7
2013
Why Bourn, If Not Reyes?
An article by 
As the possibility of Michael Bourn landing in Queens seems more and more like a reality, there are a faction of fans who feel Bourn wouldn’t be such a necessity, had the Mets simply resigned Jose Reyes. On the surface, they’re correct, however as is the case with everything New York Mets, there is always more to it. Its easy to compare the two players. Both center their games around speed, are similar in age, play skill positions and are amongst the best leadoff hitters in baseball. So it begs the question: Why would the Mets sign Michael Bourn if they weren’t willing to resign Jose Reyes?
From a pure statistical standpoint, Bourn and Reyes aren’t so different. If you want to discuss their best quality, speed, Bourn has averaged 51 stolen bases and 8 triples per 162 games played whereas Reyes has averaged 55 and 15 respectfully. When it comes to their prowess at the plate, each have a career on-base percentage within points of .340, but on all other fronts Reyes has been a bit better. Reyes boasts an career batting average twenty points higher than Bourn and a slugging percentage that dwarfs the free agent centerfielder. Reyes also doesn’t share Bourn’s propensity for strikeouts. So again I ask, why would the Mets sign Michael Bourn if there weren’t willing to resign Jose Reyes?
As much as most Reyes advocates won’t want to hear it, health is a factor in this comparison. While Bourn may only average six more games per season since becoming a full-time player, the last five seasons have seen him average 150 games per season compared to Reyes’ average of only 123. Such a health concern, or lack there off in Bourn’s case provides one reason why the Mets may be considering him when they balked on Reyes. Another reason, which shouldn’t come a a surprise to most, is that the four year, roughly $50 million dollar contract the Mets are theoretically set to offer Bourn is no where near the six year, $106 million dollar contract Reyes commanded on the open market last winter.
Michael Bourn may not be the flashy, exciting player the Mets once had in Reyes, he may not be as good as Reyes in general (although WAR states otherwise if you’re into that kind of thing) but he certainly appears to be less of a risk. Therein lies the reason Bourn appeals to Sandy Alderson so much. Not only does Bourn immediately fill the teams’ need at leadoff, he also bolsters a weak outfielding core on the cheap, so to speak. That should make him an ideal fit in Sandy’s system.
Finally, its important to reaffirm that the Mets wouldn’t be signing Michael Bourn to replace Jose Reyes. That task was unfairly dealt out to Ruben Tejada last spring, and while he can’t be expected to fill Reyes’ shoes, it was the presence of a sound shortstop who the Mets feel can hit for average that made a much more expensive Reyes expendable. There is no such player when it comes to the Mets’ outfield. Michael Bourn is not Jose Reyes, and likely never will be. However, under these circumstances and at the price being discussed, he will be a Met if Sandy Alderson has his way.
Follow me on Twitter at @RobPatterson83
About the Author: Rob Patterson
Ultimately, I owe nearly thirty years of Mets related torture to my mother, who is the reason I became a fan. I was too young to remember the 86 run, but hope to see one I'll be able to recall much sooner than later. I enjoy writing about the team and welcome your feedback on my posts. Oh..and I am not with 28!
214 Comments + Add Comment
NL East Standings
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braves | 24 | 18 | .571 | - |
| Nationals | 23 | 20 | .535 | 1.5 |
| Phillies | 20 | 23 | .465 | 4.5 |
| Mets | 16 | 24 | .400 | 7.0 |
| Marlins | 11 | 32 | .256 | 13.5 |
Last updated: 05/18/2013
Recent Comments
- DrDooby: on Juan Lagares Belts First MLB Homer In Mets 4-3 Comeback Win: If Gee keeps running out of gas...
- DrDooby: on Our Savior Has Arrived!: But wasn´t Izzy exactly one of those...
- Djmurphy: on Rafael Montero To Make Spot Start For Las Vegas: Flores in the OF now thats funny....
- TexasGusCC: on With Ike Davis Struggling, What Are The Mets’ Options?: Metsie, everything you said is cool, but...
- TexasGusCC: on Juan Lagares Belts First MLB Homer In Mets 4-3 Comeback Win: Because Collins has a thing for Baxter....
MMO Mets Chat
Need Tickets To The Mets Game?
Check Out These Great MLB Links!
Photographs From Gordon Donovan
5361 Fans Follow Us On Twitter!
1269 Fans Like Us On Facebook!
2341 Fans Read Our Feed!
1702 Fans Subscribe via Daily Email!
I will say this, bourn is not reyes but he fits exactly the void reyes left to a certain point. the team lacks speed, defense and lead off hitter, he fits all those 3 therefore he has value to this team, reyes is gone and no matter how much we lament that, he’s gone and we should move on from the situation that happen, from the owners to the sarcastic SOB of a GM we have everyone is at fault, now, before you posting this article, you should remember the mets have NOT signed bourn, while they are blowing smoke to the fans they haven’t made a deal nor has reported it to be one, so i think we should just wait and see what happens before jumping the gun, good article nonetheless. IMHO, we won’t sign this guy, and as it has been the past 3 offseasons, alderson is just blowing smoke.
Alex,
Good points. I think they are legit on their interest in Bourn but I think it is still a long shot that they can get both Boras/Born to agree on Met terms and an arbitrator to preserve their #11 pick.
ALEX, LIKE SO MANY OTHERS, U FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE GENERAL MANAGER IS AN EMPLOYEE WHO REPRESENTS THE OWNERSHIP AS IT PERTAINS TO CONTRACTUALLY DEALING WITH THE BUSINESS OF BASEBALL’S DAILY REQUIREMENTS. FOR THAT MATTER, I CONTEND THAT REYES IS NO LONGER A NY MET NOT BECAUSE OF ALDERSON; BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE THE WILPONS HAVE LITTLE TO NO TOLERANCE FOR SICKNESS OR INJURY AS JEFF IS ALREADY ON RECORD STATING HIS BELIEF THAT TOO MANY PLAYERS LOOK TO GET ON THE D/L THAN FIGHT/LIE TO STAY OFF OF IT;. ADD THAT TO FRED’S OBVIOUS REYES SCORN HOW THE REYES SEPARATION CAME ABOUT SANS ANY RETURN SHOUOLD CERTAINMLY ATTEST TO AN ALDERSON MISCALCULATION OF WILPON DESIRE TO BE FREE OF REYES.
IT CERTAINLY MAKES MORE LOGICAL SENSDE THAT SANDY FORGOT TO MARKET HIM
I think the fundamental difference is a) need; b) years.
Letting Reyes go, we had Tejada that could anchor short; not necessarily replace everything Reyes could do, but there is no doubt Tejada is a major league shortstop – and will likely only get better. With Bourn, there really isn’t a valid alternative. The drop off from Bourn to Kirk/Cowgill is much much much higher than the drop off from Reyes to Tejada (from a total package – not individual stats).
I think if the price for Bourn was 7/100+ Mets wouldn’t even be thinking about it.If the Mets could have gotten Reyes to re-sign for 4/60, he’d still be at short and Tejada would be at 2nd. Heck even Miami realized Reyes wasn’t worth the money… they shipped him to Toronto for prospects. I wonder if any of those prospects were selected #11.
they shipped him to Toronto for prospects. I wonder if any of those prospects were selected #11″
Well, they did, for toronto’s BEST prospects. which then moved up d’arnaud and synder to be the next best prospects which we got for a CY winner.. go figure.
I’d be curious to see where you read that d’Arnaud was ranked lower than any of the players that went to Miami. I agree that was the case with Syndergaard but I can’t recall ever reading that any of the players that went to Miami were ranked higher than d’Arnaud.
How exactly did the Marlins trade move up TDA? They traded their #2 and #7 prospects. TDA was their #1 for a while.
http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120906&content_id=37976590&vkey=news_tor&c_id=tor
Sorry Alex, that was me. The Name box has been messing up.
I been having issue with the name box too, I think it’s an issue with the cookies….
Back to baseball….I wanted Gose instead of Snydergaard in the Dickey trade and if we got that we probably wouldn’t be wasting our time on Bourn if we had….
Thats why I would have liked the Dickey deal if it was GOSE instead of Snydergaard.
Based on what we hear the Jays would not include two hitters. It had to be one hitter and one pitcher. So if you wanted Goose it would have been Goose and Synder.
I remember reading that as well.
I also think back to the Giants deal where the rumors were Wheeler or Brown. Brown took a HUGE step back in terms of prospect status.
Also keep in mind that Anthopoulos himself said the Mets always wanted d’Arnaud from the get go and when he finally put d’Arnaud on the table the Mets would not bite and Anthopoulos said that after about 10 days he asked Alderson what would get the deal done and Alderson said Syndergaard.
Yeah I remember when it was d’Arnaud who they wouldn’t trade either…..
Thats the problem with TAKING A STANCE…..
Only works if the other side buys into the bluff!
We waited them out on d’Arnaud and we could have taken our OWN STANCE and said It’s d”Arnauad and Gose or we will just sign Dickey and keep him or trade him to a competitor.
I also think, like I said with Brown, it’s very possible that Sandy liked Snyder better than Goose.
That may be true but it sure doesn’t make me feel better considering he also liked Cecchini better than Hawkins…..
perhaps that is my main problem with most of Sandy’s thinking….
He likes 3 years away better than what he could get right away for the same amount of time only three years sooner!
Guess we will just have to wait to see which player ends up being better. He seems to have guessed right with Brown and Wheeler.
Counting chickens before they hatch are we?
GOSE has showed something in the MLB which is what we call a HATCHED chicken…
And unless they SURPASS what he does your still getting it three years earlier than Snydergaard aren’t you?
Sandy will not even be here by the time that kid makes the MLB….
He certainly has shown something in the majors. Lets hope for the Jays that he shows a lot more:
.223 .303 .319 .622
And in how many games sample do those numbers consist of?
Did you look at his splits?
If not check out his splits against Lefties and ask yourself why did they only put him up against righties?
They didnt know and still dont know if tejada is a major leahgue shortstop. Thats why they draafted one with the 12th pick last year. Tejada should be a second baseman and has yet to finsih a full major league season. His value at second is much greater than at short. He still has much to prove. Bourne is also two years older than Reyes was at the time they were free agents. So they are not the same age and Reyes health concerns are overstated given he played only 40 games in 2009. If we are to pick arbitrary points in time to calcualte average games played, why not start in 2010 or except out 2009 where reyse would be as nmuch if not more durable than Bourne while playing a much tougher and important position.
The comparison on offense is also flawed given that Reyse left on the upswing while Bourne is already on the downswing. Leadoff hitters cannot strike out 155 times a year. he is also lefthanded and that is the last thing the Mets need.
The mets reason for not signing Reyes is they were broke.
Couple points
1. It’s foolish to read into the drafting of Cecchini with regards to Tejada. If things work out by the time Cecchini would be ready Tejada will be close to free agency. If Cecchini can stick at short like like is projected and can hit like is expected then that’ll be a great problem to have.
2. Tejada would have far worse value as a second baseman, he just doesn’t hit enough right now. He’s a competent shortstop who projects to continue to be so the next few years, there’s no need to change that now.
3. Bourn is only 6 month older than Reyes, not 2 years (12/82 vs. 6/83).
4. The reason people cite health concerns about Reyes is that he’s had hamstring issues since 2004, missing significant time in 04 and 09, plus time in 10 and 11. The only significant time Bourn has missed was the last 2 weeks of the ’10 season.
5. I don’t know where you’re getting the upswing/downswing from. Both players walk years were remarkably similar in terms of value (6.2 fwar vs 6.1 fwar).
You need to compare at the time of free agency. Reyes 28 vs Bourn 30
I think if you take out ’09 (you cant not take into consideration but it is one year where he got really bad medical advice) he has been consistently on the field. No cal ripken but still his injury proneness is overblown. 7 out of 8 years 125 plus games . 5 out of 8 years 154 plus games….
Shouldn’t you also take the rigors of the position into account as well?
Playing SS is a much more physically demanding position than CF….
And that in itself is going to lead to more injuries considering you can still play OF with a sore hammy but you would be a disaster trying to make the quick moves at SS with a bad hammy and risk tearing it far more than by simply running in the OF.
You’re absolutely correct, I misread where you were talking about age at time of free agency, I apologize.
On injuries, it’s not really one year. 2009 was his most time missed, but it was the same in 2004, add in time missed in 2010 and 2011 and it becomes a repeated concern. As much as I love Reyes his problems are recurring and the contract he signed is enormously risky especially to a team like the Mets who are unable to eat a big loss like that for the next few years. Bourn’s price, if the rumors are true, make his deal far less likely to be an albatross.
Can we stop looking back? For one, I truly believed the Mets thought they had a chance with Reyes but didn’t want to set the market. There’s so much that goes on behind the scenes we, as fans, simply cannot appreciate. Looking back isn’t smart. We’re in the “here and now” so move on…
?????? Are you the REAL MetsManiac? Why is there a 41 attached to your name?
Uhmmm… probably not. I rarely comment here.
reyes left 2 years ago. Different time, differnet place, different need (CF vs. SS). And much different organizational situation.
even the contract is different. Mets seem to be willing to do what, 3 years for Bourn at 13 per? Vs. 6/100+ for jose, so that is a much different commitment too.
There is also the injury factor. jose had a histroy of leg problems (including in 2011), which any FO is going to have to consider. Bourn, AFAIK, never has had leg or hammy problems.
Stop beating the freaking horse already. jose is gone, he ain’t coming back, the horse is dead, and the FO should be looking at the team needs right now and addressing them, and not revisiting 2011.
the FO should be looking at the team needs right now and addressing them, and not revisiting 2011.”
I don’t think they’re revisiting them, we as fans are. problem is the FO is not addressing any needs the team has.
I really dont care if the Mets sign Bourne or not. If they do, wonderful…if not…so be it.
Bourne is not a superstar. It is that simple. All the questions raised about him are valid. Overall, other than Hamilton, out of the FA OF class, there were no sure winners. Bourne is in that group. He fills a number of needs and is an upgrade, we think, over what is there. However, we have seen flops before. And, historically speaking, the concerns about the decrease in production for a speed guy are completely valid. Look at the track record. But, if the Mets do sign him, he will fill a void for the next 2-3 years which does not an obvious alternative solution.
As for the comparison to Reyes, it is absurd. It all comes down to money. If anyone hasnt figured it out yet, Alderson is not one to overpay for players. Sure he has made some bad deals (FFF coming to mind) but his tendency seems to let a player walk especially if he is marginal (i.e. Hairston). Everyone now knows what the deal was with Reyes. He was vastly overpaid by an owner who had no intention of keeping him. Without Loria, I think Reyes is still a Met for somewhere around $70M-$75M. And bet the ranch that Bourne will not be a Met if it takes anywhere near that number to get him to Queens.
