Enough Already
by Nomenclaturist on Jul 26, 2010 3:02 PM EDT
Email
Print
Can the Mets just give up on 2010 and work on giving us fans some hope for the future? I'd say keep Wright, Reyes, Davis, Pelfrey, Thole and Mejia and deal everyone else who can be dealt.
Beltran, Bay, Rodriguez and Castillo probably won't bring in prospects but at least they could be moved in a salary dump to a contender who can make better use of their skills. And please understand that I am not hating on Beltran. He's a great player, he has been worth his contract, and the post-ASB collapse is not his fault, but a player of Beltran's caliber and contract is a luxury worthwhile only for teams that have an actual chance of making the playoffs. The Mets are not such a team.
Santana may not be quite the ace he was in 2007, but still he's very good. Some big-market team contender would surely be willing to take on his salary and trade the Mets some nice prospects.
Pagan and Dickey are cheap and having career years. Now I think is the time to sell high to a middle-market team like the Cards or Twins that maybe can't take on much salary but can spare some prospects to shore up a playoff run.
Any salary savings should be passed on to the fans in the form of reduced ticket prices. Please I hope the Mets can be a seller at this deadline. There is now less than a week left . . .
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.
71 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Beltran is untradeable with the knee and the contract.
We would have to eat significant dollars which makes it counterproductive.
Bay has been awful and has a big contract. K-Rod has been adequate and has a big contract..
No one (except Dayton Moore) wants our crap and he can’t afford these guys.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but Jerry abuses the privilege.
Yes, let's sell the cheap and productive players.
Brilliant.
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
That's not the essential part.
I do like Pagan and R.A. But it seems like an opportunity to sell high. Mostly I want to dump the expensive guys.
by Nomenclaturist on Jul 26, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
This post assumes that the Mets cannot be competetive in 2011
While I don’t have much hope for the rest of the season, why would you give up guys who will be valuable assets next season?
They pretty much can't.
If it’s mostly the same team next year then why should the results be any different?
by Nomenclaturist on Jul 26, 2010 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Not to mention that the payroll's at around $118m for 11 players.
The Wilpons are going to need to raise payroll just to keep Pagan. It’s possible they may dump him to keep it under $130m. Nothing would surprise, me, really, including trading Pagan for prospects and re-signing Francouer to a 1/2.5 deal.
eh at this point
it’s starting to look slim. With not much on the fa market and not much help coming from the system.
I want Jerry Manuel fired now, not three years from now. That is my stance.- John Peterson
Santana, Beltran and Bay all have no trade clauses and thus won't be going anywhere
not that anyone would take them off our hands anyways.
If a contender would take them then they'd give their approval.
I’m sure they see as well as we do they’re on a sinking ship.
by Nomenclaturist on Jul 26, 2010 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions
yes, but most contenders would not want to take them.
they’re all signed to big contracts; santana and bay are owned many years and quite some money. in their best interest, the mets would look to keep these two players as part of the core, and other teams can look to more efficient options, anyways (giving up players and taking up such hefty contracts?). as for beltran, he’s still owed a lot of money, though not for as long as a period of time. he’s still unlikely to be traded for that reason and that the mets can still get great production out of him.
we gave bay a no trade clause?
really? damn
"I only wanted a few things out of life -- a wife, children, to play baseball and to hunt deer." - Turk Wendell
That's how shitty this FO is.
Not only do they have to substantially overpay Bay just to get him to come to New York, they have to give him a no trade contract so he can put a gun to our heads when we have to trade him in a couple of years after he tweaks a knee and can’t handle any other position than DH.
The Mets
are not out of it. People are overreacting. The team was worse than its record for while, but better than this 2-9 road trip. With the 3 studs all playing now, I’d say give it some time for beltran to get his sea legs. Pagan has become an excellent complimentary player, and bay is overpaid and underperforming, but he is a pretty good hitter. Davis has been cold other than some homers. Thole is getting more time. I am more worried about Pelfrey, and santana getting by without the Ks, than the line-up. I’d like Evans or someone up to maybe give Ike a breather against lefties at times, and I wish Reese havens was healthy and could take over for catillo, but the lineup should be good enough despite the current horror show. Niese and Dickey have been good, Parnell has been great, and K-Rod’s been ok.
I’d love to dump some of the guys you discuss (not pagan) but i don’t think it’d be easy or you’d get much in return.
Jerry is a bit of an albatross, but lots of bad managers have won. Jerry’s bad in the way many managers are.
So, despite recent history, both the road trip and 2007-2009, I think the team is not out of it, and is actually better positioned than it has been in a while. It’s just disappointing because things seemed fairly promising at the break with carlos due back.
It's nice that you're optimistic
But I don’t buy it. The Mets as currently constituted could maybe play .500 ball for the rest of the season, or a little better than that. But .500 is not going to be good enough to catch the Braves or any of the 5 teams ahead of them in the Wild Card race.
I really think this season is over and I’d like to see the Mets cut their losses and start rebuilding a team we can enjoy in future years.
by Nomenclaturist on Jul 26, 2010 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions
The issue...
Baseball Prospectus estimates that the NL wild card will require 91 wins. The Mets would have to go 41-22 to get there, which is a .650 clip. That seems like a bit more than this team is capable of, even with the core back in place.
I don’t think it’s over, but I wouldn’t be adding parts at this point.
daunting
but not impossible. One hot streak like the 2 they went through earlier in the year and they are right back in it. The wildcard contenders have their flaws. The Giants, Dodgers etc aren’t exactly murderer’s row. Kinda makes the road trip doubly depressing, but I don’t think these teams are going to run away and hide.
not impossible?
it’s not impossible in the same way winning the lottery isn’t impossible. It’s probably not a smart chance to bank on.
I want Jerry Manuel fired now, not three years from now. That is my stance.- John Peterson
Baseball Prospectus overestimates the Mets chances.
Even 5% is too high. The season is over. What BP misses are things like the unbelievable fact that Manuel has kept Pelfrey in his regular slot in the rotation and is continuing to do so. He couldn’t even figure out the obvious way to skip Pelfrey during the Braves and Phillies series. An ERA near 8 for the last seven weeks, and they can’t figure out how to skip one frakking turn?
The Moron Jerry Manuel is going to lead the 2010 Mets to the postseason? I just pulled a muscle laughing.
For once we agree!
Thank you for pointing out the Berenyi angle, a term I coined thinking back to 86 when Bruce Berenyi would start when other guys needed a spell, were too hung over to pitch, were on acid and not Doc Ellis etc. I think that Pelf has a bright future and the team would be ass dumb to get rid of him, but he’s still young and as we all can see has been working though some problems recently. I think a skipped turn is the least they could do—literally the least they could do, but it might help. As for your Jerry comment, was that muscle you pulled perhaps an oblique?
Full disclosure: Bruce Berenyi is a particular interest of mine, as he started the first Mets game I can remember attending, and they won. So Bruce has a special place in my heart.
we'd need a colorado-esque second half to pull that off
Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?
by KeithsMoustache on Jul 27, 2010 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't care if you had 8 Babe Ruths in your line up...
you still need PITCHING. WE DO NOT HAVE PITCHING PERIOD. Look what Arizona is doing to us. A team with 38 wins? EMBARRASSING!!!! Look at all the past Met winning teams. We had at least 3 or 4 REAL solid starters.
Ruth could pitch though...
Save Jenrry Mejia!
by Ogre39666 on Aug 1, 2010 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
we were worse than our record earlier
and better than the last week.
in other words we are a .500 team…so yeah we are out of it.
I want Jerry Manuel fired now, not three years from now. That is my stance.- John Peterson
Santana is untradeable
unless the Mets take on a lot of salary. He’s owed around 4/97.5 for 2010-2013 (including deferred money and his buyout for 2014). In 2007 and 2008 he was worth right around $20m. Last year he was worth around $12m. This year, despite worsening stuff, he’s on pace again for right around $20m.
