The R.A. Dickey trade really perplexes me for many different reasons. On one hand I completely understand and appreciate selling high on a 38 year old pitcher on a team that is not going to be in contention this year. One the other hand, I do not understand or appreciate the teams unwillingness to address the current Major League roster and add value it.
We all know why we are here, so no need to rewrite history about financial issues coupled with a high underperforming payroll. What I wanted to look at is, whether the long term impact of this trade is worth the short term hit. Unfortunately I believe it is in the Front Office’s eyes.
It’s all about revenue. The more revenue, the happier Jeff and Fred Wilpon are. The happier Jeff and Fred are, the more willing they are to invest in their product. The main way for the Mets to get revenue is to get fannies in the seats, and have these fannies buy things.
The first avenue I walked down in writing this article was to see if Dickey’s starts had any impact on the overall attendance numbers. In general they did not. Besides the last couple starts where he was going for 20 wins, the games right before and after his starts had the same relative attendance figure. The last couple games, his starts averaged a 5k bounce. That bounce is significant but it would be naive to think that this trend would be consistent going through the daily rigors of a season.
My next focus is probably where I was enlightened the most. Below is a chart that shows the Mets record, attendance and payroll. I then went through and divided the payroll figure with the attendance number to estimate how much the team needed to raise per person that walks through the door in order to cover payroll. Of course they need to raise more money (and they do through TV/Radio contracts) to cover other expenses like keeping the light bulbs lit, but since we are not privy to those numbers, let’s keep it simple. I don’t feel this missing information negatively affects this theory as long as we understand it is very likely that the team needs to raise a little more than what I am representing.
| Year | Place in NL East | Attendance | Game Average | Payroll | Money needed to cover payroll per attendee |
| 2012 | 4 | 2,242,803 | 27,689 | $91,621,424 | $40.85 |
| 2011 | 4 | 2,352,596 | 29,044 | $118,847,309 | $50.52 |
| 2010 | 4 | 2,559,738 | 31,602 | $134,422,942 | $52.51 |
| 2009 | 4 | 3,168,571 | 39,118 | $149,373,987 | $47.14 |
| 2008 | 2 | 4,042,045 | 49,902 | $137,793,376 | $34.09 |
| 2007 | 2 | 3,853,955 | 47,580 | $115,231,663 | $29.90 |
| 2006 | 1 | 3,379,535 | 41,723 | $101,084,963 | $29.91 |
| 2005 | 3 | 2,829,929 | 34,937 | $101,305,821 | $35.80 |
| 2004 | 4 | 2,318,951 | 28,629 | $102,035,970 | $44.00 |
| 2003 | 5 | 2,140,599 | 26,757 | $117,176,429 | $54.74 |
| 2002 | 5 | 2,804,838 | 34,628 | $94,633,593 | $33.74 |
| 2001 | 3 | 2,658,330 | 32,819 | $93,174,428 | $35.05 |
| 2000 | 2 | 2,820,530 | 34,821 | $79,509,776 | $28.19 |
| 1999 | 2 | 2,725,668 | 33,650 | $68,852,092 | $25.26 |
| 1998 | 2 | 2,287,948 | 28,246 | $52,247,999 | $22.84 |
| 1997 | 3 | 1,766,174 | 21,805 | $39,800,400 | $22.53 |
| 1996 | 4 | 1,588,323 | 19,609 | $24,479,500 | $15.41 |
| 1995 | 2 | 1,273,183 | 17,683 | $27,674,992 | $21.74 |
| 1994 | 3 | 1,151,471 | 21,726 | $30,956,583 | $26.88 |
| 1993 | 7 | 1,873,183 | 23,126 | $39,043,667 | $20.84 |
| 1992 | 5 | 1,779,534 | 21,970 | $44,602,002 | $25.06 |
| 1991 | 5 | 2,284,484 | 27,860 | $32,590,001 | $14.27 |
| 1990 | 2 | 2,732,745 | 33,738 | $21,922,834 | $8.02 |
| 1989 | 2 | 2,918,710 | 36,033 | $19,885,071 | $6.81 |
| 1988 | 1 | 3,055,445 | 38,193 | $15,401,814 | $5.04 |
| 1987 | 2 | 3,034,129 | 37,458 | $13,846,714 | $4.56 |
| 1986 | 1 | 2,767,601 | 34,168 | $15,393,714 | $5.56 |
| 1985 | 2 | 2,761,601 | 34,094 | $10,834,762 | $3.92 |
The next thing I want to do is attempt to predict next year’s attendance and payroll to determine what the team needs to earn in order to cover the payroll for 2013. From 2010-2011 attendance average dropped by 2555 people per game and in 2012 attendance dropped by 1355 people per game. So I took the two seasons and averaged them and will say that next season’s attendance will drop by another 1955 people per game. This seems like a steep drop, but when you factor the team losing a Cy Young winner, no significant improvements made to the roster, and ticket prices going up, can this number be far off? Shea Stadium has seen much worse especially during those nasty early nineties seasons.
