There isn’t currently that combination of large-market cash and managerial know-how anywhere in the National League. The Mets may just have become the franchise.

This could pose a problem for us Yankee fans. If the Mets start winning regularly (BIG if, I know), then who are we going to point to when fans of small market teams complain that we win because of our money. For years, I've pointed to the Mets as an example of a franchise that, no matter how much money they've got, can't win anything and therefore money doesn't buy championships.

@1

There's always the Cubs!

He's too old now, I suspect, but the man the Mets needed years ago was Pat Gillick. I think he's the great underrated GM of the 90s and 00s, who built several good teams on substantial but not titanic payrolls. No, he wasn't a revolutionary, and yes, he did spend money. But he built one expansion franchise into the best organization in baseball in one decade, and built winners in three other places, including several teams that won playoff serieseseseses. He would have been a great fit for the Mets at pretty much any time until his retirement, and I suspect that if they'd hired him when he left Tronno the Yankees would not rule so absolutely over NYC today.

But that's just my personal crusade.

For years, I've pointed to the Mets as an example of a franchise that, no matter how much money they've got, can't win anything and therefore money doesn't buy championships.

Let's not forget that the Yankees themselves were paddling in such a bateau ivre for about a decade and a half, from 1982 to 1995. And that they've still got a chance to go that route, even with their $$. Even smart, monied GMs have off-years.

but the man the Mets needed years ago was Pat Gillick. I think he's the great underrated GM of the 90s and 00s, who built several good teams on substantial but not titanic payrolls.

Ooh, I sense a Dave Cameron Stalinist b*tch-slap in your semi-immediate future. You've just mentioned the name of the great, totemic Mariner Devil...quick, to the fire escape!

We need an "Alderson medea checklist" structured in the same way Gamingboy (formerly "Laughingboy: he eats his young") does for the TV broadcasts:

Harvard Law School [ X ]
He's a MARINE! Ten, HUT! [ X ]
Neo-econometric jargon: "leverage" [ X ]
Implicit comparison of Wilpon family to the Borgias [ X ]
Giant sucking sound in background as you read the article [ X ]

Gillick retired after '08 with the Phils but is under contract with them as a consultant. Not a chance in hell that the Mets could get their hands on him.

FTFA: "The Mets, when Cashen took over, were almost entirely devoid of talent at every level. This Mets team Alderson inherits has stars like David Wright and Jose Reyes under contract, while a number of other players—Angel Pagan, Ike Davis, Jon Niese, Mike Pelfrey—should contribute next season as well. Even some of the Mets who have struggled recently with injuries or the penal system, like Francisco Rodriguez, Carlos Beltran, Jason Bay and Johan Santana, offer significant upside in 2011."

All of that is good reason to prefer an Alderson over a Megdal regime. The paragraph reads as though the writer was at best only passingly familiar with the Mets. Santana offers "significant upside in 2011"? Really? As for "stars like David Wright and Jose Reyes", I doubt we can reasonably consider either to still be stars, and in the case of Reyes and his three wins and change over the last two years, I'm glad there's a new GM in town who may be able to evaluate Reyes in a clearer light than Reyes's 2006-2008 peak, particularly given (assuming the Mets exercise his option) that his contract is up after next season. I regularly read suggestions, even from sabr-inclined fans of the team, that the Mets offer Reyes at least 5/65. What with Bay and Santana taking up a third of the payroll next year and through 2013, overpaying Reyes on a long deal is something Alderson should take pains to avoid.

It's going to be interesting, and it's great to have a GM who deftly fields four part questions plus subparagraphs.

Santana offers "significant upside in 2011"? Really? As for "stars like David Wright and Jose Reyes", I doubt we can reasonably consider either to still be stars, and in the case of Reyes and his three wins and change over the last two years, I'm glad there's a new GM in town who may be able to evaluate Reyes in a clearer light than Reyes's 2006-2008 peak, particularly given (assuming the Mets exercise his option) that his contract is up after next season.

David Wright was still a 4 win player last season and that's with him ration as a pretty horrible defensive player according fangraphs. He's not a superstar but I would definitely consider him to be a star.

Reyes was actually very good offensively after he shook some of the rust off (.838 OPS in his last 94 games). Endpoints are what they are, but he didn't have a spring training and missed most of 2009 with injury so it's reasonable to look at his season in the proper context.

I'd definitely be more than comfortable with giving Reyes a 5y/65m dollar right now.

Megdal is being overly optimistic about the Mets.

So, what are you saying?

I don’t talk about OBP...I’m old school, I’m not a stat guy, I’m a talent evaluator. The guys who taught me the game of baseball never talked about OBP...Give me talent and I’ll show you OBP.

Didn't really translate after all?

5/65 for a guy who's been hurt a lot, has hardly been exceptional when he's on the field, has given less than four wins in the last two years and who--remarkably, and sadly--is going into his decline years, is nothing short of ridiculous. Why not pick so and so's best three hundred at bats and pay him accordingly? Endpoints are what they are, indeed. This is exactly why I'm delighted that Alderson's in town. I'd love to see Reyes on the Mets, at something sane like 3/30. 2008 was a long time ago, in baseball.

Why not pick so and so's best three hundred at bats and pay him accordingly? Endpoints are what they are, indeed. This is exactly why I'm delighted that Alderson's in town. I'd love to see Reyes on the Mets, at something sane like 3/30. 2008 was a long time ago, in baseball.


Context. Reyes didn't play in spring training and didn't play much in 2009. He was rusty. You can't do that with every player because they don't have the same context.

I think your claim that Reyes, whose 2011 season is going to be his age-28 season, is in his decline years is absurd. Reyes posted an .816 OPS from 2006-2008. He posted an .838 OPS after a month's worth of AB to shake off the rust. I know your argument (selective endpoints) and you know mine (context). We both think the other is ridiculous. That's fine.

And I am not saying that I'd pay Reyes with the assumption that that's his level because I think even you would agree that a shortstop whose actual talent level was an .840 OPS at Citifield would get more than 5y/65m.

If Alderson doesn't go above 3y/30m, there's no chance that the Mets keep Reyes. He'll be an Angel, Red Sox, Giant, etc. Look at the contracts that Figgins and Lackey signed last offseason. Someone is going to pay Reyes. I also think it's not Alderson's job to have a superb Payroll/WAR ratio. It's to win as many games he can with the budget he has.

I also think we both can't be sure what we'd say is an acceptable amount to spend on Reyes without knowing what the budget is going to be.

We also don't know what his 2011 will be. I certainly wouldn't sign him to a long extension this offseason at that money. But if he returned to health and 2006-2008 levels in 2011, at age 28, I'd happily sign him to a long-term extension. Would prefer not to sign him for "at least 5/65", but I guess that's why people create strawmen.
I'm glad there's a GM in town who will evaluate him based on more than just the injuries of 2009-2010 (which, we can all agree, were exacerbated by the previous regime), provided he is healthy in 2011.