Oct 21
It’s now time to move on. The Madoff scandal appears to have no impact on the Mets current or future decisions. In a release from ESPN:
So now everyone can go back to blaming the Mets struggles on the Wilpons not spending their money instead of not having any money. Let the Coupon talk begin again. (OK so maybe I should not have posted this, or maybe I should point out the already enormous payroll.)
MLBTradeRumors
A Look At The Mets Milb Affiliate... { I've long been as outspoken... } – May 18, 11:33 PMA Look At Who’s Hot & Who’s... { But but.. . I don't... } – May 18, 11:28 PM
A Look At Who’s Hot & Who’s... { When McHugh arrived on the... } – May 18, 9:57 PM
Ike Davis Says He Probably Has "A... { Baseball is a results oriented... } – May 18, 8:06 PM
Ike Davis Says He Probably Has "A... { If Flores was a 1B... } – May 18, 6:46 PM
88 comments
QnsNative718
10/21/2009-9:21am at 9:21 am (UTC -4)
Damn. One less scapegoat.
trs86
10/21/2009-9:50am at 9:50 am (UTC -4)
At this point, the only scapegoat I and I say I can have is injury. We can all point to how we think this team was faulty from the beginning but we have no proof. The only proof we do have is that for 13 days in May we were in first place and then we lost Delgado, Cora, Church, Reyes, Pagan, Putz, Maine, Beltran….
Kingman 26
10/21/2009-10:02am at 10:02 am (UTC -4)
I agree with this 100%.
The more the rancid year passes into memory, the more obvious this becomes.
If anything, we were in first and close to first for longer than could have been expected with all of the injuries.
I still think Jerry is a clown, but I do think 2009 was lost 100% due to injuries. Jerry just made it worse.
GravediggerHebner
10/21/2009-12:26pm at 12:26 pm (UTC -4)
“I and I?”
Are you Rastafarian TRS?
Oh and nice Cuban Missile Crisis reference.
trs86
10/21/2009-12:44pm at 12:44 pm (UTC -4)
Social Studies teacher here. And the Mets are much more similar to the Bay of Pigs.
Kingman 26
10/21/2009-10:04am at 10:04 am (UTC -4)
Welcome back Chest!
Did you hear that we missed the playoffs again? Just barely; one game at the end again….
prismo
10/21/2009-9:35am at 9:35 am (UTC -4)
You need to edit this post trs. That espn article is SLANDEROUS. They didn’t tell nearly the entire story and are only out to make the Mets look bad and get a “scoop” for extra hits.
I’m beyond pissed about this and I bet the Wilpons are too!
The Wilpons did make money, but (I believe) they were told that they had made much, much more and budgeted their finances with the money they were told they had made. Since none of this was physical cash while invested, in a philosophical sense they certainly lost a ton of money due to Madoff’s lies.
Not only that, check out this comment from someone over at ESPN:
“I wish i could find the filing because the article neglects to mention how much phantom income he reported over the years. That income was taxed at 45%(Fed/NY) So without that information as well as the timing of the gains, it’s impossible to actually say if he came out ahead.”
This is a complete BS story and the Wilpons should sue ESPN for slander.
prismo
10/21/2009-9:41am at 9:41 am (UTC -4)
Okay I’ve calmed down a bit. NOTHING gets me more peeved in the sports world than ESPN’s sensationalist stories (about any team, not just the Mets).
The two potential “wrongs” in the article that I listed aren’t 100%, but ESPN doesn’t even address these possibilities. They just wrote what makes the Wilpons sound as bad as possible.
prismo
10/21/2009-9:43am at 9:43 am (UTC -4)
Meanwhile their own Steve Phillips is caught in a sex scandal and of course they don’t mention it (both pieces of “news” seem equally TMZ-worthy, don’t they?).
Apparently Phillies is being suspended from ESPN though, which is awesome.
Kingman 26
10/21/2009-9:48am at 9:48 am (UTC -4)
Saw this story the other day….and in addition, I believe this info was from just one (or a few) of the many Wilpon-related entities which had Madoff-related accounts. I am almost sure that this was NOT the only Madoff account.
Like EVERY piece of info we receive about ANY story like this, it is always going to be exaggerated, underestimated, overestimated, massaged, or just plain made up.
Sure, maybe they made money through this one entity, and lost some at another, but what Prismo noted is absolutely correct—on the one hand, sure, they may have budgeted for the future based on gains which never existed, but on the other hand is of course the fact that this is not the same as “losing” real money they already had.
