Mets May Set Record

If things go as planned, the Mets could set a new Major League record on Opening Day: the biggest one-year drop in payroll.

Hat tip to MetsToday visitor “Harry”, who pointed out to me a recent blog post by Adam Rubin on ESPN-NY, detailing the Mets’ plan to cut more than $50M in salary from last year. From the post:

After general manager Sandy Alderson revealed the organization lost $70 million last year, the Mets appear poised to have the biggest one-year payroll drop in MLB history — roughly $52 million. That would surpass the former record: $48.4 million by the Texas Rangers from 2003 to 2004, according to ESPN Stats & Information.

The Marlins from 2005 to 2006 had the biggest reduction by percentage, trimming nearly 75 percent of their payroll, but the total was $45.4 million.

The Mets’ payroll, which stood at roughly $143 million last season, is expected to swoon to less than $91 million this Opening Day.

So there you go — at least we can look forward to the Mets doing something newsworthy this year.

Joe Janish began MetsToday in 2005 to provide the unique perspective of a high-level player and coach -- he earned NCAA D-1 All-American honors as a catcher and coached several players who went on to play pro ball. As a result his posts often include mechanical evaluations, scout-like analysis, and opinions that go beyond the numbers. Follow Joe's baseball tips on Twitter at @onbaseball and at the On Baseball Google Plus page.
  1. Neil Peart January 27, 2012 at 10:24 am
    • Joe January 27, 2012 at 10:31 am
      How much money did it cost to telex that all caps message Neil?
      • Pedro January 27, 2012 at 12:09 pm
        I’ll take a guess and say NOT $70 million dollars.
        (i’m sorry i couldn’t resist)
    • HobieLandrith January 27, 2012 at 12:03 pm
      First off, STOP YELLING.

      Second, yeah, it’s possible for a MLB team to succeed on a $90M budget through player development, scouting, etc.

      However, it’s not possible for the Mets to succeed on a $90M budget (or less) in 2012 as they do not have any of these things you mention.

      • Kranepool January 27, 2012 at 1:08 pm
        Hobie’s right. This is a $90 million payroll, not a $90 million well-constructed team. For instance, about $35 million goes to a below-league average OF who’s a liability in the middle of the order, and a SP whose return from surgery is likely, at best, to result in his being a pretty good 6 inning pitcher by July ( if he makes it back at all). The starting rotation is what’s left of Santana, Dickey (love the guy, but we’re all holding our breath that the wheels don’t fall off), Neise (good with upside, but has yet to show he can pitch a full season), Gee (at best, a long relief/spot starter), and I can’t even remember who last non-entity is. This is a $35 million team headed for 5th place in the NL East, barring a 4-way midair collision of the team planes of their 4 “rivals”. The Wilpons have shown, like Rick Perry, that stupid is as stupid does.
        • Glenn January 27, 2012 at 2:14 pm
          Roman wasn’t built in a day. It takes time to trim the excesses of the Minaya regime. I like the 90m payroll which will drop even more when Santana and Bay come off it and are replaced by cheaper, better players. Neil is right. This organization needs to get back to scouting and drafting. The Braves have a competitive team and they have a payroll of 90m. The 50m drop is not a negative; it’s a positive. It shows the Mets have stopped throwing good money on overpriced, over the hill players.
        • HobieLandrith January 27, 2012 at 4:49 pm
          Don’t call it the “Minaya Regime”, because the lunacy extends further than Omar’s time and has little to do with him and everything to do with head puppeteer Jeff Wilpon.

          Further, lowering MLB payroll has ZERO effect on drafting and player development. Spending on both happens all the time, see the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Rangers, and Angels, for example.

        • Dan January 28, 2012 at 12:36 pm
          While the problem is much more than Omar, I somehow can’t bring myself to overlook Castillo, Perez and Putz as examples of Minaya failure.
  2. Joe January 27, 2012 at 10:30 am
    18M for Castillo/Perez alone. The Marlins have more impressive dropoffs, they just spend less and get further for doing so. OTOH, they aren’t in NYC, so when they lose over 80 games, they can do it with less than a paltry 90M.
  3. John D January 27, 2012 at 11:03 am
    WE’RE #1!!

