BA Lists Mets Among Signing Day Losers
This is a little over the top, but I wish we hadn't lost those 5th and 6th rounders, a couple of hard-throwing arms.
(Eric's note: This is the Mets at their feckless best. Forfeiting top draft picks because you signed an overrated relief pitcher is one thing (and bad enough), but letting two of your highest draft picks walk because you won't pony up an extra few hundred thousand dollars -- and risk upsetting Alan Selig and his omnipotent sinecure atop MLB -- is simply embarrassing.
The Mets are paying Cory Sullivan $600k this year; Tim Redding is making $2.25m; Alex Cora is making $2 million. You'll forgive me if I don't fall all over myself congratulating them for paying one player $400k over slot when half of that would have nabbed two other players.
Typical Mets BS.)
over 2 years ago
metsjetsnets
166 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I hate the way the Yanks are brought up in so many articles about the Mets
Yes, it’s the “same” market, but the fact is, the Yanks have way more money due to better attendence, more merchandise sales, priceless branding, ecetera. Why isn’t there compious articles critizing the White Sox to spend like the Cubs or constantly comparing the Clippers to the Lakers?
Meh we aren't anywhere near as far behind the Yankees as the Clippers are the lakers
or the Sox are the Cubs even. We definitely should have the resources to flex in the draft the way the Yankees and Sox do. We’re the second most valuable club in the majors, by a pretty strong margin last I checked. I have to agree with Eric there’s really no excuse for them not signing most of these guys.
Yankees and Red Sox*
really i can understand the Yankee comparison seeming stretched but the Red Sox are a perfect model for what we should/could be doing. At worse we should be even in resources with them.
I agree, we have the monetary resources just not the intellectual to be the Sox
I’m not saying we should be more cash strapped or that we shouldn’t have signed more of our picks, I just don’t like the cliched comparisons to the Yanks when the author could have easily just stated the Mets should have the money and should have spent it without bring them up. It’s a minor nitpick but I hate the Yankees.
Gotta use the *
for the Yanks too. And probably every other team.
I was really excited when I first saw the Mets draft.
For the first time in years it actually looked like the Mets were willing to take some chances at going over slot. Now I think I’m more disappointed than ever, as they just failed to sign the majority of their exciting picks. I really wish we’d just model our front office after a good organization.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 2:06 PM EDT reply actions
"No large-revenue team uses its money less in the draft than the Mets"
We hire a GM known for scouting and player development, and then cripple him (and our deplorable minor league system) by refusing to pony up any extra dough for the prospects that said GM drafts?
The very definition of fucktarded.
by keepcoolbutcare on Aug 18, 2009 2:11 PM EDT reply actions
Jeff Wilpon: 'We will do better for the city of Buffalo"
Bwahahahahaha!!!
So, what, we’re going to stack AAA Buffalo with career minor leaguers and completely ignore re-tooling the broken farm system from the ground up?
by keepcoolbutcare on Aug 18, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
To an extent that's partly Omar's fault too
It’s not like the Wilpons just suddenly got a little tight with the purse strings, by now I would hope he’d realize he has to allocate funds better. And that slight overpays to Tim Redding and Alex Cora, and the headscratcher/ache that is Sullivan are going to cost later down the road. Especially with a tanking economy.
but either the Wilpons and, possibly Omar
have a history of not going over slot.
for a profitable, large market team with a new stadium and a cable deal, that’s unacceptable.
by keepcoolbutcare on Aug 18, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions
This is a disgrace
Gary Thorne=Simply the Best!
by The American Mr.Hockey on Aug 18, 2009 2:18 PM EDT reply actions
way too much whining
an embarrassing amount of whining is going on in this thread.
you think omar is the only GM who signs guys like alex cora and corey sullivan? you have to be kidding me.
also, as an aside, i saw in another thread there was speculation as to which prospects were going to be a part of september call-ups. the mets are not calling up any player that does not be to be protected on the 40. so there will be no tejada or davis. maybe thole. evans i assume. that could be it.
