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.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
Does MLB have any capital or liquidity requirements like the NFL where if you sign a player to a contract you must have $$ in reserves? I can see that weighing the Mets’ owners down even further when they’d rather use any $ to pay off debt
Nice article. Does anyone know how much the Wilpon’s borrowed against the Mets to shore up their Ponzi scheme devastated finances? and how much longer can Met’s fans realistically expect to be paying for it’s owners money mismanagement?
Mets fans desperately need someone to record Wilpon dropping some n-bombs during a phone call or something.
Maybe it’s the backdrop of a national conversation about race that’s numbed my sense of humor, but this comment rubs me the wrong way. I get the joke, but if what we’re hoping from overt racism being exposed is my favorite sports team (and a league run by greedy, white capitalists) gaining an advantage and not justice for the people affected by it, then maybe we aren’t listening to how deeply racism runs. People are being killed because of this. Not sure that’s something to be flippant about.
Good God, shut up.
That is the wisest and most deeply touching comment I’ve seeen in awhile. I am in awe of your humanity. Thank you, Scott McKinney.
Wow.
I only regret that I have but one downvote to give.
I’ll shut up when casual racism for the sake of a joke stops getting an overwhelming vote of support.
A couple of things:
1.) I think the joke is that it takes something on the level of cartoonishly overt racism, as opposed to gross financial and/or general incompetence, for a franchise to rid itself of bad ownership.
2.) This kind of cartoonishly overt racism (as exemplified by Donalds Sterling and Trump), while more visible, isn’t anywhere near as insidious or destructive as institutional racism and discrimination.
So I don’t begrudge Mets fans a bit of gallows humor.
Appreciate the response. I realize breaking down a joke is no fun (living up to my name) and again, I’m probably a bit sensitive considering that we hear about black/brown/native folks getting murdered every day.
I guess I never bought that the NBA all of a sudden cared enough about racist statements that they nobly moved in and took Sterling out. The cynical side of me though it reeked of opportunism. But maybe I’m discounting the player/fan response in forcing the NBA’s hand.
I’m with you on cartoonishly overt comments at times being easier to write off (probably why the Huff Post is putting Trump coverage in their entertainment section), but Sterling had a history of discrimination and, if anything, upheld institutional racism is his rental practices. I feel like it was his beliefs that led to his practices/comments, not the other way around. Surely it wouldn’t be funny if we found out Wilpon thought and acted in these same ways. So why is it funny to joke about if he were a racist? Just because the Mets are losing baseball games?
But I get it, we want to be able to not get so down about life so we make jokes. I always thought gallows humor was made at your own expense, or at the situation you were in. And yeah, the Mets are in a bad situation. Surely it does not equate to the situations and experiences that people affected by racism go through, right? Like the people Sterling kicked out in the street or took advantage of. So why is it funny? Or, why do we laugh at it? There are people pissed off enough at what Trump says to go to his rallies and protest, often faced with physical assaults and threats. These people find comments, even cartoonishly overt ones, offensive enough to fight back over.
But I don’t know, like I said, it just rubbed me the wrong way.
It’s not really your fault. You’ve been indoctrinated by the ubiquitous media crusade for making everything racist. They want us all fighting about it to prevent us from organizing against their corporate overlords.
Oh, the Orioles fans just keep paying and paying and paying. The only smart thing I’ve done in 30 years is hire Buck Showalter… and that was probably an administrative error.
I’m glad someone pointed out the emergency no-interest loan that MLB gave the Wilpon’s to make payroll. Other than Howard Megdal it’s almost never mentioned, and they even let them default on it for nearly a year. You don’t even need the McCourt comparison, MLB had them right there, but Selig/Manfred would have lost a top ally.
If MLB is unhappy with the way the Wilpons have run the team, then they should add or move another franchise to NYC. The Yankees can take the hit (and probably no longer care as they’ve already cashed in and sold their TV network) and the Mets have no right to complain after running the team like they’re playing in Kansas City.
The NYC metro market is big enough for another team (probably several: London has half a dozen Premier League soccer clubs) it’d be a huge revenue boon to baseball and would put some pressure on the Wilpons to sell the club rather than subject their fans to the consequences of their bad financial decisions.
I’m not sure the London comparison is quite fair. First, 1/3 of the UK lives in or near London. Thus having 1/3 of the Premier League teams in the area makes some sense. Second, the promotion and relegation system of football means that no team is guaranteed to be in the Premier League, and theoretically, any team can earn their way into or out of the top flight. Thus, teams cannot expect to exert much control over league decisions about club territoriality, and the league cannot decide where the teams in the Premiership will be located. Wins and losses determines it.
That’s not how it works, period. The Mets could block that move. The Yankees would as well. Both teams have veto power over a team moving into their territory. MLB could, however, force the Wilpons to sell, which isn’t happening. Let’s face it – the Mets are legitimate playoff contenders at 1 game out of first place with the best young starting pitching in the sport and a deep, young farm system. Sure, I dislike the Wilpons’ ownership group but you can’t exactly force a team as successful as the 2015 Mets to sell because of “incompetence”.
Sure you can, when the “successful” team is buried in debt to the league and already stiffed the MLB once on payments.
The real answer is Manfred won’t turn on his hard core supporters and subject them to the same treatment dingbats like McCourt get.
No, MLB wouldn’t and couldn’t force the Wilpons out now. You’d have to have a reason like things the McCourts did — ie, misuse of funds, sometimes for personal use like buying extra homes.
And you’re wrong about the team being in debt to the league. The Mets years ago paid back the emergency loan they needed to make payroll during the Madoff debacle.
I don’t want this to sound like a defense of the Wilpons, but it seems to me a bit of an oversight to not mention that the Mets are currently 1 game out of a playoff spot. And they have done this without spending a ton.
