Hudson: So much for Kemp being our big free agent signing next year. Can you explain to me how the Dodgers can shell out $160M for their home grown star, and the Mets seemingly can't afford to keep Wright and Reyes? Let's see if I got this right:
Dodgers almost couldn't make payroll this season
Owners sucked all the money out of the team to support their lavish lifestyle, causing team to go into bankruptcy
Selig is forcing the owner to sell because of financial issues
Dodgers DON'T have a brand new stadium
Dodgers DON'T get $20M/year stadium naming rights fee
Dodgers DON'T have their own regional sports network
All that, yet they still can afford their best players? The Mets with those additional financial benefits are in worse shape. Yet, Selig is bending over backwards to keep the Wilpons afloat - because they supported everything Selig wanted even when it negatively affected the Mets (e.g. sticking to slot recommendations).
My head is going to explode.
Christopher Soto: Well first off the Dodgers continue to bring in fans which are a major source of revenue and own their own parking lots which is source of revenue the Mets dont have. They also have both lower operating and financial expenses. In 2011 the Mets brought in 2.378MM fans, the Dodgers brought in 2.935MM. If you say each ticket is on average $50 (really rough estimate) that gives the Dodgers $27.85MM alone in ticket revenues. Add in lets say 1MM cars at $12 a parking spot and thats and additional $12MM the Dodgers have the Mets dont. Plus new owners= new infusion of fresh cash. The Dodgers also OWN their stadium. Mets have a stadium built with municipal bonds from NYC and require monthly payments PLUS interest. Secondly the Dodgers new commitment to Kemp actually LOWERS their commitment to Kemp in 2012 and is expected to be BELOW his free agent market value for the remainder of the duration of the contract.
Phlavio: Right, so that feeling in your head... is actually justified. Here's the rub. The Mets CAN afford Reyes... and Wright... and other players. The Mets can't afford the Wilpons. Or rather... the Wilpons can't afford to be owners of a New York baseball franchise. I've said before that the poverty line for a major market baseball team in New York is $100 Million. With a comfortable payroll level closer to $150 Million. On the one hand, there aren't great options in free agency to spend money on this year so I'd be A-Okay with the Mets sticking closer to the poverty line. On the OTHER hand, Reyes is 100% worth keeping. Because the Mets can keep Reyes without drawing near $120 Million I don't see why it is an issue. In short, we have every reason to be annoyed with the team if Reyes signs elsewhere.
Michael Scannell: - As far as the Mets not getting to sign Matt Kemp, oh well. Carlos Quentin is still out there, maybe the Mets can swing a trade for Adam Jones, etc. The need will be the same - a RH OF who can hit in the middle of the lineup. The organization will have to find another creative way to fill the need. On not signing Reyes, I think it has as much to do with his value as it does with the team's ability to afford him. He's not a $20 million per year player but that's the money he seems to want. Given that, it may not make sense to sign him, financial trouble or not. Same goes for Wright - is he truly a player on Matt Kemp's level? I don't think that he is...and if the team is going for a full rebuild it makes sense to deal him while they still have the opportunity. His ability to cancel the 2013 option upon being dealt makes the situation complicated. Also, keep in mind that the Dodgers are not saddled with a Jason Bay/Johan Santana combo tying down the payroll to the tune of $40 million per year. If Reyes and Wright leave you can consider them casualties of that situation as much as anything.
Charlie T. - I haven't a freaking' clue. Best guess: this confirms that the Wilpons are the league's worst owners.
Mack: This is an apples and oranges thing. The Dodgers will make money. They also have made all their interest payments. They also will have an intelligent owner that hasn’t invested illegally. I also like Charlie’s answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment