This just in: Salfino retracts "Mets Are Broke" story

[dunbummin]

I've said many times the devil is in the details. You're absolutely right, anyone is tradeable for the right deal. But that's not what we're talking about here, or at least that's not what I'm talking about.

The Mets have given us every indication so far that winning is not the priority. Rather, the idea is to build a team by spending the least amount of money possible as opposed to putting the best players possible on the team.

Yes, I have a bias for Robert Allen. No newsflash there. But my biased is based on Dickey being the best pitcher in the NL this past season. And despite his age, he can be among the best pitchers in baseball for the next 5 seasons.

Why would any team be so eager to trade someone like that? I get that the Mets have a lot of holes. And to reiterate, yes, even RA should be traded for the right package of players.

Again, here's my concern: If he were under team control for the next 3 seasons, would the Mets be in conversations to trade him? If not, than these conversations are not based on what's best for the team but for what's best to keep the Wilpons as viable owners. And that, my good friend, is not a strategy compatible with winning baseball.

But you know what? You can ignore everything i just said. Go right ahead. But whatever you do, DON'T TAKE MY F-ING CANDY AWAY FROM ME!!!!!!!

FoC, you know I respect you, both as a person and as a student of the game. I hope you didn't take my comment the wrong way. Your bias for Robert Allen is well deserved. I think Dickey is an outstanding pitcher and a suberb human being, and I hope that he is a Met for a long time to come. But I am just saying that the reason they may trade him is not because he is so good and they are not committed to winning. They will trade him either because they connot or will not meet his demands regarding an extension, or because they are overwhelmed by what they are offered for him.

If he were under team control for the next 3 seasons, they might not trade him. But you could say the very same thing about Milwaukee trading Greinke, Toronto trading Halliday, or Minnesota trading Santana. Teams trade stars the year before they might lose them in free agency. In all those cases, the owners did what they thought was best for the team. And that, MY good friend, is a strategy that is absolutely compatible with winning baseball. If you feel you can improve the team more by trading a player than by keeping him, you do it. How many fans here have griped that we didn't trade Reyes before 2011 because they think that would have been better than the team?

Now, eat your candy and enjoy.

[WoodyHoopz]

I didn't say Dickey was unathletic, I said he's not the 2nd best athlete on the team. I'd say Kirk, Torres, Wright, Baxter, Cedeno, Santana, Niese, Harvey, Familia, and Mejia are better athletes than Dickey. Probably a few I missed, but that is how I feel.

I already said Wright, but I suppose Torres and Johan are there. Kirk isn't even on the team, and I don't know where the heck you get the idea that any of those other guys are better athletes. Because they're black? I don't get it. Anyway, the point was that he's a very athletic guy.

As Dickey ages more, he might not be able to pitch as well through the injuries, or he might sustain an injury he can't pitch through. Who knows?

He's already 38, and he's fine. I'm just saying, he hasn't given you any reason to think he's about to break down.

You can't compare baseball players to NBA players, it's much different.

The sport is different, but we're still talking about human beings. Again, the point was that if NBA players can play into their late 30s and early 40s, then so can an MLB pitcher.

Dickey had a poor career and wasn't good the season before he came to the Mets. He figured out the pitch out of nowhere, and no one expected him to do anything.

I think you figured out that argument out of nowhere. Holy cow. He's been working on the pitch for years, and he had plenty of people helping him because they believed in him along the way.

Our starting pitching will be great. Our hitting and bullpen will still likely suck, so we need help to make the playoffs, let alone the WS. The Mets play in the NL East, not the NL West so it's harder for us to make it.

And you expect to make up the difference by trading Dickey? I don't.

[Coupon]

FoC, you know I respect you, both as a person and as a student of the game. I hope you didn't take my comment the wrong way. Your bias for Robert Allen is well deserved. I think Dickey is an outstanding pitcher and a suberb human being, and I hope that he is a Met for a long time to come. But I am just saying that the reason they may trade him is not because he is so good and they are not committed to winning. They will trade him either because they connot or will not meet his demands regarding an extension, or because they are overwhelmed by what they are offered for him.

If he were under team control for the next 3 seasons, they might not trade him. But you could say the very same thing about Milwaukee trading Greinke, Toronto trading Halliday, or Minnesota trading Santana. Teams trade stars the year before they might lose them in free agency. In all those cases, the owners did what they thought was best for the team. And that, MY good friend, is a strategy that is absolutely compatible with winning baseball. If you feel you can improve the team more by trading a player than by keeping him, you do it. How many fans here have griped that we didn't trade Reyes before 2011 because they think that would have been better than the team?

Now, eat your candy and enjoy.

You can't compare small market teams divesting themselves of salary to a New York team with a regional sports network and new shopping mall for a stadium. Small market teams get a pass, depending on situation, for shipping out their best talent because it's genuinely hard for them to compete economically. Wilpon has no excuse.

Back in the aughts Fred was launching SNY and a new stadium. The plan for the stadium was to slash capacity, scare fans into thinking they wouldn't be able to get tickets unless they bought season plans, and charge them scalper's prices. A good-enough team was needed to pull this off, capable of what Fred referred to as "meaningful baseball in September".

The Wilpons still fought tooth and nail against any suggestions they sign the best free agents available. They went so far as to run lying P.R. campaigns against A-Rod and Vlad to weasel out of signing them.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1710351

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/111...11500060.shtml

Whenever a Wilpon era team's been close they've always refused to do what was needed to put the team over the top. If there was any real commitment to winning during the aughts they would have spent on the draft. Instead they were always one of the cheapest teams in baseball. And bear in mind, back then they already had a regional sports network, were drawing 45,000 to 50,000 per game, and were getting 14% on all that from their chum Bernie.

The Wilpons stole the team from Doubleday to make money - from baseball operations, television, and the real estate development surrounding the new stadium. Their indifference to Mets history is well documented. Their indifference to winning's been demonstrated by their preference for sticking profits in their pocket rather than reinvesting in the team.

I realize it's more pleasant to disconnect oneself from this 25 year Wilpon legacy of behavior and pretend they're more committed to winning than arrogant meddling, palming revenue and screwing the fans - unfortunately it just doesn't jibe with the facts.

[fanofclendennon]

FoC, you know I respect you, both as a person and as a student of the game. I hope you didn't take my comment the wrong way. Your bias for Robert Allen is well deserved. I think Dickey is an outstanding pitcher and a suberb human being, and I hope that he is a Met for a long time to come. But I am just saying that the reason they may trade him is not because he is so good and they are not committed to winning. They will trade him either because they cannot or will not meet his demands regarding an extension, or because they are overwhelmed by what they are offered for him.

If he were under team control for the next 3 seasons, they might not trade him. But you could say the very same thing about Milwaukee trading Greinke, Toronto trading Halliday, or Minnesota trading Santana. Teams trade stars the year before they might lose them in free agency. In all those cases, the owners did what they thought was best for the team. And that, MY good friend, is a strategy that is absolutely compatible with winning baseball. If you feel you can improve the team more by trading a player than by keeping him, you do it. How many fans here have griped that we didn't trade Reyes before 2011 because they think that would have been better than the team?

Now, eat your candy and enjoy.

Don't sweat it. We're good.

My point was that if he weren't so good, they would have had no problem at all meeting his demands. And that's sad. They won't pay a premium for premium players either because they won't or they can't. If they won't, shame on them. If they can't, shame on them again for holding on to the team in the first place.

The alternative of trading to an inside straight i.e. swapping him for some youngsters and hopt the youngsters turn out usually doesn't work. But it's easy to see why that's a viable alternative for the owners because they have an opportunity to market hope with a cheaper team.

Sorry, that doesnt cut it in my book.

To repeat myself for the 99th time, I'm not saying you can never trade Dickey. Depends on who you're getting back. But trading Dickey here doesn't seem to be even remotely close to resembling a strategic baseball move. No, it seems like they've determined they don't want to pay him so they want to bring in the cheaper alternatives.

But hey, reasonable people can disagree.

[Marty Mcfly]

You can't compare small market teams divesting themselves of salary to a New York team with a regional sports network and new shopping mall for a stadium. Small market teams get a pass, depending on situation, for shipping out their best talent because it's genuinely hard for them to compete economically. Wilpon has no excuse.

Back in the aughts Fred was launching SNY and a new stadium. The plan for the stadium was to slash capacity, scare fans into thinking they wouldn't be able to get tickets unless they bought season plans, and charge them scalper's prices. A good-enough team was needed to pull this off, capable of what Fred referred to as "meaningful baseball in September".

The Wilpons still fought tooth and nail against any suggestions they sign the best free agents available. They went so far as to run lying P.R. campaigns against A-Rod and Vlad to weasel out of signing them.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1710351

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/111...11500060.shtml

Whenever a Wilpon era team's been close they've always refused to do what was needed to put the team over the top. If there was any real commitment to winning during the aughts they would have spent on the draft. Instead they were always one of the cheapest teams in baseball. And bear in mind, back then they already had a regional sports network, were drawing 45,000 to 50,000 per game, and were getting 14% on all that from their chum Bernie.

The Wilpons stole the team from Doubleday to make money - from baseball operations, television, and the real estate development surrounding the new stadium. Their indifference to Mets history is well documented. Their indifference to winning's been demonstrated by their preference for sticking profits in their pocket rather than reinvesting in the team.

I realize it's more pleasant to disconnect oneself from this 25 year Wilpon legacy of behavior and pretend they're more committed to winning than arrogant meddling, palming revenue and screwing the fans - unfortunately it just doesn't jibe with the facts.

That's our Coupons!

[YoungStuna28]

I already said Wright, but I suppose Torres and Johan are there. Kirk isn't even on the team, and I don't know where the heck you get the idea that any of those other guys are better athletes. Because they're black? I don't get it. Anyway, the point was that he's a very athletic guy.

He's already 38, and he's fine. I'm just saying, he hasn't given you any reason to think he's about to break down.

The sport is different, but we're still talking about human beings. Again, the point was that if NBA players can play into their late 30s and early 40s, then so can an MLB pitcher.

I think you figured out that argument out of nowhere. Holy cow. He's been working on the pitch for years, and he had plenty of people helping him because they believed in him along the way.

And you expect to make up the difference by trading Dickey? I don't.

Kirk is on the team and will be next year. He used to play football as a runningback. Familia used to play basketball, he's very strong and athletic. Mejia is very agile and quick. Dickey is 38 years old, some of his athleticism has declined from when he was younger.

No one thought Jason Bay would break down so early. I know Dickey's a pitcher and a knuckler, but I'm just saying you never know. What if he suddenly loses velocity and starts getting hammered? Or if he suddenly can't find the plate? It's definitely not likely, but still the knuckleball is unpredictable. No one is a sure thing.

Basketball is different than baseball because baseball is more of an individual results-based sport while basketball focuses more on teamwork and chemistry.

The only reason trading Dickey could be an option is because he can net us a few quality young pieces at outfield/catcher. And we'd have more money to spend on other players.

[MetsFanatic19]

Here's my best impersonation of a broken record:

As long as the Mets can get back a very good bundle, trade him and use the money we save on building a winner when the young guys are up and producing.

With that said, I'd be just as happy if the Mets resign him.

[WoodyHoopz]

Kirk is on the team and will be next year. He used to play football as a runningback. Familia used to play basketball, he's very strong and athletic. Mejia is very agile and quick. Dickey is 38 years old, some of his athleticism has declined from when he was younger.

And Dickey is very agile and pretty dang quick in his own right. He's also a marathon runner and, literally, a mountain climber. Just because he's 38 doesn't mean he's less athletic than younger pro athletes.

No one thought Jason Bay would break down so early. I know Dickey's a pitcher and a knuckler, but I'm just saying you never know. What if he suddenly loses velocity and starts getting hammered? Or if he suddenly can't find the plate? It's definitely not likely, but still the knuckleball is unpredictable. No one is a sure thing.