Assuming he gets no worse (unreasonable) and loses no time to injury (unreasonable), Santana will put up around $80m worth of pitching from 2010 through 2013. It’s more likely that he becomes less effective and loses at least half a season of the next four to injury. That puts his worth at around $60m, which seems optimistic to me, since his career could end tomorrow. That means the Mets would need to eat right around $40m in salary to move him (less the prorated portion of his projection this year).
No one is going to give the Mets anything for Santana, I’m sorry to say.
You may be right
But I think a big-market team in a pennant race may be willing to pay more than general market value in order to strengthen their rotation.
by Nomenclaturist on Jul 26, 2010 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not saying they would, but it would be worth asking
How about the Yankees, the White Sox, or the Dodgers? Maybe even the Braves?
And Boston offered Bay only $6 million less than the Mets. Why not send Bay plus $6 million to the Red Sox and save on the rest of the contract?
by Nomenclaturist on Jul 26, 2010 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions
With Bay the Red Sox demanded an out clause after two or three years in case of injury.
Also, Bay’s performance has been poor for almost four months now and might well represent a new, diminished level of performance. Could the Mets even get 3.4/34 for the rest of Bay’s contract? That means eating around $25m, and the Mets are not going to get any prospects for him.
All the guys you’re talking about are trade-low guys, guys who might get back to their career levels, but for whom in trade you’re only going to get the value they’re giving now. In other words, you’re getting their current, low value by trading them, but by trading them now you will not get the benefit of any and all improvement in their performance.
No team is risking the 18.5 million owed next year to Beltran given his arthritic knee.
the Dodgers owners’ are getting divorced and they can’t add significant payroll. The Braves can’t add that much payroll
Boston wouldn’t give us anything of real value for Bay and we would likely have to eat a few million a year before they would take him. So then we would’ve given up our second round draft pick and probably 30+ million dollars for nothing. Bay has value, though he hasn’t shown much yet.
There is no way the Mets would trade Santana/Belran/Bay to the Yankees and thus be seen giving up, ticket sales would evaporate.
That's why it's so puzzling to me
that the Wilpons couldn’t find a few million dollars in the petty cash drawer and at least make it look like the team was trying to get to the postseason. I mean, I don’t expect the Wilpons to have any actual, baseball sense, but wouldn’t you think even a not very bright business owner understands the value of making it look like they’re trying, particularly in a business that’s so perception-oriented, where if you don’t make any move at all it is instantly clear ?
they were apparently trying wth Zambrano
they just wanted Chicago paying a big part
I want Jerry Manuel fired now, not three years from now. That is my stance.- John Peterson
Doesn't that strike you as bizarre, though?
That with all the possibilities out there the Mets fixated on one of the most unlikely ones? Any team serious about picking up pitching as the deadline approaches doesn’t go for a far-fetched, complex deal as its only option. There’s nothing wrong with seeing if the Cubs were going to bite and pick up a lot of salary, but that was the only plan? Really?
It reminds me too much of the end of the offseason, when the Mets could easily have had Pineiro but pretended to have other options because they had no intention of spending another dollar.
eh I think they might just be that dumb
between what they offered Molina, who they were chasing pretty seriously, and ended up giving Frenchy they had more than enough to have signed Piniero.
I want Jerry Manuel fired now, not three years from now. That is my stance.- John Peterson
White Sox and Dodgers and Braves
probably wouldn’t be able to take on that contract.
I want Jerry Manuel fired now, not three years from now. That is my stance.- John Peterson
+1
"Winning is the most important thing in my life, after breathing. Breathing first, winning next." -George Michael Steinbrenner III
by Chris McKeown on Jul 27, 2010 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Traid the Coeur
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jul 27, 2010 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Traid tha Cora
Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?
by KeithsMoustache on Jul 27, 2010 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Wrong, Pagan had his career year last year
And it just carried over to this year. I don’t see any reason to not think this is his true talent level, or at least very close to it.
None of our big contracts are tradeable.
Bay’s power outage makes him a big scary risk. Santana is still good, but not $20m good. We’d have to eat half his contract. Same with K-Rod. Beltran would need to show that he’s bounced back from injury and that’s not going to happen before the 31st.
I don’t see the point of trading Pagan or Dickey. As much as we bitch about the team, it’s a 500 team that can easily be upgraded on the cheap.
