Mets Continue to Act Like Small-Market Team

The New York Mets have been one of the more active teams leading up to the trade deadline, trading for Juan Uribe, Kelly Johnson, and Tyler Clippard, but the Troy Tulowitzki–Jose Reyes/Jeff Hoffman trade between the Toronto Blue Jays and Colorado Rockies has raised questions about the moves New York hasn’t made. The Mets are in contention and are making moves in attempt to better their team. That’s true. But when a player (in Tulowitzki) after whom the Mets, or at least their fans, have been pining for is moved for a decent, but not colossal package, and the other big-name player in the trade (in Reyes) was once a fan favorite and requires only a two-year commitment after 2015 — and would immediately be one of the best position players on the Mets if added to the team — a question is asked.

The question: where were the Mets?

The snarky answer: counting their money.

The more technically accurate answer: paying down owners’ debts.

The Tulowitzki trade might not be the best example of lost opportunities for the Mets, as the Rockies were at least paying lip-service to Tulowitzki’s request not to be traded to New York. Unfortunately for Mets fans, however, their other transactions indicate that the snark-filled answer is not that far from the truth. In both Mets trades, the club negotiated for a portion of the remaining salaries to be paid by the Atlanta Braves and even the perpetually cash-strapped Oakland Athletics.

While trades do not occur in a vacuum, negotiations ultimately occur between just two parties. Unless the deal is a pure salary dump and little to no players of value are moving the other way, requiring the trading team to send money means the prospects going back the other way must be better. Compare the Mets’ deal for Clippard to the one that St. Louis Cardinals completed for Steve Cishek. The two bullpen arms are relatively similar players with similar salaries, yet the Cardinals gave up a non-prospect and took on the salary while the Mets had to give up more value to trade for Clippard.

The Mets’ slight increase in payroll over the rest of the season comes at the same time they are receiving insurance money for David Wright’s spinal injury and have experiences a reduction in payroll due to Jenrry Mejia’s suspension for prohibited substances. Their failure to pursue Ben Zobrist is a bigger indictment than Troy Tulowitzki, as he is owed just a few million dollars over the course of the rest of the season and would be a big help for the Mets’ struggling group of position players. For the small-market Royals, requesting a portion of the salary is slightly defensible, but not for a team with a massive local television deal in the biggest market in the country.

As it stands, the Mets’ payroll is situated within the bottom third of all teams. Small-market franchises like Milwaukee Brewers, Minnesota Twins, and Kansas City Royals are all paying players more than Mets. The Mets have not always operated in this fashion. The payroll figures below, from Cots, show that the Mets have had no problem carrying higher payrolls in the past.

The Mets saw a decent-sized drop after the initial season in Citi Field and then, after a brief uptick in 2011, massively dropped payroll to below $100 million — within which range they’ve remained ever since. As Major League Baseball revenues have nearly doubled and player salaries have increased by around 50%, the Mets’ payroll has decreased by 50% in recent years. Given the increases in player salaries, the buying power of the Mets has essentially been cut in half over the last decade. If revenues have gone down significantly, then the Mets could point to a reason for the severe reduction in payroll. Attendance is not what it was a decade ago, as the chart shows, per data from Baseball-Reference.

Attendance has clearly moved down over the years, but part of that drop is due to the move from Shea Stadium to Citi Field, where the capacity is over 10,000 less than it was at Shea Stadium. The increase in luxury suites, naming rights, and a greater number of higher-priced seats is the reason that almost all teams have built new stadiums over the last 20 years. The further attendance drop in 2011 occurred at the same time the Mets were cutting payroll and providing little reason for fans to come back to the park. Until this season, at least. The Mets, even with their lower attendance, have made well above $100 million in reported stadium revenue every season. They do have payments on bonds made to construct the stadium, but the main problem for the Mets’ finances are the loans that the Mets owners have taken out to pay off their debts.

The Mets’ problems were so bad a few years ago, they needed a loan from MLB, and have been compelled to refinance loans in order to relieve short-term pressure without addressing long-term issues. The Mets have seen one of the bigger increases in attendance in baseball this season, a 12% increase over last season, per Baseball-Reference.

Support for the Mets has increased this season, both on the field and off. I found in my post last week on television ratings that the Mets are the second-most-viewed team in baseball behind the Yankees, with an average of 180,000 viewers per game — an increase of nearly 40% over last season. The revenue of their current television deal, including their 65% ownership stake, is likely over $100 million per season, but they have a big loan against the network as well. Despite all that information, Forbes estimates the Mets made $25 million in profits last season. Given the extra support from the fans this season, that number will likely grow this season. If spending does not increase with it, as the Wilpons continue to pay down debt, expect comparisons to Frank McCourt and the prior Dodgers’ regime to grow.

If the Mets do not make a significant addition, the criticism on the Mets will continue, and most of the scorn will be placed on the Wilpons, the Mets ownership group which has received increased public financial scrutiny since the Bernie Madoff scandal. The Mets’ payroll has decreased and, despite the increase this year, it does not appear the team is willing to spend enough to match even some small-market teams, let alone to reflect the size of their own market. Failing to trade for Troy Tulowitzki or Jose Reyes is not alone enough to indict the Mets’ spending, but their pattern of frugality, continued at this trade deadline, provides little credibility that the Mets are truly willing to spend sufficiently to help a potentially winning club. The deadline is not here yet and the Mets could still add Carlos Gonzalez or Jay Bruce and render much of the above moot, but the team’s current practices indicate a major deal is not on the horizon.