The whole story, like every major US financial scandal, will never be told, and every scrap of info like this exists for the sole reason of ESPN getting more ratings in their newly sensationalistic way of doing things.
Even if true, it may be totally negated by something we may hear next week or next year about another Wilpon Madoff account which “lost” lots of money.
trs86
10/21/2009-9:52am at 9:52 am (UTC -4)
But I believe them in the fact that it has not nor will it impact their budget for the Mets. I am sure that money is set aside and not gambled with.
trs86
10/21/2009-9:53am at 9:53 am (UTC -4)
How is it slanderous. NET from Madoff they may have made a profit. Yes they could have been thinking they made MORE money but again, I have no reason to believe that any money they were budgeting to spend on the Mets was ever invested anyway.
trs86
10/21/2009-9:55am at 9:55 am (UTC -4)
And as I said, still the point remains, it is now time to move on and never mention this story again when it comes to effects on the METS budget.
Kingman 26
10/21/2009-10:00am at 10:00 am (UTC -4)
While this may have been the case thus far, this story–even if true—means nearly zero at this point.
Again, this was TWO accounts the Wilpons have with Madoff—was this ALL of their Madoff money, and hence where the numbers being tossed about in the media about hundreds of millions came from, OR are there more Madoff accounts we have not heard the details of, where they lost many tens or more millions?
trs86
10/21/2009-10:01am at 10:01 am (UTC -4)
But again, why should we believe that it has impacted their budget on the Mets at all?
prismo
10/21/2009-10:03am at 10:03 am (UTC -4)
Who said we should believe that? Only some of the beat writers it seems. The Wilpons certainly never said it would impact their budget.
Kingman 26
10/21/2009-10:04am at 10:04 am (UTC -4)
I don’t think we should believe absolutely anything at this point regarding Madoff or the Wilpons.
When we see what Fred and Jeff spend this offseason, that will be a time to start believing and making judgments in my opinion.
trs86
10/21/2009-10:10am at 10:10 am (UTC -4)
What if they don’t? What if they some how miss Lackey due to someone giving him a Zito contract or Holliday because of Boras? Will we then go right back and blame the Madoff scandal? I for one think it never had anything to do with it. They are too smart to gamble their house money away. If I go to Vegas to gamble I am not going to gamble my mortgage money away. If I did then I would not be much of a business person to start with.
stickguy
10/21/2009-10:09am at 10:09 am (UTC -4)
I don’t care about their scam fund invelstments. Those, they deserve to lose. pigs(?) get fat, hogs get slaughtered. something like that…
A bigger concern will be if the Mets revenues decline. That is what likely drives the Mets budget. And if ratings on SNY fall, and ticket sales tank (and I wouldn’t be surprised to see them way down this year, plus they lowered prices), then you could see the payroll taling a hit.
probably have ti figure that into the debate about whether to go all in for 2010, or be sensible and build with 2011+ in mind! Enough fans already seem ticked off at the team, so if they are going to have a transitional year, it better be real clear that they are building toward a better future!
trs86
10/21/2009-10:13am at 10:13 am (UTC -4)
Or you can go out and show the fans that you want them back by lowering ticket prices and going all in (whatever that means).
stickguy
10/21/2009-10:44am at 10:44 am (UTC -4)
the point was, if 2010 goes badly, they may face a real revenue shortfall that will directly impact the team budget going forward (as opposed to any theoretical aper losses from Madoff).
and “all in” is trading anything passing for prospects for fading big name “stars” hoping to win, or at least suck fans into buying tickets before the team falls apart, with no worries about next year.
stickguy
10/21/2009-10:20am at 10:20 am (UTC -4)
expanding on my last post (about balancing 2010/2011)- I know that teams can change quickly , but I did look at the phillies contracts/payroll. They are going to have a pretty big jump in 2010 (sinc emost of the team will be back intact, and the guys they have are due for quite a bit of raises, more than likely offsetting Brett myers leaving (that stiff made the same as ollie this year!). Quite a few backloaded contracts.
And in 2011, even more backloading, plus the only current SPs left will be happ and hamels.
ANyway, I no longer remember what the hell my point was, except maybe don’t expect the Phillie dynasty to last forever! And a couple of injuries, and it will be Utley in his 30s surrounded by a bunch of rookies.
trs86
10/21/2009-10:27am at 10:27 am (UTC -4)
Question is, if they can continue to win, can they increase ticket prices and other sources of revenue to accommodate the increase?
