Dec. 20: Mets, Zito talks
-
- December
- 20
The Mets and agent Scott Boras are talking today in LA. The Giants and Seattle are believed to have had discussions with Boras at the winter meetings, but nothing formal since. It stands to reason if they have interest they’ll be some sort of meeting, which means it doesn’t get done this week.
After that come the offers.
As of now, the Mets haven’t made one but are discussing parameters. They like five years and $73 million; Boras is thinking six and $100 million.
Anything over three years is a considerable risk for a pitcher. The Yankees did it with Mike Mussina and weren’t burned, even though he had a few DL stints. There was nothing blowout major with Mussina, which is always the fear.
Since Zito is single, it stands to reason he’ll take an apartment in the city he plays in, including Manhattan, so scouting the town isn’t as much a priority. David Wright can always get him a unit in his building. It has been reported Zito wants to play in a major city, preferrably on one of the coasts.
This precludes the Rangers, but if the priority is a big city, presumably with a night life, then Dallas is right there. You don’t think he can’t hook up with a Cowboys cheerleader or model in Big D?
The Rangers are reportedly more willing to go closer to the magic $100 million figure than the Mets. If there’s a $25 million difference in the offers, why wouldn’t he take the money and go with the Rangers?
Please, don’t say anything about having the best chance to win. That’s a lot of smoke. If that were the case, he’d stay in Oakland, which has been pretty much a playoff fixture, with more October appearances over the past five years than any of the other teams interested, including the Mets.
Remember: IN THE END IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, December 20th, 2006 at 12:58 pm by LoHudBlogs.com Admin.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
| 
Hey John, great work! How close do you think the Mets have to be to get him? If they go five years/$85mill with some sort of vesting option for a sixth year, do you think that's close enough?
Hi John, This is exciteing. I to would like to know what you think would get it done or what the Mets line drawn in the sand would really be?
Looking at the current marketplace 5 yrs at $75M looks low. I would expect it to be int the range of 6 yrs at $96M.
I think that an avg $16M is not too large in this market and with the length of the contracts being given out 6 yrs is not overly generous especially if the 6th year is an option with reasonable attainment goals.
Yes, understandable that it always does come down to the money….this being true, Oakland is already subtracted from the equation bc they won't hand out the cash…Out of the remaining suitors, the mets stand the best chance to win..so while it mostly depends on how close the Amazins' get to Boras'/zito's magic number, the winning factor CANNOT be overlooked
John –
Great work on the constant updates. As much as we fans try not to believe it, the money is always first priority. Don't think Wright and Reyes wouldn't be shopping around if those contracts weren't given during the season. Anyway, I think Mets fans need a Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa present this year and a nicely wrapped Zito would be perfect. Minaya and the Wilpons haven't been shy about writing the checks and after Zito the team will have enough strength to get them to the World Series. It's gotta get done – no matter what the cost. And isn't that what Rick Peterson is here for anyway? He should be included in the talks as a persuasion tactic.
Here's some examples from our very own team…Moises Alou chose to come to the Mets for 1 year, instead of more guaranteed money from other teams, for a chance to win. David Wright wanted to sign a lifetime deal with the Mets, but Omar just couldn't do that for him. Tell me thats about the money… While most of the time, it's about the money, saying it "always" is, is just naive.
Outside of the immediate issue of Zito if the Mets cave and go for this ridiculous amt for a pitcher on the decline who is not a stud A1 pitcher for that amt of money and that length of time ( 20 mill /yr for 2 yrs i could live with ) then they have to worry about the rest of the team.
You always compare yourself to your peers. So if they sign him for 6@100 what do Wright/Reyes/Delgado/etc feel a year from now where their contributions are more relavent to the team than someone who wins 12 games a year and doesn't scare the opposition the way Rocket does or Doc did in his prime?
Dave
I think it's silly not to adjust to the escalating market this off-season. I mean, if Ted Lilly is now worth $10-11 million per year, how can you try to put a $14-15-million ceiling on Zito?
So, here's the question: Do you go 6/96 for Zito or 4/40 for Suppan?
