The Wilpons back then weren't cheap. They were stupid and they went about their baseball business the wrong way. But just because they didn't spend as much money as you would have liked didn't make them cheap.
It's funny because their predecessors, the DeRoulets, were certainly cheap, and it was a reputation that the Doubleday-Wilpons seemed to inherit whenever things went wrong.
Now the Zen master says, "We'll see."
They spent what they needed to to generate the revenue they wanted, and to get ****** Dodger field built.
And "ultimately," Alderson said, "we're judged on whether we win or lose."
Pelf was the only first rounder they went over slot with in the whole era they launched SNY and opened Citi Field. He was in the majors a little more than 6 months after signing with the Mets. In my opinion they were willing to pay him more because they saw him as Major League ready. This made his contract a bargain compared to any ML free agent they could have signed. If you feel like calling that "interpreting facts according to my agenda" you can, but I think it's a reasonable deduction.
As I already pointed out, the Wilpons are willing to spend on a contender if they think they'll be net winners financially. They will not spend the extra needed for a champion, as the return isn't worth the added expense. We've seen this over and over. Considering their market is more lucrative than any other in sports, I feel this is a disservice to the fans they charge a fortune.
In those instances they're forced to spend to perpetuate a pretense of winning, you can almost see the Wilpons howling and pounding their chests, especially over any signings that don't work out perfectly. They force players to play hurt or ineffectively because they're drawing salaries. They ran Ryan Church out there with concussions until he was done. They blew out Brydak's arm because they were too cheap to carry another lefty. They kept forcing Beltran to play on gimpy knees until he defied them and got surgery, then they threatened to sue him. Ollie, Castillo, Bay... The Mets probably would have carried Kei Igawa on the big league roster for the duration of his contract.
Finally, look at the prices they charge. A 74-88 season and they raise prices for next year! What other team in professional sports charges more for less?
If you look at the big picture you'll have to conclude they're cheap.
I think it's apparent they have no pride in the Mets, no pride in winning, no pride in anything except squeezing every last cent out of everyone and everything around them.
Secondly, the Mets didn't have a 1st round pick in 2006, two sandwich picks in 07, and again no 1st round pick in 2009. That was mainly because of how busy they were in the FA and trade market. There are some sacrifices to be made when spending big and looking to win now, the draft was one of those sacrifices.
Thirdly, its wrong to accuse a team of spending just enough to make it look plausible among fans that they were making a conceited effort to win. They were trying to win, it just didnt work out that way and the Mets arent the first big market team to have failed miserably with that methodology (look at the Marlins, Red Sox, and Dodgers this year).
All big market teams look to balance spending with overall net profit. Whether it's the Yankees, Phillies, or Red Sox it's still a business that is about making money first and foremost.
Again you are talking about a team that had the highest national league payroll in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. It wasn't the fact that they didn't try to win, it's the fact that after 2006, Omar and company did a bad job of investing in the wrong players which was our ultimate demise.
You can say that's in line with what a New York team should do but there were plenty of big market NL teams that didn't spent to that extent over those years cumulatively including the Cubs, Phillies, Dodgers, etc etc.
As for raising ticket prices this year, we know why that's happening. This year is built around the All Star Game and the carrot that is to bring people to Citi Field.
Is it in bad taste? Without question but the Wilpons will suffer with that decision at the box office next season.
Last edited by metswon69; 11-26-2012 at 08:19 PM.
The only reason they had to spend that much on free agents was their historical refusal to spend on prospects. They had to sign free agents to get all their positional depth.
Building a long term winner? They preferred giving that money to Bernie Madoff to drafting well or going over slot. It's not my opinion, it's public record.
The Wilpons like money better than winning, and always have. I'm amazed anyone's arguing with this statement.
The Jason Tyners, Lastings Milledge, Billy Trabers, Bobby Keppels of the world are a product of bad drafting and you don't find productive players just in the first round.
The only public record you have provided was from 2009 when the Mets were already feeling the effects of the Madoff Scandal and one man's assessment on how the Mets draft.
Scalper prices? The cheapest seat in the house is 12 bucks.
And they are plenty of decent seats in the house available for 30 or 40 dollars.
It's hardly like they are holding you hostage and secondary markets like Stubhub and Ebay will affect those ticket prices going forward.
The Yankees had ALCS game 1 tickets starting at 15 dollars. It's an inevitability big market teams will eventually have to lower ticket prices not just the Mets.
But your point is winning wasn't important, the perception of winning was important to bring people to a new ballpark.
That's not the case, although the Wilpons haven't been smart with their money it doesn't mean they haven't attempted to win.
