Meet the Mets (For Mets Fans Only!)
mfpark said:
Good signing. The fact that he took four years and not the five or six that he was originally seeking may indicate that his market was not all that strong. The annual dollar amounts are probably higher than he was expecting for a six year deal, even if the total package is maybe lower. I am sure he will still not go hungry. Still, one has to wonder if perhaps the Mets overpaid a little and that there were not many viable takers for Cespedes.
From November 30, 2016. ml1 is not the only one who celebrated the Cespedes 4-year contract.
Unless you meant it was a "good signing" for Cespedes, and not the Mets! 
mrincredible said:
mfpark said:From November 30, 2016. ml1 is not the only one who celebrated the Cespedes 4-year contract.
Good signing. The fact that he took four years and not the five or six that he was originally seeking may indicate that his market was not all that strong. The annual dollar amounts are probably higher than he was expecting for a six year deal, even if the total package is maybe lower. I am sure he will still not go hungry. Still, one has to wonder if perhaps the Mets overpaid a little and that there were not many viable takers for Cespedes.
Unless you meant it was a "good signing" for Cespedes, and not the Mets!
burn
ml1 said:
mrincredible said:burn
mfpark said:From November 30, 2016. ml1 is not the only one who celebrated the Cespedes 4-year contract.
Good signing. The fact that he took four years and not the five or six that he was originally seeking may indicate that his market was not all that strong. The annual dollar amounts are probably higher than he was expecting for a six year deal, even if the total package is maybe lower. I am sure he will still not go hungry. Still, one has to wonder if perhaps the Mets overpaid a little and that there were not many viable takers for Cespedes.
Unless you meant it was a "good signing" for Cespedes, and not the Mets!
Nope, not a burn at all. Perhaps I was not clear, perhaps you are misreading what I wrote (I will go with the latter). My intent is that Wilpon should not be blaming this on the Cespedes signing. Wilpon clearly entered into the deal himself knowing full well the risk of tying up that much money on a player at that age. It was a calculated risk and I still think it was a good risk at the time. But to now blame his inability to sign new stars based on that old signing is weak and disingenuous.
The reason he could not make a real run at AJ Pollack or other top tier FAs was not Cespedes--it was that the Wilpon's business plan is to operate the Mets like the Pirates or Reds, and not like the Red Sox or Yankees or Dodgers.
That being said, I do applaud that Wilpon opened up the spigot a bit more this off-season and the Mets are in a lot stronger (on paper) position today than they were this same time last year.
mfpark said:But to now blame his inability to sign new stars based on that old signing is weak and disingenuous.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Any team that signs a free agent to a long term deal figures the salary into their future budgets. It only seems "weak" because Cespedes is on the DL. If he was healthy and expected to play, the team wouldn't have budget to sign a guy like Machado just as they don't have budget for him with Cespedes on the shelf. And I don't think any of us back in November 2016 expected that the Cespedes signing wasn't going to limit budgetary flexibility for the duration of the contract. But we thought it was worth it at the time.
mfpark said:
the Wilpon's business plan is to operate the Mets like the Pirates or Reds, and not like the Red Sox or Yankees or Dodgers.
I also disagree with this. In 2018, the Mets had MLB's 10th highest payroll. The team spends, although last year they didn't spend it all that wisely. And the Mets are not the Sox or Yanks or Dodgers. They are in a big market, but they are the 2nd team. It's more like they are the White Sox or Angels, or perhaps even the Orioles. The past couple of years they have begun to spend relative to their revenue potential.
https://slackiebrown.com/current-2018-mlb-payroll-list-brewers-only-winning-franchise-under-100m/
I would say the past history suggests the Mets can be at least as popular in the New York City Market as the Yankees. The key of course is winning. They outdrew the Yankees in attendance a few times in the late 80s if I'm not mistaken. Granted the Yankees were Fielding some very lackluster teams at the time, so it's hard to compare that to what's happening now.
Even if the Mets could consistently be in the hunt for a playoff spot into September I think you would find they were much more competitive in the market. It is hard to stay actively engaged and supporting a team that's pretty much out of it before the good corn on the cob is even available.
mrincredible said:
I would say the past history suggests the Mets can be at least as popular in the New York City Market as the Yankees. The key of course is winning. They outdrew the Yankees in attendance a few times in the late 80s if I'm not mistaken. Granted the Yankees were Fielding some very lackluster teams at the time, so it's hard to compare that to what's happening now.
Even if the Mets could consistently be in the hunt for a playoff spot into September I think you would find they were much more competitive in the market. It is hard to stay actively engaged and supporting a team that's pretty much out of it before the good corn on the cob is even available.
when both teams are good, the Yankees still will generate higher attendance because they have greater capacity in their ballpark. And they will generate higher TV ratings on YES than the Mets will on SNY because their natural fan base is bigger. And they sell more merchandise all over the world as an iconic brand.
