Jeff Wilpon: Payroll to increase in 2014

[metsbulls1025]

You're proving my point. For a team in the biggest market in the world those are low payrolls. As you'll recall it was Doubleday that insisted on getting Piazza and paying the price. In 2003 they were preparing launch of SNY the next year, so it makes sense they'd spend.

O so they are not spending enough for you. I didn't realize there was a certain amount each market was supposed to spend. Guess I have to check out the rule book again. Through out those years everyone besides the Yankees were pretty close in overall payroll who sat around the top.

[metsbulls1025]

Show me where Wilpon didn't want to spend in early 2000?

[StoicSentry]

You're proving my point. For a team in the biggest market in the world those are low payrolls. As you'll recall it was Doubleday that insisted on getting Piazza, whose contract moved them up a couple notches. Fred didn't want to spend. In 2003 they were preparing launch of SNY the next year, so it makes sense they'd spend.

OK, now you're just being obstinate. How much more should it have been? You expect to be #1 in payroll every year?

Also, yes, spending will often coincide with new products. When you have a new product, you are anticipating increased revenue. So, obviously, you spend more...

[metsbulls1025]

The problem with this team has never been spending. The problem has always been who they spent the money on and when and when not to trade prospects. All the way back to 1998 there has never been an issue with spending money.

[metsbulls1025]

1998

Baltimore: $71,860,921
N.Y. Yankees: 65,663,698
Los Angeles: 62,806,667
Atlanta: 61,708,000
Texas: 60,519,595
Cleveland: 59,543,165
Boston: 59,497,000
N.Y. Mets: 58,660,665

1999

Yankees: $88,180,7120
Texas: 81,576,598
Atlanta: 74,890,000
Cleveland: 73,278,458
Baltimore: 72,198,363
Boston: 71,725,000
Mets: 71,506,427

2000

NY Yankees: $92,538,260
Los Angeles: $88,124,286
Atlanta: $84,537,836
Baltimore: $81,447,435
Arizona: $81,027,833
NY Mets: $79,509,776

2001

NY Yankees: $109,791,893
Boston: $109,558,908
Los Angeles: $108,980,952
NY Mets: $93,174,428

2002

NY Yankees: $125,928,583
Boston Red Sox: $108,366,060
Texas Rangers: $105,302,124
Arizona Diamondbacks: $102,820,000
LA Dodgers: $94,850,952
NY Mets: $94,633,593

2003

NY Yankees: $ 152,749,814
NY Mets: $ 117,176,429

2004

N.Y. Yankees: $182,835,513
Boston: 125,208,542
Anaheim: 101,084,667
New York Mets: 100,629,303

The top payroll team is first and then count down. That is where the Mets where in total payroll.

[YoungStuna28]

Baltimore had the highest payroll in 1998??? $71M was the highest payroll 15 years ago? wow

[Beltrans Mole]

Baltimore had the highest payroll in 1998??? $71M was the highest payroll 15 years ago? wow

I thought the exact same. The Yankees really started spending thereafter.

[metsbulls1025]

What I am saying is when you look around the league outside of the Yankees going HAM the top teams after that all spent around the same amount of money pretty much every year.

[Dugmet]

You're proving my point. For a team in the biggest market in the world those are low payrolls. As you'll recall it was Doubleday that insisted on getting Piazza, whose contract moved them up a couple notches. Fred didn't want to spend. In 2003 they were preparing launch of SNY the next year, so it makes sense they'd spend.

2003: 2nd highest
2004: 4th highest
2005: 3rd highest
2006: 6th highest
2007: 3rd highest
2008: 2nd highest
*Madoff arrested
2009: 2nd highest
2010: 5th highest
2011: 7th highest
2012: 14th highest

Teams at the top levels often leapfrog over each other as they alternately sign top free agents. Bottom line is that ownership remained in the upper echelon of payrolls until Madoff was exposed and arrested.

If someone wants to call ownership conservative, maybe in some areas, definitely in one, but when it comes to payroll, consistently ranking in the top 5 is not "cheap". Ranking in the bottom half would definitely be cheap imo.

