That’s great. Actual physical contract. Now, can you move?
After Dickey called out the Mets for an incredibly low contract offer, the team decided to revisit the playbook they used with Anna Benson, and with various players they’ve disagreed with in recent years; they attacked.
From today’s Post:
The Mets, meanwhile, have mounting concerns whether all of Dickey’s off-the-field endeavors could impact his on-field results or his standing in the clubhouse if the perception is that he has become too absorbed with his new celebrity.
The Mets already were annoyed, The Post has learned, Dickey last week turned down a personal appearance request from owner Fred Wilpon.
Here’s Dickey, meanwhile: “In the context of the market, you want what you think is fair. I feel like we’re asking for less than what’s fair because that’s how it’s been for me. There is a surprise sometimes when things don’t get done quickly and you already think you’re extending the olive branch. At the same time, they have a budget they have to adhere to. I don’t know those numbers. And I try not to take it personally.”
That must be hard, when your team’s management is suggesting anonymously, and on the basis of no apparent real-life evidence, that your ego is having an impact on your ability to play well and be a good teammate.
Repoz
Posted: December 12, 2012 at 03:51 PM |
215 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
mets
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.
Edit: Damn it! Bubbly refreshment to the Chef.
The Mets already were annoyed, The Post has learned, Dickey last week turned down a personal appearance request from owner Fred Wilpon.
I love this, too. The Wilpons are just so, so...yech.
He's well-informed, well-spoken and universally popular, and he is reportedly asking for an extremely reasonable contract. He is the opposite of Manny Ramirez.
Plus, his story, the long and difficult road he endured before finally achieving his great success, is compelling as hell. He's the furthest thing from a spoiled brat superstar.
The Mets say that like it's a bad thing.
coke to asinwreck.
EDIT: And yes, #6 is brilliant ... and awesome.
SPeaking of which..Sox should be all over this. Make it happen!...without giving into the Mets extravagent demands of course.
Like #15 said, it's unbelievable and unfathomable.
No, the Wilpons are just total scum.
I hate them, and I dislike the Mets.
Taking these shots at him in the press is pretty bush league though. Seems like it has Jeff Wilpon written all over it, no?
Yes, and there's also a chance that the Marlins will relocate to Montréal.
Since when is the Mets doing something incredibly dumb unbelievable and unfathomable?
Nah, the Mets won't trade in division. He should get Arizona involved too. He can probably get Upton and Dickey for three C+ prospects and some pocket lint.
Best response to that question.
Don't make me talk about your commute into hell.
It never ends with this guy. My son's SI arrived today, and who's on the cover but RA Dickey, out there seeking publicity once again for himself (and his history of childhood sexual abuse and his willingness to step forward and talk about it).
When have the Wilpons every crapped on a player, then signed/extended him?
Sad to say, it's very believable and very, er, fathomable.
This demands the question, "Beginning?"
What a shameless poser!
Seriously, you guys might think I'm just a Nats fan enjoying the clusterfark, but I'm not, not really. As I said earlier, I've been a Dickey fan since his days with the Mariners (when he still wasn't all that great...but showed occasional flashes of the greatness he would later harness consistently). I'm authentically galled by this bullshit. Mets don't want to extend Dickey at extremely reasonable terms? Sure, fine, okay -- that's as dumb in its own way as anything Dayton Moore or Kevin Towers have done recently, but it's not an offense against decency. THIS though, this asinine attempt at trying to run his character down, this John Henry-style crap...this is disgusting. (It would be bad enough if Dickey were asking for unreasonably high contract -- hey, why should that affect his character? -- but it moves into the realm of "outrageous" given that he's actually offering damn generous terms.)
Friggin' Wilpons.
Why ever crap on a player? Even one who isn't a seemingly great guy with an obviously great story? What does it gain a team? I know there is supposed to be a PR boost when/if you get rid of him but anyone over the age of 7 today knows that's the game. All it seems to do is make the ownership/management look bad.
And couldn't that PR boost actually hurt you with getting players back?(assuming the other GM's are as gullible as what you think the common people are?)
I agree with the point, after all as a Cardinal fans, I've seen plenty of players who we have traded or let go, return to the team as either players, coaches, announcing or managers. There is something to say about maintaining good spirits with all of your employees.
Kind of what I was thinking, this is a guy who reinvented himself to stick to the majors, this is EXACTLY the guy you want as a coach in your minor leagues.
If Fred Wilpon had only turned down that personal appearance request for lunch with Bernie Madoff, we wouldn't be discussing the need to lowball RA Dickey.
Isn't that money a lot less valuable in the future than it is now? -shrug- I never understood why this was so horrible for the Mets, but I admit I'm nothing close to an economist.
* Unfortunate but we can't really blame Dickey for this.
