Skip to content

The Mets lowball David Wright

Nov 27, 2012, 8:23 AM EDT

David Wright Getty Getty Images

UPDATE: The Mets have sweetened their offer.

8:23 AMKen Rosenthal reports that the Mets have made David Wright an offer he’s almost certain to reject: six years, $100 million.

Executives around the league have figured that Wright would get something north of $125 million. Sources close to Wright have said that he wants seven years. This deal is basically what Evan Longoria and Ryan Zimmerman got. Longoria, however, is obviously in a different situation, in that he was four years from free agency when he got his deal.  Zimmerman is not the player that Wright is.

Maybe this is just an opening salvo. A test to see just how married David Wright is to the idea of staying in New York.  But it sure seems that $100 million is a lowball offer. Especially in an offseason when all signs point to teams getting more generous, not less.  It makes one think that the Mets are more interested in trading Wright than keeping him.

  1. willclarkgameface - Nov 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM

    Who didn’t see this coming?

    This was a deal for the fans, not David Wright. Those cheap, BROKE, ass wipes in Queens have no intent on bringing David back. They just want to make it look like they care by offering a deal before the opening day tickets go on sale.

    Eff the Mets.

  2. stex52 - Nov 27, 2012 at 8:38 AM

    A rebuilding team probably doesn’t need Wright. They need the young players he can bring in. And apparently the Mets still have money problems (amazing, with their own sports network.)

    It may not be pretty, but I think they should go trade myself.

    • paperlions - Nov 27, 2012 at 9:02 AM

      The Wilpons are highly leveraged, they borrowed money to buy everything….and they owe a LOT. The real estate market sucks and their Madoff money is gone….what other revenue sources do they have to pay the bills?

      I would argue that they need to keep Wright to maintain fan interest, attendance, and viewership to keep money coming in. Wright is probably worth the little extra investment because of the money his presence makes the Wilpons.

      Having said that…it is a negotiation, right? In theory, if a team starts at 6 year and $17M/per they are probably willing to go a little higher on both. If I’m Wright, I am optimistic that such a deal was the starting point.

      • thebadguyswon - Nov 27, 2012 at 11:02 AM

        Mets fans will be interested regardless. You’d be surprised how many would rather trade Wright than lock up a player through his mid-30s.

    • Francisco (FC) - Nov 27, 2012 at 10:53 AM

      And apparently the Mets still have money problems (amazing, with their own sports network.)

      Gives new meaning to the old moniker doesn’t it? (Amazin’ Mets!)

  3. proudlycanadian - Nov 27, 2012 at 8:41 AM

    The Yankees could use a good third baseman.

    • Old Gator - Nov 27, 2012 at 10:51 AM

      So could the Feesh, but of course the presence of a third baseman at third base is something Feesh fans – all six of us – have been so conditioned against that it might give us enuresis.

      But there’s no reason to run out and buy a box of expensive bed pads, since the chance that Scrooge McLoria would spring for the Wright stuff at that price is so infinitesimal that it would need to be calculated by a Super Kray.

  4. Carl Hancock - Nov 27, 2012 at 8:45 AM

    Sounds like what the Cardinals did with Pujols. Make a lowball offer and then claim they tried to re-sign him but it just didn’t work out. Only the Cardinals could compete without Pujols while the Mets can’t even compete WITH Wright.

    • paperlions - Nov 27, 2012 at 9:06 AM

      What the Cardinals offered was more than reasonable…they offered to pay a guy through his age 41 season (9 years total) at an average of $24.4M per season. How the hell is that a lowball offer? That was already far more than he’s going to be worth. The Cardinals offer was far more than any other team offered expect for the Angels, who obviously grossly overpaid….and it was obvious at the time…data since then support that conclusion.

      • Carl Hancock - Nov 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM

        The Cardinals never wanted Pujols to sign such a longterm deal and they played negotiations in such a way that they could say they tried. Both the Marlins and Angels offered bigger deals, although the Marlins refused to include a no trade clause.

        I never said what the Cardinals offered wasn’t reasonable. It was. But Pujols and Co. saw it as lowballing.

        Plus take the 9 years the Cardinals offered with a grain of salt because it supposedly included option years and was not a guaranteed 9 year deal. This according to Pujols and Diedra and something that was not denied by Mo and Dewitt.

        The Cardinals are better off without Pujols. His contract is going to be terrible a few years from now and the Cardinals got his best years at a fraction of the cost the Angels will be paying him to play during his declining years. It was smart for the Cardinals to do what they did.

        The Mets on the other hand will not be better off without star players Wright and Dickey because it’s all they got.

      • paperlions - Nov 27, 2012 at 10:46 AM

        Whether or not an offer is “lowballing” has to do with value, not with perception. The fact that Pujols thought the offer was low….or that someone else was willing to pay more, does not make the offer a lowball…the Cardinals offered him more than he will be worth, there is no way that kind of offer is a lowball offer, by definition.

        This is FA. By definition, the team that signs a guy is probably overpaying…as no one else (in general) was willing to pay as much.

        In any case, I never got the idea that the Cardinals didn’t want to sign Pujols or that they only made offers to appease fans. What they did, was offer him about $220M for 9 years to guarantee him all-time Cardinal status and pay him far more than he would be worth over those 9 years. They are better off that he declined…but there is no evidence that the offer was not sincere….hell, they thought they were about to have him signed until God told the Angels to pay more money….or something.

        FWIW, anything Pujols or Diedra say can be taken with a grain of salt, their comments during and after the process were nothing short of laughable in their level of delusion and dis-ingenuity.

      • gibbyfan - Nov 27, 2012 at 10:39 AM

        Well put Paperlions. And this is the downside to trying to keep a competive balace when some teams have a combination of unlimited funds and not so much concern about how they are used.In order to get Pujols from the Cards and their substantial offer, the Angles made an off the charts offer because they could and have too much money to concern themslves with all the potential consequences. I dont think it can be attributed to stupidness because Art M didnt become a billionaire by being stupid –That’s just how the game is today.

  5. heyblueyoustink - Nov 27, 2012 at 8:50 AM

    “MEET THE METS,
    MEET THE METS,
    Step right up and greet the Mets!
    Bring your kiddies,
    bring your wife;
    Guaranteed we’ll suck for life.”

    Seriously, are these owners related to Darth Loria? And come to think of it, do the NL East General managers and owners need their own form of drug testing?

    • historiophiliac - Nov 27, 2012 at 9:23 AM

      They make me love Ilitch so much more.

  6. Lukehart80 - Nov 27, 2012 at 8:52 AM

    Craig, can you articulate what you see as the big differences between Wright and Zimmerman?

    Over the last three years:

    Player A: 11.4 bWAR, .292/.363/.480, 128 OPS+
    Player B: 11.1 bWAR, .285/.365/.480, 132 OPS+

    Which one is the player that deserves a lot more money?

    • Craig Calcaterra - Nov 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM

      Zimmerman signed that extension when he still had two more years left under his current deal and thus had less leverage than Wright who has one less. He also signed it coming off a 2011 season when he was far less effective and missed a lot of time with injury.

      If Zimmerman were on tap for an extension now, instead of last year, he would have gotten a lot more money.

      • tmohr - Nov 27, 2012 at 10:44 AM

        Wright has a better bat (although his power has been inconsistent the last few years), Zimmerman a better glove, plus Zimmerman is two years younger. Seems like they’re pretty even.

        Much as my Cubs need a third baseman, I’m not sure I’d give Wright seven years.

      • Lukehart80 - Nov 27, 2012 at 10:46 AM

        Wright is also two years older though, and while he was a force in 2012, it was his first really good season in four years. I agree he ought to be worth a little more money than Zimmerman, but I think they’re close enough that a similar contract is a totally legit first offer.

    • kevinleaptrot - Nov 27, 2012 at 9:08 AM

      Not a lot of difference between the two, except Zim plays on a WINNING TEAM!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. randygnyc - Nov 27, 2012 at 8:53 AM

    As embarrassing as the Mets are, they now have reasonable cover after Longoria’s extension. Both perennial all star 3rd basemen, etc. this is just what the mets needed to justify his impending trade, assuming that Wright rejects the offer. The Mets would be smart to trade him for young prospects. They won’t compete during the lifetime of any new contract. The organization has no money and the teams around them are getting better. The Mets signing talented players (with money they don’t have), doesn’t get them closer to the finish line. They aren’t competing in a vacuum.

  8. drewsylvania - Nov 27, 2012 at 9:39 AM

    Have you SEEN their finances?

  9. ohnothatguy - Nov 27, 2012 at 9:44 AM

    If the mets trade david, bud better get his act together and start pushing out 2 owners from the nl east!! Or just combine the teams into the miami mets since neither owner has money to spend or cares to spend. Why keep letting these owners keep pocketing money from the thriving teams in baseball such as the yanks,red soxs etc..

  10. scotttheskeptic - Nov 27, 2012 at 9:48 AM

    This as good a thread as any:
    Dear Santa Ruben,
    Trade for Wright, please. While at it, swing a deal for Wil Myers and Giancarlo Stanton.
    That’s it for my Christmas list.
    Thanks,
    À Phillies fan

    • voteforno6 - Nov 27, 2012 at 10:12 AM

      What would those other teams get in return?

      • geoknows - Nov 27, 2012 at 10:44 AM

        In return? What does that mean? They get these guys because, as we all know, the Mets, Royals, and Marlins are all secretly rooting for the Phillies.

  11. addict2sport - Nov 27, 2012 at 9:53 AM

    Can you believe we’re at a time when an offer of $100 million is considered a lowball offer?!!?

  12. ezthinking - Nov 27, 2012 at 9:54 AM

    It’s not lowball, it’s just short. Add two more years and he signs.

  13. scotttheskeptic - Nov 27, 2012 at 10:35 AM

    To the Mets – Kendrick and Brown
    To the Royals – Lee or Halladay
    To the Marlins – Mayberry, Nix, and Sebastian Valle

    • geoknows - Nov 27, 2012 at 10:46 AM

      With the possible exception of the second one (and seriously, if you think the Royals are going to take either of those contracts I want some of what you are smoking), those offers are ROTFLMAO jokes.

      • scotttheskeptic - Nov 27, 2012 at 2:06 PM

        It is a Christmas wish list.
        Actually I think Amaro missed his opportunity a year ago. I believe the Mets would have taken a Kendrick/Victorino combo for Wright at that point. If the Royals are truly looking for top-of-the-rotation pitching, they are gonna have to pay. (Halladay’s contract will not automatically vest, so this would possibly be a one-year investment.) As for the Marlins, perhaps the good citizens of Miami-Dade will pony up to pay for Rollins’ contract and bribe him into surrendering his 10-5 rights.
        I reside in neither Colorado nor Washington. Coffee and nicotine are my go to habits.

  14. gpatrick15 - Nov 27, 2012 at 10:47 AM

    He’ll look just fine in a Braves uniform

  15. ningenito78 - Nov 27, 2012 at 11:23 AM

    Why wouldn’t they see if he would take the same deal as Longoria and Zimmerman? It’s worth at least trying.

  16. tbbucs621 - Nov 27, 2012 at 11:33 AM

    Mets please trade him to Atlanta! This would make my Christmas much more happier. He is the perfect replacement for 3rd base to my favorite player of all time Chipper Jones!

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Who's to blame for Cubs tarp fiasco?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Cuddyer (3183)
  2. R. Castillo (3150)
  3. W. Myers (2415)
  4. M. Fiers (2347)
  5. A. Garcia (2339)
  1. J. Werth (2326)
  2. A. McCutchen (2262)
  3. Y. Molina (2248)
  4. C. Gonzalez (2230)
  5. K. Bryant (2211)