BBTF.org/m/mets : R.A. Dickey is feeling slighted by stalled negotiations with Mets

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Silva: Time to End the Collins Era and Bring On Backman

(metsmerizedonline.com)

posted 2 days ago by Repoz to mets | 15 comment(s)

...and Wally dug the Mets out of the basement.

Backman is known to be a great motivator and teacher. He won’t wave a magic wand and make this 4-A squad a contender, but I guarantee the players will maximize their potential- whatever that may be. He can manage a bullpen, and certainly will run a clean clubhouse. He will demand respect and a winning attitude. The Mets may not win under Backman, at least not right away, but they will compete. This is not what I can say has been the case 100% ...

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >

1. JJ1986 posted on December 11, 2012 at 07:46 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Ryan Dempster is going to get more than 2/26. It's an incredibly small amount. Just pay Dickey.

2. Never Give an Inge (Dave) posted on December 11, 2012 at 07:49 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Jesus ####### Christ just pay the man already. I know it's not my money, but haggling over $3 million per year over 2 years, for the most likeable player on the team, if not in the game, seems very short-sighted to me.

3. RJ in TO posted on December 11, 2012 at 07:50 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

It's fun watching the Mets #### up things that should be really, really easy to not #### up.

4. What did Billy Ripken have against Elroy Face? posted on December 11, 2012 at 08:10 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Dickey said Tuesday morning at a Citi Field holiday party, where he and teammate Ike Davis visited with Far Rockaway, Queens children affected by Hurricane Sandy.

Yes, the Mets are being stingy and all, but it seems to me this particular setting maybe isn't the best context to discuss gripes about whether you'll make $10 million or $13 million next year?

5. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee posted on December 11, 2012 at 08:12 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Yes, the Mets are being stingy and all, but it seems to me this particular setting maybe isn't the best context to discuss gripes about whether you'll make $10 million or $13 million next year?

Fair, but it's likely that he was asked about the negotiations.

Posted without comment: Frank Francisco's 2013 salary: 6.5 million.

6. KT's Pot Arb posted on December 11, 2012 at 08:16 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Clearly the Mets are stalling hoping a trade materializes.

7. Spivey posted on December 11, 2012 at 08:48 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Come on Rangers, give these clowns Olt and Perez and sign Dickey to a 3/40 extension.

8. AJM posted on December 11, 2012 at 08:50 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

If they #### this up, I'm stabbing a Wilpon.

9. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle posted on December 11, 2012 at 08:53 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

If they #### this up, I'm stabbing a Wilpon.

Well done young padawan.

10. PreservedFish posted on December 11, 2012 at 08:54 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

####### Mets. Unbelievable.

11. Justin T is expanding the aperture of awareness posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

“I feel like we’re asking for even less than what’s fair,”

This is why you don't ask for fair.

12. Srul Itza posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:10 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

####### Mets. Unbelievable.

That's the problem. It being the Mets, it is NOT Unbelievable. It is all too sadly predictable.

13. depletion posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:10 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

They blew whatever money they had on Wright. They have added no major league players. Dickey will play out the year then sign with the Braves, Nats or Phillies and kill the Mets for another 4 or 5 years. Wilpons are the Dolans of baseball. Hell, at least the Royals are trying something.

14. Gonna break my Rusty Kuntz and run . . . Arbitol posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:11 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Aren't the Yankees paying Rivera something like this to pitch 40 Dickey-like innings?

15. Esoteric throws a 'hard slider' posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:22 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I dunno why nobody else is pointing this out, but it seems fairly clear to me that the Wilpons are simply out of cash, and they spent whatever reserves they had left on Wright. Speaking as a Nats fan (AND a Mariners fan, who enjoyed him while he was there), I look forward to the possibility of signing him to a nice two or three year deal at the end of next season, should this fall through.

EDIT: Coke to depletion.

16. AJM posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:26 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I've mentioned it before, but the Mets have two players under contract for 2014. Cash should not be an issue.