[fanofclendennon]

2003: 2nd highest
2004: 4th highest
2005: 3rd highest
2006: 6th highest
2007: 3rd highest
2008: 2nd highest
*Madoff arrested
2009: 2nd highest
2010: 5th highest
2011: 7th highest
2012: 14th highest

Teams at the top levels often leapfrog over each other as they alternately sign top free agents. Bottom line is that ownership remained in the upper echelon of payrolls until Madoff was exposed and arrested.

If someone wants to call ownership conservative, maybe in some areas, definitely in one, but when it comes to payroll, consistently ranking in the top 5 is not "cheap". Ranking in the bottom half would definitely be cheap imo.

You mean until they no longer could supplement their payroll with fictitious 18-percent returns, no?

[Marty Mcfly]

2003: 2nd highest
2004: 4th highest
2005: 3rd highest
2006: 6th highest
2007: 3rd highest
2008: 2nd highest
*Madoff arrested
2009: 2nd highest
2010: 5th highest
2011: 7th highest
2012: 14th highest

Teams at the top levels often leapfrog over each other as they alternately sign top free agents. Bottom line is that ownership remained in the upper echelon of payrolls until Madoff was exposed and arrested.

If someone wants to call ownership conservative, maybe in some areas, definitely in one, but when it comes to payroll, consistently ranking in the top 5 is not "cheap". Ranking in the bottom half would definitely be cheap imo.

Hmmm, where were the Mets ranked in revenue for those years?

PS - In which year(s) did the Coupons put the Mets over the top?

Also, their payroll spend was continually offset by spending nothing at the draft.

[metsbulls1025]

You mean until they no longer could supplement their payroll with fictitious 18-percent returns, no?

They started doing business together in 2004. Where did they get their money before hand?

[eltwo]

[Coupon]

Hmmm, where were the Mets ranked in revenue for those years?

PS - In which year(s) did the Coupons put the Mets over the top?

Also, their payroll spend was continually offset by spending nothing at the draft.

The Mets are in the biggest baseball television market on earth. The almost certainly had much more to spend on payroll than Baltimore, Cleveland, Texas, etc. But they didn't spend more. They spent less.

They also traditionally spent less than most other clubs on the draft and prospects.

The only time the Wilpons make an effort is when they're getting ready to maximize profit from some new venture. Otherwise they couldn't care less about the Mets. What we're seeing now is what we can expect, all things being equal - garbage.

The Mets as they are now are standard Wilpon product.

I don't doubt they'll finally reinvest the team's revenue in players in a couple of years. They'll be looking to draw rubes to the consumerist carnival they're opening around the mallpark.

Why are people arguing with me? It hasn't happened. They're still spending nothing! Sandy's got a plan and we're going to be fiscally conservative from now on, right? We're sticking to the plan, right? I'm just making a crazy, off-the-wall prediction, right? So why do their usual defenders feel the need to argue over something that hasn't even happened yet - that goes against everything we've been told about their new, alleged philosophy? The only real evidence I'm basing my prediction on is a Wilpon spending pattern they vigorously deny exists! So why are they arguing with me? Because they know in their hearts, barring some unforeseen change in facts on the ground, it'll happen more or less like I'm saying!

Three or so years is a long time. Anything can happen. I can't guarantee they'll open the floodgates and finally spend like they always should have over the next couple years. Maybe the courts will stall or stop the development. But if it pans out like I expect, please don't argue with me a year or two down the road that the Wilpons suddenly care about the Mets or winning. They regard Mets fans with cynical contempt and only give them decent baseball when they roll out a new mega-venture they need them to cough up money for.

[Dugmet]

You mean until they no longer could supplement their payroll with fictitious 18-percent returns, no?

I don't know what the average annual returns were, but I read in the NY Times the rates were 11 to 12 percent - perhaps barely within the realm of possibility, but close enough if your trust was blind.

Regardless, they suffered a catastrophic loss. It was real to them. Some of the profits were indeed fictitious, but a respectable portion of the lost monies were certainly very real. The Wilpons were victimized. There is every reason to give them fair opportunity to recover.