Meet the Mets (For Mets Fans Only!)
ml1 said:
DanDietrich said:
I guess that's a good signing, if he can succeed here. I thought that Japanese baseball was considered above AAA but below MLB. If so, he is a less expensive replacement for Bassit. Cohen has hit a 93 million tax payment. I think when they share that revenue they should exclude the three lowest payroll teams.
maybe the teams with the three worst W-L records don't get any of the revenue share. The real problem it's supposed to be working against is lack of competitive balance. The league is never going to consider relegating teams to AAA. Leaving them out of a CBP payment would be a penalty they could easily implement.
No one ever wags their finger at the under-spenders. You own a MAJOR LEAGUE baseball team! There are certain financial obligations that come with that. It is NOT a constitutional right to own an MLB team. If you can't afford it you cannot stay at the dance. For every Baltimore/Oakland/Pittsburgh/Cleveland there are half a dozen folks lined up who'd like to own that team.
Purportedly throws triple digits and barely cracked 1 K per inning in Japan? Can you say Hideki Irabu?
To give some perspective, the Mets' cap payroll of $349,500,000 is $56,500,000 above the fourth and highest cap level in the CBT of $293,000,000.
As a second year offender of being over the lowest level of the cap, the Mets will pay 90 cents on every dollar over the base cap of $233,000,000. Meaning a tax of $104,850,000. This tax is higher than the lowest 11 MLB payrolls--Washington, Arizona, Minnesota, Miami, Cleveland, Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Oakland.
Even with some monster contracts the last few years the Yankees are at $253,000,000; the Padres $235,000,000, and the Phillies $230,000,000.
Clearly spending a lot of money is no guarantee of success. The Angels are at $198,000,000, for example. And careful spending, locking in young stars early, and exceptional talent scouting to replace FAs who walk, can be effective while staying in the middle of the pack--Houston is at $183,000,000.
I also have no idea what the answer is, but it must be depressing to be an Oakland or Pittsburgh fan and watch all your stars get traded away before they hit arbitration, let alone free agency.
I don't see things getting easier for the Mets. This year's spending so far has basically been to tread water. McNeil and Alonso will get paydays soon. The only thing that could save money is if a few prospects work out, but even that will only save Escobar/McCann money. I don't think they have young star pitching.
Cano comes off the books next year. I read something that said the Rangers committed as much money to deGrom as the Mets did to Verlander, Quintana and Senga combined.
Now that Bassett has signed with Toronto for 21 mil per year, I can see a little of the Mets approach. Spending on 1 and 2, saving a bit on the rest, and holding Mcgill and Peterson with a chance for them to step up.
BarneyGumble said:
Purportedly throws triple digits and barely cracked 1 K per inning in Japan? Can you say Hideki Irabu?
I'd like to see the receipts on your "triple digits" claim. Senga's best pitch is a splitter AFAIK.
DanDietrich said:
I don't see things getting easier for the Mets. This year's spending so far has basically been to tread water. McNeil and Alonso will get paydays soon. The only thing that could save money is if a few prospects work out, but even that will only save Escobar/McCann money. I don't think they have young star pitching.
they won 101 games last year while their two best pitchers both missed significant time. If treading water means they win 101 games next year, sign me up.
mfpark said:
Atlanta just got a whole lot better.
meh — Murphy was worth about one more win than Contreras last year in ~200 more at bats. Probably doesn’t move the needle much.
WxNut2.0 said:
mfpark said:
Atlanta just got a whole lot better.
meh — Murphy was worth about one more win than Contreras last year in ~200 more at bats. Probably doesn’t move the needle much.
the odd thing about Murphy is that they already have a good catcher, so he is going to be part of a duo. I guess one or the other can DH half the games, but he cost a lot to DH.
WxNut2.0 said:
DanDietrich said:
I don't see things getting easier for the Mets. This year's spending so far has basically been to tread water. McNeil and Alonso will get paydays soon. The only thing that could save money is if a few prospects work out, but even that will only save Escobar/McCann money. I don't think they have young star pitching.
they won 101 games last year while their two best pitchers both missed significant time. If treading water means they win 101 games next year, sign me up.
Well, the Phillies and the Braves have both significantly improved. I like the Mets team, but they really truly need to Baty to play well so Escobar can DH. Or vice versa. But Ruf isn't the answer and I hate the idea of platooning a hitting only position.
the starting pitching was a strength last season even with deGrom and Scherzer missing months of the season. So far they've replaced deGrom, Walker, and Bassitt with Verlander, Quintana, and Senga. They have Megill and Peterson in reserve. The rotation might be even better in '23 than it was in '22.
DanDietrich said:
WxNut2.0 said:
DanDietrich said:
I don't see things getting easier for the Mets. This year's spending so far has basically been to tread water. McNeil and Alonso will get paydays soon. The only thing that could save money is if a few prospects work out, but even that will only save Escobar/McCann money. I don't think they have young star pitching.
they won 101 games last year while their two best pitchers both missed significant time. If treading water means they win 101 games next year, sign me up.
