Page 106 of 109 FirstFirst ... 65696104105106107108 ... LastLast
Results 2,626 to 2,650 of 2714

Thread: The Mets Ownership / Management Thread

  1. #2626
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    2,728
    http://nypost.com/2014/03/02/amazins...ejada-problem/

    Longish article. Here are the pertinent bits.

    Why the Mets aren’t fixing their Tejada problem

    By Joel Sherman

    March 2, 2014 | 7:18pm

    JUPITER, Fla. — The Mets told Jhonny Peralta they had a Ruben Tejada problem, but only offered him two years to solve it or one fewer than the superior team in New York, the Yankees, were proposing and two fewer than arguably the best-run team in the whole sport, the Cardinals.

    Thus, the Mets finished a distant third on their first choice to be their 2014 shortstop because, Peralta told The Post’s Mike Puma: “The offer they made was not really good.”...

    ...Executives I have spoken with say the Mets have indicated they will not add significantly to their 2014 payroll. Thus, while Drew’s asking price has fallen, it will probably never sink to a level these Mets are willing to spend...

    ...Keep this in mind, though: The Mets are not the only team looking for a shortstop. The Yanks, for example, would like to add someone who provides infield depth now and would replace Derek Jeter in 2015...





    I've been saying for years this ownership couldn't care less if the team wins or loses.

    People used to argue with me.

    I think everybody gets it now.

    On edit:

    One more tidbit:

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/03/...chise-payroll/


    Clark: MLBPA Taking Notice Of Mets’ Mid-Market Franchise Payroll
    Union Head Concerned About Possible 'Habits' Or 'Trends,' Big Names Still Unsigned March 4, 2014 12:44 PM

    PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. (CBSNewYork/AP) — Calling the New York Mets a “marquee franchise,” new players’ union head Tony Clark is paying attention to the team’s payroll.

    Mets general manager Sandy Alderson said he expects the team’s payroll to be between $85 million and $88 million this season, which would be a slight decrease from its $90.9 million final figure last year.

    Despite the additions of free agents Curtis Granderson, Bartolo Colon and Chris Young, the Mets have a payroll resembling that of a mid-market franchise. The Los Angeles Dodgers’ payroll is over $225 million and the New York Yankees will top $200 million...




    From the ESPN report of this:


    http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/stor...k-mets-payroll

    ...The Post recently reported that a current team loan, due to be refinanced, had payroll constraints written into the terms by lenders.

    "No, we are not aware of that," said Clark, who spoke with media in Port St. Lucie after the union had its annual meeting with players.

    The Mets also have disputed that reported language.

    Clark also offered on that subject: "We're not consulted necessarily on the loans that are made by clubs, but we can appreciate when there is special language or special covenants in any particular loan and how that may manifest itself in the decision-making. Those are conversations that we will always have."...






    As far as I know the Wilpons' creditors weren't party to the MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement, but were apparently setting payroll limits, thereby depressing the market. If those of us on this board are aware of it, you can bet Tony Clark is aware of it.

    The previous directors of the MLBPA were all educated. This guy is a former ballplayer. It will be interesting to see how his stewardship of the union pans out.
    Last edited by Mongoose; 03-04-2014 at 11:31 PM.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  2. #2627
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    http://nypost.com/2014/03/02/amazins...ejada-problem/

    Longish article. Here are the pertinent bits.

    Why the Mets aren’t fixing their Tejada problem

    By Joel Sherman

    March 2, 2014 | 7:18pm

    JUPITER, Fla. — The Mets told Jhonny Peralta they had a Ruben Tejada problem, but only offered him two years to solve it or one fewer than the superior team in New York, the Yankees, were proposing and two fewer than arguably the best-run team in the whole sport, the Cardinals.

    Thus, the Mets finished a distant third on their first choice to be their 2014 shortstop because, Peralta told The Post’s Mike Puma: “The offer they made was not really good.”...

    ...Executives I have spoken with say the Mets have indicated they will not add significantly to their 2014 payroll. Thus, while Drew’s asking price has fallen, it will probably never sink to a level these Mets are willing to spend...

    ...Keep this in mind, though: The Mets are not the only team looking for a shortstop. The Yanks, for example, would like to add someone who provides infield depth now and would replace Derek Jeter in 2015...





    I've been saying for years this ownership couldn't care less if the team wins or loses.

    People used to argue with me.

    I think everybody gets it now.

    On edit:

    One more tidbit:

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/03/...chise-payroll/


    Clark: MLBPA Taking Notice Of Mets’ Mid-Market Franchise Payroll
    Union Head Concerned About Possible 'Habits' Or 'Trends,' Big Names Still Unsigned March 4, 2014 12:44 PM

    PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. (CBSNewYork/AP) — Calling the New York Mets a “marquee franchise,” new players’ union head Tony Clark is paying attention to the team’s payroll.

    Mets general manager Sandy Alderson said he expects the team’s payroll to be between $85 million and $88 million this season, which would be a slight decrease from its $90.9 million final figure last year.

    Despite the additions of free agents Curtis Granderson, Bartolo Colon and Chris Young, the Mets have a payroll resembling that of a mid-market franchise. The Los Angeles Dodgers’ payroll is over $225 million and the New York Yankees will top $200 million...




    From the ESPN report of this:


    http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/stor...k-mets-payroll

    ...The Post recently reported that a current team loan, due to be refinanced, had payroll constraints written into the terms by lenders.

    "No, we are not aware of that," said Clark, who spoke with media in Port St. Lucie after the union had its annual meeting with players.

    The Mets also have disputed that reported language.

    Clark also offered on that subject: "We're not consulted necessarily on the loans that are made by clubs, but we can appreciate when there is special language or special covenants in any particular loan and how that may manifest itself in the decision-making. Those are conversations that we will always have."...






    As far as I know the Wilpons' creditors weren't party to the MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement, but were apparently setting payroll limits, thereby depressing the market. If those of us on this board are aware of it, you can bet Tony Clark is aware of it.

    The previous directors of the MLBPA were all educated. This guy is a former ballplayer. It will be interesting to see how his stewardship of the union pans out.
    Oh yeah - and this ties in closely with Alderson's appointment as GM by Bud Selig. I was derided as a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist for noting that keeping one of the two New York franchises on a low payroll would have repercussions for all the owners, and for the union. But that's what Alderson's reign is all about.
    Cleon Jones catches a deep fly ball in F. Scott Fitzgerald's Valley of the Ashes, and a second-grader smiles in front of the black and white television.

  3. #2628
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    5,262
    Quote Originally Posted by Strawman View Post
    Oh yeah - and this ties in closely with Alderson's appointment as GM by Bud Selig. I was derided as a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist for noting that keeping one of the two New York franchises on a low payroll would have repercussions for all the owners, and for the union. But that's what Alderson's reign is all about.
    Alderson is a company man, he's doing a decent job with what he's got to work with. The root of the problem is obviously a financially challenged owner using the team to replenish bank accounts and his non-baseball pedigree idiot son given the keys to the castle to use the team as a play thing

  4. #2629
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    4,912
    Quote Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
    Alderson is a company man, he's doing a decent job with what he's got to work with. The root of the problem is obviously a financially challenged owner using the team to replenish bank accounts and his non-baseball pedigree idiot son given the keys to the castle to use the team as a play thing
    The two issues that get confusing about Alderson is

    1) the guy is a douche with personality of dry wall - he has the ability to lie and redirect for his boss. He is here to be the henchman for his scumbag boss-- therefore a scumbag by association.

    2) given the opportunity he would be a good GM - if he wasnt working for the vile scum he works for

    The two issues often become confused.

  5. #2630
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    2,728
    Quote Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
    Alderson is a company man, he's doing a decent job with what he's got to work with. The root of the problem is obviously a financially challenged owner using the team to replenish bank accounts and his non-baseball pedigree idiot son given the keys to the castle to use the team as a play thing
    Yes, it seems obvious the owner is using the team to replenish personal bank accounts.

    It's a reasonable question: why are the Mets and SNY carrying so much debt? Where did that money go?

