Here is an estimated breakdown at how things look with the projected 25 man Roster/Payroll for 2013 Minus the reported deferred salary amounts of $5M to Johan Santana, $3M to David Wright and $15M to Jason Bay.
Note: Keep in mind that Johan Santana’s buyout was reported that it will be part of 2013 payroll.
Jan 29
A Look At The Mets 2013 Projected Roster/Payroll After Daniel Murphy & Ike Davis Avoided Arbitration
Leave a Reply
MLBTradeRumors
- Trade Candidate: Jose Veras
- Travis Ishikawa Exercises Opt Out Clause
- Twins, Kohl Stewart Nearing Deal
- Giants To Sign Christian Arroyo
- Draft Signings: Wiper, Healy, Finnegan, Williams
- Quick Hits: Appel, Padres, Jimenez, 2014 Draft
- Cubs Sign Second-Round Pick Rob Zastryzny
- NL East Links: Papelbon, Tigers, Amaro, Upton
- AL East Notes: Cashman, Red Sox, Myers, Orioles
- Cardinals Sign Oscar Mercado To Over-Slot Deal
79 comments
SaltyGary
1/29/2013-8:22pm at 8:22 pm (UTC -4)
Jerz you may want to approach the payroll 2 different ways. Officially the deferments are not a part of the true accounting but appear on the shadow accounting ledger. They are using the true accounting to determine how much is left on the budget. On the shadow side you account for the deferments plus payments to Bonilla and Saberhagen.
Mr North Jersey
1/29/2013-8:29pm at 8:29 pm (UTC -4)
Understanding there are many ways of interpreting the payroll I prefer to keep it as the players on the 25 man roster (with the exception of Bay) minus the deferred.
SaltyGary
1/29/2013-8:53pm at 8:53 pm (UTC -4)
Thats fine just understand when representing what is left in their “budget” they are not taking away the deferments to make it look like there is less to play with according to Rubin.
Mr North Jersey
1/29/2013-9:05pm at 9:05 pm (UTC -4)
Fair enough.
greggofboken
1/29/2013-9:05pm at 9:05 pm (UTC -4)
If I’m understanding you correctly, I believe this is incorrect if Rubin’s understanding of how they’re accounting this is correct. The deferred payments are being counted by the Mets for payroll purposes and reduce the available payroll by the $23M Mr. NJ mentions. Because they handle it in this fashion, the previous deferments (Bonilla, Beltran et al) are not counted in 2013′s payroll and reduce available funds.
So…there’s about $5M left if they’re adhering to the $100M referenced.
SaltyGary
1/30/2013-7:55am at 7:55 am (UTC -4)
No you’re not. On the true accounting ledger they list all salaries with no deferments and no payments from past deferments. This is the official ledger because they want to account for the deferred salary as being paid this year for taxes and operating decisions.
On the shadow ledger they account for the deferments and payments from any past ones.
Now depending how they handle the deferments the shadow ledger can be considered shady or very smart. Hopefully they are taking the deferred dollars and investing them to make a profit plus to cover the interest that will be owed on them. Something tells me, call it a “Gut Feeling” that’s not what they are doing with these mythical deferred dollars.
Stick
1/30/2013-9:07am at 9:07 am (UTC -4)
still seems pretty clear though, that no matter how they are doing the bookkeeping, they are not going to be spend much “real money” this season that they are not already stuck with!
SaltyGary
1/30/2013-9:12am at 9:12 am (UTC -4)
Yup. If your “budget” is 100m they sure are acting like they are not accounting the deferments into the payroll.
Michael Geus
1/29/2013-8:51pm at 8:51 pm (UTC -4)
No Marcum?
Mr North Jersey
1/29/2013-9:02pm at 9:02 pm (UTC -4)
Marcum is not official announced yet. Once he is I will add him as well.
Michael Geus
1/30/2013-3:49pm at 3:49 pm (UTC -4)
Understood, thanks, and good job on this.
Joe D.
1/29/2013-9:13pm at 9:13 pm (UTC -4)
If I were calculating this, I would have done it the same way as you Jersey. I couldn’t care less about the the fake figure they use for Luxury Tax purposes, I want the real numbers. I’m more concerned with actual payout and what they say they have to spend. Whenever I mention what the Mets have to spend on MMO, I calculate it this way. Nice job. I didn’t realize you were tracking this. Now I can look for your update as the Mets make more moves and decide which players will make the team this spring.
