Mets Owner Says Team Will Spend, But Doubts Are Raised

76 Comments + Add Comment

• Alex68 February 14, 2013 at 1:53 pm

  Somehow, Wilpon has conditioned the fans according to his needs and has the perfect GM to keep pushing this “who needs money, we got prospects” philosophy.”

  OMG, MOTHERF**KING THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  • Long Suffering Fan February 14, 2013 at 11:50 pm

    How about time that they put their monry where there mouth is. We need a reliever and K-Rod is still out there – how about signing K-Rod for 1 year, $3 million? What good is having all these talented starters, with no one to watch the late innings?

    How about some depth in starting pitching – Chris Young is still out there – how about signing Chris for 1 year, $1 million?

    Worst case, we can use these guys as trade chips to pick up an outfielder in late April or May…..

    Come on Sandy, come on Fred, put some money where your mouth is….
• srt February 14, 2013 at 2:07 pm

  Good points, John.

  It’s going to be an interesting off season – or even 2013 mid season, if we’re somehow lucky enough to be in contention.

  I’m more than curious – now that the Wilpons claim their money problems with the Mets are behind them – on what the philosophy will be going forward. Now that they no longer have a well to draw from for all things Mets (Madoff accounts), I’m less inclined to believe they’ll suddenly open their wallets. Fred said it yesterday as well. The goal is to break even. Breaking even relies on revenue. Good revenue relies on a contending team. If the Mets really tank in 2013, I’m not so sure the Wilpons will be all too willing to open up that wallet.

  Sounds like they refuse to invest in this team unless the team is contending and thereby revenues are up. To me, the only way revenues will increase is if they do invest in the team – FIRST. Catch 22.
  • Alex68 February 14, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    Sounds to me like you’re ready to make an excuse for sandy alderson in 2014 already SMH….
    • srt February 14, 2013 at 2:29 pm

      O.K., LOL.
  • jon February 14, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    This is a good point. I dont think the Wilpons could have ever afforded to buy the Mets without the Madoff funny money nor could they fund the larger payrolls of the 2000′s . The team may have a good net worth but there is still a ton of debt and a lousy product on the field leading to lower and lower attendance. It is not clear to me they will ever be able to afford a 125 – 150 million payroll again.
• Hank February 14, 2013 at 2:11 pm

  Fans worry too much about the money of our billionaire owners, its the saddest reality of our present day Mets. The Mets and some fans are banking too much on freed up money after the season that will fill all the holes going into 2014. Most fans only see the OF as having holes, but what if this team wins 74 games again. At some point the Mets will start being judged by what happens on the field. This is the real litmus test for Sandy Alderson. I know some fans who are not just ok with two losing seasons but don’t expect to be competitive until 2016. That is lunacy.

  You can do what Alderson has done, trim payroll, accrue minor league talent, and let young kids develop, while also adding to the MLB team. It is not easy, it is hard…but it is also the what a capable and good GM does. The Mets are pinning lots of hopes and promises on being able to spend now and their young talent. However, the Braves are better ran, the Nationals have much better young talent and an owner who will spend to win, and the Phillies are old and littered with bad contracts…but they will fight mediocrity. The Marlins have arguably just as good of a system as we do now…some would say even better with Fernandez, Yelich, Marisnick and three other players in the top 100. Just wait until they trade for Stanton and have what…ten prospects that are top 100.

  The thing about tomorrow is that it is always a day away. The thing about being a day away is that you can freely dream an dismiss the reality of today. But we learn from our past, and all I have learned from Sandy is that trimming payroll for our billionaire owners trumps having a competitive team. Signing David Wright long-term to hopefully maintain the status quo trumps building a good team. And oh yeah, he is incapable of building the farm and improving the MLB team…thus he is not a good and capable GM. But hey…it is spring. Hope away, some of us will learn from the past and live in today.
  • Alex68 February 14, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    Signing David Wright long-term to hopefully maintain the status quo trumps building a good team.”

    THIS ^^^^^

    And oh yeah, he is incapable of building the farm and improving the MLB team…thus he is not a good and capable GM. But hey…it is spring. Hope away, some of us will learn from the past and live in today”

    AND THAT ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    • hotstreak February 14, 2013 at 6:25 pm

      As Joe D said signing DW was the Wilpon’s doing. However Sandy will drive this team into the ground. The clock started this off season when the finances were in order. Nothing was done to improve the team. Yes trading Dickey made it worse but we have Niese, Harvey and Wheeler so we traded strength to fill a major need. But not to sign an OF particularly with Victorino or Bourn to fill a major need is punting 2013. Furthermore: Victorino or Bourn would have helped beyond 2013.

      I agree DW’s extension was an opportunity lost to truly rebuild this team for long term success.
      The Mets will not win 90 games for a real long time. No plan either to contend or rebuild or better yet do both. We are a ship drifting to the shores of oblivion.
      • Bayonne Mets Fan February 14, 2013 at 6:32 pm

        The thing with the Wright signing is whenever you see the Mets GM talking about it he doesn’t sound so unhappy about the signing nor does he sound like he’s measuring his words defending signing Wright. He always sounds relaxed talking about it and goes out of his way to praise Wright as if he was 100% on board with the signing whenever I see him talking about it.

        I’m still not convinced that Jeff Wilpon & Alderson were not both on the same page in signing Wright cuz Alderson sounds mighty happy when he talks about it.
        • hotstreak February 14, 2013 at 6:46 pm

          You could be absolutely correct but I think and its just my opinion that SA can’t even make DW think that he was against it. If your boss likes his golden boy are you going to either publicly or even privately make it appear your not on board. SA is against second generation contracts. He should have told the Wilpons and particularly Jeff that he (SA) would resign over a difference of philosophy on how to right the ship. The Wilpons were afraid if DW was traded the fan base would be shrunk to 10,000 fans or less at that games and a huge lose of revenue from sponsors on SNY.
        • Metsie February 14, 2013 at 7:53 pm

          It really doesn’t matter WHO wanted to do it….

          What is important is the WHY….

