After the Mets signed Alejandro De Aza, the Mets fans realized the team was breaking its promises, and they became angry. They came to the realization that the team was not going to increase payroll, at least not significantly, after attendance increased.
Right now, I could remind everyone of the Mets great starting pitching in an attempt to calm everyone down. However, I don’t think it’s that time. Honestly, the fans need to be angry with the team lying to them. The team needs to answer questions why ticket prices increased while the payroll was decreased. The only way I truly know how to make that happen is to tell everyone the Mets punted on Yoenis Cespedes.
Cespedes is projected to receive a contract around $21.5 million per year. Jason Heyward signed a deal worth approximately $23 million a year. If you assume Heyward was the top free agent, the $21.5 million is a good approximation.
We know Michael Cuddyer. We don’t know if he received a buyout. He was due to make $12.5 million. De Aza just signed for $5.75 million, and he can earn up to $1.25 million in incentives. That’s potentially $7 million. Collectively, that’s potentially $19.5 million.
That’s right. The De Aza signing really did cost the Mets Cespedes. The money saved in the series of transactions starting with the Neil Walker trade and Cuddyer retirement wasn’t used to get the power bat the Mets need.
Yes, I don’t think the Mets should re-sign him. However, I do think they should’ve used the money to improve the roster. They haven’t done that. For me, I thought the Mets should’ve created a lockdown bullpen while bringing back Daniel Murphy. For others, it’s Cespedes.
For the Mets, it was pocketing the money while bringing on De Aza.
The Wilpons are commonly compared to the McCourts. For the uninitiated, the McCourts used to own the Dodgers until MLB seized the team and forced the sale of the team.
With the McCourts, the apparent tipping point was Frank McCourt seeking a $300 million loan from its TV partner just to make payroll. The Dodgers payroll dropped, and the large market team only had the 12th best payroll. Furthermore, the McCourts were accused of using Dodgers revenues to support their lifestyle. It all came unravelling during the McCourts’ divorce when much of this became public. MLB seized the opportunity to force the sale of the Dodgers.
I’m not sure the Wilpons’ financial misdeeds quite reach the level of the McCourts. However, they did take out $980 million in loans to stay afloat; $430 million of that was borrowed against the Mets. Since that time, as per Howard Megdal, the Wilpons have used the Mets profits to finance this debt. This debt was not taken out to benefit the Mets. Rather, the debt has had a negative impact on the Mets as the debt agreements, prior to refinancing, prevented the Mets from increasing payroll.
Where the Wilpons conduct falls short of the McCourts is the the daily operations. At no point has it been alleged the Mets couldn’t make payroll. While the Wilpons have been using the Mets as a personal ATM like the McCourts, they have not done so to the point that they can’t make payroll. The prior commissioner and Wilpons’ good friend, Bud Selig, never said a word about this. The closest current commissioner, Rob Manfred, only said teams should “spend commensurate with the economic resources available to them.” He also enjoyed pointing out the mid-market Royals had a larger payroll than the big market Mets.
None of this amounts to much. It appears so long as the Mets do not interfere with the ability to find the team’s operations, MLB will not step in and take the team over. It’ll allow the Mets to raise ticket prices while reducing payroll. It will not hold the Mets up to their own standards.
If that was the only issue, MLB could be justified in looking the other way. However, there are greater accusations of malfeasance by the Mets organization.
The Mets settled a lawsuit due to Jeff Wilpon’s alleged discriminatory actions. He apparently took issue with a woman being pregnant out of wedlock. He told her that she would be paid more when she gets married. She was eventually told she was going to be fired, but she could stay on for the rest of the year if she dropped her discrimination claims. She refused and had her attorney advise the Wilpons she was pursuing the claims. She was fired three minutes later.
Of course, the Mets claim she was fired for failing to meet ticket quotas. It should be noted that this was at the time the Mets initially purged payroll putting a constantly diminishing payroll each year. It should also be noted, the female employee was the first ever female senior vice president. She was replaced by a man.