Mr North Jersey
1/29/2013-9:23pm at 9:23 pm (UTC -4)
Hi Joe D, thanks. Yea been updating this during the off season. I believe this is maybe the 4th or 5th post up to now.
greggofboken
1/29/2013-9:39pm at 9:39 pm (UTC -4)
The reason I take issue with the calculation is that my primary interest is in determining what’s left to spend. I do not believe there is anything like the $28M this implies that is still in the coffers and available.
By counting it as available despite Rubin’s information on their accounting methods which comes from team sources would seem to lend itself to faulty conclusions at odds with how the team is doing business.
If your primariy concern is actual cash flow, I understand why you’d count it this way — though I’m not sure why that has any value unless you’re more concerned with the team’s financial health than the makeup of the roster. I don’t share that focus.
Mr North Jersey
1/29/2013-9:46pm at 9:46 pm (UTC -4)
I understand Gregg and I should add that I believe that the way I displayed this it allows individuals a base where they can add or remove what they deem relevant to get what they may be looking for.
For me this is an estimate of what I deem relevant but like I said before I understand there are varying ways one can view this.
srt
1/30/2013-8:26am at 8:26 am (UTC -4)
Nice job.
I like the way this is presented. I can understand – at a glance now – why there’s a conflict among some on just what the payroll is and/or how much money is left.
SaltyGary
1/30/2013-8:09am at 8:09 am (UTC -4)
FYI if you include all deferrments and BAy’s 21m the payroll is at 98.09m if they fill the rest of the roster slots with league minimum guys.
Prismo
1/30/2013-9:13am at 9:13 am (UTC -4)
I agree Joe. I don’t care about the Wilpon’s accounting scams to make it seem like they’re investing more in the team than they really are…
I care about how much they SHOULD be spending based on their ACTUAL payroll. (“should” being pretty loose, b/c obviously you don’t throw $25M at some random player just to hit the $100M sweet spot)
Mr North Jersey
1/29/2013-10:22pm at 10:22 pm (UTC -4)
Off Topic: Syndergaard(#29), Wheeler(#8) and d’Arnaud(#6) placed in the top 29 of Mayo’s Top 50 prospects list.
Texas prospect Profar was ranked #1.
Connor
1/29/2013-10:55pm at 10:55 pm (UTC -4)
Wow. Syndergaard is much higher than I expected!
Stick
1/29/2013-11:03pm at 11:03 pm (UTC -4)
that is pretty interesting. And exciting!
Mr North Jersey
1/29/2013-11:07pm at 11:07 pm (UTC -4)
Connor, what can you add to this tweet?
@Wheelerpro45
My boy @TylerSkaggs37 has that nasty nasty nasty curveball unreal #MLBPipeline
https://twitter.com/Wheelerpro45/status/296447285192179712
Prismo
1/30/2013-9:12am at 9:12 am (UTC -4)
He really is a high level prospect – only reason his name isn’t bigger is because he was only in single A last season.
srt
1/30/2013-8:28am at 8:28 am (UTC -4)
Very nice.
You have to give this current FO credit for this, given the fact that all 3 of these were acquired via trades over the past 18 months or so.
Hopefully, all translate to the MLs as projected.
TRS86
1/30/2013-8:50am at 8:50 am (UTC -4)
And yet it is still said that there isn’t a plan. Sorry but when I hear the guys on MLBN laugh at the idea of the Mets signing Bourn saying that would be ridiculous and talk about how they have 2 in the top 10, 3 in the top 30 and say how Harvey would be in the top 10 as well if he hadn’t been called up, it’s pretty dang clear to me that the intentions are to build a new young core at the expense of the current MLB team.
Stick
1/30/2013-9:14am at 9:14 am (UTC -4)
Was there ever a question about that being the plan?
though I do agree that it would have been nice to see them but a little bit more effort into the current years teams, since that would not at all take away from “the plan”. But, i think that is where the being broke aspect rears its ugly head.
