jose only wanting to to go to the highest team offer and not wanting to return a Met.
We can only go on the facts as presented to us. That’s why we cannot say for certainty that what Sandy was telling us was just for show or that he simply played this one wrong. You know what my hunch is, but I will not swear by it being anything more than that.
If Forbes writes back to me, I’ll tell them you said hi!
Joey — I would ask you to consider the following comment by Samson of the Marlins regarding their negotiations with Reyes:
“He said, ‘I really want to play in Miami as long as you pay me $1 more than anyone else. … I really want to make the most money I can,’” team president David Samson told Miami businessmen during a speech Tuesday, according to Miami Today.
http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/39497/jose-reyes-is-a-ballplayer
Still think scoring the highest contract wasn’t his ONLY goal?
Hey, blow Ozanian a kiss for me!
Joey — I would ask you to consider the following comment by Samson of the Marlins regarding their negotiations with Reyes:
“He said, ‘I really want to play in Miami as long as you pay me $1 more than anyone else. … I really want to make the most money I can,’” team president David Samson told Miami businessmen during a speech Tuesday, according to Miami Today.
Still think scoring the highest contract wasn’t his ONLY goal?
Hey, blow Ozanian a kiss for me!
Hi Metro,
I wouldn’t take Samson at his word on that since he is the second in command unde Loria….,
Again, that is third person stuff.
Joey — You might want try posting a question right under one of Mr. Oz’ blog posts. He replied to one of my comments there once, so he does interact with people who comment. He also writes on other sports, so choose a baseball-related story. Or wait till they publish their yearly biz in baseball reports.
Hi Metro,
I wanted to comment under the Business of Baseball but it was closed. When have a chance, I’ll try to tweet Oz – it was just that his name was hard to spell (you know, like when Rocky’s friend signed autographs as John Smith because Bullwinkle was hard to spell)