Deal MontyThe ol’ clock on the wall ticks away this July 31, and it is becoming apparent that there will be no press briefings forthcoming from Citi Field. It looks as though Sandy Alderson and the Mets will not be participating in the annual mid-year grab bag exchange of players. We’ve seen Yeonis Cespedes, Jon Lester, John Lackey, Allen Craig, Joe Kelly, Tommy Milone, Sam Fuld, Gerardo Parra and Chris Denorfia change addresses. We’ve heard rumors – since disputed: a classic Twitter-bred hoax — about Marlon Byrd. And that’s just today. The Mets? All you hear is crickets. And that’s not bad news, but somehow still disappointing.

Look, it makes perfect sense for the Mets to stand pat right now. If we take a realistic look at things as they stand, are they really contenders this year? No, not at all, so it makes no sense to be a buyer, unless you’re sure you can lock up a franchise-changing power hitter long term. Conversely, is their payroll out of whack on the high side? Obviously not, so there’s no need for any salary dumps or to go into full-blown selling mode, unless they’re getting a big haul back for Bartolo Colon or it’s a chance to get anything at all for Chris Young. Yes, from an intellectual standpoint, Sandy and Co. are doing the right thing by sitting out this dance and looking to moonwalk through the offseason.

From an emotional standpoint, though, the inaction of this July appears as yet another symbol that the Wilpons, for all their brave talk and payroll slashing, still cannot play on the same field as the big kids. It’s an indication that the “big bat” this lineup desperately craves is still out of their price range. It tells the fan that even if everyone in town bought season tickets, all that money will be going to pay off the crushing debts on the team itself, on Citi Field and on the SNY Network. It also says that all the “rising payroll” rhetoric of the last couple of years has been so much Wilponian hot air. The Mets have been linked at various points to Matt Kemp, Carlos Gonzales, Troy Tulowitzky and Alex Rios. There’s been talk of sensible deals with Arizona and the Chicago Cubs about their respective shortstop gluts. None of them are coming to Queens, at least not today.

All this serves to put Alderson and the Wilpons on notice that tangible improvements must be made heading into the 2015 season or their dreams of filling up Citi Field will end up as nothing more than that: illusory vapor. And no matter how many Fiddy Cent or Huey Lewis concerts you put on, if you have Fireworks Night every night, if you give everyone a free t-shirt every inning, you will end up with an empty ballpark and a self-eating cycle of ebbing revenues going towards waxing debt if you don’t put a competitive product on the field.

This is New York, not St. Louis and people aren’t going to come out to cheer the laundry, especially with fancier, more decorated laundry uptown.

Follow me on Twitter @CharlieHangley.

33 comments on “Mets Sitting Out The Trade Deadline, Fans Sitting On The Edge Of Their Seats

  • Patrick Albanesius

    Harsh, but deserved criticism. I don’t blame SA for keeping his cool either. I had a dream last night that we got Tulo, but I guess that’s all it was. A dream. It’s a shame that a small piece here or there couldn’t be found to bolster either SS or LF, or maybe even the bullpen. Alas, the wisemen in the front office see more than we do.

    • JOE AMOROSO

      The Mets will never be good as long as Wilpon owns them.

      Editor’s Note – Please do not capitalize words in your post, as that is a violation of our Comment Policy.

  • pete

    It’s more like whatever it takes to hold on to this franchise and to hell with the fans. I’m sorry Charlie but the fans feelings for this team is not a high priority on the Wilpons Christmas shopping list. Huey Lewis? Geez! Just a bit out dated like the Mets ownership whose time has come and gone.

  • Metsense

    The Mets were not close enough to the playoff hunt to warrant obtaining “pieces” at the deadline. The next deal that the Mets should make is for ” a better established hitter than what a career numbers Chris Young was supposed to be.” It will also cost much more than $7.25M. Hopefully it will occur this winter.
    I agree with Alderson’s logic concerning Colon but that $11M commitment needs to be moved before spring training and the money reallocated. That is $16.25M to use on that bat.
    It will probably cost another $10-12M annually to upgrade the “other” needy position that the previously mentioned “established bat ” doesn’t play.
    A reasonable increase in the budget this winter to obtain these two players should result in strong playoff chances in 2015.