TRS86
1/30/2013-9:48am at 9:48 am (UTC -4)
It does and it doesn’t. As you said, are you just taking AB’s away from players you want to see are part of the future? Is a guy like Bourn really worth benching Kirk? (Unless of course you slide him to RF but then you have 3 LH OF) Is bringing back Hairston to limit the LH kids playing times really going to make a difference? Is bringing in a better pitcher than Marcum really going to make a big difference? Is bringing in a top closer over going with FFF, Parnell, Edgin and cast offs going to make a difference this year?
That’s what I am asking, while we all would like to see them dive back into FA, which players are you giving the boot to bring in that veteran player?
Prismo
1/30/2013-10:00am at 10:00 am (UTC -4)
Individually those moves don’t mean too much, but collectively moves mean much more.
Bourn over Kirk might be 2-3 wins, a top closer might be another 2 wins, a better starter than Marcum might be another 1-2 wins. Suddenly you’re at 80 wins instead of 74.
Okay, that’s not enough to get them into the playoff hunt because there are still holes…but these moves can add up to significantly more wins for a team.
TX
1/30/2013-10:11am at 10:11 am (UTC -4)
Agreed, Pris. I would say he’s worth more than just 2-3 more than Kirk. The sum of the parts comment you make is so true. Add to the 80 number you had and then swap our 2 better corner OFs, for another 4-5 wins, get an actual closer for another 2-3 and you are getting closer and closer to the 90 mark.
TRS86
1/30/2013-10:38am at 10:38 am (UTC -4)
But at what price? Do you know any more about the guys that you just benched? Is Michael Bourn at 12-15M per season really the best use of your resources going forward?
Again, I am torn but it was completely laughed and scoffed at by Cliff and whomever the host was last night on MLBN and every one of the shows I have listened to on there talk about how the Mets are not in the position to solve problems in the FA market and the path that they are currently taking is the right one.
Prismo
1/30/2013-10:55am at 10:55 am (UTC -4)
You can almost always solve problems in the free agent market if you have enough money. You don’t think if we signed Bourn, Hamilton, Upton (BJ), a real starter, and 3 relievers that people wouldn’t be calling the Mets a playoff contender?
TX
1/30/2013-10:55am at 10:55 am (UTC -4)
TRS, the questions you pose have no definitive answer. Is it the best use of the money? You can speculate all you want and come up with multiple answers. I think yes. Wanny and Salty and others think not (if memory serves me correctly). He could come in and have the wheels fall off the wagon and it will prove we should have just stuck with Kapt Kirk and the “I strike out every 4th AB club”. He could come in and play to an average of what he’s done the past 4 years (4+ WAR each of those years), help solidify the other OFs by the ground he covers and be a piece that helps this team go on a run in a year or two. Considering his history, body of work and the needs that this ball club have, I lean toward the 2nd scenario vs. the 1st.
And the clowns you are listening to are partly right, but partly wrong. They have multiple holes, so you certainly can’t fix everything with FA signings. But that does not mean you can’t fix a hole with FA and fix two holes though the MiL roster. Does signing Bourn make it all good? No, but it solves about 3 major holes this team has (stellar CF D, Lead off hitter, speed on the base paths.)
I am not paid by Boras to write this crap up here, though after re-reading my post before I hit submit, if certainly seems that way. Need some coffee…
srt
1/30/2013-11:10am at 11:10 am (UTC -4)
I’m torn on the question of signing Bourn.
However, you make some good points TX that I’ve thought about as well.
I would probably welcome the Bourn signing if we didn’t have to give up the pick and if we could get him for no more than 3 years, guaranteed. Long shot, I know….
TRS86
1/30/2013-11:15am at 11:15 am (UTC -4)
I am with you SRT. This is where I guess I am labeled the Sandy fan, but I trust that if we do get Bourn then Sandy believed it was the best thing for the team and if not the same.
srt
1/30/2013-11:26am at 11:26 am (UTC -4)
trs…even if we had to overpay a bit, I’d do it to bring stronger defense up the middle and a leadoff hitter with some speed.
I guess for me it all comes down to losing that pick – which I don’t want to see happen.