    WE’RE #1!!

    WE’RE #1!!

  4. Kranepool January 27, 2012 at 2:15 pm
    P.S. let’s hope that Jose’s departure and the overall mediocrity of this team, particularly in light of the Nats and Marlines upgrading themselves some, will drive ticket, food and merchandise revenues down another 20% or more. Eyes on the prize: short term pain for the long term gain of driving out this disastrous ownership regime. Note thatbJeff says publicly that he expects his kids to be running this after him (and then their kids, ad infinitum). Judging by the dilution of the sperm pool from Fred to Jeff, it’ll be a trickle of smarts if the Wilpons manage to slither through their current financial noose.
  5. Dan B January 27, 2012 at 2:59 pm
    The NY market is not a small market — i.e. New York professional teams have to compete against two MBL teams, two NBA teams, two NFL teams, and three NHL teams. Plus they have to compete against Broadway, museums and various other entertainment sources. According to a recent study, the attendance by NY fans is more tied to winning percentage then all other MBL teams. Spending $90 million a year and hoping you get into the playoffs once or twice a decade will not pay the bills as it might in other cities.

    We are also assuming that the Mets will be at $90 million when the season ends. I believe the Mets will trade Santana and Bay as soon as they can and they pick the trade that saves them money over the one that brings them in more prospects (think KRod). And most assume Wright is gone this year, too. That would drop the Met’s payroll to under $33 million. How many teams win with a payroll that low? While they are spending $90 million now, they also have one of lowest median payrolls in the league at just $900,000. Santana, Bay, and Wright alone account for two thirds of the payroll. With three trades that most asssume the Mets want to make, we are talking one of the lowest payrolls in baseball.

    • Glenn January 27, 2012 at 3:43 pm
      The point isn’t to spend money just to spend money, but to spend it wisely. The Mets are in a position now where they have to shed bad contracts. When they are in a position where they want to retain good young players, or add that one or two FA’s to augment a good nucleus, that’s the time to spend the money. Makes no sense to have a 145mil payroll for the privilege of finishing in last. For all their headlines the Marlins are still a third place team, and now they have a barren farm system and not a lot of $$ to get over the top. the Mets should want to scouting and draft like the Rays, but spend and retain the good players like the Phillies.
      • HobieLandrith January 27, 2012 at 4:55 pm
        Going with your “spending wisely” point, it could be argued that locking up David Wright on an extension right now while his value is at its lowest point would be “wise” — but it won’t happen.

        It could also be argued that signing Prince Fielder to a deal similar to what the Tigers gave him is spending “wisely”, given that he’s arguably one of the top 5 sluggers in MLB (if not top 3) and his deal is a little below market value when compared to what Albert Pujols received.

        In other words, “spending wisely” is not always equal to “spending less”.

        • Glenn January 27, 2012 at 5:31 pm
          Signing Fielder to the deal he got from the Tigers would be insane. The Tigers can move Fielder to DH as he ages, the Mets cannot. Read Gammons on how AL teams are signing big time FA’s for this reason.

          Spending wisely and spending less are not one in the same but in the Mets case it is. Even if they signed Reyes, Pujols and Wilson, they would not be a contender. Besides, the Mets need to have a blueprint for SUSTAINABLE success. Once again, Minaya took a last place team and got it to the playoffs by signing FA’a and trading away the farm. It worked for a three years, yielded one playoff series win and then fell apart. Mets should be like the Braves, sustainable success.

          You need to take your head out of the sand and stop whining about what you want things to be and see them for what they are. The Mets have a finite amount of money. They can’t at this moment buy big time FA’s and develop the farm simultaneously . They have cut payroll, and a farm team, and laid off staff. For this team spending on A means spending less on B. That is the reality. They have chosen to spend on B; the farm.