    • pete

      Just like this year? Weren’t the Mets going to “add” payroll this year? What happened? Looks like they Decreased their payroll this year by more than 10 million dollars! (Cot’s)

  • Rob Rogan

    This article pretty much sums up my feelings. Along with Alderson’s press conference, I can see and understand why they stood pat. One thing I don’t understand is their absolute refusal (per reports) to eat any of Colon’s contract. Would that not help improve a potential prospect haul? I have to believe they’d do it if it would.

    Anyway, not too upset about the inaction. That being said, if they don’t start turning their assets into major league contributors this off-season….

  • Steve L

    I agree with the article too, standing pat was the “smart” move (unless they passed up a good haul for Colon, as apparently the O’s and Cardinals kicked the tires on him), but it’s starting to get frustrating. If they don’t do much in the offseason to take a real shot at the playoffs in 2015, it would start to becoming really hard to defend the team’s approach.

    With respect to payrolls, they did spend money this offseason (Granderson, Colon, and Young were all signed as FAs). Overall the payroll was lower, but that’s because Johan and Bay were still on the books for 40+ million in 2013.

    • Charlie Hangley

      Kevin Burkhardt pretty much summed it up on Twitter (I’m paraphrasing, can’t find the exact quote): “I’m not upset they didn’t make any moves at the deadline. If they don’t make any moves in the offseason, I’ll be very upset.”

    • Chris F

      The Mets did not “spend” money on Granderson and CY etc. This is a misbelief. The Mets payroll for 2014 is less than 2013. Only in Mets-land can reducing payroll be called spending. Those signings were less than replacement value of Bay and Johan coming off the books. Spending, in baseball terms, actually means extending payroll not decreasing it.

      • Steve L

        I think it’s hard to rationally argue signing free agents is not spending money. You seem to be saying they didn’t spend enough money because payroll went down. Maybe, but they shouldn’t just spend money to say they raised payroll. Guys like Cano and Ellsbury represented obvious upgrades, but I didn’t like the contracts for either (and certainly don’t think the Mets should have outbid the Mariners or Yankees, respectively).

        If anything, they wasted money by signing Chris Young, as it shouldn’t have been hard to cobble together a cheap and much-more-productive platoon for RF.

        I still say the real test is this offseason, and whether they add more payroll to start trying to compete.

        • Chris F

          all they did was replace. Also, the arbitration agreements were “spending money”. I get that. What people mean when they say spending money means more than the past, particularly when payrolls have been steadily declining to the bottom of the MLB. Hey, they’re spending money on beer guys too…does that count?

          If this winter is another year of sifting through the weeds and making criminal half-hearted attempts to find a bargain at the garbage heap, expect it to be filled with fan discontent.

        • pete

          Alderson said that the Mets were financially flexible And would increase their payroll for 2014. 93.7 million last year. This year 80 million+. So the team isn’t “adding” payroll. Their simply reallocating funds that were available. Which is less than the previous years allocation by 14 million dollars!

          • Steve L

            The Mets’ 2014 payroll is actually a hair less than 9 million under their 2013 payroll:

            http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league/new-york-mets/

            You guys are being awfully pedantic about what it means to “raise payroll.” They had about $50 million committed to players actually on the roster in 2013, while this year it’s $80+ million. This fits any reasonable definition of increasing payroll, the relevant number is what was committed to 2014 and not what they paid in 2013.

            In previous years SA was not allowed to spend much in free agency, as he was forced to let bad deals expire. This past offseason he was allowed to, and did, spend significant sums in FA. Just because he didn’t spend more than the amount that came off the books after 2013 isn’t terribly relevant. Would you feel better if the Mets overpaid for free agents to hit a payroll of $95 Million or more?

            • Chris F

              Getting a raise means more annual income. Its actually a very simple principle. Spending mean adding to your payroll. If we had 25 guys all on league minimum wages there is no doubt that means the Wilpons/Aldersons are “spending money” as the players will no do so for free. However, if you take what everyone conventionally means by spending, that is adding payroll, the Mets have not done anything of the sorts. No mathematical gymnastics can equate lowering payroll with spending.