17. JJ1986 posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:27 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I've mentioned it before, but the Mets have two players under contract for 2014.

Three if you count Bobby Bonilla.

18. Never Give an Inge (Dave) posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:37 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Three if you count Bobby Bonilla.

Four if you count Jason Bay.

But the whole "Wilpons out of cash" argument doesn't really make sense if they can pay him $10 million a year but not $13 million per year.

19. PreservedFish posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:38 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

the Mets have two players under contract for 2014. Cash should not be an issue.

Quite right. Unless the Mets are going full Astros style, they should have a ton of money to play with for 2014 and 2015.

I mean, I'm not going to rule out the possibility that Wilpon is going to try and turn the Mets into one of the welfare queen teams. But even if the payroll drops to where the A's, Royals, Padres and Astros were last year ($55-60) they will have more than enough money for RA Dickey.

20. Bob Tufts posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

For the first time in years, the Mets' senior management has the hammer on someone or something. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that having power is not an end to itself - using power wisely is the goal and management's real role.

Dickey should take the Mets' front office approach as a sign that he should just move on in 2014. RA's agent should make an announcement in private that Dickey wants to leave, give Alderson a short window for negotiations to change his mind and limit the Mets' options. Throw it back at them!

21. Benji posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:57 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I really can't imagine any other front office screwing the guy who was the ONLY reason to watch them the last three months of the season. That is an insulting offer for any Cy Young winner, especially a guy that captivated millions of fans with his professionalism, intelligence, baseball savvy and personality. The only silver lining is that losing him will be the beginning of the end of the Wilpons and three-headed GM joke. Big raise for F'ng Ricciardi and nickels for a 20 game winner. Bud won't be able to hold off the other owners when Citifield becomes an empty tomb and the NL lacks a thriving New York presence.

22. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:03 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

I don't see why anyone thinks Wilpon will get ousted. I mean, Jeffrey Loria was given another team after ruining one with the express knowledge that he was a complete snake. The Mets are stuck with Wilpon until he dies.

23. jyjjy posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:19 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Clearly the Mets are stalling hoping a trade materializes.

They are stalling signing the reigning Cy Young in hopes of trading him before giving him a reasonably lengthed extension at well below market value?

24. AJM posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:22 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

They are stalling signing the reigning Cy Young in hopes of trading him before giving him a reasonably lengthed extension at well below market value?

You are not familiar with the Mets, are you?

25. Esoteric throws a 'hard slider' posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:31 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

They are stalling signing the reigning Cy Young in hopes of trading him before giving him a reasonably lengthed extension at well below market value?

This is actually a great point. Let's assume Dickey is extended on HIS terms: 2/26 beyond what he's owed for 2013, for a total of 3/30. That would mean he still is a pretty valuable trade chip as is, even with the concerns other clubs might have about age, knuckleballers, etc. But if he puts together a creditable half-season next year? (Wouldn't have to 2012-caliber, just 2010-2011.) Then he's IMMENSELY valuable.

I don't understand why the Mets wouldn't pounce on this. Either they're irrational, or broke, or baseball FO-types really just don't place any value and/or faith in knuckleballers.

26. Lassus posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:31 PM # hit 0 | hit 0

Someone needs to be kicked in the nuts or and punched in the face. That is all.

27. Ray (RDP)

posted on December 12, 2012 at 12:26 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

I don't understand why the Mets wouldn't pounce on this.

I think you guys are overlooking the fact that Dickey is 38 - a full 38, having just turned in October - and has never had a K rate like this before, and has never pitched this many innings before.

The Mets already have him under contract for 2013 for a song - $5 million. They're now supposed to commit $13 million to a 39 year old pitcher and $13 million to a 40 year old pitcher based on a career year at age 37? I don't know... yes, fighting over $6 million seems silly, but at the same time if Dickey has a mediocre year in 2013 - or a bad one - he's not getting $20 million. And it's not exactly outside the realm of possibility that he will regress, never having pitched this well before in his life. So he is in a bind himself, hitting free agency a year too early.