    I wonder why sports media never asks these questions? If often feels like they have a hand-off directive regarding Fred.

    I wonder why?


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  6. #2631
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    Yes, it seems obvious the owner is using the team to replenish personal bank accounts.

    It's a reasonable question: why are the Mets and SNY carrying so much debt? Where did that money go?
    Mets are paying for the stadium construction bonds. The annual payment was posted elsewhere.
    SNY? Not sure of the startup costs, but WRT revenue, each stakeholder gets their share. If I were Comcast, I would not reduce my dividend so that the Wilpons could reduce their debt sooner.

    I think the Wilpons are liquid poor, and thus will be using whatever revenue they get to pay down their debt before they take on more.

    I wonder why sports media never asks these questions? If often feels like they have a hand-off directive regarding Fred.

    I wonder why?
    To what end? It makes one good story, then you get banished from inside information.


    Cheers!
    -Doug
    20-Game "A" Plan, Prom Box 423.

  7. #2632
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    2,728
    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    Mets are paying for the stadium construction bonds. The annual payment was posted elsewhere.
    SNY? Not sure of the startup costs, but WRT revenue, each stakeholder gets their share. If I were Comcast, I would not reduce my dividend so that the Wilpons could reduce their debt sooner.

    I think the Wilpons are liquid poor, and thus will be using whatever revenue they get to pay down their debt before they take on more.



    To what end? It makes one good story, then you get banished from inside information.


    Cheers!
    -Doug
    If I'm not mistaken, half the payments for the stadium are taken care of by the Citicorp naming rights deal.

    The payments are also deductable from MLB revenue sharing...

    And the Wilpons get to double, or triple dip and deduct the whole sum from taxes through the PILOT program.

    So it's not the stadium debt that's the problem.

    Here's the real reason for the mountain of debt:


    http://www.businessinsider.com/banks...-wilpon-2011-2

    Wilpon Opened 65 Madoff Accounts With JPMorgan And Bank Of America's Support, According To Lawsuit
    Adam Fusfeld

    Feb. 9, 2011, 8:58 AM


    New details emerged regarding Mets owner Fred Wilpon's finances in the wake of the lawsuit filed against him by the trustee for Madoff victims, via the New York Times:

    Wilpon was relying on his Madoff investments to pay off nearly $500 million in outstanding debt generated by his real estate firm, Sterling Equities, and the construction of Citi Field. He didn't want to have to sell assets to pay it off.

    Eight banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, restructured the loans on behalf of Wilpon, thanks to his long "public record as a careful businessman and respected team owner." According to the lawsuit, banks were so enamored with the returns Wilpon earned on his Madoff investments, that they continued to bankroll his debt.

    The trustee heading the case, Irving Picard, alleges that Wilpon opened 65 accounts to invest with Madoff, and borrowed even more money to invest in those accounts...




    Boom Boom Boom!
    Last edited by Mongoose; 03-06-2014 at 01:01 AM.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  8. #2633
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Orange County NY
    Posts
    5,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    If I'm not mistaken, half the payments for the stadium are taken care of by the Citicorp naming rights deal.

    The payments are also deductable from MLB revenue sharing...

    And the Wilpons get to double, or triple dip and deduct the whole sum from taxes through the PILOT program.

    So it's not the stadium debt that's the problem.

    Here's the real reason for the mountain of debt:


    http://www.businessinsider.com/banks...-wilpon-2011-2

    Wilpon Opened 65 Madoff Accounts With JPMorgan And Bank Of America's Support, According To Lawsuit
    Adam Fusfeld

    Feb. 9, 2011, 8:58 AM


    New details emerged regarding Mets owner Fred Wilpon's finances in the wake of the lawsuit filed against him by the trustee for Madoff victims, via the New York Times:

    Wilpon was relying on his Madoff investments to pay off nearly $500 million in outstanding debt generated by his real estate firm, Sterling Equities, and the construction of Citi Field. He didn't want to have to sell assets to pay it off.

    Eight banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, restructured the loans on behalf of Wilpon, thanks to his long "public record as a careful businessman and respected team owner." According to the lawsuit, banks were so enamored with the returns Wilpon earned on his Madoff investments, that they continued to bankroll his debt.

    The trustee heading the case, Irving Picard, alleges that Wilpon opened 65 accounts to invest with Madoff, and borrowed even more money to invest in those accounts...




    Boom Boom Boom!

    All in all, Fred really got off light by just paying back $162 million. The only negative was that if showed that Fred was actually guilty and not a victim. It ruined his victim status.

    However, it was crippling to his day to day running the ball club, BUT it was not large enough to force him to sell the team. There was no way Picard was getting a billion, but there was no way Fred was going to walk. Either scenario would have helped the Mets finances, with a free spender like Mark Cuban willing to step in.

    Strange that one of the guys clamoring to but the Mets, Steve Cohen , has a bunch of his own financial problems....some SEC issues.

    Sometimes i think if God likes baseball, he's a Yankee fan.

  9. #2634
    Why isn't wilpon just selling the Team? if the dodgers went for 2 billions he could probably get at least 1.5 for the mets (maybe a Little less than the dodgers because NY is the biggest market but the mets are so much overshadowed by the yanks). that would easily solve all his financial Problems, pays his debts and still leaves plenty of free Money for him.

    he is running the Team cheap currently but probably still not really making Money with the Team. at least not as much as he would get from selling, especially at his Age.
    Last edited by dominik; 03-06-2014 at 04:23 AM.
    I think walks are overrated unless you can run. If you get a walk and put the pitcher in a stretch, that helps, but the guy who walks and canít run, most of the time heís clogging up the bases for somebody who can run. Ė Dusty Baker.

  10. #2635
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    5,262
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    If I'm not mistaken, half the payments for the stadium are taken care of by the Citicorp naming rights deal.

    The payments are also deductable from MLB revenue sharing...

    And the Wilpons get to double, or triple dip and deduct the whole sum from taxes through the PILOT program.

    So it's not the stadium debt that's the problem.
    The Mets had two bond offerings to finance Citi Field, a $613M 40-year offering @ 4.57% and a $82.3M 37-year offering at 6.45%. If you calculate out all the payments in the last 37 years their annual mortgage bill (payments to bond holders, principle + interest) is $39,249,825. The citicorp deal is a $20M/year advertising deal over 20 years but BOTH sides have the option to extend an additional 20 years. So effectively the net mortgage payment is $19.25M per year for another 35 years. That amount is then deducted from revenues and is not subject to the 31% MLB revenue sharing amount. You might think that saves them $6 million/ year (31%), but the real number is only a third of that because don't forget, after each team pays into the pool the kitty gets split 30 ways and it comes right back to the Mets. So we're probably talking a maximum savings of $2M from building Citi Field in terms of revenue sharing. There is, however, the added revenue from luxury seating which is not subject to revenue sharing (not that they're selling much of those these days).

    As for the PILOT program, that's just a way to avoid property taxes. They weren't paying property taxes before, so it's a wash, no benefit there

  11. #2636
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    2,728
    Quote Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
    The Mets had two bond offerings to finance Citi Field, a $613M 40-year offering @ 4.57% and a $82.3M 37-year offering at 6.45%. If you calculate out all the payments in the last 37 years their annual mortgage bill (payments to bond holders, principle + interest) is $39,249,825. The citicorp deal is a $20M/year advertising deal over 20 years but BOTH sides have the option to extend an additional 20 years. So effectively the net mortgage payment is $19.25M per year for another 35 years. That amount is then deducted from revenues and is not subject to the 31% MLB revenue sharing amount. You might think that saves them $6 million/ year (31%), but the real number is only a third of that because don't forget, after each team pays into the pool the kitty gets split 30 ways and it comes right back to the Mets. So we're probably talking a maximum savings of $2M from building Citi Field in terms of revenue sharing. There is, however, the added revenue from luxury seating which is not subject to revenue sharing (not that they're selling much of those these days).

    As for the PILOT program, that's just a way to avoid property taxes. They weren't paying property taxes before, so it's a wash, no benefit there
    They might not have paid property taxes but they paid rent in the days of Shea Stadium.