As for the Mets, I still fill that this is a make or break year for them. To me, if you don’t win with a healthy core this year, then it’s time to trade Reyes, Beltran and possibly others. You would also have a new GM and manager/coaching staff. So to me go out and try and plug as many holes as possible through FA, don’t be afraid to trade prospects and try and win it all next year. What you lose in prospects could be regained through trades after 2010 or through arbitration offers. Example a trade for Halladay will cost prospects but you can always offer him arbitration and net 2 picks.
stickguy
10/21/2009-10:55am at 10:55 am (UTC -4)
2 things
1), the phillies IMO are pretty much maxed out. They don’t have an SNY like network, and have sold out CBP every game the last couple of years (or nearly so). This fan base also isn’t going to tollerate significant jumps in ticket prices (a few buck sure, but not to met-like levels). So, they are very likely close to maxed on on revenue (although being in the PS helps!) Very easy for them to spike the payroll, and if the team has a bad year, be in bad shape money wise.
As to the Mets, I disagree about the “core”. I do agree that if the team is relatively healthy but does not do well, Omar, Jerry, etc. are all gone.
But, why trade your best players (the assumption being, of course, it is for prospects) and go into a full rebuild mode, if they produced? If reyes and beltran have big years, but the rest of the team is nt good enough, do you trade them, while keeping the underperformers? Just saying break up the core is shortsighted IMO. I would trade Reyes in teh right package, but beltran will be the guy to keep and offer arb then let him walk.
and don’t expect that comp picks for Halladay will replace what you have to trade to get him, certainly not in the near future.
if you can trade a hurt A ball arm + 3 aging semi-prospects for him (like the phils did for Lee, or what the mets did for Santana), could be worth the risk. But if Toronto holds out for the huge package, you are replacing Davis, Mejia, ++ with a sandwich pick and a #2. besides, Omar would give him a 5/120 extension, so they can pay him 25mill/year to be keving brown in another year or two.
Kingman 26
10/21/2009-11:34am at 11:34 am (UTC -4)
Yeah, the Phils are one stubbed toe away from finishing behind the Nats next year. We have no idea how much they are making, and do not forget that teams make a LOT during the postseason, and also that next year’s TV ad revenue is being determined by this year’s results. And their fans–who really do exist–may very well gladly pay significantly higher prices for tix if they continue to see contention every year. And from what management has done the last few years, there is nothing to suggest that this won’t continue. Blanton, Ibanez, Pedro, Lee. They will surely do something similar next year.
As for us, if we don’t make the postseason next year, everything will be blown up. Everything, and it should. Four straight years out of the postseason with our payroll and roster of stars?
I have firmly been a “build AROUND” the core guy, but if we miss it again like 2007 and 2008, or if we have another injury-plagued season like 2009, 2010 will definitely be the last time around for this core if they don’t make the playoffs.
I would absolutely trade any prospects for Roy Halladay. I would not trade Reyes, Wright, Beltran, Santana, or KRod now. One more year, and at least make the playoffs, then see how we do and evaluate 2011 from there.
stickguy
10/21/2009-11:57am at 11:57 am (UTC -4)
so you are good to go if they trade every prospect of value for halladay, and get Dye to play LF, and that’s it?
Kingman 26
10/21/2009-1:11pm at 1:11 pm (UTC -4)
Don’t want Dye or any aging vets who have made their zillions and won their ring.
Would trade any prospect for Halladay. Trying to trade for guys like him are what you have and overhype prospects for.
Definitely need to see one or two new bullpen arms.
But if we get Halladay, which we probably won’t, just that one guy plus everyone being healthy, plus one good new bullpen arm makes me feel decent about 2010.
But make no mistake, these Phils are going to be good for a while. That’s why we must make a serious acquisition like Roy.
trs86
10/21/2009-1:15pm at 1:15 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t think he means EVERY as much as ANY. Big difference. Who in our farm would you say, NOPE can’t trade them for Halladay?
stickguy
10/21/2009-1:54pm at 1:54 pm (UTC -4)
do you stop at any point? There will be competition, and Toronto will only seemingly trade him if they hit the motherlode. So if prospects dont matter (except yo ucant call them up or trade them elsewhere once they are gone), when toronto keeps asking for 1 more, do you keep saying yes?
And the point about dye was, after they blow the off season on Halladay and his extension, when they only plug in someone like Dye to fix the other holes, is that good enough?
trs86
10/21/2009-10:35am at 10:35 am (UTC -4)
Anyone want to help me out here?
El manager de los Tigres del Licey, Dave Jauss viajó a Nueva York y fue entrevistado para el puesto de manager con los Metros, según se confió este martes a Impactodeportivo.com.do.
No se estableció si para dirigir arriba o en las menores.
Jauss viajó el lunes temprano, y ya está de regreso para el juego de este martes contra las Aguilas.
Hay otra cosa que no se pudo establecer:
¿Fue llamado por Omar Minaya?.
La inquietud es porque se comenta que la plana mayor de NY estarÃa haciendo algunas gestiones por encima de Minaya, quien también podrÃa perder su puesto en un futuro cercano.
Lo que sà está claro es que Jauss viajó a NY y fue entrevistado por el equipo de los Metros.
I tried a translator but it said they were going to launch him and that he was interviewing for manager. LOL.
Kingman 26
10/21/2009-10:43am at 10:43 am (UTC -4)
From Freetranslation.com:
The manager of the Tigers of the Licey, Dave Jauss travelled to New York and was interviewed for the position of manager with the Metro, according to this Tuesday was trusted to Impactodeportivo. com. gave.
Itself it was not established if to direct up or in the smaller.
Jauss travelled early Monday, and already is of return for the play of this Tuesday against the Aguilas.
There is another thing that itself could not be established:
It was called by Omar Minaya?.
The anxiety is because is commented that the greater page of NY would be doing some managements above Minaya, who would also be able to lose its position in a nearby future.
What yes is clear is that Jauss travelled to NY and was interviewed by the team of the Metro.
trs86
10/21/2009-11:17am at 11:17 am (UTC -4)
LOL, that’s even worse. But thanks anyway.
Kingman 26
10/21/2009-11:27am at 11:27 am (UTC -4)
Well, it clearly is saying that the guy was brought to NY for an interview, they are not sure for manager at what level, or if Minaya called the meeting.
They are wondering which level the guy was being interviewed for and who above Omar might have called the meeting.
trs86
10/21/2009-11:36am at 11:36 am (UTC -4)
Yeah, I am guessing it means in some type of managerial role such as minor league supervisor. Not the manager.
CaseStreet
10/21/2009-11:47am at 11:47 am (UTC -4)
nice job, Kingman
Kingman 26
10/21/2009-12:59pm at 12:59 pm (UTC -4)
Hey, I might be just a plain old white guy, but I did take 5 years of Espanol in HS and I also took it every year of college!
CaseStreet
10/21/2009-11:49am at 11:49 am (UTC -4)
The title should read, “Can we all shut up about Madoff now?”
CaseStreet
10/21/2009-11:54am at 11:54 am (UTC -4)
re:
1. core – Can’t breat them up even if they don’t make it next year. I’ve never heard of a big market team doing that. I understand a small market team trading their star player that will hit FA and can’t afford him anymore, but that’s not the Mets. Omar has to get strong support players to complement the core, not question marks.
2. tickets – a 10% discount is nice but a 25% discount would’ve been much better, especialy considering they screw around with the packages and some packages didn’t have priority for playoff tickets (rumor?)
3. Let’s Go Mets!
stickguy
10/21/2009-12:02pm at 12:02 pm (UTC -4)
1) well, if next off season the break up the core talk is spreading like wildfire, then you can pretty much bet it won’t be Omar any where near the process!
2) I can really see season tix holders (the “little” guy types) dropping plans next year, after having to eat lots of tickets, or getting a pittance from stub hub. Might as well just but the single games you want, and save money. Especially if you aren’t getting post season ticket rights, which IMO is the primary reason to even get season tickets!
And who knows how many compaines might have to drop their tickets for financial reasons, regardless of how the team performs?
3) Sounds good! Looking forward to 2010, with lots of new faces. Of course, first time I see or hear manuel, all the good buzz will fade away.
CaseStreet
10/21/2009-12:43pm at 12:43 pm (UTC -4)
Yeah, I had to eat more than half my tix. No more.
trs86
10/21/2009-12:15pm at 12:15 pm (UTC -4)
Really, you have never heard of a team like Boston moving on from their big name players and rebuilding in the same year? Or the Angels? Or even the Yankees? Some of those they let go in FA sure.