          Why was it worth re-signing Wright for 8 years and NOT worth keeping Dickey for three?

          Only two answers can come from that question…..

          1 – They have no intention or belief in competing for another 3 years…
          2 – They have no intention of competing at all and merely signed the homegrown for it’s PR value, meaning not a BASEBALL decision! They will wait til something happens to make them a winner (maybe another gift like Cashen got with Hernandez) or merely stay a cheap non-competitve but maybe marginally break even team until something falls out of the sky to save them.

          Other than that there is no logic that fits with re-signing Wright but not Dickey.
          Sure isn’t anything to do with Ticket sales as far as Dickey is concerned.

          Could be they got a better deal for Dickey than they could get for Wright (read into that what you will) but in the end they had a much better guy to go with at 3B in Flores that fits better with this alleged “REBUILD” people think we are all about than we had with Dickey.

          Sure Wheeler will come up to take Dickey’s place as opposed to Santana’s place if we had kept Dickey….
          And as much as people like Snydergaard I don’t see anyone predicting Cy Young dreams on him yet.
          • hotstreak February 14, 2013 at 8:27 pm

            I agree signing Wright was PR and not a sound baseball decision.

            As for the Dickey trade all 30 baseball GM’s said the trade definitely favored the Mets.

            The real problem is planning we are neither rebuilding or contending team when we should be doing both.

            You correctly pointed out we should incremental rebuild and now was the time to get a speedy. lead off defensive CF.
• Mr North Jersey February 14, 2013 at 2:20 pm

  I must be seeing this from a different perspective because my thinking is to be more judicious in who and how the Mets go about giving long term deals because we have seen what happens when they don’t pan out. They hamper the ability to make future moves. Unless you was one of those that wanted Bourn at 5 years $60M then your probably ok with the Mets not signing him. The Mets did not feel it was judicious to give Bourn what Cleveland did 5 years $60M even if they could keep the draft pick. Time will tell if that indeed turns out to be the right move.

  I see a team trying to build a nucleus that if they get it right the next stage I am going to speculate is to add to it either via trade or free agency to win. I can envision it somewhat similar to what the Marlins tried to do last year and the Blue Jays are trying to do this year. It remains to be seen if indeed players like Niese, Davis, Tejada, Harvey and on the horizon Wheeler and d’Arnaud along with a few others can indeed be that nucleus. If they are and they fail to add to them then I expect cries for a new administration will be increasingly higher. If they are not I also expect cries for a new administration will be increasingly higher. So they need to be right on this group they perceive a nucleus and act accordingly otherwise we may be restarting the clock again for a new administration. I am watching and hoping on this nucleus being it but as we all know many said the same about Generation K so I watch with a guarded optimism.
  • acoustic567 February 14, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    Right. I should have just read your post first and not added mine.
  • Alex68 February 14, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    I must be seeing this from a different perspective because my thinking is to be more judicious in who and how the Mets go about giving long term deals because we have seen what happens when they don’t pan out.”

    Ok, what are your thoughts on wright? Or is this only on FA so it fits your agenda?

    And what if d’arnaud doesn’t pan out? then what? who’s the C of our future? What if wheeler becomes a PO’s? Then what? We’ll have to wait for yet another P prospect to come up and be good? Seems your idea is to be like the pirates, wait for the prospects to all pan out at the same time, then when they do we can then spend money… Yeap, see you in 25+ years then my friend… SMMFH
    • TX February 14, 2013 at 2:43 pm

      Plawicki!!!
• acoustic567 February 14, 2013 at 2:22 pm

  “Alderson doesn’t want to spend” is one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is, he wants to allocate the dollars, whether the Mets have lots of them or few of them to spend, in a cost-effective way. One of his principles seems to be that long-term contracts are rarely cost-effective. I assume that, if he didn’t want to go five years (or an easy-to-achieve fifth-year option) with Bourn, he thinks that a five-year commitment totaling $60 million would, overall, hamper the Mets more than help them.

  Obviously, you can legitimately disagree with Alderson’s calculation of what is in fact cost-effective. But “Alderson doesn’t want to spend” is too easy. I’m sure he has the same goal as most of us, which is to make the Mets competitive as soon as possible while creating a foundation for making that competitiveness last for a number of years, not one or two years.
• Metro12 February 14, 2013 at 2:29 pm

  Somehow, Wilpon has conditioned the fans according to his needs and has the perfect GM to keep pushing this “who needs money, we got prospects” philosophy.

  Maybe it’s more a case of seeing how the free-spending binges of the recent Mets and Red Sox backfired. There is an abundance of caution as a result, not wanting to get plowed under by so many albatross contracts, looking to build from within instead. It will be interesting to see how the Angels and Dodgers turn out this season. It either fail to make the postseason, it will be another strike against overspending and trying to buy your way to respectability.

  Obviously, at some point, Sandy may have to dip into the free agent market in a more serious way (aka overpaying). But up to now, I have not seen a good case for it. Certainly not Bourn.
  • Boomer February 14, 2013 at 2:49 pm

    Yep. It gets very tiresome being told that those of us who don’t think the last couple decades of free spending without winning aren’t a model worth replicating are somehow in the tank for the Wilpons or too dumb to see the awesomeness in overpaying for players.

    One of the reasons we are in this position right now is because of the enormous contracts that were taken on, Bay, Beltran, Santana, etc., without anything to show for it. It seems a lot more accurate to say some people are conditioned to think they have to spend whatever it takes to build a team based on FAs despite the fact it rarely works, particularly for the Mets.

    I have no doubt Alderson and his team want to win, if for no other reason than to shut up the critics who have been hammering them for years. Believing that they don’t understand that they will have to spend some money when they have the capacity to do so and the timing is right on the right players is just another conspiracy theory without any proof or logic behind it.
    • Joey D. February 14, 2013 at 4:22 pm

      Hi Boomer,

      Most all teams have their burden of over-paid, under-performing contracts. The Mets were not alone in this and that is part of the nature of the business itself.