For payroll on the 25 man roster, it currently stands at roughly 65 million dollars. This is based on the work of our dear author “Mr. North Jersey” from the other day while also factoring in the loss of Dickey’s contract, Thole’s arbitration and the addition of John Buck’s contract. For Buck the rumor is Toronto will cover a portion of it, so I split the 6 million owed to him in half. So what does this get you?
| Year | Place in NL East | Attendance | Game Average | Payroll | Money needed to cover payroll per attendee |
| 2013 | ? | 2084454 | 25734 | $65,130,000 | $31.25 |
To me this is staggering. The amount needed per attendee to cover payroll is reducing $10 per person a year, even though attendance is dropping pretty rapidly.
Remember in early 2012 there was news that the Mets hired CRG Partners to handle their accounting. How much of a hand do you think they have now? This also plays into Sandy’s previous statements that payroll will go up once performance does. Why? Look at years 2006 and 2007 in the above chart. The cost per person is right around where I am projecting next season to be. To me this seems like the sweet spot. Keep payroll in line with attendance and there will be less risk of having poor performing revenue for a given season.
So as I pound my fist and scream Sandy and Fred’s name in the same regard that I scream Satan’s or Khan’s, I need to keep focus on why this is all happening. It’s a business and they need to make money first. If they are so close to the break even line, why go get a guy like Cody Ross, when all it’s going to do is cost more money. Yes the team will perform slightly better, but that performance will have a higher cost to the bottom line, than not having him.
One more thing to review is where the Mets are relative to all of the Major League Teams:
| Team | Attendance | Game Average | Payroll | Money Needed to cover payroll per attendee |
| Chicago White Sox | 1,965,955 | 24,271 | $118,208,000 | $60.13 |
| New York Yankees | 3,542,406 | 43,733 | $195,477,900 | $55.18 |
| Los Angeles Dodgers | 3,324,246 | 41,040 | $173,319,600 | $52.14 |
| Cleveland Indians | 1,603,596 | 19,797 | $78,911,300 | $49.21 |
| Miami Marlins | 2,219,444 | 27,401 | $107,678,000 | $48.52 |
| Philadelphia Phillies | 3,565,718 | 44,021 | $171,501,558 | $48.10 |
| Los Angeles Angels | 3,061,770 | 37,800 | $140,581,000 | $45.91 |
| Seattle Mariners | 1,721,920 | 21,258 | $78,235,600 | $45.44 |
| Detroit Tigers | 3,028,033 | 37,383 | $131,394,000 | $43.39 |
| New York Mets | 2,242,803 | 27,689 | $91,621,424 | $40.85 |
| Tampa Bay Rays | 1,559,681 | 19,255 | $63,368,700 | $40.63 |
| Washington Nationals | 2,370,794 | 29,269 | $90,586,000 | $38.21 |
| Baltimore Orioles | 2,102,240 | 25,954 | $76,704,000 | $36.49 |
| Oakland Athletics | 1,679,013 | 20,729 | $61,202,500 | $36.45 |
| Boston Red Sox | 3,043,003 | 37,568 | $110,386,000 | $36.28 |
| Toronto Blue Jays | 2,099,663 | 25,922 | $75,102,700 | $35.77 |
| Minnesota Twins | 2,776,354 | 34,276 | $99,066,000 | $35.68 |
| Atlanta Braves | 2,420,171 | 29,879 | $86,208,000 | $35.62 |
| Kansas City Royals | 1,739,859 | 21,480 | $61,747,075 | $35.49 |
| Texas Rangers | 3,460,280 | 42,720 | $121,869,900 | $35.22 |
| San Francisco Giants | 3,377,371 | 41,696 | $117,637,350 | $34.83 |
| St. Louis Cardinals | 3,262,109 | 40,273 | $112,071,000 | $34.36 |
| Cincinnati Reds | 2,347,251 | 28,978 | $80,309,500 | $34.21 |
| Milwaukee Brewers | 2,831,385 | 34,955 | $95,717,000 | $33.81 |
| Pittsburgh Pirates | 2,091,918 | 25,826 | $70,077,000 | $33.50 |
| Arizona Diamondbacks | 2,177,617 | 26,884 | $65,886,500 | $30.26 |
| Colorado Rockies | 2,630,458 | 32,475 | $75,485,000 | $28.70 |
| Chicago Cubs | 2,882,756 | 35,590 | $80,422,700 | $27.90 |