    Rent Payments:

    Gross Admission Receipts: 7.5% of ticket sales.
    Gross Concession Receipts: 7.5% of gross concession receipts when paid attendance exceeds two million patrons.
    Gross Wait Service Receipts: 5% of gross wait service receipts when paid attendance exceeds two million patrons.
    Sales of Parking Privileges: $1.00 per car plus 50% of each charge exceeding $2.50.
    Advertising: 10% of advertising receipts.
    Scoreboard Maintenance: $8,000 per year. The City receives this compensation to provide general repairs to the scoreboard.
    Cable Television: 10% of home game receipts after allowable adjustment.
    Skybox Revenue: 50% of net income from skybox and 100% of maintenance, electrical and plumbing costs.
    Diamond Vision: 100% of maintenance costs during the baseball season.
    Utilities: 100% of consumption costs during the baseball season.

    Somehow the Wilpons were able to game this so in the latter years of Shea the total of all these things only came to about $5 million each year (not that they paid it all forthrightly). Still, this is an expense the Wilpons no longer have.

    In addition the new provisions of the parking lot lease allow the Wilpons to palm an extra $3.5 million a year there. No time to really study it, but I suspect the Wilpons' net obligations are not very much greater than their old ones were supposed to be under their Shea lease.

    Most importantly the new stadium was a tactical maneuver that helped generate a $500 million grant of land across the street with more money to come.

    I believe the Wilpons ultimately came out ahead on the new stadium. Either way any additional stadium expenses would only be a small percentage of the reported $1.2 billion debt on the team and the regional sports network. Given available information one can only conclude the bulk of the debt was caused by failed real estate operations and borrowing money to open more Madoff accounts.

    Quote Originally Posted by dominik View Post
    Why isn't wilpon just selling the Team? if the dodgers went for 2 billions he could probably get at least 1.5 for the mets (maybe a Little less than the dodgers because NY is the biggest market but the mets are so much overshadowed by the yanks). that would easily solve all his financial Problems, pays his debts and still leaves plenty of free Money for him.

    he is running the Team cheap currently but probably still not really making Money with the Team. at least not as much as he would get from selling, especially at his Age.
    I'd guess there are two main reasons:

    1) SNY is on standard cable so it gets around $2.50 a month for every home in the region that has standard cable. Whether the team is good or bad SNY takes in over $250 million in revenue a year. This is separate from any Mets revenue.

    2) Fred is getting hundreds of million in subsidies to appropriate his neighbors' land and build a shopping strip and alleged neighborhood.

    If you were a greedy non-Mets fan with no shame, would you sell?


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  12. #2637
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    2,728
    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    If one is going to play GM, then they need to consider all aspects of the game... team income, team expenditures, short-term gains, long-term goals.

    Simply paying players with Monopoly money is not being GM.

    I cannot agree that simply signing a player that makes the team better now is in the best interest of the franchise. You have the right not to care what a player is paid since it is not coming out of your bank account, but unless you are willing to assume the risk of signing a player with your own money (or at least being on the hot seat for signing that player with someone else's money - i.e. - fiduciary responsibility) then any criticism made is made without considering all the facts.


    Cheers!
    -Doug
    I'm replying to this post here because it's probably a more appropriate place than the off-season thread. The elephant in the room you always ignore is the $1.2 billion debt on Mets-centric assets, which had nothing to do with Mets operations. According to reports Fred lost money on real estate, and decided to borrow against Mets-centric assets to invest more with sure-thing Bernie rather than sell any property. We've been watching the smoldering rubble for 5 years now.

    So the failure to sign adequate talent would have nothing to do with performance of Mets-centric assets or "the best interest of the franchise".

    It seems the best interests of the owners align with the worst interest of the franchise.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  13. #2638
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    I'm replying to this post here because it's probably a more appropriate place than the off-season thread. The elephant in the room you always ignore is the $1.2 billion debt on Mets-centric assets, which had nothing to do with Mets operations.
    Of course it does. If his source of income is profit from the team, and he pledged that profit for other things, then he better make sure that that income stream doesn't dry up.

    So, as owner, it is his right to run the team as he sees fit to:

    1. Keep it solvent
    2. Ensure it pays him income

    If he ends up losing money by signing a player - the salary paid is not made up with additional ticket / ballpark revenue - then that signing impacts his income.

    According to reports Fred lost money on real estate, and decided to borrow against Mets-centric assets to invest more with sure-thing Bernie rather than sell any property. We've been watching the smoldering rubble for 5 years now.

    So the failure to sign adequate talent would have nothing to do with performance of Mets-centric assets or "the best interest of the franchise".

    It seems the best interests of the owners align with the worst interest of the franchise.
    The failure to sign talent, in my opinion, means that ownership does not wish to risk diminished income from the club which would impact ownership's ability to pay off other obligations. I am sure they have projections on what the signing of talent will do to the bottom line, and those models indicate that spending an extra $50 million on payroll will not be gotten back in revenue. Therefore, the GM must field the best team with the resources at hand. The Mets' GM must operate under this rule set. Not all GMs have the same rule set.

    I think its fairer to say that the best interest of the owners may not align with the wishes of the fans.


    Cheers!
    -Doug
    20-Game "A" Plan, Prom Box 423.

  14. #2639
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    2,728
    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    Of course it does. If his source of income is profit from the team, and he pledged that profit for other things, then he better make sure that that income stream doesn't dry up.

    So, as owner, it is his right to run the team as he sees fit to:

    1. Keep it solvent
    2. Ensure it pays him income

    If he ends up losing money by signing a player - the salary paid is not made up with additional ticket / ballpark revenue - then that signing impacts his income.



    The failure to sign talent, in my opinion, means that ownership does not wish to risk diminished income from the club which would impact ownership's ability to pay off other obligations. I am sure they have projections on what the signing of talent will do to the bottom line, and those models indicate that spending an extra $50 million on payroll will not be gotten back in revenue. Therefore, the GM must field the best team with the resources at hand. The Mets' GM must operate under this rule set. Not all GMs have the same rule set.

    I think its fairer to say that the best interest of the owners may not align with the wishes of the fans.


    Cheers!
    -Doug
    The best interest of the owners is not the best interest of the franchise here.

    The damage to good will and brand equity and thinning out of the fan base will be hard to reverse. I can see the Wilpons cashing out and scurrying away with bags of loot after the shopping strip opens. And what will they leave behind?

    Generations will have grown up without any particular Mets interest or loyalty - in the sport's biggest and most passionate market. This will be just another factor in baseball's continuing drift into being a marginal sport.

    Continuing to be a customer isn't doing anyone but Fred, Saul and their spawn any favors.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  15. #2640
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    The best interest of the owners is not the best interest of the franchise here.
    You are writing this as if the franchise is yours. It is not. It is owned by someone else. You are just a rooting fan, as am I.


    The damage to good will and brand equity and thinning out of the fan base will be hard to reverse. I can see the Wilpons cashing out and scurrying away with bags of loot after the shopping strip opens. And what will they leave behind?

    Generations will have grown up without any particular Mets interest or loyalty - in the sport's biggest and most passionate market.
    While I cannot disagree with the points you raise WRT good will, brand equity, and thinning of the fan base, their actions are theirs to make, and they will live (or die) with the choices they have made. I don't think ownership is going anywhere, regardless of what happens (or not) with the shopping and dining and living improvements (allegedly) to be built in the vicinity of the ballpark.

    The rest of us are spectators in this game, along for the ride. I am certain if the Mets field a 90-win team (by some miracle), you'll see many Mets fans come out from hiding.

    I have a friend, who is a Yanks fan, who commented that he saw more Mets caps on people after the Mets swept the Yanks in the SS last year... He was surprised. They (Mets fans) are waiting for the thaw. The rest of us are evergreen trees.

    This will be just another factor in baseball's continuing drift into being a marginal sport.

    Continuing to be a customer isn't doing anyone but Fred, Saul and their spawn any favors.
    Continuing to be a customer brings me enjoyment. I enjoy going to games.
    Last edited by dstoffa; 03-13-2014 at 06:40 PM.
    20-Game "A" Plan, Prom Box 423.