      Fiscally, franchises can afford it because it is part of the investment capital. And as we’ve seen with the Mets, they have actually been losing ticket sales because they have not been promoting but actually turning off fan interest by not re-investing.

      What we should be concerned about (and perhaps this is your point and I simply mis-interpreted it) is the team then being stuck under-achieving performers which hurts the team competitively for the short-term and could hurt in the long term by hindering alternatives like not giving a rookie a chance to break in, etc.

      But if one wants to avoid the pitfall of that trap, they are also going to avoid benefits such signings can also reap out.

      There is not much of a chance in today’s game for a team to compete unless they do commit themselves to these type contracts – just that they should do their planning as wisely as possible. Some are going to work out but quite frankly, most I think do not because the guaranteed contract in the tens of millions each year just takes the incentive and/or edge off that competitive spirit. We’ve seen it with the way teams – even the successful ones – fail to execute as often as they used to. When was the last time you saw the on-deck batter bother to get the bat of the way of his teammate heading home when it was in the base path?
  • jon February 14, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    How has it backfired for the Red Sox. Perennial contenders, World Series champions, sell out every game. It should blow up that badly for us.
    • Boomer February 14, 2013 at 5:35 pm

      Apparently, you missed last season. Boston finished with the exact same record as another free spending team built on FAs, the Marlins.

      And to be accurate, the Sox employed a version of the dreaded Billy Beane system in Boston to build the first WS winners they had since before any of us were born.
• TX February 14, 2013 at 2:30 pm

  It should not also be a specific focus on free agency. This should include being able to acquire higher priced talent via trade. I’m not advocating this specific move, but if you were to trade for Carlos Gonzalez, you have to be prepared to absorb a bump to the payroll. That is where they should have some flexibility (in theory).

  And it still bugs me that they were so adamant about Bourn and 4 years, when the alternatives in this and next year are going to most likely cost the same if not more and being out of financial trouble should enable them to be able to absorb a bad contract, in the case the player goes south.
• Mike Lloyd February 14, 2013 at 2:44 pm

  John, i’m a ‘show me’ type guy. Until I actually see some of these ‘prospects’ play at the MLB level, and capably, I don’t believe Sandy will make any kind of major trade or signing. Joe D., that is the thing that gets me most pissed off. Some people, even some of your own writers, guard Fred’s wallet as if being cautious will ever stop a free agent bust from ever occuring again. Ohhhh lets minimize risk just in case they suck…eventually you have to roll the dice, But Sandy is no gambler. It’s mot in his DNA. He will only be able to take us so far…
• Joe Spector February 14, 2013 at 2:50 pm

  Sorry Joe, but I cannot disagree more and here’s my case.

  Whether we like it or not the Wilpons are just like any other business that operates at least so much that they would like, at the very least, to turn a profit. The thing is, they would actually find it a successful season just breaking even let along earning a profit. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not shedding a tear for them but conversly I’m not looking to stick it to them either. They’ve made their shard of mistakes, who hasn’t. They’ve also paid for them in spades and we’ll probably never know to what extent that they will be rapaying them–ever.

  The core of the idea is do we rely on throwing money at a problem just for the sake of pleasing a fanbase in the interim or do we develop from within and add players when we’ve developed enough of a core? The Rays do this yes because they have no choice. Unlike a New York team they don”t have the luxury of having a 100 million plus budget. But I think it’s safe to say that the Mets are somewhat mirroring that formula and I can’t imagine why anyone would think it’s an unworthy plan? Just look at the Rays winning history over the past 5 years and compare it to the Mets and the argument is done.

  We parse everything these people say –the Wilpons, Sandy the players, but in the end we aren’t privy to the inner workings of the franchise nor should we. I don’t know what Apple is going to do over the next year and I have stock in their company. But to assume some nefarious intent with every sound bite these people give takes the enjoyment out of this, but that’s just my opinion. Don’t get me wrong, I was one of the few in the beginning that thought “something was up” and for all we know it probably was. The thing is, their financial situation is so complicated even a group of “experts” wouldn’t be able to find a consensus.

  Be that as it may, they’re supposedly on the path to recovery. If we want to believe them fine. If we want to think they’re being disingenuous then fine as well. But to say we’ve been conditioned to look at the finances first before what a player can do for the team isn’t totally correct either–they’re symbiotic. Just take a look at the Yankee’s who are desperate to get under the Luxury tax threshold. Does anyone think they couldn’t give Swisher what he wanted?

  As to Ellsbury, if the team plays above expectations and if the young talent, especially Wheeler and Harvey, do end up being the studs we’re hoping, next eyar the team may have a legitimate chance to contend. Why wouldn’t they go for it with Ellsbury? So many things have to fall into place first before committing that much money to a player — unlike days past when contracts were doled out with little regard just for the sake of saying “hey look at me I made this team better”. Did they?

  If we take the outlook that Sandy has preconcieved notions about Cano and Ellsbury and the others then what’s the point? We might as well pack it up as fans and call it a day. The pendulum swung in one direction to one extreme for a long time and it gave us jack. Moving the pendulum the other way will hopefully bring common sense to decisions this team makes — making us talk less about the Jason Bay’s and Oliver Perez’ and more about Championship banners.
  • Fonzie13 February 14, 2013 at 6:55 pm

    Great post Joe!
  • Joe D February 14, 2013 at 8:07 pm

    Hey Joe, I don’t disagree with you, and maybe I didn’t make my point clear enough. What’s happening is that you have some fans playing both sides of the fence.

    Forget the pick. Lets run with your opinion that not signing Bourn was a good idea because the team isn’t ready yet. Then don’t say it’s because he wanted a four year deal with an option. So if that’s the case then was there a real commitment to signing him? No, there wasn’t. We are rebuilding and we’re not going to spend.

    Fast forward to December 2013. We still have three holes in the outfield and Wheeler, D’Arnaud are fixtures on the team. Using Ellsbury as an example, Boras wants a 5 year deal for $75 million.

    Now, does a person with the exact same skill set as Bourn, same age too, suddenly become a good buy at that price?

    According to what I think you’re saying, we are ready to contend in 2014 so we spend right?