              • Steve L

                Chris F, there’s an inherent logical flaw in your argument that you don’t seem to appreciate. Guys under contract, arb guys, and even the guys selling beer at the stadium were already committed to the 2014 payroll (not that the beer guys count towards the 2014 player salaries, I’m just addressing your point). Granderson, Colon, and CY were not. Signing free agents is spending money, and the Mets spent 30+ million on 2014 FA salaries alone. This was also a clear change in direction for the franchise that hadn’t been willing to spend significant money in free agency heading into the past several seasons.

                Once again, one cannot rationally argue they didn’t “spend money” for 2014. You seem to want to penalize them because 40+ Million in dead money in 2013 came off the books, which is irrelevant to increasing payroll for 2014. They had, give or take, 50 million committed to 2014 heading into the offseason, and they added 30+ million to payroll by spending money on FAs. If you would just take a step back and think about this for a moment it would be pretty clear.

                What you’re actually arguing is they should have spent *more* money/added *more* payroll. I don’t really have a strong opinion on this, as it really depends on who they would have gotten. Something like 2 years/20 million (with a 3rd year team option/buy out) for Marlon Byrd likely would have helped the team in 2014 (and probably next year), but heading into the season his 2013 performance sure looked like an outlier. But I don’t think they should have spent money for the sole purpose of surpassing last year’s payroll.

                • Chris F

                  So 50M$ comes off the books leaving 35M$ in obligations. If the Mets dont “spend” then we have a payroll 10M$ under the Astros, with the lowest payroll in the MLB. So, go ahead, you can call replacing the contracts of Bay and Johan as spending, but here in the real world, in the largest media market on Earth, thats called skating by. Im no advocate for just huge payrolls for the sake of it, but for a team turning the corner to the future in NYC, “doing more with less” is nothing more than the hype of a snake oil salesman. Below is the bottom line. Each year gets less. As someone with a fair amount of math skills, I am certain these numbers mean that each year less is being spent.

                  2014: $ 84,951,365
                  2013: $ 93,684,590
                  2012: $ 94,508,822
                  2011: $142,797,166

  • James Newman

    I’m glad the Mets didn’t do any moves. Colon is going to help this team, and could potentially be traded in August. Murphy is the Mets’ best hitter, and I don’t think the Mets would have received enough for him. Besides that, Colorado isn’t dealing Tulo or CarGo until the offseason, and I’m eager to see what the young pitchers can do for this team.

  • eric

    20-10 at home the rest of the way, and .500 on the road (12-12) gets us to 84-78. No playoffs, but lots of momentum going into the offseason, exciting baseball at Citi throughout September, and buzz going into next season when a lot of people will be picking this team to contend. A few lucky breaks on the road, or an even more dominating performance at home (like going 24-6 instead) and there’s still an outside straight’s chance of sneaking in to the 2nd WC (although I expect it will be St Louis and Pittsburgh). Gotta take 3 of 4 from the Giants first.

    All that being said – we absolutely have to cut Abreu and bring back MDD.

  • Chris F

    As much as I dislike Alderson and his way of doing business, in this case I agree with him. The actions tell us more than the backwards, russian, coded, double-speak noted for GMs of eras before smart phones we are used to hearing. The plain fact is we are making improvements such that the fire sale days are over, but this is not a 90-win, playoff-threatening club with immediate needs. I can appreciate that, no matter what seems to spill out of TCs mouth in his babbling rants about Flores.

  • Scott Ferguson

    I think Colon is getting traded in August. He’ll either pass through waivers and be dealt or be claimed and be traded to that team. Basically the same concept as the Byrd trade.
    I also think it’s time to release Abreu and Young, then promote Den Dekker and Seratelli or someone like that. That way they play out the year platooning EY and den Dekker to see what they have moving forward

  • Steve L

    Chris F, I understand math just fine. The problem here is you’re getting hung up on a technicality regarding dead money on last year’s payroll.

    As “spend money” and “add payroll” are being conflated, I’m going to parse out these terms.

    I hope you’re not trying to argue the Mets didn’t “spend money” by adding $30+ million in payroll for FAs for 2014. This is literally indefensible, as in either the real world or some imaginary one signing FAs is spending money. Arguing against this undermines any claim that you have “a fair amount of math skills.”