  16. #2641
    Quote Originally Posted by dstoffa View Post
    You are writing this as if the franchise is yours. It is not. It is owned by someone else. You are just a rooting fan, as am I.

    Continuing to be a customer brings me enjoyment. I enjoy going to games.
    Amen, brother! I can't stand all the negativity and the know-it-all-ism of the supposed fans here. That's why I never visit this forum anymore. If you're waiting for the Wilpons to leave or sell, it ain't ever happening. Would YOU sell a team, if you owned one...even if fans were accusing you of running it into the ground? Hell, no. Its a big ego thing, owning a team. If you can't be positive and root for the Mets while the Wilpons own them, you'd best find another team to root for.

    Most of you probably aren't old enough to know or remember this but part of the condition under which the Mets were granted an expansion franchise was that they would "win the right way", which was a not so subtle dig at the Yankees and their stockpiling of players by outbidding everyone else back before the draft. The Mets were invented, in essence, to prove that you could be a major market franchise on the cheap. That agreement goes back to 1958. Now that was an informal agreement and not legally binding or anything, and I'm certainly not saying that the Wilpons are honoring that original agreement or that they're even aware of it. But, if you've been a Met fan long enough, you're used to the cheapness and it doesn't bother you nearly as much as stupidity (Omar). And the Wilpons have not, in my eyes, sunk to the depths of Hell that M. Donald Grant occupied.

    Stop with the negativity. It isn't helping anything. LETS GO METS!

  17. #2642
    Quote Originally Posted by esplanade View Post
    Amen, brother! I can't stand all the negativity and the know-it-all-ism of the supposed fans here. That's why I never visit this forum anymore. If you're waiting for the Wilpons to leave or sell, it ain't ever happening. Would YOU sell a team, if you owned one...even if fans were accusing you of running it into the ground? Hell, no. Its a big ego thing, owning a team. If you can't be positive and root for the Mets while the Wilpons own them, you'd best find another team to root for.

    Most of you probably aren't old enough to know or remember this but part of the condition under which the Mets were granted an expansion franchise was that they would "win the right way", which was a not so subtle dig at the Yankees and their stockpiling of players by outbidding everyone else back before the draft. The Mets were invented, in essence, to prove that you could be a major market franchise on the cheap. That agreement goes back to 1958. Now that was an informal agreement and not legally binding or anything, and I'm certainly not saying that the Wilpons are honoring that original agreement or that they're even aware of it. But, if you've been a Met fan long enough, you're used to the cheapness and it doesn't bother you nearly as much as stupidity (Omar). And the Wilpons have not, in my eyes, sunk to the depths of Hell that M. Donald Grant occupied.

    Stop with the negativity. It isn't helping anything. LETS GO METS!
    But Omar was the better GM. See, that's the thing. Sure he was stupid, made some mistakes, terrible with the media. But better baseball man? In my view - easily.

    What is the "right way to win?" Does 1986 count?
    Cleon Jones catches a deep fly ball in F. Scott Fitzgerald's Valley of the Ashes, and a second-grader smiles in front of the black and white television.

  18. #2643
    Quote Originally Posted by esplanade View Post
    Amen, brother! I can't stand all the negativity and the know-it-all-ism of the supposed fans here. That's why I never visit this forum anymore. If you're waiting for the Wilpons to leave or sell, it ain't ever happening. Would YOU sell a team, if you owned one...even if fans were accusing you of running it into the ground? Hell, no. Its a big ego thing, owning a team. If you can't be positive and root for the Mets while the Wilpons own them, you'd best find another team to root for.

    Most of you probably aren't old enough to know or remember this but part of the condition under which the Mets were granted an expansion franchise was that they would "win the right way", which was a not so subtle dig at the Yankees and their stockpiling of players by outbidding everyone else back before the draft. The Mets were invented, in essence, to prove that you could be a major market franchise on the cheap. That agreement goes back to 1958. Now that was an informal agreement and not legally binding or anything, and I'm certainly not saying that the Wilpons are honoring that original agreement or that they're even aware of it. But, if you've been a Met fan long enough, you're used to the cheapness and it doesn't bother you nearly as much as stupidity (Omar). And the Wilpons have not, in my eyes, sunk to the depths of Hell that M. Donald Grant occupied.

    Stop with the negativity. It isn't helping anything. LETS GO METS!
    Amen. Thank you.

  19. #2644
    Quote Originally Posted by Strawman View Post
    But Omar was the better GM. See, that's the thing. Sure he was stupid, made some mistakes, terrible with the media. But better baseball man? In my view - easily.

    What is the "right way to win?" Does 1986 count?
    Omar was NOT the better GM. He was a moron. He was GM from 2004 forward to 2010. What did they win in that time? Nothing. If all you want is "meaningful games" that really aren't in August, there are lots of ways to do that, but they won't actually win you anything. That was Omar.

    What was MEANT by "the right way", when the Mets and the PTB agreed to grant a new franchise to New York, was "cheap". It was very clear. MLB wanted to prove then (still do, really) that a team in a major market could win with a small market budget. MLB did then and still does want to keep salaries down across the board. Bidding wars cut into the profit margin. I'm not agreeing with the philosophy, I'm simply saying that that's how the Mets were born and they would likely not have been born if they did not agree to that. It wasn't in writing, people move on, some die, circumstances change. There was never a way to enforce it anyway, but I'd say that, by the time free agency rolled around, that agreement was completely null and void. I'm sure the Mets were still "encouraged" to be cheap; and with M. Donald Grant at the helm, not much encouragement was needed. And then de Roulet didn't have any money anyway. Whatever. They've always been cheap. Cashen came in and he spent, but he spent smartly. Omar just pissed money all over the place like he was drunk and made of the stuff. No wonder you guys love him. "Pedro! I love you, man. Here's a million gazillion dollars. Johan! Come over here, man. How much you want? Just tell me. 2 billion? 3 billion? Let me write you a check. Jason Bay! Man, I've always loved you. Even when we traded you. I trade because I love, man. Here, take it all, man. It's yours."

    Now, to me, "the right way" is the way they did it in '69, the way they did it in '86, and the way they're doing it now. You build a farm system (Omar had destroyed it), you load up on young arms and, when the fruit is ripe, you trade wisely and THEN you go acquire (including buy) the last pieces you need. It takes 5 years to build a farm system from scratch, which is what Omar left. You can't even think about getting serious until year 4. This is year 4. We're thinking about getting serious (by which I mean we're evaluating the growing crop, figuring out which are going to be ready for harvest and which you should sell short). Second half of year 4, you start putting things together--promote Montero, if you haven't already, jettison Tejada, if you haven't already, make that impact trade everybody's going to look back on. Year 5 is when you make your move, fine tune the engine; you're competitive but, chances are, you're missing that final piece. Year six, you win. That's how its done, son. What has happened to the Mets in the past, sadly, is we win and then there's regime change and the new guy starts unloading prospects without restocking the pond. It'll probably happen again. But I said from the time Sandy came on board, 2016 was the year we should win it all.

    I've been watching baseball for nearly 60 years. This is the blueprint.

    You start off drafting high school kids. Yes, because they're cheaper, but also because their ceiling hasn't been established yet. A lot are going to wither and die on the vine, but a few should be spectacular. You get to year three, you mix it up a bit more. Year four, you start focusing on the college kids, because you're going to need them sooner and you have a better idea what you're getting, floor and ceiling. You lay back for a few years on free agents and trades. You're not close, so why waste a wad. You swoop in to take advantage of bargains--Beltran walking for Wheeler, an aging Dickey for Thor (although I still don't like the idea of trading the reigning Cy Young winner). You evaluate what you've got. Who here now is a potential cornerstone of a championship team? David Wright. Lock him up. Jose Reyes? I didn't think so and neither did the Mets (and certainly not at the insane money Miami offered). A good player, yes. Essential? Cornerstone? Nah. He ain't the guy. Assuming Harvey comes back as strong as he was, they'll lock him up before his walk year--pay whatever it takes. I know there are those who don't believe it, but they don't understand the difference between spending and investing. Then you get back to the game.

