Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Mets Ownership / Management Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by dstoffa View Post

    If the MLBPA wants to shorten the path to free agency, they're going to need to give back on something. I'd love to see the end of the guaranteed contract, or to some extent modify contract language / policy so that if a contract is guaranteed, and I designate you for assignment, and nobody picks you up, then you sit, and you can't work for anyone in MLB unless you void the existing contract - I don't pay you anything to play for someone else.

    Owners give out bad contracts. Players aren't to blame for that. Those bad contracts raise the bar. However, the PA needs to realize that too many bad contracts means that there are going to be fewer and fewer (big contracts) of them going forward.
    Wouldn't most teams designate most players for assignment then? Miguel Cabrera and Albert Pujols immediately come to mind. Their teams designate them for assignment today. Detroit saves over $100mil and Anaheim saves over $60mil. They can't work for any team in MLB unless they void the contract. They'd retire immediately I assume because no one would pay them over say, $5 to $8mil per year. Even Giancarlo Stanton, at his young age would be designated for assignment I'd bet.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mongoose View Post

      Seconded.

      Local media plays along by focusing on the scapegoats. Van Wagenen is an obvious stooge for Fred and Jeff. He didn't even get to name his own manager. The focus on veterans in decline is a longstanding Wilpon directive, which preceded Van Wagenen by nearly 20 years.

      A more interesting article would explain why local media has a hands-off policy regarding the Wilpons.
      Years ago , a writer in the NY Post said that Mike Lupica was golfing buddies with the Wilpons and that the Daily News focus was to criticize the Yankees at every turn and to give the Wilpons a free pass . This was during the height of the Madoff scam . The Daily News also ran hatchet jobs on Picard (sp?) when he tried to claw back the money .

      The Post was dismissed as Yankee propaganda by the Mets .

      Comment


      • Originally posted by LI METS FAN View Post

        Wouldn't most teams designate most players for assignment then? Miguel Cabrera and Albert Pujols immediately come to mind. Their teams designate them for assignment today. Detroit saves over $100mil and Anaheim saves over $60mil. They can't work for any team in MLB unless they void the contract. They'd retire immediately I assume because no one would pay them over say, $5 to $8mil per year. Even Giancarlo Stanton, at his young age would be designated for assignment I'd bet.
        The teams don't save any money unless the player voids the contract to try-out with someone else. They get designated for assignment, but unless another team wants to pick up the entire tab, and the fat cat doesn't want to ride the bus in Single-A ball, his options are:
        1. To void the contract and try out with another team. The team that gave him the big contract is no longer obligated to pay.
        2. Sit at home, collect the fat contract. The team that gave him the big contract still has to pay.

        Fat Cat doesn't get to play and collect unless he plays for me, and I don't have to block a roster spot with his fat a$$.

        Punishment of having to pay the contract is bad enough. The owner shouldn't have to pay the player to play for someone else.
        20-Game Saturday Plan, Prom Box 423.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by LI METS FAN View Post

          Wouldn't most teams designate most players for assignment then? Miguel Cabrera and Albert Pujols immediately come to mind. Their teams designate them for assignment today. Detroit saves over $100mil and Anaheim saves over $60mil. They can't work for any team in MLB unless they void the contract. They'd retire immediately I assume because no one would pay them over say, $5 to $8mil per year. Even Giancarlo Stanton, at his young age would be designated for assignment I'd bet.
          That's one way to look at it..If it's a guaranteed contract, the player gets his money regardless of who pays..Second, a team will DFA a high priced contract at times. They will usually do this to see if there is any interest out there. If there is, they can sit down and negotiate the contract. Of course, I'm sure that a player's "I'll Only Be Traded to a Certain Team" will come into effect.