They aren't out of it yet
I’m getting annoyed that Philly is starting to find their stride, though.
"Winning is the most important thing in my life, after breathing. Breathing first, winning next." -George Michael Steinbrenner III
a Yankee fan with some sense
weird
"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"
by firejerrynow on Jul 29, 2010 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions
this is only tangentially related
but why do we always seem to defer money with players, and backload contracts? what’s the benefit? wouldn’t it make more sense to pay players the most when they are worth it at the beginning of a deal? Instead of deferring money to a Santana in his late 30’s, a 17 million dollar closer, an aging left fielder, a 70 year old bobby bonilla etc. I feel like the Mets continually put themselves in the worst positions financially possibly.
"I only wanted a few things out of life -- a wife, children, to play baseball and to hunt deer." - Turk Wendell
I think the argument for it
is that those dollars are worth less in the future than they are now.
essentially this. And the money they're not paying can be invested
and the interest can help the contract pay for itself. Personally, I’d prefer frontloaded contracts if they could be managed (even if you had to overpay a bit in the first year) because they’re WAY easier to move later if necessary and you’re not paying huge sums for seasons far in the future, when the player may drop off with age or get injured. Nobody really does this though so its mostly wishful thinking.
Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?
by KeithsMoustache on Jul 27, 2010 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I have thought about this too.
I think if it were standard practice within an organization then it would come out in the wash within a few years – i.e., by front-loading contracts every year you’d be saving on the free agents you signed last year. The players ought to be happier because a front-loaded contract would have a higher present value to the player. And the team would get more flexibility.
But the first 3 or 4 years of transition to such a system would involve an artificially high total salary for the team, as the old back-loaded contracts run out. That’s probably why no GM ever does it, because the benefit in terms of roster flexibility would probably accrue to his successor, while the cost in terms of reduced profitability in the short run would be his own responsibility.
by Nomenclaturist on Jul 27, 2010 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
yea a team like Florida or the PIrates who have a really low payroll right now could get away with it
if they ever decided to ramp up their expenditures, but any big market team would have a rough go of it the first few years.
Hey, wait! I'm having one of those things. You know? A headache with pictures?
by KeithsMoustache on Jul 27, 2010 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
would it have really been that hard to transition too?
with all the money we had coming off the books in 2009 we probably could have done it with Santana’s contract and then started from there. The problem is we just went out and handed out a bunch of really awful backloaded contracts instead. And if not for Bay’s deal that we just handed out we probably could have done it after 2011, since Santana would be the only big deal left on the books.
I want Jerry Manuel fired now, not three years from now. That is my stance.- John Peterson
because they are hoping the player will forget they owe him money.
happens in my family all the time, so…..
One day, this team is going to kill me.
Like others have said, paying more in the future saves money in the long run
The real problem is that even if we took a contract like K-Rod and divided his total payout by 3 years, he’s still a huge overpay. If you sign a guy to a contract and you did a hypothetical waive on him immediately that no one would take than it’s a bad contract.
It always makes sense to backload contracts
if you’re not paying for it in another way. The time-value of money means that as long as interest rates/inflation are positive you’re saving money by defering giving away that money. Backloaded contracts aren’t more difficult to move than any other contract. You’ve gotten more value up front relative to what you’re paying the player, so you simply pick up more of the money left on the contract when you move it to another team. That part of things evens out and you’re still ahead wrt the money you’ve been able to defer payment of.
Two points on this
1) If front-loaded contracts are more expensive to the team then they must be more valuable to the players. So if both sides are discounting future payments at the same rate then there should be no advantage to back-loading instead of front-loading. The teams would pay slightly less in total compensation over the contract but pay more of it up-front, which would be more valuable to the player. It’s only if the player calculates time value with a lower discount rate than the team that back-loading will always make more sense, and I don’t see why that would be the case.
2) Maybe backloaded contracts shouldn’t be more difficult to move, if the team really looks at amounts due as sunk costs. I think a lot of teams (especially the Mets) have a hard time doing this.
by Nomenclaturist on Jul 28, 2010 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm sure the player and his agent get the present value/future value of money thing
I’m sure it works out to their demands, it’s probably just a request from the GM to give him some budget flexibility earlier on.