>>Why would the Mets sign Michael Bourn if they weren’t willing to resign Jose Reyes?
Two years ago I didn’t have the money to buy the Benz I wanted. This year things are looking better and while I still can’t afford that Benz I can afford one that performs similarly but costs significantly less.
I’m not sure how many times this can be said or how many creative ways are required to explain it but it was about money. Specifically money the Mets didn’t have to spend 2 years ago and do have to spend now. Why is this so hard to understand?
Specifically money the Mets didn’t have to spend 2 years ago and do have to spend now.”
Do they???
Clearly. It was widely reported a couple years ago that the Mets financial situation would preclude them from keeping both Reyes and Wright. They chose Wright.
They have also been working to unload contracts and players such as Bay and Beltran which weren’t part of the long term plan to free up money for the players they wanted to rebuild with. And they have settled their lawsuit with Picard for a reasonable and knowable amount and refinanced their debt. They didn’t do all of these things for grins, they did them to get their finances in order and allow them the financial flexibility they needed to be competitive in the marketplace.
This really doesn’t require a degree in nuclear physics to understand.
Agree, although I wouldn’t say they chose Wright as much as they had breathing room since Wright’s contract wasn’t up for another year. If the Madoff/Picard situation was still unresolved today, Wright probably would have been gone by now too.
Ok, i am not sure what your point it, they clearly haven’t shown they got money, other than wright (Huge mistake) being signed to an extension, no other player has been brought here to a financial deal worth talking about they got money again… remember wright saved them a bunch of $ by middle loading his contract, next year he’ll be making $20 million and probably giving them a $10 million return back
Really. Who is Shaun Marcum? How about all the relievers they are bringing? How about the arbitration raises? Who is paying for all that?
The Mets haven’t gone from financial catastrophe to rolling in the dough. They are slowly digging out and they are able to take some steps. Maybe not enough to make you happy but the reality is that they are now in the mode of spending money and it will only get better.
ARE YOU THIS STUPID?????????????? The money they saved on wright is being used, check back to all the mets signing this year, only marcum is to a major league secure contract and it was supposedly for $4 million, combined that with the rest of the PO’ss alderson has brought in and $8 million have not being spent i think… You cannot be this stupid…
Well it didn’t take you long to start with the insults. Typical.
Yes, they are financing the entire teams payroll on the back of Wright’s new contract. Brilliant analysis.
Seriously, if you don’t understand how finance works this will be a pointless discussion. You go on believing that the Mets have by choice made all of these financial belt tightening moves and I’ll go on believing something else.
Again, you were the one saying the didn’t have the money.. Ok, but don’t come out saying they do have it since they haven’t prove it yet. they have signed 1 guy at more than $1 million, have picked up a bunch of PO’ss to round up the roster making the league minimum or a bit more, so don’t pretend like we do have the money unless is proven. You act as if you know more than people in here and i have watched how you come across as a know it all alderson shill, i suggest you crawl back when you came from if you expect subtlety here, learn about baseball and the mets before acting like a D-B
I know what I said. What I said is that the Mets were in near catastrophic financial shape a couple years ago. That doesn’t take a genius or a psychic to understand. It was one of the biggest sports news stories of the year.
I don’t give a wet fart what Alderson or anyone else connected with the Mets said. They are in the sports entertainment business and their job, same as every other GM and FO office in sports, is to paint as rosy a scenario as possible to keep fans spinning the turnstiles. Anyone who can read and understand how the finances of a sports team work knows that the Mets were in dire straits and had to reduce payroll significantly just to get to the point where they weren’t hemorrhaging cash.
Obviously, the hope was to get to a point where they were no longer losing money and could start to add talent. A better team brings in more revenue but the Mets were in no position to roll the dice and spend big dollars because big dollars have never guaranteed a winning product. It was much wiser financially to cut the payroll to a level they think is sustainable, get rid of the uncertainty of the Picard lawsuit and redo their debt. They have accomplished most of those goals and will soon be in a position to start adding from the outside.
That doesn’t make me an Alderson shill. It makes me someone who understands what is going on.
I’ve also seen you rage, insult and trash anything the Mets do almost as a reflex. Do what you want but while none of us is happy the Mets had to go through this crap some of us have a different view as to whats happening. That doesn’t make us shills for anything regardless of how many times you and the other anger kids say so.
THIS………(whatever it means in spades)
Prove otherwise. all you do is try to defend his actions, while most of us know the mets were under financial issues, for you to sit here and pretend is over with is insane when he hasn’t shown otherwise, go ahead and keep defending hm
Mets 2010 – 2012: severe finanial distress, operating losses > SNY gains, Picard lawsuit, etc.
Mets 2013: payroll ( and actual payouts) restructured, ownership group gets 150+ million $ in extra cash paid out while restructuring loans at lower interest rates, Picard case closed.
Mets 2014: payroll much lower with Santana, FF, Bay and others off books, for now payouts project to merely 60 million $ range, new National TV deal flushes in 10+ million in extra cash per year, budget room of at least 35+ million $, mission accomplished, restructuring completed, Wilpons saved ( unfortunately)
Mets 2015+ ( plan / hope): better team leads to higher revenue, makes payrolls in 110 – 150 million $ range affordable again ( if needed)…
Your still only taking into account HALF the ledger in your audit…..
Your assuming that attendance stays the same as last year (which lost 23 Million and we have the same payroll as last year) and could NEVER decline…
Then give a hope and a prayer it will go up before they start trying to make it go up by getting players with this money you can’t say they will have unless the attendance stays flat or increases….
What your doing is kind of like saying Well I had 3 Million in bills last year and cut 2 Million from my budget and can spend it forgetting the fact that all you can really make in a year is 1 million….
Our Budget was 95 Mil last year and we lost 23 Million dollars….
So until our budget is down to 72 Million without any decrease in attendance none of that money that you think comes off the books is actually spendable or available for improvement.
The Financials could even be the same as they were in 2010-2012 AFTER all your cuts!
All it takes is a decrease of 160K in attendance which is not a lot considering you just traded away a Cy Young Pitcher…
Don’t blame Sandy for the mistakes of Peter Greenberg, the agent for Jose Reyes. Greenberg made a dumb move by setting a demand ($100 Mil Smackers) before he knew if teams other than the charlatans down in Miami would pay that much. Miami got the publicity they wanted for their new stadium and gave Jose what he wanted. Nobody else thought Jose was worth his demand. Miami then unloaded Jose.
Jose overplayed his hand. So we have a foolish ex-Met and a stinko agent. Do each deserve each other? Just maybe they do. Sandy made the right decision by not being willing to overpay. Omar probably would have made the same decision — the GM’s of 28 other teams agreed with Sandy.
Chilly…. Toronto got jose reyes even though they wil have to pay $96 million for the next 5 years… The agent’s job is to get the player the max amount of money they can get.. simple as that. Blame the owners, sandy, reyes if you like, but to put blame on the agent is utterly ridiculous
Probably largely b/c last Nov/Dec the Madoff situation was still very much up in the air. If Bourn was an FA last year they probably wouldn’t have pursued him either. (Unless he was still around this time last year, by then the settlement was reached…but probably still unlikely).
Hi Rob,
Would really appreciate the information you have which enables you to conclude that “the possibility of Michael Bourn landing in Queens seems more and more like a reality”. If you bgo by reports circulating from the Mets about having money now which they didn’t have then, I would be very cautious and hesitant to put substance into that based on their actions and vetting deeper into their future debt payments – which they have to put the money away for now since it is doubtful they will turn a profit – even with SNY revenue this season.
Also, one should not forget the words of Sandy Alderson on Jose just before he signed with Miami:
“I don’t believe Mets’ fans will be surprised if these reports are true that Jose may not be back. 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 — we decided that there were some conceptual limitations to where we would go.”
What did fans complain about before, during and after the winter meetings? The Mets weren’t linked to the pursuit of anyone. There was no action…
I didn’t say the likelihood of him signing in NY was increasing. I said that possibility seems more like a reality the longer this drags on.
I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theories. I believe the Wilpon’s investments and cash flow were severely damaged by the Maddoff scheme and I believe that Alderson, a historically frugal GM, was brought in to see the, through this period. I also believe they will pull out of that period sooner than later, however not to the extent of $120-$140M payrolls.
I put little stock in what Alderson says publicly and I don’t believe for one second that he’s the reason the Mets haven’t spent in recent years. He’s also not immune to the obvious. Bad teams with bad records don’t produce revenue. Should this group of youngest fail to evolve into a contender, he too will be dispatched accordingly.
“What did fans complain about before, during and after the winter meetings? The Mets weren’t linked to the pursuit of anyone. There was no action…”
WHich is why you need to ask yourself WHY all of a sudden are they interested in Bourn now when before they were not interested at all?
What changed to make them say Hey we need to start signing someone with name value where before they said we need to TRADE AWAY a guy with even MORE mane value becuase we were not close enough?
I don’t think a Bourn signing is inevitable or even close…
I think this is nothing more than an after thought and if they are interested it’s because they see how the ticket sales are going (declining) and they are desperate to make a splash to try and get people interested in buying tickets, nothing more.
Truth is they did the same thing in 2010 and signed Bay after waiting so long they eventually gave Bay what he wanted because they felt they needed the boost.
See: Conspiracy Theories.
Also See: The Mets Cant Do Anything Right By You.
Call it what you want. I never said a signing was imminent. I agreed then, and still agree with trading Dickey. Not for fear of paying him, but in the hopes of getting a player in return who can contribute for ten years, versus the 3-4 you maybe have gotten from him. Instead of one, Alderson got two who have that potential.
The Mets need an outfielder..Bourne is the best available and will come in at a steep discount compared to the likes of Hamilton this winter, or Pence next winter. That’s why they’re interested.
You guys complain that the team is just faking it. What will you do if they do sign him? Probably complain about the length of contract or dollars spent…
So a Cy Young contribution for 3 years is worth ANY 10 year contribution?
Is d’Arnaud going to give you as much in 10 years as Dickey would have in 3?
Does buying 10 Lottery tickets give you a greater chance of winning powerball than just one? According to the odds no all you did was pay ten times the price and each ticket has the same odds of winning as the other does.
If d’Arnaud makes us close then Dickey made us even CLOSER!
Because no one who has been in the WS has done it without the pitching.
Many have done it without a great catcher! truth is SF is the only team WITH a great catcher!
Do you believe the Mets would be WS contenders in the 3-4 years Dickey has left? It’s hard for me to think you believe that since you trash them so readily.
Alderson isn’t trying to win the WS in 2013… He’s trying to build a strong young core of players who will have an opportunity to do so for years to come. Your absolutely correct that you can’t do that without pitching, but last I checked we had a slew of young promising pitchers on the way. Will any of them replicate the ONE great year Dickey had? I don’t know, but then again I can’t see the future like you can…
Yep and more so than they will be with d’Arnaud behind the plate and Snydergaard in the Minors.
“He’s trying to build a strong young core of players who will have an opportunity to do so for years to come. ”
No what he is doing is shedding payroll and the future be damned because he won’t be here to see it!
So far all he has for all his work is Two maybes and one three years from now at the cost of one Cy Young Pitcher, one All Star Closer, a Batting Champ and a possible HOFer in the OF.
What exactly were you expecting? Krod had no value whatsoever because of the vesting option and All-Star or not, he was on the decline. Beltran had half a season left on his contract and couldn’t be offered arbitration, a top 20 prospect is a damn nice haul. Dickey, for all his awesomeness, is still an older pitcher with he same risks of any late 30′s player. For him the return was the best catching prospect in baseball, another stud right hander and a damn fine lottery ticket who was really only available because of a freak injury last year. Those are all nice hauls and for a team that is hoping to have a windows that opens in 2014, the right move.
Hi Rob,
We went over the point in great detail yesterday that the Giants, Nationals, Reds and even Detroit Tigers of 2003 took much bigger and quicker steps to surround a young team with the missing pieces to turn into a winner. This is Sandy’s third winter, the young nucleus is developing nicely and now – with the supposed money problems put aside (sic) – he is still not doing anything.
Instead he is following the path of teams like Pittsburgh, San Diego, Kansas City and Oakland – so of eight teams total, only one has turned itself into a contender following Sandy’s “vision”.
RE: your statement on FAKING it….
Well I remember PAST priorities of this FO….
Reyes was a priority….
OF was a priority going into this offseason….
re-signing Dickey was a priority….
Building via the draft was a priority…
Seems whatever is a priority around here gets put on the backburner….
If they are close to signing Bourn and if we are “CLOSE ENOUGH” to do so then what is the hold up?
The Price?
So PRICE should be why we don’t try to get CLOSER to whatever it is you think we are closer to?
Are you rooting for the best financial Wilpons or the best performing Met team?
Cause I think many seem to be more interested in seeing the Wilpons save money than they are in seeing the Mets be the best team they can be!
You balk on signing Bourn because of the draft pick and the bonus money associated with it, not the price of Bourn.
You piss and moan about Alderson and the Wilpons becasue of the way things are, but neither are going anywhere. Maybe you should have an interest in seeing the Wilpons get back on solid ground so things can get back to normal around here.
Oh Please just stop with the stupidity….
I never ONCE have balked at signing Bourn so your just living in some fantasy world where you believe whatever you want to believe in that pretty little head of yours….
Go look at my posts on Bourn and get back to me!
Then I’ll be happy to accept your public apology!
I never once said I was opposed to signing Bourn all I said was that our attempt to sign him is MARKETING not a REAL interest….
If they really wanted Bourn they would have signed him already!
They already know the pick will be determined AFTER he signs so the only holdup is what?
THE MONEY!
They are not SERIOUS because he is too expensive for them and unless he panics and lowers his price he is NOT coming here!
And if he panics and lowers his price we won’t be the ONLY team going after him at that point!
Wake up and stop trying to cite my opinions for me and go read what I said before you spout off at me again with your AGENDA Driven HATRED of anyone who dares QUESTION the almight GOD sandy and his motives!
When I said “you” I actually didn’t mean you. I meant the org should balk at Bourn for those reasons. Poor choice of words in this setting on my part. Would’ve made sense verbally…
Ok I’ll accept that….
I don’t hate anything, and I certainly don’t have an agenda. There are multiple routes to the same end… Throwing money at the problem certainly bring home a championship either.