I won’t be getting all bent out of shape though if we roll with the OFs we currently have. You never know….might be a surprise with one or two of them. I don’t mean superstar (LOL) but solid. Cowgil? Brown? DenDekker?
I’ll give Kirk an outside chance as well.
I’m not really high on Valdespin and please…no Turner in the OF. They can only be thinking of that b/c of his RH bat.
TX
1/30/2013-11:33am at 11:33 am (UTC -4)
I’m not high on Turner at all. To me, I really don’t even want him on the team. Granted, his ability to stand around at SS in a major pinch helps, as well as his RH bat, but what does he really bring to the table, other than the token red headed, pie tossing factor?
srt
1/30/2013-11:55am at 11:55 am (UTC -4)
I really don’t want Turner playing SS – except for in a pinch as you said. He admits he’s not comfortable there at all. God forbid Tejeda goes on the DL…do we really want Turner there?
And didn’t we sign a MinL middle IF? I guess we’ll get a look at him in ST. Can’t remember his name….
I’m with you…I think Turner is expendable.
darknova306
1/30/2013-12:54pm at 12:54 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t want Justin Turner playing baseball in Flushing. Period. He sucks.
Stick
1/30/2013-1:25pm at 1:25 pm (UTC -4)
word up re: turner
kingman 26
1/30/2013-10:48am at 10:48 am (UTC -4)
Well, let’s not wax too rhapsodic here about the “plan”–three great prospects basically fell into our lap because the team had no intention of re-signing Beltran and could not afford Dickey on top of Golden Boy.
It’s absolutely amazing that the Mets have three of the game’s best prospects, and it is entirely possible that Flores and Montero join that level this year too. Except for a few mediocre games in Kingsport, Montero’s numbers are just fantastic.
I will say this though–if they DO wind up signing Bourn, then I will be ready to admit that I have been wrong about the team’s commitment to winning ASAP.
However, without him, while the rotation and catcher position appear ready for winning, and the infield is at least solid, the outfield remains potentially horrific, and the bullpen could quite literally at this point be anywhere from the game’s worst to very strong.
So really, it’s way too early to make definitive judgments, but yes, the future looks strong thanks to a handful of really solid looking kids.
Prismo
1/30/2013-10:57am at 10:57 am (UTC -4)
Well they still could’ve (and in retrospect, should have) signed Beltran after trading him for Wheeler. That would have been amazing, haha.
TX
1/30/2013-10:58am at 10:58 am (UTC -4)
Kong. Good post. I’m with you. I’ve got 2 grades for this offseason, and how they address the OF with Bourn (could have been another OF such as Upton, but this is the only logical player at this point) will determine whether they get high grades from me or a slightly above average grade.
TRS86
1/30/2013-11:10am at 11:10 am (UTC -4)
I can go either way on Bourn, I just don’t think it’s a clear cut decision. However, as outsiders it is interesting to hear guys on MLBN whom I respect incredibly after listening to them the last 4 years all be in unison on how the Mets shouldn’t be diving head first into FA at the moment and scoff at signing anyone that would result in losing their 11th pick.
TRS86
1/30/2013-11:10am at 11:10 am (UTC -4)
Let me add to the fact that it’s VERY rare for all the host on MLBN radio to be in unison on ANYTHING.
SaltyGary
1/30/2013-11:59am at 11:59 am (UTC -4)
This is in reply to all of the above, seeing I was mentioned.
There is a big difference in a rebuilding plan and what is going on now. This is not building, this plan is an austerity measure to buy the Wilpon’s time. To not address any hole is completely irresponsible and does nothing to make the team relevant in the next few years. As we have all seen you cannot address everything in 1-2 years of trades and free agency. It’s a slow process that you build up. By continuing to do nothing, the timeline for contention gets extended another year.
The past couple years we did the “Lets See What the Kids Can Do” routine, and we know at this point. Sandy said himself we know what we have and what we have is not conducive to a winning team. So the FO understands there are holes and Duda, Kirk, and Thole were/are not a part of the solution.
So you have a choice fix the problem or let it persist and they are choosing to let it persist. If there really was a plan to build up with young kids to lead the way, they would be building around them so if and when they produce the team is set and can push forward. Instead they are choosing to wait and see further and if they are any good they will start the process of adding around them.