    But is that good spending? Or better yet is that smart spending?

    Was the reason we never made it to the World Series in 2005 -2009 (using a 5 year period as you did with Rays) because we spent too much or because we didn’t allocate those dollars better or on better players?

    If Ellsbury becomes our first major addition why would a similar contract to Bourn, who most agree was not worth it, suddenly be worth it?

    So what’s changed really?

    Is there a new dynamic here?

    Also there is the matter of Alderson’s philosophy on what he calls second generation contracts. (Giving a player 30 or older more than a 4 year deal.)

    How does that play into this?

    Why is it the assumption that in 2014 Sandy will suddenly turn a blind eye to his philosophy and start spending as Omar did because the team is ready now?

    And if you were against that when Omar did it, why would you be for it when Sandy does it – if he does it at all – a fact that has yet to be seen?

    My point is pick a side and stick to it. If you are against second generation contracts than be consistent.

    If Alderson didn’t sign Bourn because of his aversion to the terms of his deal, what makes everyone think he would sign Ellsbury next season for probably even more money?

    Did he opt not to sign Bourn because the team isn’t ready yet or because he was too costly? If you think he was too costly, then how is this going to work in future years?

    How are we going to do it better than the Rays because as you point out we’ll have a larger payroll if we’re never going to pay market value?

    And what if the pieces you need to win want to be overpayed to play for the Mets? Something that’s been going on since the days of George Foster on through Bonilla, Piazza, Beltran and Bay? Then what?

    I guess we’ll all find out one year from now. But at 60-something, Alderson is what he is, and I don’t see him shifting gears and ditching long held aversions to second generation contract and paying full market value for any player. And nobody can say right now that that is exactly what he’s going to do.

    It’s a comforting thought to think there’s going to be a spending spree coming in 2014,
    but I don’t see it. Not because of Wilpon, but because of the person buying the groceries.

    Oh and one last point. Assuming he does go balls to the wall for 2-3 free agents. Who’s to say he’ll be any luckier than Minaya who hit a homer on Beltran and struck out on Bay? There’s no accounting for what happens to a big free agent once he dons a Met uniform, and you know that as well as I do, buddy.
    • Joe Spector February 14, 2013 at 9:39 pm

      Wow Joe that’s alot to tackle my friend but I’m going to try!

      Was the draft pick a red herring to avoid signing Bourn or was it that the team isn’t ready or really has the finances?

      - I don’t think it was because the team couldn’t afford him. I think it may have been Boras’ insistence on the 5th year that stopped things in their tracks and the possibility that the league would rule against protecting the draft pick. You could also theoretically put in there that 2014 would have to be THE year everything comes together if not, you would have to hope that in year 3 of Bourn’s contract it would be, placing an already one dimensional player at 33 years old.

      - I think you compared Bourn to Ellsbury. I think Ellsbury did show he could hit for power, whether that was a by-product of Fenway Park we should know this year if he’s healthy. Assuming he hits for power again, then his value far outweighs Bourn so if his asking price is in the BJ Upton range, it’s palatable compared to Bourn.

      - As to 2014 I believe the team has to start winning whether that begins this year at some point but it hinges on the fact that Wheeler and Harvey have to become what we hope they will first – before committing to a free agent long term. I see it as not doing another cart before the horse or at least — find a better horse and not just throw money at the problem. To me that’s good and smart spending not lets shut up the fans who want ANYTHING done so we’ll sign anyone with a pulse.

      - What were the reasons we didn’t make it to the series from 2005-2009 had more to do with focusing on finding the next hired gun instead of perhaps using more of that money to sign an international free agent and develop him? Again it was all about keeping up with the Jones (Steinbrenners) to keep the team relevant. You stay relevant by building from within…like the Steinbrenners did THEN. Today the Yankees are facing this same dilemma as their core is ready to bow out.

      - I think when it comes to offering an over 30 player a long term deal it just inheritently takes on more risk but I’m not for being risk adverse. Just be smart about it. Why risk signing a player who’s key asset – perhaps only asset – is his speed (Bourn) and perhaps his defense (thanks to his speed).

      - I don’t think Sandy’s philosophy is written in stone. At one time he had one of the highest payroll’s in the majors while in Oakland. It’s the lean years that get all the attention.

      - I agree with you it would be nice to have him say look…we’re rebuilding…be patient…we’re gonna suck a bit for a while. He’s not going to be THAT frank because he still has to sell a product and season tickets so he has to essentially do both at the same time and it makes it that much harder on everyone.

      - As to being against anything Omar did I wasn’t against Omar bringing in Beltran or Pedro. Even Delgado was a good move. But there were a few others and we know what they were that were done because of a “need” here and there and instead of trying to funnel more money to the International Free Agent market he focused on getting a “name” to fill a hole. I don’t want Alderson going after a name just to fill a hole. The outfield is going to be a challenge this year but would you prefer a challenge that can be tweaked as he did with the bullpen or get stuck signing another Bay where we either eat the contract or end up playing a guy who has no business in a major league uniform?

      - Yes free agents may want more coin to play in here especially now. Then again if the team starts winning and if the pitching starts to pan out — like Terrance Mann said “People will come Joe, people will come.” I don’t think a spending spree is what’s needed to win anything it’s spending wisely and hopefully we’ll have better luck than in the past.
      • Matt74 February 15, 2013 at 11:39 pm

        the only arguement I can make to that is…the correct quote is “people will come Ray”
• Cjmcnell February 14, 2013 at 2:54 pm

  Because Ellsbury won’t cost a first round pick
  • BTF February 14, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    Alderson said regardless of pick it was the 2017 option that was the problem.
• neekerbreeker February 14, 2013 at 2:58 pm

  I don’t mean to sound like an Alderson apologist, but it seems to me that a lot of Met fans are missing the point. Alderson said, repeatedly, when he was first hired, that he would not spend for the sake of spending and that he was adamantly opposed to the kind of go for broke splurging that many other teams partake in every few seasons. There is only one team that I know of that can go for broke and sign the most expensive free agents available every season, and even they seem to be scaling it back of late. The problem with signing big contracts is one of timing. Omar more or less tried to time his acquisitions to come together and succeed in or around 2006, he didn’t foresee Pedro’s shoulder problem, or many of the other issues that confounded us at the llth hour. We were close, but didn’t quite get there. The attempt, however, resulted in multiple big contracts going sour all at once. Castillo, Perez, Delgado, then later on Bay, and now Santana. That’s a lot of money going out to players who aren’t performing up to their salaries.

