OT: New York Mets 2021-2022 Off Season Thread
- Thread starter Tango Two
- Start date
- Status
Jeff Innis passed away yesterday from cancer at age 59. So sad. Too young. RIP.
Always a steady performer. Seemed like a guy it would be easy to like.
The only thing that bothers me at times...he was typically making let's say an average of about 600k per year and in 2018, they listed him with a net worth of 1.5 million.
Not a ton in todays athletics but a good substancial amount of money. It always seems strange that someone would need to have a gofundme set up for them in that sort of circumstance.
Right but the OF is full as well. If we're going to rotate a ton of players it might work but someone is still benched.
It isn’t full with KB level players. He would also allow for trading the likes of McNeil, Davis, Smith. If KB was signed and was in the OF, only Marte would be Guaranteed his spot. If KB was t be 3B only Lindor and Alonso would be guaranteed their spots.
I’ll say this - a reliever like him would have made a bunch more money in today’s market. As for the gofundme, you never know what their circumstances were. Could have had some bad investments, medical expenses, you never know.
I like Bryant and would be fine with him so just discussing playing time options. Nimmo is guaranteed a spot until he gets hurt and they just signed Canha. They just signed Escobar as well and McNeil is going to have a nice bounce back year so I wouldn't deal him. Davis can go for a pen arm. Smith is a very nice bench player I'd keep him.
You can easily blow through $1.5 million fighting cancer.
Here is an analysis of the labor dispute that I posted on December 14. I think it mostly still applies.
_____________________________________________________________________________
While we wait for the manager selection to become official, here's a summation of the five key issues in the CBA negotiations. From an excellent series on Metsmerized Online. Rather than link five separate articles, I have summarized and offered my comments.
ISSUE 1 - FREE AGENCY
CURRENT RULE - Free agency is granted after six years of MLB service time.
PLAYERS PROPOSAL - Reduce free agency requirement to five years service time, OR player attainment of age 29.5, whichever comes first.
OWNERS PROPOSAL - Owners have counterproposed with the age 29.5 threshold only, service time would no longer be a determinant.
COMMENT - The owners' position works well for players out of college, who are older when they begin their career. It does not work well for HS players and especially Latino players who can be signed as early as 16. For instance, under the owners' proposal, Juan Soto would be 10 years into his MLB career before attaining free agency.
ISSUE 2 - ARBITRATION
CURRENT RULE - Most players need three years of MLB service time before becoming arbitration eligible. There are rare exceptions (Super Twos), who qualify after two years.
PLAYERS PROPOSAL - All players become arbitration eligible after two years.
OWNERS PROPOSAL - Eliminate arbitration and replace it with a performance-based system, for example, scheduled salary increases based on WAR.
COMMENT - Arbitration has been good to the players. However, it is very rarely used. The large majority of cases are resolved before getting to arbitration. That suggests that a mutually agreeable alternative to arbitration may be achieved, maybe?
ISSUE 3 - COMPETITIVE BALANCE TAX (Luxury Tax)
CURRENT RULE - It's complicated, but in general - if a team exceeds a predefined salary threshold, it has to pay a penalty, the proceeds of which go to the lower revenue teams.
PLAYERS PROPOSAL - Increase the threshold, and decrease the penalty.
OWNERS PROPOSAL - Decrease the threshold, and increase the penalty.
COMMENT - Seems like we have an impasse here. The players hate this system because they claim its beneficiaries (the low revenue teams) aren't spending the money they get. I think the players have a point. One thing is clear from the owners standpoint - the small market teams are in the majority, and they are callling the shots.
ISSUE 4 - THE ENTRY DRAFT
CURRENT RULE - Traditional inverse order selection. The more you lose, the higher you pick.
PLAYERS PROPOSAL - Players hate this system because it encourages tanking, and teams that are tanking don't spend money. A proposal that has been floated (not sure the players support it) is to have the highest ranking non-playoff teams pick first. This presumably would incent all teams to try (and spend) at all times.
OWNERS PROPOSAL - Status quo, I think.
COMMENT - I can definitely see this changing.
ISSUE 5 - PLAYOFFS
CURRENT RULE - 10 teams qualify.
PLAYERS PROPOSAL - Status quo. They oppose playoff expansion because they believe that the easier it is to make the playoffs, the less motivated owners will feel to spend money in order to make it.
OWNERS PROPOSAL - Increase playoffs to 14. Two reasons. More playoff games equals more revenue. Also, more teams in contention in September also equals more revenue.
COMMENT - I can see the players conceding on this in order to get other concessions from ownership.
Was amazed to hear that Innis is 12th on Mets all time appearance list. Would never have guessed. RIP!
Omar Minaya’s son plays for Providence BB team. About 6’7. Surprised Omar didn’t push him into baseball.
Sadly I think the owners are going to sit tight and hope the players cave. Just my opinion but the small Market teams are pretty adamant in their stance.
I think the one other issue is minimum salary. The players association is trying to raise it from the current $500k. Apparently 25-30% of a 26 man roster at any given time is earning the league minimum
Time for relegation or contraction from MLB for those clubs who only want to pocket their revenue and not put it back into the team.
Owners I don’t think care much about April and may games . Not much attendance. In 1994 the players screwed them by getting paid almost the whole season and not having a post season .
This will get done by Memorial Day. If not , players might sit whole season
This will get done by Memorial Day. If not , players might sit whole season
Mets were concerned about his meds and would not meet his price. He goes back to the draft next year.
Not that I am rooting for games to be missed as a result of the lockout but I do remember the 1981 strike and the split season. Made for some exciting baseball with 1st half and 2nd half races.
Expanding the playoffs is a really terrible idea. It really kills regular season drama for good teams. A team that is high 80s win team will be a lock for the playoffs and if you know you're a lock for the playoffs it's hard to generate drama. There's no such thing as a big September series if both teams are guaranteed to make the playoffs in a sport like baseball. Home field is worthless and isn't worth fighting for.
I am hearing mlb will not make a counter proposal to the last player demands. They are standing on their last offer. If true it looks like spring training is not starting on time.
ESPN reported MLB requested a federal mediator instead.
MLBPA has rejected a federal mediator.
Not sure who is wrong/right.
Mediator is different from arbitrator. A mediator has no power. He/she is just an impartial third party trying to get both sides to play nice.
MLBPA rejected this as a meaningless grandstand play.
Agree with your conclusion. Not even sure if the terms wrong or right apply here. Just two sides trying to do the best for its stakeholders. Same as in any negotiation.
I saw one article which used the analogy that if each side began the negotiations on its own goal line, and the objective is to meet at midfield, they've only advanced to about their own 5 or 10 yard lines.
As expected the 2 sides are desperately trying to destroy the sport.
I am pretty sure that is not their objective. Nor will it be an unintended consequence. The sport was not destroyed when they cancelled the World Series. It was not destroyed in the following spring when the owners were ready to use replacement players. It was not destroyed when they played a 60 game season two years ago. It will not be destroyed now.
Here is what WILL happen:
Each side has a date in its mind as to when it is time to get serious. None of us know what those dates are. Pretty sure it's not in the immediate future. I think both sides are willing to accept a delayed opening (which we've had several times in the past), and a season of less than 162 games.
The question is which side has the greater urgency to get serious. Which side's "drop dead date" is the soonest. I think it is the players, who will be losing paychecks. The owners are IMO quite content to play another short season, with an extended postseason. That's where they make their money anyway.
So, my crystal ball says the players will make the concessions, the owners will get about 70% of what they want, and we will have regular season baseball by May 1. And in September all will be forgotten.
No it is not. Although then, there was a nonzero chance (although it probably rounded to zero) that the death of baseball would have been an unintended consequence. This time the likelihood of baseball's demise is .00000%.
That percentage also reflects the similarities between then and now. There ain't none.
A quick historical review: The CBA had expired at the end of the 1993 season, and no agreement was reached in the offseason. The owners were looking to impose a salary cap. That was (and still is) the hill that that players were willing to die on.
The owners stupidly allowed the 1994 season to commence without an agreement. In so doing, they handed the players the hammer. The players could collect their salaries for most of the season, and then threaten to strike just as pennant races were heating up and the postseason beckoned. Which is what they did. Surely the owners would cave, right? They couldn't afford to lose the World Series, could they?
They could, and they did.
And the fanbase got really, really, really pissed.
Fast forward to 1995 preseason. The hammer has now been passed to the owners. They can now make the players miss paychecks. Yeah, it would cost the owners money too,,, but wait... what if we opened the season as scheduled... with REPLACEMENT PLAYERS! Problem solved.
And the fanbase got even more pissed. Would the owners actually play part of the season, or heaven forbid the full season, with scabs? We will never know, because just before the season started, the players filed a grievance with the NLRB, and won! (The presiding judge was future Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.) Goodbye salary cap, goodbye lockout, goodbye replacement players, hello baseball.
But the fanbase stayed pissed. For years. Until baseball was saved by Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa. 70 and 65 home runs! No one dared question how.
My point is simply that the entire dynamic is different now. The salary cap is not on the table. There is no hill that the players are willing to die on. For the issues currently on the table, they may be willing to give up a month's worth of paychecks, but that's about it. So what? Nobody really cares about April baseball, other than Opening Day. And there will still be an Opening Day, it'll just be later.
Not to worry.
Doc, I am going to respectfully disagree. The players have in my opinion a hill to die on. Increased revenue to the players. Salaries have actually gone down the past 4 seasons and players seem to be willing from the statements they have been making that they are prepared for a long strike. The owners are meeting this week. If they bring another proposal that makes progress, we may see baseball before too long. if they stand on their current proposal we may be without baseball for a while.
Simple solution = cap with well defined revenue sharing (just like every other damn sport).
This is not complicated.
Fair point, but not a parallel. As long as the debate is about $$$$, the parties can meet in the middle (or somewhere close to the middle). Which I think will eventually happen when they're good and ready.
If the debate is about an operating structure like a salary cap, that's a problem. Because that is binary. Either you have a salary cap or you don't, and the players won't. Fortunately, that is not on the table.
If you are talking about Kumar Rocker, that is not entirely correct. At least not according to Scott Boras, his agent. He reported that when the Mets got the meds, they declined to make any offer, period.
This is an important distinction. It's not that the Mets made a financial decision to cheap out. They made a baseball decision that they would rather have the compensatory pick this year, as opposed to Rocker, whom they considered damaged goods.
- Status
Similar threads
