I replied to my friend in very simple terms just to show how superficial her reasoning was when claiming Sandy spending more than double the amount of R.A.’s salary for two players showed he was not (in her own words) penny pinching. It would have been too much to get into more detailed explanation like you did because my two friends of that group who disagree with me simply sidestep the more complex fiscal issues facing the organization and claim this would be the right path to follow regardless of the financial circumstances. That or they reply with “how do you know he didn’t do this or this instead?”. Meaning, they do not use credible counterpoints but adolescent retorts.

The estimated payrolls from baseball reference that I use as a premise (knowing, of course, that they are very rough figures) included projected salary increases based on trends, etc. and also gives two scenarios for projected payroll, based on whether the team picks up all options or not. So 2013 accounts for a rough estimate including the raises, options, etc. And that is why the payroll estimates skyrocket back up in 2016. So it’s only a short-term windfall for I do not believe myself the Mets will be in a better fiscal position in 2016 then they are now based on the loans having to then be paid back and the business model put in place by Sandy which is based on an extremely downsized economic budget which I believe does not allow for intense investment in both the parent club and the minor league development. And note that is when players like Davis, Tejada, Parnell, Murphy, Gee and even Niese become eligible for free agency.

Can we afford to then keep them? Right now it looks doubtful but then, perhaps in his long-term business model Sandy has accounted for these expenses at the financial sacrifice of the few years preceding them. But that is why I mention we must look at Sandy’s track record, business philosophy and actions and therefore my doubt. He is one who relies on reducing expenditures more than investing and waiting for returns.

Another friend, who is a die-hard Sandy supporter, made a point that teams who are re-building first create a nucleus of young talent BEFORE they then supplement them with free agents. I cited teams like San Francisco, Cincinnati and even the 1991 Braves and showed how those teams were created with a combination of home grown talent, free agent signings and trades while the teams were below .500 for a few years and the kids had potential but had not yet proved their worth – just like the position the Mets are in now.

I asked him why the wait now? We have our infield, we have our starting rotation, we even believe we have our catching problem hopefully resolved. So why not now focus on the bullpen and outfield? I brought up the names of many young and good outfielders and relievers available on the free agent market that could have filled the holes with long term contracts as you say. But I also think they could help themselves acquiring those like the ones you mention who could be signed for just two years and serve as productive “stop gaps” until the outfield or other pitching prospects are ready – or better players are available on the free agent market.

That way we can try to field a “competitive” team that would not put a monkey wrench into the rebuilding plan or cause us to be stuck with aging players committed to long term contracts at this time.

No reply other than it’s not a case of money but part of Sandy’s well thought out planning using their thought process described above.

It’s just a matter of one coming back with valid counterpoints based on solid evidence to show there is a different side of the fence instead of countering with theoretical hypothesis. Would we not be in a good position if we tried keeping the players we got rid of and fielded a team that resembled something like this (even with same caliber-type players with different names?):

Outfield: Hairston/Duda, Pagan, Beltran
Infield: Wright, Tejada, Murphy Davis
Catcher: d’Arnaud (called up)
Starters: Neise, Gee, Marcum, Harvey, Wheeler (called up – and (notice I did not even mention Santana?)
Bullpen: KRod (if not retained in 2011, then signed now) Parnell, Rauch, Francisco (as middle relief where he is more comfortable in, and one from the trio of McHugh, Familia or Mejia capable of maintaining a spot as well.
Bench: Turner, Hairston/Duda, Buck, Baxter, Kirk, Valdespin, Cogwil, Hicks

Financially, Pagan and Wright would have been the only long-term commitments, with Beltran at the end of his two year contract.

Is that in itself not the potential of a very good club on paper capable of making a push for the playoffs and presenting a team with a nucleus capable of being competitive for many years to come?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYM/2012-roster.shtml

The projected approximate $25 million savings from baseball reference that I refer to is for 2014 and 2015 and 2014 includes the buyout for Santana because the terms of Bay’s buyout

If you had you would be familiar with the situation where it took you 3-5 years of upgrades to get the seats you like the best (Longer Tenure gets you first crack at better seats when they come available).