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 2:24 PM EDT reply actions
I think you miss the point
It’s not about signing Cora, Redding, et al. It’s about spending the money so casually on mediocre veterans while failing to come up with a few extra dollars to sign higher draft picks.
i understand that point
but the message is getting lost in some of the whining that is being done.
the issue has nothing to do with money. it has to do with the wilpons and how terrible they are. well, it used to be independent of money… i think those days are over as well as the wilpons go into panic mode.
i understand the comparison is meant to show the illogicality of the wilpon’s thinking, but i think there is a fair amount of whining done concerning having ‘wasted’ money on the cory sullivan’s in the first place.
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
But like I said the Wilpons being tight with the purse string isn't something new
And it’s not like the economy tanking came out of no where. Yes the Wilpons are terrible but after the number of years Omar has worked for them it shouldn’t be a surprise that spending money on Corey Sullivan is going to cause repercussions later. Regardless the Wilpons cheapness money was not spent efficiently at all this off-season. Not when we’re paying more for Alex Cora/Tim Redding than teams are paying for guys like Eric Hinske and Craig Counsell. Yes the Wilpons are the main problem but Omar isn’t without fault.
....
Cory Sullivan has what impact on what?
The Wilpons give Omar a budget each year. There is nothing to think that Omar gets to save the money he doesn’t spend and use it the next year. Considering the Wilpons are on record as being against spending enough to get them into the luxury tax, there is no reason to believe Omar could “save” money spend at a later date.
What repercussions should have anticipated when he signed Cory Sullivan?
This is exactly what I’m talking about.
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
This is the same year
And we’re not talking about the tax. We’re talking about how 600,000 for Sullivan could have been used to sign draft picks. If the Wilpons give him a total budget then he should know that 600,000 could keep us from signing a pick, especially since it happens year after year.
i'm going to defend sully here
there were far worse investments we could use as an example than him… shave a million off of the ridiculous contract we gave ollie and we could have signed them all. Sully is a cheap reliable 4th outfielder.
by KeithsMoustache on Aug 18, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions
"We gave worse contracts"
is a pretty worrisome defense
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
i'm not saying his was good
im just surprised this is the one we’ve focused in on
by KeithsMoustache on Aug 18, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I thinkt the mets are the only big market team
that signs the like of alex cora and corey sullivan and then can’t afford to sign “high draft picks” year after year.
yes,
fully aware of that. but there appears to be some conflating done, in the sense that people view signings such as corey sullivan as total wastes and an indictment of omar’s competency in general.
i completely grasp the concept that it’s completely illogical to spend money on awful mediocrities when the same money would help the team 10 fold if used in other areas.
just making a point in defense of omar.
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Defending Omar is a losing battle
at this point. There are dozens way to pick apart his performance. Listing them all is like listing grains of sand on a beach. Redding and Livan was basically taking a couple million and flushing it down the toilet. Actually it was worse, because then we had to watch them pitch.
every GM makes mistakes
perhaps he should’ve signed brad penny and john smoltz for a combined 12 million?
he never intended for livan to make this team as a starter, and tim redding was never anywhere near this bad.
omar has done good things and he’s done bad things. lately, he’s done more bad than good. but that doesn’t mean he’s a complete boob.
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, who cares if Rubin actually was lobbying for a job or not
and whether or not he had done an out of character smear job of the Mets farm system days earlier. Omar should have done a solid for Adam Rubin by not mentioning anything about his ulterior motives. I just know Mr. Rubin would have done the same for Omar (eyes rolling).
"It's like the old phrase goes.....The balls in your court now Mr.Church, so you take that ball, you dribble it up the court and....................................... get a layup"
- Keith Hernandez
seriously?
Not that we need to debate this, but whether Rubin lobby for job or not, what Omar did was distasteful, tactless, and just plain stupid. He created a circus, and for what?
he never intended for Livan to make this team as a starter?
