The Mets front office conducted another of their Q&A sessions with season ticket holders at Citi Field earlier this week. It was there that General Manager Sandy Alderson spoke on a topic of perpetual interest this winter: the Mets lack of involvement on recently minted free-agent Cuban shortstop Yoan Moncada. His explanation was more confirmation than illumination, but that doesn’t mean we can’t take anything away from it. You see, the Mets didn’t sign Moncada because he doesn’t make sense for them. Bear with me here.
There are many good baseball reasons the Mets should sign Moncada. In fact, David Groveman listed some back in January. Scott Ferguson elaborated further on the virtues of signing him a few weeks later, touching on the frustration of the fan base. The gist of it is pretty straightforward. An incredibly gifted young player is available from the newly tapped talent pool in Cuba, and a player that (at least for now) plays a position that has been the talk of Mets Town all winter.
The problem is that the large price tag and penalty don’t fall in line with the Mets’ business plan. It’s become evident that it’s a risk averse business model rather than a full blown attempt at fielding the most competitive team possible.
As most of you know by now, the penalty for going over the international bonus slot amount allotted to a team is twofold: a 100% tax due immediately and the inability to sign international players for more $300,000 over the next two international free agent (IFA) signing periods. The consensus at this point is that Moncada will sign a deal for around $30 million. That means the Mets would have to pay a $30 million tax on top of that up front. The obvious retort is that this is a New York team and that shouldn’t be a factor, but we’ve all learned that isn’t the case with this iteration of the Mets. After all, there’s a chance that the $60 million investment won’t pay off. That isn’t stopping other big market clubs from pursuing him, though.
The bigger issue was the signing penalty. According to Alderson, “And, more importantly than that [the tax], it would also limit us over the next two years from signing another Amed Rosario out of the Dominican Republic.”
Rosario is the Mets young shortstop prospect that’s quickly gaining upward mobility on top prospect lists. They signed him two years ago for $1.75 million, the highest bonus they’d ever given an IFA. If the Mets accept the penalty they would potentially be missing out on the next Rosario. Of course, there’s no way to know if there will be another Rosario in the next two years. But there might be. Maybe. Right? Hopefully, since they’re letting Moncada go because of that chance.
The point is that the team doesn’t appear willing to risk the cash and penalty for a highly sought after player because there might be a 14-year-old playing ball in Colombia right now that they might want to sign. At least that’s the story Alderson is selling. It probably wouldn’t be such a big deal if Moncada was a sure thing, but he’s not. That’s the risk that you take, though. Well, that other teams take. It’s also the money because it’s always about the money.
Further solidifying this risk concept, Alderson went on to say, “From my stand point, it’s a little like the stock market. Do you want to go all in on Shake Shack? Or, do you want to invest in a mutual fund that gives you a little more diversity and a little more spread over time.”
This all falls in line with what has become a theme for the team since their financial troubles started and Alderson was brought in to clean things up. It’s never smart to make a splash for the sake of back pages, but it seems as though we’ve been constantly arguing about giving up this draft pick or that IFA and which low salary player from the scrap heap could work out. They simply aren’t in on the big names these days. Maybe they’ve been burned one too many times, but at some point this risk aversion has seemingly progressed to full risk avoidance. Signing Moncada doesn’t make sense for a team that is unwilling to take any risks.
Maddeningly, Alderson also talks in circles and contradicts himself at times. During the session, he stated that we’d find that the teams in on Moncada “don’t have a Rosario at the bottom end of their system.” Wouldn’t having a strong farm system be more of an incentive to take the risk of absorbing the IFA penalty? Even more confusing is the fact that Alderson repeatedly says things like “one of these days, maybe we will be in on a guy like Moncada.”
Mets fans have been patiently waiting while Alderson builds what looks to be the base of a consistently competitive baseball team. At some point you need to move the needle when the opportunity presents itself to get you over the hump. You’re continuously banking on young players fulfilling potential and finding diamonds in the rough otherwise. We’ve been told the team is on the cusp of being really competitive. When do they finally start acting like it? When do we start going all in on Shake Shack?
“……because it’s always about the money.”
’nuff said.
I agree with the title, but disagree when it comes to Moncada.
Signing Moncada would be too risky of a move. Too risky. If you look at the teams that are in the bidding for him, it’s mostly the teams that have already gone over the limit and are already subjected to the 2 year penalty and therefore they don’t have to factor that into their equation. The Mets have not gone over that limit and would have to consider that.
“Wouldn’t having a strong farm system be more of an incentive to take the risk of absorbing the IFA penalty?”
Not really. If you’re going to go over the limit, you should go over by signing as many players as you can for as much money as you can. Going over simply by adding 1 player is a super risky move. That’s why the Yankees are the prohibitive favorites. They’ve done exactly that, “diversifying their portfolio (as Alderson puts it) by signing 10 of the top 30 international players
Also, as an aside, if the Mets don’t over this year, they’ll have much better pickings the next 2 years as almost 10 teams will be subjected to the penalty.
The Moncada situation is another data point to add to the risk aversion formula to which they’ve been holding steady. It’s really just the latest example. As far as signing many players rather than one, I’d point out that the Mets have been doing that with the scrap heap for years. Most don’t work out, as expected. Was it better to spread the money on high risk, low reward players simply because you could sign more?