28. SoSH U at work posted on December 12, 2012 at 12:35 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

And it's not exactly outside the realm of possibility that he will regress, never having pitched this well before in his life.

If he just pitches as well and as much as he did in 2010-11, he'd still be worth 2/26, wouldn't he? It's not like his 2012 campaign came out of nowhere. He's been an effective pitcher for three straight years.

29. Matt Clement of Alexandria posted on December 12, 2012 at 12:39 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

And it's not exactly outside the realm of possibility that he will regress, never having pitched this well before in his life.

This is why no one is advocating paying Dickey $30M per season. Everyone expects him to regress, a lot.

30. Ray (RDP)

posted on December 12, 2012 at 12:40 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

The K rate did come out of nowhere. So did the innings total, frankly, borne of a career best H/9 rate.

But the K rate was virtually unprecedented for him, even if we look at K% instead of K/9. He hadn't done anything even approaching that since 2003.

31. Matt Clement of Alexandria posted on December 12, 2012 at 12:47 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

Ray, you're not arguing anything that anyone disagrees with, and you're not making any points that are particularly relevant to the evaluation of a $13M salary against a $10M salary. You've argued cogently that the Mets shouldn't offer a 2/50 extension. We all know that RA Dickey shouldn't be paid as if he's going to repeat his 2012 season. The question is whether Dickey should be paid like a slightly below average pitcher or like a slightly above average pitcher. Dickey is asking for slightly above average money, and the Mets are countering with a slightly below average offer.

32. Ray (RDP)

posted on December 12, 2012 at 12:48 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

This is why no one is advocating paying Dickey $30M per season.

No pitchers make $30 million per year, to my knowledge, so this is a bit of a strawman.

Everyone expects him to regress, a lot.

I'm not seeing this at all. The vast majority of people seem to be expecting the same performance from him. Because of the fact that he's a knuckler and the fact that he throws a unique "hard knuckler" -- even though those two are kind of in conflict because the evidence is that _pure_ knucklers can sustain some late performance, but not _hard_ knucklers, since Dickey is sui generis.

33. Ray (RDP)

posted on December 12, 2012 at 12:52 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

The question is whether Dickey should be paid like a slightly below average pitcher or like a slightly above average pitcher. Dickey is asking for slightly above average money, and the Mets are countering with a slightly below average offer.

But you're missing - I know you know this but I don't think you're properly factoring it in - that the extension wouldn't start for another year, and Dickey is in something of a bind, making "only" $5 million coming off of a Cy Young season. He's not really in the best position to leverage his 2012.

34. Gaelan posted on December 12, 2012 at 12:53 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

When did Gary Bettman buy the Mets?

35. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee posted on December 12, 2012 at 12:56 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

I think you guys are overlooking the fact that Dickey is 38 - a full 38, having just turned in October - and has never had a K rate like this before, and has never pitched this many innings before.

RA Dickey started the 2010 season in the minors and pitched 60.2 IP in AAA so he threw 235 IP that season.

36. billyshears posted on December 12, 2012 at 01:20 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

I dunno why nobody else is pointing this out, but it seems fairly clear to me that the Wilpons are simply out of cash, and they spent whatever reserves they had left on Wright. Speaking as a Nats fan (AND a Mariners fan, who enjoyed him while he was there), I look forward to the possibility of signing him to a nice two or three year deal at the end of next season, should this fall through.

Nobody is pointing this out because it is stupid. Signing Dickey to an extension requires no actual cash. Signing Wright to an extension required no actual cash and they exhausted no reserves. This isn't the NFL where players get massive signing bonuses because contracts aren't guaranteed and owners have to write a giant check when the deal is signed. The Wright extension won't cost the Mets anything until 2014. The Dickey extension would cost them nothing until 2014. As I recall, the only commitments the Mets have in 2014 are Niese, Wright and change. This is about valuation and allocation of resources, but it has absolutely nothing to do with cash.