| San Diego Padres | 2,123,721 | 26,219 | $54,744,700 | $25.78 |
| Houston Astros | 1,607,733 | 19,849 | $37,651,000 | $23.42 |
Why should the Mets be on the higher tier of this list, when they are performing close to the bottom tier of the league? I believe this sheds some light on what other teams are doing this off-season as well. Have you heard of any big acquisitions by the White Sox? Yankees have been very clear that they are reducing their payroll down to below luxury tax levels (plus this figure does not represent the added $18.9m the Yankees need to fork over from this season). The Indians and Marlins are also reducing payroll. Blue Jays are going up, but their exciting off season should help cover the additional costs, same with the Royals. Then there are also teams like the Padres, and Pirates that will always operate with extremely low expenses in mind,
So let’s hear it, what do you think of my theory? Is it the math, or is Sandy hell bent on destroying the franchise? Either way you look at it, the team will not be good next year and the 2013 season is officially punted. Yes, we will have some young kids to hang our hopes on but after all these losing seasons I just don’t know if I have the patience for this. Frankly, I don’t think the people in charge really care.
20 comments
srt
12/17/2012-12:49pm at 12:49 pm (UTC -4)
Great read and analysis, Salty.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head by summing it up that baseball is a business.
We all know by now that the Wilpons are either unable or unwilling (maybe both) to invest in this team right now. And they’ve gone to extremes to keep the team. Unfortunately, that means getting the team back to the point of it being self sustaining. In the short term, they slashed payroll, implemented other cost saving methods, borrowed money, brought in minority investors.
The only way this all is going to pay off – IMO – is winning. In order to win, you’ve got to field a competitive team and have a well run organization. And that doesn’t happen overnight.
So to answer your last question:
‘ Is it the math, or is Sandy hell bent on destroying the franchise?’
…..No, I don’t think SA is hell bent on destroying the franchise. Doing that is counter productive to the Wilpons holding onto this team.
They’ve got to compete to turn this franchise around from one of losing (and bleeding money) to a winning one.
I still believe SA’s #1 immediate goal when coming here was to save the team for the Wilpons. He accomplished that, in the short term.
Now comes the hard part of building and sustaining a successful one. What he started, someone else will take over in a year or two.
To me, this was always all about the money and nothing but the money.
TX
12/17/2012-12:54pm at 12:54 pm (UTC -4)
Nice post Salty. It is always about the money, though I quibble with hard caps on spending, when cresting that cap could turn a Hairston into a Ross type.
And Sandy is not destroying the ball club. I think he’s turned this into a top 10 or top 8 minor league talent pool. His ground work was finances and sustainability. Unfortunately, it takes more than one year to get there and we have to endure that. At least we can complain together. Misery loves company, and it loves the Mets.
fongulalou
12/17/2012-1:03pm at 1:03 pm (UTC -4)
Gary, haven’t you heard, Fred says money is not an issue.
srt
12/17/2012-1:21pm at 1:21 pm (UTC -4)
LOL at your twitter comments to Davidoff regarding his latest article.
SaltyGary
12/17/2012-1:58pm at 1:58 pm (UTC -4)
srt
12/17/2012-1:59pm at 1:59 pm (UTC -4)
OT:
Davidoff, trying to explain himself:
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/baseballinsider/discussing_dickey_ZPAGkP0Qf8FMrM4SCNu1kJ#axzz2FJKYmvP7
‘I think I might have underestimated how much Mets fans loved Dickey.