They said that about the Romanovs, too.
Just so I'm clear, you're advocating the Wilpons be shot in a mine?
I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Well, maybe Selig.
Which creates all sorts of disturbing questions in my mind.
He's made $8M the last 2 years(not counting outside activities), about $10M in his career.
What if he gambles and loses? According to FanGraphs his worst year of the last three (2011) has been worth $11.1M, and FIP undervalues knucklers, BBref has his 2011 about 10% more valuable, so $12M and at the expected market range for WAR in 2014 would likely be worth $16M-$20M (an average starter should soon be worth $12M+ year)..
Obviously injury is the worst risk, so if he has TJ in 2013 what could he make in 2014-2015? It's not unreasonable to think someone will take a flyer on him at least for $5M covering both seasons (probably something like $3M with $10M option and $2M buyout). So one of his absolute worst case scenarios is to end with gross career earnings of about $19M,.
If he just has a mediocre year next year, say a 105 ERA+ over 210 innings, the Mets are in a really tough spot. They either lose him with no compensation, or make a qualifying offer, which means he could make another $13M in 2014 if he accepts. In fact a lot of his downside is making only $18M over the next 2 years, so what's so great about making $25M over 3 years?
What could he win by gambling? His last three years have been worth $43M, or $14M per year according to Fangraphs knuckler devaluing formula. BBRef puts him over 20% higher in WAR, so $17M/year. In the new spending era those years may be worth as much as $25M on average (and 2012 worth $35M). And this is a guy with some potential upside left, who has over the last 4 years made a steady progression of improvement, as if he's finally "figured it out", and with a style famous for the career longevity of its practitioners.
If he puts together another solid season, say midway between 2011 and 2012, maybea 3.3 ERA over 220 innings, he could very easily get a 2 year $45M deal or a 3 year $60M deal. So the upside of his gamble is to make an extra $25M over the next three years.
The mets are offering to fix hs worst case career earnings at the end of 2015 at $35M, but if he gambles he's still nearly a lock for $20M in career earnings (and that happens probably less than one time in ten, certainly less than the 2 year $18M downside scenario) and he could make $60M in career earnings by the end of 2015 maybe 1 in 4 times.
It seems like Dickey would be foolish not to gamble. First, he doesn't seem like a big spender, so 2013 alone is probably enough to retire on (given the lucrative pension he's in line for too). Secondly the utility between the after tax of $35M (maybe $14M) and $20M (maybe $8M) isnt that great a risk, esp. with a six figure pension. Thirdly, it's unlikely he'll ever have an opportunity ever again to get a significant multiyear deal,, by 2015 he may be back to 1 year deals and a league average pitcher. He only needs one more solid year to cash in.
And most importantly of all, he can stick it to those dirty Wilpons and get himself to a much better team.That has a psychic utility that must be huge after the whiny backstabbing character assassination they just attempted..
The Mets have more risk here and they just made it worse.
The GOP is going to cave so hard in negotiations the top tax rate goes up to 60%?
(I kid because I love)
To be clear, I totally agree. Based on what's actually provided we have a sportswriter who's jumped ahead of the actual data. I like Howard, but he doesn't have much in the article to back up his claim.
I am of course predisposed to believe that the Mets are doing something crass and stupid. (but I'm closer to Ray on the actual situation than most people here. Failing to extend Dickey could make objective sense)
It's not only Madoff (as you do mention) - in 2000, people had gotten used to the idea that merely by investing in the broad stock market one was guaranteed ~10% a year. 10% for Madoff actually would have been an off year. The Wilpons, like a lot of other people, simply assumed blue skies were going to last forever. They were indeed astoundingly wrong.
Clinton era top rates plus NYC top rate is roughly 47%. Then you have agents fees/commissions.
And you have to spend something on living expenses, my guess was Dickey couldnt save more than 40% of his gross salary.
I seem to remember that MLB players pays taxes where the games are played (which must be an accountant's wet dream/nightmare), so they don't have to pay NYC taxes for half the salary.
I'm confused. What claim?
April 14, 2000 was the NASDAQ tech crash. A lot of people took that as a sign to back off a bit.
This math seems kind of off. The Mets offer is 2/16 for 2014/2015. It would mean a total of $21 million for the next 3 years. He's made 7.8 MM so far on his current contract, so that would put him at just under $30 MM for his career.
What people are losing sight of is that he's been worth at least 15 MM per season for the last 3 years. The Mets have and will be getting a deep, deep discount on his services. It's a little insulting to turn around and try to lowball him after all of the contributions he made over the past 3 seasons.
This is a pretty humble guy, he's not making any ridiculous demands for either money or contract length. But if he pitches well next year someone is going to offer him a lot more than 2 years for 26 MM.