All I’m saying regarding Bourn is I doubt how serious they really are…
They sure are spending time on it but they sure didn’t think it was worth pursuing until he was left at the altar by 31 other teams and they sensed they could get a bargain which to this point they STILL haven’t gotten apparently….
They may very well get him…But if I had to lay a bet it will be a 1 Year 15 Mil contract to get him onto an MLB team and take a second shot at FA next year when the market is weaker for OFers than it was this year.
He will still probably cost someone a pick UNLESS Sandy refuses to make the Qualifying offer on him to get it….
And considering the money thats a very likely possibility.
if met attendance continues to dwindle….they wont be able to afford to compete for nxt year’s free-agent class either…
Even if attendance craters there are multiple permanent revenue streams like local and national media contracts merchandise shares that won’t. Going by year to year revenue (not including whatever debt payments that are out there), there is definitely a fairly high floor for the Mets so even if the budget is cut again there will be money left to spend.
Not enough of them to sustain a competitive team…
Talk about TV all you want it is ticket sales where the majority of a teams money comes from.
Hi Rob,
Please understand that leading off the article with “As the possibility of Michael Bourn landing in Queens seems more and more like a reality” makes it sound more of a news update than an opinion. That’s why I asked for more information.
As far as the Mets financial status, if it is under control it was done so by adhering to a strict business model of across-the-board cutbacks that were not temporary but part of a corporate re-structuring. CRG-Deloitte was hired to help re-organize to cut down on expenses for the long-term, not just the present.
The question has to be if that allows for major increases in the roster payroll and that also has to be seen in light of after 2013 for in 2016 contractual obligations for those still signed by the Mets shoots the payroll up to just about $8 million less than it is now. And that doesn’t take into account that in 2016 Parnell and Murphy become free agents and then Davis, Gee and Tejada the following year.
Also, the point many forget is that the Mets have lost money and will most likely do so again this year. But that paying off the re-financed loans begins in another year along with the civil suit and their operating budget has to put aside money for that debt payment as well. So even if Sandy has put together a budget that he can work with, what goes into that is a combination of
1) Having to make up for lost revenue the past two or three seasons
2) Having to stay within the confines of that new operating budget
3) Having to account for the salary increases and pending free-agency starting in three years
4) Having those debt payments to make
5) Possibly losing more revenue this year due to falling attendance
So maybe they have turned the corner and are on better financial footing than two years ago – and maybe they are not. One must remember even with the civil suit hanging over their heads that with all the appeals, etc. it was going to be many years before the Mets had to start paying back whatever the decision was and if it was going to be anything gigantic, the gig was up as far as the Wilpons were concerned, payroll cuts notwithstanding.
But is their financial situation better now? The ciivil suit settlement was almost a year ago but since then we have seen no evidence of increased spending, only further signs of additional cost savings in the amateur draft, no signings of any major free agent, no re-signing of veteran players who were at least competitive and with nobody close to their production to replace them (Hairston, Rauch) and also not renewing the contract of Adam Wogan, their director of minor league operations and consolidating his responsibiities with those of other areas.
Based on this loose evidence, it does not appear as if the Mets will have more money to spend as it is they will be working on a more leaner budget. Their own statements since last year (and even after the re-financing they got last Fall) are not matching their actions.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYM/2012-roster.shtml
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/mets/2012/11/respected-mets-executive-will-not-return
1. We need an outfielder
2. We need a defensive centerfielder
3. We need a healthy player
4. We need not spend $20m/year on one injury prone player
Jose Reyes does not fit those job descriptions.
They’re not getting Bourn and they let Reyes walk. What’s the issue again??
The answer is simply timing and overall cost. When Jose walked, the Wilpons had almost no cash and a billion dollar lawsuit hanging over their head. Now, the lawsuit is gone, they have refinanced and have plenty of access to cash, and the value of both their team and SNY increased dramatically based on the Dodger and YES sales.
Yup, even if they got Bourn we don’t know the contract details. If it’s 3/45 that’s a huge difference from 6/100+
Hi TJ,
That civil suit was settled last year so that was out of the way going into the 2012 season. They had profits from SNY from 2012 as well. In 2012 they reduced their payroll more than $40 million. In 2012 they also downsized the entire organization’s operating budget across the board by ten percent.
They also did not have to start paying back any of their loans in 2012, either. And then this Fall they got re-financed to stretch out but also reduce those annual loan payments and will not have to start paying those until 2014.
And with all that going for them, they haven’t increased their re-investment into the team to get some new additions which Ike Davis said tonight that because of their starting pitching filling in a few missing pieces is all they need to surprise the fans.
So if things are better, how come they are not acting as if they are?
That’s not what “begs the question” means.
Only two reasons.
A) This isn’t 2011. After 2011 Mets knew they had to rebuild and start over. Only a year later, they’re much closer to contending. Also, the lawsuits have settled down and money isn’t as tight.
B) Jose Reyes’ contract will pay him $66M between his age 32-34 seasons (Jeter money). If you think that’s a good investment, you either better ready to win a WS in 2013 or you’re the GM for the Miami Marlins. Sandy is neither. That’s a clown contract, bro.
I don’t know how you can say a 74 win team that just lost a 20 game winner is CLOSER than a 77 win team …..
And why would signing Reyes mean we have to win a WS in 2013?
Why couldn’t 2014, 2015, and 2016 do just as well?
At anytime for the duration of that contract winning a WS would make it worth it….
Here is the one thing people forget about the Reyes deal….
If you kept him and put Tejada at 2B then Murphy becomes and Valuable trade chip to get that power RHB to play the OF this team desperatly needs.
Tejada at 2B? Not likely with Murphy and all the guys who are already better hitters. Tejada is just enjoying his 15 minutes of fame.
dumb comment – has nothing to do with winning the world series in 2013. has to do with how much he is worth over the life of the contract. he is only being 10 million in 2013. how you structure it is up to you. Tornto doesnt think it is a clown contract and they arent only in it for this year – they will contend for the next 5 at least
Jon, so signing wright for 8 years does exactly what for the franchise? You do realize this man will be making $20 million from 2014-2018 right? and do you think he’ll be worth that amount of money??? Do you think we’ll win anything with him? Ahhh, of course, what am i saying..
^^ after 2011, Harvey hadn’t pitched above double-A. Now he one of KLaw’s top 25 under 25, Wheeler’s ready for a spot in the rotation., We have a franchise C, Niese just pitched his best yr, Ike is a 30 HR bat, Wright is back to pre-2011 DW…we could keep going. Mets are in a better spot than they were a year ago.
And I don’t think Murph gets the mets a 30 HR corner OF.
^ How is it not abt 2013? Blue Jays are all in. They better win now cuz Reyes’ contract is abt to double. Their GM even admitted that. The end of a contract means just as much as the beginning. Santana’s contract is crippling now. If we won in ’08, it might’ve been worth it. Beside the no hitter, he hasn’t lived up to it. Reyes’ contract means TOR has to win soon to make the signing worth it. Cuz I feel like the AA won’t be happy paying $22M to a slowed-down, 33yo SS if they don’t win.
none of that matters if you can afford to pay him. If he produces it doesnt matter. all about production.
Robert, great post. I’ve been asking the same question ever since Alderson came out of his New Years Day drunken stupor, realized he had no outfield, and finally decided to move his ass. Blue Jays now got Reyes for 5/90 while we consider Bourn for 5/75. Which is the better bargain? Dont bother answering, we all know the right answer if you’re honest with yourselves.
Why Bourn and not Reyes?
Because Reyes would have been an even bigger overpay than Bourn may be. If Bourn were asking for Reyes money — or anything close — then the Mets would not be involved now.
Reyes is the better and more dynamic player. But what he got from Miami is a serious overpay. The Blue Jays may not mind now. But come 2015, they are going to be choking on that $22 million annual salary.
Maybe but no more than the Mets will be when they are paying Wright 20 million a year in his 33 – 36 year seasons. Or The Angels Pujols or the Tigers Fielder or the Dodgers Greinke, or pick a Yankee…….You always overpay for free agents and in the Mets case they overpaid for Wright who wasn’t free agent. Good players cost money.
Wright’s is a relative bargain compared to those 4 players. More so in terms of A-Rod and Pujols, but also in terms of Reyes and Fielder.
In terms of Pujols and A-Rod, there is no comparison. Those 2 contracts are and will be huge albatrosses for their clubs.
Over the next 5 years, A-Rod will be 37-41 years old and will be paid roughly 23 million for each of those years. Wright’s contract ends at age 36! Huge difference. Same with Pujols for the last 5 years of his contract. He’ll be 37-41 and will be paid even more than A-Rod. I know Pujols has been a great player, but expect a big decline after the age of 35. No more magic PEDs fixes for old age anymore like Bonds had.
Wright and Reyes will be paid roughly the same though the end of their contracts, but I would bet my house that Wright not only is more productive over the remaining years of their contracts, but particularly in the later years (last 3 years).
In terms of Fielder, I think he is the closest comparable to Wright in terms of both their current contracts (same length) and how they will age. However, the AAV of Fielder’s contract is about $6 million more. So, again, here compared to Fielder, Wright’s contract looks like a relative bargain.
yeah it’s a bargain if your goal is to win the Contract Championships. It’s embarrassing enough that u mention David Wright in the same breath as any of those other players except that for MAYBE he might produce better than a broken down Alex Rodriguez but that doesn’t matter either because all those other players will be in a position to be a major contributor to their respective team’s success. Wright had his chance 3 times and FAILED and CHOKED 3 times. He got his contract based on empty numbers and other useless reasons. He should be GONE and Reyes should still be here.
That’s nonsense.
A-Rod’s entire career may have been a sham. He may have done more PEDs than Bonds, And from here on in, he’ll be a shadow of himself making roughly 23 million a year. Physically broken down already, he’s not going to be contributing much to the Yankees’ success either. Especially since he’s such a monumental choker. His is probably the worst contract in baseball history, bar none.
Reyes is a very good player, and it’s hard to compare a SS with a third baseman, but I think most would agree that Wright is the better overall player in terms of value. Not only that but he should age better. So his contract is likely to pay off much better.
In terms of Fielder, as I said I think he’s the closest comparable to ‘Wright. Both in terms of contract length and the type of players they are. Take a look at some of their numbers:
162-game averages:
Wright 26 HRs, 105 RBIs, .21 SBs, 887 OPS, 135 OPS+
Fielder 36 HRs, 107 RBIs, 2 SBs .931 OPS, 144 OPS+
Wright has a career 39.1 bWAR. Fielder’s is just 19.1. Even if you account for the 553 more plate appearances that Wright has, he still has a big edge here.
Considering Fielder has played most of his career is a good hitters park, and David in good pitchers parks, their power and output is pretty comparable. Surely close enough that it doesn’t warrant $6 million more a year for Fielder.
So overall, Wright’s contract is a much better value than Fielder’s. If Wright were a free agent at the end of 2013, I have no doubt he could pull in a contract worth considerably more than what he’s making now. Probably equivalent to at least Fielder’s.
Pujols undoubtedly has been a better player than Wright. The problem is his contract — both in dollars and length. As I said, it’s going to become a big albatross and the Angels will choke on it. In terms of output per dollars going forward, Wright is going to outproduce Pujols.
So, yeah, Wright’s contract is a relative bargain compared to those 4 players. Time will prove that to be the case.
its only an albatross if you cant afford to continue spending.
Met fans were calling Castillo’s 6 mil salary an albatross
Any contract that is mostly unproductive and costs a lot and which prevents a team from spending in other areas is an albatross.
Bay, Castillo and Ollie’s contracts were all albatross contracts. And A-Rod’s contract is now a huge albatross contract. He may only play a small portion of this season. And the chances of him having a near-MVP type season in the future are pretty small.
The Yankees are trying to get under the LT threshold and improve the team at the same time. If they didn’t have A-Rod, they wouldn’t be penny pinching this winter.
penny-pinching?
they paid Kevin Youkliss 13 mil ON TOP of the 30 mil they are paying A-Rod
And they would have spent more to shore up their weak catching and RF spots if not for the albatross that A-Rod’s contract has become.
ok, so a-rod’s 30 mil salary did not dissuade them from signing another 3B and essentially turning A-Rod into a DH
And Flags fly forever. You can yap all you want about A-Rod’s contract…but if we won the 2008 World Series, no one would give a crap about Santana’s contract 5 years later…
No, A-Rod’s salary prevented them from shoring up weak spots such as catcher and the OF.
And don’t look at me. The one’s who’ve been yapping about A-Rod’s contracts are Yankee fans on the radio and some reporters. The Yankees would like nothing more than to get out from under that burden. Only they can’t say that publicly, of course.
For the Yankees to spend only about 13 million this winter for NEW players is shocking to many Yankees fans, especially when they have definite holes.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Mets end up spending more on NEW players this winter than the Yankees.
And Youkilis will make 12 million. Not 13 million.
Bayonne is getting nasty again. It’s his M.O. when he fails to convince anyone of his wit, humor and debating skills. It’s as predictable and day follows night.
Wright is 30…he signed a 8 yr deal….
his conract ends at age 38
and in case u didnt know…..the NL has no DH ….
David Wright was born December 20, 1982 when his contract ends at the end of the 2020 season he will be 37 years old.
When that season ends….Wright will be 90 days away from his 38th birthday…
Metro said his contract ends when he is 36….
And again…the point is, if u are comparing Pujols to Wright, Wright plays a more demanding position and does NOT have the option of being a DH…
but u knew that already…and knew what my point was…
I was 1 year off and so were you, in the other direction.
Fact is, officially Wright will be ending the last year of his contract at age 37.
Considering Pujols contract runs till he is 41 and pays roughly $7 million more a year than Wright’s contract, the better bargain by far will end up to be Wright’s. I have no doubt about that.
Wright will be 38, 90 days after that season ends…
and last I checked…the Mets will have no choice but to roll with David at 3B…no DH…and in case you havent noticed…players tend to stick around and be more productive as they get older in the AL
but dont worry…as fan attendance dwindles…and the quality of bats remain too expensive to surround DW with…you will come up with a new excuse as to why that was a good contract !
Officially, according to MLB, he will be playing his last season on this contract at age 37. His contract officially ends when Wright is age 37.
Chipper and Schmidt had no problems playing 3B at age 37. I’m sure David will manage.
So don’t worry, 7 years from now when you are still proclaiming how Wright won’t manage at the ripe old age of 37, he’ll still be producing at a very high rate.