Jason Bay didn't break down. His problems are mental, not physical. Unless, of course, that concussion in LA a couple of years ago really did do him in. In either case, there was no way to predict it, so citing him is pointless.

No one is saying Dickey is a sure thing. All anyone's saying is that he's given us reason to believe he'll be great going forward.

Basketball is different than baseball because baseball is more of an individual results-based sport while basketball focuses more on teamwork and chemistry.

That's entirely beside the point. The reason I brought it up was to show that professional athletes can last into their 40s even in sports that require more from you physically than baseball.

The only reason trading Dickey could be an option is because he can net us a few quality young pieces at outfield/catcher. And we'd have more money to spend on other players.

I agree, but I don't think he's going to net us that. A lot of GMs will share your irrational fears and refuse to give up top prospects for a 38-year-old.

[dunbummin]

My point was that if he weren't so good, they would have had no problem at all meeting his demands. And that's sad. They won't pay a premium for premium players either because they won't or they can't. If they won't, shame on them. If they can't, shame on them again for holding on to the team in the first place..

I get your point, but I'm not sure how valid it is. I think if R.A.'s requirements are reasonable in Alderson's view, he will extend him, and it has nothing to do with how good he is. They had no problem extending Niese. Was that because he is a mediocre pitcher? To me, what's sad is that they obviously cannot afford to compete for premium players. I won't say shame on them for making poor investment decisions, in and out of baseball. There is no shame in being stupid, or at least there shouldn't be. And I don't blame them for holding on to the team when they feel they can fix their finances and build a winner down the road. I don't expect them to put our interests before their own. Moreover, I suspect you would fight tooth and nail to hold on to the team if you felt you could remake it into a winner.

The alternative of trading to an inside straight i.e. swapping him for some youngsters and hopt the youngsters turn out usually doesn't work. But it's easy to see why that's a viable alternative for the owners because they have an opportunity to market hope with a cheaper team. Sorry, that doesnt cut it in my book..

By and large, I agree with you, but there are exceptions. Toronto is still waiting for the payoff from the Halliday trade, but you have to admit that the prospects they got look to be contributors shortly. The A's traded Gio and Trevor Cahill last year and made the playoffs this year. Unfortunately, the Mets have to act more like a small market team for the next year or so, and divest of players that they cannot afford. If they are forced into that position, they must try to get the highest return on those players and hope for the best.

To repeat myself for the 99th time, I'm not saying you can never trade Dickey. Depends on who you're getting back. But trading Dickey here doesn't seem to be even remotely close to resembling a strategic baseball move. No, it seems like they've determined they don't want to pay him so they want to bring in the cheaper alternatives.

But hey, reasonable people can disagree.

We agree that it depends on who you are getting back. (I recently suggested that if the FO concludes that they can't reach an extension agreement, they should approach Toronto, who is still saying they need another starter, and ask for Arencibia, Gose, and Kevin Pillar and Danny Barnes, two interesting, unranked prospects.) The fact is, FoC, that financial necessity usually trumps strategic moves. You're familiar with the saying "When you're up to your arse in alligators, it's difficult to remember that your original objective was to drain the swamp." Well, the Wilpon's have been beating off the alligators for a few years now, and I think they are hopeful that they will be able to break out the sump pumps pretty soon.

And BTW, I do think your positions are reasonable, and more importantly, you express them without venom or expletives

[fanofclendennon]

You're familiar with the saying "When you're up to your arse in alligators, it's difficult to remember that your original objective was to drain the swamp." Well, the Wilpon's have been beating off the alligators for a few years now, and I think they are hopeful that they will be able to break out the sump pumps pretty soon.

Not exactly sure what you're getting at but if you're telling me that one way of turning this team around is to drop the Wilpons in the Bayou and turn a team of hungry alligators on them, well, I'm all for it!

[dunbummin]

Not exactly sure what you're getting at but if you're telling me that one way of turning this team around is to drop the Wilpons in the Bayou and turn a team of hungry alligators on them, well, I'm all for it!

Now I think you knew exactly what I meant and you said it tongue in cheek, but just in case, I'll illucidate.