  From day 1 Alderson has been preaching sustainability. We signed Wright to a long term contract. What would have been so bad about having Bourne to go along with him for 5 years? Well, in the event Wright isn’t playing up to his salary in 5 years, you’d have to add to his cost whatever Bourne makes as he isn’t likely to be earning his salary either by that time. You have to stagger your big contracts so that ideally you might have one expire every year, a kind of cyclical sustainability. We made our big purchase this year, it was David Wright. I applaud that expenditure. My guess is we’ll probably be in line for another big ticket purchase next year as well. It doesn’t make sense to do as Omar did, and purchase a whole bushel of big contracts because when they invariably sour, they tend to do so all at once and then you’re in quite a pickle. Will we ever be in a position to make multiple big purchases in the same year? My guess is it depends on the team as a whole, if we’re close, if we’re solid contenders then yeah you might gamble with some additional expenditure above and beyond that which is sustainable … but we most certainly aren’t there now. I was surprised to be honest that we were even in the Bourne discussions.
  • jon February 14, 2013 at 3:37 pm

    Perez and Bay were duds altogether. Castillo’s was not a big contract by any measure. Delgado was a trade and performed well for us. Santana got his market value performed for three years and got hurt. Stuff happens. We also signed bveltran who did very well. traded for LoDuca and Duaner Sanchez , found Dickey, Endy Chavez and Jose valentine for nothing. it wasnt just free agents. This is a false narrative. And Aldeson wont get tisi done with just draft picks and trading off all the high salaried stars. That straegy just makes you perennially mediocre and in a continuous cycle trading off stars who become expensive. Good players cost money.
    One thing to note, Alderson’s crew has very much underperformed in finding undervalues players. Almost all saving Capuano and hairston have been complete busts. We need to see improvement in that area.
    • Bayonne Mets Fan February 14, 2013 at 3:54 pm

      Phillip’s and Minaya blow Alderson away when it comes to finding what they now call “undervalued players”.

      They BLOW Alderson away no contest. Not even close.
      • Matt Mosher February 14, 2013 at 4:22 pm

        I never saw Steve Phillips or Omar Minaya EVER make trades for elite prospects like Sandy has done, TWICE.
        • Bayonne Mets Fan February 14, 2013 at 4:28 pm

          we’re not talking about prospects. Are prospects undervalued players?

          First understand what i’m talking about before taking your bullet for Alderson.

          Oh and thank goodness Minaya got those players for Alderson to get those prospects as Mike Francesa graciously pointed out to a caller who he also branded as unfair on his radio show.

          Oh and this is the very first time the Mets ever went through rebuilding? News to me. But Alderson suck ups like YOU think anything positive he’s done is the very first time it’s ever happened here.

          And as for the rebuilding, it shouldn’t take as long as Cashen’s because Omar Minaya left Sandy Alderson a roster, again, as Francesa (about time) pointed out on his radio show today. And he did it without mentioning Matt Harvey, Jon Niese, Dillon Gee, Bobby Parnell.

          There’s your undervalued talent, and it’s not Sandy’s.
          • neekerbreeker February 14, 2013 at 7:35 pm

            Cashen was also hired in the midst of several years running of very high draft picks …
            • Metsie February 14, 2013 at 8:08 pm

              BINGO!

              The issue isn’t rebuilding…it’s the timing of the rebuild!

              Cashen inherited a last place team with top picks and no sense that he would not have top picks for another two years running….

              He had three 1st round picks in 1980 to start off, Had a top 5 pick the next two years!

              Why did he have that and why was the team in that state?

              McDonald/Grant selling off whatever stars they had from 77-79 (starting with Seaver) which is akin to what Sandy has done the past two years.

              Maybe next year we will start to have the picks to rebuild. 5 years from then maybe they will hit on two players like Strawberry and Gooden and have a Hernandez deal fall in thier lap to do what Cashen did.

              But until they get those top picks there will be no rebuilding…
              You can’t keep sacrificing and trading in Great Performers on a 5-2 basis and expect to get ahead.
              And if you DO try that you had better be prepared to spend to fix all the positions you CREATED HOLES in the name of FILLING a HOLE!
              • neekerbreeker February 14, 2013 at 9:06 pm

                The only team who has been able to pull that off is the Yankees, and they’ve done it by throwing obscene amounts of money at filling their holes. Interestingly it appears that the new CBA will finally curtail their spending as well while preventing their over slot plundering of the draft. We share a city and unfortunately there persists a prevailing resentment over why the Mets can’t be more like the Yankees … but we don’t play in the AL East and we probably wouldn’t succeed even if we did throw ridiculous sums of money at our problems because NL ball is fundamentally different, more subtle, more grounded in defense and small ball and pitching — especially in a park like Citi Field. In the past we’ve always won with pitching and lots of it … whether we realize it yet or not, the organization is brimming with live power arms. We’re actually complaining about this administration’s poor showing when it comes to reclamation projects? They’re a crap shoot people … sometimes they work out sometimes they blow up in your face. I’m far more interested in what went on last season in in St. Lucie in the Florida State League … that group is a couple of seasons away and it doesn’t include Wheeler or Harvey or Familia. Alderson has made some mistakes to be sure, Reyes was botched in every imaginable way, the Pagan trade stunk, but in a broad baseball sense, almost every outsider will offer that the Mets are definitely headed in the right direction.