    Granderson was more a sign than a signing. It was coming back to the table after having built up a stake. We're ready to play, now. It was Tommy Davis in '67 or George Foster in '82. It was to announce our presence. But you don't put all your money in the pot on the first hand. That's just stupid. That's Omar. I'd love to play poker with that cat. I said in 2011 (to anyone who would listen) that there would be one impact signing--one--between 2013 and 2014. That's Grandy. Colon is just a placeholder and, with any luck, a chip to flip. Young was a lottery ticket and a short term upgrade; he's the doughnut you put on the car when you've got a flat, just to hold you until you can get a new tire. For the record I do think they blew it on Peralta; I think Sandy was legitimately surprised by the market rate for a talent like that. That was an unforced error. It happens.

    Just so its not all hindsight, I'll tell you the blueprint says there will be an impact trade this year. Could be before the season starts, but its more likely to come in May or June and there's a chance it could come later. A trade that sends prospects to acquire a piece to fill a hole...be it short or first or center (you can't really believe Lagares is the answer). I see people complain that we haven't traded prospects yet, but there was no point until now. We weren't close, the farm was poorly stocked and the prospects weren't ripe. Now there will be a trade. Don't be surprised if Sandy ferrets out a bargain. We got Keith Hernandez for a couple of bottle caps because the guy was doing coke. What you, again, don't want to do is get bluffed into overpaying for something (as Omar did repeatedly). You bide your time. Shortstop? Nah, we're fine with Tejada. But if you happen to need something, give us a call. I'm sure we can work something out. The idea is to bluff better than the other guy. It'll be an impact guy, an All-Star caliber starter. He might be somebody else's headache, but he'll be somebody you won't have to worry about what he'll provide in the lineup.

    Terry Collins is fine while you're putting down the foundation but he isn't the guy to take you to the next level. I'll be disappointed if he makes it through this entire season. I'll be shocked if he's still here come June of next year. You fire or promote him--one or the other--and bring in somebody smart and quietly tough. I don't really have a clue, myself, but likely the Mets already have their eye on someone. Year five, you're a buyer (be it trade or free agent). You get whatever pieces you still need however you can. By year six, you might be one player away. That's when you will overpay, if you have to. If you've played your hand well, you shouldn't have to.

    Then you win. To me, that's the "right way to win." All MLB meant when they said that to the Mets was "cheap". But we're following the blueprint right now and that's the "right way to win" (IMO, FWIW).

  20. #2645
    Esplanade, you are officially the smartest guy in the room. Great well thought out post.

  21. #2646
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    2,728
    Quote Originally Posted by esplanade View Post
    Omar was NOT the better GM. He was a moron. He was GM from 2004 forward to 2010. What did they win in that time? Nothing. If all you want is "meaningful games" that really aren't in August, there are lots of ways to do that, but they won't actually win you anything. That was Omar.

    What was MEANT by "the right way", when the Mets and the PTB agreed to grant a new franchise to New York, was "cheap". It was very clear. MLB wanted to prove then (still do, really) that a team in a major market could win with a small market budget. MLB did then and still does want to keep salaries down across the board. Bidding wars cut into the profit margin. I'm not agreeing with the philosophy, I'm simply saying that that's how the Mets were born and they would likely not have been born if they did not agree to that. It wasn't in writing, people move on, some die, circumstances change. There was never a way to enforce it anyway, but I'd say that, by the time free agency rolled around, that agreement was completely null and void. I'm sure the Mets were still "encouraged" to be cheap; and with M. Donald Grant at the helm, not much encouragement was needed. And then de Roulet didn't have any money anyway. Whatever. They've always been cheap. Cashen came in and he spent, but he spent smartly. Omar just pissed money all over the place like he was drunk and made of the stuff. No wonder you guys love him. "Pedro! I love you, man. Here's a million gazillion dollars. Johan! Come over here, man. How much you want? Just tell me. 2 billion? 3 billion? Let me write you a check. Jason Bay! Man, I've always loved you. Even when we traded you. I trade because I love, man. Here, take it all, man. It's yours."

    Now, to me, "the right way" is the way they did it in '69, the way they did it in '86, and the way they're doing it now. You build a farm system (Omar had destroyed it), you load up on young arms and, when the fruit is ripe, you trade wisely and THEN you go acquire (including buy) the last pieces you need. It takes 5 years to build a farm system from scratch, which is what Omar left. You can't even think about getting serious until year 4. This is year 4. We're thinking about getting serious (by which I mean we're evaluating the growing crop, figuring out which are going to be ready for harvest and which you should sell short). Second half of year 4, you start putting things together--promote Montero, if you haven't already, jettison Tejada, if you haven't already, make that impact trade everybody's going to look back on. Year 5 is when you make your move, fine tune the engine; you're competitive but, chances are, you're missing that final piece. Year six, you win. That's how its done, son. What has happened to the Mets in the past, sadly, is we win and then there's regime change and the new guy starts unloading prospects without restocking the pond. It'll probably happen again. But I said from the time Sandy came on board, 2016 was the year we should win it all.

    I've been watching baseball for nearly 60 years. This is the blueprint.

    You start off drafting high school kids. Yes, because they're cheaper, but also because their ceiling hasn't been established yet. A lot are going to wither and die on the vine, but a few should be spectacular. You get to year three, you mix it up a bit more. Year four, you start focusing on the college kids, because you're going to need them sooner and you have a better idea what you're getting, floor and ceiling. You lay back for a few years on free agents and trades. You're not close, so why waste a wad. You swoop in to take advantage of bargains--Beltran walking for Wheeler, an aging Dickey for Thor (although I still don't like the idea of trading the reigning Cy Young winner). You evaluate what you've got. Who here now is a potential cornerstone of a championship team? David Wright. Lock him up. Jose Reyes? I didn't think so and neither did the Mets (and certainly not at the insane money Miami offered). A good player, yes. Essential? Cornerstone? Nah. He ain't the guy. Assuming Harvey comes back as strong as he was, they'll lock him up before his walk year--pay whatever it takes. I know there are those who don't believe it, but they don't understand the difference between spending and investing. Then you get back to the game.

    Granderson was more a sign than a signing. It was coming back to the table after having built up a stake. We're ready to play, now. It was Tommy Davis in '67 or George Foster in '82. It was to announce our presence. But you don't put all your money in the pot on the first hand. That's just stupid. That's Omar. I'd love to play poker with that cat. I said in 2011 (to anyone who would listen) that there would be one impact signing--one--between 2013 and 2014. That's Grandy. Colon is just a placeholder and, with any luck, a chip to flip. Young was a lottery ticket and a short term upgrade; he's the doughnut you put on the car when you've got a flat, just to hold you until you can get a new tire. For the record I do think they blew it on Peralta; I think Sandy was legitimately surprised by the market rate for a talent like that. That was an unforced error. It happens.

    Just so its not all hindsight, I'll tell you the blueprint says there will be an impact trade this year. Could be before the season starts, but its more likely to come in May or June and there's a chance it could come later. A trade that sends prospects to acquire a piece to fill a hole...be it short or first or center (you can't really believe Lagares is the answer). I see people complain that we haven't traded prospects yet, but there was no point until now. We weren't close, the farm was poorly stocked and the prospects weren't ripe. Now there will be a trade. Don't be surprised if Sandy ferrets out a bargain. We got Keith Hernandez for a couple of bottle caps because the guy was doing coke. What you, again, don't want to do is get bluffed into overpaying for something (as Omar did repeatedly). You bide your time. Shortstop? Nah, we're fine with Tejada. But if you happen to need something, give us a call. I'm sure we can work something out. The idea is to bluff better than the other guy. It'll be an impact guy, an All-Star caliber starter. He might be somebody else's headache, but he'll be somebody you won't have to worry about what he'll provide in the lineup.