Edit: Coke to AJM. I should really read on for a post or so rather than just jumping in to correct something horribly ignorant.

37. PreservedFish posted on December 12, 2012 at 01:34 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

Dave Cameron today on whether or not Dickey is a one year wonder:

No one ever refers to David Price as a one year wonder. But yet, when you actually look at his performance over the last three years, it’s hard to make a case that he’s been any different than Dickey. Over the total of his last three seasons, Price has an ERA- of 75, while Dickey has an ERA- of 78. The full list of pitchers with an ERA- between 75 and 80 over the last three years: David Price, Cole Hamels, CC Sabathia, Felix Hernandez, Gio Gonzalez, Matt Cain, and R.A. Dickey. That’s his group of peers, not based on one great year, but on three excellent seasons where Dickey has been one of the game’s best starters.

38. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle posted on December 12, 2012 at 01:35 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

The Mets can't get it done at 2/26?

Occam's razor tells us the Wilpon's are simply ####### this up out of sheer stupidity, but they may actually believe they don't have more than $10m to pay Dickey in 2014. Still and all, if you'd ever scrape up another $3m, or offer 2/20 and then tack on a bunch of $1m per year payments, it's for a player like Dickey. Hell, they're not lowballing him because in this market 2/26 is an overpay.

On another hand, maybe this is overblown and the Mets are just being canny negotiators. Why should the Wilpons care if Dickey grumbles a bit if after grumbling he signs for 2/24?

I dunno why nobody else is pointing this out, but it seems fairly clear to me that the Wilpons are simply out of cash, and they spent whatever reserves they had left on Wright. Speaking as a Nats fan (AND a Mariners fan, who enjoyed him while he was there), I look forward to the possibility of signing him to a nice two or three year deal at the end of next season, should this fall through.

Go pick over someone else's carcass, #######.

39. Ray (RDP)

posted on December 12, 2012 at 01:40 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

I agree he's not a one-year wonder; he's obviously had an excellent three-year run. My issues are (1) he's 38, and will be 39 and 40 for the new deal, (2) he's never had a K rate this high in his life, (3) he's never had a hits allowed rate this low in his life. (2) and (3) are related, and both should be expected to regress going forward. And (1) will only increase with time.

He's an excellent pitcher. But he's also 38, and is rather an odd bird in that he didn't do anything before 35, posting a grand total of 0.2 WAR. We should all remember this the next time someone claims that Barry Bonds was the only one who went insane on the league at 35.

40. PreservedFish posted on December 12, 2012 at 02:03 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

Ray, I'm not clear what the point of your "issues" are. Do you think he doesn't deserve an extension in the 2 year, $25-30 million range? I agree he's not likely to keep winning CYAs (who is?), but the guy is obviously dynamite right now, will probably still be way above average even as his K rate declines. 2 years, $15 million seems like substantial discount, probably precisely for the reasons that you list (age, uncertainty). Shane Victorino now costs $13 per year, BJ Upton $15.

41. TVerik posted on December 12, 2012 at 02:32 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

But the whole "Wilpons out of cash" argument doesn't really make sense if they can pay him $10 million a year but not $13 million per year.

Problem: we don't actually know if they're ready and willing to pay him $10 million. They could be lowballing him entirely for the PR benefit of his walking away, rather than being pushed out. Or a trade of some type could still be in the works.

42. Walt Davis posted on December 12, 2012 at 02:51 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

Moore, Towers, Alderson ... Man, the GMs musta gotten really drunk at the meetings if the hangovers have lasted this long.

43. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) posted on December 12, 2012 at 03:52 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

If the Mets can't afford 10m a year, then we're talking about a team that will have a total payroll of below 60m in 2014. The idea that the Mets can't afford the extension is ludicrous.

44. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle posted on December 12, 2012 at 07:41 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

I've mentioned it before, but the Mets have two players under contract for 2014. Cash should not be an issue.

