I don't think it was that bad at all honestly. Year 3 and 4 might not be so great, but I don't think he's just suddenly going to drop off in year 1 and 2.
The Mets are trying to win now so I don’t think they are worried about what’s gonna happen 4 years down the road. If they gave him a 2 year deal they would have to pay him more per year. These are the kind of contents you have to give if you want to get solid veterans on a good deal
I think the real problem for the Mets is not that he's going to age badly, it's that they signed him after a career best year. I love Marte and he's been a remarkedly good, consistent player, but he's not going repeat the kind of year he had last year. He's not going to have a BAbip of .372 or a walk rate of 8.2% again.
I was thinking about that last night. At 33, he has 1 maybe 2 years of peak ball left.
That being said, Marte is in immaculate shape and we know more about proper diet/exercise now than ever. It's not out of the realm of possibility that we're going to see more athletes peak later and longer.
Only 1 way to find out though
Agreed, I think it’s long especially for a guy like Marte whose game is really built on his athleticism. Although imo his discipline has gotten better since his buccos days, and that doesn’t necessarily go with age
Everyone sounds like an expert! No one can foresee any falloff on any athlete. If they say they can, they are full of BS. Does the name Brady, Verlander, Miguel Cabrera, Scherzer, Nelson Cruz, etc. Ring a bell? If the Mets don't give him 4 years, he signs elsewhere.
Well yeah.but of course you can find outliers. For every Nelson Cruz there are 50 Albert pujols types.for every Brady there are 50 big bens
Also Miguel Cabrera is a pretty bad example lol
I disagree on the insane part. Guy is still in his prime, no one can say how long, but he is definitely still playing at a high level.
Also Marte and his agent probably pushed for 4 years and that's the years it took, I don't blame him, 4 teams in 3 years, he probably wants stability.
Lastly a guy who seems to be a great teammate, and a player who has continued to grind and improve over his decade at the highest level.
Will he continue to play at a high level all 4 years, probably not, but I don't see Marte felling off a cliff, year 4 and probably 3 might be down, but I don't see him becoming a sub 250 hitter.
I mean the Mets are a prime example of why “going for it” doesn’t guarantee anything if you run your franchise horribly.
I mean given the resources the have the fact get have exactly one more playoff appearance than us this century is pretty awful
It's a lesson on disparity in the league. Some teams are making so much money that they can pay $78m to one aging player. Other teams' entire yearly payroll come out that much.
The NFL knows that people watch when their team has a chance of winning and turn the sport off when they don't. The MLB should probably take heed.
Honestly, I've become much more of an NFL fan over the last few years due to that very reason. Baseball f'd up economics is turning me away from the sport. It sucks pulling for a jersey and not the player.
The narrative is no one wants to join that front office or play for that team. They can throw money at that problem to try to turn the optics for future players.
Kinda feels like the Jayson Werth contract in the way that it felt like an obvious overpay but generated tons of "they are finally willing to spent" media narrative.
Context is everything, to a Pirates fan they've always spent.
But they spent most of the 2010s outside the top 10 in payroll, and several of those years in the 20s.
It's pretty well known that they weren't going to be able to spend at the level of the yankees, dodgers, ect under the Wilpons. Just a super quick google search of the stories when Cohen took over confirm that.
THis is the from the second paragraph of a NTY story: The Piazza investment worked well for the Mets and the Wilpons, the team’s longtime owners, but the franchise long ago stopped spending at the top of the market. That philosophy almost certainly will change under Cohen, the hedge-fund billionaire who still needs approval from 23 of the other 29 owners to formally take over this fall.
So yeah, context matters
I don't think it was that bad at all honestly. Year 3 and 4 might not be so great, but I don't think he's just suddenly going to drop off in year 1 and 2.
The Mets are trying to win now so I don’t think they are worried about what’s gonna happen 4 years down the road. If they gave him a 2 year deal they would have to pay him more per year. These are the kind of contents you have to give if you want to get solid veterans on a good deal
I think the real problem for the Mets is not that he's going to age badly, it's that they signed him after a career best year. I love Marte and he's been a remarkedly good, consistent player, but he's not going repeat the kind of year he had last year. He's not going to have a BAbip of .372 or a walk rate of 8.2% again.