    Terry Collins is fine while you're putting down the foundation but he isn't the guy to take you to the next level. I'll be disappointed if he makes it through this entire season. I'll be shocked if he's still here come June of next year. You fire or promote him--one or the other--and bring in somebody smart and quietly tough. I don't really have a clue, myself, but likely the Mets already have their eye on someone. Year five, you're a buyer (be it trade or free agent). You get whatever pieces you still need however you can. By year six, you might be one player away. That's when you will overpay, if you have to. If you've played your hand well, you shouldn't have to.

    Then you win. To me, that's the "right way to win." All MLB meant when they said that to the Mets was "cheap". But we're following the blueprint right now and that's the "right way to win" (IMO, FWIW).

    Interesting points. Let's examine them.

    Just using past franchise history as precedent...

    * The 1962 Mets: building from absolute ground zero. No free agency. The first couple years they focused on acquiring local heroes to market the team. Interestingly, by way of contrast the Colt .45s/Astros built the "right way" from the beginning with guys like Rusty Staub, Joe Morgan and great young pitching. They still haven't won a championship to this day. Just goes to show the value of doing things the "right way". Anyway, roughly a six or seven year lag from inception to championship.

    * The 1980 Mets: Cashen takes over after Grant decimated the team. The team had been turned around by 1984. Roughly a five year lag time.

    * The current Mets: Alderson inherits a team with Wright, Reyes, Pagan, Harvey, Beltran, Dickey, Gee, Niese, Murphy and various other valuable pieces. The biggest reason they'd underperformed was because of horrendous management of injuries. All those players were still productive and marketable.

    - He lets Reyes go for nothing.

    - He salary dumps Pagan for garbage.

    - By your own admission 2016 is the target date for respectability. Wright will be turning 34 in 2016. If this was an honest rebuild Wright would have been dealt for a raft of prospects. Same with Reyes. Pagan had value.

    - They eliminated a Gulf Coast League team to save money.

    - The last year they could freely spend in the draft with no penalties they didn't. They signed fewer draftees than any team in the division.

    Cutting costs was the number one priority. Alderson's publicly stated this.

    The Mets have a regional sports network, which they didn't have in 1962 or 1980. Its revenue is gigantic. The Wilpons palm this and cut baseball operations to the bone.

    I do agree 2016 is the target date for respectability, but not because this "rebuild" had to take that long. More likely it was so the Wilpons could skid by and drain SNY revenue for most of the decade, yet still have a team that could draw fans in time for their Willets Point shopping strip. And it seems apparent they want that team on the cheap.

    This, incidentally, is why the Mets don't make a few obvious moves to make the team respectable now. A real first baseman, shortstop and taking their best pitchers north would do it. The Wilpons refused to spend to fill the gaping holes. The Wilpons apparently don't want to lose a year of cheap service from Syndergaard and Montero while the mall is operational.

    I guess they figure another season down the crapper won't matter to some. Looks like they're right.

    Finally, I find it believable that in 1962 MLB would want to depress player salaries. I find it less believable that fielding a second rate team was part of the covenant to expand the league. This is the first I've heard about it. Please share some links.

    Either way, after the Seitz decision your notion of the "right way" to win became substantially obsolete.


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

  22. #2647
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    4,912
    Quote Originally Posted by esplanade View Post
    Omar was NOT the better GM. He was a moron. He was GM from 2004 forward to 2010. What did they win in that time? Nothing. If all you want is "meaningful games" that really aren't in August, there are lots of ways to do that, but they won't actually win you anything. That was Omar.

    What was MEANT by "the right way", when the Mets and the PTB agreed to grant a new franchise to New York, was "cheap". It was very clear. MLB wanted to prove then (still do, really) that a team in a major market could win with a small market budget. MLB did then and still does want to keep salaries down across the board. Bidding wars cut into the profit margin. I'm not agreeing with the philosophy, I'm simply saying that that's how the Mets were born and they would likely not have been born if they did not agree to that. It wasn't in writing, people move on, some die, circumstances change. There was never a way to enforce it anyway, but I'd say that, by the time free agency rolled around, that agreement was completely null and void. I'm sure the Mets were still "encouraged" to be cheap; and with M. Donald Grant at the helm, not much encouragement was needed. And then de Roulet didn't have any money anyway. Whatever. They've always been cheap. Cashen came in and he spent, but he spent smartly. Omar just pissed money all over the place like he was drunk and made of the stuff. No wonder you guys love him. "Pedro! I love you, man. Here's a million gazillion dollars. Johan! Come over here, man. How much you want? Just tell me. 2 billion? 3 billion? Let me write you a check. Jason Bay! Man, I've always loved you. Even when we traded you. I trade because I love, man. Here, take it all, man. It's yours."

    Now, to me, "the right way" is the way they did it in '69, the way they did it in '86, and the way they're doing it now. You build a farm system (Omar had destroyed it), you load up on young arms and, when the fruit is ripe, you trade wisely and THEN you go acquire (including buy) the last pieces you need. It takes 5 years to build a farm system from scratch, which is what Omar left. You can't even think about getting serious until year 4. This is year 4. We're thinking about getting serious (by which I mean we're evaluating the growing crop, figuring out which are going to be ready for harvest and which you should sell short). Second half of year 4, you start putting things together--promote Montero, if you haven't already, jettison Tejada, if you haven't already, make that impact trade everybody's going to look back on. Year 5 is when you make your move, fine tune the engine; you're competitive but, chances are, you're missing that final piece. Year six, you win. That's how its done, son. What has happened to the Mets in the past, sadly, is we win and then there's regime change and the new guy starts unloading prospects without restocking the pond. It'll probably happen again. But I said from the time Sandy came on board, 2016 was the year we should win it all.

    I've been watching baseball for nearly 60 years. This is the blueprint.

    You start off drafting high school kids. Yes, because they're cheaper, but also because their ceiling hasn't been established yet. A lot are going to wither and die on the vine, but a few should be spectacular. You get to year three, you mix it up a bit more. Year four, you start focusing on the college kids, because you're going to need them sooner and you have a better idea what you're getting, floor and ceiling. You lay back for a few years on free agents and trades. You're not close, so why waste a wad. You swoop in to take advantage of bargains--Beltran walking for Wheeler, an aging Dickey for Thor (although I still don't like the idea of trading the reigning Cy Young winner). You evaluate what you've got. Who here now is a potential cornerstone of a championship team? David Wright. Lock him up. Jose Reyes? I didn't think so and neither did the Mets (and certainly not at the insane money Miami offered). A good player, yes. Essential? Cornerstone? Nah. He ain't the guy. Assuming Harvey comes back as strong as he was, they'll lock him up before his walk year--pay whatever it takes. I know there are those who don't believe it, but they don't understand the difference between spending and investing. Then you get back to the game.

    Granderson was more a sign than a signing. It was coming back to the table after having built up a stake. We're ready to play, now. It was Tommy Davis in '67 or George Foster in '82. It was to announce our presence. But you don't put all your money in the pot on the first hand. That's just stupid. That's Omar. I'd love to play poker with that cat. I said in 2011 (to anyone who would listen) that there would be one impact signing--one--between 2013 and 2014. That's Grandy. Colon is just a placeholder and, with any luck, a chip to flip. Young was a lottery ticket and a short term upgrade; he's the doughnut you put on the car when you've got a flat, just to hold you until you can get a new tire. For the record I do think they blew it on Peralta; I think Sandy was legitimately surprised by the market rate for a talent like that. That was an unforced error. It happens.

    Just so its not all hindsight, I'll tell you the blueprint says there will be an impact trade this year. Could be before the season starts, but its more likely to come in May or June and there's a chance it could come later. A trade that sends prospects to acquire a piece to fill a hole...be it short or first or center (you can't really believe Lagares is the answer). I see people complain that we haven't traded prospects yet, but there was no point until now. We weren't close, the farm was poorly stocked and the prospects weren't ripe. Now there will be a trade. Don't be surprised if Sandy ferrets out a bargain. We got Keith Hernandez for a couple of bottle caps because the guy was doing coke. What you, again, don't want to do is get bluffed into overpaying for something (as Omar did repeatedly). You bide your time. Shortstop? Nah, we're fine with Tejada. But if you happen to need something, give us a call. I'm sure we can work something out. The idea is to bluff better than the other guy. It'll be an impact guy, an All-Star caliber starter. He might be somebody else's headache, but he'll be somebody you won't have to worry about what he'll provide in the lineup.