          A team could always simply pay the remainder of the contract which would allow the player to play for any team.
          North of the Big Apple but missing Central Fla :atthepc

          Comment


          • Originally posted by brooklynboy View Post

            That's one way to look at it..If it's a guaranteed contract, the player gets his money regardless of who pays..Second, a team will DFA a high priced contract at times. They will usually do this to see if there is any interest out there. If there is, they can sit down and negotiate the contract. Of course, I'm sure that a player's "I'll Only Be Traded to a Certain Team" will come into effect.

            A team could always simply pay the remainder of the contract which would allow the player to play for any team.
            A team does need to pay the player the remainder of the contract, and the player needs to honor the time commitment.
            In my world, If I am paying you $25 million per to ride the bus in single-A ball for the next 4 years, you have three choices:
            1. Ride the bus and collect your money.
            2. Sit at home until the end of the contract and collect your money. You no longer take up a roster spot, but you can't play for anyone else until the 4 years are up.
            3. Void the contract and try-out for another team. I am no longer on the hook to pay you, and you are free to pursue employment elsewhere.

            The contract should be guaranteed both ways. I gave you the contract. You are making $25 million, and your on-field performance is not up the the dollar amount. Fine. My error is giving it to you. I owe it to you, but you owe me (in calendar time) not to play for anyone else, and I don't get penalized by having to give you a roster spot which blocks someone who is better on the field but costs less.
            20-Game Saturday Plan, Prom Box 423.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by dstoffa View Post

              The teams don't save any money unless the player voids the contract to try-out with someone else. They get designated for assignment, but unless another team wants to pick up the entire tab, and the fat cat doesn't want to ride the bus in Single-A ball, his options are:
              1. To void the contract and try out with another team. The team that gave him the big contract is no longer obligated to pay.
              2. Sit at home, collect the fat contract. The team that gave him the big contract still has to pay.

              Fat Cat doesn't get to play and collect unless he plays for me, and I don't have to block a roster spot with his fat a$$.

              Punishment of having to pay the contract is bad enough. The owner shouldn't have to pay the player to play for someone else.
              Ah, so you're calling for a punitive measure against the "Fat Cat". Very good. It won't make the team better, but depriving such a player of a minimum wage or Minor League deal elsewhere will probably teach him some kind of lesson.

              The only Fat Cat I see jaking it around here is Fred Wilpon. He skims a fortune from Mets revenue and stuffs it in his pocket, with no real effort to win. Do you have any punitive measures for him?


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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mongoose View Post

                Ah, so you're calling for a punitive measure against the "Fat Cat". Very good. It won't make the team better, but depriving such a player of a minimum wage or Minor League deal elsewhere will probably teach him some kind of lesson.

                The only Fat Cat I see jaking it around here is Fred Wilpon. He skims a fortune from Mets revenue and stuffs it in his pocket, with no real effort to win. Do you have any punitive measures for him?
                No. You are misreading my statement. The fat cat will get paid. But if I am paying the fat cat, he will work for me where he does best for the team, or for nobody else.

                I gave you a $300 million / 10 year contract. It turns out to be a bust after year 4.

                As an owner, I gave you a guaranteed contract for dollars and years, whether you play for me (on the big club or in the minors) or not.
                The player is no longer worthy to be on the team, as there are better performers who cost less. Significantly less.

                I, as an owner, have to pay that player that $300 million over those 10 years. The player has to work for me or nobody else for 10 years. The money is on me. That's my punishment. I had to sign up for it.

                I, as a GM, need to designate that player to single-A ball (or some other team in the system) to free up roster space. Maybe the player refuses to go. That is his right. Said player can go home, sit on a beach, and collect the remainder on the contract, but I no longer have to have said player taking up a roster spot. In order to continue to collect the big paycheck, said player cannot work in the major or minors (player, coach, or scout) unless he chooses to void the contract. If said player elects to void the contract because he still wants to play ball (or take on some other job in baseball), then the owner is no longer required to pay the remainder of the contract.