    “Adding payroll” is more open to interpretation. It certainly can be defined as spending money on FAs (or signing your own players to extensions), as this is literally adding to your payroll. While I agree the determination should focus on other factors as well, the dead money that expired does not seem particularly relevant. It would be one thing if the Mets let players who (combined) made 40+ million walk, and replaced them by spending 30ish million on other players. But that’s not what they did, as the money that came off the books in 2014 was money they were paying to guys who were no longer on the team. They actually increased payroll for players on the 2014 by around 60% over the players actually on the team in 2013, and this is a very significant and very real addition to their payroll.

    Yes, I’m aware that this year’s 84ish million payroll is less than 2013’s 93ish million payroll. And that in the most absolute literal sense the Mets did not “add payroll” as their payroll is lower than last year’s. Ummm…congratulations? It still doesn’t change the fact that the relevant figure is money spent on players actually on the team, and it’s asinine to dismiss signing 30+ million in FAs in 2014 because it’s less than the dead money that expired.

    Once again, if you were just claiming the Mets should have spent *more* money or added *more* payroll, I wouldn’t have any inherent objections. And an 84 million payroll is too low for a team in the NY market. But it’s silly to claim the Mets didn’t spend money for 2014, and it’s only slightly less silly to claim they didn’t add payroll in 2014.

    • Brian Joura

      I’m wondering in what universe actual payroll is a technicality.

      Look, we all understand effective payroll – there’s been more than one article at the site about it. But just because they spent money on FA this year doesn’t mean the payroll went up. You can say you’re fine with the money that was spent and feel that the play on the field has been improved and no one will argue with you.

      But the simple fact is that payroll did not go up.

      • Jerry Grote

        Brian … I almost jumped on Steve F on this one, but

        from a strictly P&L standpoint, his stance is as stupid as could be. The Mets have reduced their total spending on players this year but that’s only half the story.

        Every team, in every sport, carries dead money (at least that I know of). Managing that driftwood and keeping the money on the roster is what sports is all about (of course, deploying winning results from that cash).

        We are spending more on the field this year.

        Deploying every bit of capital in a single year pretty much insures a boom/bust, Keynesian impact that Alderson is trying to avoid. End of the day, I have a hard time admitting that I agree with Steve on this one.

        Our *effective* payroll went up. At some point it peaks and I would guess that number is around $120MM until attendance pushes it higher. So, yeah, next off season should see another $15MM bump.

        If it weren’t true, then CO wouldn’t be in LV scouting Syndergaard. Anyone that thinks we can’t/won’t increase effective payroll next year is high.

        • Brian Joura

          And what happens to effective payroll if David Wright gets injured and spends two-plus months on the DL?

          • Jerry Grote

            Fair question.

            I think there’s a difference between systemic differences in production, and issues that can be defined as temporary.

            Should David’s two-month trip end in Santana-like consequences we might have a different discussion – particularly in the last season(s) of such a contract.

            I don’t think the comparison is otherwise in good standing.

  • pete

    Mets opening day payroll Was 84 million. Deduct Davis and Lannen and add Dice-K and you come up with 80 million for the current roster. Steve SA said the Mets had the ability And flexibility to increase their 2014 payroll which means to me that in search of FA’s that he wasn’t being hampered by the dead contracts that were no longer an issue. So if you go to work and your boss tells you you’re getting a raise you expect to see more money in your check. Wouldn’t you? But if you see less you’re going to ask him what happened to my raise? So the good news is that the Mets only have 7.25 million dead money this year! So much for SA having any faith whatsoever in His farm system. If Colon isn’t moved by the end of the season the Mets will have 54 million dollars tied up in only 4 players. You add the 7 players eligible for arbitration and you get anywhere from 25-30 million dollars gives you a payroll of 79-84 million. Add 14 minimum wage players at 500,000 and you total comes to 86-91 million. So you can forget the front office adding any FA’s next season that can help at SS or LF. Colon will get moved for prospects and the payroll will be the same as this year.

