Insanity can be defined by doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. It is time to accept Selig is what he is and will not change. Recently is has been reported that the Mets are trying to find a way to sign Michael Bourn without parting with their valuable 2013 #11 overall draft pick. According to MLBTR the Mets are a) seriously interested in Michael Bourn, b) supposedly hampered by having to sacrifice their top draft pick (the first unprotected pick in the draft) and c) would be supported by the MLBPA if they do seek an exemption. There is no reason this should be permitted, or that the Mets deserve any special treatment. We will know what is decided soon enough, but I for one refuse to count on Selig to the right thing this time either.
To start from the top, the Mets are still crawling out from the Bernie Madoff scandal and financial flexibility just is not there. This is a team that required an emergency $25 million dollar loan from MLB last season just to keep the owners afloat (old pal Bud had no issues with that). They committed to one star in David Wright, but shipped out the more affordable R.A. Dickey rather than offer him a deal befitting a reigning Cy Young award winner. Combining that with their relative lack of interest in any other notable free agents and I am not buying their level of interest. They did not even seriously try to get Scott Hairston (2 years/$5 million with the Cubs) back and we are expected to believe that they really want a guy who is asking for $15 million a season?
Second, I do not get the compensation complaint they have. True they would be #10, and thus protected, if the Pirates did not fail to sign their top pick last season. However, this development has been known for months, as have the draft rules. This is the first offseason with the new compensation rules, but they are not that shocking or complex. Some teams are willing to let top talent go, some teams are willing to sacrifice a potential draft pick to get them. This may limit interest by some teams, but with the modified rules fewer players than ever were offered compensation. Let an offseason run its course before modifying the rules. Perhaps the draft is top heavy or the team wants the money with the draft pick, but if that is the case they are like every other team, not a unique exception to the rule. Sign Bourn or keep the pick, no reason for the Mets to get both.
The MLBPA would support this proposal because that is exactly what the Players Association should do. They are looking out for the best deals for free agents and top tier free agents pull up lower salaries. It would be a steal for the MLBPA if they could get a player out from draft pick compensation. Their interest, along with Bourn and his agent, Scott Boras, would all stand to benefit from this situation and have little to lose from requesting it, but do not blame then when it gets approved.
Selig is going to handle this the way he has handled everything: poorly and with a strong sense of self entitlement hidden beneath an "aw shucks" shrug and pats on the back from his best buddy owners. First he will Rolodex the team where the Mets are clearly in his buddy list. Then he will look for excuses, "big market Mets need this it will be good for baseball as a whole" (expect no further explanation). Followed by, "well if you consider that the Pirates shouldn't have been there the Mets pick would have been protected anyway." Then token comments about how "under the new system and this one time exception the Braves are not out an additional draft pick and we will consider a permanent change over the next few months".
Selig should not grant this exemption. A new agreement with modified rules is in its first full season, baseball would be better off with a wait and see approach. Right now this has nothing to do with Boras or the MLBPA, though Boras will undoubtedly be given plenty of grief over this. He is seeking a creative way to get his player the best deal, it is what all agents attempt and what he has been exceptionally (and exasperatingly) good at. This has everything to do with Selig and his abuse of power. He loves the Wilpon's, much as he has loved Loria, they scratch his back and he does them favors. Baseball is no better for it, but Selig hasn't stayed around for so long by doing mere fans any favors and this will likely be no different. You may disagree, but that is the great thing about insanity it only takes one to enjoy the crazy.
As a lifelong Mets fan, I think you had it correct with your first point - the Mets have no money. I don't believe they are seriously interested in Bourn, just in trying to appear to their fans like they're trying to do "something" and not punting on 2013. I expect Selig to rule against the Mets in this because secretly the Mets want him to do just that.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. I agree with your point, but leaving it at that would not be as interesting an article.
DeleteBourn happens to fit into the Met's plans very well as a speedy, defensive outfielder in a big ball park. They want to build a team around pitching and those kinds of hitters. Alderson is a crafty trader and maybe he is trying to put the pressure on Selig (maybe even with the help of Boras and the MLBPA), to cave in and allow some sort of exemption. If anything it may be used in negotiations with Boras to lower the price.
ReplyDeleteThey just invested a ton of money in David Wright, and still have a hefty payroll, saying they have no money is strange don't you think?
A quick look over at Cots Baseball Contracts shows that Wright is the only player guaranteed more than $5.5 million next season. Last season their payroll dropped around $45 million and it is even lower this year. The Mets have used the Madoff issue to cut back spending and I think the earlier comment was spot on that they are just doing this for appearances.
DeleteSounds like a lazy observation. Why didn't they feign interest in Greinke? Or Hamilton? If your purpose is showmanship, why choose Bourn, a middle-rate over-hyped defensive speed guy with half the talent Carl Crawford had?
DeleteCutting back spending is not a bad thing and it is not the indicator of poor finances it used to be, cutting back spending does not mean your team doesn't have money. The Red Sox are doing it, the Yankees are doing it, the Marlins did it after finding out why the big ball clubs are doing it, and the Dodgers will likely find out the hard way why the big ball clubs aren't spending silly money any more. Silly money doesn't guarantee attendance or better teams.
I agree, nothing wrong with teams cutting back spending. The Mets are in that mind set right now, but they also are trying to get cheeks in seats and New York is no place to say "wait till 2014, 15, or beyond". They waited until players tied to compensation dwindled and when one, Bourn, was left that people could see them going after they make noise with a "But...". The fans like the mentality behind the "but" and the team spends no money. Had they kept Dickey, or gone after Hairston it would appear a lot different.
DeleteI get the "but.." excuse, but a fake pursuit of Bourn is hardly the smoking gun for the Mets being broke or cheap.
ReplyDeleteThough I'm not saying your wrong, I think the other theory is underrepresented by bloggers and I'm not sure why.
This is what a rebuild looks like. Being done by a professional GM, not a Philipps or Minaya, throwing money on a wall and hoping it sticks.
Just like you said, next year they are removing all the garbage off the payroll, and they are going to have one superstar, with a foundation of ace prospects, and a ton of New York market cash, to build a dynasty around the strengths of the ball park and the overall organization. THIS IS HOW IT IS DONE. Isn't it wonderful to have a professional organization for once in Queens?
I'm unfamiliar to your blogging, but I was interested enough in this post to engage you, so I must ask, are you one of those who berates them when they spend like drunken sailors? And then berates them next year for being cheap? The hypocrisy and pandering to an audience that is washed away from a reader's memory over the long stretch of the baseball season. I don't know if you are one, but you know exactly who I'm talking about, and how vastly they proliferate sports media.
They don't have a clue is what I am saying, and I'm not sure why they continue to hammer the story that the Wilpons are broke or cheap when they fielded one of the most expensive teams in the league in 2012, that sucked because of poor personnel investments, not because the owners didn't want to spend.
Glad you were engaged enough to share some comments. This blog is actually my first blogging attempt, no reason you would have run across anything by me before.
ReplyDeleteI am a fan of the workings of baseball on a whole more than a Mets fan and my intent is to look at different aspects from, hopefully, a unique angle.
I enjoy watching a well run organization operate regardless of who it is. I am not a fan of the never-satisfied either, sometimes I may scratch my head, but as long as the move shows a consistent path toward a bigger goal you just have to watch and trust in those with the inside knowledge and a lifetime of experience. In that vein I am interested to see what the Mets do over the next year or two in building up.
I can understand how you are trying to take an analytical approach to your blog. Your view point on Selig is more than a bit strong. Baseball is a set up as a democratic forum with a monarch overtone. There are 30 owners, a strong union and most importantly a passionate fanbase, which has to balanced by one person the commissioner. I'm not saying he has done an amazing job, nor am I saying he has done a poor job, overall I think has tried to be fair to the game while appeasing as many of the groups as he can.
DeleteYou talk about the rules like they are written in stone. Yes this is the first year of this new collective bargain and with that there will be kinks to be worked out. Again I can see how the rule is straight forward but you do have to look at why the rule was made and to the spirit of the rule; similar to how a judge rules on the legal system.
The draft system in of itself it flawed, but it has been made flawed trying to balance out the differences between large and small market clubs. The new rules of the draft has taken some of the risk out of the draft. There is a risk of signability or that a player may choose a different sport. With those risks players aren't chosen by certain teams. For this instance Appel should have been one of top three draft picks, but the ability to sign him had him slide to the Pirates at #8. The Pirates took the risk and drafted him and lost. The Pirates getting a "re-do", now affects this years draft by allowing the to get a top ten draft pick therefor costing the Mets their top ten slot.
This rule also allows teams to "punt" in a draft year. In a given year if a team thinks that the draft is weak and that the next years draft has more potential for higher upside players, what is to stop them from not signing their pick and getting added slots for the next year? Again the system is flawed but is has been made so trying to make the game "fair". It's why Selig should look at why the rule was made and not just the black and white letter of the rule.
All that being said, I am a Mets fan, but would hate to see the team sign for a player on the decline of his prime, when his skill set is based around his speed. So I do hope this is all moot.
The draft is a work in progress, I guess I would just like to see a full year work out before I consider changes.
DeleteI am less objective on Selig than you are, see my earlier post on Loria and Selig. Any good he has done is continually eroded by his staying around.
I am cheering for the Mets to turn it around and look forward to seeing what the Team from Queens can give us in the upcoming seasons