NFT: Mets Fans - Curt Schilling Likes the Mets Pitching Staff

and I think all that DMM or others with stances of this nature are saying is that IF the Mets produce another dud, then he will believe it's time for a FO (and managerial) change.

and I don't necessarily disagree. Sandy has done some good things, but another sub .500 year is 5 in a row. At some point he needs to improve the major league team, not just the minors.

Plus, I think it's Sandy's last year under contract unless they extended him and I missed it.

But...I think it's all moot, I feel good about this team. Or at least better than I have about any Mets team since 2007/8.

In comment 12110562 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

and I think all that DMM or others with stances of this nature are saying is that IF the Mets produce another dud, then he will believe it's time for a FO (and managerial) change. and I don't necessarily disagree. Sandy has done some good things, but another sub .500 year is 5 in a row. At some point he needs to improve the major league team, not just the minors. Plus, I think it's Sandy's last year under contract unless they extended him and I missed it. But...I think it's all moot, I feel good about this team. Or at least better than I have about any Mets team since 2007/8.

Sandy got extended this past fall thru 2017.

not caving to fans and sports writers and making a forced move.

How do we know he wouldn't have made a move with less payroll restriction? He may have pulled the trigger on Desmond if he knew we had the money available to lock him up long-term.

listen to the noise

Or he just does not have the flexibility to make any moves that add payroll. Its easy to look calm and in control when you HAVE to say no.

Maybe the team would be better if he had more flexibility, maybe it would be worse.. but I don't think he has much of a choice. We obviously can't afford to be in on Moncada.. we can't afford to pay Desmond, I don't think we would have been able to afford to take on Tulo's contract, either.

I think he doesn't have the money.

Nowhere in Sandy's career did he arbitrarily decide he wasn't going to spend to his budget. In Oakland when he was winning, his teams payrolls were among the highest in the league.

It's totally false (IMO) for anyone to simply say Sandy by choice keep the payroll at its current levels.

I don't know if he had free reign with the checkbook if he would make the moves people here think he would make. I get he is hamstrung but I don't know which deal you guys think he makes?

I believe he would have done something.

for example, sign Ellsbury, sign Cano, re-sign Reyes, sign Miller, etc.

and I'm not saying I know what moves he should make.

Ellsbury, Cano, Reyes, Miller - all change the dyamic of the Mets. Ellsbury and Reyes give the Mets a leadoff hitter, Cano is a big power bat in the middle of the lineup, Miller is a stud lefty out of the pen.

In comment 12110478 ZGiants98 said:

Quote:

Mack's Mets about how our "2nd rotation"(Syndergaard, Montero, Matz, Gee, and Bowman) is still better than 5 teams in baseball. lol Link - ( New Window )

Assumed this article was a joke, till I started to read it. I understand the point, but any team starting the season with four minor leaguers and Gee as the experienced anchor would be laughed at as by far the worst rotation in all of MLB.

Can we please stop talking about the handcuffs. And how if it wasn't for the Wilpons, Sandy would have signed those deals with Ellsbury, etc. Even with an unlimited budget, Sandy HATES those contracts. Out of 100 opportunities with an unlimited budget, zero times would Sandy hand over a Cano type contract.

In comment 12110627 Shecky said:

Quote:

Can we please stop talking about the handcuffs. And how if it wasn't for the Wilpons, Sandy would have signed those deals with Ellsbury, etc. Even with an unlimited budget, Sandy HATES those contracts. Out of 100 opportunities with an unlimited budget, zero times would Sandy hand over a Cano type contract.

David Wright.

after letting Reyes walk, there was a snowball's chances in Hell that the Mets were not going to spend on Wright. That would have been a PR disaster thatI don't know if they'd ever fully recover from

Seriously?

Cano signed for 10/$240mm and cost a draft pick.
Wright signed for what, 7/8 years? With like $135 present value due to deferrals. And is the face of the franchise...

Those two contracts are not even close to comparable.

an excuse or reason that fits every argument.

likes Wright's contract, but not Cano's.

Ok, I was making an example. people are so f-ing literal - even when people say they're offering up examples.

Ellsbury then or Reyes. pick someone.

If you believe Sandy's major league moves are a function 100% of his roster building and 0% a function of his payroll limitations, I disagree and anything you say is no less an opinion than what I say.

You're looking to pick one over nonsense, you're wright and I'm wrong. Feel better?

As a Met fan my antenna went up when I found out that Wilpons did not want to do the Piazza trade and Doubleday forced the issue. I wonder where the franchise would be if Doubleday had bought out Wilpons. Oh well, just have to deal with reality

In comment 12110627 Shecky said:

Quote:

Can we please stop talking about the handcuffs. And how if it wasn't for the Wilpons, Sandy would have signed those deals with Ellsbury, etc. Even with an unlimited budget, Sandy HATES those contracts. Out of 100 opportunities with an unlimited budget, zero times would Sandy hand over a Cano type contract.

I completely agree with this and he's flat out said it.