The only thing that does is add time to contention. What you need to do is address the known issues. Now the rookies coming up look great on those hot prospect lists but they are still a complete unknown for 2 more years. We have no idea on whether they will fulfill all of our hope and dreams. If they do what everyone hopes, then contention comes quicker, if they don’t it will be a utter disaster because you have no other pieces to handle the negative impact of now having to fix those areas.
There is only one plan and that is to not spend money, that’s it. They are essentially gambling with prospects at this point.
TRS86
1/30/2013-12:12pm at 12:12 pm (UTC -4)
What do you mean not address any hole? Looks to me like TDA is addressing the catching hole and Wheeler and Synder are the guys planned to address 2/3 holes left by Johan, Pelf and Dickey.
Did they address any of them for 2013? I guess with Buck and Marcum. As for the OF, yeah it stinks. But are we selling Cowgill and Brown short? Do we know? Keep in mind that the year before we got Hairston he played in 104 games and had the impressive slash of:
.210 .295 .346 .640. Was that considered addressing the situation at the time?
My question still remains, is signing Hairston for 2 years really plugging a hole and was it worth taking away AB’s from some of the other players? Is signing a big name closer worth taking opportunities away from Parnell and Edgin?
IMO we are still one year away, I have no problem with going cheap this year. While I would like to have seen a veteran in the OF I am also anxious to see what Duda, Kirk, DD, Cowgil, Brown, Baxter, and V-spin can produce.
TX
1/30/2013-12:24pm at 12:24 pm (UTC -4)
I do see that as a point, but chances are the team will still need 3 OF spots for 2014 as well. I’d prefer they attempt to fill one of those now. Can Kirk/Cowgill/Brown/Etc turn out to be diamonds in the rough? Sure, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
And of those all, I think V-Spin will produce the best numbers, but I’m not sure how he’ll really fits in, locker room wise. I wish he would grow up and be the LF of the future, bat a good 6th spot and hit for power. Head Cases…
TRS86
1/30/2013-12:28pm at 12:28 pm (UTC -4)
I agree that there’s a 90% chance they will need a OF but looking at all of those guys, except for Duda and Brown their only real value offensively will be as CF. Signing Bourn still doesn’t address the main need of the Mets in the OF, a RH power hitting OF. Bourn no doubt is an upgrade from what we have but then IMO we will 100% still need a RH bat after 2013 as well but will have sank much of the resources into a LH CF. We already have 2 of those.
SaltyGary
1/30/2013-1:07pm at 1:07 pm (UTC -4)
Wrong choice of words on not ALL holes address, I feel technically C has the potential of being addressed. Buck is junk and Marcum is just a stop gap because is he proves to do well they will let him walk away just like others before him.
Taking the philosophy of “we are a year away so why do anything” only adds another year of being away from contention. And how do you think that suddenly next year is going to be so different? There still will be an entire outfield to address, along with depth issues and bullpen issues that the FO kicked the can on. Just because d;A, Wheeler and Harvey are older doesn’t mean they suddenly can carry this franchise on their back, they will need pieces around them and the longer you wait the more the window of opportunity shrinks. Plus there is no guarantee that they will perform the way we hope.
Did the Nationals wait until Strasburg started pitching in the majors or did they build around him first? Same with the 90′s Braves teams, they built around the pitchers and when they were ready they team busted through the league.
By no means am I suggesting Haiston or Bourn are a solution. Tthe same reasons I didn’t want to pay for Reyes can be used exactly for Bourn. The people that are clamoring for him are only doing so based on the fact of their desperate wish the team was better. But to do nothing is just completely responsible and demonstrates there is no plan to build the future only to save the Wilpon’s ass.
kingman 26
1/30/2013-1:09pm at 1:09 pm (UTC -4)
Saying they are doing nothing when they agreed to possibly pay Marcum as much as 8M is really just plain ridiculous my friend.
SaltyGary
1/30/2013-1:12pm at 1:12 pm (UTC -4)
What does Marcum do to improve the team? He is a starting pitcher with elbow issues. He does nothing except provide some insurance on Santana and Gee, that’s it.
Prismo
1/30/2013-1:28pm at 1:28 pm (UTC -4)
He does improve the team. But he fills one hole of many.
