Seven Reasons Why LackeyLeeHallaDay Was Great For The Mets
Exhale.
We are supposed to be the rational Mets fans, the ones who don't call in to Mike without the Mad Dog, etc. So, let's be rational. Here are seven reasons why yesterday was a great day.
1) The Phillies improved only marginally for 2010, and they were already better by a large degree. But now, stupid fans understand that.
Ralph Kiner used to joke -- well, half-joke -- that he would ask Branch Rickey for a raise, and Rickey would retort that the Pirates could lose without Kiner as well as they do with him. The Mets are going to need a lot of luck to win the NL East next year, and that was as true two days ago as it is today. However, the rank-and-file WFAN caller is now going crazy, saying the Mets can't compete. They weren't two days ago. Maybe, just maybe, that means they come to terms with it. Which likely means:
2) 2010 is Omar Minaya's last hurrah.
Fans are unhappy and he's the reason. And to make matters worse -- for Omar, that is -- there's really nothing he can do to win the 2009-2010 off-season. The Phillies got Halladay and he couldn't even come away with Lackey. It's the classic "Nero fiddled while Rome burned" story, applied to the Flushing neighborhood of Queens. See ya, Omar.
3) And Omar can't do much damage on the way out.
Really, unless he signs Bengie Molina, Jason Bay, and someone like Joel Piniero for one year too long at one million too much apiece -- and that's "too long" and "too much" in WFAN-speak, not Amazin' Avenue sense -- it's frustrating but not fatal.
With two of Bay's biggest suitors in Seattle and the Red Sox both likely dropping out of the "sweepstakes" to overpay for his services, there's a decent chance we'll get him for 4 years, $16 per. Not ideal, of course, but not bad. And it may actually sell tickets, which is good.
4) The 2010-11 Free Agent Class is going to have a gem available in Cliff Lee, and probably another solid starter in Josh Beckett
There's really no way the Mariners can afford to keep him while similarly extending/retaining King Felix, and I don't think Jack Z expect to retain Lee. Hopefully we'll have the money available to make him ours.
Similarly, Josh Beckett may be not long for Boston. He is a free agent after the 2010 season, and with Lackey on board, maybe he's done there after the year.
5) The Phillies budget is strained.
Some basic math for you:
Roy Halladay makes $15.75MM in 2010, of which the Blue Jays pay $6MM. The Phillies are going to pay him $9.75MM.
Cliff Lee makes $9MM in 2010.
Combine that with the fact that, reportedly, the Phillies received three good-but-hardly-stellar prospects for Lee, and, had they simply kept him for 2010 and offered him arbitration, they'd have gotten two top draft picks, and there's only one reason why the Phils traded Lee -- they can't afford him for 2010. Forget 2011 and beyond -- that's a separate point. Lee to Seattle was a pure salary dump, and a stupid one at that.
6) We have ample reason to believe Ruben Amaro is a bad GM.
If he *had* to dump salary, Lee was not the way to do it. Joe Blanton is arbitration eligible (4+ years MLB experience) and made about $6MM this year. Non-tendering him would have saved the lion's share of the difference. Not signing Placido Polanco to a ridiculous deal would have saved the rest, and then some.
7) And the Phillies are going to be cash strapped for years.
Halladay gets a $10MM raise from 2010 in 2011. Other core players get a total of another $15MM, and that does not include Joe Blanton or Jayson Werth (first year of free agency) or even Jimmy Rollins's option year. They'll be murderous, but they won't be as good as they are in 2010.
To sum it up, yesterday was painful because it proved that the Mets are not going into 2010 as favorites... but we knew that already. And 2011 just got easier.
This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Your lips to God's ears DanDot...
But don’t worry, this bunch (Wilpon, et al.) will find some way to screw up even the rosiest scenario.
Oh, the butcher and the baker and the people on the street: wheredotheygo?!?!?
.
Here are ten reasons why yesterday was a great day
I suppose 3 reasons had nothing to do with the Mets.
Momma cooked a breakfast with no hog?
No, that’s just on a good day. My bad.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Dec 15, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
I always say that to people and they have no idea what I'm talking about
Is everybody taking crazy pills or do they not know all the lyrics to today was a good day.
Ice Cube>>>>
"I see the job in bigger terms. Paperwork, that’s false hustle... Know what I’m sayin’?"