Also, as much as I loved Reyes as a Met, he has been only marginally better at SS this year than Wilmer Flores according to WAR and we’d have to give up prospects to get him and pay him most or all of $48mil he is due over the next two+ seasons.
Now could / should they have gotten Tulo? Fair question. Obviously he helps the team if he is healthy. It is an open question how well he would hit in a pitchers’ park like Citi, though in his few at bats there per year, he has done well. For my part, I am marginally disappointed they didn’t get Tulo, but I will reserve judgment to see what happens in the next two days. Can they get Carlos Gomez or another big bat (not Bruce or Gonzalez please)?
Tulowitzki would have hit fine at Citi Field. Last year, Citi had a 104 HR factor, and the idea that the dimensions are gigantic is flawed. If you look at Citi Field’s dimensions overlayed on Camden Yards, the LF fence is almost exactly the same, and no one calls Camden a pitcher’s park.
The Mets had a chance to acquire Tulo, and there aren’t going to be any opportunities to get a 2-way shortstop like that for a long time. It would be nice to get a big OF bat, but SS will continue to be an abyss for a while.
Yeah, I’m not Wilpon fan at all but I fall more in this camp. And btw I’ve been one of the biggest critics of the Alderson FO for how deliberate their re-build effort has proceeded… they should have been way farther along in their climb of the division than it took them.
All that said, there have been tons of examples of investing big money in players on the wrong side of 30 that quickly became albatrosses. It’s fair to speculate on why the Mets didn’t end up with Tulo, but it’s also been mentioned that Tulo himself didn’t want to be a Met so there is that… Avoiding a reunion with Jose Reyes is probably wise at this point however, given how much money is owed to him and the decline he’s already shown at 32.
How quickly we forget the terrible situation this team was in with contracts like Jason Bay, Luis Castillo, and Johan Santana. The fallacy here is that larger payroll = greater success. It just isn’t proven out.
Also, if you go spend that extra $20M per year everyone wants them to spend, what do you do when Harvey, deGrom, Wheeler and Syndergaard all need to get paid long term expensive contracts? Let them go to other teams because money is tied up in expensive batting contracts?
This team has a shot at the playoffs. That would be fun. It looks like, even without a bat, there will be meaningful games in September (that Yankees series is looking big now).
Building this team around pitching, saving the money to pay for that pitching and waiting for the guys like Nimmo, Conforto, Rosario, Smith, etc. is the way to build long term success.
Yes, this. 100%
The marginal upgrades they’ve made so far are still upgrades when you think about the at bats which will no longer be going to John Mayberry, Jr., Danny Muno and Johnny Monell. I’d much rather them wait until d”Arnaud (who is due back this weekend) and Wright (who started baseball activity) come back and save the money for a deGrom extension this offseason.
If they can’t afford to take on Tulo’s incredibly team friendly deal, and still sign whoever remains healthy and effective from Harvey, DeGrom, Wheeler and Syndergaard after their many more years of team control run short, they should disband the team now.
Assuming your pitching studs won’t ever get hurt or flame out while you wait years to find out if your next round of prospects will be useful or flame out isn’t much of a plan.
What time frame were you expecting? As another poster mentioned, the contracts given to Bay and Santana crippled the team. They had serious debt issues thanks to Madoff so they didn’t have the money to be serious players in free agency.
The other fact that people forget is that Sandy was mandated by ownership to keep the team as competitive as possible to prevent Citi from becoming a ghost town. I’m sure if given the option, Sandy probably would have gone for a complete tear down. The team has won at least 74 games every year this decade and as a result, haven’t had a single pick higher than 10th. It’s a hell of a lot easier to acquire impact talent when you have a top pick every year. This has essentially been long term retool as opposed to a true rebuild.
Alderson took over a team that had no major league talent, a barren farm, toxic contracts and a broke owner. He hasn’t been perfect, but as whole he’s done a remarkable job considering the obstacles.
Curious as to why not Bruce. If I were a GM, I’d be all over Bruce. I think he’s really under valued right now because of last year. But if you buy that as a lost season due to injury then you are looking at a 28 year old who is in the middle of his fifth straight season with 2.5 to 5 WAR and a wRC between 117-124. He’s hit more homers since 2010 than anybody in the NL not named Stanton. He’s got a career high 11% walk rate and the lowest k rate since 2009. His defense has been inconsistent according to the metrics, and that’s the reason his WAR has been anywhere from 3-5 despite putting up similar offense over the past 5 years. But he has good range and a very strong arm.
You’d be getting the rest of his age 28 year, plus his age 29 year for 12 million. Then you’d have an option for 13 million on his age 30 year. Not cheap, but there is some surplus value there if he’s a true talent 3-4 win player. If you bought this kind of player on the open market, you’d almost certainly have to commit for more than 2 years, but with Bruce your getting two peak years and then out after his age 30 year. Plus, if everything did fall apart you could decline the 2017 option. Then there is always the possibility of him playing like a superstar for a year or two. With the improvements he’s made this year, all it would take would be a lucky BABIP year or a bit of a spike in his homer rate and you are looking at a 5 win season.
I hope the Reds are valuing Bruce correctly. But it kind of seems like this is more about salary relief for them. If all it took was paying the salary and a top 50-100 prospect, then I would be all over it.
I think your last paragraph is the issue though. What are the Reds looking to get back? You think he’s really under valued because of last year – but what if the Reds are looking for trade offers as if last year didn’t happen?
If it’s a matter of taking on his salary and giving up a mid-range prospect, then that would be a good deal. But I’m not sure the Reds are willing to do that. He’s been just as good as Upton this year, and isn’t expensive over the next few years. It wouldn’t make sense to just dump him, while Upton might cost a much better prospect.
The Reds are the team I follow the closest, and I just get the sense that they are not real high on him. There have been rumors that the asking price for Chapman has been extreme, but I’ve heard nothing like that about Bruce. Nothing more than a feeling, really, and I could be totally wrong. But if there was one guy that the Reds were most likely to sell low on I think it would be Bruce.
in all fairness. chris coghlan has been just as good as upton, all for the price of 2.5 mil.
In past years I would somewhat pump the breaks on blasting the Wilpons for a lack of spending, especially when the Mets were within their rebuilding efforts. So often spending in FA or taking on big contracts does not work out in the long-term, so I had no issues with them for not spending during a time when spending wasn’t necessary. Even now, I would not want them to take on an albatross contract in the form of a Reyes or Tulo in an effort to win. However, that should not imply spending at this time of year has to equate with such a situation.
If you’re willing to take on salary, even only a modest amount, it enables you to make a range of deals happen. It’s as simple as that. There’s no reason that the Mets shouldn’t be looking to put together a package of prospects and salary to facilitate a deal for a big bat. That is the real issue here. The Mets are in the thick of a pennant race and and are on the verge of becoming a legitimate contender. This is the time to invest in the team and in particular putting together a good offense. I’m all for not blowing one’s prospects in an effort to win-now, but a significant deal can be struck for a bat without doing so. There’s simply no excuse not to bring in one significant piece
As for the Reyes or Tulo possibilities specifically, I am glad the Mets did not pursue either player. Reyes’s defense has become a negative this season, and his value will continue to dwindle as his speed and health deteriorate. Tulo I simply would have not paid for given the acquisition cost in terms of $$$ and prospects, as well as his health concerns. The Mets can easily bring in a upgrade without said players having to be that guy.
Wilpons, if you do not strike a deal for a significant bat before the deadline, you will be dead to me no matter how many playoff games we win with you at the helm. I have been patient and fair with you for as long as I can remember, but your time is up. Show me you prioritize winning over financial concerns, especially when the former will ease the latter.
“There’s no reason that the Mets shouldn’t be looking to put together a package of prospects and salary to facilitate a deal for a big bat.”
Which big bat are you looking at, and what are you willing to give up (besides taking on their salary)?
Tulo’s contract is not an albatross
For the Mets, it’s not just the contract, it’d be the entire acquisition package that becomes the albatross (were he to get hurt again and miss significant time)
Not as of today, but he’s an oft-injured 30 year old owed $100 million. That deal could look really bad in a year or two based on a combination of health and age-related decline. And Tulo’s injury history makes me worry about the latter more than I otherwise would.
The three years before this season Tulo only averaged 88 games a year.
He produced an average of $32M in value during those years.
By Fangraphs measures he’s been worth $33M+ in five of the last six seasons, despite missing a ton of games.
His contract is worth taking on, even for significant prospects. This team can’t win with David Wright and a bunch of schlubs, and Wright is out for the year.. Wait around a couple years to see if some position player prospects pan out, and when you find out if they do Wright will be well on the way to retirement..
You got all the global details rights about revenue and spending and including money in trades, but I think your player examples (Tulo, Reyes) were fairly weak.
You can defend not acquiring Reyes as a baseball decision based on his contract size and performance value; and Tulo would have required, say, a Syndergaard and more. Beating the Blue Jays as they race off the cliff is not necessarily the sign of a smart organization.
I would like to see spending go up — a lot — but not in the ways you suggest.
Tulo would have required a Syndergaard+ ?! The Jays gave up nothing of the sort while also shedding a contract with negative future value.
1. Why is it assumed that because team A got a deal done with a certain level of prospects team B could have done that as well?
2. You don’t think the Rockies taking back Reyes resulted in them getting a better level of prospects?
The Rockies are so dumb they probably would have taken lesser prospects to get Cuddyer instead of Reyes.
Which would turn that dumb Cuddyer contract into genius.
Squadron are you asking those questions to Jason or bolstering his answer?
1. Because it is an observable data point and happened between a willing buyer & seller — it is literally the best info we have and has to be the starting point of a conversation…
2. yes, obviously… but as crazy as Syndergaard is for Tulo, since the Mets DON’T have Reyes to dump they obviously have to give up LESS in prospect value…
1.Yes you have the end result but that doesn’t tell you if some other team gave a similar or what some may even call a better package than what they got for Tulowitzki. The Mets could have come up with a better deal and its very possible the Rockies still do the Bluejays deal. It’s just too much gray area in trade talks to not be considered and put them at fault right after the trade is done.
2. Again we don’t know if the Mets picking up all of Troy’s money would have driven the price down.
Give up squadron. It’s clear your scare statement that the Mets would have to give up Syndergaard is obviously bogus. So now you want to dance around in the grey mists of what ifs and who knows?
We know the prospect cost would not have been high, because it wasn’t.
I have a hard time believing that the reason Tulowitzki isn’t wearing orange and blue is because he didn’t want to go to New York. They sent him to Toronto against his will, and they had to know that he probably didn’t want to leave the country and lose a lot of his salary to Canadian taxes. Toronto has a better team, but they were also 7 GB of the Yankees at the time of the trade, whereas the Mets were only 2 GB. And it’s not like the package that the Rockies got was so amazing that they couldn’t refuse it and would betray their franchise player. The real reason the Mets didn’t get Tulowitzki is because of the money he is owed.
Do you want to be stuck paying Troy Tulowitzki when the inevitable next injury strikes? They are already in that position with David Wright and will be until the year 2020 or so. Why not make incremental moves now and make the major trade in the off-season when cooler heads can prevail? Also, the Mets have been burned by every free agent signing the past few years. Maybe it’s time for them to stop investing big money in players over 30. (I’m no fan of this ownership, btw, and MLB should have removed it during the Madoff Affair, but that is just not going to happen, for reasons outlined by others here.)
Yes, because through the last 6 years of constant injuries Tulowitski has still been one of the most valuable MLB players, worth nearly double the $19M a year he’s still owed and only owed till age 35.
Unlikely. The Monforts work in mysterious ways, and the trade will backfire badly for them. Reyes is a salary dump with negative value relative to his contract, and they basically got one prospect and two future relievers. The last think the Rockies should have been doing was acquiring raw pitching talent since they have never effectively developed an elite starter. Instead, they should have acquired the best available prospects and instead focused on acquiring a young, cost-controlled starter further along in his development.
Cishek also has another year of possible arbitration left and had already lost his job as closer because he started off so horribly this season. Also, it’s the Marlins. They might have traded Cishek for a Cuban sandwich.
Cishek has also never pitched in the postseason. Clippard at least has a little experience (6 IP).
You can’t know for sure that the Mets didn’t trade for Tulo or Zobrist simply because of money. Instead of Zobrist they went and got 2 decent players (Uribe and Johnson) because their bench is incredibly thing.
Why trade for Tulo right now when Ruben Tejada has the same fWAR as Tulo this year in much fewer ABs? Not saying Tejada is the better overall player, but Tulo still seems to be recovering from offseason hip surgery. Also, I think it’s safe to say Matz and Syndergaard were off the table in terms of discussion, and the next best Mets pitchers that could possibly be traded are Wheeler (TJ), Montero (hurt), and a bunch of guys that may or may not be top prospects (Fulmer, Molina, Ynoa).
But the whole article is basically: The Mets owners are cheap. They were also a lousy team for a while saddled with a lot of horrible contracts. Now all of their players and young and team controlled for quite some time. Their payroll is low, but it’s not like teams like the Cardinals or the Cubs/White are outspending them by a ton. They’ve never spent like the Yankees and whenever they did they lost anyway!
The Cardinals ALWAYS act like a small market team and nobody ever calls them out on that. Clearly, not signing Pujols was great, but they almost never go crazy with their contracts (Matt Holliday notwithstanding) either but rather build from within with fantastic drafting, trades and signings.
Speak it! We keep hearing that high payrolls don’t lead to better results, as the Mets of 2010ish show. Sure, I would’ve loved Tulo, but I’m not sure the investment makes sense long term–did anyone notice the YANKEES passed, too? It’s a lot of money invested in a guy who could miss a SEASON at a moment’s notice.
Many of Craig’s points are correct–they are run cheaply, relative to the market size. But that isn’t the ONLY reason why they didn’t trade for Tulo. And it may not be the reason they don’t get Cargo (injury risk; lots of years at positions the Mets have clogged) or Bruce (also years left; the recent memory of a down 2014). This seems to take one explanation when obviously many more components are involved.
If a high payroll led to better results, the Phillies might be a little bit better than 4 games worse than any other team.
Jeff Wilpon..?
Higher payrolls lead to better results only if your GM is smart enough to spend it well. But passing on guys who are the best in the league at their position, (even when missing a third of the season!) because you are afraid they’ll miss a season means skipping out the entire free agent and trade markets. Everyone gets hurt.
Hey, no problem. The Mets are going to win the division. The Nats are going to tank.
Odd claim considering they’ve maintained first largely without Werth, Zimmerman, Rendon, Stammen, Strasburg, or Span which is most of the Opening Day roster, but sure.
okay five isn’t “most,” but still it seems as though if anything they’re more likely to do the opposite of tanking
mmm… yeah tell me about that.
http://mangameslost.com
And the Mets have kept pace without it’s two most potent offensive players Wright and d’Arnaud, a major starter Wheeler, zero production from the lone off-season acquisition in Cuddyer and a bullpen assembled on the fly with a litany of injuries (and a mind-numbing suspension) on that front as well.
when hasn’t d’arnourd been hurt? i don’t see much of an upgrade from wheeler to niese this year. obviously in the future i take wheeler but this year probably not much. david wright was entering his decline years even without injury. i would say rendon and span equal all the mets losses alone.
Yep Washington had been quite lucky compared with the mets
And the Mets are right behind them with one of the worst offenses in baseball. d’Arnaud, Wheeler, and Wright were much bigger hits than the injuries suffered by the Nats.
Mets: Scored 353 runs, Allowed 355 runs
Nats: Scored 411 runs, Allowed 384 runs
Plus which teams has more talent coming off the DL?
So, no.
Maybe the mets just aren’t willing to mortgage the future simply because they’re having a surprise run 1-2 years before expected?
premature ejaculation is common with 20-30% of males
It’s more depressing that the team is basically being left out to dry by the front office. The Clippard trade now makes more sense because Mejia has no brain cells, but the offense is still very iffy and it doesn’t seem that they can take on the additional cash, so they have to leverage some of their future due to being cash-strapped. They need to spend money in order to stay relevant, especially because these pitchers will soon be gone through FA. If they don’t plan on taking on players, then can they at least lock up deGrom, Harvey, Wheeler and Syndergaard to team friendly contracts that will have be backloaded so they can further solidify this rotation? Or can they not even sustain what they currently have?
The Mets are temporarily cash-strapped, unlike the As, Brewers, and Rays. Those three teams are permanently cash-strapped. All the Mets need to do to to increase payroll moving forward is put people in seats. The way to do that is competing. A single playoff appearance would probably be enough to dramatically alter the Mets’ financial situation.
For what it’s worth, the offense has been upgrade to “iffy” from “terrible”. Combined with that rotation and surprisingly effective bullpen, that should be enough compete with anyone in the NL right now. Another bat would certainly be nice, but I digress.