          As for David Wright his value is up in the air. Is he the Wright of 2006-2008, the Wright of 2010, or the Wright of 2011. I don’t know. the Mets have an option on him and are waiting to see what his value is, extending him versus trading him. Could it be argued they should sign him now? Sure. but it could be argued that it is prudent to wait and see.

        • Joe Janish January 27, 2012 at 10:54 pm
          When Hobie pulls his head out of the sand I hope he reaches over and pulls yours out too.

          The Mets are not spending money on ANYTHING right now — not the 25-man roster, not on the draft, not on development, not on scouting, NOTHING. To accept the spin that the Mets are cutting costs in every single aspect of their franchise as part of some grandiose rebuilding plan based on drafting and player development is just as “head in the sand” as believing the team needs to jack up the payroll, if not more.

          The Wilpons are broke and have no business owning a MLB team in KC, much less NY, right now. The only “plan” in place is to cut as many costs as possible so they can remain sports moguls and avoid bankruptcy.

        • Glenn January 28, 2012 at 6:55 am
          So here’s what you’re illogically saying: The Wilpon’s plan is to hang on to the Mets for the purpose of doing absolutely nothing? Obviously their plan is to hang on to the Mets because they want to win with the Mets. Why else keep the team if you don’t want to win at some point? The Wilpons have decided they have X amount of dollars and have to cut expense down to Y and build a team with Y amount of dollars until they can raise X to Z. That’s the plan.

          The reality is this: Even if the Wilpons have to sell that’s going to take a while. Also, there’s no guarantee the next owner will be better. Remember, Frank McCourt at one point was welcomed because he was thought to be an improvement over Fox. This is the situation the Mets are in. Deal with it. You can either bitch like a baby every day or accept it and try to think of ways to get out of the hole.

        • Joe Janish January 28, 2012 at 7:41 pm
          “The Wilpon’s plan is to hang on to the Mets for the purpose of doing absolutely nothing? Obviously their plan is to hang on to the Mets because they want to win with the Mets. Why else keep the team if you don’t want to win at some point?”

          Clearly you have a very different perspective than the Wilpons. No, it’s NOT obvious that their plan is to hang on because they want to win with the Mets.

          The Wilpons like the idea of being MLB owners. It makes them feel important. It gives them a certain stature in society. Owning a MLB team in NYC also offers great potential for profit, even if you don’t go all out to win — all you have to do is hope for “meaningful games in September”. Additionally, if they lose the team, it’s an embarrassment — no one enjoys feeling embarrassed.

          I don’t understand where you get the idea that the Wilpons want to keep the team to win, especially if you have watched their actions ever since they took over full ownership from Doubleday. Winning was never the ultimate goal — it was a secondary goal to making money and feeling like big shots.

        • Joe January 28, 2012 at 12:05 pm
          The ownership mismanaged the team’s finances. Who is disagreeing with that? Given that, it is throwing money away with how they handle it to spend money until the ownership changes.

          The best we can hope for is getting rid of bad contracts and not spending for more. But, people here don’t do that. They sneer at them for not spending money. Like why in the heck would one WANT that? We can’t trust them with money. That’s apparent.

          Meanwhile, it is not like “nothing” is being done. Zack Wheeler and others are out there. Duda, Davis, Niese, et. al. ARE out there showing some hope. They didn’t just trust Bobby Parnell to be their closer in ’12, which if they spent “no” money would be the case. They just didn’t rest with the bullpen they had in ’11. They didn’t just give Beltran away for nothing.

          Did enough happen? No. But, we need someone around here to suggest there is at least some water in the glass. You and others can then note how little there is.

        • Dan January 28, 2012 at 12:48 pm
          The water in the glass is that things may get worse for the Wilpons, and Selig will be forced to stop propping up his dear friends. Otherwise it’s at least 2 years of checking the evaporation rate of the little that’s left in the glass.
  6. Dan B January 27, 2012 at 5:27 pm
    Spending wisely is also not depending on a mediocre farm system that is three years away while also CUTTING cost in the player development. Wilpons are not cutting costs because of some grand plan to rebuild and they are waiting to spend wisely. They are cutting costs because they are on the verge of losing the team. If they were in first place they would be selling off.
    • Glenn January 27, 2012 at 5:40 pm
      Incorrect. the farm has already yielded results. Duda, Davis, Gee, Niese, Tejada. Harvey, Meija, Wheeler, and Familia will most likely be at Citi in 2013 if not in September.