And if he isn’t, well his contract is not as huge as Pujols, A-Rod’s or even Fielder’s, so it won’t be as much as an albatross as those contracts will become.
Chipper Jones hit .330 with 38 HR and had no back injuries when he was 30…
please lets not further compare Chipper with David…
No. Chipper Jones hit 26 HRs when he was 30, but how is Chipper’s offense at age 30 relevant to either his or David’s defense at age 37? LOL.
And David’s back injury was not a chronic one. He proved the past season it is not an issue.
Please, let’s not over-exaggerate the long-term implications of Wright’s back issue.
would you like to compare Chipper’s 4 years before he turned 30 with David’s ???
“but how is Chipper’s offense at age 30 relevant to either his or David’s defense at age 37?”
this is the point…
Chipper Jones was consistently hitting and defending WELL over-average
he hit
.319
.311
.330
.327
The only thing they have in common is that they played 3B, comparing Chipper to David is like comparing Roberto Alomar to Carlos Baerga
We were talking about defense at 3B at age 37. Again, what does offense 7 years prior to that have to do with it? LOL.
And Chipper NEVER was considered a particularly good glove at 3B. At age 20 or 30 or 38. That’s why they didn’t hesitate to move him to the OF at one point.
And no one is comparing Wright to Chipper for their entire careers — oh, wait, YOU started to do it!
The issue is simply the ability to play 3B at age 37.
LOL what does offense have to do with his performance?
lmaooooo
ok
Stay on point, damaja. The issue was playing defense.
No one said offense is not related to overall performance.
lmao, indeed!
You said Wright at the end of his contract will be 38. You agree that is not the case but rather he will be 3 months from turning 38. I agree with you as well.
Hi Just,
Whad’ya mean the NL has no DH?
Just a year and a half ago Sandy traded our closer to get a DH – Daniel Herrera. And a great one too – has a lifetime .298 BAA!
Hi Metro,
You are right about the Jays possibly choking on Jose’s $22 million salary in 2015, however, the point is that most clubs don’t get scared about being “burned” and recognize that long-term contracts at ridiculous salaries is the name of the game nowadays and that the trade is going to help bring them in more revenue that will more than make up for their investment. It’s not that the fans will come out to see Jose but rather that with Jose and the other moves they made, more fans are going to take interest in the team if it plays up to expectations.
If he pitches well next season, am sure there are going to be a few Met fans driving up from New York on the days R.A. is scheduled to pitch at the Rodgers Center which is going to help further contribute to that – and they don’t even have to worry about a rain-out.
Joey — I think Sandy knows that a long-term contract can pay off which is exactly why he committed to Wright for 8 years. But a club also has to be careful about doing too many of those contracts because they’ll end up not being able to afford much else.
And, btw, Reyes’ contract is the biggest on the Blue Jays team. He is making more than Joey Bats! So it’s not as if the Jays have invested heavily in long-term multi-year contracts.
If the mix of players the Jays put together doesn’t work, I’m not sure their attendance is going to get that great a jump. And if the Mets win more than they lose this season, then they should get a bump. It’s all about winning. And that more than anything will draw the fans in. Big names on a losing team won’t work.
Hi Metro,
Talking about reasonable costs, came across the attached two links. One gives a chart regarding the cost of a family of four going to a game 2011, the other the cost of the 2011 roster payrolls.
We can of course see the parallel. The higher the payroll, the higher the cost of going to a game except for:
1) The Angels having one of the highest payrolls in the majors yet one of the lowest cost indexes at the same time.
2) The Mets cutting payroll after the 2011 which resembles that of 2013 but instead of ticket prices being reduced they are actually going up.
And yet peope keep on coming. There is a lot of money for owners and players to make off of us darn fans who are more than willing to hand it to them.
There should be more of us darn fans who aren’t.
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/baseball_costs.php
http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20110929&content_id=25386600&vkey=pr_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
Hi Joey — As long as fans continue to buy tickets and watch on TV, then costs and payrolls will continue to rise. It’s a vicious cycle. However there is a breaking point in terms of costs. The Dodgers may find this out when they try to implement their new TV network if the added costs to cable subscribers is $5 extra a month, as has been reported. That is not just a sports issue, but a broader one for the cable industry.
As for the Mets and Angels, the operating expenses for a club with an old stadium are going to be less than that for a team like the Mets with a new stadium which they’ve paid for themselves. The annual debt payments for the new stadium are not insignificant. Moreover, I think it was a mistake to make Citi Field so small. They had to raise the prices to offset the smaller capacity and that was a mistake. Of course, for the Marlins, they got their new stadium paid for by the taxpayers. And now they have a barebones roster.
Hi Metro,
You’re forgetting that the Angels renovated their ball park and is now as modern as Citi Field. Did a nice job, too (see attached) so I doubt that the operating costs are significantly less for them than in New York In 1993, that came out to $100 million so indeed I overlooked the point about passing the cost to pay for the new ballpark onto the fans and that hurt the Yankees as well (also see attached). Both franchises counted on those ridiculously priced luxury suites and season ticket plans.
But still, the point is that the Mets are increasing their ticket prices while slashing their payrolls at the same time. And if you notice, in 2011 both Chicago teams had payrolls as high as the Mets – while not having the cost of paying off a new stadium, either.
About the ball park itself, there are so many costs involved in facility operations: electricity, gas, grounds, custodial, water supply, deferred maintenance, personnel, security, insurance, occupancy regulations, the size of the structure itself, etc. Bigger crowds raise the daily operating cost as well. Of course, those costs vary from state to state but it’s a tremendous undertaking nevertheless so one cannot make such a blanket statement about costs varying between older structures and newer – if anything, the older structures are going to have more deferred maintenance costs to contend with.
Also, there are those other hidden costs as well – corporate income tax is higher in California than it is New York State.
Hey, I’m glad, however, that we both agree the Wilpons made the big mistake of thinking they could make more money with a smaller capacity ballpark by charging more per person and not recognizing that could work against them by drawing crowds smaller than they calculated required to break even (in 2009, that was an estimated 39,200 per game at 2009 prices at which they met – however, we don’t know how much that included those unsold luxury suites and boxes).
http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/ana/ballpark/information/index.jsp?content=history
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/sports/baseball/29tickets.html?_r=0
Your very kind to this guy saying he forgot. He didn’t forget. He just wings it, makes stuff up, lies, twist facts, uses limited stats to hear himself trying to bully fans like you who care about the Mets and know that the bottom line is winning, not the BS metro and his pals spew out in their hapless adoration or their paid work for the zombielike Mr Liarson
Hi Padilla,
While there was a moment of friction between us, both Metro and I have made amends with each other. It is obvious we both come from different camps and so I just point out things that are overlooked – just like this article about other teams that have been disappointing and not raising their ticket prices and in some cases, lowering them, however, even that article from business.time can get the facts wrong. For example, while the Cubs are lowering ticket prices, that is for season ticket plans, not individual games.
And the Cubs had reduced their payroll quite a lot as well and they also seat over 41,000 so the capacity in the two parks is quite similar.
http://business.time.com/2012/10/18/the-upside-of-an-awful-season-cheaper-major-league-baseball-tickets/
http://www.obstructedview.net/commentary-and-analysis/cubs-lower-season-ticket-costs-while-mostly-raising-individual-ticket-prices.html
Joey, Please take this as the compliment it is meant as….
But I think you could find a way to make amends with Hitler! LOL
We should send you to the Middle East!
Hi Metsie,
LMAO – but even I have my limitations!
Hello Joey – Surely you’re not comparing the cost of a stadium renovation to that of building a whole new stadium from scratch, are you? The Angels paid only $88 million for their renovation, whereas building Citi cost the Mets around $900 million, all of which was paid for by themselves. That’s a significant difference — the Mets new stadium cost 10X what the Angels spent to renovate their stadium.
You also forgot about the half a billion lost with Madoff. That has had a big impact too. So the financial situation between the Angels and Mets is very different.
I know I mentioned “operating costs” in my previous comment, but I was mainly talking about the costs of constructing and financing the new stadium. Not the yearly electricity, maintenance etc. The actual operating costs for those things I assume are more or less equal from stadium to stadium.
So if you consider the Mets annual debt payment on the new stadium, which I believe is about 40 or 50 million a year, combined with their half a billion dollar loss in 2008 with Madoff, then it’s understandable for there to be fiscal restraint.
I believe it’s only the Mets and Yankees among all 30 teams who currently have hefty annual debt payments related to new stadiums. The Nats, for example, pay just 5.5 million a year in rent on their new stadium which was totally financed by taxpayers. Turner Field was entirely paid for by the Olympic Committee. The Phillies only had to pay for half of CBP. And we know how the Marlins got their new park! LOL. So the Mets are at a big disadvantage financially in terms of new stadium debt.
It was a bad idea to build a new stadium in this economic environment. The Madoff loss made things even worse. Hopefully, once they get the payroll under control and Sandy’s plan starts to pay off, attendance will increase and the financial picture will improve.
Hi Metro,
Absolutely not comparing the cost of a renovating a stadium 20 years ago to the cost of constructing a new one about six years ago – just mentioned it as a side-note. Remember, I agreed with you and admitted I forgot the cost of paying for the new park being rolled back to the fans. Even wanted to be fair to the Wilpons to not make it seem I was singling them and thus the link to show the Yankees had done the same thing.
Of course, I did not forget about Madoff but I was raising the issue of higher ticket prices as related to higher roster payroll and the Mets actually cutting payroll and raising prices anyway – and to again be fair to the Wilpons pointed out that Cubs were guilty of the same thing. Too often, the excuse of having to raise ticket prices was to compensate for the cost of a high payroll and as we see now, that doesn’t have to be the case.
2009 ticket prices were decided upon before the Wilpons ever knew they were swindled out of that half billion dollars and annual return on bogus profits. And if that is a reason behind the Wilpons raising the cost of ticket prices now, that is a lot of chutzpah on their part.
Hi Joey — so let me get this straight … this is your point? …
I did not forget about Madoff but I was raising the issue of higher ticket prices as related to higher roster payroll and the Mets actually cutting payroll and raising prices anyway
Are you wondering why this is the case? Or are you just making an observation? If the former, then it is for all the reasons I mentioned.
2009 ticket prices were decided upon before the Wilpons ever knew they were swindled out of that half billion dollars and annual return on bogus profits. And if that is a reason behind the Wilpons raising the cost of ticket prices now, that is a lot of chutzpah on their part.
I still don’t get your point. The Mets were losing money in their new stadium due to a lot of different reasons (there wasn’t just one) including the new stadium debt payments. They lost about 50 million in 2010, and 70 million in 2011. Raising prices is one way to stem and reverse the losses. Cutting the fat off the payroll is another. The idea is to get to the point where the balance sheet is balanced! Or nearly so. I think they may be approaching that point in the near future but they are not there now.
Does that answer your questions? Or were you just making some observations.
” Raising prices is one way to stem and reverse the losses”
on a weaker product ????
hahahahha ok
Hi Metro,
Of course they were just observations.
They came to mind as we were discussing reasonable costs as far as signing Bourn and others were concerned. Just noted how ironic that while they are saving money by reducing their payroll they are making fans pay more to see a game at the same time. Those two links were provided just to show that teams with lower payrolls also have lower ticket costs – other than the Mets and those two clubs playing in the windy city.
I know, it was getting off the topic at hand but if one isn’t willing to spend on the team, one shouldn’t expect fans to spend more to then see it.
Nope. On a product that is basically the same — or maybe even a little better –than when Sandy too over the team.
Ok?
Joey — Well, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to do that. There has to be a way to balance the books. And it became severely unbalanced with the new stadium and also the unproductive contracts. Can’t keep bleeding cash. Maybe if the payroll hadn’t been so mismanaged prior to Sandy taking over the team, there would have been more spending the last few winters.
And I don’t think attendance will suffer any more than it has There is always a base of fans who will pay to see the Mets. They just need to win — whether they overspend on bad contracts like Ollie, Castillo or Bay or they have a leaner payroll with the fat cut out. Doesn’t matter … winning will draw the extra fans in.
Joey — I think there will be a slight uptick in attendance this season. I also think in 2014 and beyond, the attendance will continue to increase each year. I base that prediction on what I think will be an improved record this year and beyond.
“Nope. On a product that is basically the same — or maybe even a little better –than when Sandy too over the team.”
So let me get this straight…
Metro12 just stated that despite the rise in ticket prices, attendance will have an uptick in 2013 because this team is basically the same or slightly better than when Sandy Alderson became GM in October 2010
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Nope. I said that despite the higher ticket prices, I predict the Mets will see at least a “slight uptick” in attendance so long as there is “an improved record.”
Thankfully, Sandy has fixed a lot of the mess that Omar left behind.
so long as there is “an improved record.”
and you have predicted an improved record !!!!
LMAOOOOO
Yup.
“Big names on a losing team won’t work.”
Thats Wright ! ( No pun intended )
Hi Metro,
The other night on clubhouse confidential, off-season moves made by each of the NL East teams were being evaluated. When it came to the Mets (I forgot who the guest was but I recognized the website immediately) after the host opened by saying they were indeed now rebuilding, the guest said the Mets were looking at loose ends, not spending, really had no idea what to do and shouldn’t be expected to be competitive for another three years.
Note, he said “competitive” which doesn’t mean competitors.
But I’ll try and push Clubhouse Confidential to get you on for a rebuttal.
Hello Joey, may I direct your attention to this article:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-10-best-transactions-of-the-off-season/
Here Dave Cameron proclaimed that the Mets had the 5th best move of the offseason. Here’s what Cameron had to say about the move:
As I said above, I like this deal for Toronto, and I think there was a case to be made for the Mets keeping Dickey signing him to an extension themselves. But, in D’Arnaud and Syndergaard, they were able to get a couple of pieces in return that could have much more long term value to the Mets, and D’Arnaud is close enough to the Majors that they could start seeing a return on the move this season.
So who are you going to believe? Dave Cameron, a very highly regarded writer for Fangraphs? Or some no-name guest whom you can’t even remember the name of?
I’ll go with Dave Cameron.
And, Joey, I am predicting at least an improvement in their record for 2013. Care to make a prediction?
Hi Metro,
As mentioned, the Giants, Reds, Nationals and Detroit were all floundering yet didn’t just go wait for prospects to develop and hope for something to happen – their success came from a planned methodology which included going after the missing pieces from the outside as their young crop was developing. That was the point being made by that panelist – the Mets are doing nothing other than acting like a small market team.