                I’m glad we didn’t get Bourne, the guy is so overrated.
      • MDonaldWilpon February 14, 2013 at 4:29 pm

        Phillips wasn’t good at it all. If you remember, it was Bobby’s guys- the ones preaching the gospel who came up to the Mets whom he managed in the minors that were undervalued and succeeded here- Rick Reed, Benny Agbayani. Steve Phillips turned a National League championship team that was built on Marlins fire sales into a 67 win mess by 2003.

        Omar was great at it- but he kept the bottles long after the lightning was gone- basically Tatis and Valentin.
        • Bayonne Mets Fan February 14, 2013 at 4:37 pm

          Actually Steve Phillips took a team that had several down years and turned them into a contender as soon as 1998. So your comment right there is completely and unabashedly full of Shit. I guess you forgot about Todd Pratt? Not only hitting that famous dramatic HR vs. AZ but was a HUGE clutch bench player/backup to Piazza during his whole time w/the Mets. I guess you forgot about Turk Wendell? Shawn Dunston? Dennis Cook? Masato Yoshii? Brian McRae (1998 run), Melvin Mora, Roger Cedeno (was good for Mets his 1st time around), Daryl Hamilton, Glendon Rusch, etc.

          And I’m not even mentioning the stars (old and new) he signed/traded for who helped the Mets get where they needed to be back then. You want those too?

          So not only were you SO wrong and purposely selected a couple of players but you don’t know what the HELL you’re talking about either.

          What short memories these ungrateful creeps have. And I bet you were the first one on line trying to buy playoff tix in 1999 & 2000.
• RandomGuy February 14, 2013 at 3:17 pm

  Jacoby Ellsbury and Michael Bourn are NOT the same player. The fact that you even compare them to be near similar in terms of anything, is just atrocious.
• Mark February 14, 2013 at 3:18 pm

  I don’t get it??? Am i the only one who thought the trade for Dickey was a good one? I thought it was a great one accually.
  • vigouge February 14, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    I do to. Dickey was a lot of fun to watch and will be good for the next few years but the haul for him was great. Out of the three prospects, all the Mets need is for 1 to reach the midway point between their ceiling and floor for the trade to be a net winner.
  • Matt Mosher February 14, 2013 at 4:28 pm

    This is a really good site. But it’s infested with whiners that have no patience, much like Metsblog.

    It was a fantastic trade, as several outlets like MLB Network and Baseball Prospectus have affirmed.
    • Vinny B February 14, 2013 at 4:36 pm

      It was a fair trade for both teams.

      I think we should all be patient and see how D’Aruand and Syndergaard develop before we label this a “fantastic trade”.
      • Met Maniac February 14, 2013 at 5:15 pm

        Vinny, don’t know what era you are from, but I can assure that through all the tears of trading Seaver, all the experts couldn’t believe the haul we got. There was no BA back then just Sports Illustrated, Sport Magazine and Baseball Digest and they thought we cleaned out the Big Red Machine’s entire system and two of the players were ranked #1 and #10 in baseball by BD. So there’s a precedent here already and Alderson did not reinvent the wheel.
• Metsie February 14, 2013 at 3:34 pm

  People may think it is wise not to spend…..
  But truth is they also seem to feel it’s not wise to go see them and spend thier own money on them either!

  There seems to be a large portion of the fanbase that is feeling it is not worth spending money on baseball at all!

  Waste of money! Why spend unless a World Series is guaranteed?
  Thats how teams like Pittsburg and Oakland were turned into what they have become…
  Don’t spend, Sell off your assets when possible to keep payroll to the point where you don’t make a lot of money but you don’t lose any.
  And put all your hope in the rest of your division being bad one year to say it worked.
• CThomp519 February 14, 2013 at 3:37 pm

  Tampa, San Fran, St Louis, Texas…you name the winning teams and they all went about it by building from within, starting with good young pitching. THEN, they filled the gaps and added to their core when the time was right.

  Nobody is conditioned and wants a cheap bunch of losers. That’s a cop out to just say fans are conditioned to that mentality.

  It’s far more likely that in today’s ever increasing market for players who usually hit free agency in their thirties, that teams need to start building their core from within their own system. Which allows teams to keep costs low enough that you can afford to supplement your roster using free agency.

  Using the Mets and Boston are perfect examples. If not for Boston being able to trade their headaches to the Dodgers, there’s no way they still would have signed all those players this year.

  The Mets didn’t have that luxury. They’ve been trading piece by piece as well as waiting out the bad contracts. All at a time when the owners were having financial problems.

  Now, those financial issues have resolved, luckily at the same time when those bad contracts are almost up. I say, let’s just see how it plays out.
• Morgan February 14, 2013 at 3:51 pm

  A side point, but Alderson was GM in Oakland for a long time, and for a while when he was in charge they were one of the bigger spending teams around. Things were different in the 80′s and roughly the first half of the 90′s in the baseball financial world, sure, but characterizing Alderson as being historically averse or inexperienced at having a large budget is not accurate.
• Matt Mosher February 14, 2013 at 4:21 pm

  Ignore the crybabies that don’t have the stomach for rebuilding.
  • Met Maniac February 14, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    What have we built? You think 15 other teams don’t do this too? Kind of naive to think something unique is going on here. Was M. Donald Grant rebuilding? Traded unhappy Seaver for #1 pitching prospect in baseball who won rookie of the year Zachary, top ten ranked prospect in MLB by Baseball Digest Henderson, two other Reds top ten prospects Flynn and Norman.
    • Matt Mosher February 14, 2013 at 4:46 pm

      I’ll go warm your bottle.
      • Bayonne Mets Fan February 14, 2013 at 4:48 pm

        There are a couple of blogs out there that not DARE question Alderson’s moves so maybe that’s where you belong?

        And your “warm your bottle” response to Maniac had everything to do with you not being able to counter him. You had no comeback.
      • Met Maniac February 14, 2013 at 5:08 pm

        That’s what I thought. I’ll take your infantile insult as evidence you just got owned and couldn’t reply with anything of substance. Thanks for the warm bottle. You keep on weaning on Sandy’s tits.
        • Matt Mosher February 14, 2013 at 6:38 pm

          LOL. Those must be some fine tits.
  • Vinny B February 14, 2013 at 4:54 pm

    The problem I have with Alderson is not that he is rebuilding. The problem I have is that he has prolonged the rebuilding process.