      Yes, the Mets are cutting costs because of financial distress. It is because of this distress they must spend more wisely. Fielder or Pujols would not have been wise. Reyes, I can see both sides. He is a great player but a constant health risk.

      The Mets farm system is a work in progress like the team is. They are recovering from trading away so many people and also losing draft picks for signing FA’s. It takes time to build it up. A time ago the Mets farm was bottom of the barrel. now it;s middle of the pack and rising.

      You need to accept the Mets cannot buy their way out of the abyss. they must think their way out.

      • Dan B January 27, 2012 at 6:00 pm
        The Mets are not in financial distress. They are on the verge of bankruptcy. They are not stressing over the $70 million they lost last year — they are stressing over the loans that they have coming due in the next few years that mount to over half a billion (that is billion with a B). Sure, they could refinance those loans but the banks haven’t been too generous with them lately since there is still that little issue of the Madoff lawsuit which, in the best case outcome will cost them $350 million and could still, depending on the outcome of appeals, go as high as $1 billion (there is that B word again).
        Am I happy about this? I am sick to my stomach. I want the Mets to be great every year. But they are trading away players with big contracts. When that is done, they will start trading away players with mediocre contracts (thanks fo the memories R.A.!). Then they will be trading away players eligible for arbitration (you might not want to plan on building a new house in the area, Ike).
        I will be the first one to call myself an idiot if the Mets start spending money again, wisely or not. But I wouldn’t be surprise if we don’t see it happening for five years or until the Wilpons are gone.
        • DaveSchneck January 27, 2012 at 6:41 pm
          I agree with Dan here. The Mets ownership is in the “do whatever it takes” to retain the team mode. Perhaps I would too if I was in their shoes, but as a fan I am both disappointed and not willing to spend on the team because of the prices relative to the investment in players. Most of this mess is by their own doing, and giving them the benefit of doubt on Madoff, for some of it they were victims. I sense that most fans are okay with a lower payroll so long as the team remains competitive. We all agree a good farm sysem is needed, and buying a winner is not the solution. Time will tell, but they sure look like one of the weakest teams in the NL right now. I am quite certain Alderson would make improvements if he had another $10 to $15 mil to spend, which would still be a drop of about $35 mil in payroll. That extra $10 to $15 mil may not provide a playoff team, but if spent well it would keep the team from being a disaster while they wait for the kids to develop. That is what bothers me most.
        • Joe January 27, 2012 at 8:00 pm
          “But they are trading away players with big contracts.”

          They got Zack Wheeler back for Beltran. For a few months of K-Rod, they got back something. Yes, they let go Reyes. Next might be Bay. Not sure what that 17M is getting the team now. Wright? As Glenn said, a question mark.

          Santana? Like the 12M they spent for a closer, they aren’t just going to let him go & do nothing. Ditto Bay probably. They will get back SOMETHING since a team in NYC has some value, including if they go bankrupt, but not with a 33M payroll.

          They spent a lot of money and lost for a few years now. Makes sense for them to spend less and stop bleeding. As to five years, yeah, it took a few years after 2000 to get another playoff berth. The second WC will help.

