Tom Brennan - Steve Cohen Must Dream What It Would Be Like If the Mets Won Like Oakland

Play superior Mets baseball and all those empty seats you see will get filled quickly.

The low budget Oakland Athletics are low budget for a reason:

Despite solid winning seasons on a Motel 6 budget, Oakland struggles to put derrieres in chairs.

Check this Oakland attendance stuff out:

2021 - 86-76, 0.7 million, 15th of 15 in AL

2020 - 36-24, 0.0 million (COVID)

2019 - 97-65, 1.67 million, 10th of 15 in AL

2018 - 97-65, 1.57 million, 13th of 15 in AL

2017 - 75-87, 1.48 million, 14th of 15 in AL

Despite very solid play, in the face of budgetary restrictions that would have caused any Mets fan to panic, the A's just fail to draw in Oakland.

Over the same 5 seasons, here is how wins, losses, and fannies in seats worked out for the Mets:

2021 - 77-85, 1.51 million, 10th of 15 in NL

2020 - 26-34, 0.0 million (COVID)

2019 - 86-76, 2.44 million, 9th of 15 in NL

2018 - 77-85, 2.25 million, 10th of 15 in NL

2017 - 70-92, 2.46 million, 9th of 15 in NL

Thus, the Mets in their 4 full seasons (excluding 2020) have drawn roughly 800,000 more fans per year than Oakland, despite Oakland having gone 89-73 on average in those 4 years, while the Mets have gone 78-84 on average over the same 4 years.  Oakland playing contending baseball, and the Mets not.

What would the Mets have drawn in those 4 seasons if they won  the same number of games each year as Oakland?

Well, the last time the Mets won 97 games, in 2006, the Mets drew 3.38 million, or DOUBLE what the A's drew.  So I think it is fair to say that if the Mets win 95-100 games, they will draw 3 to 3.5 million fans if the virus is well-behaved by opening day, as it now appears it will be.  So, as so many people wonder whether "Uncle Steve" will put away his checkbook any time soon, my thought is "no".  Why?

Half to three quarters of a million more fannies in the seats, along with ancillary net revenues, represents a gargantuan increase in total revenues.  That pays a lot of added payroll before reaching the point where added expenses equal added revenues.  

Considering he is a multi-billionaire METS FAN, I think he would be more than happy to (even under a higher revenue scenario) have expenses exceeding revenues, rather than break even, because WINNING is so much more fun and exhilarating than having the team fail and fans constantly moaning and groaning about the team.  A fan base that is THRILLED with the team is priceless.  Fans saying "the Mets suck", as my brother did a few hundred times last season and in seasons prior, is not.

There is no reason why the Mets 1) should not be winning 95-100 each season with a wide-open checkbook, and 2) moving from an average 10th in attendance to being 2nd in attendance to the Dodgers annually.  (The Mets may soon wish they had Shea Stadium's seating capacity once again.)

Given that we have a NY billionaire's budget flexibility, rather than an Oakland skinflint budget, we need to truly operate like a team with an excited NY billionaire's budget.  So we can go back to having lots of packed houses in Queens.

Remember, the Mets averaged nearly 4 million in 2007 and 2008.  With the lower number of seats in Citifield, those numbers are out of reach, but 3.5 million a season could be a reasonable target for a superior Mets team.

If you build it, they will come.  Or, stated differently... 

WHEN COHEN SPENDS, WE'LL ATTEND.

AND THE LOSING WILL END.

After all, we need Mets' games to register on seismic devices once again.  Rocking stadiums in Queens are fine by me.

Of course, to get rocking stadiums, baseball must agree on a new CBA. Our very own Max Scherzer just said this:

“We don’t need mediation because what we are offering to MLB is fair for both sides. We want a system where threshold and penalties don’t function as caps, allows younger players to realize more of their market value, makes service time manipulation a thing of the past, and eliminate tanking as a winning strategy.”

Conceptually, I fully agree with all of those. Pete Alonso (had 2020 not been shortened) would have made under $2 million for his first 3 years, total.  That is criminal underpayment.  Jeff McNeil got similarly screwed.  I'd love to see it where  2nd year pay got tied to a player's WAR.  Pete had 5.5 WAR as a rookie.  

How about an extra $200,000 for season # 2 for each WAR, so Pete would have made about $1.7 million in his second season, rather than $600,000 the year after hitting 53 HRs.  Scherzer and Jake, by comparison to Pete's 600 G's, will each make more than $1 million PER START.  

That is a bizarre pay disparity, based on output alone.

I don't know the exact issues on the table, but I would (if I was an owner) want contracts capped at 5 years - heck, I wouldn't mind 3 years.  I hearken back to the pre-free agency days when everyone salary-wise went a year at a time...great year, pay raise...bad year, pay cut.  Players were always under the gun.  

That annual raise cycle won't ever return, but shorter term contracts just make sense. I would have preferred seeing Lindor get a deal for 5 years, $200 million than one for 10 years, $341 million, because I believe the potential is strong that those last 5 years under his current 10 year deal might be worth a lot less than $141 million due to age, if he was forced instead to do another 5 year deal going in the 2027 season.  Age is kind to some players, brutal to others.