Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 90
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    29,125
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Coupon View Post
    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.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    29,125
    vCash
    1500
    Show me where Wilpon didn't want to spend in early 2000?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    15,388
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Coupon View Post
    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...

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    29,125
    vCash
    1500
    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.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    29,125
    vCash
    1500
    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.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    51,156
    vCash
    1500
    Baltimore had the highest payroll in 1998??? $71M was the highest payroll 15 years ago? wow

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    5,326
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by YoungStuna28 View Post
    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.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    29,125
    vCash
    1500
    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.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East of the Sun, West of the Moon
    Posts
    15,378
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Coupon View Post
    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.
    "The 90 wins is about challenge. It's about changing the conversation. It's about framing questions for ourselves as to how we get there. So I stand by the notion that we need to get better, and in doing so we need to set concrete goals for ourselves so that we have sort of specific conversations among ourselves about how we're going to get there." -- Mr. Alderson

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    30,565
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Dugmet View Post
    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?
    "Mr. Martin Tanner, Baritone, of Dayton, Ohio made his Town Hall debut last night. He came well prepared, but unfortunately his presentation was not up to contemporary professional standards. His voice lacks the range of tonal color necessary to make it consistently interesting. Full time consideration of another endeavor might be in order."

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Hill Valley, 1985.
    Posts
    7,792
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Dugmet View Post
    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.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    29,125
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by fanofclendennon View Post
    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?

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Northport, LI
    Posts
    1,118
    vCash
    1500
    Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain... only straw.
    Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
    Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking... don't they?
    Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Up along first, behind the bag.
    Posts
    1,146
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Mcfly View Post
    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.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East of the Sun, West of the Moon
    Posts
    15,378
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by fanofclendennon View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Dugmet; 12-06-2012 at 06:23 PM.
    "The 90 wins is about challenge. It's about changing the conversation. It's about framing questions for ourselves as to how we get there. So I stand by the notion that we need to get better, and in doing so we need to set concrete goals for ourselves so that we have sort of specific conversations among ourselves about how we're going to get there." -- Mr. Alderson

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •