There's not a GM alive who would voluntarily impose the biggest 1-yr payroll cut in history on a team that won less than 80 games and didn't have stud kids ready to step in the next season.

There's actually something of a precedent with one of our braintrust who spent money freely when ownership gave him the chance.

My impression of JP Ricciardi's rep through much of his Toronto tenure was that he was a sharp guy who made creative, sometimes bold, moves, doing good things on a limited budget.

Then, I can't recall the exact circumstances, but he got an infusion of cash and he jumped head-first into the free agent market and signed some lucrative long-term deals to lock up a couple of younger stars already in the fold.

Sandy might not have signed a bunch of ill-advised multiyear deals, but if he had the budget, he would have spent to fill some holes.

I'm thinking he would have gone for 3 or 4 guys making a combined 30 mil per year, or so, and given them 2, maybe 3-year deals. That would have put payroll around 120 million, which would be a substantial cut, but would give you a team that could plausibly be sold as a postseason contender.

Yup agreed. Probably wouldn't have been in on the CJ Wilson/Fielder type's but certainly would have looked at the 8-10 million dollar players had the Mets had a "normal" financial situation.

The phrase "meaningful games in September" makes my brain hurt.

If the Mets had no payroll constraints, its very realistic to think this is how the offseason would've gone:

-Resign Reyes (almost assuredly)
-Spend AT LEAST as much on the bullpen as they did - I hope they wouldn't have played in the Papelbon/big $ closer market, but the way that they talked about emphasizing end of games, I have a feeling maybe they would've at least dipped their toes in that water
-Better OF additions than Torres and Loewen (which in turn, of course, cost $$)
-Involved with some of the catcher transactions: Ianetta, Ramon Hernandez
-Midlevel starter: we heard they were interested in Buerhle even WITH the constraints, not unreasonable to think they would've pursued him, or Edwin Jackson (someone in that stratosphere), if they had the $ - who really believes Sandy's "These 5 guys deserve to be in a rotation with no one pushing them" mantra isn't directly related to payroll???


Yeah, the more I consider it, I just don't get the thought that Sandy would have voluntarily not spent money this offseason if there were no constraints and he had $60+ million of payroll coming off from the previous year.

I never said Sandy wouldn't have spent money. I said he wouldn't have committed the entire 50 million in payroll to free agents THIS offseason.

Reyes may have been re-signed, but they wouldn't have gone near Fielder or Pujols or Wilson.

Fielder and Pujols, obviously, since maybe 3 out of our best 4 hitters play 1B as their best spot. Probably not on Wilson but honestly, not sure how you can even say that with certainty - again, they were sniffing around on Buerhle even with the strict constraints so the idea that they are comfortable with our pitching seems off - they HAVE to be comfortable, because they can't afford any more.

But catcher, OF, bullpen almost certainly would have had real money sunk into it, on top of Reyes, with at least another Capuano-type brought in.

Would the payroll be 150m again? Who knows, I guess - you can't spend money if guys don't take it, or there is no one worth offering it to. But there's a long way from 90m to, say, 130m, in talent TODAY and outlook down the road. The idea that this offseason resembled in any way what it would have looked like had there been no financial issues I think is way off.

You know how we talk about 2014 now? That was 2012 a few years ago. This was supposed to be our big windfall offseason.

The offseason you describe is still pretty ugly and wouldn't put the Mets in any more playoff discussions than they are currently IMO. Just goes to show that that the Mets "money issues" are as much about Johan and Bay as they are about Wilpon and Picard.

I think theres ~5ish marginal wins in there, which might take the "reasonable" expectations from mid70's to 80-ish or so, which is in that "few breaks go our way and playofs are in the discussion" realm.

Bay and Santana don't help things, but teams deal with albatrosses. Different stratosphere these days, I know, but Yanks are going to have an $18m mopup man in their bullpen this year, RedSox are paying Lackey and Dice-K about $30m to NOT pitch this year, etc.

At 115m, Reyes is resigned, and someone like an Oswalt is do-able, and inclusive of the other moves...

Reyes, Torres, Wright, Davis, Bay, Duda, Thole, Tejada
Santana, Dickey, Niese, Oswalt and Pelfrey

That is a competitive team, while slashing nearly $30m (more if money was backloaded a la Miami)

Mets aren't going to be a 100 loss team .. anyone who thinks that is insane.

I cannot see them being below 70 wins to be honest.

I am insane.

And nostalgic for meaningful games in September.

RLYW put out another early standings projection, this time using CAIRO, and it has the Mets for 75 wins: http://www.rlyw.net/index.php/RLYW/dire ... _standings

If you look back a page, their previous post projecting the 2012 standings (using Marcel) also had the Mets at 75 wins, which has also been by prediction from the beginning.