Brewers shopping Hader - Could pull in Mets

[bmags]

Per Rosenthal

https://theathletic.com/1424759/2019/12/01/rosenthal-josh-hader-faces-a-unique-offseason-red-sox-weigh-jackie-bradley-jr-s-value-phillies-exits-more-notes/

Quote

The Mets are one team to watch, though it is not known whether conversations with the Brewers regarding Hader have taken place. Mets GM Brodie Van Wagenen, in his previous job as an agent for CAA, represented Hader along with Ricatto. Berry, who recently landed a combined $74 million in free-agent contracts for left-handed relievers Will Smith and Drew Pomeranz, entered the picture after Van Wagenen left the agency.

Van Wagenen demonstrated last offseason how much he liked his former players, acquiring second baseman Robinson Canó in a trade, signing free-agent infielder Jed Lowrie and pursuing a trade for catcher J.T. Realmuto. No doubt Van Wagenen likes Hader, too.

cc @Harold's Leg Lift

This tracks a bit with the idea that a Nimmo trade may require someone like Bummer as the mets are adding.

The Brodie Van Wagenen thing with former clients definitely seems to be a thing the industry is tracking. 

[BackDoorBreach]

He would be so costly.  If we ended up with Hader and got a bounceback from Treinen though. 

 

[SoCalChiSox]

I wouldn't do Nimmo for Bummer straight up. Nimmo is hurt too much and I don't see the power there. 

Id prefer Joc....although I wouldnt give up multiple years of Bummer for him, either.

 

 

[bmags]

Relevant re: mets

 

[BackDoorBreach]

That Cano contract is awful.

[Balta1701]

Just now, BackDoorBreach said:

That Cano contract is awful.

I wish people understood - it was not a bad contract at all. It was bad for the team that signed it, but it was not a bad contract. He has been worth 21 fWAR over the first 6 years of his deal - people would pay $200 million to get that performance on the free agent market. If you're a team right on the cusp of contending and you signed that deal,  Robinson Cano could easily have put you into the playoffs in several of those seasons. That's exactly the kind of production you'd hope for, and you're signing a 10 year deal rather than a 6 year deal because the back few years allow you to spread out the cost, so that you're not paying him $50 million a year in the first 3 years of the deal when he's the most productive.

The problem was not the contract. The steroids thing isn't nice, but aside from that. The problem was that the Mariners, the team signing him, did not have enough in the tank to get anywhere close to the playoffs when they added him. They weren't an 87 win team, they were a 71 win team that made a 16 win jump and it wasn't enough to make the playoffs. It was a bad contract for the Mariners, but a legitimate team signing him could have easily been content with their trophy even if they had to figure out what to do with the last few years of the deal.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

8 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I wish people understood - it was not a bad contract at all. It was bad for the team that signed it, but it was not a bad contract. He has been worth 21 fWAR over the first 6 years of his deal - people would pay $200 million to get that performance on the free agent market. If you're a team right on the cusp of contending and you signed that deal,  Robinson Cano could easily have put you into the playoffs in several of those seasons. That's exactly the kind of production you'd hope for, and you're signing a 10 year deal rather than a 6 year deal because the back few years allow you to spread out the cost, so that you're not paying him $50 million a year in the first 3 years of the deal when he's the most productive.

The problem was not the contract. The steroids thing isn't nice, but aside from that. The problem was that the Mariners, the team signing him, did not have enough in the tank to get anywhere close to the playoffs when they added him. They weren't an 87 win team, they were a 71 win team that made a 16 win jump and it wasn't enough to make the playoffs. It was a bad contract for the Mariners, but a legitimate team signing him could have easily been content with their trophy even if they had to figure out what to do with the last few years of the deal.

I mean... he got a 10 year contract, and after 5 years it looks like it's a huge loss.

He was a .8 WAR player in the 6th year. If he continues that downward trajectory, he's basically worthless years 6-10 of the deal. 

I don't think they wanted to get 21 WAR over 10 years. If he puts up anything less than 25 WAR, which looks very likely at this point, at the time he signed the contract that would make it a bad deal.

Edited December 2, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I mean... he got a 10 year contract, and after 5 years it looks like it's a huge loss.

He was a .8 WAR player in the 6th year. If he continues that downward trajectory, he's basically worthless years 6-10 of the deal. 

I don't think they wanted to get 21 WAR over 10 years. If he puts up anything less than 30 WAR, which looks very likely at this point, at the time he signed the contract that would make it a bad deal.

