2/23/23

Tom Brennan - Would You Have Liked This Alternate $150 Million 26 Man Roster?

A Smaller $150 Million Team Budget and…

These  Dudes Are No-Doubt Opening Day Mets

 Anthony DiComo's recent article on his thoughts on the Mets' 26 man opening day roster makes me think outside-the-box, as I often do: 

What if this team had a far more slender budget, like many smaller market teams do, and had to come up with, say, a $150 million budget?  (Note: That size budget is actually middle-of-the-pack salary.)

It might not win nearly as many games, but what would that team look like under a tight $150 million budget?

Catchers (2):  Francisco Alvarez, Tomás Nido

Omar Narváez would have been too expensive. 

- Francisco learns on the job.

First baseman: Pete Alonso - 162 games needed, Pete. No, 161 won’t do.

Second baseman: Jeff McNeil - elevates his star status on a low $$ team.

Shortstop: Luis Guillorme (Lindor too pricey - see ya); Ronny Mauricio backs up

Third basemen (2): Eduardo Escobar and Brett Baty

Outfielders (4): Mark Canha, Starling Marte, Ronny Mauricio, Danny Mendick (Jeff McNeil and Brett Baty fill in as needed) - speedy Brandon Nimmo?  Love ya, dude, but too pricey for a $150 million budget team. And...Mendick and not Ruf?  Yeah.  Ruf's age will show. He is not just toast, he is Melba Toast.

Designated hitters (2): Daniel Vogelbach, Mark Vientos. Vogelbach will stay slim, as the club will cut back on team buffets.

Starting pitchers (5): David Peterson, Tylor Megill, Kodai Senga, José Quintana, Carlos Carrasco.  

 - Max & Verlander too costly for a Wilpon-like budget. 

(You want mansions? Those two are costing mansion $$).

 - back-up starters: Joey Lucchesi and Jose Butto.

Relief pitchers (8): Edwin Díaz, Adam Ottavino, Bryce Montes de Oca, Brooks Raley, Drew Smith, Stephen Nogosek, Tommy Hunter, Zach Greene.  

(Note to all readers: Edwin stays, period. $$ is no object.)

- Back-up relievers: Jeff Brigham, John Curtiss, Stephen Ridings, Sam Coonrod, Eric Orze, Grant Hartwig, and Elieser Hernandez. 


Not sure, as I left my calculator in my desk, but I think the above roster adjustments get you down to around a $150 million salary.  

This team, I'd estimate, would win 80-90 games.  

It would be a Wilpon team, essentially. Wilpon $$, Wilpon wins.

The extra 15 wins this team needs to be not average, but elite, are INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE. A/K/A Lindor, Max, Verlander, and Nimmo, the four of whom will make over $140 million in 2023.

Of course, the above $150 million roster would not work, as the Mets would still owe 2022 money to Cano, Ruf, McCann, and Bonilla. 

Their money counts, too.

If you factored that in, you'd be talking $120 million, not $150 million, and if you had to get to $120 million for a 26 man roster of active players, Senga, Carrasco, and Canha would have to be replaced by Joey, Butto, and ... Khalil Lee???  

Give Wyatt Young an outfield mitt instead?

$120 million would drop that 80-90 win team to, I dunno, 68-78?

Which would cut attendance and TV revenues by over 50%.

Spending money makes things easier most times.

Unless the three super-dupers you are super-signing to super-salaries are super-bums Durant, Harden and Irving. 

That failed, and for the Nets it was the Nyets. 

Wise super-duper spending is essential. 

I think Steve has spent a lot, and wisely, for this team, the Mets.


OUR HORSE IS FAVORED IN THE EARLY BETTING: 

Saw this - I’ll bet you didn’t:

Mets (https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/teams/ny-mets/) are bettors' pick to win it all

Last season, the Mets won 101 games and lost the National League East on a tiebreaker to the Braves Their reward for a 101-win season was a first-round wild-card series against the 89-win Padres. The Padres surprisingly outpitched the Mets and won the series in three games.

Despite last season ending as a failure, both the market and bettors are high on the Amazins heading into the upcoming season. The Mets are +750 to win the World Series. 

Those odds are tied for second-best with the Yankees and Los Angeles Dodgers

. Only the defending champion Astros (+650) have better odds to win the World Series this season.

Bettors are lining up for the Mets as well. Overall, nearly 11% of the bets and 16% of the money is backing New York to win the World Series. Both marks are highest in the league.


8 comments:

Tom Brennan said...

I’ll wager a bet Mack replies first.

bill metsiac said...

You lose that wager. 😜

Remember, pre-Madoff, the Wilpons (Fred, at least) spent freely, if not always wisely.
Read Klapisch's book, "The Worst Team Money Could Buy" for details on the '93 team. The blunders were repeated in '03.

It's not all about winning by spending.
Read Klapish's book, "The Worst

Mack Ade said...

(why did I know Oca would be on this roster?)

All kidding aside, you lost me at no Lindor.

Tom Brennan said...

True, Bill. The Wilpons spent enough to spend a lot, but not enough to factor in they'd make bad decisions but spend enough more to cover thos mistakes. Total luxury taxes in the Wilpon era? ZERO

Paul Articulates said...

Very interesting perspective, Tom. It helps me appreciate what we have, including Mr. Cohen who demonstrates his commitment to success with every more.

A few more years of development in the farm system and my guess is that your $150M will field an even better team. Let's see how that goes.

Tom Brennan said...

Mack if we had to be at an average $150 million payroll, no Lindor, no Scherzer, no Verlander. I really feel for small market, limited budget teams. They are at a disadvantage. Some will say, just spend more, like the Mets.

The problem there is if you are in a market that draws 1.2 million, and you spend your way into contention, you might get to 1.5 million. The extra spending results in losses. Business owners like all owners do not want to lose $$.

Mack Ade said...

Except for Cohen.

To him, this is a hobby

Tom Brennan said...

Hobbies are good.