Granted, that’s not an apples to apples comparison, namely because scrap heap players are typically a known quantity and IFAs have tons of potential on their side.
And very good last point. That could very well work in the Mets’ favor.
I still disagree. This risk is much more different than Sandy unwilling to trade prospects. The risk that you take for going over the limit is probably akin to losing your first 5 picks in the draft for 2 years. That’s a hefty price to pay.
Also, think about from a non-Mets perspective, more specifically a team that has already gone over the spending limit. You’ve already gone over the limit and are subjected to the penalties. You can’t sign anyone for the next 2 years, so you might as well spend as much as it takes to get the last big fish possible. A team like the Yankees, which fits that description, can and should outbid the Mets. It would be a bigger mistake for the Yankees than the Mets to not sign him.
And that’s why we won’t get him, and why it’s not realistic to expect it even if we had the money and the desire.
Agreed, It’s more than just not wanting to spend money, it’s diversifying, just like the man said. Or like the old saying goes, “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.”
Like Name, I agree with the premise…but the specific example of Moncada is not the best demonstration of the problem. 40, 60, 80 million is a hunka-hunka to push at a 19 year old who is not position certain or MLB ready. Frankly, it’s a baseball decision and a business decision, and I can’t argue much with it. His signing may work out, but it will be a public burning of money.
Call it Risk aversion…or call it lack of cash…lack of ability to commit…. call it what you will, this team has made very few commitments that would last beyond a couple of years. This includes signings and trades for MLB Players with “going rate” compensation—forgetting “top tier” guys! This includes any indication that they’re ready or willing to commit toward some of their own young core.
Yes…they’re limiting “mistakes”…they’re also limiting success.
It’s a problem of mindset—or maybe it’s a problem of Wallet… it plays out the same way.
Yeah as I mentioned in my comment to Name, Moncada is just the latest example. There’s always the possibility that he won’t work out and it’s folly to assume he will because of the recent success of Cuban players. But I mean that’s the point of taking the risk.
“Yes…they’re limiting “mistakes”…they’re also limiting success.”
That’s a good summation of where the team seems to be right now, I think.
you cant blame sandy altogether if he had more money to spend he would spend it take sandy and one of the steinbrenners for a owner and you got a met champion in 2015-16 and so on if wilpon wants to make the mets competitive forget about a 100 million base more a $130-160 base will get it done
I don’t think you can put this one on Alderson. What he’ saying is maybe one day my bosses will have money where we can invest (take a chance) on a kid like this. The penalty is part of the risk. All teams know that. That being said there are still quite a few teams still interested in him. Just not the Mets.
Alderson made it clear why the Mets were not bidding on Moncada:
“let’s say he gets a $30 million contract, that would require an immediate $30 million tax be paid within 30 days.”
The Mets don’t have $30 million just kicking around in petty cash.
The Mets risk aversion policy is a conservative policy and one I believe in. Moncado is an all your eggs in one basket deal. The problem I have with risk aversion with the Mets is their inability to evaluate the talent at the major league level and pick the right veteran free agent to fill the two year holes. They also lack the flexibility to evaluate and trade to upgrade the team. It took too long to decide on Duda/Davis when a well timed trade would have brought in a major league player. This winter, the Mets were offered a starting major league shortstop earning minimum salary for their sixth starter who was earning $5M. The shortstop was better than the current backup shortstop and would have provided experienced depth at the position. Granderson was a disappointment and the Mariners were looking for outfield help all winter . A Granderson/Gee package may have brought in Miller and Saunders and then take the saved money and spend it elsewhere. Van Slyke and Pederson are still backed up in the Dodger outfield and maybe could have been pried loose. The point I am trying to make is that there are many ways to improve the team without tying up payroll with multi year free agent signings or all in international signings. It takes innovation and creativity and the ability to change course and act quickly which is a quality that Alderson does not possess.
How much of that is Alderson and how much blame do you attach to his inability to make these moves on the Wilpons?
Sandy knew the situation he signed up for. The moves I alluded to are money saving moves so it is on Sandy’s shoulders. As for the Wilpon’s, the team budget, if it was increased by $20M, would allow the necessary improvements to improve the depth and quality of the team and a winning team brings in more profits.
I guess if the Wilpons really had the money they would of done so already. Just goes to show you just how much of a shoestring budget they are running on. Increasing revenue should certainly be at the forefront of any conversation Fred and Jeff have.
It is the banks. I firmly believe that the article that stated that the banks have to approve all Met expenditures was true, It was quickly denied by MLB because it would be a violation of the MLB collective bargaining agreement. Third parties can not dictate negotiated salaries between two parties, MLB and MLBPU, that are already in contract.
Such is the demise of our beloved Mets that the Wilpons probably have to endorse and give back the 25 million dollar check they get from Citibank for the naming rights to Citifield.
I don’t mind Alderson passing up Moncada with Rosario in the minors. I will mind the team not signing big free agent names, and locking up their young guys when the time comes. I hope the Mets keep the core of talent they have, but that remains to be seen.
Shake Shack doubled in one day. The MLB Finance head should tell Alderson that was a poor example.
Here is the one SA should have used. Is it better to put your entire treasury operations with one shady hedge fund manager, or diversify?