The right thing to do after this run ended in 2009 was to start breaking this team apart and rebuild, unfortunately they weren't able to get out from many of these contracts they had signed during their attempts at winning in years prior.
If you want to make the assessment that money won't be spent going forward due to the Wilpon's financial issues that's a different can of worms but to accuse them of only spending money because it juxtaposed the time frame that they were looking to move into a new ballpark, well that's misleading and disingenuous at best.
Last edited by metswon69; 11-26-2012 at 09:05 PM.
Mets tickets at the box office with fees for $12? Really? How many were available going into 2009? If you don't remember the fear factor the Wilpon injected into the ticket buying process when they shrunk the stadium, you're certainly not a season ticket holder. During the 2008 off-season they refused to say if they'd even have partial plans available for the longest time.
They not only cut capacity by 15,000, they moved most of the seating to the lower bowl so most of what was left was very expensive. That was their intent in building the place. FU and stick 'em up Mets fans.
As for winning and losing, the record speaks for itself.
Unfortunately he was pressed into service with the Mets within 6 months of signing. Peterson made him stop throwing the curveball. His mechanics were also changed and he lost velocity on his fastball. He'd been a strikeout pitcher until he got to the Mets. Peterson had him pitch to contact. His development was ruined.
Not paying slot is part of it but not having the right draft personnel also affects their ability to fill positional player and pitching needs in later rounds.
It's also reflective of the fact that the Mets were spending quite a bit of money in that time which caused them to lose significant draft picks in 3 years of Omar's tenure.
Ticket prices have been pretty consistent aside from last year. Even with fees you are still talking 16 bucks with the service charge (for those 12 dollar seats) which is universal among all professional sports teams that sell tickets. So i really don't understand your beef there.
They still had partial plans going in 2009, i remember receiving emails for their 15 game pack, 20 game pack, 40 game pack, and season tickets.
If you haven't noticed either, this is the trend among newer sports arenas now. They make them more fan friendly by decreasing the space between the field (in this case baseball) and the fans. This is why you have a much better view sitting in the 400 level seats at Citi than you did at Shea Stadium.
I bought their 20 game pack in 2010 and 2011, and i am assuming from your disdain with the Wilpons you haven't been to Citi Field or only have experienced it possibly once. (Is that a good guess?)
These newer parks are just as much about the entertainment and amenities as they are about you sitting in your seat to watch the game. You pay that part of it too. The bars, the club areas, the eats, the dunk tank, the place to smoke (thank God), McFaddens, the Party City Deck, etc etc, they are more fan friendly and in that respect certainly better than what Shea Stadium had to offer (although i'll always miss Shea )
And like all new stadiums, there is an obvious incremental jump in price among the cheap seats and the seats behind in this case home plate.
Are the seats behind home plate going to be more than they were at Shea Stadium? Without a doubt but most of the building is still reasonably priced.
In fact i bought seats last year for a June game against the Reds right behind the 1st base dugout for 150 bucks. This isn't the Ny Rangers or moreover the Knicks ticket price wise we are talking about here.
Last edited by metswon69; 11-27-2012 at 01:50 AM.
Former B'klyn Dodger fan. Mets Maniac since 1962.
There has to be middle ground IMO. Because you and Marty are just as bad as the people on the other side of things. This forum has turned into a mob mentality. Every move is under a microscope and completely slammed for no reason. We sign a minor league player like every other team does and it is labeled as not trying.
Now before you say anything about me just remember I am not the one going around posting the same articles for the past 2 years trying to get everyone on your conspiracy theories about siphoning money and purposely trying to run this team into the ground.
The irrational one is the person who doesn't accept any other opinions or facts besides their own. Time to look in the mirror.
BTW don't give me a link to a story because I am not going to read it.
Pelfrey's contract was not cheap. The MLB minimum was roughly $320,000 in 2006, and I think it was up to roughly $425,000 by the end of Pelfrey's deal. Pre-arbitration, all teams pay their players the minimum plus modest raises each season regardless of performance.
The Dodgers paid Kershaw $404k, $440k, and $500k his first three years from 2009 to 2011. The Giants paid Buster Posey only $650,000 in 2012 -- his 3rd full season --which I think is only about $150,000 over the MLB minimum. Sometimes a team will give a substantial raise to a player if it is part of a multi-year deal meant to buy him out of the arbitration years.
Bottom line is that it was not a cheap contract by industry standards in 2005 at all, and if you think Scott Boras would have let his client sign a cheapie...
Pelfrey's was recalled because the team had zero options left to fill a hole in the rotation.