To me the big test is this coming off-season. By then the Mets will have established themselves as a team on the rise with both their win total and the increased attendance revenue; the exact time for them to strike with the finale of this 5-year retooling plan. And if that acquisition doesn’t happen, they’ll we will know with certainty what the Wilpon’s are really in this for.
Like Bren mentioned above, its nice to see someone other than Howard Megdal calling the Wilpons out. Megdal has been beating this drum for 5 or 6 years and I’ve seen most media outlets simply mention ownership’s reluctance to invest in this team as a passing comment. It goes beyond that. The Mets ownership is essentially funneling revenue from their local TV revenue to finance massive debts taken out against the team and network, in addition to bond payments to NYC for Citi Field. The Mets deal with SNY is actually fairly well below market, especially in light of the recent deals made by the Phillies and the Dodgers (somewhere around $55 MM/year). That’s by design. Revenue from broadcast rights are subject to MLB revenue sharing. Profits from an ownership stake in a network are not. The Mets should be able to exploit this loophole by reinvesting the fairly substantial profits from their 65% ownership stake in SNY in their team. That money is, instead, being used to finance debt and allow the Wilpons to hold onto the team. The fact the Selig and now Manfred have continued to look the other way on this issue is just gross negligence.
Doesn’t this undermine the argument that New York isn’t “going for it” strictly for monetary reasons? Two weeks ago, Jeff Sullivan posted a column analyzing the Houston Astros’ situation and seeking out readers’ views on how that team should proceed. 58.79% decided that Houston should “make a smaller move or moves, compared to 25.16% who advocated “a major splash” and 16.05% who said to stand pat. The conclusion of the majority was that the Astros with their wealth of young talent did not have to go all-in to exploit a closing window.
Aren’t the Mets doing the same thing? Their young pitching should mean a significant chance of contention for years to come, yet their odds of a championship this season are even lower than Houston’s. I’m not suggesting that the Wilpons don’t take finances into account, as they surely do, but the tone of this column feels unduly harsh when I think we would applaud the measured approach of a similar team in a similar situation.
If you include the CitiField debt payments ($50m/year), the Wilpon’s are paying more to finance the hole they’ve dug than they are on payroll. That’s a pretty egregious offense IMO, but since they funnel it through their TV network they get away with it on a technicality.
The Wilpon’s also have a massive incentive to keep control of the Mets, as the team owns the rights to the CitiField parking lot, which has been appraised at $2b for development purposes. Why NYC allowed this I have no idea.
Selig kept the Wilpon’s because they were a strong ally, and indeed they helped ensure that Manfred got the job when other owners put up a little bit of a fight.
hey they found the money for michael cuddyer!
Reason why Mets can’t develop the old Shea Stadium site/Citifield parking lot:
“A (NY) state court ruled Thursday (7/2/15) that a development group that includes the owners of the Mets cannot build a mall and movie theater on acreage next to Citi Field because it is parkland legally designated only for use as a stadium.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/sports/baseball/near-citi-field-plans-for-willets-west-are-ruled-illegal.html?_r=0
You can cite the Mets being cheap for not pursuing Tulo or Zobrist, but it would be smart to realize the Mets don’t have any prospects available as talented as Jeff Hoffman, Miguel Castro and Sean Manaea. Who were the Mets going to give up? Wilpons are the worst owners in baseball, but with both of these deals, the pieces to make it possible just aren’t there.
They don’t have pitching prospects like that, but they do have quite a number of good hitting prospects.
Agreed, but figuring pitching is what was desired, since that’s what has been given up, the Mets couldn’t compete with the competition. I can’t stand ownership, but these two instances, I give them a pass because it just didn’t make sense.
Now getting Reyes would be a dream come true, but that isn’t happening. Ownership has a personal vendetta against him.
This is a little misleading since Syndergaard, Matz, and Conforto are all in the majors. They could have put together a better package starting with one of those guys and adding a Nimmo, Cecchini, Rosario, or Smith. I wouldn’t advocate it, but throw in two of the major league pieces to start and they would have blown it away.
Correction, the list of Nimmo, Cecchini, Rosario, and Smith should be adding “from,” as in more than one.
im highest on rosario, the rest look like spare parts.
the Mets has a much better farm than Toronto, with the lottery ticket that Colorado accepted and the contract they took up, matz/syndergaard or even wheeler would be a far superior package
I’m pretty sure Miami Marlin fans would like to ask them who the worst owner in baseball is…
Sorry, but this is such a dismally poor opinion piece meant solely to trash the Mets vs. actually examining whether the Mets moves make sense from both a baseball and financial perspective.
A few points …
1)First off, as a Mets fan, I am thrilled the days of reckless spending and gratuitous handouts to veterans way past their prime is over. Sure there are going to be mistakes with some recent contracts, but they are nothing compared to the money wasted in the past before Alderson was named GM and before the fictional 50% drop in payroll. Which brings me to my next point …
2)“…the Mets’ payroll has decreased by 50% in recent years.” This is factually incorrect and the numbers to prove it’s false can easily be found at Cot’s or USA Today. The highest the Mets payroll has ever been is $149 million in 2009 (Opening day 25-man roster; Cot’s). 50% of that is $75 million but the Mets payroll at its lowest was $85 million in 2014. Moreover, because $13.6 million of that 2009 payroll was being paid by the Tigers to cover Sheffield, the 2009 payroll was essentially only $136 million, making the 2014 payroll roughly a 38% drop from that high point, not 50%. When you are so far off on something that’s so easy to determine, I have to question every assertion in the article.