It is if they expect the payroll to contribute to drop. The Wilpons have given every intention of hunkering down and riding this out, even if it means playing Wright and 24 guys making the minimum.

I guess the counter to any objection to this is, 'do you believe the Wilpons wouldn't, if circumstances dictated?'

The only silver lining is that losing him will be the beginning of the end of the Wilpons and three-headed GM joke.

The Wilpons are notoriously resistant to pressure. Unless Bud has some way of lawfully forcing them out, they won't leave.

The Mets already have him under contract for 2013 for a song - $5 million. They're now supposed to commit $13 million to a 39 year old pitcher and $13 million to a 40 year old pitcher based on a career year at age 37?

You missed on the innings pitched, and you're missing on the fact that a 2/26 extension is based not on his 2012 career year, but on simply coming somewhere his 2010-11 seasons.

edit: cokes all around. Is there no thread immune to the Great Troll?

If the Mets can't afford 10m a year, then we're talking about a team that will have a total payroll of below 60m in 2014.

This would not surprise me. Nothing the Wilpons could do would surprise me. And, in fact, they may not think he's worth it. That seems insane, but it would not surprise me.

Did they really extend Ricciardi?

45. Gonna break my Rusty Kuntz and run . . . Arbitol posted on December 12, 2012 at 09:08 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

The K rate did come out of nowhere. So did the innings total, frankly, borne of a career best H/9 rate.

Not so - Dickey pitched the same number of innings in 2010, minors included.

EDIT: Coke to Russlan

46. Benji posted on December 12, 2012 at 09:18 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

We thought the DeRoulets and M.Donald Grant would never leave, either. But the fans' deserting them and they becoming the joke franchise of baseball led to the sale. Selig is the wild card here. His defense of Loria and the Mets are the only thing propping them up. But he won't be around forever. Meanwhile join me in e-mailing Mark Cuban and encouraging him to save us.

47. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) posted on December 12, 2012 at 10:31 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

48. Nasty Nate posted on December 12, 2012 at 10:55 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

He's not really in the best position to leverage his 2012.

You are right about this. His leverage is also hurt because he hasn't made a huge fortune already in his career and so presumably the guaranteed big money would appeal to him more than the normal 30-something Cy winner. Earlier in the offseason, I thought it made sense for the Mets to neither trade nor extend Dickey, but that was before seeing the numbers being discussed (allegedly). I would have thought 2/26 sounds like the extension parameters after being suppressed by his lack of leverage. E.G. it appears that the only slightly-younger Dempster will get that deal or better after the last years ERA+ of 110, 81, 124 and "only" 173 innings in the most recent year.

The vast majority of people seem to be expecting the same performance from him.

At least on this site, I don't think a single person expects a repeat of 2012 from him.

49. formerly dp posted on December 12, 2012 at 11:06 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

At least on this site, I don't think a single person expects a repeat of 2012 from him.

Right. Obviously, if you're a Met fan, you hope that 2012 is a new level of performance. But in terms of a realistic expectation, the past 3 years should be a good indicator of what he'll do for the next three (barring traumatic injury, of course). I mentioned this before, but Dickey's ability to strike people out remained pretty constant over the course of the season-- it isn't like he racked up a ton of K's early on and then lost the strikeout mojo on the knuckler as hitters watched some tape of how it was moving, made adjustments, whatever. That's what makes me think he'll carry some of 2012 over. But regardless, the contract he's asking for doesn't assume 2012 is his new level of performance.

This whole thing is a mess. Lassus had it right in #26.

50. DL from MN posted on December 12, 2012 at 11:08 AM # hit 0 | hit 0

I don't get the "Mets can't afford" BS. If the owners are that strapped for cashflow that they have to suck it out of the Mets their best move is to sell the team. They must have a ton of ego tied up in the Mets to mortgage everything to run a major league baseball team on a shoestring.

Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

/m/mets

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Silva: Time to End the Collins Era and Bring On Backman

Reader Comments and Retorts

Mets Think Factory