        • Dan B January 27, 2012 at 9:42 pm
          I am not saying they will be in the playoffs in five years, I am guessing it would five years before they honestly start rebuilding. Until then, we are looking at $45 million a year payrolls.
        • Joe January 28, 2012 at 11:52 am
          Uh huh. I don’t have your crystal ball. I would only say that I doubt they will have a “45M” payroll. They don’t have it now & when Bay & Santana is off the payroll, they won’t simply do nothing with the money. They didn’t do that for 2012 and they won’t do it for 2013 and 2014, adding I don’t pretend to know what the team’s fiscal situation will be then. Others can pretend to know.
        • Dan B January 28, 2012 at 1:12 pm
          Starting 2012, the Met’s payroll is $91 million. Santana and Bay account for $42.125 million of that, leaving $48.875 million. If they trade Wright, they save another $15.25 million. I wouldn’t be surprised if they also trade Pelfrey, Dickey, and Francisco during the year. Correct me, but every quote I have heard from the Wilpons in the past six months implies they do not believe in signing pricey free agents. That is how I came up with $45 million.

          As far as the finances of the Wilpons, they owe at least $385 million to the government aka Madoff. The government is appealing right now to raise that number back up to near $1 billion. The Mets also owe JPMorgan Chase $430 million which is due June 2, 2014 (which doesn’t include the $30 million interest payments due every year until then). They also need to come up with $450 million by June 4, 2015 to pay off the SNY loan. If they sell their shares in SNY, that money would have to be used to pay off this loan and could not be reinvested in the Mets. That loan drains the Wilpons $20 million per year for the interest. They also owe Bank of America $40 million and MLB $25 million. I am sure all of these loans will be refinanced, but they still have to pay the interest payments.
          Standards & Poors just downgraded the Mets financial rating. They also projected a 10% drop in attendance for 2012. The Wilpons have publicly projected a 10% rise in attendance. If S&P is correct, the Wilpons will have to adjust their budget midseason.
          There you have it. You now know more about the Met’s money problems.

        • Joe January 28, 2012 at 5:12 pm
          Dan B. w/o Wright, the payroll by your own numbers is over 45M. They didn’t do nothing this off season, spending money for a closer and relievers and a couple spare parts. Doing the same to pay cheap replacements for Santana (and likely another starter) et. al. will cost money too. More than Wright costs. The team has to spend SOME money to be worth anything, even for bankruptcy court. 45M is too low.

          The numbers you provide suggest the team is a drop in the bucket in regard to their debts. So, if they dispose of it by consent or by pressure, it can be an also ran. We simply don’t know what will happen there.

        • DaveSchneck January 27, 2012 at 9:23 pm
          I sense most Met fans are not expecting the team to buy its way out of the abyss. I also sense that most Met fans agree that a strong farm system is part of the equation for sustainable success. However, this slashing of the payroll by $53 million is only about the financial state of the ownership. Even giving the Wilpons the benefit of doubt in that they are victims of Madoff, they have still done a poor job of running the team and the business. Their business model is very poor and they are now in a downward spiral of fielding a product percieved as poor while still charging top dollar, albeit with some incremental price reductions. They are in a survive at all costs mode. Maybe I would do the same in their position. Given the valuation of the Dodgers, if they were willing to sell majority stakes and return to being minority holders, as they were back in 1980, the team would be able to put a much better product on the field while building the farm system at the same time. If they spend anothe $20 million on the 2012 roster, wisely, they could field a team that could be considered a contender for one of the two wild card spots, and do so without signing any insane deals or deals that sacrifice draft picks. Any of us GM bloggers could figure how to do that, no less Sandy Alserson. It is the ownership and only the ownership that is standing in the way, not Omar, not Sandy.
  7. Izzy January 27, 2012 at 5:59 pm
    Spending wisely is a bogus term in baseball. All you folks who want the Metts to spend wisely twll us how you know any FA will be money well spent, how do you know ant first round pick will pan out? You don’t know and nobody welse knows. Its all hindsite. I don’t remember anyone bitching about bringing in Santana and now in hindsite its a bad contract. Same with bay. There was no bitching until folks found out he lost something. So what exactly is it? Spending wisely to me means a team that won’t make a move because every move is a risk in baseball. It means a team doomed to finish closer to the bottom than the top most years.
  8. Mike B January 27, 2012 at 7:01 pm
    I cant stand the view that the Mets need to shed payroll, WHY. What does it matter to the fans? The prices of anything arent going down, tickets,parking,souvineers, ect. BAD CONTRACTS ARE PART OF SPORTS. If you want an elite player you are going to have to most likely pay more then any other team. And most likely in the end that will hurt. Is the answer not to sign these players? I hope not. AROD is a bad contract but you know what it won the only world series for the Yankees in the last 12 years so i guess it was worth it to them it would have been worth it to me.
    • Glenn January 28, 2012 at 6:59 am
      I understand that Mike but circumstances must come into play. If you’re at 85 wins and want to get to 90 and the playoffs, that’s one thing. If you’re at 75 wins, signing A-Rod is not going to help you.
      • Mike B January 28, 2012 at 4:51 pm
        No signing Arod right now would not help us at this time. Pujos wouldnt have been to smart either. But resigning reyes signing Prince making a run for a top picher and trading ike + prospect for another piece would have made this team a world series contender without a doubt. And put our salary somewhere in the top 5. I know the Wilpons dont have the means but I am not going to make excuses for them.
  9. Kranepool January 27, 2012 at 7:15 pm
    Mets Fans: Just Stay Home