    Terry Collins is fine while you're putting down the foundation but he isn't the guy to take you to the next level. I'll be disappointed if he makes it through this entire season. I'll be shocked if he's still here come June of next year. You fire or promote him--one or the other--and bring in somebody smart and quietly tough. I don't really have a clue, myself, but likely the Mets already have their eye on someone. Year five, you're a buyer (be it trade or free agent). You get whatever pieces you still need however you can. By year six, you might be one player away. That's when you will overpay, if you have to. If you've played your hand well, you shouldn't have to.

    Then you win. To me, that's the "right way to win." All MLB meant when they said that to the Mets was "cheap". But we're following the blueprint right now and that's the "right way to win" (IMO, FWIW).
    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose View Post
    Interesting points. Let's examine them.

    Just using past franchise history as precedent...

    * The 1962 Mets: building from absolute ground zero. No free agency. The first couple years they focused on acquiring local heroes to market the team. Interestingly, by way of contrast the Colt .45s/Astros built the "right way" from the beginning with guys like Rusty Staub, Joe Morgan and great young pitching. They still haven't won a championship to this day. Just goes to show the value of doing things the "right way". Anyway, roughly a six or seven year lag from inception to championship.

    * The 1980 Mets: Cashen takes over after Grant decimated the team. The team had been turned around by 1984. Roughly a five year lag time.

    * The current Mets: Alderson inherits a team with Wright, Reyes, Pagan, Harvey, Beltran, Dickey, Gee, Niese, Murphy and various other valuable pieces. The biggest reason they'd underperformed was because of horrendous management of injuries. All those players were still productive and marketable.

    - He lets Reyes go for nothing.

    - He salary dumps Pagan for garbage.

    - By your own admission 2016 is the target date for respectability. Wright will be turning 34 in 2016. If this was an honest rebuild Wright would have been dealt for a raft of prospects. Same with Reyes. Pagan had value.

    - They eliminated a Gulf Coast League team to save money.

    - The last year they could freely spend in the draft with no penalties they didn't. They signed fewer draftees than any team in the division.

    Cutting costs was the number one priority. Alderson's publicly stated this.

    The Mets have a regional sports network, which they didn't have in 1962 or 1980. Its revenue is gigantic. The Wilpons palm this and cut baseball operations to the bone.

    I do agree 2016 is the target date for respectability, but not because this "rebuild" had to take that long. More likely it was so the Wilpons could skid by and drain SNY revenue for most of the decade, yet still have a team that could draw fans in time for their Willets Point shopping strip. And it seems apparent they want that team on the cheap.

    This, incidentally, is why the Mets don't make a few obvious moves to make the team respectable now. A real first baseman, shortstop and taking their best pitchers north would do it. The Wilpons refused to spend to fill the gaping holes. The Wilpons apparently don't want to lose a year of cheap service from Syndergaard and Montero while the mall is operational.

    I guess they figure another season down the crapper won't matter to some. Looks like they're right.

    Finally, I find it believable that in 1962 MLB would want to depress player salaries. I find it less believable that fielding a second rate team was part of the covenant to expand the league. This is the first I've heard about it. Please share some links.

    Either way, after the Seitz decision your notion of the "right way" to win became substantially obsolete.

    First I want to agree with Esplanade about Omar - he just wasn't a good GM. He had some moments and some good moves, but wasn't a good GM. Omar has his place in baseball because I think he is a very good evaluator of talent. He just isn't a GM.

    I also stand by my belief that Sandy Alderson is a good GM. We as Met fans may never find out how good because again his hands are tied by his boss. I don't care how good you are at something - if your hands are tied and cant fully perform your job...your performance is hindered. Its just common sense.

    Letting Reyes go for nothing: Does anyone really believe that Alderson let Reyes go for nothing? I just cant believe that anyone that has been paying attention believes that. My opinion is that Wilpon wouldn't allow Alderson to trade Reyes because at that time Reyes was the only draw for the fans. He was leading the league in hitting (which means what exactly?), and Fred being short sighted exhausted his one chip until it was gone. It is the Wilpon M.O. - drain someone until they are useless to you or until you don't want to pay them. We have seen it before with injured players. Havent we?

    Omar pissed money away, and was allowed to because it was stolen cash...so they (Wilpon's) were willing to absorb losses. The KEY is that Omar was ALLOWED to piss money away by........yes you guessed it...........his boss Fred Wilpon. A privilege Alderson hasn't sniffed yet, and wont while he is here. Don't get me wrong Alderson is not an endearing character - in fact he is quite the opposite of endearing, but I stand by the fact that Alderson could be an excellent exec. Ask Billy Beane.

    I also agree that it takes 5 years to rebuild from the bottom up. Omar did destroy the minor league system because he was worried only about the top level and not feeding the pipeline. Why? Because he was holding the wrong job. I would like to see Alderson as the GM and Omar as a talent evaluator at the minor league level. I think that combo would be a great success. I also agree on Reyes - not "the guy".

    Where I disagree with Esplanade is the "blueprint". I don't think you can ignore your fan base for as long as it has been ignored. Mistakes cost money, and it costs money to fix mistakes. They needed to do more in the FA market, even for the short term to keep their fan base interested. This has been a dead organization for too long a period of time. They have become a joke, and an embarrassment to baseball. You cant just "punt" every season because your not a WS caliber team. This team has had way too many "3 and outs....punt"

    In this day and age when 33% of the teams make the playoffs it doesn't take over the top spending to keep the team and the fan base interested into September.

    For instance...as we speak...we have no shortstop.....a major league shortstop. Sign friggin Drew already! Get it done. Lets try to be an 80 win team because if you are and you can get lucky...hey you never know. Maybe your playing interesting games in September. Maybe your not a WS caliber team, but you don't have to be to play meaningful games in September. Also as Mongoose mentioned....how about 1st base??? Do you realize with a good SS, and even a decent guy at first...the team isn't terrible. We need some guys to have good years and a couple of young pitchers to come through, but its happened before. Right now we don't have that hope.

    The problem is now and always will be is that the Wilpons own the team. The trend in baseball, and its a very wise trend is to sign your young players to contracts and buy up arbitration and FA years. Do you really seeing the Wilpons doing that? I don't. I hope I am wrong, but I don't see it.

    With the Wilpons we have had two approaches:

    1) Sign FA's and forget the minor leagues.
    2) Forget the major league team and build from the bottom up

    Both approaches cost money - one is just more obvious. Will they ever combine both? Both are what perpetuate winning baseball. Look at the Cardinals (best organization in the sport). They grow excellent players like nobody else, and make the FA signing where needed. I just don't see the Wilpon owned Mets being that team.

  23. #2648
    Quote Originally Posted by Paulypal View Post
    First I want to agree with Esplanade about Omar - he just wasn't a good GM. He had some moments and some good moves, but wasn't a good GM. Omar has his place in baseball because I think he is a very good evaluator of talent. He just isn't a GM.

    I also stand by my belief that Sandy Alderson is a good GM. We as Met fans may never find out how good because again his hands are tied by his boss. I don't care how good you are at something - if your hands are tied and cant fully perform your job...your performance is hindered. Its just common sense.
    See that's the key word there - belief. What has Alderson really accomplished in the game to back that up? I know he portrays the company man, talking the corporatespeak, toeing the stylistic line. But I just don't think he understands the actual game the way Omar Minaya does.

    And frankly, Mr. Esplanade's characterization of Minaya as a "moron" is either willfully ignorant of the man's accomplishments and talents (which do NOT include public relations and business management, I'll agree) or just personal dislike for the guy. All of us should be such "morons" when it comes to baseball.

    Minaya 1. accomplished more here and brought the Mets a winning team that contended, sold 4 million tickets a year, and at least challenged the NYY for supremacy in this town and 2. was a much engaged, fan-friendly, franchise-oriented public figure - a New York guy who bled in public, and not some West Coast carpet-bagging suit who has spend nearly four years lying directly to our faces about some mythical "plan."

