The LoHud Mets Blog

So as you’ve probably heard by now, the Mets lost the Jonathan Broxton Derby to the Kansas City Royals, who will pay him $4 million next season. Apparently the Mets were interested, but not willing to pay him that much.

Keep in mind that the Mets offered a better overall opportunity, with Joakim Soria blocking Broxton’s path to saves in Kansas City, and his competition for closing duties in New York consisting of… Manny Acosta?

Those opposing the deal pointed out, fairly, that spending $4 million on Broxton, far from a sure thing, is problematic for a team with other big problem areas and little money to address them.

That last part is key.

In the world Sandy Alderson thought he lived in last year, a land with a roughly $140 million annual payroll budget, he’d have $60 million or so to spend this winter if he wished. Within that context, spending $4 million for a one-year commitment to Broxton makes sense- no long-term tie, and a chance to add a dominant reliever for a cut-rate price. And he’s less than 8 percent of your free agent budget.

That’s what you’ll get at $4 million. Broxton is a question because of his health. If he were healthy, he’s not a $4 million pitcher, but several times that. At $4 million, you are either getting upside with questions, or proven mediocrity.

The essence of Moneyball is getting undervalued assets. And the intriguing part of bringing Alderson in last October was precisely how many undervalued assets he could add on a New York budget. Some pan out, some don’t. But the more chances you take on such players, the better your chances of finding the good ones. Get three players right on such risks, and you can contend. Well, a lot easier to go 3-for-12 than 3-for-3.

Instead, it looks like Alderson has more like $12-15 million, max, to spend this winter. Suddenly, a risk like Broxton is around 30 percent of your offseason budget. And if he doesn’t pan out, you have no fallback closer. So that money needs to be spent instead on certainty. And at that price? Certainty equals a mediocrity.

The point is, the money problems of ownership mean a lot more than just an inability to sign Jose Reyes. It impacts Sandy Alderson’s ability to fix this team in ways large and small.

Just as Americans largely learn world geography based upon countries we invade, a useful byproduct of the terrible Jason Bay contract has been to educate Mets fans about the bad contracts around the league. Instead of coveting free agents like Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder-who, after all, would come without the tactical advantage of trading Jason Bay- Mets fans have instead spent nights dreaming of Carlos Zambrano, Vernon Wells and the reincarnated contract of Darren Dreifort.

So naturally, it caught my eye when I saw Buster Olney on Twitter this morning say the the White Sox want to dump the salary of reliever Matt Thornton, owed $5.5 million in 2012, $5.5 million in 2013 and a $1 million buyout of a 2014 option. So that’s $12 million.

Thornton isn’t being shopped for ineffectiveness. His 2.8 walks per nine, 10.8 strikeouts per nine, and 2.90 ERA over the past three seasons would instantly make him the best reliever on the Mets by a wide margin.

The Jason Bay Trade Machine within all of us immediately went into overdrive, producing a Thornton/Jake Peavy for Bay deal. Peavy is owed $17 million in 2012, with a $4 million buyout of his 2013 option. So that’s a total of $33 million between Peavy and Thornton.

That isn’t far off from what Bay is owed- $16 million in 2012, $16 million in 2013, and a $3 million buyout of his 2014 option. (That option automatically vests if Bay collects 600 plate appearances in 2013, or 500 in both 2012 and 2013.)

But let’s assume for the moment that no team plays Bay that much. There’s another question: why would the White Sox make this deal?

I think the Mets would need to kick in a prospect or two to make it worth Chicago’s time. And that’s not a terrible idea, since Peavy and Thornton instantly makes the 2012 pitching staff better, while opening left field for Lucas Duda, a better defensive fit for him than right field.

Still, in terms of long-term building for the Mets, it means giving up a prospect or two for short-term help. It probably doesn’t add up.

That’s for the best, really. Now we all have an excuse to look up the contract terms of Alfonso Soriano. Jason Bay has made us all more knowledgeable baseball fans.