According to Cots his career earnings are about $10M, including this year, because of a bunch of minimum wage MLB seasons.
If the Mets really are only offering a 2/$16M extension after the $5M option for next year, it's completely ludicrous. If he's just decent next year he'll make $16M a year or more as a free agent, and again the Mets have to make him 1 year/$13M qualifying offer (or $14M-$15M given rising ave. salaries) just to get any compensation when he leaves. He only has to gamble for a single season, and likely less (when he's traded the acquiring team will likely snap offer a 2/$30M extension to lock him down).
The Mets were clearly afraid if they offer anything that's even close to a reasonable home team discount Dickey would have taken it, so they lowballed him far below that as a PR ploy to the fans while they focus on their number one plan, trading him.
When one of the best people in baseball works for two of the worst people in baseball, a parting of the ways is as far from a tragedy as possible
Posted elsewhere, but if your pitching is as thin as just about any team in the majors, and you're trading a Cy Young winner willing to sign at worst a reasonable extension in order to get an OF hitting prospect, your organization is probably screwed whether you keep Dickey or not.
In which case, pay him.
I don't give a #### about the Wilpons' pocketbook, but isn't there probably a point at which your team is so uninteresting that it gets little coverage, people stop thinking of your .450 team's Thursday game at least as kind of a fun place to take the kids? Dickey's brought the team a lot of good publicity. With his book, his story, his hike on Kilimanjaro, he's brought them more pub than Wright, and will probably continue to do so. Shouldn't that translate into dollars (Howard certainly has a better sense of how many dollars than I would), and shouldn't that add at least a little to what the Mets are willing to offer Dickey?
This isn't a case where your best player, more of less, wants 6/108 and you really, really think 5/75 is what he's worth. Losing your ace and most popular player over a utility infielder's salary because "you've got him over a barrel" is fantastically shortsighted.
Yup. The Cardinals handling of Pujols in his walk year was an example of good PR. The Wilpon's lowball offer to Dickey is no more convincing than their silly offer last year to Reyes. It's not credible to anyone paying any attention to the situation.
edit: Metsblog has the offer as 2/16 at the Winter Meetings, boosted to 2/20.
http://metsblog.com/rumors/ra-dickey/mets-increase-contract-offer-to-dickey-trade-to-texas-unlikely/
How would you structure an option year in an offer to Dickey? The Mets are afraid of Dickey's being bad, or out of the game by 2016, not that he's going to be chugging along at his 2012 level and they won't be able to sign him after the 2015 season.
While this is most certainly a reasonable request from the Mets, it would leave the Jays with either Arencibia or Buck trying to catch a knuckler. That's not something I particularly want to see.
2m signing bonus
10m ea for 2014 and 2015
6m 2016 option or 2m buyout
Why was he limited to 67 games in 2012?
So you're going 2/3 of the way to Dickey's asking price of 2/26, with the possibility of a great deal for the Mets in 2016?
Seems not unreasonable, but I'm not sure how to evaluate the option. It probably tilts the offer to the point where the Mets aren't going halfway.
He tore his PCL in June.
What sort of horrible thing have I done to you to deserve such hatred?
Would you prefer Rob Johnson?
#82: If you were hitting at Las Vegas, you probably wouldn't take very many pitches either. Following Blue Jay hitting/pitching prospects since they relocated the AAA team to Vegas has been really tricky-- Arencibia put up a .624 slugging percentage there in 2010, with 32 homers. They can't get out of that league fast enough.
Nickeas really is a far better player than his numbers indicate. I promise.
I would hope so, as it's damn hard to imagine he could be worse.
Also, you're right about the Las Vegas issue. The Jays have moved their AAA team to Buffalo for next year, which should make it a lot easier to figure out whether or not these hitting (and pitching) prospects are actually any good, or just products of a completely unbalanced hitting environment.
Come on - read the context. It's not a comment on the quality of the offer. They've made it known they're looking for 2 top prospects. They have an offer they would do, but are looking for an "even better" one. What actually materializes remains to be seen. It does sound like RA is as good as gone though.
Prepare to be sad. Robothal is reporting an agreement with Toronto. It's just being held up, as Dickey doesn't want to agree to an extension.
BTW, this is ###### up.
As I recall they didn't even offer him arbitration, which was also sad.
That sounds like a pretty significant hold-up.
EDIT: And, now that one's being denied.
I'm sorry Mets fans.... but your organization is utterly ###### up if they trade Dickey, even if they get what they want. This should never have gotten to this point, and it's ridiculous that it has. I just wished the Cardinals would have said "We'll give you two of the following Garcia, Taveras, Rosenthal, Martinez or Miller"... or maybe just Taveras straight up or something. And we don't even really need a pitcher.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main