If that wasn’t enough, the Mets also declined to renew the contract of an injured pitching coach. During the season, Tom Signore was struck with a ball causing blindness in one eye at post-concussion symptoms. He was regarded well enough to fill-in for Frank Viola in AAA. Now that he had some medical issues, he’s pushed out the door.
If you’re still not convinced of the Wilpons’ malfeasance, consider their censorship:
https://twitter.com/koosman2pointoh/status/679434407267147776
So between the using the Mets as an ATM, firing a single mom on trumped up charges, and getting rid of a person hurt on the job, when does MLB step in and take over the team? How long can this embarrassment continue? Are we allowed to talk about it? I mean they don’t allow such conversations on their network.
Mets fans have a right to be angry with the team’s spending. MLB should be embarrassed by the actions of one of its owners. Firing single mothers and effectively firing a person blind in one eye is not okay.
Sooner or later MLB has to step in and out a stop to all of this.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with Alejandro De Aza as the Mets fourth outfielder and/or a platoon option for Juan Lagares. I didn’t trust Denard Span‘s ability to return to form. I never thought Gerardo Parra would come to the Mets to accept a reduced role. In a vacuum, I thought the move made sense.
Apparently, I was the only one, and you know what? I completely understand. For many Mets fans the De Aza signing was a signal that the Mets weren’t spending money. It meant the Mets weren’t going to bring in Span, who was a popular free agent target amongst fans. It meant the Mets weren’t going to bring back fan favorite Yoenis Cespedes. It meant the Mets were going to pocket all that playoff money.
It showed the Mets were not going to keep their promise that payroll would increase if attendance increased. Well attendance and revenues increased, so what happened:
https://twitter.com/jareddiamond/status/679393422684381184
#Mets payroll alert: $107m. I'll leave now.
— Michael Baron (@michaelgbaron) December 22, 2015
This means the Mets payroll is at or near the 2015 Opening Day payroll. That’s less than the Mets payroll at the end of the 2015 season. In essence, attendance increased and PAYROLL DECREASED!
It’s unacceptable, especially when you consider the Mets needed to improve a team that lost the World Series. They’re now worse than that team. It’s not right, and frankly it’s unfair to the fans.
One thing that’s funny is I had some on ask me why I wasn’t more upset about the De Aza signing. It’s simple. The Mets already signaled they weren’t going to spend this offseason with the Neil Walker trade. It was a cheap move that saved a couple of million.
Yes, Walker’s and Jon Niese‘s 2016 salaries are effectively a wash. However, the Mets needed to add Bartolo Colon to take Niese’s spot in the rotation for $7.25 million. The Mets might’ve been able to sign Daniel Murphy for an average annual value of $12 million. That’s a $4.75 million difference. By saving that money, the Mets lost a trade chip in Niese, which is important since the Mets have lost a lot of pitching over the past year. They also let everyone know they’re saving money. It’s just now confirmed the cost savings were for the Wilpons and not for a big payroll acquisition.
Overall, the Walker trade signaled this was coming. I was angry when that trade happened. I’m not going to get angry again over the same issue. I’m not going to get angry over a signing that makes some sense. Don’t get me wrong. Like you, I’m angry.
It’s just that I’ve been angry much longer than you have.
My mother-in-law lives in an area that does not have SNY. As a result, unless the Mets are on the WB or are playing a nationally televised game, I can’t watch the game. When there are no Mets, we usually watch Family Feud on the Game Show Network.
The show works because of Steve Harvey. There are people in this world who are just funny. He’s one of them. I was forever sold on him when I saw him on Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee. On that show, he said something to the effect of that comedians brains are wired differently, that when something bad happens the comedians are writing the jokes that night. Well something bad happened to him:
He handled the situation with class, but man is that a tough one to live down. However, I’m sure a comedian like himself could appreciate Mr. Met’s Tweet:
Just saw Steve Harvey this morning. He said I was his favorite mascot. Should I be worried?