I say sign them both…Give Zito the 6/90 and offer Suppan a 2/20. Suppan will be an insurance policy on the old guys and will continue to take the pressure of the young arms. Either way, it is ridicules money being spent on starting pitcher, but that is how the market is. The Mets need another proven starter even if they get Zito.
if that was an option that would be the best situation. Suppan = Trachsel, maybe a little better. But if it can only be one you have to make Zito happen.
To Anon (RE: Alou)
Who's being naive? Alou came to the Mets because they gave him one year ($7.5 million) with an option. To say he came to the Mets to win isn't seeing the whole picture. Alou's phone wasn't ringing off the hook. He is a 40-something, injury-prone with a chance to make another $15 million. That's why he signed with the Mets. A chance for the playoffs is a bonus, not the reason.
To Anon (RE: If they had only one)
If the Mets could have taken only one pitcher at the start of the offseason, I probably would have gone with Jason Schmidt. With who is left, sure, it has to be Zito. But, I still believe he won't go six years without a scratch.
To Anon (RE: Signing Zito plus another)
I can't see them getting both Zito and Suppan. But, I do agree that Zito might not be enough. Even with Zito there's reason to be concerned. Who is to say something won't happen to 40-somethings Glavine and Hernandez? And, don't forget, even with Zito you would have unproven questions at No. 4 and No. 5 in the rotation.
To BennyAyala (RE: Zito v. Suppan)
Wow. That's interesting. I think $96 million would get Zito and $40 million would definitely get Suppan. I just don't like the sixth. Neither price is a bargain. But, gun to my head, I'd give it up for Zito rather than give four to Suppan.
I don't believe for a second that it's "always about the money," though I would concede that it is for some people. Aside from being on a winning team, don't you think guys want to play with other players they like or admire. Doing even the most boring job can be fun if you're doing it with people you like. These are young guys we're talking about. They're not machines. They want to have fun just like anybody else.
As for adding both Zito and Suppan, ... Do we really want to do that? If we did, when would we ever get a chance to see what our young guys can do? We'd have 5 or 6 guys (including Maine, Perez, Pelfrey, Humber, Vargas and Williams) competing for 1 roster spot! (And that one spot very well might be given to Pedro after the All-Star break.) Sound like a recipe for unhappiness for our young guys. Don't like it.
To Anon #1 (RE: What's close enough?)
I'm not sure $85 million would be enough because I think Texas can beat that. But, the sixth year as an option could work if the yearly salary was higher.
RE: On what it would take to get it done
Zito is theirs if they agree to six years at $16 million.
16 mil per for what amounts to a younger version of an Al Leiter in his prime-level starter? Wow…with that number out there, i'd love it if they did it, but i would be content if they told Boras to leap with that one….
JB
We have to be realistic with the amount of money. Sure it seems high now, but at one point Kris Benson's contract seemed high. Beltran's deal seemed like a lot, and now it seems reasonable compared to Carlos Lee and Soriano. The point is that the contracts keep going up. We can't compare the price we pay now for what we paid in previous years. It's like my dad telling me that in 1978 they bought a house for $20k. We have to look at the prices now, and we want to win. So lets just pay the guy and get it done.
i read that Texas really isnt going to 100.
that said. I think you adjust to the market but not for the years. and if you have to sink this season u do so.
the reason for the $$ is the free agent market sucks.
lot of stupid people chasing junk this means big $$.
i dont know who is off contract next year, but you may have a better market and less competition when those that got burned stay away.
i dont think baseball could support these contracts anyway. it is not that popular and they have issues they have to deal with which they aren't because there is an idiot leading MLB.
Dave
Regarding a sixth year for Zito, I don't think anyone will fixate on this if and when he helps deliver a championship to the Mets. To me, the length of the contract is simply a cost of doing business, the same way it was with Piazza (who in their right mind would give a 30-yr-old catcher a seven-year deal?).
The Mets have already overpaid, especially in terms of years on contracts, to Pedro, Wagner, Glavine and, perhaps, Beltran. They have too much at stake to lose out on a championship, simply because they want to be frugal in the eleventh hour. Omar has come this far—he's got to go all the way now.
To BennyAyala (RE: Overpaying)
If the Mets do land Zito they will probably overpay. I don't think there's any way around that. The Mets have some age on them and consequently a closing window. That's why they'll overpay for Zito.