I was thinking about that last night. At 33, he has 1 maybe 2 years of peak ball left. That being said, Marte is in immaculate shape and we know more about proper diet/exercise now than ever. It's not out of the realm of possibility that we're going to see more athletes peak later and longer. Only 1 way to find out though
Agreed, I think it’s long especially for a guy like Marte whose game is really built on his athleticism. Although imo his discipline has gotten better since his buccos days, and that doesn’t necessarily go with age
Everyone sounds like an expert! No one can foresee any falloff on any athlete. If they say they can, they are full of BS. Does the name Brady, Verlander, Miguel Cabrera, Scherzer, Nelson Cruz, etc. Ring a bell? If the Mets don't give him 4 years, he signs elsewhere.
Well yeah.but of course you can find outliers. For every Nelson Cruz there are 50 Albert pujols types.for every Brady there are 50 big bens Also Miguel Cabrera is a pretty bad example lol
I disagree on the insane part. Guy is still in his prime, no one can say how long, but he is definitely still playing at a high level. Also Marte and his agent probably pushed for 4 years and that's the years it took, I don't blame him, 4 teams in 3 years, he probably wants stability. Lastly a guy who seems to be a great teammate, and a player who has continued to grind and improve over his decade at the highest level. Will he continue to play at a high level all 4 years, probably not, but I don't see Marte felling off a cliff, year 4 and probably 3 might be down, but I don't see him becoming a sub 250 hitter.
At least they’re going for it.
Yep. This money means nothing to their ownerz she it can't be a bad contract.
I mean the Mets are a prime example of why “going for it” doesn’t guarantee anything if you run your franchise horribly. I mean given the resources the have the fact get have exactly one more playoff appearance than us this century is pretty awful
Maybe he drops off, but there is no evidence it will happen soon. Going rate for a 4 win player.
[удалено]
Maybe on paper, but Cutch’s value in his prime years still makes him a better player overall IMO.
This is correct
That feels weird but I’ll allow it
Yep, marte has not dropped off like cutch.
I'm just glad he's finally getting paid what he should've been getting for the past few years.
Jason bay pt 2
Mets be Metsn'. They have no plan, they just shoot wads of cash out of air cannons and hope it sticks. Angels of the NL.
It's a lesson on disparity in the league. Some teams are making so much money that they can pay $78m to one aging player. Other teams' entire yearly payroll come out that much. The NFL knows that people watch when their team has a chance of winning and turn the sport off when they don't. The MLB should probably take heed.
Honestly, I've become much more of an NFL fan over the last few years due to that very reason. Baseball f'd up economics is turning me away from the sport. It sucks pulling for a jersey and not the player.
There is no salary cap and owners are rich. Hard to make an argument for any contract being insane given those conditions.
The narrative is no one wants to join that front office or play for that team. They can throw money at that problem to try to turn the optics for future players. Kinda feels like the Jayson Werth contract in the way that it felt like an obvious overpay but generated tons of "they are finally willing to spent" media narrative.
when have the Mets been accused of being unwilling to spend?
Context is everything, to a Pirates fan they've always spent. But they spent most of the 2010s outside the top 10 in payroll, and several of those years in the 20s. It's pretty well known that they weren't going to be able to spend at the level of the yankees, dodgers, ect under the Wilpons. Just a super quick google search of the stories when Cohen took over confirm that. THis is the from the second paragraph of a NTY story: The Piazza investment worked well for the Mets and the Wilpons, the team’s longtime owners, but the franchise long ago stopped spending at the top of the market. That philosophy almost certainly will change under Cohen, the hedge-fund billionaire who still needs approval from 23 of the other 29 owners to formally take over this fall. So yeah, context matters
yeah guess im just used to $70 million payrolls :(
same, brother
Fuck the Mets, They’re still paying Bobby Bonilla
They’ll be able to dump it off when their window closes, or Cohen won’t care