    When he took over in 2010, he had Wright coming off a 29HR season. Two all stars in Reyes and Beltran. He had Pagan and Pelf coming off solid seasons. But the only one he traded for prospects was Beltran. Why didn’t he trade the rest of them?

    The Mets would have no doubt gotten a good return for Wright that off season. Pagan and Pelf could have brought back a decent prospect or two. And for Reyes, the Rays reportedly offered the Mets a big package for Reyes, and the Mets turned them them down.

    Imagine if we made those trades along with the Wheeler and D’Araund trades – We would be stocked with young talent. And we would also have more depth to make trades for impact players, like Justin Upton for example, and who knows maybe even Stanton.

    If he didn’t take so long to evaluate this team, we wouldn’t be here waiting for the future. The future would already be here.
    • Met Maniac February 14, 2013 at 5:20 pm

      Try telling that to MetsBlog idiots that have infested this site with their slur-ping. Try telling these idiots how 8/150 for 30 year old Wright is rebuilding. Try telling them how not signing half your draft is rebuilding. Try telling them how not signing Stankiewicz is not rebuilding. They live in a coke induced haze or something. I never saw so much love and adoration for a GM on the verge of becoming the longest losing GM in MLB history nine straight losing seasons. He really did a great job rebuilding San Diego and the A’s were a train wreck when he left. Losers love losers.
      • Matt Mosher February 14, 2013 at 6:40 pm

        I could have swore you were a MetsBlog idiot.
      • vigouge February 14, 2013 at 7:01 pm

        Not to interrupt a rant but I don’t see the point in whining about Stankiewicz. He has a good arm but was over drafted with the express purpose of paying below slot to spend on later rounds. He didn’t want to sign so he went to college, no big deal, the Mets get the pick back this year.

        And complaining about the amount signed? That’s just stupid, especially when 80% of the unsigned come from the last 15 rounds. A normal person with sound judgement might look at that combined with the fact that the team signed 3/4′s of their picks the year before and come to the conclusion that different draft rules might require different draft methods. But hey who needs reason.
        • Vinny B February 14, 2013 at 7:36 pm

          I think the story with Stankiewicz is that he DID want to sign with the Mets. I believe Joe D talked to his family, and they said he wanted to sign and he was so excited about becoming a Met.

          And I think a normal person with sound judgement would think that if your truly trying to rebuild, you wouldn’ t leave half your picks unsigned. If your trying to rebuild, you would want to acquire as much young talent possible because that increases your chances of developing productive players. The more picks you have, the more likely you are to develop more players.
• taskmaster4450 February 14, 2013 at 5:19 pm

  So we are back to the spending equates to success. I find it ironic that people are even debating the merits of previous GMs success when they won nothing. Lest we forget, since 1990, the Mets have 3 play off appearances. Is anyone here going to claim the Mets did not spend during that time period? The fact is the Mets spent plenty of money and it led to no winning.

  As for whining about acting like small market teams, let us look at some of their success rates during the same period.

  Cin
• taskmaster4450 February 14, 2013 at 5:25 pm

  So we are back to the spending equates to success. I find it ironic that people are even debating the merits of previous GMs success when they won nothing. Lest we forget, since 1990, the Mets have 3 play off appearances. Is anyone here going to claim the Mets did not spend during that time period? The fact is the Mets spent plenty of money and it led to no winning.

  As for whining about acting like small market teams, let us look at some of their success rates during the same period.

  Cin 4 playoffs
  Sea 4
  Tamp 3 (Not in the league the entire time)
  St L 10
  SD 7
  Oak 7
  MN 7
  Hou 6
  AZ 7 (not in the league the entire time)

  Only Wash Mia Mil KC and Pitt seem worse.

  So what did those teams in addition to Phil, NYY, Atl, SF that the Mets didnt do? Perhaps drafting and developing some talent should appear at the top of the list.
  • Metsie February 14, 2013 at 5:42 pm

    Sorry Task but you have it all backwards….
    Even the STAUNCHEST of Sandy supporters thinks that this is all going to work out BECAUSE all the money saved will be spent next year and the year after to make what we have a winner….

    All these kids we got that they say has rebuilt the farm were already here and the two Sandy got will be here before this season is out.

    So if what you folks who like Sandy say is true then the time to spend on improving was THIS year not next!
    Because spending on this year means less you have to spend on next, means you didn’t waste a year of Harvey, Niese, Gee, Davis, Tejada and Wright or what could be three months of Wheeler and d’Arnaud.

    You would use this year to take a step forward meaning one LESS step needed next offseason and in the meantime building confidence and chemistry of the kids and core that is already here.

    SO it’s not like we are equating spending with success. Omar spent yes…He HAD success!
    Wasn’t the grand prize but we had three good seasons of baseball worth watching right up until the season was over.

    NO ONE, not even the folks who love Sandy think you can compete WITHOUT spending!
    And if your going to spend it is better to do so AS YOU GO, as TALENT IS AVAILABLE, than to wait for a single year and just buy whatever is there hoping to make it work.

    There were PLENTY of players to spend on this year that were better than anything that will be available next year…Better than anything we will see from what we DID sign this year…

    And if you rebuild plan REQUIRES spending then signing a guy for the next three years at market value is worth doing…Not just for this two years from now you THINK your going to win…But THIS YEAR when if all these kids you guys keep pinning your hopes on actually produce EARLY and be all they can be it won’t be wasted and for nothing because you were too dumb to see just how good you really WERE if only you didn’t sabotage it due to your own self doubt!
  • Vinny B February 14, 2013 at 5:43 pm

    I don’t think anyone is saying only spending equates success. I think people are trying to find middle ground. The Mets should spend some money, and bring in quality players through FA and trades in addition to drafting and developing talent.

    You mentioned the Reds for example, but you don’t mention that they have made plenty of moves through trades and FA to help build their teams. Veterans like Scott Rolen, Ramon Hernandez, Bronson Arroyo, Francisco Cordero, Ryan Ludwick, Orlando Caberera, and trades for players like Phillips, Harang, Latos, and Sean Marshall were fundamental to their recent success.