In comment 12110621 Shecky said:

Quote:

In comment 12110478 ZGiants98 said: Quote: Mack's Mets about how our "2nd rotation"(Syndergaard, Montero, Matz, Gee, and Bowman) is still better than 5 teams in baseball. lol Link - ( New Window ) Assumed this article was a joke, till I started to read it. I understand the point, but any team starting the season with four minor leaguers and Gee as the experienced anchor would be laughed at as by far the worst rotation in all of MLB.

I agree. He's obviously forecasting the potential and likely weighing the odds that even in a worst case scenario, Syndergaard, Matz, and Montero are at least backend starters. At least thats what I took from it.

In comment 12110648 ZGiants98 said:

Quote:

In comment 12110627 Shecky said: Quote: Can we please stop talking about the handcuffs. And how if it wasn't for the Wilpons, Sandy would have signed those deals with Ellsbury, etc. Even with an unlimited budget, Sandy HATES those contracts. Out of 100 opportunities with an unlimited budget, zero times would Sandy hand over a Cano type contract. I completely agree with this and he's flat out said it.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true, in fact because you say it, usually means it's not true. Case in point, quote from Sandy Alderson:

Quote:

Sandy Alderson recently told Jon Heyman of CBS Sports he remains concerned about signing players to long-term contracts, but recognizes risk is a necessary evil in the business. �There�s no question long-term contracts carry risk, and right about the time you�re clearing payroll you can wind up right back where you started if it doesn�t work out,� Sandy Alderson told Heyman. �On the other hand, you have some times where you have to roll the dice.� Alderson remains intent on improving the roster this winter, and will consider a big signing this winter. �I certainly haven�t ruled out a big-ticket item,� Alderson said.

...and been in the bottom half of the league in payroll?

deals to face of the franchise types. He proved that with Wright and Im guessing maybe a Harvey falls into that category in a couple years... We'll see. But yeah, mostly, we are going to be set up as a cost effective team that utilizes players in their youth and mostly their primes and we'll let other teams pay them long term contracts that last well into their 30s. I can't say I disagree with this logic.

He's said it many times.. whatever.. I don't feel like starting in with you tonight now too. Ill try to find you a quote.

In comment 12110654 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

...and been in the bottom half of the league in payroll?

I don't think Ive seen many teams in the last decade go through the type of rebuild we have either with such a long scope. He purposely went high school for many years knowing this would take a while. Now, all the talent is here around the same time and they are all making nothing. I don't think the payroll has anything o do with talent in this case.

�I wouldn�t say we�re out of the business of big contracts,� Alderson said. �But I do think you have to be realistic about the risks associated with those contracts. So whether we do five in the next two or three years, or none, or 10, there�s going to be a lot of risk associated with it. And I think over the last two or three years, some of that risk has been realized. And we all have to understand that. there�s not one panacea.

�Ultimately, the best solution for the Mets is to build a strong core of young players who are coming through the system and can be continuously coming through the system. And I think if you look at what we have now, we�ve got the potential for that kind of core. But it�s a next generation, together with some of the players that have been longer term.�
Link - ( New Window )

And I don't hear Sandy saying "well, we don't think it's a good strategy to hand out bigger contracts".. to me, it just reads more like "well, we can't hand those out so this is how we have to do things"

Maybe it's just me.

I don't think you have to spend 200M to contend in this league but I just don't see any teams in the bottom 3rd of baseball like we are winning championships. Not now, not really in the past either. There have been a few exceptions I just don't think you're giving yourself great odds if when opportunities to upgrade the team present themselves and you have to pass because of budget constraints.

I don't want to get into the whole payroll thing again but I do believe if the Mets are to ever become serious WS contenders, they're going to have to spend more than 89M or whatever they're spending right now.

Everyone compares our model to SF.. well, SF's payroll last year was nearly 130M.

NOT sign David Wright to that contract, FYI.

That's why I find the Granderson contract hard to believe. I think Granderson was an ownership PR stunt.

I'm not saying sign a slew of free agents.

I was saying one.

Sounds like Sandy agrees.

the Red Sox also said "no more long-term contracts" and that didn't stop them from signing Hanley Ramirez, and Pablo Sandoval this off-season. to 4 year and 5 year deals - each with vestable options for a 5th/6th year.

there are ways to do it.

And if you don't think signing one of those free agents would instantly improve the team then I don't know what to tell you.

people that buy into everything that Sandy and the FO says. No inability to read between the lines whatsoever.

Sandy is not some frugal GM that gets by on a small budget. He has spent money to build teams in the past. If you truly believe he is running the team on this meager budget on purpose, then I've got a big ole bridge to sell you. I really cant believe that there are fans that by into this. Why do you think Sandy kept lowering the expected payroll amount after he got here? He quickly learned that he's not allowed to spend jack shit. Come on, man.

That's the RANKEST psychologism, and was conclusively revealed as hogwash!!!

