Met Fan Self Immolation Thread: Part 2?

Hey guys, another of mine. Thanks for the great feedback on the last one. Thought I'd share my thoughts on the recent Reyes-Rauch-Francisco swap:

Considering that the Mets decided that they could not match a six year, $102 million offer for Jose Reyes -- which amounts to only $17 million per year -- it is hard to know exactly what Sandy Alderson's plan is. The Mets could have kept Reyes, a franchise player, but instead they chose Jon Rauch, Frank Francisco, and eight million dollars. And as you know, they did not even deign to make him an offer.

Why?
Why let the beloved franchise player leave and sign replace him with known mediocrity?

All of this -- in conjunction with many of the other moves the Mets have made, both on and off the field over the last few seasons -- leads me inescapably to an unattractive conclusion. None of these moves make sense in terms of the product that Mets fans will see on the field in 2012 or even 2013. So what could be their motivation?

It all stinks. It stinks and it leads me, against my will, to an inescapable conclusion. Money. Wilpon money.

6 months ago Brian Mangan 23 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Short term vs long

Yes, it is about money, but you can’t just look at the dollar values for this year and next. If the Mets could have signed Reyes to a short-term deal for $17 million a year or something similar, they would probably have done it in a heartbeat. The issue was the length of the deal (6 years) given the risk (high b/c of Reyes’s injury history) and the money they would be committing to him over the long haul, particularly in the later years of his contract (for reference, see, e.g.: Martinez, Pedro; Santana, Johan; Castillo, Luis). Naturally, there was no reason for Reyes to sign a short-term deal so it wasn’t even discussed. So comparing a 1 or 2 year commitment in dollars to guys like Francisco and Rauch with the long-term commitment in dollars to Reyes is comparing apples and oranges.

by dontstopbelieving on Dec 7, 2011 11:22 AM EST reply actions

And as far as what they are doing

One thing that Sandy has stated very publicly is that the biggest variable in terms of dollars the team brings in is ticket revenue. So as much as it’s tempting to say “tear it all down and build it up,” I think what Sandy is suggesting is that in terms of the financial health of the team, the product on the field has to be at least respectable enough that enough people keep coming to the ballpark and spending money. Anecdotally, one thing that is true, for better or for worse, is that losses that are the result of bullpen meltdowns are gut-wrenching and grab the back pages. In that sense, although from a pure W/L standpoint all (or most) losses are created equal, that may not be the case in terms of fans showing up. So it’s possible (this is admittedly conjecture) that Sandy is investing in the kinds of assets that he thinks will (1) help the team win games, and (2) all other things being equal, will keep fans coming to the ballpark.

by dontstopbelieving on Dec 7, 2011 11:26 AM EST reply actions

I think the length of the deal was the primary reason why they didn't sign Reyes

None of the guys they just acquired are committed beyond 2013 so I think these are just just about making a bad team slightly more attractive while waiting a few years for some bad contracts to come off the books and (hopefully) for some prospects to develop.

by joma16 on Dec 7, 2011 12:05 PM EST reply actions

"Why let the beloved franchise player leave and sign replace him with known mediocrity?"

Because the team can’t sit there and do nothing about the bullpen. Separate problems.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 7, 2011 2:15 PM EST reply actions

Why not?

by Brian Mangan on Dec 7, 2011 2:30 PM EST up reply actions

Because that's not a good baseball strategy?

Because Reyes left doesn’t mean that all of the other problems the team had before he left should go unfixed. That’s silly. We had a weak bullpen before he left. The fact that he left doesn’t strengthen the bullpen. The problem is still there with or without his presence on the team.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 7, 2011 2:58 PM EST up reply actions

I'm trying to tease this concept out to its conclusion though

There is no doubt that the Mets bullpen is better now than it was before we spent $10 million dollars. But the Mets as a whole a) suck and b) are worse now than at the beginning of the offseason.

So what’s the point? Is there one, aside from the Wilpons trying to sell tickets?

by Brian Mangan on Dec 7, 2011 3:19 PM EST up reply actions

If they're trying to sell tickets, they've got an interesting way of going about it

by anonymous on Dec 7, 2011 3:52 PM EST up reply actions

Just because a team isn't good enough to make the playoffs, or even come anywhere close, isn't reason to do nothing

If that were the case, the Pirates, Orioles, Royals, and other teams that are perrenially very bad this last decade or so would be fielding the same teams more or less. There’s professional pride going for all players and executives involved- some of us might view 3rd place as just as bad as 5th, or 77 wins as the same as 69, but certainly not everyone feels that way, and certainly not the players/executives themselves.

When the opportunity to improve the team comes, if it’s prudent, take it. Just because Reyes is no longer a Met, the Mets should lay down and give up- even if we are in a rebuilding phase.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 7, 2011 3:57 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

Agreed -- but the argument for letting Reyes go was that they couldn't afford him

Then they turn around and spend 60% of that on players who will return only 10% of Reyes’ value.

And yes, I understand the value of these contracts being short commitments rather than the six year deal Reyes had … but we’re paying an awful lot, and getting very little, for this “professional pride” idea.

by Brian Mangan on Dec 7, 2011 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Because even if we signed Reyes, we'd still need to fill these holes

And although signing relievers for a non-contending year isn’t what I’m suggesting, if the Mets weren’t willing to go six years, they might as well spend this years money helping this year’s team.