But look, if a full healthy core can’t win (make the playoffs) in 2010 why would we think they could in 2011? We will most likely have LESS payroll flexibility in 2011 than we do even this year.
CaseStreet
10/21/2009-12:53pm at 12:53 pm (UTC -4)
No, I’ve never heard of Boston or Yankees or Angels getting rid of ALL their star players at the same time. Yes, they’ll let some guys sign elsewhere like Giambi and K-Rod, but not the ENTIRE CORE. I may be wrong, but I haven’t heard of it.
Our core are star players, if they’re not in the post season and are playing like star players (not injured and not sucking) then its on Omar for not getting a good support staff (like starting pitching in 06 and the bullpen in 08).
trs86
10/21/2009-1:01pm at 1:01 pm (UTC -4)
The core will almost certainly be broken up if we don’t win this year.
trs86
10/21/2009-1:01pm at 1:01 pm (UTC -4)
And since when did Beltran and Reyes equate the entire core.
wannybackstra
10/21/2009-1:05pm at 1:05 pm (UTC -4)
and the only star players I recall them letting go were expensive veteran free agents or impending free agents (tex). i don’t recall any of these teams trying to trade Derek jeter, Kevin Youkilis or Vladimir Guerrero in the offseason in an attempt to somehow get better.
trs86
10/21/2009-1:08pm at 1:08 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t think you can compare Beltran to Youkilis. But again, you guys know as well as I do that if the core does not make the playoffs this year it will be split up. Does not matter what we think. I for one think that if we do not make it that we will need to try and shake things up.
trs86
10/21/2009-1:11pm at 1:11 pm (UTC -4)
If Omar goes out and gets Lackey/Mid-rotation guy, a guy for LF and some bullpen help and we still don’t win?
We would have went through 2 managers, 1 GM, 100′s of coaches (slightly exaggerated) and 4 years of having the highest payroll and some of the NL’s biggest stars without a playoff appearance. What do you change then? When does the blame start pointing towards the players such as Reyes who has a BA of around .200 in September?
wannybackstra
10/21/2009-1:17pm at 1:17 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t know whether “the core” will return if the Mets don’t win this year but I suspect it will.
What I am disputing is your assertion that these other teams have shipped out some of their best players in the past in order to somehow get better.
The only examples I can think of are allowing expensive veteran free agents to walk, i.e. K-Rod or Pettite or the midseason trade of Mark Texieria, an impending free agent they would not be able to retain.
I don’t see any examples in any of these teams’ recent histories to suggest thet would trade their established veteran star players in attempts to get better.
trs86
10/21/2009-1:19pm at 1:19 pm (UTC -4)
I am not saying, and if I did I misspoke, that these teams have traded their stars as much as they have agreed that they are not getting them where they need to go and they need to move on.
stickguy
10/21/2009-1:51pm at 1:51 pm (UTC -4)
probably the closest example of what TRS is talking about was manny, but he also was going to be a FA, right?
CaseStreet
10/21/2009-1:57pm at 1:57 pm (UTC -4)
and the FO hated him
trs86
10/21/2009-2:37pm at 2:37 pm (UTC -4)
Do you think the Angels will pony up to keep Lackey? I don’t see it. Will they for Vlad? Did they for Tex or Krod? Were those guys not part of their core? Are they not a large market team?
wannybackstra
10/21/2009-2:44pm at 2:44 pm (UTC -4)
That’s a lot different than trading them while they’re still signed in an attempt to somehow get better.
Those scenarios were apples and oranges to what you’re suggesting.
And the fact they are from a large city does not mean they have an unlimited budget to resign all of their free agents. Only one team was going to able to sign Texeira for the money he received and no matter how large Los Angeles County is it wasn’t going to be the Angels.
And no, he wasn’t part of the core of their team — he was a trade deadline acquisition for the stretch run. He was on the team for two months.
wannybackstra
10/21/2009-2:48pm at 2:48 pm (UTC -4)
Reyes, when healthy, is among the best bargains in the league.
There’s no way to compare trading him at age 27 (or how ever old he will be) with a year or more left on his contract at reasonable money to resigning free agents like K-Rod, Texeira and Lackey who all received (or will) top dollar elsewhere.
What you’re suggesting would have been more akin to trading Guerrero or Lackey after 2006 (in the midst of team control) for failing to make the playoffs.