If you're disappointed with 21 WAR on a $240 million deal then you don't understand the free agent market. It's not the best deal ever, but there's  no way on Earth you should be furious about that level of performance. The last few years stink, but that's the cost you're paying to deal with the first few years. 

Be furious when your 71 win team signs that deal, not about the deal itself. 

[BackDoorBreach]

8 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I wish people understood - it was not a bad contract at all. It was bad for the team that signed it, but it was not a bad contract. He has been worth 21 fWAR over the first 6 years of his deal - people would pay $200 million to get that performance on the free agent market. If you're a team right on the cusp of contending and you signed that deal,  Robinson Cano could easily have put you into the playoffs in several of those seasons. That's exactly the kind of production you'd hope for, and you're signing a 10 year deal rather than a 6 year deal because the back few years allow you to spread out the cost, so that you're not paying him $50 million a year in the first 3 years of the deal when he's the most productive.

The problem was not the contract. The steroids thing isn't nice, but aside from that. The problem was that the Mariners, the team signing him, did not have enough in the tank to get anywhere close to the playoffs when they added him. They weren't an 87 win team, they were a 71 win team that made a 16 win jump and it wasn't enough to make the playoffs. It was a bad contract for the Mariners, but a legitimate team signing him could have easily been content with their trophy even if they had to figure out what to do with the last few years of the deal.

I'm talking about the Mets actually trading for him.  They are paying 50+ million dollars between Cano and Cespedes the next 2 years.  That is a huge waste of money and is crushing them.

[Balta1701]

Just now, BackDoorBreach said:

I'm talking about the Mets actually trading for him.  They are paying 50+ million dollars between Cano and Cespedes the next 2 years.  That is a huge waste of money and is crushing them.

You can give me "The Cano trade is so awful" and i have nothing left to say. Aren't the M's covering at least a portion of Cano's deal?

[turnin' two]

They should just non tender him.  I mean, he is only a 2 WAR (ish) player, so he wouldn't command any real return.  That's how this works right?  WAR is everything? ?

[BackDoorBreach]

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

You can give me "The Cano trade is so awful" and i have nothing left to say. Aren't the M's covering at least a portion of Cano's deal?

Mariners gave the Mets 20 million at the time of the trade only lol. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

12 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

If you're disappointed with 21 WAR on a $240 million deal then you don't understand the free agent market. It's not the best deal ever, but there's  no way on Earth you should be furious about that level of performance. The last few years stink, but that's the cost you're paying to deal with the first few years. 

Be furious when your 71 win team signs that deal, not about the deal itself. 

Paying for the first few years? Pal, you're not signing 10 year deals in hopes of getting 5 good years. No one is doing that. 50% of the contract cannot be an albatross - especially when he simply played to the contracts value the first 5 years, he certainly didn't exceed the value of the contract. Had he greatly exceeded the contracts value early, you'd have more of an argument, but he didn/t

21 WAR over 240 million is not a good outcome. lt's actually WORSE than what teams pay per WAR when factoring in all the bad contracts as well. This means it falls on the wrong side of the normal curve, and it is in fact a bad contract. That's 11.5 million/per WAR when, at the time, teams were paying 8.5 million/WAR. That means that contract is 35% worse than the expected outcome, which is not a good deal by any means - especially when you consider that "good contracts" need to fall on the other side of the 8.5/WAR curve. 8.5/WAR just means it wasn't as bad as it could be, but it certainly wasn't "good."

Obviously if he throws out a couple league average years of 2WAR, this moves the needle closer to the 8.5 number, but I don't think anyone could argue this was a good deal.

I actually do understand the free agent market, which is why I am saying if you fall on the right side of the curve you should not be happy with the outcome.

Edited December 2, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Balta1701]

Isn't $11.5 mil per WAR roughly what we calculated Rick Hahn had paid on average even when including the Abreu deal?

[bmags]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Isn't $11.5 mil per WAR roughly what we calculated Rick Hahn had paid on average even when including the Abreu deal?

I think it was lower, around 9.5.

 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

Just now, Balta1701 said:

Isn't $11.5 mil per WAR roughly what we calculated Rick Hahn had paid on average even when including the Abreu deal?

Yeah, and Hahn has been absolutely awful in FA and has been ripped and ridiculed endlessly for his participation and lack of success in that market... You've certainly been HIGHLY critical of him, and rightfully so, yet here you are defending the Cano deal which falls in line with the value the Sox have been getting out of FA. You can't have it both ways.