— Mr. Met (@MrMet) December 21, 2015
I think it’s time noted Mets fan and friend of Steve Harvey, Jerry Seinfeld, gets Mr. Met on his show.
Apparently, the Mets are in no rush to acquire a centerfielder who can hit right-handed pitching:
The #Mets have Denard Span, Will Venable and Alejandro De Aza on their radar as left-handed CF options. They're slow-playing it.
— Jerry Crasnick (@jcrasnick) December 21, 2015
The name there that is new is Alejandro De Aza. He will turn 32 next year, and he’s a left-handed outfielder. In his career, he has hit .274/.338/.418 against righties. He hit .278/.351/.448 against them last year while playing 90 games for three different teams. So he fits as a platoon partner for Juan Lagares offensively. The question is how does he fit defensively?
He’s not bad actually. Not great, but not bad. For some reason, he only played CF eight innings last year, but his career UZR there is 1.8, meaning he can handle the position. Typically, he averages a 0.2 per season.
Does he have the potential upside of a Denard Span? No, but he also doesn’t have the same downside. Span has just had labrum surgery on his hip on top of two other surgeries. Span has been as defensively two years running. While he and De Aza are the same age, Span has a lot more tread on those tires.
De Aza is also a definitive upgrade over Kirk Nieuwenhuis. While they are similar defensively, De Aza hits righties much better. Nieuwenhuis hit righties .210/.277/.403 last year and .245/.314/.423 for his career.
Overall, De Aza is the perfect fit for the Mets. He hits righties. He can play a respectable centerfield. He’s also going to be cheap. De Aza made $5 million last year. There’s no reason to expect he’ll make much more than that. It’s also possible he signs for less. With the Mets current financial situation, De Aza should be the direction they go.
You know what you’re getting from him. He’s going to provide exactly what you need. If Lagares rebounds, you can justify sitting De Aza for him. Also, did I mention he’s going to come cheap? If you’re getting Span on a one-year heavy incentive laden deal, I understand going that direction. However, his agent may have something to say about that.
With all that said, I’ll take De Aza.
I had an aunt that gave everyone one of her nieces and nephews an ugly Christmas sweater for Christmas. We all hated it. We were all forced to wear it. It wasn’t an enjoyable part of my childhood. It was a miserable experience.
Well now, it’s a thing. People have ugly Christmas sweater parties. I get it. We get nostalgic for the things from our childhood, no matter how awful they might’ve been. Parties like this are fun. It’s great seeing people trying to find a truly awful sweater. It’s not like it was hard. They’re everywhere. However, with that said, someone’s always out there to ruin the fun.
If you’re wearing a sports team’s “ugly sweater” you’re not meaningfully participating. It’s the equivalent of buying a jersey. You’re wearing team merchandise. Also, the point of the ugly sweater party was to highlight the truly awful ugly sweaters we either had to wear growing up or had to see on an overly festive relative.
When the product made is intentionally “ugly”, either the sweater or the concept has jumped the shark. Please continue the parties. However, instead of regarding the unoriginal, support the person who made a truly awful sweater and is proud of it. Turning your back on them is like turning your back on Mugatu and the piano neck tie. You don’t want to deal with those consequences.
If you really want an ugly Mets item this winter, I suggest going on the Internet to find this jersey:
If you do that, you’ll have my respect.
Merry Christmas.
While I’m not planning on actually discussing major plot points here, there will be at least some allusions to what happened in the movie. If you haven’t seen it, please come back at another time. Yes, I know this blog isn’t about Star Wars, but it was an important event, and I felt compelled to write something. I’ll go back to the regularly scheduled programming later.
Before proceeding, I think it’s important to put my fandom in context. Obviously, I have seen all the movies more than once. Yes, even The Phantom Menace. I had some Star Wars toys as a kid. I vaguely remember being an Ewok for Halloween one year. I recall reading one or two books, but they didn’t leave any impression on me. I’m not an expert in the Expanded Universe, but I was generally aware of the Thrawn Trilogy and Luke Skywalker turning to the Dark Side. Also, I got pretty good at Star Wars Trivial Pursuit. That’s my perspective.