                Kind of like breaking a lease.
                Last edited by dstoffa; 07-12-2019, 07:53 AM.
                20-Game Saturday Plan, Prom Box 423.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by dstoffa View Post

                  No. You are misreading my statement. The fat cat will get paid. But if I am paying the fat cat, he will work for me where he does best for the team, or for nobody else.

                  I gave you a $300 million / 10 year contract. It turns out to be a bust after year 4.

                  As an owner, I gave you a guaranteed contract for dollars and years, whether you play for me (on the big club or in the minors) or not.
                  The player is no longer worthy to be on the team, as there are better performers who cost less. Significantly less.

                  I, as an owner, have to pay that player that $300 million over those 10 years. The player has to work for me or nobody else for 10 years. The money is on me. That's my punishment. I had to sign up for it.

                  I, as a GM, need to designate that player to single-A ball (or some other team in the system) to free up roster space. Maybe the player refuses to go. That is his right. Said player can go home, sit on a beach, and collect the remainder on the contract, but I no longer have to have said player taking up a roster spot. In order to continue to collect the big paycheck, said player cannot work in the major or minors (player, coach, or scout) unless he chooses to void the contract. If said player elects to void the contract because he still wants to play ball (or take on some other job in baseball), then the owner is no longer required to pay the remainder of the contract.

                  Kind of like breaking a lease.
                  So let me get this right, you are saying that a player who is guaranteed $100M, which he will get just lying on a beach or playing golf, is gonna give that up just so he can do baseball work for another team? Or are you talking about what a owner or GM can do to get out of a bad contract?
                  North of the Big Apple but missing Central Fla :atthepc

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by brooklynboy View Post

                    So let me get this right, you are saying that a player who is guaranteed $100M, which he will get just lying on a beach or playing golf, is gonna give that up just so he can do baseball work for another team? Or are you talking about what a owner or GM can do to get out of a bad contract?
                    I am certain the player's association will never go the way of the NFL in terms of contracts with guaranteed and un-guaranteed money. The owner(s) will never get out of a bad contract. A bad contract is only bad for the owner.

                    Lets say I, as an owner or GM signed a bad contract. It would be best for the team for me to get this player off my roster.

                    As currently constructed, the labor agreement says if he gets released, he can sign with another club, but I still pay him. It should be that he gets released, but cannot sign with another club unless a mutual agreement is made to break the existing contract. I shouldn't pay him if he plays on another team.

                    In the end, the player would get paid to sit on the beach. But if he wants to play again, he'll need to break the existing fat cat contract to do so.
                    20-Game Saturday Plan, Prom Box 423.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by dstoffa View Post

                      I am certain the player's association will never go the way of the NFL in terms of contracts with guaranteed and un-guaranteed money. The owner(s) will never get out of a bad contract. A bad contract is only bad for the owner.

                      Lets say I, as an owner or GM signed a bad contract. It would be best for the team for me to get this player off my roster.

                      As currently constructed, the labor agreement says if he gets released, he can sign with another club, but I still pay him. It should be that he gets released, but cannot sign with another club unless a mutual agreement is made to break the existing contract. I shouldn't pay him if he plays on another team.

                      In the end, the player would get paid to sit on the beach. But if he wants to play again, he'll need to break the existing fat cat contract to do so.
                      Not really. Pete Alonso and Jeff McNeil are both signed to bad contracts. For them.


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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by dstoffa View Post

                        I am certain the player's association will never go the way of the NFL in terms of contracts with guaranteed and un-guaranteed money. The owner(s) will never get out of a bad contract. A bad contract is only bad for the owner.

                        Lets say I, as an owner or GM signed a bad contract. It would be best for the team for me to get this player off my roster.

                        As currently constructed, the labor agreement says if he gets released, he can sign with another club, but I still pay him. It should be that he gets released, but cannot sign with another club unless a mutual agreement is made to break the existing contract. I shouldn't pay him if he plays on another team.