Amen.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 15, 2009 2:40 PM EST reply actions
Agreed
The deal in general doesn’t bother me at all. I am worried about the short-term though. Not just the Phillies, who are marginally better, but also because at least two other teams in the division are getting better in the very short term. The Braves rotation is deep as hell all of a sudden, and while I still don’t expect the Nats to be great, they’re definitely getting a big shot in the arm of awesome pretty soon. Stras and Hanson could be the two best pitchers in the division before we get to years ending in “teen”.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 15, 2009 2:44 PM EST reply actions
My one problem with this...
is that I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Omar can’t do any damage on the way out the door, because he could certainly still include good prospects in a bad trade.
Agreed
And you didn’t even mention that the Phillies have jettisoned 7 of their top 10 prospects since late July. That’s just a staggering gutting of a farm system
"[The Giants] beat us down. We were beat by a grown-man team, a team we want to be like one day. They came in here and took it to us. Out-manned us, out-gunned us. ... It wasn't even close." - Raheem Morris, 9/27/09
Thanks for the feedback
Here’s some more data. :) I found this over at a FanGraphs comment thread.
The Phils have about $137MM committed for 2010 with an open spot for RP. http://web.me.com/jflnyc/Phillies_Payrolls/2010_Payroll.html
That last spot may be filled by the RP prospect they just got from Seattle. Either way, it has to be filled on the cheap — it’ll be almost impossible to justify spending a lot on that spot after jettisoning Lee. So let’s assume that $140MM is a hard cap, and that it applies again for 2011. (FWIW, they spent about $136MM in 2009.)
Check out the 2011 payroll:
http://web.me.com/jflnyc/Phillies_Payrolls/2011_Payroll.html
$127MM committed, although that assumes they pick up JC Romero’s option and for that matter, Jimmy Rollins’, although I agree that both are likely.
The holes: SP, SP, RF, and three RPs. With ~$13MM to spend, it’s going to be rough. Domonic Brown may fill RF but that’s a big step down from Jayson Werth. It’s going to be hard, so I think this ends up good for the Mets in 2011.
Don't forget
A major why the Phillies were able to sustain a payroll of $136 million in 2009 (which was a huge increase from 2008) was because they were coming of the World Series (lots of extra playoff revenue).
They should be fine for 2010 coming off a second WS appearance, but if they don’t at least reach the NLCS, their payroll will likely decrease in 2011. With $127 million already committed, they will be extremely confined. $13 million is the upper limit, but $5-6 million next offseason seems much more reasonable. Resigning Werth, who’s likely to make $10+ million annually in FA next year doesn’t seem likely.
My issue with this
is that I really don’t think Omar is on the way out. And even if he is I doubt the Wilpons would hire someone much better. And even if by some act of God the Wilpons accidentally stumbled upon the idea to hire a progressive gm I wonder whether any of the smarter candidates would even want to come here with:
1. the ridiculous new york media, think of how the la media drove Depodesta out for not following the “old school” model.
2. the wilpons, alleged, constant meddling and the fact that they do seem so ridiculously image obsessed and may not fully back the new gm if the media did jump on him early in his tenure.
Also I think you underestimate Omars ability to do damage. The only way I think that could be avoided is if the Wilpons, knowing he’s on a short leash, didn’t allow him to make future mortgaging moves, but that would also mean they’d have to recognize moves as bad/future mortgaging.
by Gina on Dec 15, 2009 5:15 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I think you're overestimating the way the NY media would treat a more progressive GM
The northeast media hounds care about one thing: results. We tend to think of the more progressive GMs as doing a lot with a little, and obviously the NY media wouldn’t buy that, since a big market club like the Mets doesn’t have a little. But its not like the more progressive GMs who have done a lot with a lot like Epstein and even Cashman, have been embraced, since they were both willing to spend their nearly limitless resources, and not only that, spend them wisely and efficiently enough to create a superior product. If a new GM came over to the Mets and did that, I don’t think it would be a huge problem.
Now the Wilpons are a whole separate problem. But I do think one thing we can hope is that the Wilpons do bring in someone who is more…..politically versatile. They don’t necessarily have to use and understand the most advanced measures of baseball analysis, but they do have to be able to identify useful resources, and to tap those resources while still painting a the kind kind of image the Wilpons are looking for, or at least not painting a completely progressive image right off the bat (as in, during an interview, or during his first year or two as GM).