Now, this is your last chance to check out before any spoilers arise.
Personally, I loved the movie. Honestly, I think the movie went the direction it had to go even if the plot was a little too much the plot of A New Hope with some sprinkling in of Empire Strikes Back. For some this is a criticism. Did others, it’s a point of praise. Either way, I will say it was much better written than A New Hope.
In any event, the Rey-Luke parallels were obvious. Both from desert planets off the main grid. Both abandoned there (at least Luke had guardians). Both accidentally come across a droid with important information. Both didn’t know they were powerful with the Force. I thought the movie did a good job of not beating you over the head with it, but if you have seen the movies the parallels were obvious.
Speaking of obvious, I love that they didn’t try to change who Han Solo and Princess Leia were. Did we really expect that 30 years later they would’ve settled down in a little cottage on Naboo? Did we expect they would’ve had anything but a rocky relationship? Of course not. In essence, this is what The Force Awakens gets right. They know the characters, and they didn’t change them to try to make them something they weren’t.
Without giving anything away, Harrison Ford seemed as overjoyed playing Han Solo again as much as Han Solo seemed overjoyed to finally be in the mix of things again. Part of the reason might be because he got what he wanted. The good thing there was what happened was organic to the story, and it actually drove the plot of the movie and perhaps the new trilogy along.
That’s the thing. The Force Awakens really respects the characters and what happened in the original trilogy. It didn’t try to make anything they weren’t, nor did it try to shock you for shock’s value. The one thing less talked about was how the characters were reflective of the fans.
The older fans were Han Solo. We had our moment in the sun with the original trilogy. In reality, we were hoping for more while never really expecting to get it. We’re overjoyed being in a comfortable place like the Millenium Falcon. We’re excited to see our old friends and make new ones. Like Han, we’re answering a million questions about the Jedi and Luke Skywalker. We may seem perturbed, but deep down we love it. We want tons back in the mix while handing it off to the next generation.
Rey is the new Star Wars fans. They’ve heard of the Jedi. They’ve heard of Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. They have seen the movies, but they didn’t experience them the way their parents and grandparents did. When Rey is all wide-eyed in amazement that she’s actually talking to Han Solo about Luke Skywalker, I thought of my son getting his own trilogy to experience and to cherish.
That’s the best part of the movie. It transitioned. Yes, Luke is bound to have a massive role in Episode VIII, but the focus of the movies have now shifted. The original trilogy and the prequels made it readily apparent Star Wars was about Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. Many of us were more interested in Han, Luke, and Leia.
I can comfortably say Episode VII changed the focus from the aforementioned group to Rey, Finn, Poe, and Kylo Ren. I will be disappointed if Kylo Ren’s character arc mirrors Darth Vader’s. I’ll be disappointed if Rey’s is a carbon copy to Luke’s. Keep in mind, there’s some danger there with Rey apparently on a remote planet looking to train to become a Jedi, and the First Order’s Starkiller now destroyed.
There’s room for separation here. Kylo Ren is still training whereas Vader was already an accomplished Sith Lord. For her part, Rey has a more full fledged back story that Luke didn’t have. Luke thought he was with his aunt and uncle because Darth Vader killed his father. All Rey knows is she was abandoned, and she doesn’t know why. I’m going to be really aggravated if we find out that Rey and Ben were twins. I say this having already accepted we’ll see a “Rey, I am your father” scene. Yes, I know that’s not the quote.
Overall, The Force Awakens was a success. It respected the characters and the history. It was a terrific movie. It transitioned from the new to the old. It made you excited not only to see it again and again, but it also made you excited to see the next one. The bar was set very high for this movie, and at a minimum, the movie cleared that bar. I think it went much further than that. I think it created a new story that could conceivably go anywhere it wants. It’s not, nor should it feel tied down to, the arc of the original trilogy.
May the Force be with you.