    From Part 2 of Adam Rubin’s article:

    Given all the looming obligations, can the Wilpons survive? One major key, as Fred Wilpon noted, will be revenue generated by attendance, since plentiful financial reserves do not exist. Another component of the recovery plan is payroll austerity, which hurts fans desiring the most competitive team. The Mets’ Opening Day payroll is projected to be less than $91 million — a historic $52 million drop from last season.

    “I think the thing that would be a disappointment to baseball fans is that if he holds on, he has to sort of play this game of reducing payroll and not putting a particularly competitive team on the field,” said Dr. Joel Maxcy, an associate professor and member of Temple University’s Sport Industry Research Center. “That’s a downward spiral, too. If the team isn’t competitive, the revenues that are used to service the debt are dropping as well. So what would seem like a better situation is that they sell the team to another investor, as has happened with Texas and the Dodgers. But it seems like he is pretty adamant about trying to hang on.”

  10. jerseymet January 28, 2012 at 10:24 am
    The Mets may be a poster child for a collapsing financial structure in the sports buisness. Lots of bad decisions have have hurt them. Was Citi Field needed? Could it have been built without public money? Is a 15 million dollar third baseman worth 30 times one making the minimum pay? 3 players account for half the payroll of the team…absurd!
  11. Rob January 28, 2012 at 4:40 pm
    Joe: Seems to me that there are two phases of Wilpon ownership that we’ve gone through. The first phase was when they had money and spent unwisely. They signed mediocre players for bloated long term contracts that saddled them with debt and limited their ability to sign better players without skyrocketing their payroll. But they had money and they could absorb some of those mistakes and continue to retool using their resources. That was phase one. But move on to phase two. They now have far less money (they’re still rich by anyone’s standards, but not rich enough to afford a major league baseball team). In this second poorer phase, they can’t afford to spend the money necessary to retool and correct the mistakes that they made when they were richer. Joe is right; during this phase, they are never ever going to spend any money on this team to rebuild it properly. They’re simply cutting in order to survive and continue their ownership of the team. They’re not going to spend on their farm system (they cut a minor league team, for gosh sakes), they’re cutting their scouting, they’re cutting everything. And they’re putting that money in their pockets to survive. That’s not the type of major league ownership that this team needs to rebuild. If we were still in phase one, then yeah…we could all praise Sandy for cutting payroll and creating flexibility and growing our lower systems and making it work for the future. But that’s not what’s happening here. They’re cutting and not spending to simply survive as owners.

    So they’re not retooling, folks. They don’t have the money to retool. They’re not spending the money to retool. They’re not spending money because they don’t have any money (or at least any extra money). They’re simply being miserly to keep the money that they have in their own pockets. And “miserly” is probably a bad word, because it implies that they have money and don’t spend it. They don’t have any money…

    So we need to stop going to games, stop funding their desperation, stop fueling their futile efforts to hold on. If we keep acting like we’re okay with what they’re doing, they’re going to keep doing what they’re doing and it’s gonna be a long decade of misery for us fans.