Just because I could not remember the panelist and his website that is reflective of my own memory (without taking down notes or having source material to refer to) than him being a “no-name guest”. I do believe he was from SBNation.Com.
My own projection? The Mets are going to waste the potential of Wheeler, d’Arnaud, Harvey and the young core we already have by not taking those further measures.
The kids will continue to produce while the team continues to falter because of the front office doing nothing to help them. And the mood in the clubhouse will again be like they were kicked in the teeth. I hope I’m wrong, but this has been how Sandy has done things since the day he came on board.
If the Mets are more financially stable, it’s only because Sandy created a business model that doesn’t allow for the spending on the field and off. And what about the issue of Sandy’s credibility by saying the team is better shape because the debt has been re-financed and there will be more flexibility in payroll in 2014? Remember, Sandy said he would have more flexibility in 2012 as well after the payroll was reduced WHEN FULLY AWARE OF THE TEAM’S DEBT SCHEDULE AS IT WAS AT THE TIME BEFORE IT WAS RE-FINANCED. Not to mention the payroll itself is now down to around $90 million which is reflective of not using resources better but just cutting back.
And the other reason used for being hesitant to spend was the civil suit hanging over their heads. Well, that was settled a year ago and cannot be used to explain why the Mets have held back spending since – including when they were “buyers” last season.
Hi Joey — Where did you mention the Giants, Reds etc? Not in any discussion with me. But regardless, each team is unique. You can’t compare the Mets to the Giants, Reds, Nationals or Detroit because none of those other teams had the huge stadium debt and the huge Madoff losses that the Mets faced. The Nats, in fact, got their stadium practically scott free!
As for a projection, how many wins did you say the Mets would have??? I missed that.
Give a win total with and without Bourn!
Assuming everyone stays healthy *because Sandy loves Omar’s training staff so much he has kept Ray Ramirez for 3 years straight !
With Bourn = 80 wins
Without Bourn 68 wins
LOL, I’m shocked you’d be so optimistic with or w/o Bourn.
Why shouldn’t Sandy have kept Ramirez?
You do know that Sandy made a change to the training staff in 2011, don’t you?
Hi Metro,
Hey – you missed all the fun!
Look under “This Week’s Featured Post: The Clock Has Started Ticking On The Sandy Experiment”. It’s my first reply but don’t stop there – there was a slew of back and forth responses between me, Jessep, Salty, Metsie among others.
I went into great detail to point out where there clubs were and specifically compared the Mets of now to the Giants situation in 2008. Also the Nationals in 2010 and the Tigers of 2003. All based on hitting, pitching, the development stages of their young players, the holes they had, the steps taken, etc. Especially take note of the Tigers who were in the worst shape of all these clubs.
Have fun!
Hi Joey — Assuming the Mets are in a similar situation — talent wise — to that of all 4 clubs before they dipped into the FA market. It’s still a different situation from a fiscal standpoint because:
1) Mets have pretty large annual payments for stadium debt which none of those other teams had.
2) Mets lost 500 million to Madoff and were sued for a billion more. None of those other teams had such serious financial issues like that.
3) Sandy inherited albatross contracts to the tune of 59 million. Moreover, the players with those contracts have contributed miniscule positive value. As I told damaja, the Giants only had 30 million in albatross contracts and both players, Zito and Rowand, contributed at least a little while they were there.
So you can’t realistically compare the Mets with the other clubs. The financial climate surrounding the Mets vs. them is so different.
BTW. was that Neyer on the TV? He writes for sbnation and he also has his own site. I like Neyer, but I’ll go with Cameron here.
Also, Joey, c’mon, give a prediction for the Mets wins this season. With and without Bourn!
Hi Metro,
Forgot to add that that pointing out the financial situation shows Sandy’s vision deals with the front office and not those on the field for the steps he is following has not worked for Kansas City, Pittsburgh, San Diego and only this year with Oakland. They are also not the steps followed by San Francisco, Cincinnati and Detroit.
As far as wins – my gut reaction is anywhere between 70 and 81 wins without Bourn. The reason for an eleven game differential is because I do believe this team is within a few players of really turning things around. It depends upon how much the lack of support hurts them or not. We played .575 ball in 2011 for more than half a season despite being dragged down by the inexpensive players Sandy obtained that prior winter. Last year we were tied for the wild card at the all-star break despite the bad bullpen Sandy acquired before the season began as well. Anything above .500 is too much to expect with so many holes.
With Bourn, it can between 75 and 81 wins.
And if those 81 wins are achieved due to those who have signed minor league contracts and not currently on the 40 man roster it will not bode well for future years due to their advanced ages. We would again have an empty bullpen going into 2014.
Of course, anything can happen but that is more hope – and we’ve all seen it happen before so I’m not going to rule that out. However, those teams in the past that surprised everyone had one thing going for them that this one doesn’t – a front office that supports them.
Joey — Sandy’s vision has been both on the field and towards the FO in terms of fiscal constraint. That’s not by choice but by necessity. He’s doing the best he can within the slim financial freedom he has. This winter is the first in which he’s had any significant money to spend, and it’s only around 25 million! Still peanuts, relatively speaking.
Whether what he’s done so far works or not remains to be seen. This year will be interesting because I feel he’s had enough time to put his stamp on the team (albeit within the financial framework he’s stuck with).
I disagree when you say the FO doesn’t support the players. They do, but, again, within the stark financial realities that hit the team the last few years. Sandy told David what his plan was, and it was good enough that he committed essentially the rest of his career to the Mets. He wouldn’t have done so it he didn’t feel Sandy wasn’t earnest or didn’t have a reasonable plan. I do believe Wright would have gotten much more on the market if he elected free agency.
As for your prediction … 70 and 81 wins without Bourn??? Wow, way to hedge your predictions, LOL. You’re no fun, Joey!
Also, none of those four teams had the albatross contracts the Mets had when Sandy took over. So that’s another big difference.
Barry Zito + Aaron Rowand were albatross contracts
Rowand and Zito cost the Giants just 30 million a year and both provided some positive value. Santana, Perez, Bay and Castillo cost the Mets 59 million in year 1, and roughly 40 million for 2012 AND 2013. And none of the 4 has provided much value at all up to now.
Moreover, the Giants didn’t lose half a billion to Madoff and didn’t have huge stadium debt payments.
Hi Metro,
Again, those are very important points about the financial struggle. But that’s exactly why many of us contend there are no other steps being taken other than salary dumping and counting almost exclusively on prospects to fill in the too many holes that we have and that the reasons for this have to do with the Wilpons retaining ownership than any vision.
A question. If the Madoff situation never happened and the Mets were on good, solid financial footing in which they would have just written off the bad contracts like other teams, would you still support the way this team is being handled?
If Sandy had no interest in improving the team, why did he spend 9 million on Frankie and Rauch last winter? Why did he spend 5 million on Marcum and Lyon this winter? Why is he currently trying to get Bourn (on his terms)? Why not just plug in all the kids and let the chips fall where they may?
If Madoff never happened, and no losses were incurred from those investments, and no 1 billion suit was filed against them, then NO, I would not support the same exact route that Sandy has taken. However, I would support a modified route. For example, the albatross contracts had to go. I believe letting Beltran go was ultimately the right decision. I believe not letting K-Rod’s option vest was correct. But I might have a slightly different opinion on Reyes (in terms of dollars offered) and Dickey, , as well as other things.
But remember … Madoff or no Madoff … the new stadium has been a big drain on the finances. That is also part of the equation.
If Sandy had any real interest in improving the team…
why would he allow Lucas Duda to play RF all year long…even with Bay out for most of the year?
why would he keep one of the worst training staffs in all of baseball…the guys yall were screaming to be fired in 2009/2010?
why would he keep Dan Warthen????
and by Sandy’s own un-needed admission, Jason Bay would still be on this team if he did not agree to defer salary.
Because Bay wasn’t out for most of the season. He played 70 games. And they didn’t know how long he would be out, so the worst thing to do would be to frequently move Duda all around the OF. He had already started in RF in 2011. He had started 2012 in RF. So they figured, correctly, that he should get used to and learn how to play RF for the time being, especially since they thought that Bay could come back in 2013, relegating Duda once again to RF.
Huh? Who said it was one of the worst training staffs in all of baseball? Don’t dare lump me in with your “yall” …. and if it was one of the worst staffs, as you say, then who was responsible for putting it together? Don’t confuse the training staff with the medical staff or the responsibility of the GM and manager to make sure injured players do not play hurt and get the proper treatment. And you do realiize that Sandy did change one member of that staff in 2011, don’t you???????
Dan Warthen? Ok, you got me on that one. I have no clue.
But seriously, I think it was because Dickey and Pelfrey loved Warthen and lobbied for him. That was reported in the media. But now that both are gone, they should consider canning his ass after this year. I think it’s too late now. You don’t announce someone is coming back and then fire him.
Do you have a link to Sandy saying Bay would still be on the team if he didn’t defer salary?
And answer this question that I asked of Joey:
If Sandy had no interest in improving the team, why did he spend 9 million on Frankie and Rauch last winter? Why did he spend 5 million on Marcum and Lyon this winter? Why is he currently trying to get Bourn (on his terms)? Why not just plug in all the kids and let the chips fall where they may?
That’s simple. It was a distraction because Jose Reyes signed with the Marlins 2 hours before those deals were announced. That’s what they were both overpaid to the hilt. It was a total duck for cover move and so was the Pagan trade where the Giants toasted him.
What happened too his waiting the market out philosophy that great waiting game of his?
He ditched it and made the quickest moves he could make to push the Reyes news out of the way. Three moves in the space of an hour and all three of them sucked ass.
Really? So when the team is in dire financial straits, Sandy throws away 9 million just for show? How did he ever sell that to the Wilpons!?
So what’s the reason Sandy spent 5+ million on Marcum and Lyon this winter? Why is he going after Bourn now?
Also, your timing of the moves in December 2011 appears to be way way off. The news of Reyes signing with the Marlins came on December 4th, a Sunday night. The Rauch/Francisco/Torres deals were not done until the following Tuesday. It was NOT within hours
I actually agree with you that all 3 moves were bad. However, some of the Sandy bashers apparently don’t think so, arguing vigorously that Rauch should have been brought back.
That was an easy sell…..
“Hey Fred I need 9 Mil to distract from the fact we didn’t make an offer on Reyes and he left….you know something for the papers to focus on so Reyes going to the Marlins gets a smaller piece of the Met reporting space.”
Except that your fantasy makes ZERO sense.
Makes plenty of sense….
Just not to some guy who fell in love with a GM has doe eyes for him, and would like to marry him if only he could hit under .220 and get the GMs attention….
some guy who fell in love with a GM has doe eyes for him, and would like to marry him
Sounds like you are describing yourself and how you feel about Omar!! LOL
Hi Metro,
The cost of constructing Citi Field did not impede the Wilpons at all in their spending in other areas. It was already accounted for long before the plans were made public.
A budget covering the cost of construction by any corporation or private sector has to be developed before even the design stage begins. I know because I am involved with major construction projects as the coordinator in a private University. The executives I worked with had to determine how much we could afford to spend within our long-range budget, how much could be financed, the details and timetable to begin paying back that financing, how much of our own immediate capital could be used, how much revenue could be expected, what we would need in contingency, etc. all based on a preliminary design plan from our architects prior to sending out a RFP to hire a general contractor.
We also had to project how financing these projects in the long-term would affect our other required spending to enable us to go ahead with the project. After preliminary planning we recognized that some projects had to be scaled down while there was one we actually had to eliminate altogether.
Being in real-estate, the Wilpons were well aware of what was required to build a new ball park and the early budgetary planning that goes on way before ground breaking begins and continues way past receipt of the final certificate of occupancy from the city.
Yet we know how much they spent as far back as 2005 when they became majority owners and thus they were aware of the long-term obligations they were already committed to before taking on the added financial obligations associated with Citi Field. Even after budgeting for the final cost of construction and the terms of paying back that financing, they nevertheless felt confident enough with their financial picture to go ahead and sign those big contracts with Castillo, Perez, Santana, Krod, Bay and others on top of the big ones they already had. And along with the new ball park, they took on the expense of buying out Nelson Doubleday.
Not to mention the Mets were on secure enough ground that financial institutions did not hesitate financing the loans that they would not re-finance today.
Again, they went ahead with spending money after committing themselves to Citi Field because it was all budgeted and fit in within the confines of overall expected revenue and expenditures plus annual returns from other investments. What they didn’t count on was corporations not going for the outrageous cost of luxury suites and season boxes along with the fan base stopping their own spending by being out priced.
And then, there was that little problem with their friend Bernie.
Hi Joey — The Citi Field costs did impede future spending in the sense that by the time Madoff and lower attendance hit, they were already burdened with stadium debt and couldn’t handle further financial burdens. Let’s say the cost of the stadium had been wholly or partly financed by tax dollars — for example, like the Marlins or Nats. Well then when Madoff and lower attendance hit, it wouldn’t have been so bad because there would be no hefty annual debt payments for Citi.
So, yes, while they originally budgeted in the costs, too many unforeseen things transpired to make those costs a bigger burden later on.
They probably were a little too optimistic in their projections, as well. I bet they figured a sold-out stadium for almost every game. And they likely didn’t foresee a big falloff in the team’s performance. Plans for the stadium and financing were finalized around 2005-06. At that time the team was winning. They had too much faith in Omar and didn’t realize his strategy was somewhat reckless, not suited for long-term success, and that he would go on to mortgage the team’s future for short-term success.
This is, of course, is the Wilpons’ fault — their own short-sightedness and naivete. While they are real estate pros, it’s mostly office buildings and residential. They had no prior experience building a stadium. I think they bit off more than they could chew. Maybe if Madoff never happened the stadium debt wouldn’t have mattered. But Madoff + bad economy + losing team + stadium debt was almost a lethal combination. They essentially had to sell off almost half the team to get out of this predicament.
Hi Metro,
We are in complete agreement as far as the financial mess the Wilpons are in today and that the debt owed to the construction of Citi Field is one of many parts to it. I’ve said in the past the combination of taking out so much debt, the swindle and their being so out of touch with the economics of the average fan not to see that building such a smaller park would price out so many – including on the revenue they counted on with those luxury suites and boxes -merged to produce the “perfect storm”.
What was confusing was that it appeared the construction of Citi Field was going to cause cut backs in spending nevertheless. This would not have happened had it not been for Madoff – though I’m not ruling out some sort of belt tightening being they were so out of touch with the fan base as mentioned above by out pricing so many by constructing a smaller capacity ballpark.
I personally am less sympathetic to the Wilpon’s plight because they in turn had no regard for average middle-class fan by making it too expensive for many to take their families to a ball game and thus catering to those with more money to spend instead.
“If Sandy had no interest in improving the team, why did he spend 9 million on Frankie and Rauch last winter”
Did it improve the pen?
NOPE!
What makes you think it will work this time with his track record of improving the pen for the THIRD STRAIGHT OFFSASOn and yet here we are still needed to Improve the pen?
and with a good 7-8 closers on the market that year, he picked the cheapest one !!!
and coincidentally right after the mets lost out on Reyes…
Huh? Whether a move works or not has no relevance to the motivation behind the move. Obviously Alderson thought those 3 moves would work. And, actually, according to damaja one of them did work
Because Ollie and Castillo were such big expensive busts, does that mean Omar had no intention to improve the Mets when he overpaid those two? Were those moves just for show? LOL.
Huh? Broxton was cheaper.
yup !
and that was Sandy’s first option…
The Mets were one of a number of teams in on Broxton, and they even had David Wright make contact with the former Dodgers closer, who will be a set-up man for the Royals. Broxton will get a one-year, $4 million deal with incentives that could bring the contract to $5 million.
IN CROSSHAIRS: Former Mets right fielder Jeff Francoeur (top inset) convinced former Dodgers reliever Jonathan Broxton (above) to sign with the Royals on a recent hunting trip — despite a recruiting phone call from Amazin’s star David Wright (bottom inset).
“I’m not much of a hunter, but that hunting trip really worked out well,’’ Francoeur told The Post yesterday of the excursion to The Foxworthy Farm, which spans more than 40,000 wildlife acres. “I think we’re going to have a pretty good little team now in Kansas City.”
He jokingly added, “Make sure you tell David that I’m a better salesman than he is.’’
The Mets must land bullpen help. They are looking at relievers Matt Capps, Frank Francisco, Octavio Dotel and others. They believed the $4 million price tag on Broxton, who is coming off surgery to remove bone chips in his right elbow, was a bit steep.
and what did KC do with Broxton? flip him for 2 prospects that year
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/7/31/3207451/kansas-city-royals-trade-jonathan-broxton-cincinnati-reds-joseph-sulbaran
what did we do with Byrdack, Rauch, Hairston, and FF…nothing !
Failure !
Huh? Are you trying to say Broxton instead of Francisco would have made a significant difference? LOL.
And you are the one who was arguing just the other day the Mets should have kept Rauch?
Inconsistent much?
As for flipping Broxton, he was on a 1-year deal and the Royals were doing worse than the Mets! Duh! Frankie was on a 2- year deal, so you don’t deal him. And why would you deal marginal relievers for marginal talent??? That ‘s what I don’t get. The value of extra wins is higher than a marginal prospect. Moreover, Sandy at the time wanted to bring back Byrdak and Hairston. You don’t trade players you want to bring back. Also, weren’t you the one arguing the other day that Rauch was injured??????? LMFAO. You can’t trade an injured player.
Again, this idea that you should trade your marginal players for marginal prospects is just stupid. They almost never amount to anything.
>>The value of extra wins is higher than a marginal prospect.
What????
so winning 78 games is worth more than a prospect !
>>Moreover, Sandy at the time wanted to bring back Byrdak and Hairston.
Except when Hairston wanted 3 mil a year for 2 years !!! there are lines even Sandy wont cross
>>You don’t trade players you want to bring back.
except when they play above your price limit !!!
>>>Also, weren’t you the one arguing the other day that Rauch was injured.
So you cant trade a healthy and PRODUCTIVE Rauch in August on a waiver deal? esp. when we were NO WHERE near a playoff spot
exactly what sick sadistic high do you get from inventing new and creative ways to make Sandy look less like a Wilpon puppet ?
No, winning an extra 5-7 games is worth more than a marginal prospect. Moreover, trading players signals a white flag both to your own players and the fans. You risk lower attendance. So you ONLY do that if you are going to get back better prospects.
Except when Hairston wanted 3 mil a year for 2 years !!! there are lines even Sandy wont cross
Huh? I knew you had reading issues. Sandy said with Hairston, the hangup was playing time. He was unwilling to commit to Hairston playing time.
except when they play above your price limit !!!
Nope. Not even then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So you cant trade a healthy and PRODUCTIVE Rauch in August on a waiver deal? esp. when we were NO WHERE near a playoff spot
LOL, you’ll get even worse crap back then!
Figures you’d go for the crappy Royce Ring and Chris Carter types — That’s exactly what Omar used to do!
Yes because Omar was really looking for salary relief when he traded Wagner !
Nothing to do with the ownership at all..
as a matter of fact, the interview with Wagner in 2010 where he says Fred gave him a handshake deal and said he would never offer arbitration and would trade him to a contender is proof positive that Omar was running the show !
Yes !
Awesome comparison!!!
Sandy got 0 for Hairston, Byrdack + Rauch
nada….nothing…zipppo…zilch…and he kept them because he wanted to get to .500 …to “change perceptions” aka sell tickets in 2013…
we end up with a worse record than 2012 and no marginal prospect either !
AWESOME !!!
GO TEAM SANDY !!!
It wasn’t just Chris Carter. Who else did he get? Lance Broadway? And who did he get for Bell? What about Bannister?
And it’s not that Bannister ever became an all-star. But he produced much more value on the ML level than the player he was traded for.
Omar made some of the most worthless trades.
Sandy knows you don’t need more useless filler like that. So sometimes it’s better to keep players like Hairston, especially if you think you want to bring him back.
LOL, you’re too funny with your third-rate prospects!
“Whether a move works or not has no relevance to the motivation behind the move”
Oh really then I guess all of Omars move were great!
Cause at the time everyone LOVED them even MORE than the Pagan trade and the Francisco signing….
Just because you were TOO STUPID to see those deals had mistake written all over them doesn’t mean other did not see it!
Cause I did, JoeD did for sure and quite a few others who you argue with because they don’t like sandy BECAUSE of moves like that!
Yes, really.
LOL, I think you stepped into the middle of a discussion and don’t even understand what we are talking about here. Do you know what “motivation” even means? It has nothing to do with whether something that was done is deemed good or not. It means the reason behind a move.
And if you’re going to say that Sandy spent 9 million knowing beforehand in his gut that the moves were bad, then you are the one who is TOO STUPID a million times over.
And you are definitely TOO STUPID for jumping to the conclusion that I thought all 3 of those deals were good. I didn’t.
What did Omar give up to get Pagan from the Cubs? NOTHING…and he got some good production out of him..
What did Sandy get when traded Pagan? NOTHING
They both had good intentions…but Omar’s trades worked much more than Sandy’s
Huh? How a trade works out also has nothing to do with initial motivation which was the issue here. You just like to go off on tangents and spam with your agenda-driven propaganda.
Sandy has made superb trades with Beltran and Dickey. The fact that one of his minor trades didn’t work out is relatively minor.
And, lol, Omar was awful at trades. One of the worst traders in the game! From his days in Montreal to his tenure as Mets GM, he firmly cemented that awful reputation.
Hey Joey. I’m glad we can see mostly eye-to-eye on some things. Yes, it was a perfect storm for the Wilpons’ financial crisis, and the part the economy’s downturn played in it shouldn’t be underestimated either.
However, I can’t crucify the Wilpons over the high stadium prices that many can’t afford. Yankee fans have it even worse! But they should have made the capacity at least 48,000. I think that was strictly Fred Wilpon’s fault. He wanted to retain the intimacy he remembered from Ebbets Field.
Hi Metro,
And I’m glad you reply to me using my name too because otherwise I would be unable to tell which of your comments was addressed to mine and boy some of those could really hurt. LOL.
I take great offense about many of the average fans now being out priced but to be fair, I did not single out the Wilpons by attaching those articles about the Yankees and showing that fans in Chicago contend with the same problem with both their clubs as well. The reason stems from my own child hood. My dad had two work two jobs to make ends meet – we did not own a home, we just rented an apartment. Yet even though money was tight for us, he was able to take me to a few ball games because they were affordable and because of that, I have many cherished father-son memories of those times.
Now, fortunately, that does not apply to me today, however, that is still not the case even for those less fortunate, even if not living paycheck to paycheck like we did back then. For example, $19 for an outfield promenade seat on a Saturday afternoon seems reasonable, however, for just my wife and I, the total cost with all those add on fees it came up to $63. Add parking and that is $82 for two people to just to get in. For a family of four, (not doubling the shipping fees or single price processing fee) with parking, that comes up $132. Be cheap and restrict each to just one hot dog, one soda and one ice cream (approximate $5.50 average cost) and that is $222 – and we know it’s hard to restrict children to just that, not with all the temptations of a souvineer and not wanting to disappoint them. So even if we up that to $250, that is a lot of money for a family of four on a $40,000 year income.
As you can tell, I champion the little guy – which sounds strange when I also contest that the Wilpons should invest more in their players and makes me appear as a hypocrite. But with the money made through television, owners could afford to keep prices down at least in some areas like those extremely high processing fees. Four $19 tickets should not come up to $56 more than face value when it’s a computer that does all the work. Pass on the cost for shipping (corporate price for next day UPS is less than $6.00) with a small maintenance fee and that would be in the area of $90 – a savings of $42 for that family of four. Reduce the outrageous parking fee by $5 and that comes to $47.
Same thing applies to the players and their agents – they are not innocent in this either and help raise the cost. But I have no sympathy for the owners – they are the ones who got salaries to be like this by creating the market value – Omar and the Wilpons being the mavericks along with the Stenbrenners and others. There was money to be made by shelling out the money and while fans raved at their favorite team signing this guy or that they did not realize they were choking their own selves.
So included in this blame is me as well. But up to a point. Like other fans, I remember in the first decade of free agency, the game was still kept affordable. The owners and players then just simply became too greedy.
So you can see where I come from on this. I remember how hard things were for my mom and dad when I was indeed a little boy.
So you can see where I am coming from.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/sports/regional-sports-networks-show-teams-the-money.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Joey – Replying with names is sometimes necessary, especially when others interject themselves into the middle of an ongoing conversation, in which case it becomes difficult to determine who is replying to whom. This website could certainly use some revisions to make it easier to tell what comment belongs to which.
I really understand your sentiments regarding the high cost of going to games today. Thanks for sharing your personal information. I think the culprit is not just the Mets and Yankees but also all the other big-market teams (such as the Nats and Red Sox) as well as the players themselves. Costs rise in a vicious cycle, with the consumers/fans always left paying in the end, either through higher ticket and stadium prices or outrageous cable fees.
You know what would have helped keep prices down? A hard salary cap, which is something I have always been in favor of. Or at least much higher luxury taxes. And if some are worried about the owners pocketing too much money, then increase revenue sharing as well. Unfortunately, the union would never go for a hard cap, and they balk at higher luxury taxes.
It’s only going to get worse, but we can fight back, at least a little. By pushing back as much as possible against higher ticket prices and cable fees for sports networks.
Hi Metro,
Seems we agree 100 percent on this issue and appreciate understanding where I come from.
As said, it would have been unfair on my part to single out the Wilpons and that is why the information about the Yankee and the two Chicago teams, but it is, of course, all of baseball as you correctly pointed out.
Although I was against it back in 2006, I think now what the player’s union proposed would have been in the best interest of at least the fans if nothing more – everyone became a free agent at the end of the year. It might not be the annual salaries that are killing it for the fan base as it is the multi-year contract. Teams would not be stuck having to pay players based on past performance for more than a year. Of course, it should not be abusive like George Weiss who after he won the home run championship, wanted to give Mantle a cut in salary because he didn’t again win the triple crown.
Hey, remember those fifty cent yearbooks? They were only 48 pages but were packed with information unlike those thick ones that sell for $20 today that are not much more than photo albums with half the pages being advertisements. Each year the yearbook was different – I have all the Met ones from 1962 through 1975 plus the more recent ones and that of 1986. A friend of mine agreed with me when I said one could look at one yearbook and except for the change in player personnel not be able to distinguish it from any others.
One thing – the program/scorecard for $4 is packed with information and worth it compared to the .15 cent scorecards of those days.
HI Metro,
Meant $200 in my tally for the cost of four, not $200. Held finger too long on the keyboard.
Hi Metro,
Glad you brought up Broxton because I felt the Mets should have pursued him last winter when signed by KC.
He was 27 last season and 28 now so would have been a perfect fit for our bullpen and youth movement. And this is the point about Sandy’s concern being more on saving money than building a competitive team.
Last season why did he not go after Broxton? He would have only cost the Mets $500,000 more than Rauch if we go by the contract signed with KC. My guess – based on Sandy’s actions with others – was not so much the extra half million dollars but rather that Broxton was going to be a free agent after 2012 and we see now that he commanded a three year contract guaranteed at $21 million ($28 million if the fourth year is picked up).
What would the fan base say if Sandy let go of a 27 year old the stature of Broxton? By not going after him that was one problem the front office did not have to contend with. At least that is my hunch again based on the actions, statements and double-talk we’ve seen the past 27+ months. As said, Broxton would have been been that part of re-building which includes getting players from the outside to coincide with the youth. He is the same age as Bobby Parnell and imagine the potential of having a bullpen with Francisco, Lyon and Parnell leading up to Broxton along with Atchison being a sleeper! If we signed Bourn as well, we would have taken major steps to getting ourselves back to being a competitor.
But that takes money…
Joey, lol, read the post above by damaja. He copied part of an article that says the Mets DID go after Broxton, but apparently he was wooed on a hunting trip by Francoeur. So you’re way off base.
Maybe if the Mets had more hunters on the team, they could have snagged Broxton. The only ones I know of are Niese and Parnell. Neither would have done a very good recruiting job, lol.
Nope…had nothing to do with a hunting trip…had everything to do with the mets not willing to go above 4 mil ( or 500k more than what they paid Rauch ) and 2.5 mil LESS than what they paid FF
they never thought Broxton was worth that…
Nope. It says NOTHING about money. It says it was the hunting trip. Stop making things up!
“They believed the $4 million price tag on Broxton, who is coming off surgery to remove bone chips in his right elbow, was a bit steep.”
Unless u think they meant 4 million cheese burgers…
i assume they were talking about money, probably US dollars
Francoeur recently went bow-hunting with free-agent closer Jonathan Broxton in Georgia on the property of comedian Jeff Foxworthy, along with Royals manager Ned Yost, and helped convince the big right-hander that Kansas City would be a much better landing spot than the Mets or anywhere else.