They're in the midst of a financial crisis (although perhaps they are on the brink of emerging from it) so they are not yet in a position to address needs in a strategic manner.

[fanofclendennon]

Now I think you knew exactly what I meant and you said it tongue in cheek, but just in case, I'll illucidate.

They're in the midst of a financial crisis (although perhaps they are on the brink of emerging from it) so they are not yet in a position to address needs in a strategic manner.

Indeed I did.

But to play it straight since you touched upon a very good point:

Assuming they are in a financial crisis as opposed to running the team this way since they don't have Bernie's Golden Goose to underwrite the losses anymore, the only way they would be able to change things is to "address needs in a strategic manner."

By not doing things strategically, they'll just be spinning their wheels without improving their lot.

This leads me to believe they intend to run this team in this fashion for the long term, not short.

[dunbummin]

Indeed I did.

But to play it straight since you touched upon a very good point:

Assuming they are in a financial crisis as opposed to running the team this way since they don't have Bernie's Golden Goose to underwrite the losses anymore, the only way they would be able to change things is to "address needs in a strategic manner."

By not doing things strategically, they'll just be spinning their wheels without improving their lot.

This leads me to believe they intend to run this team in this fashion for the long term, not short.

Naturally, I hope you're wrong. Their intentions are difficult to assess based on their historical performance. On some occasions, they backed away from strategic acquisitions that they might have made (e.g. A-Rod, Vlad) with what seemed like lame excuses, but might have been real concerns, and on others they went the extra mile. (Pedro, Beltran, Delgado, Wagner, K-Rod, Bay, etc.)

Addressing needs in a strategic manner does not have to mean spending like a drunken sailor. This year they need at least one outfielder, (but preferably two) a right handed hitting catcher, one or two relievers, and a bench addition. How they fill those needs will indicate their strategy for this season, (considering the "financial crisis") but may not necessarily represent their strategy over the longer term. They could go young and trade for promising prospects, or they could go for experience with moderate cost players with lower ceilings, but with less risk as to their performance. Either way is a strategy. You may not agree with that strategy, but they have to decide the best way to go for the sake of the team.

[fanofclendennon]

Naturally, I hope you're wrong. Their intentions are difficult to assess based on their historical performance. On some occasions, they backed away from strategic acquisitions that they might have made (e.g. A-Rod, Vlad) with what seemed like lame excuses, but might have been real concerns, and on others they went the extra mile. (Pedro, Beltran, Delgado, Wagner, K-Rod, Bay, etc.)

Addressing needs in a strategic manner does not have to mean spending like a drunken sailor. This year they need at least one outfielder, (but preferably two) a right handed hitting catcher, one or two relievers, and a bench addition. How they fill those needs will indicate their strategy for this season, (considering the "financial crisis") but may not necessarily represent their strategy over the longer term. They could go young and trade for promising prospects, or they could go for experience with moderate cost players with lower ceilings, but with less risk as to their performance. Either way is a strategy. You may not agree with that strategy, but they have to decide the best way to go for the sake of the team.

The question is whether the "strategy" was chosen because they truly believe it's the best path to building a winner or because their main objective of keeping down the bottom line down, not winning.

My concern is that winning is not the priority. Nothing the Sandy Wilpons have done has assured me otherwise. This off season will be especially telling.

[dunbummin]

The question is whether the "strategy" was chosen because they truly believe it's the best path to building a winner or because their main objective of keeping down the bottom line down, not winning.

My concern is that winning is not the priority. Nothing the Sandy Wilpons have done has assured me otherwise. This off season will be especially telling.

Do you think the objectives of keeping down the bottom line and winning are mutually incompatible? Clubs like the Cards, Giants and Rays seem to have done a pretty good job of balancing the two.

I disagree. (respectfully) This off season will be interesting. Next off season will be telling.

Unless you believe, as some here do, that the limited resources story is all a bunch of bull, you have to accept that they will not be doing any heavy lifting this off season. They will be filling the holes the best way they can, but with affordable players. Next year, with Johan off the books and with the ability to increase payroll some, we will need to see how they go about adding strategic pieces.