They might get it but still have a different discount rate
For instance, if investment in the equity of a baseball team produces a much higher rate of return than the investment options available to a player, then it would make sense that players would apply a lower discount rate and therefore value backloaded payments closer to total $$ than the owners would. There may also be difference in tax treatment – i.e., the players pay full income tax on their salaries whereas the teams might be able to turn some of their short-term savings into capital gains taxed at a lower rate.
I think I’m talking myself into the position that back-loaded contracts DO usually make more sense. No one will ever know for sure unless teams start releasing audited financials, but it seems as if it might be the case.
by Nomenclaturist on Jul 30, 2010 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Clearly they have a hard time dealing with sunk costs...
Metsbank has a very small distressed debt desk.
Explain to me...
How back-loaded contracts are not more difficult to move? I assume that by “back-loaded” you mean less in the first few years and more in the later years, right (best to get simple definitions out of the way)? Completely ignoring discounted present values, we have a team that likes to sign “stars” in their late 20s/early 30s, who tend to be on the decline towards the end of their contracts. I needn’t remind anyone of the difficultly of moving players on the decline with expensive contracts. It’s completely counter-intuitive to me that a back-loaded contract would be as easy as a front-loaded contract., except if you were to eat some of the cost and essentially be paying for a guy to play elsewhere (which in my mind would eat any DPV savings). Am I missing something?
It's like this:
Let’s say you have two contracts:
2010-2012 FL: 30, 20, 10
2010-2012 BL: 10, 20, 30
projected value a player puts up, 2010-2012: 25, 23, 21
In the front loaded contract, you get 25m of value from the player for the 30m you paid him. His expected value for 2011 and 2012 is 44m while his salary is 30m. When you trade him, you should get 14m in surplus value. (25-30) + 14 = +9
In his back loaded contract, you get 25m of value from the player for the 10m you paid him. His expected value for 2100 and 2012 is 44m while his salary is 50m.
When you trade him, you’ll have to give 6m to make a trade. (25-10) + (-6) = +9
And there you have it. Assuming everyone shares the same values it comes to the same deal.
You'll have to pay more to move a back loaded contract, but you've gotten
more value up front, so in practice you’re not actually paying more.
I think the operative term is "assuming everyone shares the same values"
I think the failure in this analysis is that it treats players like commodities, with known values. A ton of pork bellies is a ton of pork bellies. A ton of Alex Cora is well, crap. Sure, if a player performs as expected over a term of years within a range of expected outcomes this analysis works, but what typically happens is (i) players who perform well are kept and (ii) those who don’t are dealt at a loss. Plus the MLBPA structuring makes it far more likely for someone to be a free agent nearing the decline of his career. The logic here kind of reminds me of the logic that stated that real estate values are predictable because they will never go down, which was popular prior to 2007. You tend not to offload agreements from which you have and have in the past received value; you tend to try to offload values once past loss is established.
Basically, your argument assumes that fact that in a front loaded contract the reason you get value later is that you overpaid to begin with. So the argument is that you are getting a chance of more later—albeit to a lesser degree due to dropoffs in performance, chance of injury, etc.—because you already overpaid. Hate to say it, but not buying it. The key to a better later deal, where correction to current value faces unknown and costly risk, is not to give a worse current deal. It is easier to predict risk closer to the present, and so risk there is less costly.
With all due respect,
nuh-uh, though we may be talking at cross-purposes, since I’m only talking about the math and not the nature or essence of front- and back-loaded contracts, a worthwhile investigation to be sure. You proceed with the math on the assumption that people share the same values simply because if you don’t you wind up having conversations where we can’t agree that 1 + 1 = 2 until we hash out what “one” and “two” and “plus” and “equal” mean.
If you project Bay to be worth 5m less in 2012 than I do, that’s when we start negotiating. That I may have backloaded his contract because I expect him to be worth more later on doesn’t affect the contractual terms that were in fact agreed to. Nor does the difference in our respective projections change the terms of the contract, which form the basis of our negotiations.