Commissioner Rob Manfred recently spoke out against player opt out clauses. The issue, if you want to call it an issue, came about, in part, due to the Jason Heyward and David Price signings. Here’s the Commisioner’s take:
The logic of opt-out clauses escapes me. You make an eight year agreement with a player. He plays well, and he opts out after three. You either pay the player again or you lose him. Conversely, if the player performs poorly, he doesn’t opt out and gets the benefit of the eight year agreement. That doesn’t strike me as a very good deal. Personally, I don’t see the logic of it. But clubs do what they do.
Keep in mind, the Commissioner could’ve said the same thing about teams carrying player options, but he didn’t say that. No, he essentially said these opt out agreements are bad for teams. I couldn’t disagree more.
First, let’s keep in mind who is getting opt out clauses in their contracts. In this offseason, it was a former Cy Young Award winner in Price and a young three time Gold Glove winner in Hayward. They were the two top free agents. Accordingly, they had the leverage to get the clauses inserted in their contracts. Without those clauses, it’s reasonable to assume those players go elsewhere.
With that in mind, let’s also keep in mind the opt out clause is a way to get a player you might not have otherwise obtained. The Marlins have one to Giancarlo Stanton as an attempt to keep a budding superstar around longer than they usually could. The Yankees used the provision to lure CC Sabathia to the Bronx. It was reported Sabathia didn’t want to come to New York, but rather, he wanted to return home to California. The opt out clause allowed the Yankees to offer an out in case Sabathia hated New York. Without the clause, it’s very possible the Yankees didn’t get him.
Speaking of Sabathia, the opt out clause protects the team from having to pay a player on the downside of his career. Sabathia had an opt out after his third year. To that point, the Yankess paid Sabathia $48.5 million over the course of three years. Sabathia was good for them goimg 50-23 a 3.17 ERA. In two of the three years, he was an All Star. The Yankees won the World Series. In all three years, he was top four in the Cy Young voting. He was also turning 32.
Sabathia never really officially opted out. Instead, he renegotiated his deal. The five year contact became an eight year contract. In the first four years, Sabathia has earned $92 million. For that $92 million, he has been 38-33 with a 4.35 ERA. He’s had one All Star appearance and no Cy Young votes. It’s been a disaster, especially when you consider the extenuating circumstances.
If the Yankees walked away when they should’ve, Sabathia gets a huge deal elsewhere. Sabathia’s down years happen elsewhere while the Yankees have free up cash to get whatever else they needed. Instead, they signed Sabathia to another deal, and Sabathia is taking up a roster spot for more money than he’s now worth.
Overall, if you want a top player, you don’t want to pay him during his decline, and you can show restraint not to re-sign an older player, the opt out clause is the way to go. Therein is the logic in the deal.
Going into the 2015 season, the Mets told everyone they were comfortable with Wilmer Flores as their shortstop. Going into this offseason, the Mets reminded everyone they made the World Series with Flores as their shortstop. As it turns out the Mets don’t regard Flores as anything more than a bench player.
With Daniel Murphy being a free agent, the Mets had the option to do the following with Flores: (1) leave him at shortstop or (2) move him to secondbase. The secondbase option became more viable when Ben Zobrist became a Cub. Instead the Mets traded for Neil Walker. After that, they signed Asdrubal Cabrera. In about a 34 hour timespan Flores went from starting middle infielder to a bench player.
Simply put, the Mets gave up on him. They gave up on a 25 year old baseball player they seemed to really like. They gave up on the idea that a hard worker like Flores would improve. Make no mistake, this has more to do with Flores’ bat than it has to do with his glove. It’s surprising because it was Flores’ bat that earned him the opportunity to play in the big leagues.
Simply put, while Flores showed some power, he was not very good at the plate. Last year, he hit .263/.295/.408. Walker hit .269/.328/.427. Cabrera hit .265/.315/.430. As an aside, Murphy hit .281/.322./.449. Seems important to mention since the Mets were making offensive and not defensive upgrades.