SELL THE METS

by piazza62 on Dec 7, 2011 4:10 PM EST up reply actions

Also have to factor in risks vis-a-vis Reyes and time

That said, if I have $10, I can’t afford the $15 dollar toy, but can get three $3 toys.

"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.

AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest

by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 7, 2011 4:16 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

Because that's not actually what they did.

Here’s the unfortunate logic behind all this, I’m pretty sure—the difference between a star (but oft injured) shortstop and the competent, cheap options we have for middle infield is only really about 2-3 wins over a season—and that would’ve cost us $18M a year on a long-term contract. On the other hand, the difference between the absolutely godawful, sub-replacement bullpen we had before and the average one we have now? Christina Kahrl estimated 4-5 wins; I think that’s in the ballpark. And that cost ~$10M and gives us flexibility.

Is that a brutal, cold, heartless justification for letting one of your team’s best players ever walk? Yeah. It sucks. It’s why most of us (myself included) didn’t want to do it for our AAOPs. But that’s why Selig made the Wilpons hire this crew: because they don’t have a history with the organization, and they’ll make these sorts of moves if they decide that it’s good baseball. In this case, they’re probably right.

by djletz on Dec 7, 2011 5:00 PM EST up reply actions

I agree with your reasoning, but I think the numbers are wrong.

Reyes is worth 6 WAR per season when healthy. Even in 2010, he was worth 3 WAR. Most projections have him worth somewhere around 5, 4.5, 4, 3.5 WAR each year going forward (which I think is bearish, but let’s use it).

Rauch and Francisco, at BEST, may be worth 2 WAR. Comparing them, by the way, to the sub-replacement bullpen performance from last year is somewhat misleading.

That’s a 4 WAR gap. Agreed?

by Brian Mangan on Dec 7, 2011 6:09 PM EST up reply actions

Someone's going to

take Reyes’s at bats closing the gap even further.

by vigouge on Dec 7, 2011 11:31 PM EST up reply actions

Even then

that’s let’s say, 4.0-4.5 WAR between 3 positions. Reyes can give you 6 at one.

Save Jenrry Mejia!
2012 Amazin' Avenue Offseason Plan: 2nd place

by Ogre39666 on Dec 8, 2011 1:17 AM EST up reply actions

Wins are wins, regardless of where they come from

And a lot of Reyes’ offensive value comes from positional scarcity anyway.

SELL THE METS

by piazza62 on Dec 8, 2011 2:01 AM EST up reply actions

Wins are wins, yes

but when you can get a bunch from one position as opposed to a several, you have an advantage. That is why elite players are so valuable.
And now it’s an indictment that Reyes plays a position of scarcity? That’s an asset.

Save Jenrry Mejia!
2012 Amazin' Avenue Offseason Plan: 2nd place

by Ogre39666 on Dec 8, 2011 2:15 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

That's an argument in his favor, you know, not against him

by anonymous on Dec 8, 2011 2:36 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

That is correct!

by Brian Mangan on Dec 8, 2011 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Except that he's being replaced by Tejada...

..whose numbers would come out to 3ish fWAR prorated to 600 PAs last year. He’s also 22, and likely getting better, whereas I think we can expect Reyes’ leg injuries are going to continue to slowly mount and start to make him decline. When I was doing my AAOP calculations, I was pegging Reyes for more like 4-5 WAR. The dropoff from Reyes to Tejada’s not going to be very big, and Murph at second should be similarly competent.

But adding together the difference between the bullpen we had before and the one we have now is probably from -1 WAR to 2/3 WAR, in that it not only adds a combined 2ish WAR from Francisco/Ramirez/Rauch, it keeps sub-replacement guys like Stinson and Carrasco off the field. We just don’t have reliably serviceable relievers available.

In short, I think your premise that the team is better with Reyes and the relievers we have rather than with our new relievers and Tejada is wrong. The latter team is one or two games better this season, cheaper, and probably in better financial shape going forward.

by djletz on Dec 8, 2011 9:15 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs

It's a fallacy to say that these moves are good because we have a good replacement in Tejada

Even if Tejada is good at shortstop, which — with some luck — I think he will be, nothing comes without a price.

You think Murphy is going to be our second baseman? Fat chance. I don’t think he’ll ever get a shot.

Even if he did get a shot, isn’t the clear weight of the evidence that he won’t be able to play a full season there?

And even if he could, now that Murphy is deployed at second, who takes his spot on the bench? And what’s the cost of losing him as a trade asset? What could we get for Murphy now in a trade? Or for that matter, if you’re so confident Murphy could and would play second, then what would Tejada be worth in a trade?

You could easily make the argument, if you want to take the roster as a whole, that the Mets could have resigned Reyes, and then traded either Murphy or Tejada for a couple of relief arms. Pagan got us Ramirez AND Torres — what would a young, cost-controlled 2-3 WAR player get us?

And if you don’t think they’d return that much in a trade because other teams don’t value them at 2-3 WAR players, then that really invalidates your above point, unless you think they’re worth more to the Mets than to other teams.

And even so, your above projection assumes that Reyes, who is worth 6.2 WAR last season even WITH injuries, would only be worth 4-5 WAR next year, which is pessimistic. And it’s not fair to assume that the replacements for Rauch/Francisco in the bullpen would be sub-replacement either, as replacement level talent be definition should be easily acquirable.

by Brian Mangan on Dec 8, 2011 12:35 PM EST up reply actions