2011 Trade Deadline Thread

[snydersminipretzels]

This is a guy playing at a pitcher's paradise' date=' with as much protection as a plastic bag with holes punched through it. He's old. He'll cost money, and atleast Reddick plus another top prospect. But if they made the trade and he sucked, would it really be something you could look at with regret?[/quote']

 

Why would I feel any regret? Why take a huge risk on Ichiro, when Beltran is available?

[FredLynn]

Because that's the ONLY way that the Mets are going to receive anything other than a "thank you" card when Beltran leaves. He cannot be offered arbitration. If the Mets don't want to sell' date=' fine, they can keep him, but they're sure as hell not going to receive anything more than a mid-level prospect for 2 months of Beltran and no supplemental pick.[/quote']

 

I thought Beltran had another year on his contract, but its up this year. He is making about $6M, as is Willingham. Beltran is having a much better season, but there is not a whole lot of difference in career stats with Beltran having a slight edge. Of note is that over the last 28 days Willingham has a OPS of 1.000. I agree with you: the Mets aren't getting a top tier prospect for 2-3m of Beltran. And the A's would get even less if they moved Willingham.

[a700hitter]

I thought Beltran had another year on his contract' date=' but its up this year. He is making about $6M, as is Willingham. Beltran is having a much better season, but there is not a whole lot of difference in career stats with Beltran having a slight edge. Of note is that over the last 28 days Willingham has a OPS of 1.000. I agree with you: the Mets aren't getting a top tier prospect for 2-3m of Beltran. And the A's would get even less if they moved Willingham.[/quote']

Now that you have seen the light, hopefully Theo is also having an epiphany and he is traveling to Flushing, NY with his checkbook in hand. Get it done Theo. There is no better move. If you over think this move, you will screw it up.

[Interestedobserver]

Second tier teams don’t want second tier prospects back simply because they want to fill the market niche of being a sucky team. Organizational filler isn’t going to bring back a good return. Beltran is the premier bat available that at least 6-7 teams are interested in. Put him in Fenway with lineup protection and he’s 900+ ops. He’s also still pretty good in the field and on the bases. The knock on him was if he would be healthy. Since he’s played about every game, that question has been answered. The Mets will eat salary to move him, but they won’t do that to get back filler.

[FredLynn]

Second tier teams don’t want second tier prospects back simply because they want to fill the market niche of being a sucky team. Organizational filler isn’t going to bring back a good return. Beltran is the premier bat available that at least 6-7 teams are interested in. Put him in Fenway with lineup protection and he’s 900+ ops. He’s also still pretty good in the field and on the bases. The knock on him was if he would be healthy. Since he’s played about every game' date=' that question has been answered. The Mets will eat salary to move him, but they won’t do that to get back filler.[/quote']

 

With just one year left on his contract and about 2-3 months of playing time it would be foolish for any GM to surrender a top tier prospect for him. That is not going to happen, and I hope our GM isn't stupid enough to give up a Lavarnay or a Reddick or anyone like them to get Beltran. I would rather hang on to the prospects and take my chances with Reddick playing every day..or explore other options. I can't think of a single instance where Epstein has given up a top tier prospect for a two month rental.

[Interestedobserver]

And as far as WAR goes, Beltran is at 3.3 this season vs. 0.3 for Willingham.

[FredLynn]

And as far as WAR goes' date=' Beltran is at 3.3 this season vs. 0.3 for Willingham.[/quote']

 

Willingham would be cheaper in terms of who we have to give up to get him. And their career numbers are not that different. We don't need a real basher in RF, just some production. Why pay for a Mercedes when all you need is a Prius?

[BornToRun]

Willingham would be cheaper in terms of who we have to give up to get him. And their career numbers are not that different. We don't need a real basher in RF' date=' just some production. [b']Why pay for a Mercedes when all you need is a Prius[/b]?

 

Because what kind of f***ing pussy drives a Prius?

[Interestedobserver]

Willingham would be cheaper in terms of who we have to give up to get him. And their career numbers are not that different. We don't need a real basher in RF' date=' just some production. Why pay for a Mercedes when all you need is a Prius?[/quote']

 

Why win a WS when the playoffs will do?

[Interestedobserver]

And career WAR 60.3 vs. 13.1. They are not equivalent.

[a700hitter]

Because what kind of f***ing pussy drives a Prius?