As far as wanting to come to a particular market, I don’t think being a GM is that different from being a player in that regard. You go where the money is, and even more in the operations side of baseball, the money is where the big markets are. If the team is generating revenue, your contract ceiling is going to escalate greatly. So I have to imagine most ambitious GMs wouldn’t mind a crack at the NY challenge.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 15, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions
I mean he wouldn't be around long enough to see the results from his moves
also wasn’t Epstein bashed a lot early in his tenure? Especially after moves like trading Nomar and letting Pedro and so many other big name FA’s walk off the world series. I’m saying I’m not sure the Wilpons would be willing to stick with a gm through thing like that if results weren’t immediate.
If a new GM came in next year, traded Reyes, won the world series, and then let Beltran walk in free agency
I’m pretty sure the world series victory would earn him some time to make up the bad blood for letting Beltran walk. If a GM came in and did those things and the results weren’t immediate, I don’t care what his general philosophy is, he took a risk and lost and the consequences are going to be the same for any GM who does that, whether its in NY or Boston.
I understand why you’re concerned that the Wilpons would do no better than Omar even if they sought to replace him, but I just don’t think we can worry about that. Omar’s just too much of a dinosaur at this point. He may not be the worst GM ever, but he’s pretty much doomed to failure given the situation he’s in. Even a different crappy GM would have a better chance of getting lucky than Omar at this point. And if he doesn’t, its still pretty much a non-difference at worst. I just don’t see any downside in replacing him at this point, unless the Wilpons plan to replace him with some trigger happy GM hell bent on trading away all low-value resources for high value ones, and Jim Duquette isn’t getting hired back.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Dec 15, 2009 9:21 PM EST up reply actions
I mean if a new gm came in and traded someone like Beltran/Reyes
and got prospects that ended up being as good as Martin/Either/Kemp but didn’t get immediate results, since immediate results weren’t the plan, which is what happened in LA with Depodesta, though he didn’t get Either. What I’m saying is because the Wilpons seem so media conscious and easily influenced that a gm wouldn’t necessarily believe he would have their support should the media turn against him because he made long-term moves that didn’t jive with their ideas.
And it’s not that I’m saying there’s downside to replacing him, I’m saying that him being replaced isn’t necessarily a win or loss for us.
Is that supposed to be either, or Ethier?
by BobbyV_Incognito on Dec 15, 2009 10:56 PM EST up reply actions
I think you underestimate the Wilpons ability to resist the media
after all, Omar Minaya is still the GM.
"[The Giants] beat us down. We were beat by a grown-man team, a team we want to be like one day. They came in here and took it to us. Out-manned us, out-gunned us. ... It wasn't even close." - Raheem Morris, 9/27/09
Well I don't think the media has really been on Omar that much until recently.
For a while they thought he was some sort of genius who could turn lead into gold between the 2006 scrap heaps that worked, trading “nothing”, since the media also thinks all mets prospects suck, for Santana, getting K-rod and pulling off the heist of the year to get Putz.
Lee to Seattle was a pure salary dump
Disagree there. They picked up a player they will pay 750,00o more this season and then $20m per year for 4 years. Would have been cheaper to keep Lee and pay him $15mil/4 years, even $18/4 would be cheaper than Halladay.
This move was a headline grabber in the most Omar of ways. They have just gutted their farm over the last 6 months.
Good post Dan.
Asking a General Manager to slim down his budget is like asking an alcoholic to blow up a distillery.
by scott from peekskill on Dec 15, 2009 8:03 PM EST reply actions
Meant to say
I agree with every other point you made.
Asking a General Manager to slim down his budget is like asking an alcoholic to blow up a distillery.
by scott from peekskill on Dec 15, 2009 8:04 PM EST up reply actions
It was a pure salary dump
because they couldn’t afford to keep Lee next year. They traded for Halladay because they knew Halladay would sign the extension where as Lee wanted to test free agency after next season so they’d risk losing him. Halladay was basically brought in to replace Lee after 2010 but because they couldn’t afford both of them for 2010 they had to trade Lee. If Lee had been willing to sign an extension they probably never would have made either trade.
It was a salary dump, they even admit to it.
Don’t get me wrong — they got back some quality in exchange. But the Phils didn’t trade Lee to get those prospects, specifically — they traded him to get rid of his salary and recoup some value as well.
#3) Let's see
Bay’s signed, Molina’s on his way and Mets have another stare down with the dodgers brewing over Piniero, although they may sadly finally win one.

by 


























