Subscribe via RSS Feed

Breaking! Mets Not Serious About Competing

[ 36 ] December 5, 2011 |

I think Cameron is right. The injuries are a concern,  but otherwise Reyes is a good free agent gamble — relatively young free agent with young players’ skills at a scarce position.   Given their resources, there’s no reason the Mets should have left him go to a division rival.

Share with Sociable

Comments (36)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. 4jkb4ia says:

    But will the Marlins have money left over to sign Pujols? This is clearly the question of our time.

  2. The Frito Pundito says:

    The Mets lost $70 million last year. They did not have the resources to bid on Reyes at anywhere near the Marlins level. I am very sad to see him go, and no, the Mets will not compete this year or likely the next. But they are getting back on track. Meanwhile, the whole Marlins organization may be shut down by the SEC, so Jose could be available once again.

    • R Johnston says:

      The Mets are not getting back on track. Getting back on track for the Mets involves Selig or a judge forcing the sale of the team, and that shows no signs of happening. The Wilpons were hideously awful owners even before the Madoff debacle blew up in their faces.

      • c u n d gulag says:

        I hate the Mets, and most of their fans, but today, I actually feel really, really sorry for them.

        Reyes was the only reason to go see them, or turn the game on TV or radio.

        David Wright’s a shell of his former self – maybe still having problems after his beaning a few years ago. Plus, he’s about to turn 29 and start his decline phase.
        He should have a better year now that they’re pulling in the fences. But I think he could use a change of scenery. The Mets should trade him now, and get whatever young players they can get back. And yeah, I know he’s no Brooks at 3rd, and has a weak arm, but he’s not awful.

        And now that they’ve got Jose, what are they going to do with Hanley? 3rd? Outfield? Trade him?
        I’ve heard 3rd, but Hanley may have other ideas.
        And he’s usually not too shy to express them.
        So, stay tuned…

        • Joshua says:

          I don’t know why you hate me, but whatever.

          I think Reyes and Wright should have been moved after 2008 or so. They needed a change of scenery after the awful 2006 NLCS and the 2007-2008 collapses. I was doubtful about them delivering a World Series, even though the team had (mostly) the talent to get there.

          Of course, Minaya’s awful moves compounded the problem, but I really smelled the “stink of failure” on Reyes and Wright for a long time.

      • actor212 says:

        I dunno. The Wilpons have made some awesome deals–the mid-80s teams, the Mike Piazza deal– and some clunkers. I don’t think “hideous” is fair.

        • c u n d gulag says:

          The mid 80′s team was built when Frank Cashen was the GM, and he was the architect of those underachieving teams.

          That’s one of the best teams to only win 1 WS. They should have been in at least 3 or 4, and maybe won another 1 or 2. And yeah, I know that that’s not easy to do, but they were really, really good.

          • SEK says:

            I hate the Mets, and most of their fans, but today, I actually feel really, really sorry for them.

            Thank you, but it doesn’t make us feel any better. Thankfully, my other allegiances are to my alma mater, LSU, and the Saints. But man, this one stings. What next, trade Wright to the Phillies?

          • actor212 says:

            Without taking a thing away from Cashen, that’s sort of like saying the late 70s Yankees teams were Gabe Paul’s teams while the 1990s Yankees were Cashman’s.

            Yet Steinbrenner musta hired SOMEone along the way there, notably Paul/Cashman.

            To call the mid-80s Mets “underachieving,” when you have a hall of Fame catcher, a could-be HoF first baseman, two young players who SHOULD have been HoF (and went on to win multiple World Series with other teams), and at least one other pitcher to throw a no-hitter in the majors is a bit of an understatement, to be sure.

            I tend to look at Davey Johnson’s lack of leadership (except in being first to the hotel bar on the road.)

            • c u n d gulag says:

              Those 70′s teams were Paul’s Yankees, but the late 90′s Yankees were pure Gene Michael – with a little help from Buck Showalter. Watson and Cashman merely kept building on that foundation.

              • actor212 says:

                Really?

                So the Steinbrenners had no say whatsoever in, say, bringing Billy Martin back or Reggie Jackson or A-Rod?

                Hmmmmm…not sure I agree with you, which is a polite way of asking “You sure you’re a Yankees fan?”

                • c u n d gulag says:

                  Oh I’m sure I’m a Yankee fan.

                  And yes, Ol’ Gabe got a lot of stuff done before Steinbrenner started to think he was the genious he thought he was.
                  Paul built the core of that 70′s team when King George was on suspension for contributions to Nixon.

                  And Michael built the core of that late 90′s team when George was suspended for the Howie Spira insanity.

                  George’s greatest contribution was bringing in poor Dave Collins, a fast, but little 1st Baseman, just as Mattingly was ready to come up from the Minors. And then he topped himself with poor Ed Whitson – a decent pitcher, but one as suited to playing in NYC as Tim Tebow would be as King of Carnival in Rio.

                  George won when people could keep George from being George.

    • actor212 says:

      We’re going back to the DeRoulet era: cheap ownership unwilling to commit one dime to developing a talented team for the long haul, interspersed with flashy signings and trades that do nothing for the team’s post-season chances, but create enough of a splash to draw a few thousand fans to the Shake Shack in centerfield.

    • mark f says:

      Manny Ramirez reportedly applied for reinstatement. If there’s an NL team that’ll be in the market, I think we know which it is.

  3. Thlayli says:

    This is exactly the kind of splashy headline-grabbing move the Marlins needed to make as they move into their new stadium and try to build up their fanbase.

    Because after 18 years and two championships, “build up their fanbase” is still something they have to do.

    • Rob says:

      The TV ratings have been decent. No one went to games because the Marlins didn’t want people to go to games. The lease deal was crappy and if lots of people showed up you can’t complain that you need a new stadium.