Broxton loved the sales pitch, and yesterday agreed to sign with the Royals.
Sounds like it was the hunting trip to me.
It doesn’t say the Mets weren’t willing to meet his price.
Joey, here’s the link about the pursuit of Broxton:
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/big_game_hunter_ZaWc1wdbuP8lzxC6uDexeM
Hi Metro,
Thanks for the link. I remembered that but do not put the Mets having David Wright talking with Broxton in the same context as Sandy talking with Broxton’s agent.
What I did take seriously was Broxton’s agent saying Sandy never contacted him. That was two days before he signed with KC.
http://www.amazinavenue.com/2011/11/28/2591398/jonathan-broxton-mets-closers-free-agent-rumors
One day before signing with KC, his agent was contacted by the Post’s Mark Hale who was simply told “I don’t think it will be New York for him.”
https://twitter.com/HaleMark/status/140977609658994688
The Mets did not try to pursue him. What Frenchy said on a hunting trip makes for a good story but nothing more. The Royals were talking with Broxton – the Mets weren’t.
And Metro, this is how a rumor spreads by inferring something that never happened.
Remember last summer the same rumor?
http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/51723/source-mets-looking-at-broxton
Better re-examine who is off-base on this one.
Joey, huh?? Nowhere in that link does it say that Broxton’s agent never talked to Sandy. And that makes no sense anyway. Kernan states unequivocally that the team had Wright contact Broxton to make a recruiting call. LOL, that would NEVER happen without the GM first talking to the agent. It doesn’t even make sense to think that.
So, yes, the Mets did pursue Broxton. And according to Kernan, it was the hunting trip that sealed the deal for Broxton.
What happened last summer is separate. So, yes, you were off base for criticizing the Mets for not going after Broxton when, according to Kernan, they clearly did.
Sorry Metro,
But Kernan did not report that Sandy had first spoken to his agent before David made that recruiting call. That is you implying so. All that had been reported was that David made that call, no doubt at the request of Sandy, however, since nothing had been reported about the Mets taking any further steps since then, all we know is that they had a player speak to him and nothing more. Crasnick, in the meantime, reported that the Mets had not inquired about Broxton.
I have been doing a search on the Mets going after Broxton in 2011 and nowhere is there reported a conversation between Sandy and his agent. Lots of speculation but not one mention of Sandy ever making a phone call. Until there is first hand information and not someone’s opinion, there is no evidence that the Mets did anything more than have Wright speak with him. And I don’t think David is authorized to speak in terms of money on behalf of the Mets and nor would Broxton talk about money without his agent present.
Even Sandy Alderson admitted he wanted to wait further before making any decisions about signing relievers and in terms of Broxton, he said they had an “interest” but that it didn’t make sense to sign him to a guaranteed sum. He did not mention anything about talking with Broxton’s agent – just Broxton’s amount in terms of market value.
One should look at things in degree. An informal conversation between players is only a first step. With nothing more coming out of it, there was no further pursuit beyond that and though that qualifies technically as a pursuit or inquiry, in real terms there was no serious pursuit by the Mets to sign him. To imply anything more could also be called a fantasy on one’s part too.
http://www.amazinavenue.com/2011/12/1/2604766/transcript-of-sandy-aldersons-conference-call-with-bloggers
Joey, here is a direct quote from the article:
“The Mets were one of a number of teams in on Broxton, and they even had David Wright make contact with the former Dodgers closer, who will be a set-up man for the Royals.”
Who do you think “they” refers to? Obviously the front office. Now, GMs do NOT ask a player to call another player and recruit them without first talking to their agent. LOL … what if the player isn’t even interested in playing for the Mets? A GM needs to ascertain that first. It just doesn’t happen the way you think it does. It doesn’t even make sense. Also, Kernan says “The Nets were one of a number of teams in on Broxton.” Well you can’t be in on it if you don’t talk to the agent first.
Also, how would Sandy know how much Broxton would want without first talking to his agent, LOL?
Sorry, but any other interpretation just doesn’t make sense.
You’ve given me no link that says that the Mets never spoke to Broxton’s agent. And even if you did, you know as well as I that guys like Crasnick speculate left and right during the hot stove season. A lot of times they will say team A and B is in on a player, and then — boom — team C swoops in and signs him.
I’m frankly incredulous that you think a report like this could be out there but that Sandy never talked to Broxton’s agent. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Again, for a GM to ask a player to recruit another player without first having talked to that player’s agent first makes absolutely zero sense.
And I’m not sure what the last link you posted is for. When you post a link, it would be nice to indicate what the specific intention is.
Hi Metro,
That is all third hand information – no direct evidence that it ever got further than David making that call on behalf of the front office. And how often have we read reports about the Mets seeking this player or that one just this past winter while there was no serious discussion?
The reporter from ESPN said the Mets didn’t approach Broxton when writing about his agent saying it didn’t look like New York. Kernan did not give any more details about the Mets beyond Wright. Where did both get that information from? Who did the further vetting? Did Kernan not ask his sources what else the front office did? Did the front office for some reason not want it leaked out that they had conversations with his agent (they admit doing so with Bourn)? Why no follow up with his agent as to why it didn’t look like New York? Also, there is the timetable of information. The quote about New York not likely with Broxton came no later than November 14 – Sandy made his comments on December 1. There is no date given as to when David spoke with Broxton.
There are too many items MISSING from that report to support the idea that Sandy was in touch with his agent and was serious about Broxton. Anything else is pure speculation that manifests itself. I just gave an argument looking at it from a journalistic perspective (I studied journalism as part of being an English major but when I got a C- in advanced Chaucer I knew it was time to switch majors to history LOL). Those are not off-base questions but ones even a first year student of Journalism would ask.
Have seen too many conclusions reported as “fact” that were indeed made in error to take anything written without solid backup to not question it’s accuracy. That includes how one reaches the conclusion that the Mets were actively pursuing Broxton which suggests something more extensive than simply “inquiring” about him as Sandy said.
In this specific case, based on those articles and Sandy’s own comments, there is no evidence to suggest the Mets were pursuing Broxton – which again implies something mch more intense than making an inquiry or having an “interest” as Sandy said. For example, to claim Sandy had to get an idea of what Broxton was seeking then dismisses the Sandy knowing his market value and those fellow GM’s who might up the ante. That is not objective reading.
And again, that is what I mean about referring to something and then manifesting itself into something bigger as a fact when it is really one’s opinion. Notice the Mets are mentioned in this article but that it came from MLB TRADE RUMORS.COM? Go on the links provided and there are no further details regarding the Mets. That is how rumors begin. All this about Broxton is speculation based on nothing credible more than David Wright making a feeler. The fact that Sandy said the Mets had an interest and nothing more says a lot more than anything being written without further backup.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/11/royals-to-sign-jonathan-broxton-.html
Metro are you really this shallow? Are you really this much of a Sandy Alderson asswipe?
You wrote:
Also, your timing of the moves in December 2011 appears to be way way off. The news of Reyes signing with the Marlins came on December 4th, a Sunday night. The Rauch/Francisco/Torres deals were not done until the following Tuesday. It was NOT within hours.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7316606/sources-miami-marlins-agree-six-year-deal-new-york-mets-jose-reyes
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/7325546/2011-winter-meetings-angel-pagan-san-francisco-giants-new-york-mets-moves
And did you think the deals were done with a magic wand?? Did you not think they had to be working on them the second he landed and learned Reyes was going to the Marlins? Please tell me you’re not that big of a dumbass.
I never saw a more idiotic, know-nothing, arrogant, biased poster on this site than you. What exactly is your deal???
A NIGHT BEFORE New York Mets fans watch shortstop Jose Reyes officially introduced as a Miami Marlin at the winter meetings, their beleaguered team made a flurry of moves to shore up the bullpen Tuesday.
The Mets agreed to send Angel Pagan to the San Francisco Giants for fellow center fielder Andres Torres and reliever Ramon Ramirez, and also agreed to terms with Frank Francisco and Jon Rauch.
Francisco’s two-year deal is worth $12 million while Rauch’s one-year contract is for $3.5 million, industry sources said.
Hey Damaja,
I dont think that guy’s been posting here for more than a month or two, but it didn’t take him long to show that he might be the most biased agenda driven poster we’ve ever seen here before. And we’ve seen a lot here over the years, bud.
Exactly, LOL. The official intro PR came days AFTER the deal was struck. They have to get the physical, and Selig’s office has to approve the deal.
The news of the deal came out on a Sunday night, December 4th. The news of the Rauch/FF/Torre deals came out TWO days later. The official Reyes PR came one day after that.
The point was, from all accounts, the 3 deals were NOT struck within hours of the Reyes deal. That’s just a lie and pure fantasy on your part.
OK, I’m not that big of a dumbass but you are a HUGE dujmbass! Happy, maniac?
The word that Reyes signed with Miami came on Sunday night, December 4th. He had his press conference days later, but the news of it came out on the 4th. That’s normal as players have to get physicals so the official intros are delayed for a few days. But everyone knew Sunday night.
The news of the Ramirez/Francisco and Rauch deals didn’t come out till days later. To say that Sandy struck a deal for them is just a plain lie and fantasy on your part.
I don’t have a bias. Certainly not as big as yours. What’s your deal? Fantasy?
LOL, you’ve been caught with your pants down on this tining thing and are just trying to cover up.
To say that Sandy struck a deal for them JUST HOURS LATER is just a plain lie and fantasy on your part.
It was all done to push the Reyes signing off the back pages. You’re just delusional and believe everything that Alderson spurts and swallows it. When’s your birthday, I’ll send you a blowup doll of him? How old are you?
1) You’re still wrong about the timing
2) The idea that is was just for show is just your opinion.
3) You must still be in diapers, maniac. Grow up!
2) The idea that is was just for show is just your opinion.
And his opinion sounds alot more logical than the one you had about Omar’s “personal connection” with Beltran !!!
My opinion on that made common sense. The idea that a GM would spend 9 million just for show makes zero sense!!!
so is it crazy to say that when Reyes’s deal was announced on the 4th, Sandy was working on the FF signing, the Rauch signing and the Pagan trade…and decided to pull the trigger rather than be the patient, let the market come to me Sandy we have known him to be?
No? Impossible? really?
I’m pretty sure Sandy said the Pagan deal came out of the blue and was initiated by Sabean at the winter meetings. THEY came to Sandy. And we don’t know when, but you just can’t make things up and say it came within hours.
As for Rauch and FF, it’s possible Sandy was talking to both their agents BEFORE the winter meetings even started. But news of their signings didn’t come out till TWO days AFTEr the news of Reyes broke. So you just can’t make up things to fit your agenda. That’s total BS.
So why would you trade Pagan for a middle-reliever and a busted old CF…when you are supposedly “rebuilding”
would it not make more sense to “let the market come to him” and wait for the best deal?
Sandy is the poster boy for patience…except when his franchise shortstop leaves and potential season ticket package buyers are upset
Sandy is more lawyer/salesman than he is GM
You never explained why would he keep Duda in RF even with Bay out for most of the year…
and when Duda did go to the minors, his first few games were spent in…you guessed it…RF…
how intelligent of a GM do you have to be to see that Bay can cover more ground than Duda and since Bay was willing to move to CF last year, he was probably willing to move to RF as well…and even if he wasnt, he is not part of a long term solution here…so who cares what he wants…
Not having Duda in LF ( the place where your worst defensive players usually go ) remains the absolute worst and indefensible personnel decision by this regime.
Statistically, Duda ranked as the worst defensive RF in all of baseball.
Because you don’t rebuild with a 30-year-old CF who played lousy defense and had frequent brain cramps on the basepaths. At least Torres is a better fielder than Pagan. You don’t rebuild with either really. Neither are great players. The trade was made to try to shore up the bullpen with Ramirez who had some very good years with the Giants.
That was likely the best deal you could get for Pagan, a fringey OF who had a poor 2011 and wasn’t endowed with baseball smarts.
And, LOL I certainly did explain why he kept Duda in RF. You need to follow the bouncing ball! It’s right on this page. Read it! If you have any questions, let me know.
You complain about Bay and it was your empty-headed ex-GM whom you idolize who is the one that inflicted that worthless contract on this franchise. That’s really rich! The roster was a friggin’ mess when Sandy took over. Fans should be happy he had the guts to eat so many worthless contracts. Omar would never have had the stomach for that type of thing. He would have hung on to the worthless Ollie and Castillo through 2011, and would not have the guts to let Bay go either. It would have been an admission of his failures.
And what an awful idea you have. The worst thing you do to a horribly struggling $16 million a year player with 2 years left is switch positions on him to a spot he’s logged an entire 8 innings in his entire career. Yeah, that’s right, screw him up more and throw away any chances of trying to salvage some value from him. Sandy was trying to FIX Omar’s mistake. Not make it worse.
the worst thing you do to a horribly struggling $16 million a year player with 2 years left is switch positions on him to a spot he’s logged an entire 8 innings in his entire career.
which is why they were considering moving him to CF ?
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/mets/2011/08/collins-believes-in-bay-as-cf
which is why the very same question i ask now was asked in January of last year…on this very same page
>Yeah, that’s right, screw him up more and throw away any chances of trying to salvage some value from him.
Bay was out for almost half of the season…how exactly would you screw him up by having Duda play LF when he is rehabbing?
… which is why they ultimately came to their senses:
Still, Collins will not experiment with the position change this September. “With all he has going right now, the last thing I want to do is start doing something different,” Collins said.
It doesn’t matter if it’s September or March or July. The last thing you want to do with a pricey player horribly struggling at the plate is to switch positions on him — especially when Bay had never logged extensive innings in either CF or RF before.
And since you hadn’t paid attention, TC has this odd habit of speaking off the top of his head. Sometimes the things he says actually happen, and sometimes his ideas go nowhere. I’d be surprised if anyone above TC ever seriously considered moving Bay off of LF.
As for why they didn’t switch Duda into LF when Bay got hurt, I already gave my opinion as to why they didn’t do it. It’s on this page. Read it. Geez.
>Because Bay wasn’t out for most of the season. He played 70 games.
there are 162 games in the season. Bay only started in 54 of them, 16 he appeared as a pinch-hitter..
If you only started 54 games, you were pretty much out for most of the season. Whether OUT = on the bench or on the DL. You certainly were NOT in the lineup and NOT on the field. So Bay’s comfort level played NO CONSEQUENCE in 108 games last season !!!
> And they didn’t know how long he would be out, so the worst thing to do would be to frequently >move Duda all around the OF.