I beg to differ. He was all but handed the job in camp even before Redding got hurt. And everybody knew Omar’s previous connections to Livan were the reason he was signed. Simply put. he viewed Livan as a gamer, a vet who could eat up innings and keep the team in games. And he was right for about two months.
Agree with you about Redding, no one could have forseen he would be this awful. He is actually looked ok coming out of the bullpen.
omar is a boob.
What's clear
is that he intended for one of Livan, Redding, or Garcia to be a starter.
livan looked good for a few months there
and alot of people thought that redding was not a bad signing as a 5th starter. The real problem was that maine and OP pooped the bed, so all of a sudden livan and redding were sitting in the #3 and #4 spots.
When we were in Spring Training, was most not thinking that these guys were just keeping the seat warm for neise anyway?
(I think i butchered some names… im tired… sorry)
I'd say the real problem was counting so much on Ollie and Maine to begin with
there were 10,000 red flags with both of them and reasons not to bring back Ollie and not to think Maine could be counted on as a 2/3. And even after bringing back Ollie there was no reason other than blind hope to think he could be counted on as a 2/3
i won't argue that point
we put way too much stock in the two of them because they had career years around the same time.
by KeithsMoustache on Aug 18, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it really comes back to Ollie
There was substantial risk in the rotation with everyone but Johan, but there was also a bit of depth in Triple-A with Jon Niese and Nelson Figueroa. Ollie was nothing but risk, it was a pure gamble that he might somehow be better than he had been. I’m still not to keen on the idea of Derek Lowe for four years, and considering the Mets defensive issues on the infield, not sure how great he would have been. But the target still needed to somehow be higher than Ollie for the last spot in the rotation.
Maine was a much more acceptable risk, obviously for financial reasons, but also because of the depth below. Even if you take Maine out of the equation and assume the Mets signed Derek Lowe rather than Ollie, that leaves you the following group to patch a rotation together with: Johan, Lowe, Pelf, Livan, Redding, Niese, Figgy. If you give that bunch an adequate defensive squad, there would have been no reason you couldn’t piece together a quality rotation.
The risk with Ollie wasn’t quite so clear cut. Because he was making so much money, the only way to get him out of the rotation once he was in there was to get him on the DL, but when he was healthy, you still had to sit through his crap even when it stunk real bad. It never quite seemed like that with Maine. If he somehow managed to stay healthy, you had to figure he’d at least be able to battle through five or six innings (at the very least without giving up as many walks as Ks). The risk was much more one of health rather than financial obligation and possible poor quality, so it was easier to supplement him with depth below.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Aug 18, 2009 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah but the little bit of depth was good for shaky 4,5 starters
Not for shaky 2-5 starters. Even if the risk with Maine was only health when the guys behind him are retreads and shaky prospects I’m not sure that’s a good risk to take.
Absolutely
But that’s a different degree of problem. I don’t think you’re arguing that Maine should have been cut or someone should have been signed/traded for in his place. If the talent evaluation of the FO was sound, a rotation of Johan, Lowe, Pelf, Niese, and Livan should have been what was going once it became clear Maine’s shoulder was no good. That would have been one of the better rotations in the division, even if Livan is fat, at least third best (behind the Marlins and Braves).
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Aug 18, 2009 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Smoltz and Penny were better bets than Redding and Livan
I mean, look at how Smoltz’s K and BB numbers have declined (or, more precisely, not declined) over the past few years. And Penny had been a league-average pitcher (not dominant, certainly, but league-average is still better than Livan and Redding) up until the wheels fell off a bit in 2008. And Penny has been better than he was last year, at least. Those signings may not have worked out as well as the Red Sox would have liked, but they were still smarter than the ones the Mets made.
how about Pedro?
I bet he would have turned out to have been better than Redding and Livan.
He went unsigned because he wanted 5 million...
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
he would have taken less
and would have produced more than the other two.
If he would have taken less, why didn't he take the Indians 4 million dollar offer?
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Has that been substantiated?
He also said he felt he “owed the Mets,” etc.
I think he went unsigned because Omar bought into the Cerroneous notion that "we need to move on… you can’t cut a guy like Pedro…he’s Pedro…this team needs a fresh start…
He turned down a 4 million dollar offer from the Indians
although that may have been enough from the Mets…who knows. Somehow I doubt he’d have stayed healthy anyway.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
you sure?
I just Googled, and the only thing I found was some vague MLBTR crap about the Indians pulling their offer to Pedro after signing Pavano.
Pedro confirmed it during the WBC.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions
that doesn't count...
The horse’s mouth, in this case, is worthless.
Didn't the whole "owe the Mets" comment come out of the mouth of the same horse?
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Smoltz and Penny each made more than the 3 of them combined
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed.
But if Omar was hunting in the bargain bin for starters (which was obvious) he wasn’t going to be looking at these guys. If he could afford a guy at that salary, I’m sure he’d have looked at Randy Wolf.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions
yea
people view signings such as corey sullivan as total wastes and an indictment of omar’s competency in general.
I do. Cory Sullivan was stupid from day 1. What’s your point?
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
your point is not very clear to me
Omar knows he is on a tight budget. so why is he wasting money on Cory Sullivan? That point couldn’t be more clear. Your reply is what?
my reply is
that corey sullivan money wasn’t preventing him from making any other moves of note and that spending 600k on a somewhat competent back-up who is a good defensive outfielder is hardly a terrible move.
that’s my reply!
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions
But Sullivan isn't a good defensive outfielder
And not really a competent back up. And there was no reason to give him a guaranteed contract.
he's a good corner outfielder
and he’s actually performed well in his limited abs.
to act like signing cory sullivan is a boneheaded move is just preposterous.
omar gets excoriated when a player like ramon martinez comes up to play 2nd. and then he gets killed for signing somebody to a completely reasonable deal for comeptent depth.
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
are you joking?
seriously. talk about being shrill complainers
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Excuse Me, you talk about people being shrill complainers
because we bash Omar and yet your screen name is fire jerrymanuel and you avatar is his picture. Jerry ain’t great but Omar has done far more long term and short term damage to this franchise that Jerry ever could.
I guess you have a soft spot for Omar. You are allowed. But most won’t share that view.
ok.
i’ve gathered enough of a sample size on you to see that you aren’t particularly… worth responding to.
i’ll leave it at that.
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions
don't why you had to get personal
I like most of your psots and I really liked your fanpost on Pagan. I just think you are off base here.
then i apologize
shouldn’t have done so. i just get frustrated with the fan base and the media.
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Someone needed to make the league minimum and fill out the roster
Berroa sucks, but at least he was cheap. That same money would have been spent regardless.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
No
Angel Berroa is not a major league player at any price. He is a single A player at best. Same with our henious Reyes. And Ramon Martinez.
We were out of the race at that point, and would be stunting the development of any prospect we brought up.
He was just filling space.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
ok so you guys are arguing that its ok to have a league minimum roster stuffer for 400k
but not OK to have a functional, albeit not spectacular player in sullivan for 600k…. is that 200K extra really what broke the bank for us?
by KeithsMoustache on Aug 18, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
no, I like to have at least replacement level or close to it at every position
I am funny that way.
He's had a WAR of 0.2 since coming to the mets
which puts him at or above replacement. I’m not saying he’s the answer to our prayers, but he’s hardly been worth getting mad over 200,000 extra dollars
by KeithsMoustache on Aug 18, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
No one's getting mad over 200,000 extra dollars
It’s over multiple years of underspending on the draft coupled with overspending on players who aren’t worth it in free agency.
oh i know
i’m just defending sullivan since he seemed to be the undeserved target of a lot of rage here. i dont disagree we’re horrible at signing draft picks because the wilpons don’t understand how to build a proper team or manage their finances.
by KeithsMoustache on Aug 18, 2009 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think this is the issue with Sullivan so much
But also that he served absolutely zero utility until the Mets fell out of contention. What was the point of signing him if he was behind a million other guys with similar skillsets (Reed, Pagan, F!, shit they went out and acquired Emil Brown for peanuts instead of call Sully up when it still looked like they were in the race). I understand $600,000 is chump change, but at this point in the season, the guys you should be calling up as reserve fodder in a lost season could just as easily make the MLB minimum, which would have saved $200k and helped the Mets sign another draft pick or two. It’d be one thing if Sullivan came up in May or June and held down the fort for a few weeks, but if you didn’t even have enough faith in him to do that, why’d you sign him in the first place?
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Aug 18, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
I think this sums it up pretty well.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Aug 19, 2009 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Cory Sullivan is the definition of replacement player.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
New Term Needed
Substitute Replacement?
Replacement²?
Placeholder Replacement?
Wins Above Placeholder Replacement – W.A.P.R.
by keepcoolbutcare on Aug 18, 2009 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions
So an average corner outfielder who was a .318 wOBA (well below average) hitter in Coors?
how is that worth 600K? If Eric had just said Cora or Redding would you have never brought this up? What about Mackowiak?
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
going on past performance
should exonerate omar for signing tim redding, shouldn’t it?
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course no individual signing is preventing us from signing Buchannon or whatever
but spending Cory Sullivan is emblematic of the 5MM or so the Mets flushed down the toilet on totally useless backups.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
600k for sullivan
is a far cry from the 2 million for cora or redding.
seriously, this is a ridiculous argument. it’s perfectly reasonable to sign cory sullivan for 600k.
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Not with the way the market was
there was no reason to think Sullivan was going to get a major league contract. Especially with all the outfielders we already had.
sullivan did not become useful until this team fell out of contention
so how is he worth anything to this team? he’d be in the minor leagues if every starter wasn’t on the DL.
when i talk about people whining too much...
and then i see people getting shrill about cory sullivan getting 600k
…
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
im gonna agree with you
sully was such a small investment… we have blown huge amounts more money on far less than a decent backup outfielder.
by KeithsMoustache on Aug 18, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Well people brought up the other blown money
firejerrymanuel was the one who originally keyed in on Sully by saying complaining about 600,000 was ridiculous.
yeah i know they were mentioned, but people really seem to be jumping on this sullivan thing
as if he was even close to the most egregious offense this front office has committed.
by KeithsMoustache on Aug 18, 2009 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Yea, once again, that wasn't the point of Eric's post
you brought up the debate about Cory Sullivan with your circular defense of Minaya that just ends in “You’re whining too much.”
For someone who named themselves “firejerrymanuel” this all seems pretty ironic, considering blowing a few million on replacement level players seems a lot more harmful than anything a field manager can do.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
I made that same point above
and firejerrymanuel deemed it not worthy of a reply.
To be fair
He deemed it worthy of a reply indicating that he would no longer consider your comments worthy of reply.
distilling my argument to
“you’re whining too much,” is a bit of stretch.
i was making a point about everyone getting up in arms about the most minute moves that omar has made, rather than realizing that most, if not every team makes these very same moves and that continuing to harp on them is silly.
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah but you're missing the point
That those teams don’t make those moves and then fail to sign draft picks due to monetary reasons, especially the ones with the resources we have.
they're completey unrelated
it’s not like omar is sitting there going, “hmmm, would i rather have cory sullivan, or sign a super awesome draft pick”
omar can’t do it because the wilpons are tools who won’t let him overslot.
while talking about cory sullivan does help to underscore the ridiculous policy that the wilpons insist upon, saying that his signing was an inefficient usage of resources by omar is wrong.
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
how are they completely unrelated
When everyone knows the Wilpons are cheap and Omar knows he’s going to be working under a budget?
the wilpons are so cheap
that the mets payroll has always been a paltry 140 million…
though now the game has changed.
but the wilpons never had a monetary problem with going over slot, they had a moral/ethical problem with it based on their relationship with wilpon.
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
How are the Wilpons cheap
when the payroll is always at top of the NL and in the top 5 of MLB? Plus they just built a new stadium. Maybe they don’t spend their money wisely but I wouldn’t call the cheap.
They're obviously not cheap like the Marlins cheap
But relative to how much the mets make they’re cheap compared to other big market teams.
I think they only seem cheap
in comparison to the Never Say No Yankees. I think the draft thing is more of a follow the slotting system thing. Where else are they cheap? Because they didn’t sign Sabbathia, Burnett, Teixiera, Swisher et al? Who else does that?
Plus what do the teams that pay over slot in the draft typically spend on free agents? It probably makes more sense to add those two pools together rather than take them separately.
The tigers and red sox are too teams who do both
And with either comparable or less resources than us. What other teams are by far the second most valuable team in MLB? Among the very few teams with comparable resources, most of whom are less capable than us, to ours we’re the only ones who don’t do both.
They built a new stadium
because they thought they could make money off of it. It doesn’t show they’re not cheap.
Fine
Everyone complained the Shea was a craphole for years but now the only reason they built a new one was to make more money. Well the new one cost a boat load of money. Money they won’t see for years. It would have been cheaper to limp along at Shea.
Look, I’m not saying this team and ownership group does not make mistakes but I think calling them cheap is unfair. Plus, it’s not our money so what the hell.
I think many other teams would like their owners to be as cheap.
I think the problem is
People look at cheap in terms of total money rather than relative money. For example lets say ten teams are making 10 dollars and spending 5, and we’re making 20 bucks and spending 8. We’re spending more than everyone else but we’re still spending less relative to our available resources.
Come on guys!
It’s not like we spent the least amount of money in all of baseball on our picks in the first 10 rounds!!!
Oh wait…
As isolated incidences probably not
But it’s more like a reoccurring theme of the Mets, couple with the fact we apparently spent less than any other team on the first ten rounds.
Couple of things going on here
The problem with Magnifico is that he has a great power arm but he’s really raw and wanted more money than he should have. But the Mets should have known this and not wasted a 5th round pick on the guy if they weren’t willing to pay him. Instead, the Mets called Magnifico’s bluff because he didn’t have a college commitment and they were wrong.
Buchanon had a strong college commitment and I guess the mets just weren’t willing to pay him either.
Both are good upside arms. It’s a shame the Mets didn’t sign at least one of the two.
by DannyMetsGeek on Aug 18, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
This is really it
I really, really didn’t like the Magnifico pick. I think he’s a prospect worth $300,000 who wanted $1,000,000. If the Mets were, for the sake of argument, willing to meet him halfway at $650,000 and he wasn’t as willing, that’s okay. It happens in the draft. And it’s okay not to just give in and give him the money. Happened to the Red Sox this year with their sixth rounder. In the grand scheme of things, 350,000 might not be very much, but there’s no reason to give a player more than he’s really worth. If you keep doing things like that, you turn something that is quite cost-effective into something that’s really not.
But in a draft where you don’t have a first round pick, you really got to make them count. Magnifico’s problem was that he was totally unsignable from a practical standpoint, and the Mets should have realized that and drafted someone who was either signable at what they wanted to spend, or someone actually worth a big bonus.
It's not just Magnifico...
It’s Buchanan, Schmidt, Pena, and Rinard. They drafted several slot busting types, and signed only 2 of 7.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Draft
It’s really Buchanan and Magnifico that are troublesome.
The Mets took Schmidt, but the dude hasn’t pitched in two years. As a freshman, he showed first- or second-round talent, but blew his elbow out and missed two seasons because he screwed up his transfer. The Mets did something fairly smart in theory by drafting him and telling him they’d provide a big payday if he pitched well in the Cape Cod League. The problem was he got bombed and from what I’ve heard looked generally terrible. Doesn’t mean he couldn’t come back and pitch well, but I certainly wouldn’t give him second round money just to find out.