  4. rea says:

    Impending violation of Dombrowski’s Rule: no team other than the Yankees, and maybe the Red Sox, can afford more than two $20 million-a-year players and have enough left for suporting cast to make a decent team.

    • Rob says:

      Since Reyes isn’t making $20m it’s not a problem.

      You giving up being a Tiger’s fan then? They’ll have 2 $20m players starting next year…

    • DivGuy says:

      Phillies: Howard 5/125, Lee 5/120, Halladay 3/60

      Anyway, Reyes isn’t making $20M per, and lots of clubs have a couple ~$15M players – the Tigers, the Cards, the Twins, Rangers, the Angels, the Mariners, the Brewers, the Cards, the Cubs, the Giants and the Rockies.

    • mpowell says:

      I think this under states the salary appreciation in baseball over the past 10 years. It’s been much slower than in the previous 10, but there are now a decent number of players worth 15-20M/year. And, in addition, there are quite a few more teams willing to spend 100M+ or even 150M. These are no longer the days when Arod’s 25M/year salary is 1/3 of the Ranger’s total payroll (which still wouldn’t have prevented them from competing if they knew what they were doing, but whatever).

  5. Meh, I think Cameron is ignoring just where the Mets are as a franchise. They simply need too many more pieces (especially pitchers) before they’re ready to be serious contenders, and considering how slim the upper levels of their farm system is, they simply aren’t likely to compete even with Reyes during the years in which Reyes will be providing surplus value on the deal.

    I really don’t get why they didn’t trade him.

    • They didn’t trade him because he was exciting to watch. He is the first member of the Metropolitans to win a batting title, and was essentially the only day-to-day player on the roster who was worth going to the ballpark to see last season. They didn’t keep him because they are in bigger financial trouble than any team this side of the Dodgers– trading him would have been trading one economic problem for another. It’s too bad, but they aren’t in a position to compete, and won’t be for a while yet.

      • actor212 says:

        I think it was more the $200 million that Einhorn dangled in front of the Wilpons that kept them from trading him. Imagine what happens if you trade him, then Einhorn agrees to pony up? Yes, you can still sign him in the off-season, but you lose the leverage of having him there to pressure every day to accept slightly less than he’d get elsewhere.

  6. actor212 says:

    He’s 29 and played 265 games over the past three seasons.

    He’s on his downswing already. He had a monster contract season, like so many busts before him. His attitude sucks and while Guillen may coax a season out of him, he’s the wrong temperment to get Reyes to produce (look what a real manager got out of him this past season.)

    Short answer: The Marlins will shortly end up in the same pot at the Mets. Their stadium financing is dubious, so they’re going back to their famous playbook of building an immediate contender at any price, then dismantling it after they peak.

    This will attract the many rubes in the Miami area for a season or two. That’s it.

  7. JRoth says:

    I never got the least impression that Reyes wanted to stay a Met. Obviously, there’s some contract that would have overcome that, but I don’t think that you can say with any certainty that, had the Wilpons ponied up 6/108, he’d be a Met today.

    Now, I agree with Cameron’s argument that 6/106 is likely to be at least fair value, and so it wouldn’t nec. be foolish for the Mets to offer, say, 6/115, but as was pointed out above, this is a club that has basically zero chance to compete in the next 2 years. So now you’re paying $38M for ~8 meaningless wins (OK, and some boost in attendance) in hopes that Reyes is still productive in his 31-34 seasons.

    There’s no excuse for a team in the Mets position to be in rebuilding mode, but that’s where they are now. Stop digging and start building for 2014. (Of course that also means they should have traded him last July, but whatever)

  8. c u n d gulag says:

    Well, they finally put Ron Santo into the HOF!

    Congratulations Ron!

    Come on down and… What?
    Oh my.

    What, they had to wait until 1 year AFTER the guy died to honor him?
    Schmucks!!!

    If he couldn’t be around to enjoy his moment, then why do it?
    Except of course, that his family gets to know that he finally got the honor that he deserved.

    I wonder if Marvin Miller has any thoughts of offing himself
    And even then, it’ll take them years to induct the guy most responsible for what we know as MLB today. That’s if they ever do.

  9. R Johnston says:

    When the Mets announced that they were bringing in the fences, Reyes’s skedaddling became a foregone conclusion. The outfield configuration has been one of the most interesting aspects of the new stadium, and it worked tremendously to Reyes’s advantage. With regard to home runs, bringing in the fences doesn’t offer particular relative benefit to anyone; everyone will hit a few more. Letting Reyes play in a park designed to turn doubles into triples for a speedy player with some decent gap power, however, was a tremendous advantage for Reyes.

    When the Mets announced bringing in the fences they were announcing a complete lack of interest in bringing back Reyes. They were announcing also that they’d rather see more home runs than see more wins.

    • actor212 says:

      And to bump up trade values for Wright and Bay.

      • R Johnston says:

        Baseball analysis has advanced enough and been accepted enough in front offices that it won’t have much effect on trade value. Bay, in any event, has no possible potential trade value at all. The main goal for the Mets with respect to Bay is to find a way to keep his option from vesting that doesn’t result in a union grievance or require mimicking Tonya Harding. To make Bay tradable they’d have to spend lots of money to buy out the option before it vests, and they’re not going to do that.

        • actor212 says:

          I’m not sure I agree. For a full season, you’re right, but to get him in a July deadline trade (assuming the Mets can damper his option down) gives you a pretty solid outfielder, possibly a DH, depending on how his 2012 & 2013 seasons go (he has a four year deal that started in 2010.)

          His vesting trigger is either 600 PA in 2013…BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!….or 500 in each of 2012 and 2013.

          So next season is the mission critical season for Bay’s contract.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.