I hate those plastic death traps. I can run onto a highway faster than you can enter the highway in a Prius in econo-mode.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

I was reading an article and seems to me like Epstein wants to make a move in RF. Just making predictions though read it yourself if you'd like.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110714&content_id=21779698&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

[iortiz]

With just one year left on his contract and about 2-3 months of playing time it would be foolish for any GM to surrender a top tier prospect for him. That is not going to happen' date=' and [b']I hope our GM isn't stupid enough to give up a Lavarnay or a Reddick or anyone like them to get Beltran[/b]. I would rather hang on to the prospects and take my chances with Reddick playing every day..or explore other options. I can't think of a single instance where Epstein has given up a top tier prospect for a two month rental.

 

+1

 

Pure and simple common sense here.

 

Theo: Give them the damn cash if you want to bring him, but for God's sake, DO NOT give 'em a prospect named Reddick, Kalish or sort of...

 

6 MUSD? C'mon!...you spend those with Henry and a bunch of chicks any given weekend in "Las Vegas"

[Interestedobserver]

And Sandy has said he would prefer to eat salary and get a better prospect. That opens up the bidding quite a bit.

[a700hitter]

And Sandy has said he would prefer to eat salary and get a better prospect. That opens up the bidding quite a bit.

The Mets are a full of BS. He'll take prospects if no one offers money. He'll go for $6 million if any team is willing to offer it. That's a substantial chunk of change for 2 months of a player. If we want to preserve our prospects, cut a check for $6 million and that will do the trick.

[Interestedobserver]

Olney's take is Beltran would require an elite prospect. Doesn't mean the Red Sox would pay that price.

 

•The Red Sox, Braves and Phillies would “undoubtedly” love to acquire Carlos Beltran, but all three clubs are distancing themselves from the teams behind them in the standings, so they could decide to acquire a second-tier bat instead of surrendering an elite prospect for Beltran.

 

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

[a700hitter]

Olney's take is Beltran would require an elite prospect. Doesn't mean the Red Sox would pay that price.

 

•The Red Sox, Braves and Phillies would “undoubtedly” love to acquire Carlos Beltran, but all three clubs are distancing themselves from the teams behind them in the standings, so they could decide to acquire a second-tier bat instead of surrendering an elite prospect for Beltran.

 

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

Olney is almost never right about anything.

[Interestedobserver]

And yet you cannot assume the opposite with him and be correct.

[redsoxbeatz]

WHY DO WE NEED MORE OFFENSE???

 

Pitching rotation needs help. Ugh.

[a700hitter]

And yet you cannot assume the opposite with him and be correct.

True, but knowing that he is wrong reduces the possibilities.

 

Without a question, the Mets will not turn down $6 million. If you bring them $6 million and a Junior's Cheese Cake, Beltran goes to your team. They are not interested in freaking prospects. They need the $6 million. If they don't get $6 million, it will be because no one offered it to them. If they say they turned down money, they will be lying. A couple of years ago at the Trading Deadline the Mets claimed to have offered a rich package of prospects for Halladay. The story was never confirmed by Toronto. In fact they never confirmed that they had any negotiations with the Mets. It's things like this that have turned their fanbase against the owners.

[Interestedobserver]

All GMs lie all the time. It's part of the game. However, the Mets just got a $200 million infusion of cash and they have $53 million in salary coming off the books. More if Reyes leaves. They're not behaving like a cash strapped team.

[a700hitter]

All GMs lie all the time. It's part of the game. However' date=' the Mets just got a $200 million infusion of cash and they have $53 million in salary coming off the books. More if Reyes leaves. They're not behaving like a cash strapped team.[/quote']They needed the $200 million to make payroll. They are going to lose an estimated $70 million this season. MLB made them take on the minority owner, and they have to repay the entire $200 million in two years or the minority owner can buy 60% controlling interest for $1. If that's not being strapped for cash, I don't know what is. They are desperate.

[Interestedobserver]

IIRC, that $70 million figure is only for the team and does not take account of the TV station which they own a big chunk of and which is highly profitable. Most teams receive a check from a TV station, but the Mets don't since they're owned by the same owners. So, yeah $70 million may be true, although the books are private. But if need be, they can have an accounting clerk post a journal entry.