3)Reyes “would immediately be one of the best position players on the Mets if added to the team” is a gross exaggeration at best. If added to the Mets, he wouldn’t even be their best shortstop. His defense has dropped off dramatically in recent years and both Wilmer Flores and Tejada have much better UZR numbers. Offensively, Reyes is at 94 wRC+ while Tejada is at 93. Not much difference. So overall, Tejada is the better shortstop this year. Factor in Reyes’ salary, and Tejada is not only the better player, but the much more cost-effective option. Sentimentality is not a good reason to overpay a player.
4) “The two bullpen arms are relatively similar players with similar salaries” … Clippard has been a more effective reliever than Cishek this year. Cishek was so bad this year he was sent to the minors at one point. That’s one reason why Clippard brought back a better prospect – not to mention the fact the Nats were also going after Clippard at the time and so drove up the price. I doubt there was as much demand for Cishek.
I am not for spending just for spending’s sake, which is what Craig seems to be advocating. I don’t care if the payroll is $50 million or $200 million — just so long as most of the moves are made with common sense and big overpays and albatross contracts are kept to a bare minimum.
Lastly, if one has to link to a Howard Megdal article to try to buttress their points, then I think they are automatically on very shaky ground. Megdal writes with a humongous chip on his shoulder the size of Everest and substitutes opinion and mere speculation for fact. I think he has predicted that Picard would beat the Mets in court, that he would be the conservator of the Mets, and that the Wilpons would have declared bankruptcy many times over by now. His track record for accuracy and predictions is very poor when it comes to the Mets.
Well said Terrence…the author has no idea what he’s talking about in this case. Hasn’t really done enough research…comes off like a casual fan who did some brief stat scanning.
This is possibly the stupidest “article” I’ve ever seen on FanGraphs and I’ve been reading for many, many years. Cishek was demoted from both the closer role and then down to AA; of course he was going to cost less than Clippard, a closer when we acquired him. Tulo would have been a great get for the Mets but he specifically stated he did not want to play for them. It’s easy to understand why the Mets would be unwilling to acquire a player with a stated desire to not play for them. The Royals had to give up Sean Manaea+ to acquire Zobrist.
The Mets have pretty much every position accounted for at this point except CF and d’Arnaud’s returning at catcher. At the corner outfield slots, Granderson and Conforto are the starters right now and don’t seem to be going anywhere. It’s as if Craig Edwards had absolutely no idea about the Mets’ roster or team needs when writing this piece.
Yea, but “za” still isn’t a real word. I don’t care what Scrabble says.
Reyes is not worth his current salary (not by a long shot). And a “two-year commitment” isn’t entirely accurate, in that if the Mets want to buy out his last season, it would cost them $4 million. That’s $22 million + $22 million + $4 million for two years of what will be below-average defense and shrinking offensive numbers. How does that make sense?
His defensive metrics have declined significantly, and out of his last 10 seasons, his worst OB+SLG numbers have come last year (.726) and this season (.707). Maybe Colorado will inflate his OB+SLG back up and that will fool someone into thinking Reyes is worth a minimum of $48 million over two seasons, but the Mets shouldn’t buy into that for a second.
It’s fine to call out the Wilpons on their general lack of spending and many other issues, but trying to lump Reyes under the “See, they are really are cheap” umbrella is really unfair. The Mets SHOULD 100% pass on this version of Reyes (vastly overpaid and declining) and I couldn’t agree with their lack of interest in him more.
And oh yeah, something else the author chooses to gloss over: Reyes’ number of games played in each of the last seven seasons:
36, 133, 126, 160, 93, 143, and 69 this season (he missed 31 games with the Blue Jays this season).
So on top of everything else, you can probably bank on him missing 20-40 games most seasons, and possibly more. Yep, that’s worth $22 million per season.
I like your work, Craig, but it seems like you wanted to write a negative article about the Mets, and you decided to write it regardless of what moves they made (or didn’t make). And really, you can write a negative article about just about any team’s trade-deadline strategy.
If they stand pat, they’re cheap. If they trade for someone like Upton, they’re foolish to think they have a shot to begin with. Sure, they’re only a game out – but our playoff odds page says they only have a 1 in 4 chance of making the post-season! (Let’s ignore that the playoff odds are based on the same forecast that thought the Nats would be way ahead by now, and that the Marlins would be right there with the Mets).
Let’s say the Mets had traded for Reyes. They gave up an A-ball pitcher with no chance at the Majors, and took on Reyes’ entire salary. I can guarantee that the fangraphs trade recap would be anti-Mets for taking on such a poor contract, for an aging/declining player who hasn’t performed better than Tejada this year. The article would ask why the Mets are foolish enough to pay $22MM/year to Reyes when Tejada makes a tenth of that salary. But by not trading for a player with negative trade value, that just makes them cheap?
Clippard/Cishek is a poor comparison. As others have said, Cishek was so bad this year that he got demoted to the minors. Would any GM in baseball take Cishek over Clippard right now? Of course not. He might be a decent reclamation project, but you surely wouldn’t want him pitching late innings when you’re in a pennant race right now. And then you factor in that Clippard has been terrific against lefties – which is a big area of need for the Mets’ bullpen – and Clippard is a much better option for them.
And on a side note, it’s still bizarre that people are acting like Granderson was a bad signing. He certainly underperformed last year, but he’s put up 2.7 WAR so far this year in 100 games, and can be at around 4 WAR by year-end. If he averages 3 WAR the next two years, he will have put up over 11 WAR in 4 years, for $60MM. That’s not bad. Maybe he’ll fall off a cliff, but he’s lived up to his contract so far.
Curtis Granderson hasn’t been worth 4 WAR over his last 1100 plate appearances. It is a bad contract.
Curtis Granderson has been worth 2.7 WAR over his last 422 plate appearances. It is a good contract.