  • Steve L

    Well gosh, I would look pretty silly if I was arguing that the Mets payroll increased from 2014 to 2013. The only problem is I never actually said that, nor did Sandy Alderson.

    I can’t believe I’m forced to quote dictionary definitions, but some of you don’t seem to have a strong grasp of what “increase” and “add” actually mean:

    Add: to unite or join so as to increase the number, quantity, size, or importance

    Increase: to become progressively greater (as in size, amount, number, or intensity)

    If SA had said he was going to increase payroll, it would mean the Mets would pay more in payroll in 2014 than last year. But he said they were going to add payroll, which meant he was going to increase the amount committed for 2014. The dead money that expired before 2014 is relevant to the former, but not the latter.

    In a vacuum, you can interpret SA’s comments about “adding payroll” to mean “we’re going to spend more on payroll in 2014 than 2013. But it’s a very narrow-minded view that’s completely oblivious to context. I don’t understand why anyone would think “we’re adding payroll” means “we’re going to spend more than the dead money that expired in the offseason.” I mean, if he was committed to increasing payroll, why wouldn’t he have just said so?

    I actually went back and looked at additional SA quotes, and they clearly support my definition. SA didn’t even really commit to “adding payroll,” he said they had the flexibility to do so and their were no constraints attached to the BoA loan to the franchise. He also said he “doesn’t expect” payroll to be lower than in 2013. Why would he make separate comments about adding payroll and the 2014 payroll compared to last year’s if these weren’t two different (albeit related) things?

    Also, it looks like the Mets payroll ended up at 87-88 million in 2013, which is the number we should be using instead of the opening day 93ish million payroll. So the as of opening day the Mets were 3-4 million below 2013. If you really want to get bent out of shape that he Mets didn’t spend 5-10 million more on the team, then hey, go nuts. But they added payroll and came reasonably close to spending what they did in 2013, with the difference being they don’t have 40+ million in dead money this year. And this just isn’t arguable, despite some of your best efforts to do so.

    • Jerry Grote

      A synonym for add is increase.

      http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/add/

      Synonym: a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as happy, joyful, elated. A dictionary of synonyms and antonyms (or opposites), such as Thesaurus.com, is called a thesaurus.

      Hence, saying one thing is saying the other. Without understanding the underlying context, it would appear that indeed you are suggesting that payroll should have been more in pure dollars.

      As in fact Sandy Alderson made it unclear.

    • pete

      Steve what about the new television contract that went into effect this year? It nearly doubled the previous contract from 25 million to nearly 50 million per year. If teams like Oakland, Kansas City, Milwaukee and San Diego which play in much smaller markets can apply a portion of their additional revenue to their payroll why can’t the Mets do the same?

      • Steve L

        If you’re saying the Mets need to start spending more soon, I’m not arguing. I just don’t object to the amount they spent in the past offseason, particularly as the Mets looked (at the time) about a year away from contention, and not a big FA away from being a competitor.

        In short, if the past offseason was step 1, I’m on board. If that was it and SA doesn’t keep spending to try to improve the team, I’m going to be severely disappointed.

        • pete

          And when you realize we’ve been had just like Bernie did to Fred what are you going to do? This is year 4 going towards year 5 Assuming SA stays here and not end up in the Commissioners Office. Disappointed? TC is still going to be the manager next season! How’s that for looking forward to 2015!

          • Steve L

            Well it’s not like it would be the first time this franchise has crushed my optimism…

            I give SA something of a pass for the past few years, as he was stuck in a situation where he wasn’t allowed to add much payroll while previous bad deals expired, and at least re-stocked the farm system. If this approach continues the next year or two I’ll certainly be disappointed.

  • Chris F

    This discussion sounds exactly like an Alderson interview.

    Only a micro-parsing of words with coded meanings and possible, but not probable, intention to be clear what the code could in fact mean spending less is adding payroll. I dont give a shite how the money is divided, players that are playing, players that are on DL, players on permanent vacation, it all comes from some actual final number. How the pie is divided is up to the GM and chance. Any parsing of it for deep meaning is senseless. Indeed, it is parsed, but the final value is all that matters.

    This thread is completely surrealistic, like Dali’s “The Persistence of Memory.”

    (That was for you Brian)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 100 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here