It’s a good thing they didn’t, eh?
trs86
10/21/2009-2:52pm at 2:52 pm (UTC -4)
So you don’t think they would consider someone as good as Tex as part of the core. If we traded for him would we not anoint him as part of the core?
Yes there are differences. I agree. It might be green apples to red apples but to me still similar in the fact that you identify who is going to help you get to the next level and who is not. If the Mets miss the post season for 4 straight years with this group, healthy next year, then don’t you think it will be time for a change? Also, did you not think the Beltran for Ellsbury and DiceK was an option? Would it make us significantly worse if we use that extra 8M to improve the team in other areas?
trs86
10/21/2009-2:55pm at 2:55 pm (UTC -4)
So who will be to blame next year if we don’t make the playoffs? Omar again? Reyes will have 1 year left on his contract at 9M. I would say that is still a bargain yes. However, what will his value be in a trade?
I am not saying go into full rebuilding mode. I am saying that the core will be broken up and I for one think that if we don’t make the playoffs this year it should be broken up because something IS broken.
wannybackstra
10/21/2009-2:59pm at 2:59 pm (UTC -4)
Are you avoiding the point on purpose?
The point is that the Angels didn’t make a conscious decision to get rid of these players. Free agency left them little choice. These guys were going to the highest bidder.
It had nothing to do with whether they identified these guys as important to their team. They couldn’t have them if they want to.
Did the Angels let them go because they thought they’d get better without them? Again, no.
You might view the Angels decision not to spend as much as the Yankees on Texeira (who outbid themselves to seal the deal) or the Mets for K-Rod as a consciously allowing these players to go but that assumes they had they the financial wherewithall to retain them.
trs86
10/21/2009-3:02pm at 3:02 pm (UTC -4)
Wasn’t there a report that they did not want Krod back?
If they let Vlad go will it be because of salary or time to move on?
Again, no it does not fit perfectly. You have other examples with guys like Nomar and Manny as well. Yes those guys were either FA or pending but don’t you think Boston could have kept either?
trs86
10/21/2009-3:03pm at 3:03 pm (UTC -4)
And we do know the Angels had payroll flexibility assuming they had the right player. Otherwise they could not have offered Tex any money.
trs86
10/21/2009-3:04pm at 3:04 pm (UTC -4)
Or brought in Kazmir.
wannybackstra
10/21/2009-4:46pm at 4:46 pm (UTC -4)
Last year they paid a pro-rated portion of Texiera’s 12.5 million. I’d say payroll flexibility may apply to roughly $5.75 million but not to the $180 million he made in free agency.
I’m sure they would have kept him for $12.5 more.
The angels are on the hook for about $18m for Kazmir over the next two years. About half of what K-Rod makes as a Met over the next three years.
I’m sure Anaheim would have kept him for $9m a year.
Again, none of these guys were purposely let go in an attempt to somehow get better. In fact, they didn’t get anything in return other than draft picks.
What you’re suggesting is that the Mets trade players under their control for other players because you think they will somehow trade for better players.
It’s not remotely the same. But somehow you are convinced that the Angels could have paid Tex $180m and chose not to because they thought they would be better off with 2 draft picks.
wannybackstra
10/21/2009-4:49pm at 4:49 pm (UTC -4)
You may recall that Manny was voted off the island by his teammates after dogging it and pouting about his contract.
trs86
10/21/2009-4:53pm at 4:53 pm (UTC -4)
Is it possible in the proposed by me trade of Beltran for Ellsbury and Dice K and freeing up 6M that we could be better next year?
wannybackstra
10/21/2009-5:05pm at 5:05 pm (UTC -4)
Again, I’m not disputing the strategy, I’m disputing your justification that the Yankees and Angels have done the same thing.
If the Yankees lose this year because of their bullpen and poor baserunning by Nick Swisher and then trade A-Rod to the Mets for K-Rod and Pagan (the joke will be on them with Pagan’s baserunning) then I will agree.
You seemed to have agreed that you misspoke originally, but you have gone back to that position.
trs86
10/21/2009-5:09pm at 5:09 pm (UTC -4)
I still think there is some precedence that teams will move a star to shake things up or to fill more holes. I don’t have time to research that point so I give in for today.
wannybackstra
10/21/2009-5:11pm at 5:11 pm (UTC -4)
I’m sure you’ll find it. But it won’t be with the recent Red Sox, Yanks or Angels teams.
trs86
10/21/2009-5:18pm at 5:18 pm (UTC -4)
I guess because Nomar was approaching FA that does not count. Even though they tried to get Aroid to replace him the year before.