Unless the Yanks fall into a pattern of several years in a row with bad teams, the Mets are going to be the second team with lesser revenue.
Oh fine. Crush my poor little Mets spirit.
You are correct, of course. I guess what I'm saying though is there's plenty of revenue to be enjoyed by both teams. The Yankees have been really successful for most of a century, for sure. But the Mets have proven they can generate excitement and money in this area if they are successful.
Yeah I know the Mets will never be the dominant team in NYC but it could be a he'll of a lot better.
mrincredible said:
Oh fine. Crush my poor little Mets spirit.
You are correct, of course. I guess what I'm saying though is there's plenty of revenue to be enjoyed by both teams. The Yankees have been really successful for most of a century, for sure. But the Mets have proven they can generate excitement and money in this area if they are successful.
Yeah I know the Mets will never be the dominant team in NYC but it could be a he'll of a lot better.
Last year the Yanks' final payroll for the season was $30 million more than the Mets. Even the Yanks don't spend like the Red Sox.
ml1 said:It only seems "weak" because Cespedes is on the DL. If he was healthy and expected to play...
Nail on the head.
Mets picked up lefty reliever Justin Wilson for 2 years and $10MM. Looks like they got the lefty they needed. This offseason is looking ok thus far. Not spectacular, but they did make moves to fix the bullpen, which was vital to being at all competitive this year.
Cleon Jones is sounding chipper.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/sports/miracle-mets-50th-anniversary.html
Mets are making a run at Gio Gonzalez, formerly a stalwart of the Nationals. Solid, if aging, lefty who gives a consistent 30 starts each season and probably has another season or two left in his arm.
Although I would love to see them sign another outfielder and a shortstop, there is a good reason to go for more pitching. Sbenois on Facebook linked to an amazing article the other day that shows that batted balls at Citifield do far worse than in any other park--and this holds especially true when you compare the Mets' batting on the road versus at home. The gap is astounding, and the reduced BABIP at Citi affects visiting teams as well.
No reason is obvious for this, but the results are inarguable. So the Mets should indeed focus on great pitching first. And batters who join the Mets should expect their offensive numbers to fall simply by virtue of 82 home games in the stadium where BABIP comes to die.
ml1 said:
In 17 career starts at Citi Field, Gonzalez is 11-2, 1.75 ERA.
1. He was pitching against the Mets.
2. One of my favorite nicknames ever: Nat Gio.
Train_of_Thought said:
ml1 said:1. He was pitching against the Mets.
In 17 career starts at Citi Field, Gonzalez is 11-2, 1.75 ERA.
2. One of my favorite nicknames ever: Nat Gio.
This.
Van Wagenen says he's not looking to sign another starting pitcher.
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/02/latest-on-mets-pitching-staff.html
Relievers Must face a minimum of three batters?
Why not just move to two outs.
Hell. Two stikes and you’re out while we’re at it, including foul balls.
Robert_Casotto said:
Relievers Must face a minimum of three batters?
Why not just move to two outs.
Hell. Two stikes and you’re out while we’re at it, including foul balls.
I'm a baseball "purist", but, yeah, I think it's time to make some changes to our beautiful game before we go the way of horse racing and boxing.
They are going to try something in Spring Training and the Minors that I abhor. A runner would be placed at second base at the start of extra innings in an effort to speed games up.
Disgusting idea.
I know, they use it in International games. But it still sucks.
Well, just to keep things entertaining...
The upside is apparently you can rent a room in Linden for $1000 a month.
mfpark said:
They are going to try something in Spring Training and the Minors that I abhor. A runner would be placed at second base at the start of extra innings in an effort to speed games up.
Disgusting idea.
I know, they use it in International games. But it still sucks.
Hear, hear.
Overall, surely the vilest NY pro sports veteran of my viewing era. Pro players have done worse things than him - including murder- but the general stench of Dykstra is just so awful.
I think it's fine as long as the opposing team gets to pick the runner.
Seriously though, would that count as a game played in the player's stats? Or do they put the player on base who is in the lineup just prior to the first batter?
mrincredible said:
I think it's fine as long as the opposing team gets to pick the runner.
Seriously though, would that count as a game played in the player's stats? Or do they put the player on base who is in the lineup just prior to the first batter?
There’d be all sorts of statistical distortions. Grrrr.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Every Mets fan I know absolutely celebrated that signing, including myself. So I'm not going to second guess that signing. But it is a reminder of what happens when you devote a lot of your budget to one player. And at least Cespedes was only for 4 years. Harper is going to be at least 7-8 years, and maybe 10.