TX
1/30/2013-1:50pm at 1:50 pm (UTC -4)
Salty, signing any pitcher does that should Gee or Johan go down. It’s the quality he provides. We have the quantity already. Quantity sucks.
SaltyGary
1/30/2013-1:10pm at 1:10 pm (UTC -4)
Oh and Parnell and Edgen, if you can sign a good pen arm whether they are a new closer or not, then you do it. They weren’t afraid of offending those guys when signing FFF last year, where they? Haven’t you seen Parnel enough to know he can’t handle the job, god forbid he has to come into the game with a runner on-base. As for Edgin if he can be that good let him prove it in other roles first, there is plenty of room. The pen was a bastion is shlt last year, so sure lets ignore it, eff it.
Stick
1/30/2013-1:30pm at 1:30 pm (UTC -4)
sure they should try to get as many pen arms as possible. You need so many, they won’t block anyone.
But not sure how you are saying they aren’t making changes there. At most, it seems that 3/7 are coming back. So 4 new arms, replacing the actual crap ones that really killed them last year. No clue which ones it ends up being, but there will be a much different look most likely.
**note: i actually am not as down on FFF as most people are. When healthy, he had a nice long stretch (May-June?) where he was extremely reliable and effective, and it was actually when he went down the the team (certainly the pen) came off the rails.
But, certainly a chance that he ends up not closing, if someone else steps up to take the job. And Wilson could still come in and be that guy.
darknova306
1/30/2013-12:50pm at 12:50 pm (UTC -4)
Bringing in a top catching prospect that some like to compare to Buster Posey is a move that builds for the future. Talk about a potentially massive upgrade on Josh “I’m a scrub” Thole.
Harvey-Wheeler-Niese-Syndergaard is the making of a potentially elite rotation. The acquisitions involved there were to build for the future.
Big question now is when we think all of the future potential guys are going to be ready to click on the major league level such that they could be the core of a winning team. I see that still being a couple years away, so I see Bourn as simply being a stopgap, and a very expensive one at that. You don’t give up draft picks for a stop gap during a rebuild.
While we “know what we have” with Kirk (speedy platoon crap) and Duda (glacially slow crap with some power), we actually don’t know what we have in Cowgill and Brown. They should get everyday playing time to see what they are. That’s also a part of building for the future.
And the forced austerity the organization is going through is a good thing. The arrogant NYC sports fan mentality of “we deserve spending!! Rabble rabble!!!” is a disastrous way to perpetuate a roster. The Mets went through the spend to win mode, and look where that got them. As TRS pointed out in an article a while back, the 2006 team’s success was largely due to a combo of guys having huge rebound years, breakout seasons, and career years. Then the team thought “this is our window, let’s get drunk and spend like an NYC team is theoretically supposed to”. Oops. We see where that went.
The Mets needed a major organizational philosophy change, and they’re getting one. That’s a good thing. Next offseason will also be the smoking gun on how broke the Wilpons really are. Should be interesting to see how that goes.
kingman 26
1/30/2013-12:57pm at 12:57 pm (UTC -4)
Truly outstanding comment.
And again, the Marcum deal shows that they ARE willing to spend some dough to win more games in 2013. This is inarguable.
darknova306
1/30/2013-1:29pm at 1:29 pm (UTC -4)
Thanks! And I totally agree with you on the Marcum deal. In fact, the perspective you put it into here, makes me love the deal more.
TRS86
1/30/2013-1:00pm at 1:00 pm (UTC -4)
Thanks for the compliment on that article. It really does stick out now how it is very important to make sure your core is ready before you go into win now mode.
I agree with Bourn, if he doesn’t cost a pick AND he doesn’t keep them from bringing in their true need next off-season or this year during trade then it makes sense. Otherwise, I just don’t get it.
darknova306
1/30/2013-1:32pm at 1:32 pm (UTC -4)
That article really stuck with me. It was a great piece that put that whole team into much needed context.
srt
1/30/2013-1:58pm at 1:58 pm (UTC -4)
‘Next offseason will also be the smoking gun on how broke the Wilpons really are. Should be interesting to see how that goes.’
Count me in the camp as one who will be very curious to see how this plays out.
kingman 26
1/30/2013-12:56pm at 12:56 pm (UTC -4)
Well Gary, while I was firmly in this camp, to me, the Marcum signing greatly alters my thinking.
Giving Marcum 4M plus supposedly another 4M in incentives simply discredits this theory.
Now, I am not totally convinced that they are all-out trying to win in 2013, and I also question the sincerity of the entire Bourn drama, but the idea that they are willing to pay Marcum as much as 8M in 2013 simply destroys the notion that they are unwilling to spend to improve the MLB team in the short term.
“What you need to do is address the known issues.”
“There is only one plan and that is to not spend money, that’s it.”
“This is not building, this plan is an austerity measure to buy the Wilpon’s time. To not address any hole is completely irresponsible and does nothing to make the team relevant in the next few years”
The Marcum signing largely discredits all of this even WITH the obligatory unnecessary apostrophe in “Wilpon’s”…
SaltyGary
1/30/2013-1:16pm at 1:16 pm (UTC -4)
They haven’t spent a dime since last year. The loss of Pelfrey alone covers this deal. Don’t let a decent insurance signing (the only signing so far) change you interpretation of the plan, you are falling into their trap.
Prismo
1/30/2013-1:24pm at 1:24 pm (UTC -4)
Even if Marcum maxes out his contract, their true payroll is only $80 million! That’s not spending.
Stick
1/30/2013-1:21pm at 1:21 pm (UTC -4)
there is always the option of trading a SP (Santana or marcum) mid year, if they are pitching well.
but, I was surprised to see marcum. They certainly had the need for him, but that does not always mean it will happen.
But, I tend to take statements are relative face value, unless I have “proof” otherwise. So like I said yesterday, I think they genuinely have interest in Bourn. But only on their terms. A nuance maybe, but they are not just doing this to distract the fanbase.
are they trying to compete in 2013? Yes and No. Yes, they want to, but No, not if it is setting back whatever goal they have for 2014+
darknova306
1/30/2013-1:38pm at 1:38 pm (UTC -4)
“are they trying to compete in 2013? Yes and No. Yes, they want to, but No, not if it is setting back whatever goal they have for 2014+”
Precisely. And that’s the way a responsible front office is supposed to work. Omar’s Policies Of Failure are in the past, and hopefully stay there.
Stick
1/30/2013-1:15pm at 1:15 pm (UTC -4)
actual intelligent, respectful disagreement? Who would have thought that was possible.
can I just straddle the fence, and be in both camps at the same time?
I agree that I would rather see prospects that can reasonably be considered as part of the future get a chance, and not be blocked by a relative stiff like Hairston (even with the 20 HRs that you may never see again).
But, where you don’t have anyone vaguely considered being blocked, and you are getting a filler piece anyway, they should try to get the best quality filler they can.
you never know when a long shot can come in, and if a lot of the “ifs” hit, you want the best support you can.
anyway, when you can get a guy like Marcum, go for it. Same if they could have gotten a legit OF, if there isn’t anyone in RF you care about (if baxter and Brown IYO have a future, different story)
But, what I really think they should be doing, is grabbing a guy (FA or otherwise) that can be considered part of the foundation for 3 or more years. Someone to help now, but build with. Wright has to be considered one. And guys like Ike/Neise that are being kept.
so was there anyone else in that category? Bourn? Upton (either one)?
I actually am interested in seeing what cowpie and Brown can do this year given a real opportunity. Hell, let Spin play CF everyday just for the entertainment value. if any of these guys look like more than 1 year filler fodder, give them as much PT as possible.
greggofboken
1/30/2013-1:20pm at 1:20 pm (UTC -4)
This is too absolutist for my tastes. The plan of adding free agent/trade talent while waiting for the farm system to pay off is what the Nats seem to have done (Werth, Clippard, Gio, etc.). That’s one way to go about it.
The other is the approach that the Phils took (Rollins, Utley, Howard) before adding the complimentary pieces (Lee, Halladay, Polanco, Lidge) in the hopes of perpetuating the success.
It’s a different approach….but it’s also a workable one. And as others are describing, it is not just sitting on one’s hands.
Prismo
1/30/2013-1:35pm at 1:35 pm (UTC -4)
The Nats got pretty lucky last year too. Ian Desmond upped his slugging % 150 points from 2011 to 2012, which is somewhat ridiculous. Michael Morse, who didn’t play his first full big league season til he was 29, was a major contributor. LaRoche went from -0.2 WAR in 2011 to 3.8 WAR in 2012. Bernadina increased his OPS by 110 points from ’11 to ’12.
If the Mets can have that many surprise players simultaneously post career-years we might win a lot of games too…
Stick
1/30/2013-1:52pm at 1:52 pm (UTC -4)
can Brown pull a Morse?
Stick
1/30/2013-1:49pm at 1:49 pm (UTC -4)
anyway, back to the “plan”. IMO, I don’t think you can neatly define it by standard labels. They are not “going all in to win”, “rebuilding”, or “Retooling”. More like, some hybrid of all of them, held together by job 1 (keep the team afloat and in Fred’s bony grip).
so, the moves are not always going to make sense if you are trying to pigeonhole them in some category. They are just muddling through with what they got to work with, keeping real focus on some nebulous date in the future when they hope to be good.
So I bet a lot of the moves have more to do with what they can afford/falls into their lap. Marcum seems to be one. Bourn on the cheap would be another. And, based on what they cobble together, they will adjust future moves as appropriate.
and really, how many Ifs need to hit, to make it feasible to try for a miracle in 2013? At some point, you need to spend the $ to see if the long shot can finish (as in , July 1 actually leading the WC race!).
this year? Lots of holes (“ifs”). But at some point, if yo uget lucky (the miracle occurs?) you can think about adding some help, but it is a lot easier to have it on hand already (the better quality filler pieces).
so, right now, most people agree that the SP and IF are good to pretty good, and have reasonable potential to be better than average (WC compettive?)
The pen, so many new faces. Say the sign the Beard, and he gets it all back, and that atchison guy has his elbow hold up, and parnell tkes the leap. Classic pen yearly yoyo, but very conceivible it pulls a 2006 and helps carry the team.
taht leaves OF. And the root of the Bourn debate. But with the current group, yo would need Duda to hit like 2011 and stumble around a bit less. Cowgill and (kirk/dekker/spin) to catch everything in CF, and add some platoon hitting. And in RF, some miracle (and prime place to add a mercanery).
damn, you thought it was impossible to define a WC team in 2013, but there you go.
srt
1/30/2013-2:02pm at 2:02 pm (UTC -4)
Pretty much sums up most of my opinions on all things Mets and ‘the plan’ as well.
I too believe all would have to break above predictions for the 2013 to contend this upcoming season. You never know though.
I’ll be happy enough for now seeing what the young kids can do, what the prospects do when they make their debut – and finishing above the Phillies.
Prismo
1/30/2013-2:06pm at 2:06 pm (UTC -4)
Sure, 20 out of 20 possible crazy events have to take place to make us competitive. Good luck. :p
TX
1/30/2013-2:08pm at 2:08 pm (UTC -4)
And I think rolling with the current group is just irresponsible. Sign Bourn. Or trade for the Hammer. Or Coco Crsips. Or Alphabets, for that matter.
greggofboken
1/30/2013-2:24pm at 2:24 pm (UTC -4)
It would be irresponsible….unless you really only had about $2M left in the kitty post-Marcum….which brings the discussion back full circle.
greggofboken
1/30/2013-2:28pm at 2:28 pm (UTC -4)
It would be irresponsible if you actually had $25M left in the kitty to play with post-Marcum, rather than the $2M or so I believe is really left….just to bring the discussion back full circle.
TX
1/30/2013-2:33pm at 2:33 pm (UTC -4)
I do cocaine, so I can work harder, so I can make more money, so i can by more cocaine, so i can work harder, so i can make more money…
Loved that commercial and the “I learned it from watching you!” commercial from back in the day.
kingman 26
1/30/2013-4:23pm at 4:23 pm (UTC -4)
Or, like David Lee Roth once famously said, “I used to have a drug problem but now I have enough money.”
Truly one of the all-time most hilarious quotes.
gategem
1/31/2013-5:06am at 5:06 am (UTC -4)
Wealth is the difference between being called eccentric versus just plain old nuts.