Wow, that was fun!
They’re paying him to be a little more than a 2 WAR player. He’s put up 3.9 WAR in less than 2 years, and could be up around 5 WAR by the end of the season. He’s lived up to his end of the bargain so far.
As I said, maybe he’ll fall off a cliff. Maybe 2016 and 2017 will be just like last year, and the Mets will have received 1 good year out of 4. But at this point, it’s too early to say it’s a bad contract.
Wow! At 12:18, Granderson was going to be a 4 WAR player at the end of the year and at 1:50 he’s going to be a 5 WAR player by the end of the year.
He had a fantastic hour and a half!
In my first post, I was saying he can be at 4 WAR this season (based on his season to date).
Baron referenced his last 1100 plate appearances (i.e. last year and this year, which covers his Mets career to date). My second post was 5 WAR over the last two years, since he had 1.2 last year.
Grandy’s been solid. He has also been a strong clubhouse presence.
the grandy man can.
Think how great he would be if they traded him this week.
Win win !!
I’m a Mets fan, but of the players you mentioned in this article, I didn’t want any of them. Tulo and CarGo are injury prone, as is Reyes. Jay Bruce is not good. The only high caliber player I would want to trade for is Cespedes. Upton? Please…. there’s barely anyone out there worth trading for to help that much with our offense.
The biggest way to help their offense is to get d’Arnaud back, and healthy. Plawecki is clearly overmatched right now. His K% has doubled compared to the minors, and his BB% has dropped as well. He’s a black hole in their line-up. Unfortunately, even if d’Arnaud comes back this weekend, there’s no way of knowing whether he’ll stay healthy for the rest of the year.
Jay Bruce is not good? Do yourself a favor and actually look up a player’s stats first before you speak. Bruce would be the second best offensive player on the Mets behind Granderson just in terms of WAR. Bruce would be better than Conforto who projects to league average (which is exciting don’t get me wrong), so they could send him back to AAA. Other than money, there is no argument against Bruce.
Bruce doesn’t project to be enough of an improvement over Conforto/Granderson/Johnson/Cuddyer to be worth the prospects he’d require.
#Chris Coghlan. 2.1 war this year and is controllable next year, cubs throw in a duane underwood. mets give up wheeler. good game!
This isn’t the same as “Jay Bruce isn’t good.”
This is honestly one of the worst, trolliest, most talk-radio-friendly articles FanGraphs has ever run.
The Wilpons and the team’s budget are both reprehensible but virtually none of the evidence presented here actually bears on the case against them, and some of it is actually backwards — condemning Alderson for baseball moves that, under the given financial circumstances, have been very good ones, while pretending that this is an argument against ownership for putting constraints on him.
Yes, “the Wilpons have screwed the team financially” is true and worth condemning, but this piece is like “Sandy Alderson has dealt with financial constraints intelligently and not dealt for aging big names, THEREFORE the Wilpons have screwed the team financially” — essentially, dealing with its claimed subject only by affirming the consequent, rather than dealing with the subject it claims to be dealing with. If you want to talk about the Wilpons, don’t pretend that’s something against the baseball side of the operation.
Roger, while I do agree with the premise of what you are getting at and don’t like the examples Craig cites, I do think he has an important point that got buried by his frustration.
The Mets so far haven’t seemed to be able to make a big move for RANDOM PLAYER because they cannot assume such risk, and they can’t assume such risk because of where the decisions made by the Wilpons have put the organization as a whole.
Said another way, the Mets are in a position where they first have to make money in order to spend it, and as a team in a large market they should absolutely have the ability to spend money in an attempt to make it.
Of course I agree with you — you’d have a hard time finding a Mets fan who wouldn’t — but that has nothing to do with basically anything in this article. And I’m not sure why you’d excuse Cardinals fan Craig Edwards for sloppy reasoning and worse writing because he’s “frustrated” with the Wilpons. I assure you that I am far more frustrated with the Wilpons than he is, yet I don’t think it serves any purpose to reason so muddily you end up chucking the Alderson front-office baby out with the Flushing Bay bathwater of their misdeeds and the cronyism that keeps them installed as owners.
While I agree with the premise of this article. I disagree with using tulo/Reyes/zobist as examples tulo/reyes are old injured prone and potentially bad contracts. Zobist is a rental and not an asset that the Mets should be trading for.
The key will be what they do when harvey/wheeler/syndergaard/degrom/Matz get closer to fa, whether they will spend to keep this core together. Adding a tulo or Reyes and losing one of those in the future would not make sense
I agree. Alderson has a philosophy of not giving or taking on long term contracts to players in their thirties. Instead, he wants the flexibility to add veterans on relatively short term contracts (like Cuddyer, Colon, Granderson) and spend money to keep his own. That certainly makes a great deal of sense.
My issue with the Mets and spending is the fact that they spent a total of $2.5mm on their five bench players. This is purely a financial decision, and it has been a costly one. A team with any hope of competing can’t claim that four borderline major leaguers at best (Mayberry, Recker, Nieuwnehuis and Campbell) and one decent player (Tejada) will give you the best chance to win. When that proved disastrous, it took Alderson four months to rectify the situation. Is that money issues or his unwillingness to give away talent? I don’t know.
Where is V Stiviano when we need her ?
Help us V …
Apparently Fred Wilpon is extremely well-liked by anyone who has ever done business with him in real life. Jeffie has a negative reputation, but Fred is extremely well-liked. Great friends with Selig and Koufax, too.
Well, not the people who thought that he was in on it with Madoff; but yeah, other people I guess.
I’d still like to see V. with either of them, big orange visor covering that face of hers.