For sure, I didn’t anticipate the reaction I received Saturday upon writing this column that was critical of Dickey. Call me naive, out of touch, whatever. The volume and intensity of the comments on Twitter and in personal e-mails surprised me. ‘
******************************************************
I can only assume he got bombarded over the weekend, and wanted to put his spin on why he wrote the article. –Under the guise of integrity, so he says.
He should have just left bad enough alone, IMO.
SaltyGary
12/17/2012-2:04pm at 2:04 pm (UTC -4)
He didn’t leave any evidence to support his argument. He said he alluded to it in his ASG piece, which I didn’t find much alluding, and then said he brought up a couple times this week and that is all. Total garbage from a garbage news organization.
srt
12/17/2012-2:08pm at 2:08 pm (UTC -4)
I had to laugh at his statement underestimating Met fans love of all things RA Dickey.
Can a beat writer really be that out of touch with us common fans? Talk about working in a vacuum.
SaltyGary
12/17/2012-2:34pm at 2:34 pm (UTC -4)
He asked me to email him if I needed to have a conversation so I did, if he has a good reply I will post it.
SaltyGary
12/17/2012-3:24pm at 3:24 pm (UTC -4)
OK so he was a no answer. If you guys want me to press any further I will be happy to, for the sake of doing it, just let me know and I will turn up the volume.
My Email:
Hi Ken,
Thank you for providing your email address. This is to back up the tweet I sent:
@KenDavidoff Did you purposely omit facts to base your argument on, or did you just forget?
My issue with the pieces is you stated that you’ve “alluded” to these character issues a few times, but you don’t present any facts to backup your argument. In your 07/10 piece you presented how he was disappointed about the ASG snub.
In the 12/15 piece you stated “And, in an underappreciated part of this saga that soared into visibility this week, Dickey can be a handful. He clearly has enjoyed his rise from the ashes into a Flushing folk hero, and while he deserves praise and riches, there’s also the matter of him having to coexist peacefully in a workplace. His gift for self-promotion and his love of attention don’t endear himself to most teammates. Instead, his durability and outstanding results led him to be appreciated but far from beloved.”
I don’t see one fact to back up that Dickey was a “handful”. Shouldn’t we want our pitcher being disappointed in the ASG start snub. He also explained that he was also very honored and excited to be there. We want our players hungry and he did not say anything to disparage La-Russa or the process to pick the starter. Just that he was disappointed. As for his Winter Meeting appearance, he lived in the area and stopped by. Probably not the greatest move but if it was me getting mixed signals about a contract extension and I was a couple miles down the road, I would go and get the word from the horses mouth too. As for the Holiday Party it was the Mets that made the mockery not R.A. If you invite reporters to interview him, I wonder what they are going to ask? Then you have Sandy doing a press conference where he stated that the team in 2013 will be similar to the one that ended in 2012 and that deferred money may not be reinvested in the club. Sandy’s statements are more news worth in my opinion. R. A. answering what we all knew. If the Mets didn’t want these things to come out for the sake of the children then they should have had the party and media event on separate days. R. A. was respectful and gave his opinion, exactly what you want to do your job. Who is more fun to cover, someone honest and forthright like Dickey, or Mr. PR Derek Jeter?
So back to me original claim, give me a example how he is a “Handful”. How did he not “endear” himself to his teammates? What have you heard in the clubhouse to suggest that the players were miffed by him?
Thank you for your time – Gary Palumbo
His Reply:
Thanks for the nice note, Gary. In the 7/10 piece, I alluded to Dickey’s conduct following the Mets’ appeal of his one-hitter in Tampa Bay. I mentioned the Pelfrey example on the blog post.
Who is “fun” to cover is not relevant. My job is to call ‘em as I see ‘em.
All the best.
Ken
srt
12/17/2012-3:30pm at 3:30 pm (UTC -4)
Nice effort, Salty.
I’d probably let it drop now. Reading his response, I don’t think you’re going to get the answers or satisfaction from him.
Do we know Pelfrey was upset about that story in his book?
That and I went back and looked…I find no evidence Dickey asked that hit to be changed to an error at Wright’s expense at all. Actually, Dickey’s comment was along the lines of ‘it wouldn’t be the same’.