In comment 12110673 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

And I don't hear Sandy saying "well, we don't think it's a good strategy to hand out bigger contracts".. to me, it just reads more like "well, we can't hand those out so this is how we have to do things" Maybe it's just me. I don't think you have to spend 200M to contend in this league but I just don't see any teams in the bottom 3rd of baseball like we are winning championships. Not now, not really in the past either. There have been a few exceptions I just don't think you're giving yourself great odds if when opportunities to upgrade the team present themselves and you have to pass because of budget constraints. I don't want to get into the whole payroll thing again but I do believe if the Mets are to ever become serious WS contenders, they're going to have to spend more than 89M or whatever they're spending right now. Everyone compares our model to SF.. well, SF's payroll last year was nearly 130M.

Well our current payroll right now is 100 million but I still think there haven't been many teams in our unique position before. This exact same team is a 160 million dollar payroll in a few years and they might not be any better than they are right now.

In comment 12110675 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

I'm not saying sign a slew of free agents. I was saying one. Sounds like Sandy agrees. the Red Sox also said "no more long-term contracts" and that didn't stop them from signing Hanley Ramirez, and Pablo Sandoval this off-season. to 4 year and 5 year deals - each with vestable options for a 5th/6th year. there are ways to do it. And if you don't think signing one of those free agents would instantly improve the team then I don't know what to tell you.

Im not disagreeing that he wouldn't sign one or two. But I think it would have to be the right player, and overall he doesn't seem inclined to hand out long term deals to players in their 30s or close to their 30s. Overall, I believe his philosophy is to build from within and plug holes with shorter 3-4 year deals with much less risk.

before specifically talking about his "face of the franchise" philosophy. Ill keep looking but we've referenced it here before.

...it won't be our team. Because there's no way we're spending that.

We'll just flip guys for more prospects before they're due new contracts. Rinse, repeat.

In comment 12110690 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

...it won't be our team. Because there's no way we're spending that. We'll just flip guys for more prospects before they're due new contracts. Rinse, repeat.

Eh I don't buy that. Because Harvey in arbitration making 18-20 million a year, year to year, is still cost effective to the Mets with zero risk. Now in his final year? Sure. But you are talking 2019 at the earliest. 2020 for Wheeler. 2021 for TDA/degrom.

is going to get awarded massive in dollars in the near future if he puts up another 30 homerun season. These guys arbitration years are not going to be cheap.

I'd like two of them...

that is when Ill really lose my shit. I can get on board with this rebuild and I can see tangible results from what's happened here. Im hoping that with a winning product on the field, and increased revenue, things will get somewhat better financially. If we can't even keep this core together through its arbitration years Ill be livid.

Daniel Wexler ‏@WexlerRules 6h6 hours ago

@BenBadler Ben, I know you are very high on Herrera. How would you compare/contrast him and Kolten Wong?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 favorites

Ben Badler ‏@BenBadler

@WexlerRules Like both of them, but prefer Herrera. Both advanced hitters with good swings, quick bats and a mature hitting approach.

one way or the other but the San Francisco Giants payroll for the first World Series win beginning of their window was 97 million in 2010.

In comment 12110701 Shecky said:

Quote:

I'd like two of them...

I don't know...ask Sandy. You obviously buy all the rest of his BS so I'm sure he can swing a few bridges your way :)

In comment 12110704 ZGiants98 said:

Quote:

that is when Ill really lose my shit. I can get on board with this rebuild and I can see tangible results from what's happened here. Im hoping that with a winning product on the field, and increased revenue, things will get somewhat better financially. If we can't even keep this core together through its arbitration years Ill be livid.

Well unfortunately, it's a real concern until they prove otherwise. I am always going to worry about the finances of this franchise. There's really no possible way to tell a fan they're unreasonable for doing so, either. Hopefully it's a non-issue but if this group starts to become something and they start selling off integral pieces because they can't afford to retain them, I don't know how much longer I can take it.

In comment 12110728 ZGiants98 said:

Quote:

one way or the other but the San Francisco Giants payroll for the first World Series win beginning of their window was 97 million in 2010.

2010 97 million ranked 10th in baseball
Link - ( New Window )

97M 5 years ago and 97M today are totally different.

But that team also had younger guys like Posey and Belt making nothing. Lincecum hadn't cashed in yet. Panda wasn't making big bucks. Obviously their payroll went up the next few years but it was still only 117 million for their second WS win. Now its 150 million. I would hope the Mets would be able to follow a similar path if they are winning World Series and bringing in all that extra revenue as well.

To a team willing to spend is laughable. If you want to sit there and say the mets young talent will come together and win, that's fine. Build from youth, great. No big arguments.

But to compare them to a team like the SF Giants who notoriously add the right pieces , despite cost, is laughable. There's a reason that ballpark is sold out daily.

Oh yeah...the Giants are a finalist for Moncado. See need + address need = win. Sabian must be a genius.

Simply saying I would hope to be able follow a similar path assuming we begin winning and God forbid even win a WS or two. Of course our payroll should go up at that point.

It would be nice. Im not confident in their ability to add players to do that.