Comments on: Buzz: Mets Among Teams Interested in Jack Cust

By: Mets5rocks

Mets5rocks — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:47:56 +0000

I haven’t heard, seen , or read anything that came out of Jeff Wilpons mouth that said anything about the payroll being the same in 2010 as it was for 2009! What he did say is ” The Mets will continue to have one of the highest payrolls in Major League Baseball.” That in itself says nothing about the payroll being the same! You could well be right to assume that it will be the same, but it could also be less, as well as more than the payroll in 09. My point is that there are way too many people writers bloggers, posters what have you all claiming to know what the Mets will spend on the 2010 team. The funny thing is that this elusive payroll number that everyone claims to know seems to change by the day depending on who you ask. In the end nobody knows what the Mets have in mind for a payroll figure except the Wilpons and Omar himself.

By: dcgfan1

dcgfan1 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:53:42 +0000

Agees Catch says:
November 23, 2009 at 12:22 pm
shirley, you jest

We jest, and don’t call me Shirey.

By: MrMustSeeTv

MrMustSeeTv — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:26:59 +0000

I am basing my assesment on the what the Mets are publicly stating. Jeff Wilpon has stated that the payroll for 2010 will remain the same as in 2009, which was $145M.

The Mets have $39.35M coming off of the books after this past season, but have contractually obligated increases for four of their core players (Johan Santana (+$1M), David Wright (+$2.5M), Jose Reyes (+$3.25M) and Francisco Rodriguez (+$3.0M)) totaling $9.75M. This means that the real amount available for the Mets to spend this offseason is $29.75M. So unless the Mets increase their payroll in 2010, they only have about $30M to spend this offseason.

You can see a further breakdown at New York Born, New York Bred. http://bit.ly/6KBGvi

By: Ceetar

Ceetar — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:22:19 +0000

Rather Nick Evans than Tatis.

Tatis didn’t play defense, he was mostly adequate at best. I wish he’d had 25 home runs or a .375 OBP..

By: Mets5rocks

Mets5rocks — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:21:33 +0000

We have 3 of those already, why add another? Especially since he’s not exactly tearing the cover off the ball!

By: hot stove chef

hot stove chef — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:18:36 +0000

1B option?

By: Mets5rocks

Mets5rocks — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:16:51 +0000

What are you a writer? You don’t have any more clue as to what the Mets can and will spend then the writers do!

By: Mets5rocks

Mets5rocks — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:13:37 +0000

We already had that with Tatis and he could actually play defense! If this is the kind of options the Mets are looking at for the bench they might as well re-sign Tatis (a move I would hate, but if it’s him or Cust then clearly you might as well re-sign him)

By: metskat

metskat — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:06:31 +0000

…why would have even the slightest interest in an OF who cannot play defense……and its not like his batting is that great either…

By: MrMustSeeTv

MrMustSeeTv — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:52:25 +0000

Since the Mets only have about $30M to spend this offseason, I don’t think that they should be wasting it on one-dimensional players like Jack Cust. $4M for a bench player?! I don’t think so.

The reality is that the Mets will not land two top-tier free agents because they simply cannot fit them within their $145M budget. Given their available offseason budget (roughly $30M), the Mets could sign: (i) 1 top-tier free agent; (ii) 1 middle-tier free agent; and (iii) 1-2 lower-tier free agents.

For instance, for $30M the Mets could sign: (i) John Lackey; (ii) Mike Cameron to play LF; (iii) Ivan Rodriguez to split time at C with Omir Santos until Josh Thole is ready to replace one of them; (iv) sign a Ron Mahay-type of reliever; and (iv) have enough payroll flexibility to make a run at trading for Adrian Gonzalez, who will be making less than $5M in 2010.