    It is also complete nonsense that Minaya "destroyed" the farm system - 1. what brilliant system was there to "destroy" and 2. how come there are all these guys in blue pinstripes on the 40-man roster who Omar freaking drafted! That's just pure baloney based on hatred for guy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paulypal View Post
    Letting Reyes go for nothing: Does anyone really believe that Alderson let Reyes go for nothing? I just cant believe that anyone that has been paying attention believes that. My opinion is that Wilpon wouldn't allow Alderson to trade Reyes because at that time Reyes was the only draw for the fans. He was leading the league in hitting (which means what exactly?), and Fred being short sighted exhausted his one chip until it was gone. It is the Wilpon M.O. - drain someone until they are useless to you or until you don't want to pay them. We have seen it before with injured players. Havent we?

    Omar pissed money away, and was allowed to because it was stolen cash...so they (Wilpon's) were willing to absorb losses. The KEY is that Omar was ALLOWED to piss money away by........yes you guessed it...........his boss Fred Wilpon. A privilege Alderson hasn't sniffed yet, and wont while he is here. Don't get me wrong Alderson is not an endearing character - in fact he is quite the opposite of endearing, but I stand by the fact that Alderson could be an excellent exec. Ask Billy Beane.
    I think this removes too much responsibility for Alderson and means he's either 1. stupid 2. a complete yes man, a total dupe mannequin with no thoughts of his own and zero leadership ability (ie the opposite of what we've been sold) or 3. doesn't care, is in league with Selig/Wilpon to do the corporate bidding, make the Mets a small market team, please the Lords of Baseball and move on. I vote 3!

    Quote Originally Posted by Paulypal View Post
    I also agree that it takes 5 years to rebuild from the bottom up. Omar did destroy the minor league system because he was worried only about the top level and not feeding the pipeline. Why? Because he was holding the wrong job. I would like to see Alderson as the GM and Omar as a talent evaluator at the minor league level. I think that combo would be a great success. I also agree on Reyes - not "the guy".
    Sure 5 years - but infinity in this game without a real budget. It will never happen. Of course, we disagree (obviously and at long length!) on Omar/farm and Jose Reyes, greatest shortstop in Mets history and the single decision that will define the Alderson Era in New York.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paulypal View Post
    Where I disagree with Esplanade is the "blueprint". I don't think you can ignore your fan base for as long as it has been ignored. Mistakes cost money, and it costs money to fix mistakes. They needed to do more in the FA market, even for the short term to keep their fan base interested. This has been a dead organization for too long a period of time. They have become a joke, and an embarrassment to baseball. You cant just "punt" every season because your not a WS caliber team. This team has had way too many "3 and outs....punt"

    In this day and age when 33% of the teams make the playoffs it doesn't take over the top spending to keep the team and the fan base interested into September.

    For instance...as we speak...we have no shortstop.....a major league shortstop. Sign friggin Drew already! Get it done. Lets try to be an 80 win team because if you are and you can get lucky...hey you never know. Maybe your playing interesting games in September. Maybe your not a WS caliber team, but you don't have to be to play meaningful games in September. Also as Mongoose mentioned....how about 1st base??? Do you realize with a good SS, and even a decent guy at first...the team isn't terrible. We need some guys to have good years and a couple of young pitchers to come through, but its happened before. Right now we don't have that hope.
    Agree on all of this - it's pathetic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paulypal View Post
    The problem is now and always will be is that the Wilpons own the team. The trend in baseball, and its a very wise trend is to sign your young players to contracts and buy up arbitration and FA years. Do you really seeing the Wilpons doing that? I don't. I hope I am wrong, but I don't see it.

    With the Wilpons we have had two approaches:

    1) Sign FA's and forget the minor leagues.
    2) Forget the major league team and build from the bottom up

    Both approaches cost money - one is just more obvious. Will they ever combine both? Both are what perpetuate winning baseball. Look at the Cardinals (best organization in the sport). They grow excellent players like nobody else, and make the FA signing where needed. I just don't see the Wilpon owned Mets being that team.
    Again, I don't think the previous administration "ignored" either the draft or signing international free agents. It's a tired subject, but look at the roster. Some of the only reasons we're even slightly excited about the next couple of years came though the "destroyed" system under Minaya - two - exactly two! - were acquired by Alderson so far, whose one skill seems to be trading All stars and Cy Young winners for savings and talent.
    Cleon Jones catches a deep fly ball in F. Scott Fitzgerald's Valley of the Ashes, and a second-grader smiles in front of the black and white television.

  24. #2649
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    4,912
    Quote Originally Posted by Strawman View Post
    See that's the key word there - belief. What has Alderson really accomplished in the game to back that up? I know he portrays the company man, talking the corporatespeak, toeing the stylistic line. But I just don't think he understands the actual game the way Omar Minaya does.

    And frankly, Mr. Esplanade's characterization of Minaya as a "moron" is either willfully ignorant of the man's accomplishments and talents (which do NOT include public relations and business management, I'll agree) or just personal dislike for the guy. All of us should be such "morons" when it comes to baseball.

    Minaya 1. accomplished more here and brought the Mets a winning team that contended, sold 4 million tickets a year, and at least challenged the NYY for supremacy in this town and 2. was a much engaged, fan-friendly, franchise-oriented public figure - a New York guy who bled in public, and not some West Coast carpet-bagging suit who has spend nearly four years lying directly to our faces about some mythical "plan."

    It is also complete nonsense that Minaya "destroyed" the farm system - 1. what brilliant system was there to "destroy" and 2. how come there are all these guys in blue pinstripes on the 40-man roster who Omar freaking drafted! That's just pure baloney based on hatred for guy.



    I think this removes too much responsibility for Alderson and means he's either 1. stupid 2. a complete yes man, a total dupe mannequin with no thoughts of his own and zero leadership ability (ie the opposite of what we've been sold) or 3. doesn't care, is in league with Selig/Wilpon to do the corporate bidding, make the Mets a small market team, please the Lords of Baseball and move on. I vote 3!



    Sure 5 years - but infinity in this game without a real budget. It will never happen. Of course, we disagree (obviously and at long length!) on Omar/farm and Jose Reyes, greatest shortstop in Mets history and the single decision that will define the Alderson Era in New York.



    Agree on all of this - it's pathetic.



    Again, I don't think the previous administration "ignored" either the draft or signing international free agents. It's a tired subject, but look at the roster. Some of the only reasons we're even slightly excited about the next couple of years came though the "destroyed" system under Minaya - two - exactly two! - were acquired by Alderson so far, whose one skill seems to be trading All stars and Cy Young winners for savings and talent.
    Strawman on the surface your point about the Mets winning under Minaya is not disputable. Cant argue that they did..............again on the surface. There is more to it than just winning games.... there is a "why" that needs to be asked.

    I point directly to payroll capability. Minaya had it....Alderson doesn't.

    Now I also understand my projection of Alderson is just that....a projection of what he would do given the financial latitude that Minaya had. Why do I project this? Well simply I just think Alderson is smarter.

    At the end of the day Minaya...........Alderson...................Alders on.................Minaya. Who cares?

    The problem is, was and always will be the owner. Its not so much the tale of two GM's............its the tale of an owner spending stolen money, and an owner that got caught and no longer could.

  25. #2650
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Beautiful Shea Stadium
    Posts
    2,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister B. View Post
    It sounds like the MRI came out ok, but this isn't over, yet.

    The tragedy here is that one of the few things they've done well is to stockpile some very live young power arms at affordable prices. Imagine in a year or two a rotation of Harvey, Wheeler, Syndergaard, Niese and Gee, with Mejia in reserve. This is how they began the best runs in their history.

    How it is that management makes shortsighted, bad decisions about player health almost every time is incomprehensible.
    Looks like Jon Niese left today's game earlier than expected. I wonder if it's his shoulder again?


    "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

Page 106 of 109 FirstFirst ... 65696104105106107108 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •