Skip to content

The Mets are no longer lowballing David Wright

Nov 27, 2012, 11:33 AM EDT

This morning we heard that the Mets had offered David Wright a six-year, $100 million deal to David Wright, which most agree will not get the job done.  Andy Martino reports that they’re quickly correcting:

Probably a good lesson in here: players and teams will leak negotiating terms in an effort to further their interests. Someone with Wright likely leaked the $100 million offer in order to shame the Mets. Then, as soon as that hit this morning, the Mets leaked their most recent offer in order to shame Wright or look less shamed themselves or whatever.

  1. maegreen18 - Nov 27, 2012 at 11:41 AM

    Greedy

    • paperlions - Nov 27, 2012 at 11:56 AM

      Yeah, it sucks when people get paid in accordance to the value they provide an organization. Greedy bastards.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Nov 27, 2012 at 1:52 PM

        I wish I could get lowballed for $100MM

  2. shaggylocks - Nov 27, 2012 at 11:43 AM

    “This morning we heard that the Mets had offered the Mets a six-year, $100 million deal…”

    How’s that work?

    • indaburg - Nov 27, 2012 at 12:47 PM

      Wilpons are selling the team for $100 million over 6 years. One hopes.

    • shaggylocks - Nov 27, 2012 at 3:35 PM

      I had a similar thing happen to me this morning when I put on my winter jacket for the first time this season and found a five dollar bill in the pocket.

  3. uyf1950 - Nov 27, 2012 at 11:44 AM

    Am I missing something here. They originally offered 6 years/$100MM now they are increasing the offer to 7 years. Doesn’t it stand to reason that by adding 1 additional year they have to increase the total dollars? It would seem to me that what would be important to a soon to be 30 year Wright is both the years and AAV dollars. I’m not saying this is the case but 7 years at say $110MM isn’t really any better than 6 years at $100MM I would think.

    What’s also not mentioned are those years added on to his 2013 option year or do they replace now and replace his option year. The answer maybe obvious to others but doesn’t seem so obvious to me.

    • chadjones27 - Nov 27, 2012 at 12:03 PM

      we don’t have any specifics besides “7 year offer well in excess of $100 mil.” Anything beyond that is now speculation. We’d have to be forced to assume that the “well in excess” means the additonal year maintains or excedes the 6 year avg.

  4. djjackson81 - Nov 27, 2012 at 11:57 AM

    6 or 7 or even 8 years at whatever millions they want to pay him the Mets still won’t make the playoffs

    • chadjones27 - Nov 27, 2012 at 12:06 PM

      Well, that’s what the organization has to decide. Does the upside of paying Wright what he’s worth (or can get in the open market) outweigh the possibility of his contract keeping them from signing other talent that could get them to the playoffs? It may be prudent for the Mets to not sign him. But, I doubt that can be sold to the fan base.

      • badintent - Nov 27, 2012 at 1:11 PM

        You’re assuming that the Mets have a fan base. I would say that you’re off base on that assumption.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Nov 27, 2012 at 1:55 PM

        What will appeal to the fan base is winning. Wright on a losing team has not worked out too well for the fans the past few years. They should concentrate on building a winning team, assess whether Wright helps more as a 3B or as trade bait and make the move. If some fans are turned off by trading Wright, they will probably come back when the team starts winning, or new fans will emerge.

  5. paperlions - Nov 27, 2012 at 11:59 AM

    Is this how negotiations work? One side offers something, the other side asks for something else, offers go back and forth until you reach a compromise (or not)….pretty standard, right?

    If your first offer is accepted, you offered too much.

    • bravojawja - Nov 27, 2012 at 12:12 PM

      But if your first offer is insultingly low, you may not get a counteroffer at all. The other side will just walk away.

      • paperlions - Nov 27, 2012 at 12:31 PM

        6 years and $100 is not insulting though….low? Sure, insulting? Not even close.

      • natstowngreg - Nov 27, 2012 at 1:26 PM

        “Insulting” is in the eye of the beholder. If the beholder is David Wright, it may well be insulting.

      • paperlions - Nov 27, 2012 at 1:35 PM

        Being insulted doesn’t further the goal of getting a contract….therefore, taking offense to an offer is counter productive (it is also petty, egocentric, childish….but the net effect of those emotional responses is to reduce the chances that you get what you want).

  6. weskcfan - Nov 27, 2012 at 12:40 PM

    That much money to play a game is, in itself, a shame…

    • 18thstreet - Nov 27, 2012 at 12:49 PM

      Go back to Russia. It’s what the free market is ready to pay him.

    • mrhojorisin - Nov 27, 2012 at 1:32 PM

      Don’t look at it as a game: look at it as entertainment, which is what it is for you and me. Do you also complain when actors get paid millions of dollars to make crappy movies? Entertainers, including athletes, are usually paid what they’re worth by people who are paid to assess that value.

    • paperlions - Nov 27, 2012 at 1:38 PM

      Compared to the money people make just to own a team that plays the game, and what those owners charge for attendance, parking, and concessions….. it is more than reasonable.

  7. Old Gator - Nov 27, 2012 at 2:13 PM

    That’s good news for Mutts fans. Wright will remain at whatever big corporation their stadium is now named after field and continue to shine at the plate and at his position while continuing to make little or no difference to the team’s overall second-division standing.

    • thebadguyswon - Nov 27, 2012 at 2:35 PM

      They’ll still be better than Miami.

      • Old Gator - Nov 27, 2012 at 5:09 PM

        Subtract the Iron Giant and the Killian High School intramural team would be better than Miami this coming season.

  8. buffalomafia - Nov 27, 2012 at 3:05 PM

    Take the deal & run! He gets hurt every year!

    Where are the Braves in this hunt?

  9. grattanstanford - Nov 27, 2012 at 5:47 PM

    The Mets still have a fan base. They cannot afford to let David go especially bc he would most likely land on rival Philly or those f$*%ing Yankees . If they let him go and continue to suck it could be as bad as when we lost Seaver

  10. mojosmagic - Nov 27, 2012 at 8:02 PM

    Do fans understand they are the ones paying the price not the owners? That aside Wright by today’s standard is worth 18-20M a year. He is a complete player.

  11. gbar22 - Nov 28, 2012 at 8:31 AM

    I always find it odd when baseball writers talk of lowballing with 100 million dollar deals that aren’t of adequate length or dollar amount and then when these players who get these deals at 28-29 inevitably decline over the next five years but are signed for 7 or 8 then scream from the mountain tops what bad contracts they are and how dumb their teams were for signing them. I don’t think I’ve ever heard one player who signed a 100 million dollar deal that wasn’t screamed about having a bad contract but every year come free agent time they all say why a team needs this player and what great signings they are. Really make up your minds. As a mets fan I will comment on this David while a very good player is not a great player. He cannot carry a team on his back he has limited power especially in the confines of Citi Field and his defense has always been over rated. It’s good but not great. If the Mets truly are on a limited budget why dedicate this much of your payroll to one player who isn’t even a game changer? I love David Wright and he’ll get a big deal but in comparison to Zimmerman and Longoria I’d put him third on that list with longoria being a truly game changing player.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Pitching duel highlights Game 1 of WS
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Bumgarner (3108)
  2. J. Shields (2724)
  3. T. Ishikawa (2667)
  4. T. Lincecum (2033)
  5. M. Morse (1936)
  1. Y. Cespedes (1908)
  2. L. Cain (1808)
  3. B. Posey (1696)
  4. B. Roberts (1535)
  5. A. Wainwright (1511)