And once having gone through that entire proccess of finally getting the seats you wanted, the desire to keep those seats is very strong and usually enough to make you renew just based on that. But those who are mulling to do it this year or wait till next year are the targets of these rumors!

It’s those people they are hoping to sway….You may not see how Bourn will inspire some to stick it out….
Well maybe he won’t…But more will be willing to renew WITH him than will without him!
And if you think differently then you must think the team is even worse than you guys have let on in posts around here…

i do think reporters are faking interest to sell papers…

I also doubt that potentially signing washed up Roy Oswalt or even Michael Bourn who would be a pretty good fit – depending on the price – would lead any current season-ticket holders to re-consider their decision.
Except for Josh Hamilton & Zach Greinke who could have been factors or, say, re-acquiring Jose Reyes, I don´t think any additional excitements or ticket sales (be it new customers or old ones) will be generated by such signings, let alone discussion of such signings.

I just laugh at those who think floating a rumor of interest in Oswalt would help sell tickets. Mets fans want to see PROGRESS, not a broken down old hag of a man like him.

Same folks who see a relative in a hospital bed and take for granted the guy in the white jacket must be good and I TRUST him because I don’t know better and I feel better thinking everything is ok…

They like what they see because they don’t want to face what they KNOW is true…
This team has been made worse than it was and shows no sign of competition anytime soon.

They base the hope on events that they can’t predict and if they don’t come true find anther excuse and then kick the OPTIMISM can down another year further…

You can’t convince them because they already know and are shielding themselves from the truth they already know….

It’s therapy not observation….

This is all about getting people to renew the tickets they had last year and who face a Feb Deadline for doing so…

Those who say they aren’t going to be any good because they won’t go get someone to improve and therefore I may not renew….
Hearing they might get Bourn or Oswalt might get a few of those people to say ok I’ll give them another year and renew…

It’s not about selling MORE tickets it’s all about trying to keep all the suckers they had who paid last year and have to decide very soon if they are going to renew or give up the seats.

a couple of questions:

# 1 Why would any sane person buy a single extra ticket to a Mets game because the Mets are pondering signing a washed up former star pitcher like Roy Oswalt ? Sure, he may be worth a flyer – but anyone who paid attention over the past couple of years would also see the – literally – big fork in Oswalt´s back.

# 2 Leaving deferred payments aside – they may not impact the immediate cash flow in 2013 – the supposed savings you mentioned are easily eaten up by the additional payments to Santana & Bay, let alone raises for Niese, Ike, Parnell and Murphy that´ll easily be higher than what David Wright was willing to reduce. While the official 2013 payroll probably is right around 100 million $ including Marcum now – the actual “cash” payout figures to be about 80 million $ for now, leaving out deferred payments for present day players and adding deferred payments for past players.

In their current position, especially in a division with two apparent powerhouse teams, the Mets – for now – either have to target shortterm bargains or impact pieces that´ll potentially help longterm. That pretty much eliminates any Cody Ross or Brandon League type mid-level veteran fill-ins that only short-term oriented teams can justify adding at market value. Michael Bourn only makes sense if the contract is significantly below perceived market value – with the amount also depending on whether the 1st round pick is protected or not.

Right now, the 2014 payroll – including arbitration figures and guaranteed raises for Wright & Niese – figures to be in the 50 million $ range. The actual payout figures to be at about 60 million with Bay & other deferred payments due in 2014 included. That should put the Mets back into the “steak section” for good again – while having advanced the deep crop of promising young A-ball arms a season further should lead to significantly more valuable trade bait.

One of the issues with trade bait right now is that the Mets don´t have much of that available at the upper levels (and actually need the few pieces they have themselves). Beyond Wheeler, D´Arnaud and to a much lesser degree Flores, Familia, Mejia, Mazzoni, McHugh, Gorski, Lagares and Tovar, there really is no trade target of interest at the Triple A or Double A levels. And none of the latter group would qualify as the “frontline” piece in a significant trade at this point – but more as a complementary 2nd piece.

And it is way more than just lies and a con game. It is the fans themselves who don’t see things in the big picture.