As for the others, they’re picks between 30 and 50. I’m mildly annoyed about Pena, but Rinard was going to USC and runs fast but doesn’t know how to play baseball yet. Generally teams grab them for the sole purpose of throwing 100,000-150,000 at them and hoping they find themselves pleasantly surprised by the player accepting. At this point in time, the player is too unpredictable to be worth more than that to the team, and the player stands to lose too much if he becomes a college star. If the player doesn’t sign, all the team really lost was the chance to sign a college guy who’s destined to become organizational filler. Take a look around the league and actually pay attention to how many high school guys actually sign between the 30th round and the 50th.
magnifico wasn't a bad non-sign
he was a bad draft pick.
should’ve never taken him. not signing him for a million is fine. but drafting him in the 5th was dumb.
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem I'm having here is
it would have sweet to have a guy named Magnifico. I would have paid extra just for the last name, and the slight possibility of a Magnifico jersey down the road, the Mets would have made that money back. It’s sounds like an awesome Mexican beer or type of margarita. And yes, I’m drunk.
yes I wanted a Magnifico jersey because it would be awesome
but other than that its more symbolically horrible than anything else
by KeithsMoustache on Aug 18, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
It's more the trend that the Mets follow with their draft picks.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Bake Sale
Keith Law just jokingly asked in his draft chat if the Mets held a bake sale to fund their draft.
sigh
Has anyone seen an independant source that likes what the Mets did with the draft?
by OlStubbleBeard on Aug 18, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions
No
I have yet to find one. I think we’d have to look long and hard.
by DannyMetsGeek on Aug 18, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I love the draft personally
I hate their failure to sign the players they selected.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions
This is indicative that Madoff has really put the screws to the Wilpons
They are trying to wring as much profit out of the Mets to make back the money they lost with Madoff which is close to 700 million. I just dont understand why they dont sell the team if they are really hard up for money. With this draft signing class it is obvious that Madoff took them for every last penny and they dont want to admit it.
by aparkermarshall on Aug 18, 2009 4:25 PM EDT reply actions
Then how do you explain Javier Rodriguez in Round 2 of last year's draft?
The Mets have drafted this way for a number of years — well before Madoff.
by All Shook Down on Aug 18, 2009 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I actually liked the pick alot.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Nothing wrong with selecting Javier Rodriguez.
You just don’t select him in the second round is all.
by All Shook Down on Aug 18, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Most scouts were pretty critical of the Holt pick as well, saying he should have gone later.
He’s a fairly athletic young kid with some tools…If the Mets reached for him, there was obviously something the scouts liked. I can deal with picks like that. The ones I have a hard time with are when we reach for kids that have below average tools.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions
The Wilpons have been doing this for years, this is nothing new
It has a lot to do with Fred’s friendship with Bud Selig and getting the All Star game at their new stadium.
I never got the big uproar
Do people really think the Mets are hoarding the money they didn’t spend?
The team has a budget, I’m sure the money not spent on draftees will be spent elsewhere.
that i can't disagree with
but saving a few million on the draft but let us sign a free agent we couldn’t otherwise.
But when has the money been used like that recently?
Unless we’re saving money on the draft so we can overpay the veteran retreads we’ve mentioned already in this thread.
I think the problem is
We don’t spend money on the draft, and then in free agency we don’t spend the extra money to sign Lowe rather than Ollie and we apparently can’t afford to sign Abreu for 5 million or Burrel for 8. I don’t think people would have a problem if the money was being spent elsewhere but it just seems like the money is being poorly allocated and we’re cutting corners on both ends.
Yes, Burrell has sucked this year,
but prior to that he’d had four solid years in a row. $8M for him would’ve been a reasonably good pickup at the time.
there's no way you could know that
All reports say the Mets maxed out their budget last season, which includes signing draftees.
draft and FAs
There’s no way the limited amount of money we saved on the draft should ever be the difference between a big market team like the Mets signing an important FA and not doing so. And by investing in the draft, you create a pipeline of skilled young players that are ineligible for free agency, limits the necessity to import expensive FAs from other teams, and reduces your payroll over the long run.