    Even Chapman was an expensive FA singing.

    They did do a nice job of developing talent, but they wouldn’t have had much success without improving their team from outside their organization.
    • taskmaster4450 February 14, 2013 at 6:54 pm

      I never said they didnt spend nor that the Mets arent going to have to spend. The point is all those teams developed some talent first then added pieces that were needed. Basically, over the last 10 years, the Mets developed very few pieces. Instead, they tried to buy their entire team. It didnt work. There was a blip of success (3 seasons) before a trainwreck. It happens all the time when teams take that approach but most fail to see it.

      Of course the Mets will have to spend. One fact that most overlook is the fact that very few Met players who were homegrown ever cost any money because of the fact that they were never around for 3 or 4 years. An amazing thing that happens with success of a young ballplayer, the amount asked for in arbitration increases. Does anyone remember a very young Ryan Howard getting $10M in arbitration? Ike,Murphy, and Parnell cost the Mets 3 or 4 times what they did last year. If Ike has another 3 HR season, he will get $7M-$8M for 2014 alone.

      The biggest problem the Mets have is they still do not know what their core is. Wright and Niese are the only locks. Everyone else has questions marks? Is Ike going to be the l.t. answer at first? Will Murphy be part of the picture at 2nd or is he just holding the spot for Flores? Tejada at SS? The OF has been repeatedly covered. Harvey and Wheeler look like two studs in the starting rotation but they still have to prove it. Either way, there are two SP who are only contracted through this year so another pitcher will need to be added. Then there is the closer situation. That will need to be addressed; if it isnt Parnell, then who going forward.

      People wanted money spent this off season. The problem with that is nobody knows what the team needs. Crying about the OF is fools play simply because the Mets might have 2 of the positions covered (or they might not). Do they need a CF? On paper it looks like it although Den Dekker might provide everything a Bourne did (or he might not). Duda might turn out to be a monster and hit the ball in proportion to his size (or he might not). Cowgill might be something or not.

      So where do the Mets spend the money if doing it now? OF seems sensible but nobody knows what the true needs are. But even if that is the case, I would rather take the $12M per year for Bourne and put that towards a guy like Pence who would fill a number of needs for the Mets which arent going to get filled from within anytime soon (RH power hitting OF).

      Either way, the payroll will increase. I just dont like the idea of suddenly entering into contracts for non-outstanding players that are an overpay. Overpay the stars, not guys who just good players.
      • Vinny B February 14, 2013 at 7:28 pm

        Nobody is saying what the Mets did in the past is the best way to build a franchise. Everyone agrees that the Mets made a lot of mistakes in the past, but that doesn’t mean that doing virtually nothing to improve the team is the way to go either.

        That’s why I said that there needs to be a middle ground, and the Reds are a terrific example of that.
      • Metsie February 14, 2013 at 7:56 pm

        Not the Yankees…they had a number of bught and paid for Vets on the Roster to help each kid when they were promoted….

        As did SF and Boston.
• Joe February 14, 2013 at 6:36 pm

  I would have to say that with Ellsbury’s injuries he would have to be signed to an incentive heavy contract. As for Granderson, his power numbers are way too tied in to Yankee stadium to take a chance on a huge contract for him.

  I would say that Pence would be a great fit in right field, the clubhouse, and a great personality fit too. Unfortunately I cant see the giants letting him walk at the end of the season. If they had any brains, which I’m not sure they do, after the beltran – wheeler trade, they will tie him up right now to a long-term contract. If they don’t and they are in the race at the trade deadline and we are not, I say we ship over whatever we have available on their last year of their contract, to get Pence. Maybe at that point SF can use a Santana, Lyons, Atchinson, or Marcum for Pence.
• james b February 14, 2013 at 6:37 pm

  Joe you could not have said it any better. It’s nice to have prospects but I want proven talent. They better sign Cano because there is nothing special out there outfield wise. Give me Cano and either Morse or Elsbury would love all three just know it won’t happen but Cano’s bat is huge in this lineup. Let’s make it happen
  • taskmaster4450 February 14, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    Cano in in talks with the Yankees about extension. I doubt he sees FA.
• Joey D. February 14, 2013 at 10:05 pm

  Nobody is saying the Dickey trade was a great one – nor are they saying that about any other trade made by another team. What is being said is the prospective of what the trades could yield.

  So I don’t mind anybody saying the trade might be a steal for the Mets – just use a word something to the effect that it looks like it could be a very good deal for the orange and blue.

  Wheeler and d’Arnaud could become the next Seaver/Bench, Seaver/Fisk, Ford/Berra or even a more modest Koozman/Grote. Either could also wind up like these:

  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/baseball/mlb/02/17/zick.former.top.prospects/index.html

  So let’s just wait a few years before calling them the best trades and that they will lead us to the promised land. They could be the steals of the century or just answers to trivia questions. Let’s hope for the best – both look good, but let us hold off a bit.
• Joe February 15, 2013 at 12:46 am

  If there really is money to spend it needs to be spent now – on a closer.
  We’ll surely be kicking ourselves after the first 5 saves Parnell blows & then the next 5 Familia blows.
  We need to make the move tomorrow because Grant Balfour is out 4-6 weeks so I assume Oakland will be signing Valverde, KRod, or Ishringhausen to close till Balfour gets back. We should sign Valverde first. Lets forget about the September he had, his last 3 years: 110 saves in 118 opportunities…..wow..$2M w/incentives probably gets him.
• Joey D. February 15, 2013 at 9:14 am

  Guys,

  Don’t know if we can count on any additional spending – found out that the Wilpon’s donated to the Romney campaign and despite whatever one’s political affiliation was, Romney was for deficit cutting.
• vinnie papandrea February 15, 2013 at 9:29 am

  Do you even know the players stats when you make your remarks, Ellsbury has hit 32 HR’s in a season Bourn has 22 for his career, that sounds like the same player to me