    What do you think, Joe?

  12. Rob January 28, 2012 at 4:47 pm
    And one more thought:

    If the Wilpons had the money, then we wouldn’t be talking about dumping David Wright or letting Jose Reyes go. Because in a world where the Wilpons had money, they would have been able to rebuild the team around those players, not dump them to save money. Dumping them isn’t a baseball decision…it’s a “we can’t afford anything” decision made by relative paupers in a baseball economy populated by billionaires.

    • DaveSchneck January 28, 2012 at 10:23 pm
      Go post, 100% accurate. Wright will only be “dumped” if he returns to performing at a high level. If he does, why wouldn’t they want to keep him? We can debate whether the Reyes deal will pan out in the long run, and his health history is not great, but he is a top caliber player in the prime of his career. Yes, the pitching has been light compared to Philly and Atlanta, and the injuries have wrecked at least 2 of the last 4 seasons, but let’s make no mistake, this stripping of the payroll has nothing to do about baseball and everything to do about cash flow. And they haven’t yet had to write a check for the Madoff settlement. Like it or not, owning a MLB team is for billionaires, not multi-millionnaires.
  13. mic January 29, 2012 at 4:34 am
    Who did they keep in 1995? 2003?
  14. mic January 29, 2012 at 4:40 am
    Izzy: FA is generally not wise spending. Not for premium stars. Who really ever earns their contract? I doubt Pujols or Fielder will.

    Carlos Beltran was reletively good. But then we can go from Vince Coleman to Ollie. Note: I can say the same about Bay. I cant say santana is bad either as he singlehandedly came us in races. only for Wilpon to blow the game late. Injuries happen. and if Santana comes back HE would be worth rebuilding around.

    • Izzy January 29, 2012 at 9:55 am
      OK mic, lets accept your premise. Then do you also accept letting your guys go when they are legible to hit free agency? Do you accept letting guys go in their 20’s because they are FAs even tho they are in their prime? So I guess you want Wright gone too then because his salary is high and his next contract will be a big FA contract. Then do you also go the next step and let guys go because they are in their second or third arb years and will make big buicks? Did the giants screw up giviing Lincecim 40 mil for two years. A big risk.. Oh no, shouldn’tr do it. Well if its bad then they better start looking for a home for Ike because next year he goes to arb and in 2013 he will be 2nd year and getting big giant bucks. Bottom line is if you don’t want to take a risk you better get a gov’t job. If you want to win in pro sports you need to take risks, and when they fail you eed to takwe the next risk, because 99% of fans don’t care that the Wilpons are broke, they only care that their team keeps getting worse and they can’t even buy a jersey anymore becuase every good Met is getting dumped. We are now the new york pirates.
      • DaveSchneck January 29, 2012 at 7:01 pm
        Right on, brother.
  15. Mic January 29, 2012 at 4:13 pm
    I dont disagree iz. This is a badly run franchise. And it is not getting better with present owner. In fact to me it looks like its being positioned to be sold.
    • Dan B January 30, 2012 at 9:47 am
      I disagree, Mic. The current debt structure would make it hard for the Wilpons to sell the Mets. The numbers I’ve read put the value of the franchise near the Wilpons’ debt. They would walk away with close to nothing. Add the fact Fred Wilpon has publicly stated he wants to pass the Mets to his heirs. Though the Dodger sale might effect the Met’s value as would the terms of Wilpon’s renegotiated loans. The Wilpons look like they want to cut cost to the bone and sell some shares to cover operating costs and hope for the best. In the mean time, which lefty bat should we get for the bench?
  16. mic January 30, 2012 at 2:54 pm
    The ‘sale’ is not going to be the wilpons choice. My feeling is that the upcoming court case is the precursor to how and when the Mets are sold. (Per the Dodgers sale), I think MLB may let the wilpons bow out gracefully. I cant see how the present ‘non-competitive version of the Mets with plummeting sales and negative revenues will help the Wilpons regain value.