An interesting debate broke out last week between Gotham Baseball’s Mark Healey and Mets Police’s Shannon Shark. The question: whether to purchase Mets tickets in 2012 if you disagree with the path taken by Met ownership.

Healey writes:

“The Mets? I love the Mets. My kids love the Mets. Most of my extended family loves the Mets. But the people that run the Mets have used up all of my patience, enthusiasm and trust. I can no longer support their efforts with my wallet because I do not believe that they have the interests of the New York Mets first and foremost in their minds.

“Is that fair? Do I have no compassion for their financial and personal situations? Of course I do. But having empathy for their situation is one thing. Enabling their ability to cling to the New York Mets is something else.  They are a bad ownership group, it’s as simple as that. Now their past failings have not only created a serious crisis of confidence among their fanbase, tyhere is a growing number of people who are (finally) starting to realize that the Mets and MLB’s relationship is a little too cozy to be ignored.”

In reply, Shark writes:

“But I’m telling you right here and now that if you sit out a few seasons and then show up with 100 wins show up then I will call you a frontrunner.  It’s OK if you want to be a frontrunner, just recognize that you’re a frontrunner.  I’m a Mets fan.  Sometimes being a Mets fan sucks, but it’s what makes us Mets fans…

“Back to the owner.  His name is Jeff.  He’s around my age.  He’s going to be here for a long long time.

Why would he sell the baseball team?  When you own a baseball team you’re somebody.  You’re The Owner Of The Mets.  That’s cool.

Wouldn’t you like to be The Owner Of The Mets?  Why would you give that up?”

Both pieces are well worth your time. At the risk of being disagreeable, neither one lines up with my view of things.

Regarding Mark’s take, he is absolutely right that the fewer people that come to the ballpark, the less revenue the current ownership will receive, and that hypothetically, that could create a need to sell sooner. However, in practice, there are two things to remember.

One is that even if the Mets simply retain their current fans, they will lose massive amounts of money- $70 million in 2011 when they drew 2.34 million fans, $50 million in 2010 when they drew 2.56 million fans. In other words, even if they add around 200K in attendance this coming season- not taking into account the drops in price between 2010 and 2012- they aren’t coming close to making money on the New York Mets. And no one thinks the 2012 Mets will be adding attendance this coming season.

As someone who was part of the 2010 ticket buyers, and intends to be in 2012 as well, I am nothing more than the status quo.

The other point worth making is that the event that likely ends the Wilpon ownership of the Mets isn’t coming on the rounding error that is your ticket purchase. They owe $430 million in principal of a loan against the team, due back in 2014. They owe $450 million in principal of a loan against SNY, due back in 2015. They owe around $600 million, due in $25 million increments every six months, against Citi Field. And they have an unspecified judgment coming against them in the lawsuit filed by Irving Picard, trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims. That’s currently at $386 million, a number that is likely to rise on appeal.

In other words, it isn’t clear that selling out Citi Field from now until 2015 will be remotely close to enough to save them. And they clearly aren’t doing that anytime soon.

And that’s at the heart of why I disagree with Shannon’s piece as well. As I detailed in my forthcoming book, it isn’t that this ownership wants to sell. It’s that it likely doesn’t have any choice.

So the question becomes, what to do in the meantime?

For me, the answer involves plenty of trips to Citi Field with my family.

My wife is a baseball fan. My daughter, who will be two next year, loves baseball already. I don’t intend to keep myself from the pleasure of attending games with them over a principle that won’t actually affect the outcome of ownership change. Mark is right when he says that certain beliefs require sacrifice. Judge it however you like, fewer moments in a baseball stadium watching with my wife and daughter isn’t one I’m willing to make.

And the Mets, to their credit, have created a far better 15-game plan for fans. Back in Shea Stadium, my wife and I were Saturday Plan holders. That meant our same seats, Section 7, for all 13 Saturday games.