I think Davidoff was ‘stretching’ things for his own agenda in that article. I think he knows it as well. As I said, no way do these guys operate in a vacuum.
I’ll give him credit for answering everyone though. Someone on AA has an email argument going back and forth with him too.
Prismo
12/17/2012-2:47pm at 2:47 pm (UTC -4)
To be honest, I think Davidoff has some fair criticism of Dickey. I know we like to put athletes on a pedestal, but they have flaws too.
I think the main problem I have with his piece is the timing. Why did he wait until NOW to write that? Heck, what’s even the point of it? Dickey may like himself a bit too much, but I promise you there are many players on every MLB team who are far far far worse.
srt
12/17/2012-3:21pm at 3:21 pm (UTC -4)
Those poor kids….probably won’t get anyone to show up at next year’s Xmas party for fear of what might be printed.
Prismo
12/17/2012-3:36pm at 3:36 pm (UTC -4)
As a Jew….meh.
SaltyGary
12/17/2012-3:39pm at 3:39 pm (UTC -4)
But I thought it was changed to a “festivus” party this year?
greggofboken
12/17/2012-2:14pm at 2:14 pm (UTC -4)
I have questions regarding 2013′s payroll vis a vis the numbers Mr.NJ posited and the same calculations that Rubin ran:
http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/59445/part-ii-whats-payroll-now-whats-next
The key difference is in how deferred payments are handled. Rubin’s figures, based on talks with Mets officials about practice, assume that deferred money (most specifically Bay’s) is counted towards the year it was earned. In other words, Bay’s 2013 salary on the payroll budget for 2013 is the full $21M rather than the $6M that he will actually receive next year. The deferral adds flexiblity only in terms of 2013 cash flow, according to Rubin.
I don’t know that that adjustment affects your larger point. It brings 2013 more in line w/prior history. And I wish to all get-out there was clarity on how Bay’s salary was accounted for. Do we have $10M in discretionary spending or do we have $20M+?
The other thing that stands out to me is that the money per attendee is money beyond other general operating expenses that need to be cleared. Without knowing what those are for Mets vs. other clubs, and what the average ticket price works out to be (and with the dynamic pricing ticket model, that’s ever harder to pin down) there are so many variables, that it becomes very cloudy to form a reliable conclusion.
This is prety impressive. Thank you for doing it.
SaltyGary
12/17/2012-2:59pm at 2:59 pm (UTC -4)
Thanks for reading Greg!
I can do a little more on payroll, but I am going dark for a little while to do video recording for my job.
You are right and I also alluded to, that there are a lot of other factors. Just trying to present it from just a payroll perspective. What can be said is if say the Mets and the Royals are at the same amount, it should be the Mets with the upper hand. They are in a larger market and have more avenues for revenue based on TV contracts and other benefits. That’s why it’s not a big deal for the Yankees to be at the top.
What I hoped to accomplish the most was to show that if attendance goes down further, it probably won’t have that much affect based on where payroll is now and if anything they may pull in a profit.
BTW if you would like to have a avatar pic next to your name, just create one at gravatar.com and it will automatically load up here.
TRS86
12/17/2012-2:55pm at 2:55 pm (UTC -4)
In the words of the scholar “Radio” “I’ll take both”.
I have said all along it has been about money, however, what they have done was necessary either way. They had to go down a different path and purge a lot of bad contracts. Now the question becomes in 2014 do they start to up their payroll again?
srt
12/17/2012-3:23pm at 3:23 pm (UTC -4)
You’re last question is definitely going to be the $20 million dollar one.
All we’ve heard about is purging some big contracts – until then with the money situation, their hands were tied.
If we’ve got some of these better kids coming up (Wheeler? Do-No?) and Ike, Rubin more established, etc. etc…..and we’ve still got no OF, they should be spending some money to shore up some holes…right?
Stick
12/17/2012-3:46pm at 3:46 pm (UTC -4)
it is always about the money. And doesn’t every normal team (and really, the big spenders, who just have a higher cap to work with) do exactly the same thing? Figure out revenues, and base expenditures off of that? Of course it is all projections, so should be som ewiggle room each year.
The spend more money on shiny new players and the money will flow in theory (the Metsie principle) is wonderful in concept, but far from a guarantee. And as Salty strives to prove, not all spending makes back enough to pay for it.
now, winning, that will work.