                        In the end, the player would get paid to sit on the beach. But if he wants to play again, he'll need to break the existing fat cat contract to do so.
                        Again, not really.. How can a contract be bad if the player gets it's full value? You are talking about a non guaranteed contract that other major sports have. I seriously doubt you could ever get the Union to agree to that. Both parties signed a contract, both parties need to carry out the contract.

                        Take Lowrie.. He signed a contract. He hasn't played a game due to injuries. He still gets paid..VWBug could release him and pay off the contract. Lowrie is free to play for another team. The Bug could keep him, wait for him to come off the IL, and then either play him or sit him on the bench. Either way he gets paid. For Jed, a good contract, for VWBug, not so great.

                        Next time, "Buyer Beware".
                        North of the Big Apple but missing Central Fla :atthepc

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by brooklynboy View Post

                          Again, not really.. How can a contract be bad if the player gets it's full value? You are talking about a non guaranteed contract that other major sports have. I seriously doubt you could ever get the Union to agree to that. Both parties signed a contract, both parties need to carry out the contract.

                          Take Lowrie.. He signed a contract. He hasn't played a game due to injuries. He still gets paid..VWBug could release him and pay off the contract. Lowrie is free to play for another team. The Bug could keep him, wait for him to come off the IL, and then either play him or sit him on the bench. Either way he gets paid. For Jed, a good contract, for VWBug, not so great.

                          Next time, "Buyer Beware".
                          The point I am trying to make is STILL being missed.

                          I want to be able to get a player off my roster, so I can put a better player in his place. I am on the hook to pay that guy's salary. If I take him off my roster, he will get paid, but cannot play for anyone else until his contract runs out. I don't want to see him playing anywhere else...

                          A player is released from the roster, but not the contract. I essentially pay him to sit on a beach. I don't want to pay 99.44% of his salary to see him be someone else's reclamation project, unless of course, he wants to void the contract.
                          20-Game Saturday Plan, Prom Box 423.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by dstoffa View Post

                            The point I am trying to make is STILL being missed.

                            I want to be able to get a player off my roster, so I can put a better player in his place. I am on the hook to pay that guy's salary. If I take him off my roster, he will get paid, but cannot play for anyone else until his contract runs out. I don't want to see him playing anywhere else...

                            A player is released from the roster, but not the contract. I essentially pay him to sit on a beach. I don't want to pay 99.44% of his salary to see him be someone else's reclamation project, unless of course, he wants to void the contract.
                            The way the CBA works, if a player is DFAed, the team that DAFed him pays the contract minus the league minimum if another team claims him. How do you think the Mets ended up with Jose Reyes?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post

                              The way the CBA works, if a player is DFAed, the team that DAFed him pays the contract minus the league minimum if another team claims him. How do you think the Mets ended up with Jose Reyes?
                              I think the point dstoffa is trying to make is not how the system currently works --- he was talking about how he thinks it should work.

                              Any player playing for another team has to be paid by that team or he can take a vacation and be paid by the team that provided him the contract originally post being DFA'd.

                              In Reyes' case he was being paid the the Rockies (I think) while playing for the Mets --- That is what dstoffa is talking about eliminating. Either he sits home doing nothing and gets paid by the Rockies or the Mets take the player and his salary.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paulypal View Post

                                I think the point dstoffa is trying to make is not how the system currently works --- he was talking about how he thinks it should work.

                                Any player playing for another team has to be paid by that team or he can take a vacation and be paid by the team that provided him the contract originally post being DFA'd.

                                In Reyes' case he was being paid the the Rockies (I think) while playing for the Mets --- That is what dstoffa is talking about eliminating. Either he sits home doing nothing and gets paid by the Rockies or the Mets take the player and his salary.
                                Winner winner chicken dinner!!!

                                Yes, a page or two back this splinter conversation came up about the MLBPA wanted to get a quicker route to free agency, and I responded that if the owners were going to grant it, they'd need something back...
                                20-Game Saturday Plan, Prom Box 423.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X