[a700hitter]

IIRC' date=' that $70 million figure is only for the team and does not take account of the TV station which they own a big chunk of and which is highly profitable. Most teams receive a check from a TV station, but the Mets don't since they're owned by the same owners. So, yeah $70 million may be true, although the books are private. But if need be, they can have an accounting clerk post a journal entry.[/quote']

I'm guessing that you guys are screwing with me and creating new screen names to ask the same questions to see how many times I will repeat myself. LoL! The Mets have been in dire financial condition since 2009. They have had unpublicized private meetings with Selig since 2009, because of their financial difficulties. They have had trouble making payroll for 2 years. They have cut staffing etc., but now they are on the precipice. MLB ordered them to sell part of the team to get liquidity to meet payroll. No one would give them $200 million as a silent partner, because the Wilpons are imbeciles. The only way that someone gave them the money was as part of an elaborate gambling wager. In 2 years they get back the $200 million or they own 60% of the team. Does that sound like something that a healthy franchise would do?

[Interestedobserver]

I have only one screen name. The Mets to my knowledge are a private organization. They do not publicize their finances. So, any financial data are conjecture. Their real problem is with the Maddoff lawsuit which alleges they MADE money from Maddoff. They took on debt to build a stadium, set up a TV station, and to buy out a co-owner. There were clauses in the sale contract that if they built a stadium, they had to make additional payments to the owner who was bought out. All of these moves made business sense. However the down economy together with the Maddoff lawsuits is making debt service difficult.

 

The Wilpons also have substantial real estate holdings which are illiquid and which they don't want to convert to cash at this time. The fact they made a deal where they lose control of the organization could also indicate they are confident in two year’s time that this clause will not be used. However, there are conflicting reports whether that story on those conversion terms is even true. Be very careful of making statements about finances with no knowledge of either the underlying data or how those figures are calculated. They may very well have a clause that their new owner must share in any payroll expenses.

 

At any rate, they are not behaving as if they need to eat Beltran’s contract. They may very well decide to do so in order to dispel rumors. Bottom line is they’re better off driving the best deal they can for Beltran and in this trade market he should cost a minimum of a B prospect.

[a700hitter]

I have only one screen name. The Mets to my knowledge are a private organization. They do not publicize their finances. So, any financial data are conjecture. Their real problem is with the Maddoff lawsuit which alleges they MADE money from Maddoff. They took on debt to build a stadium, set up a TV station, and to buy out a co-owner. There were clauses in the sale contract that if they built a stadium, they had to make additional payments to the owner who was bought out. All of these moves made business sense. However the down economy together with the Maddoff lawsuits is making debt service difficult.

 

The Wilpons also have substantial real estate holdings which are illiquid and which they don't want to convert to cash at this time. The fact they made a deal where they lose control of the organization could also indicate they are confident in two year’s time that this clause will not be used. However, there are conflicting reports whether that story on those conversion terms is even true. Be very careful of making statements about finances with no knowledge of either the underlying data or how those figures are calculated. They may very well have a clause that their new owner must share in any payroll expenses.

 

At any rate, they are not behaving as if they need to eat Beltran’s contract. They may very well decide to do so in order to dispel rumors. Bottom line is they’re better off driving the best deal they can for Beltran and in this trade market he should cost a minimum of a B prospect.

Are you the Wilpon attorney... maybe Milton Wilpon? Lol!!!

 

I know people that work for the Mets. The meetings with Selig and MLB are not conjecture, and neither are the stories about them laying off workers, nor the fact that MLB forced them to take on a minority partner. That doesn't sound like a healthy financial situation. At the beginning of the season, the rumor going around was that if their per game ticket sales dropped 5-7,000 that they would be unable to service their debt, and they would have to sell the team.

[a700hitter]

I have only one screen name.

I think you are the latest incarnation of Dutchy.

[AtWork]

They needed the $200 million to make payroll. They are going to lose an estimated $70 million this season. MLB made them take on the minority owner' date=' and they have to repay the entire $200 million in two years or the minority owner can buy 60% controlling interest for $1. If that's not being strapped for cash, I don't know what is. They are desperate.[/quote']

 

You do realize Wilpon's a billionaire, right? He doesn't need to dump $6 million in baseball salaries to come up with that money. And if he does sell the team, it will decrease Mets revenue which he could use to front the bill.

[a700hitter]

You do realize Wilpon's a billionaire' date=' right? He doesn't need to dump $6 million in baseball salaries to come up with that money. And if he does sell the team, it will decrease Mets revenue which he could use to front the bill.[/quote']That must explain why he was forced by MLB to take on a partner, who wants a controlling interest in the team. Yes, that makes so much sense, and all those stories floating around about them being forced to sell the team are just created out of thin air. You are Dutchy aren't you?

[AtWork]

Can you link to a legit source that says Wilpon's being forced to sell the Mets?