CaseStreet
10/21/2009-3:19pm at 3:19 pm (UTC -4)
point is, even if the Mets don’t make the playoffs again, there’s no reason to “trade Reyes, Beltran and possibly others”.
How is it possible to blame guys that continuously perform at All-Star level?
No, you continue to build around the core.
If they can’t afford to extend them, that’s a different story.
trs86
10/21/2009-3:22pm at 3:22 pm (UTC -4)
So it’s always the other player and never the core? Sometimes you have to make a change. If Reyes can net you a few players that can fill other holes or prospects you can spin to fill other holes? Same with Beltran. Are we saying that we should just let them walk and just get 2 picks from arbitration? Do we really see both staying with the Mets if they still have not made the playoffs?
How about when Reyes hits .200 with an OPS under .700 for September every year?
trs86
10/21/2009-3:24pm at 3:24 pm (UTC -4)
How long are they the core anyway? If Omar goes and gets Lackey and a LF will it then be not having a setup man? Will it be Murphy? Castillo? Eventually you run out of scapegoats and have to blame the stars.
CaseStreet
10/21/2009-3:59pm at 3:59 pm (UTC -4)
But why blame the stars? If they continue to play at the top of their positions, what more do you want from them?
So what if Reyes has sucked in Sept.? He’s fantastic the rest of the year. Do you just dismiss his contributions for the rest of the year?
Sometimes things just don’t work out. Sometimes they do.
Last yr the Yanks didn’t make the playoffs. Did the Yanks trade A-Rod or Jeter, no they continued to build around them.
We’ll just have to disagree. IMO, the Mets got players star players in key positions. As long as they continue to play like stars, you keep those guys and build around them.
And no I’m not saying them walk. If it’s decided they can’t be extended then you can try a trade if it doesn’t hurt your chances for that year.
trs86
10/21/2009-5:01pm at 5:01 pm (UTC -4)
Considering that Wright Delagdo and Beltran have all had impressive Septembers in 2007 and 2008 and Reyes did not and the ole saying of as Reyes goes so go the Mets… yes it matters that he sucks in September. What is it? Focus, conditioning?
And I can’t take the sometimes things just don’t work out but so many times. 2007 happen, 2008 happen, 2009 happen, if it happens in 2010 do we just still chalk it up to Omar and luck?
GravediggerHebner
10/21/2009-3:54pm at 3:54 pm (UTC -4)
I have less of a stance on whether core members of any team should be traded away while that team is simultaneously trying to seriously contend and more of a stance that this particular Met team with it’s specific front office should not trade it’s core players except in the instance of the team not contending repeatedly combined with those players’ pending free agency.
I feel this way because I have no faith/trust that the current front office would handle the delicate balance of trading “top” players while also contending well.
If whatever roster the 2010 Mets ultimately field remains largely healthy yet fails to contend even that would not meet my requirement that the team fail to contend “repeatedly” because with the exception of 2009 with it’s Guinness Book level injuries the team has contended. Therefore next year would be the first year of this core being healthy and not contending.
Should the 2010 team not contend, and should the 2011 team play poorly in “the first half” then, with the pending free agency of it’s core players, is when I’d expect to see at least one if not more members of the core traded, but not until then. Until then I believe the core should be maintained and the focus should be building around it (which unfortunately this front office has ultimately failed to do).
All signs point to a need for a new front office (or a miracle that will renew my faith in the current one).
Related:
Beltran’s contract expires end of 2011
Perez – end of ’11
KRod – end of ’11 (option for ’12)
Castillo – end of ’11
Reyes – end of ’10 (option for ’11)
Only Johan (end of ’13, option for ’14) and Wright (end of ’12, option for ’13) go beyond 2011. Essentially this team “expires” in 2011.
stickguy
10/21/2009-4:20pm at 4:20 pm (UTC -4)
very much like the phillies.
maybe the rule should be, no more using the word “core”? I think that muddies the arguement up a bit, since I’m not sure everyone is using the same definition!
So, let’s just say the Mets should (per TRS) look to trade one of their best players in order to change the mix, and bring in different good players? Either via that trade, or FA, or a cascade of trades.
And frnakly, they should evaluate the team that way every year. Make no one “untouchable” (which logically you would have to be to be in the core, right?) Then, figure out if you can make the team better by trading player X, palyer Y, etc.
probably the math won’t work for most of these guys, and of course the FO will take into account how popular some guys are (though they probably shouldn’t care. ANother lesson to learn from the Red Sox).
The angels also were making value judgements with their FAs. They decided that the FAs weren’t worth the money, and let them go.
I also think they felt guys were past their prime (K Rod, and vlad certainly, maybe figgins, and others). Combine that with the price/years, and they cut the cord.
The Sox did the same analysis with Nomar and Manny (a true special case!), although Theo decided to trade nomar before FA. same concept though.
trs86
10/21/2009-4:55pm at 4:55 pm (UTC -4)
Yeah, I am not saying trade them right now. Although, under the right circumstances yes I would. I am saying that if Omar goes out and gets a mid-rotation starter, LF and a bullpen guy and we STILL don’t make the playoffs we are comfortable saying that it’s because we don’t have enough to surround the core?
trs86
10/21/2009-5:03pm at 5:03 pm (UTC -4)
Can you convince me that having the players in return and the 30M cleared by Beltran and Reyes that if used wisely we would be a worse team in 2011?
trs86
10/21/2009-5:04pm at 5:04 pm (UTC -4)
Assuming we still did not make the playoffs in 2010.
wannybackstra
10/21/2009-5:07pm at 5:07 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t see how any one can answer this question until they know what was received in the trade or done with the leftover money.
trs86
10/21/2009-5:11pm at 5:11 pm (UTC -4)
As I said, LOL. Wisely. I have no idea what other teams will offer. If Reyes is a stud we tank and look to deal him then we may get a lot. If Reyes and we tank I would assume it is a moot point. Beltran on the other hand, I think is gone if we don’t win. I just get that sense.
wannybackstra
10/21/2009-5:22pm at 5:22 pm (UTC -4)
Can’t Grave and Case ask you the same question? If Omar wisely provides better support players for the current stars, won’t the team be better?
Afterall, their argument all along has been that the fault of this team has been the lack of wisely selected support players.
You’ve said yourself dozens of times that you rarely see stars for stars trades anymore. Most likely if the Mets trade these guys they would predominantly be offered prospects in return.
But as we discussed the other day, I’d be open to any deal that made the team better; I’m just not sure they’ll be able to get better by trading one of these guys.
trs86
10/21/2009-5:25pm at 5:25 pm (UTC -4)
I am not sure either. I am not even saying that I want them to. I am saying that I think if we don’t win next year then one of them will be like it or not and I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing pending on what is done in return.
And yes at THIS point (not yelling LOL) I think the problem is the surrounding cast. However, if we get the surrounding cast of Lackey and uh Byrd and Gonzalez (example) and we still don’t win? Is it then because we don’t have a star at 1B?
rustyjr
10/21/2009-5:27pm at 5:27 pm (UTC -4)
grilli was released by the rangers today
rustyjr
10/21/2009-5:16pm at 5:16 pm (UTC -4)
my question is why would the Mets be obligated to pay that money back ? I mean im sure there are plenty of people through the years that participated in this scam withdrew money that technically wasn’t theirs without that knowledge
trs86
10/21/2009-5:22pm at 5:22 pm (UTC -4)
Maybe Wanny can help but from what I understand there is a loop hole somewhere that allows those parties to sue those who made money.
rustyjr
10/21/2009-5:24pm at 5:24 pm (UTC -4)
Jeffy will have to crack open the piggy bank thatt holds his Bar Mitzvah money !!
Kingman 26
10/21/2009-5:36pm at 5:36 pm (UTC -4)
You think Madoff gave Jeffy cash or shares of stock as a Bar Mitzvah gift??
rustyjr
10/21/2009-5:37pm at 5:37 pm (UTC -4)
nahh he gave him a gold plated fountain pen and the first ever edition of playboy
wannybackstra
10/21/2009-6:49pm at 6:49 pm (UTC -4)
Beats me. Have nothing to do with securities law. If I had to make an educated guess it would be either of:
1. that the purported profits would be viewed as ill gotten gains resulting from fraudulent trade;
2. the Wilpons would still be whole if they forfeited this money and it’s the only way to make the others whole, as well.
But I have no real idea (and I don’t necessarily agree with either of these guesses). I do know that there is a dispute as to what defines net losses.