And once again a perfect example of this would be the money the red sox save with their homegrown
players, allowing them to spend more in free agency for better depth, sure Penny and Smoltz didn’t work out but I think everyone would have felt much better going into the season if those two as your fail-safes rather than Garcia, Redding and Livan.
nobody is accusing the organization of being smart
but it’s silly to believe that the money not spent on draftees isn’t being used elsewhere.
We have the second highest payroll, we also make the second most amount of money. It’s not necessarily about total spent as it is about how much relative we spend. We have the second highest payroll, but teams with comparable payrolls are still well outspending us in the draft, the cubs for example who’s payroll is only 700,000 less. And the Sox who have had higher payrolls than us in the past and still spent way more in the draft, which is why they can have such a smaller one now because they have players coming cheaply from their farm system. though for the record I don’t think the Wilpons are hoarding huge wads of cash and even if they were I think it’s more a problem of Omar not allocating efficiently on either ends.
meh
I hate the term “big market team.”
Just like every other team, corporation, etc. (except maybe the Yankees), we have a budget. A limited budget. If we have $200 MM to spend, we have $200 MM to spend. If we spend more on the draft, we are going to have less to spend on free agency.
But the problem is despite having more resources than some other big market teams
Yankees excluded, we seem to spend less on both areas.
except
the wilpons are on record as being in favor of slotting against overslotting.
the budget has nothing to do with it.
it’s not a money issue.
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
you're just being pedantic
the evidence for the wilpons being pro-slot/anti-overslot is staggering.
wilpon “We’re in favor of the slotting system. Sometimes it gets a little out of whack because different teams go way out of the process. If everybody played within the process, we’d be happy to play there. There’s a couple of instances where you have to go out of it because people around you have done that and it costs everybody money.”
there is no argument. it’s about principle.
by firejerrymanuel on Aug 18, 2009 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm less concerned about the total amount of $ spent and more about the number of picks signed
First 10 rounds
Teams that signed all picks = 15
Teams that failed to sign 1 pick = 10
Teams that failed to sign 2 picks = 2 (Mets 7/9, White Sox 10/12 +1 for 2010)
Teams that failed to sign 3 picks= 2 (Rays 7/10 +2 for 2010, Blue Jays 9/12 +3 for 2010)
Teams that failed to sign 4 picks= 1 (Rangers 7/11 +2 for 2010)
Potential compensation choices for 2010 (fail to sign first 3 rounds):
Royals
Rangers x2
Rays x2
Blue Jays x3
White Sox
Angels
Those who didn’t have a 1st round pick:
Dodgers (#36 suplemental) = 11/11
Phillies (#75 2nd round) = 9/9
Mets (#72 2nd round) = 7/9
Those who had less than 10 picks:
Athletics = 8/9
Yankees = 8/9
Royals = 8/9
Braves = 8/9
Phillies = 9/9
Mets = 7/9
All things considered, it would be nice if the Mets had signed one of those 2. To compensate for the fact that they didn’t have a 1st round, they should sign both. Considering the potential compensation choices for 2010, only the Mets and the Rangers “lost” 2 picks of the first 10 rounds.
The Royals and Rangers both still have time to sign guys.
Crow and Scheppers were college seniors, so their deadline is next June.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Yea, I just wanted to point out that they will have a compensatory pick in 2010 if they don't sign those picks
So, they don’t lose the picks.
Gotcha
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Aug 18, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm sorry, BA is totally incorrect here.
In my opinion, I think we had the best draft of anyone! I believe we’re the team that drafted this guy:
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
Resources
I agree with whoever said that the Mets should be at least as successful as the Red Sox. The Mets blow more money on payroll, and don’t have to compete in the same division as a team with a $220M budget.
Wealthy teams should use their largess to grab all the best prospects they can, and to overpay for solid bench players than cheapo teams can’t afford.
The Mets have less success with more resources every year. I don’t understand that, other than to say that that is Omar’s only job, and therefore Omar SUCKS at his job.
LIke I've said before .... IT
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