You do make a nice point about the nature and assumption of risk
but it still doesn’t change the simple facts of any given contract. Any given contract that someone is trying to trade away or that someone wants to trade for is going to have x dollars and y years left on it and owed to a given player. Whether those dollars and years over or under value the player is what the parties to the negotiation have to decide and come to terms concerning.
I think the point, really, is:
As the team, you have to treat the entire present value of the contract as a sunk cost immediately after you sign.
by Nomenclaturist on Aug 2, 2010 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Right....
This is when the contract turns into an obligation. The dollar value is fixed (mostly, ignoring retirement and performance-based bonuses for the moment) whereas there is a great deal of variability regarding whether a player plays to expected value, exceeds that value, or doesn’t reach that value. I guess my point is that if you pay a lot up front the cost of assumption of obligation to another club is less, so even if the guy doesn’t pan out he’ll be easier to move. My thought from the fan perspective is that the team should have more mobility to move a guy later in his contract where the typical scenarios are (i) he’s a bargain so you keep him around and he plays per the terms of the agreement, (ii) he’s a bargain so you can trade him with greater bargaining power due to his undervalued status for someone that fills a more important need for you (and I think the differences in relative values to clubs is the crux of your Bay argument, and it is valid) or (ii) he’s expensive—or just plain sucks—and you want to get rid of him to open up the lineup. Choice (iii) would be the guy with the back-loaded contract, and in my mind would be hard to move (coughOlliecough) You can see my Mets fan cognitive biases here, can’t you?
I think the counter-argument is that with a front-loaded contract you’ve already paid more than value (even if the guy may be a bargain later in his contract), so you’re in a hole even if the guy is more movable later. I see now where our arguments diverge. I guess years spent negotiating multi-year agreements for clients who would be stuck with a bad deal if they entered into it skews my view away from the math to the essence, but I get your point about the math.
In a perfect world
The team should be able to make a steely-eyed calculation as to what to do today, without regard to the sunk costs of the contract. Sunk costs would include future payments under a contract that was already signed. If an expensive player is underperforming, a good team would just pay the player to go away and hire somebody better.
I think you as a fan are assuming a Mets organization that is incapable of making this calculation, so you prefer front-loaded contracts that leave the team in later years with the perception of a cheaper contract and greater flexibility for roster decisions. I agree with you — that’s where we started this discussion.
I think the reason contracts are usually back-loaded must be because the players apply a lower discount rate than the teams do. A dollar payable 5 years from now may be worth 75 cents to the player and only 50 cents to the team. Not totally sure why that would be, but my first guesses would be (i) the differing investment options available to players and teams and (ii) the differing tax rates applicable to player salaries and team gains from their investments.
by Nomenclaturist on Aug 2, 2010 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions
You, sir, hit the nail right on the head.
Basically this explains it all (quoting you):
“I think you as a fan are assuming a Mets organization that is incapable of making this calculation, so you prefer front-loaded contracts that leave the team in later years with the perception of a cheaper contract and greater flexibility for roster decisions. I agree with you — that’s where we started this discussion.”
I have been accustomed to bad contracts for regressing players. While I admire Jack Str for a number of his posts on here and the thought that goes into them (Including a baseball mind superior to mine) I think you see where I’m coming from in terms of Metsness. I do think you overestimate the tax consequence angle, but perhaps that’s right and I’m missing some MLB CPA thing (likely given the omnipresence of agents). The argument I make above would be moot if players were perfectly evaluated and teams understood their strengths and weaknesses perfectly (and by that I mean that the Mets would value a good 2B over a good 3B, because Wright ain’t going anywhere). I see it as the Isiah syndrome. If you are going to fuck things up, you might as well fuck them up in a way that later people can correct them quickly and easily, as opposed to eating bad contracts and having your hands bound for years due to them (with the NBA salary cap and the Mets seeming salary cap due to lack of funds acting as proxies for one another).
because we don't love ourselves
also something about the discount rate and a dollar today being way more valuable than a dollar tomorrow when you factor in inflation or something.
I want Jerry Manuel fired now, not three years from now. That is my stance.- John Peterson
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.