For example, I’m part of a group that exchanges emails about the Mets all the time. I get into the same debate with two of them who see credibility in everything Sandy does.

One of them wrote and argued I was so wrong about Sandy not wanting to spend money. What she said was:

“You keep saying all they care about is pinching pennies, even though John Buck and Shaun Marcum combined are going to be making twice what Dickey is this year, and that’s before incentives (which could double the cost of Marcum’s deal).”

Well, I asked her why she did not look further into who he no longer has to pay and who he does and pointed out:

No longer paying: Carasco, $1.2 million, Cedeno, $1.2 million, Dickey, $4.25 million, Hairston, $1.1 million, Pelfrey, $5.675 million, Rauch, $3.5 million. That adds up to close to $17 million. Add to that the $1 million less he has to pay Bay due to Seattle signing him (not even taking into account more money saved by deferring some of Jason’s salary). Now that comes up to just about $18 million.

Now paying: Buck, $6.5 million, Marcum, $4 million and Cogwel and Hicks under a million combined. That is $11.5 million.

Since nobody is going to miss Pelfrey and Carasco I suggested putting those aside, we wound up releasing four players in Cedeno, Dickey, Hairston and Rauch and added four in Buck, Cogwil, Hicks and Marcum and saved $6.5 million.

This is what you, I and others have been trying to stress – that there is a failure to dig deeper into facts and that in many cases, effort is being made to sidestep the issue altogether. I had to point out to my friend that they are actually spending $6.5 million LESS on players because all she did was look at Dickey and no one else. Even if Marcum earned every one of the incentives in his contract, I pointed out that is still $2.5 million less spent. So using R.A. as the basis of her contention was not doing her homework.

No need to put d’Arnaud and others into the conversation other than their salaries are MLB minimum at this moment,

If you don’t see the wool Sandy is trying to pull over your eyes you got bigger issues than just commitment issues.

Either they have a price they like already and it’s a price they like but only if they keep the pick. (what kind of discount would they expect if they did lose the pick?) So they petition to keep it.

Or they really have no interest at all but are doing Boras a favor for some reason by making people believe they are interested and are using the pick petition as proof of the interest…

He is the only guy out there left who would cost us a pick so the petition is all about him….

I believe the latter…It’s like Saddam Hussein doing everything he could to convince people he had and was hiding WMD….Cause he wanted people to believe he did when he didn’t.

I believe they are petitioning the league about the pick to convince folks they are interested in a player they really aren’t interested in…

And the only people who would care are Other teams dealing with Boras and the Fans…

I doubt they would do anything to help Boras so I say it is a ruse for the Fans.

I was a little surprised to read that Marcum had offers from the Mariners and Rangers but decided on the Mets offer. I can’t believe we were the highest bidder for him but I suppose anything is possible.

If the Pick wasn’t an issue it’s obvious they have a price they like on Bourn.
So they would make the deal make sure no one else bids them up and then they have till june to fight the pick protection…No one is actually GETTING that pick it just goes away and Atl gets a sandwich pick…

I don’t think they really want him at all…
Just like we heard today they were interested in getting Oswalt which was NEWS to Oswalt’s agent….

It’s just a game they are playing to keep fans off thier back and the pick issue is just a delaying tactic hoping someone signs him while they await the MLBs decision….

And if the MLB says your pick is safe I bet it takes all of a week before we hear they couldn’t agree on the number with Bourn.

It’s all just bull….Meant for our ears it’s not serious at all.

I don’t know if they’re serious or not but I can’t agree with this statement.
Wren said they had been trying to work out a trade for Upton since Nov. It just took 3 months to get it done.

Mets might have some interest in Bourn. But I think two things have to happen before we’re seeing him in a Mets uniform. The Mets have to have a ruling giving them their first round pick if they sign him and it’s got to be a reasonable deal in years and money. Both which seem unlikely to me. I wouldn’t completely rule it out but I’m not holding my breath.

You choose to believe we have a chance at Bourn?
Is that because you believe Sandy really wants him or because you prefer to believe he wants him…

To which I say if he really was serious about him he would have signing him by now!