Seeing the chance to take advantage of fans desperate to see the Mets, the “Saturday Plan” changed in Citi Field. Suddenly, we received only 10 Saturdays. And we were forced to buy five weeknight games, usually during the school year, that were of little use to us.

Well, times have changed. Part of it is a decline in demand, to be sure. But new Vice President of Ticket Sales and Services Leigh Castergine has ushered in a very different experience. Starting today, the 15-game pack is as user-friendly as any plan that size in baseball. You pick the games. You pick the price points. Want all Saturdays? Done. Want some Saturdays, some Sundays, and a few Wednesdays? Done.

Is there still work to be done? Absolutely. But in her first year designing packages for fans, Leigh has taken the Mets from almost entirely unresponsive to extremely responsive. Cynics would note, correctly, that it took a crisis, cratering sales, and desperation to make this so. Certainly, that is likely a contributing factor to other fan-friendly measures, such as Banner Day’s return.

But we all know what the mother of invention is. And I, for one, am happy to see it, whatever the reason. My father was a Mets fan before the current ownership group even took control, and my daughter will be a Mets fan long after they’ve sold.

Ultimately, the hope is that these changes remain under new, eventually-capitalized ownership, providing Mets fans with the combination of winning team and fan-friendliness available down in Philadelphia. I recently purchased a six pack from the Phillies that offered the same flexibility as the 15-pack of the Mets, while providing the added benefit of choosing my own section and seats, not just a price point. I’ll get to see plenty of Mets games, and will likely partake in some Bull’s BBQ while I’m at it. The hope is that the Mets soon add that same technology. (The choose-your-section technology. They already have excellent BBQ.)

In the meantime, however, I’ll be there with my family. I won’t begrudge those who, like Mark, stay away out of principle, or the many other fans who aren’t frontrunners- they simply have many other places to spend their hard-earned money other than a baseball team that’s spending its own money on survival, not product.

And the reason that ownership won’t make money on its team next year is precisely that. There aren’t enough of the Mes or Shannon Sharks around for a baseball team to make a profit. If the past few seasons have taught the Mets anything, it is that. So I applaud Leigh’s efforts to make purchasing tickets as easy as possible, and wish her luck selling what is clearly, in the public’s mind, a devalued product. She can’t re-sign Jose Reyes. Being good to the fans that remain is her only play. And she’s certainly maxed it out so far.

I am a longtime, unabashed fan of Jerry Seinfeld. And not only am I a fan of his work, I’m a fan of how he’s lived his post-Seinfeld life- doing what he wants, calling Steve Somers and talking Mets for 45 minutes, etc. It’s pretty much exactly what I will do once I have a hit TV show that pays me a ludicrous amount of money in perpetuity.
Lately, I found another similarity: like me, Jose Reyes is Jerry Seinfeld’s favorite player. And he’s taken the action of naming his new puppy Jose, in the hope that this will inspire the Mets to make a deal.
But it probably won’t.
The Mets aren’t cutting Jose Reyes loose because he isn’t exciting enough, or because not enough dogs are named Jose. There are two reasons: the financial problems of ownership, and possibly (but clearly, secondarily), Sandy Alderson’s desire to avoid a contract that hampers his financial flexibility going forward.
But the obvious answer for the Mets is no different than one utilized by universities when they need a new gym or library: the Mets need an extremely rich benefactor to donate Jose’s potential salary. Those donors specify where their money should go- Wilpon Field at University of Michigan, for example. It is usually a cause near and dear to a donor’s heart.
Hello, Jerry.
If you believe there’s a price point where the Mets would pay for Jose Reyes- say four years, 70 million-then all Jerry Seinfeld has to provide is the difference between this and what it takes to get the deal done. Jon Heyman estimated Reyes’ final deal at six years, $120 million. So the difference would require Jerry to kick in $50 million.
Even if you think every dollar the Wilpon group is cutting in salary is going to the Save An Owner Foundation, this plan could still work. All it required of Jerry Seinfeld is $20 million per season for the next six seasons.
Again, with Seinfeld subsidizing the Reyes contract entirely, it in no way hamstrings Sandy Alderson’s payroll flexibility. Indeed, by allowing him to spend whatever the Wilpon group provides him on just 24 players- and shortstop accounted for- it is a solution that allows the Mets to keep Reyes AND have greater payroll flexibility than they’d have without him.
For what it’s worth, Bee Movie grossed more than $126 million. Jerry can pay for Jose Reyes without even touching Seinfeld money.
So I’m begging you, Jerry: please pay for the Mets to keep Jose Reyes. It is unseemly to ask another man to spend his money, I know. But Mets fans are out of options. You can become, in one move, to the Mets as Bill Gates is to world disease. And your dog can lead the Bark in the Park parade- a parade of triumph, making him the greatest mascot this team has had since Mr. Met.
Do it for your kids and mine. Otherwise, the 2012 season is going to be a show about nothing. And not the good kind.

So, the Mets are one of six teams reportedly interested in Jack Wilson, the Wayne’s World “We’re in Delaware” of free agents. Wilson hit .243/.274/.285, but he played second, short and third. So he can… hurt you at three positions.

He’s got a great defensive reputation, but UZR actually had him at -10.7 runs at shortstop per 150 games in 2011. Still, let’s assume that he’s above-average defensively, for the sake of argument. That offensive line is still awful.

Still, let’s apply the test, shall we? After all, the Mets aren’t rumored to be in on many free agents.

1. Can this player help the Mets? A little. Having a backup shortstop is better than not having one, since if you fail to field a shortstop at all, every ball hit that way is a single. But he shouldn’t be doing much more than replacing people for defense late. And heaven forbid he gets any starts at third base over David Wright. .243/.274/.285!

2. What kind of contract can he expect? Amazingly, a pretty good one, if six teams want him. He’s coming off of a two-year, $10 million deal. So one year with an option, $3 million per season? Just a guess. But something like that.

3. Can the Mets afford him in 2012? Yes, though with around $12-15 million to spend this winter on free agents, is that really how you want to blow your money?

4. What is the maximum amount the Mets should offer him? The league minimum. I mean no disrespect. But a backup middle infielder with a good glove who will put up a sub-.600 OPS is available for this much money as a minor league free agent, or in a trade for a bag of nothing. And he’ll probably be younger, too, leaving more room for potential breakout.

5. What are the chances I think he is a Met in 2012? I honestly don’t think this player fits this management unless he’s available for far less than I speculated he’d get in answer to question 2.

More on baseball matters tomorrow (Jack Wilson rumors are here! Jack Wilson rumors are here!), but I’d be remiss if I didn’t link to this tremendous piece by Brian Mangan tracing the ownership path of Fred Wilpon. Simply terrific, and I’d have said that even if he didn’t quote me near the end of his piece. A long piece you should take the time to read.

In a feel-good rumor, Andy Martino of the New York Daily News reports that the Mets have been in contact with Endy Chavez. Let’s take a look at exactly how he’d hit on the 2012 Mets.

1. Can this player help the Mets? Absolutely. The Mets suffered last season from a strong backup outfielder to provide plus defense at all three positions. And with Jason Pridie now a member of the Athletics, a backup center fielder is needed more than ever. Chavez also hit .301/.323/.426 in 274 plate appearances, supporting his strong defense with a solid helping of offense. He’s not a regular, especially at this point in his career. But he’ll be a fine fourth outfielder.

2. What kind of contract can he expect? Returning from a dififcult knee injury that cost him most of the 2009 and all of the 2010 seasons, Chavez was a non-roster invitee for Texas last season. He’s probably in line to receive a one-year deal at less than $1 million in 2012, based on his production last year.