Said about virtually every conman, ever
PS – didn’t they trade Dickey for D’Arnaud and Syndergaard ? That’s effn amazing.
And Becerra, a guy who will likely be a Mets’ Top-10 or Top-15 guy next year.
But AA is such an amazing GM!
I am also in a growing majority to find this piece as pure clickbait.
Let’s reset this for a moment: as a Mets fan who had avoided discussing my ownership and their frugality over the last few seasons, this type of article is used to enforce the notion that they are cheap and that baseball needs to step in and remove them from ownership…STOP IT!!! It won’t happen if it already hasn’t and anyone out there “hoping” for a racially vile recording from Fred Wilpon…just do me the favor and never reproduce in your lifetime. But I digress…
Alderson had addressed two issues that needed to be fixed (bench, bullpen) without severely compromising the prospects the Mets have as well as their greatest asset (starting pitching) remaining intact. Would I love a big bat??? Sure I do, but at what cost both in relative value and prospective value? Reyes and Tulo are high risk/reward deals with proven track records of success and injury. An outfield bat makes more sense plus it presents a very interesting situation. Suppose this is a corner outfield bat they acquire…does that she Granderson to center? Now, what do you do with Lagares? Do you possibly put him back at his normal position (shortstop) to finally end that problem? Look, every team has a flaw…nobody goes 162-0; even good teams lose 60 games. My point is that no team has everything but you do look for balance on all phases of their operations. I actually credit Alderson more by not heeding the fans demands when this team wasn’t ready. Now, they look to be ready…the moves so far have been solid upgrades to wreak spots. My biggest concern in the future is rooted in the pitching. Young and under team control…if they choose not to spend money then…you can stand me in the front of the line to rid the baseball world of this ownership.
They could sell the team for $2 billion easy, but then they are irrelevant rich people. Just how much are the victims in hock? And remember, they got taken by Bernie, though since they got in early they made a lot. Who to feel sorry for?
It’s really disappointing to see this kind of ridiculous, misinformed opinion piece in Fangraphs. Please stick to baseball analysis and leave finance alone. It’s pretty clear that there is very little understanding of banking / finance in this pseudo-analysis and as a Mets fan and someone that’s spent his entire career in corporate finance, that’s really frustrating to read. The ridiculous concept that debt is a bad thing permeates this piece. Which, of course, is nonsensical. You’re looking at half of a balance sheet, with little knowledge of the other half, or the Mets’/Sterling’s profitability and liquidity. Having debt isn’t bad when you have the ability to service it. Since the author has zero idea of the company’s financial statements, this basically is trash thrown down in an article form and meant to paint the Mets ownership negatively, under the guise of analysis. I expect better from FanGraphs.
As a Mets fan, I don’t like the Wilpons anymore than anyone else. It’s kin of sad that their family name is like a curse word to the fan base. That is related to the perceived unwillingness to spend money on the team. To date, that probably made sense, even though most of us didn’t like it. The team is now in a position to compete though, so no excuses really not to add to the base that they have spent the past few years putting together. All that is fair. Let’s leave it at that though and not pontificate about things that you don’t undersrand. Thanks.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO CARGO
I’m not sold on this Gomez trade.
I think 2 major leaguers for a year and a half of a guy is overpaying. One and a prospect maybe, but not 2. I would have needed Segura or switched out Flores for a prospect, or passed.
I doubt Cole Hamels will pull 2 major leaguers for 4 1/2 years, so a similar deal for 1 1/2 years of a guy not as good as Hamels is a bad deal.
The only hope for the Mets would be to deal Murphy for someone who can start in the infield next year. I wish they had traded Colon about a month ago, but I think he won’t get anything now.
Now that I actually see what the Rangers gave up for Hamels and Diekman, I can safely say the Mets overpaid for Gomez.
Seriously, who would turn down 3 years of Cole Hamels ( 2017-2019), Wheeler, and Flores for Jorge Alfaro, Jerad Eickhoff and and Nick Williams ?
MLB Trade Rumors cites reports the Phillies are sending cash to the Rangers as well? It feels like the Phillies played a big joke on everyone waiting for a sea change trade for the organization.
In the end they got an oft injured veteran and 5 prospects.
I don’t know about 5 prospects. I wouldn’t trade 5 prospects to keep one. Wheeler, Flores, and take your pick from a dozen and the Mets should have a Hamels level contributor… Unless Wheelers arm is 300 yards from the rest of body, which is what it sounds like for this deal to be called off.
Article status: invalidated.
Comment status: invalidated.
How slimy is the media ?
They leak a story about a deal that wasn’t complete, then they tear the Mets apart for not lifting Flores.
It’s the press’ fault for leaking a bad story, not the Mets for not lifting a guy who hadn’t been traded.
Now, instead of apologizing, they double-down by tearing apart the front offices for botching the deal. The front offices didn’t botch anything, the press botched their reporting.
It’s been interesting to see the wagons circling around reporters like Joel Sherman (who as far as I’ve been able to tell was the one person really responsible for the trade being reported as fact, with his seemingly definitive “done deal” tweets) and to a lesser extent the MLB.com writers, DiComo et al. A lot of their fellow beat writers and baseball commentators like Neyer and Rosenthal have been super-quick to exculpate the media and blame “social media” for the rumormongering, as if it weren’t the fact that it were coming from reporters that gave the social-media rumor the legs it had, and made it appear to be a, well, done deal. Meanwhile non-reporters who point this out on Twitter are shrugged off as just more screaming angry fans, and the reporters responsible are blaming their sources, the fans, “social media,” basically anyone else besides themselves, and mostly don’t seem to have faced any consequences or learned anything, besides how to use the Twitter block button to insulate themselves from critique. It’s a case study in journalism in the digital age, and not an encouraging one.