Well, the Phillies and the Braves have both significantly improved. I like the Mets team, but they really truly need to Baty to play well so Escobar can DH. Or vice versa. But Ruf isn't the answer and I hate the idea of platooning a hitting only position.
Phillies definitely improved but not so sure about the Braves. They don’t look much different than they did last year.
ml1 said:
the starting pitching was a strength last season even with deGrom and Scherzer missing months of the season. So far they've replaced deGrom, Walker, and Bassitt with Verlander, Quintana, and Senga. They have Megill and Peterson in reserve. The rotation might be even better in '23 than it was in '22.
And Nimmo will steal four bases.
Thoughts on the Mets shopping Carrasco?
On the plus side, he is a one year deal at $14MM, so a relatively affordable starting arm without a long-term commitment. The Mets need middle relievers, and their minor leagues are thin on starters, so a trade might help them a lot.
On the down side, Scherzer and Verlander have also had injuries in recent years and are as old and older than Carrasco. Keeping him provides security at the aforementioned one year, low(ish) cost.
Soul_29 said:
ml1 said:
the starting pitching was a strength last season even with deGrom and Scherzer missing months of the season. So far they've replaced deGrom, Walker, and Bassitt with Verlander, Quintana, and Senga. They have Megill and Peterson in reserve. The rotation might be even better in '23 than it was in '22.
And Nimmo will steal four bases.
my burger is going to taste really good.
mfpark said:
Thoughts on the Mets shopping Carrasco?
On the plus side, he is a one year deal at $14MM, so a relatively affordable starting arm without a long-term commitment. The Mets need middle relievers, and their minor leagues are thin on starters, so a trade might help them a lot.
On the down side, Scherzer and Verlander have also had injuries in recent years and are as old and older than Carrasco. Keeping him provides security at the aforementioned one year, low(ish) cost.
I’m not opposed to it. The starting rotation is on the older side (for professional baseball - when did the “older” players suddenly get younger than me?) so it would be good to beef up the minors. I do want to see the team set up for long-term consistent success instead of the boom-bust cycle we seem to have had for decades.
And Soul_29, regarding anyone complaining about overspending, Bob Klapisch wrote a whole book about the 1992 Mets! You may be too young to remember the Worst Tram Money Could Buy. 
mfpark said:
Thoughts on the Mets shopping Carrasco?
On the plus side, he is a one year deal at $14MM, so a relatively affordable starting arm without a long-term commitment. The Mets need middle relievers, and their minor leagues are thin on starters, so a trade might help them a lot.
On the down side, Scherzer and Verlander have also had injuries in recent years and are as old and older than Carrasco. Keeping him provides security at the aforementioned one year, low(ish) cost.
it really depends what position they're going to shore up in a trade. A decent DH who can also play some OF would be a nice addition. Trading a solid starter for bullpen help seems like a bad deal, and probably one that few other teams would offer. Good relievers are often as valuable as a back of the rotation starter. Sometimes more so if we're talking about a guy like Ottavino.
I think that people under value Carrasco. He is steady if not spectacular, and most teams need 8 starters to get through a season. The Mets can wait until February to pick up ma few more relievers.
None of their starters have proven they can stay healthy for an entire year. They don't have much available in the minors if one of their starters goes down. Unless they think Lucchesi can provide something.
DanDietrich said:
I think that people under value Carrasco. He is steady if not spectacular, and most teams need 8 starters to get through a season. The Mets can wait until February to pick up ma few more relievers.
Carrasco was the Mets' ace while DeGrom and Scherzer were hurt this past season. More valuable than most people think.
Soul_29 said:
And Nimmo will steal four bases.
With no shift anymore I would prefer him to stay at 1st to give Lindor and McNeil a larger hole to hit into.
jfinnegan said:
With no shift anymore I would prefer him to stay at 1st to give Lindor and McNeil a larger hole to hit into.
I don't agree with this. Taking extra base is always better. By the logic of keeping the hole open for the next batter, why would anyone leg out a double?
ml1 said:
I don't agree with this. Taking extra base is always better. By the logic of keeping the hole open for the next batter, why would anyone leg out a double?
If he was successful over 80% of the time then it makes sense. The combination of being afraid of getting hurt, taking small leads, and not getting great jumps doesn't look like he'll be getting to that 80%, but I don't have a free burger riding on it.
jfinnegan said:
ml1 said:
I don't agree with this. Taking extra base is always better. By the logic of keeping the hole open for the next batter, why would anyone leg out a double?
If he was successful over 80% of the time then it makes sense. The combination of being afraid of getting hurt, taking small leads, and not getting great jumps doesn't look like he'll be getting to that 80%, but I don't have a free burger riding on it.
definitely success % is important. But we're talking about one of the fastest players in MLB, someone who has worked very hard on improving his game, plus bases a few inches closer next year. I expect him to add a decent number of SBs to his game next year in a smart way. I'm prepared to be wrong. But if I am, I doubt it will be because Nimmo didn't give it his best effort.
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
he has the tools to succeed in MLB. He may end up being a bargain at that price.