3. Can the Mets afford him in 2012? It is safe to assume that the Mets can afford Endy Chavez at this point.

4. What is the maximum amount the Mets should offer him? I’d probably go as high as $1 million guaranteed to bring him in. Frankly, plus defensive center fielders are at a premium, starter or backup.

5. What are the chances I think he is a Met in 2012? Pretty good, actually. Here’s a chance to please the fans and help the team without spending a lot of money. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Yesterday’s press conference celebrating the 50th anniversary celebrations by the New York Mets seemed to produce two disparate reactions. On the one hand, Shannon Shark, who has been a forceful advocate for fan-friendly gestures like a return of Banner Day and eliminating black as a team color, wrote eloquently about what the day meant to him. On the other, Steve Popper wrote a detailed column speculating that such moves might not make up for the recent mistakes of the team in the eyes of the fan base at large, or ameliorate the decision to cut salary. And many on Twitter criticized both Popper’s column and the opening question of Richard Sandomir of The New York Times, who asked about how this initiative fit with the overall difficulties of the franchise.

From my perspective, yesterday was an example of the Mets getting something small right- honoring their history in a comprehensive way- that they have repeatedly gotten wrong in recent years. But the idea that Steve Popper shouldn’t have written what he wrote, or that Richard Sandomir shouldn’t have asked what he asked, strikes me as ridiculous.

Let’s be realistic: it is hard to imagine the Mets coming to this entirely sensible point in less dire financial circumstances. These are good ideas, born of desperation. And so discussing how those ideas ultimately affect the team’s bottom line is not just providing his readers with broader context, it is fundamentally the story for the primary actor here, the New York Mets. The team needs money, and discussing exactly how that move will play with the people who can provide them with that money- the fans- is a vital part of reporting. If Popper sounds skeptical that it will work, well, that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

As for Sandomir’s question: sorry, but when the team ducks any accountability with the media on the record for weeks, then finally makes Dave Howard available, he’s going to get questions about more than just the topic at hand. To pretend otherwise is no different than the old politician trick of avoiding questions about a scandal for weeks, showing up at a charitable event for children, and feigning shock or outrage that a reporter is ignoring the plight of the children by asking about the scandal. If the Mets had wanted the focus on just the celebration, they could have been more forthcoming about the current financial plight. Even in his response, Howard seemed unaware of the fact that whenever he claims that the team doesn’t have any problems, people tune out anything else he might say. When you stand in a rainstorm and refuse to acknowledge you are wet, no one believes you when you say it will be sunny tomorrow.

So by all means: report about the anniversary festivities. A press corps that didn’t report such things as the bobblehead to commemorate each decade (Tom Seaver is first, 1962-1972- my nominees for the remaining decades would be Dave Kingman, 1972-1982, Darryl Strawberry, 1982-1992, Mike Piazza, 1992-2002 and Jose Reyes, 2002-2012), the new uniforms, and the other fan-friendly moves wouldn’t be doing its job.

But the reporters did that. And failing to put the day in broader context, or ask important questions about that context, would mean reporters weren’t doing their jobs, either.

There’s lots to get to this week, from the release of ticket plans for partial-season packs to the 50th Anniversary celebration plans. But first on the agenda is a look at a rarity: a player the Mets are rumored to want, rather than a player that is too expensive: Matt Capps.

Let’s apply the Free Agent Fit test, shall we?

1. Can this player help the Mets? Sort of, I guess. Capps has been a solid reliever for most of his career on the back of good control and a respectable strikeout rate. His 2011 walk rate of 1.8/9 was exactly in line with his career numbers, but his 4.7/9 strikeout rate was two per nine below his career mark of 6.6, and even further below his 7+/9 he’s put up in his best years.

Now, there’s no obvious reason for this. His velocity on his fastball was 92.9 MPH last year, right at his career average of 93 even. Interestingly, the outlier on velocity was his slider going up- at 87.1 MPH, that is signifficantly higher than his 84.7 MPH career mark. Simply put, the differential might not have been enough to force swings and misses.