[bmags]

The cano deal isn’t why mets are in trouble, their owners aren’t putting in the resources that an NY market should because they still have the type of cash problems that people think the ricketts have.

[Jack Parkman]

20 minutes ago, bmags said:

The cano deal isn’t why mets are in trouble, their owners aren’t putting in the resources that an NY market should because they still have the type of cash problems that people think the ricketts have.

The Wilpons lost ~30% of their fortune to the Bernie Madoff scam. Madoff is directly responsible for Bobby Bonilla day. 

Edited December 2, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

5 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

The Wilpons lost ~30% of their fortune to the Bernie Madoff scam. 

This is not true. Wilpon lost nothing in the Madoff scandal - regardless of how much he and his family played themselves off as just another victim.

Wilpon made a ton of money working WITH Madoff. Anything they "lost" at the end was, at worse, a wash for the Wilpons. Knowing how these people handle and move money though, there's no chance they lost money with the Madoff scandal. They came out well ahead; as has been reported by others that aren't me. There's a reason they were sued along with Bernie and it's because that POS was complicit but escaped criminal prosecution. Fuck the Wilpons.

 

edit; just to clarify, the only reason the Wilpons had the money to buy the Mets in the first place was because of their dealings with scum like Madoff. They're not suffering because of Madoff, they're just closer to their reality of net-worth.

Edited December 2, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Jack Parkman]

2 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

This is not true. Wilpon lost nothing in the Madoff scandal - regardless of how much he and his family played themselves off as just another victim.

Wilpon made a ton of money working WITH Madoff. Anything they "lost" at the end was, at worse, a wash for the Wilpons. Knowing how these people handle and move money though, there's no chance they lost money with the Madoff scandal. They came out well ahead; as has been reported by others that aren't me. There's a reason they were sued along with Bernie and it's because that POS was complicit but escaped criminal prosecution. Fuck the Wilpons.

Really? They have no reason to cry poor and b**** about Bonilla then. I was under the impression that they were scammed out of ~1/3 of their fortune. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

Just now, Jack Parkman said:

Really? They have no reason to cry poor and b**** about Bonilla then. I was under the impression that they were scammed out of ~1/3 of their fortune. 

Negative. The Wilpons scammed a shit ton of people with Bernie. Bernie tried to cover for Fred when he was busted and claims "he knew nothing about the Ponzi Scheme" but Fred isn't a dumb guy; there were tons of huge red flags regarding their absurd return rates from Bernie's "investments." It was rather obvious what was going on, but people like Fred figured they'd ride the wave out because it was incredibly lucrative to them. People at the bottom bought into the absurd return guarantees and etc because they were naive - someone like Fred Wilpon cannot claim that same naivety. 

Bottom line, Fred benefited greatly from the scam - he benefited more than almost anyone else in involved. He is scum, and shouldn't be allowed to own a MLB team. 

[Chicago White Sox]

30 minutes ago, bmags said:

The cano deal isn’t why mets are in trouble, their owners aren’t putting in the resources that an NY market should because they still have the type of cash problems that people think the ricketts have.

They’re projected payroll is only $10M less than the competitive tax threshold.  Maybe they should be able to go higher, but it’s not like they are spending like a mid-market team.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

They’re projected payroll is only $10M less than the competitive tax threshold.  Maybe they should be able to go higher, but it’s not like they are spending like a mid-market team.

It feels like the Mets have alternated off-seasons between "competing" and "blowing it up" about 6 years in a row. It's a weird way to operate, and doesn't really make a lot of sense from a messaging standpoint. As an organization, it seems there are far too many messages and directions coming out.

[mqr]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

It feels like the Mets have alternated off-seasons between "competing" and "blowing it up" about 6 years in a row. It's a weird way to operate, and doesn't really make a lot of sense from a messaging standpoint. As an organization, it seems there are far too many messages and directions coming out.

Nothing about the Mets has made sense for about as long as I've been alive. 

[bmags]

Just now, Chicago White Sox said:

They’re projected payroll is only $10M less than the competitive tax threshold.  Maybe they should be able to go higher, but it’s not like they are spending like a mid-market team.

They drop $50 million off the books next year and likely were insured on cespedes so the lux tax is their only concern (i.e. their expenditures are likely lower than 185). They could easily go past this year and dip next. But if they were truly interested in Hader the idea that they need to dump salary for him is silly. They need a CF and bp help. If they want him they can get him, if they don't than they don't. They shouldn't have any structural money concerns here.

But their investment goes past just salaries, their entire org should be revamped.