Last year, Flores had a UZR of 2.0 at secondbase and -2.5 at shortstop. Walker is coming off consecutive -6.8 UZR seasons at second. Here are Cabrera‘s UZRs at short since 2009: -5.0, -5.5, -11.0, -7.7, -12.8, -6.6, -6.0. Look at those numbers again. I know it’s hard for Mets fans to accept, but Flores is a better defender than Walker and Cabrera.
The reason it’s so hard is the early season troubles Flores had. He had trouble turning the double play. He had trouble making a play off his backhand. Here’s the thing. Remember the NLCS and World Series? Did either of those issues arise once? No. He was very solid at short, even if it was a limited sample size.
Ultimately, the Mets made these moves because of Flores’ offense, not his defense. They made these moves because they lost faith that Flores could ever improve enough to be an everyday player. Yes, they gave up on him being an everyday player. When you move a 25 year old to the bench, you’ve given up on him. You’ve given up on him when you bring in two weaker defenders in their 30s.
The Mets made these moves to improve their offense. It’s up for debate m as to whether it was the right move. What is not up for debate is the Mets giving up on Flores. It’s pretty clear that they did.
If you’ve read Andy Martino’s Winter Meetings article, there’s a lot to digest. There’s many ways to go, but first I wanted to address the Asdrubal Cabrera situation.
As you well know, the Mets acquired Cabrera. Depending on your point-of-view, Cabrera may or may not be an upgrade at shortstop. He’s a weaker defender. You’re relying on a good second half being a sign that he’s ready to overcome his struggles of the past five seasons. For all that, the Mets signed him to a two year $18.5 million contract. It’s a contract that might’ve depended on what Ben Zobrist did.
Supposedly, the Mets were willing to sign Zobrist to a four year $60 million contract. That would’ve been an average annual value of $15 million per year. This is what the Mets conveyed to Zobrist’s agent, Alan Nero, who coincidentally represents Cabrera. The Mets talked about both players with the agent. However, pay careful attention to this quote:
Before Zobrist made his decision, [Assistant GM John] Ricco felt he had to approach the pursuit of Cabrera delicately. The Mets needed to appear interested, but not so much that Nero thought they were turning away from Zobrist. Now, with that barrier lifted, Ricco and his group go hard after Cabrera, offering a two year, $18.5 million deal, and landing him that night. The process is simple: Will you take our money? Yes? Great, we have a deal.
I’m sure there are a number of ways to reasonably interpret that statement. Personally, I interpret it as the Mets didn’t have $24+ million in their budget, at least not for the middle infield. From the beginning of their conversations, Cabrera was a fallback option.
As Mets fans, we were informed if attendance increased than payroll would increase. Well, attendance increased. As a result, the Mets revenue increased somewhere between $45 – 60 million. Now, before the Mets made any moves, their projected payroll was going to be around $92 million. Adding $24 million to the middle infield would’ve increased the payroll to $116 million.
Keep in mind with that $116 million payroll, the Mets infield and rotation would’ve been locked down. You could’ve justified not pursuing a Yoenis Cespedes because you would’ve shown to everyone, let alone your fan base, that:
- The Mets were willing to outbid everyone to get the most coveted free agent on the market;
- You were willing to spend to address what you saw as a position of need; and
- You would’ve actually increased the payroll.
After having minimum $45 million in extra revenue, Cabrera should not have been contingent on Zobrist. The Mets should’ve been able to bring in both players. Either they are still facing budget constraints from the Madoff scandal, or the team doesn’t feel compelled to have a league average payroll despite whatever promises were made.
In any event, the Mets fans have been lied to by this team. It’s not alright. Attendance and revenues significantly increased. There will be a modest increase in payroll. This should make you question everything they do this offseason. Was Neil Walker really an improvement over Daniel Murphy, or is the team just selling that to us? Did the Mets trade Jon Niese because it was a reasonable deal, or was it because they needed to shed some payroll to have enough room for Walker and Cabrera?
I just look forward to the next free agent move, if there will be one. I’m curious how they’ll sell it to the fans. I wonder how much there’s left in the budget. These questions are more than reasonable and fair after reading this article.