You mean like Sandy did Jordany Valdespin? A career infielder? He made his debut playing a position he never played in his life. Duda actually played LF in 2007 + 2009 + 2010 and 2011.
He had already started in RF in 2011. He had started 2012 in RF.
So they figured, correctly, that he should get used to and learn how to play RF for the time being,
Used to? and learn how to play RF? How about get used to running faster than he was humanly capable of ! Causing more pitchers to give up dunk hits in RF because he had to play by the warning track to avoid triples !
especially since they thought that Bay could come back in 2013, relegating Duda once again to RF.
The plan was to platoon Bay and Duda in LF, Sandy already had said Lucas was better suited for LF and RF was a mistake. Bay agreed to defer salary, thats why Duda is alone in LF as he should’ve been from the get-go
>>Huh? Who said it was one of the worst training staffs in all of baseball? Don’t dare lump me in >>>with your “yall” …. and if it was one of the worst staffs, as you say, then who was >>>>responsible for putting it together?
But I thought u said this is Sandy’s team now…??
>>> Don’t confuse the training staff with the medical staff or the responsibility of the GM and >>>manager to make sure injured players do not play hurt and get the proper treatment.
Sandy has kept BOTH Ray Ramirez and Dan Warthen.
>And you do realiize that Sandy did change one member of that staff in 2011, don’t you???????
LMAO. High Bar you got there
Dan Warthen? Ok, you got me on that one. I have no clue.
But seriously, I think it was because Dickey and Pelfrey loved Warthen and lobbied for him.
When did Dickey and Pelfrey lobby for Warthen? and do u think Sandy cares about what Pelfrey and Dickey really think ?
This is a cold-hearted assasin of a GM who is calculating and sacrifices personal feelings in order to make the right move. He is not going to negatively affect 10 other pitchers so that 2 pitchers who may not even be on the staff are comfortable.
Again, I would love to see where and when Dickey and Pelfrey lobbied for Warthen. I think your first answer ( i have no clue ) was the best one
Do you have a link to Sandy saying Bay would still be on the team if he didn’t defer salary?
“Certainly, there are times when it is appropriate to eat a contract,” Alderson told ESPN New York “There are other times when it is not. Jason Bay is not going anywhere, nor is his contract.”
This was said less than 60 days before Bay approached the Mets with a buyout and agreed to defer salary
No, not like Valdespin. Valdespin is athletic. He can play just about anywhere on the field. Duda has two left feet. I don’t even know how much better he’ll be in LF than RF. It might not be enough to keep him there, even if his bat awakens. It’s painful to watch Duda play in the OF.
And they only planned to platoon them once it was clear at the end of last year Bay couldn’t hit anymore. Remember, TC was the one who wanted to give Bay every chance. The FO was actually against it. So that decision to platoon wasn’t made until the end of last season.
But I thought u said this is Sandy’s team now…??
So, what do you say? Yes or No?
Sandy has kept BOTH Ray Ramirez and Dan Warthen.
Huh? What does that have to do with the statement of mine you were quoting? Non-sequitur.
Dan Warthen? Ok, you got me on that one. I have no clue.
I’m talking about the “training” staff. It was Mike Herbst they replaced in 2011.
When did Dickey and Pelfrey lobby for Warthen? and do u think Sandy cares about what Pelfrey and Dickey really think ?
As soon as Sandy got to the Mets. Reportedly, Pelfrey lobbied to keep Warthen right off the bat. And Dickey reportedly also lobbied to keep Warthen.
[i]This is a cold-hearted assasin of a GM who is calculating and sacrifices personal feelings in order to make the right move. He is not going to negatively affect 10 other pitchers so that 2 pitchers who may not even be on the staff are comfortable.[/i]
He’s not cold-hearted but believe what you want. Dickey was on the staff up until December. He’s not going to fire Warthen then after having told him at the end of the season his job was safe. Now THAT would be really cold-hearted.
And Dickey was the elder statesman of the pitching staff and a respected veteran. If he says Warthen is good, who is Sandy to argue with? I’m sure TC also went to bat for Warthen.
So, your manager and top pitchers lobby for the pitching coach. You would be stupid not to listen to them.
However, now that both Pelfrey and Dickey are no longer here, and TC may not come back, it is up to Sandy re-evaluate the pitching coach by the end of this season.
This was said less than 60 days before Bay approached the Mets with a buyout and agreed to defer salary
Yes, I remember when Sandy said that. But he did NOT say if bay hadn’t deferred his salary he wouldn’t have let him go. I bet he still would have. LOL, nowhere does it say that in the quote.
“Because you don’t rebuild with a 30-year-old CF who played lousy defense and had frequent brain cramps on the basepaths.”
No appraently you do that with a 34 Year old CF who played lousy defense and had frequent brain cramps on the basepaths instead.
What about “You don’t rebuild with either really. Neither are great players” don’t you understand?
Hello Joey – Can you answer these questions for me?
1) Kernan says the Mets were “in on Broxton” … So how can a team be in on a free agent without first talking to his agent? Telepathy?
2) Do you seriously believe a GM would ask a player to call and recruit a player without first talking to his agent to determine if the player was even interested in playing for the team in the first place?
3) How would Wright even get Broxton’s phone number if not by the GM getting it first from his agent?
4) How would a GM know what a player was demanding without first talking to his agent?
Are you going to say Kernan fabricated most of the story? Look, Kernan is about the most trustworthy writer over at the Post. Sherman? Nah. Davidoff? Nah. But I’ve been reading Kernan for years and he has a good rep. He doesn’t engage in these shady sources stories that Sherman is so famous for. So my point is I am going to believe someone like Kernan unless it’s been shown that he’s been unreliable in the past. And that is just not the case. He’s a pretty reputable journalist.
The quote about New York not likely with Broxton came no later than November 14 – Sandy made his comments on December 1. There is no date given as to when David spoke with Broxton.
What Sandy comments are you referring to? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.
As for the MLBTR link, to me that just confirms Kernan’s story. These aren’t opinions either. And they aren’t just speculation. They are assertions of fact.
An opinion is when someone says: “The Mets would be a good fit for Broxton.”
Speculation would be: “The Mets could be pursuing Broxton.”
An assertion of fact is: “The Mets were in on Broxton.”
Crasnick, MLBTR, and Kernan are all reputable and experienced enough to know the difference. If it’s a journalist/publication I trust, I will believe assertions of fact, even if I don’t believe a particular journalist’s personal spin regarding the facts in the story (Sandomir is a perfect example of this. While I take his reporting of facts at face value, I never take his spin seriously.)
I studied journalism as part of being an English major but when I got a C- in advanced Chaucer I knew it was time to switch majors to history
Whoa, Joey! That is amazing. Do you know I have a journalism degree with a minor in History?
What are the chances that we’d have very similar educational backgrounds? No wonder we get along despite our divergent views!
So, you see, I am well versed in journalistic principles too. Personally, when I read a story, I have my antenna up for things that may not ring true. I honestly have no problems taking Kernan’s entire article at face value. I’ve been reading him for years and think he’s a journalist with integrity.
But, again, please, answer those questions I posed. Or are you saying that Kernan made the whole story up?
Wow Metro,
But I bet you never got that C- in advanced Chaucer like I did! I was also the editor-in-chief of my college’s weekly newsletter too. I was so very proud of my late cousin Michael, whom among other things, was the African bureau chief for the Times and was deeply involved in covering many of the important events of our generation. Will not take credit as having his brains rubbing off on me genetically – he married my blood cousin!
But regarding Broxton, you are doing exactly what I said – asking questions. I’m just not the one to give the answers. But your conclusions are still speculative and as a journalist you know better than anyone not to infer something without proof unless it is clearly stated as an opinion or speculation (unfortunately, we both know many journalists do exactly the opposite to venue their own opinions as fact).
I also did not question the professional integrity of Kernan. He was very vague as to how far and how serious the Mets were when it came to Broxton and was proper in keeping it that way. It is others who are taking that article and making it appear that the Mets were strongly pursuing Broxton which I am saying – based on what was not reported beyond David’s phone call – doesn’t appear to be the case. Note, I am not saying they didn’t, I am saying that it doesn’t appear that they did.
The quote from Sandy with that blogger conference call was mentioned because it is very important in what he said . He said the Mets had an “interest” and did not mention anything further that it wasn’t in the best interests of the club to sign an injured player to a guaranteed contract. That in itself “suggests” Sandy did not have any serious thoughts as to pursuing Broxton due to his injuries – that is all we have on record from Sandy. Also, the dates are important because Broxton’s agent was reported to have said the Mets were out of it on November 14 – more than two weeks before he signed with Kansas City. IF the Mets were serious, it “seems” they dropped out of it quite early in the game.
Maybe Sandy had discussed contract with his agent and they hit that roadblock about a guaranteed contract – yes, that is indeed possible – but still unproven. To dismiss one as not having an idea of what one would be demanding on the free agent market is so unfounded – I mean the press has a general idea based on what they have dug up before the free-agent negotiating period even begins but a general manager does not?
As I also speculated, however, it could also have been that Broxton was entering his final year of arbitration and if he had a good year Sandy would be hard pressed by public opinion not to purse a multi-year contract worth millions. And the part about not committing to a guaranteed contract for injured, we know he did so with lesser expensive players like Young, Carasco and Capuano. So again, there is the question of integrity with Sandy when it comes to conversations with the public.
If you want to be technical, yes, David Wright’s phone call is proof that the Mets pursued Broxton. What I want to know is if it was as serious as many imply – and so far, the circumstantial evidence doesn’t point in that direction. Not by Sandy, not by the Mets being out of the running early and not by the vagueness of the reports being referred to.
But I still thought then that the Mets would have been way better off signing the injured Broxton for one year who was younger and less expensive than Francisco. Or, if anything, would have been better off signing him instead of Rauch. Again, my own “hunch” is that free agency looming down the road was a big reason Sandy did not want to sign him for one year for it would have caused public pressure to re-sign him after a good season which seems is something Sandy has been avoiding for anything more than a two-year deal. As we know, Cincy negotiated with him to say with a three year deal guaranteed at $21 million with an option for a fourth. Sandy only committed himself to Francisco for $12 million at two – a big savings considering the financial plight the Mets are in.
And what was the reason why he didn’t pursue Broxton now? His injury problem is behind him. He is only 28. We need a closer. Why not no phone call from David Wright?
Of course, that is all just speculation on my part, too!
Hi Joey — I took a lot of lit courses in college and never did particularly well, waiting till the last minute (night before finals) to try to cram in many of the reading assignments. So I very well may have gotten a few C’s for those classes. And guess what? I also wrote for my university’s daily paper! As for your cousin, sounds like he had an impressive job. Did he talk about his adventures during family get-togethers?
Back to Broxton … those questions I asked were somewhat rhetorical, Joey. They are not questions one reading an article like that would logically ask — unless you’re inclined to disbelieve Kernan and his sources. And, I’m not, especially since Crasnick confirms Kernan’s story.
It’s really not speculation to say the GM talked to the agent. It’s a logical assumption given the stories. To conclude otherwise, IMO, is highly illogical.
Most of the time when a free agent agrees to sign with a club, there is NO mention in the papers of the GM having talked with the agent. Why? Because it isn’t newsworthy and it’s assumed by all that he did. For example, was it ever mentioned in the media that Sandy talked to Marcum’s agent? Or what about a conversation with Lyon’s agent? I don’t think this was ever mentioned in the media. It’s irrelevant, so no one mentions it. But of course, Sandy most definitely talked to their agents.
So, the absence of a mention of a GM talking to an agent means nothing. It’s irrelevant. The only relevant information is whether a team is “in on” a free agent or not.
Kernan may not have had more details at that point other than that the Mets were “in on” Broxton and Wright was asked to give him a recruiting call. That’s a story in and of itself. No other details are needed at that point.
As for whether they were “strongly” pursuing Broxton or not is also irrelevant given that it was SERIOUS enough that Sandy asked Wright to make a recruiting call to him. That’s all that’s important — whether they were serious or not about their pursuit.
Regarding the Sandy interview with AA — I read it and I have a completely different take. In fact, it confirms that Sandy talked to Broxton’s agent! Sandy says “it didn’t make sense to guarantee the kind of money (he) was able to get” — and that means he would have had to have spoken to Broxton’s agent in order to find out what his price was. So, yes, Sandy was serious about pursuing Broxton and engaged in a courtship, but took a backseat once he found out what Broxton was demanding and the offers he was getting from other teams.
“To dismiss one as not having an idea of what one would be demanding on the free agent market is so unfounded – I mean the press has a general idea based on what they have dug up before the free-agent negotiating period even begins but a general manager does not?”
Are you seriously suggesting that a GM would take his cue from the likes of Rosenthal and Sherman as to what a free agent is demanding? Seriously???? No way. Any GM that did that should be fired on the spot. He would at least make a phone call to the player’s agent to confirm what he read in the media.
As we all know, some unscrupulous agents like Boras are always planting false stories about offers. So no GM with any professionalism would depend on press reports to ascertain player demands. The idea is simply ridiculous!
Maybe Sandy had discussed contract with his agent and they hit that roadblock about a guaranteed contract … So again, there is the question of integrity with Sandy when it comes to conversations with the public.
Huh? Pure speculation on your part. Sandy only says in the interview that he didn’t want to guarantee the “kind of money” being asked for, NOT that he didn’t want to offer a guaranteed contract. And there is NO question about the integrity of Sandy when it comes to his dealings with the public.
If you want to be technical, yes, David Wright’s phone call is proof that the Mets pursued Broxton.
I’m confused … so, are you admitting now that the Mets DID pursue Broxton? Or are you subscribing to what I think is an illogical theory that the Mets would ask Wright to recruit a free agent without the GM first having talked to the player’s agent to see if he is even interested in playing for the Mets??
Again, my own “hunch” is that free agency looming down the road was a big reason Sandy did not want to sign him for one year
That’s an extremely speculative and iffy scenario. Any subsequent contract Broxton would eventually sign would totally depend on his performance in 2012. There was no way to foresee a good 2012 season given how poorly he did his last two years in L.A. Sandy has shown no hesitation to sign players to one year deals and doesn’t worry about signability issues beyond that time frame — for example, Capuano and Hairston.
And what was the reason why he didn’t pursue Broxton now?
Frankie. Sandy isn’t going to have two closers at the same time, each making over 6 million. Not when money is still tight, even though he does have money to spend this year.
So, bottom line, I find your take on Broxton totally illogical, especially your belief that Sandy never talked to his agent. I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree on the whole Broxton pursuit.