For his part, Bill James projects Capps to have a return to the mid-6s in Ks/9, which would make him a perfectly respectable relief option. Considering that the Mets don’t have a reliever projected to be even league average on the roster right now, that’s obviously a help.

2. What kind of contract can he expect? Probably a multi-year deal at around $5 million per season or so. There are a lot of closers and not many openings, so much depends on if he signs early, or becomes the last closer standing and has to take what he can get.

3. Can the Mets afford him in 2012? If the Mets are at a $95 million payroll, and bring back Angel Pagan and Mike Pelfrey, they probably can add a Matt Capps or two by filling most other roles within.

4. What is the maximum amount the Mets should offer him? In my mind, seeing the answer to question two, I have no idea why they’d offer him much more than one year with an option at $3-4 million per season. There are nine “closers” on the market, as per MLB Trade Rumors, and Capps is probably eighth or ninth on the list. Why the Mets would pay any premium to lock him up, instead of waiting to see who is left standing and wants a closer job, is beyond me. The only intangible advantage I see is that my 19-month-old daughter loves the book “Caps For Sale”, so she already knows how to say his name.

5. What are the chances I think he is a Met in 2012? Pretty high. The Mets look like they want to spend what money they have on bullpen pieces. That isn’t how I’d spend my money but then, I’m not making those decisions. It wouldn’t surprise me if they acquired one of the other closer options instead, though- Jonathan Broxton on an incentive-laden deal has always made a lot of sense, too.

At least, according to those sources ranging from Adam Rubin to Jose Reyes’ agent, there is no final deal in place between the Miami Marlins and Jose Reyes.

However, two pieces of information should help you plan accordingly going forward.

One, from the tremendous Kevin Burkhardt on Twitter: “baseball source tells me Marlins VERY confident on signing Reyes. He is the centerpiece of their entire offseason. Nothing yet, though.”

Anyone who knows Burkhardt understands he isn’t looking for attention- people with talent who are simultaneously covering the Mets for SNY and calling Dallas Cowboys games already have it- understand that if he’s reporting this, there’s ample reason to take it seriously.

As for the team’s cover story, it has apparently morphed from not wanting to set the market by making a premature offer to not wanting to get into a bidding war. See, if you’re not bidding against yourself, and you’re not bidding against others, what you’re really saying is… you’re not bidding.

We’ll see what they ultimately do. But the best way to pretend you are going after Reyes, but to not actually do it, would be to allow someone else to bid first, then come in lower. The problem with that strategy is that it hasn’t worked in any auction, ever. (Try that on EBay sometime- let someone else bid, then try to offer less than the reserve price.) Ask yourself if Sandy Alderson, a very smart man, knows that. If he does, then why is this the strategy going forward? That’s as simple as looking at ownership’s bottom line.

Ah, but perhaps I am saying this prematurely? Might the Mets come through with a real, as opposed to a Vladimir Guerrero offer? Time will tell. But as Adam Rubin explains:

“If you’re a Mets fan and want to preserve your sanity this offseason, here’s a bit of advice: Assume Jose Reyes will sign elsewhere and that Ruben Tejada is your 2012 Opening Day shortstop. That should allow you to withstand every report suggesting Reyes imminently is out the door without getting worked up.”

Easier in theory than in practice, as I found out last night. And I’ve been convinced, based on my reporting, that he’s headed out the door for months.

Both Dino Costa of Sirius/XM Radio and Business of Baseball’s Maury Brown are reporting that Jose Reyes to the Marlins is complete. Terms still unknown, and each has a caveat (Costa says Hanley Ramirez needs to sign off on a move to third base, MLB Network Radio says it pending a physical).

I’ve made no secret here and in my other reporting how this seemed to be a near-certainty, given ownership’s financial situation. But my only reaction right now is anger that my daughter won’t get to grow up watching Jose Reyes play on a regular basis.

And if the deal is short, for more annual value, as has been rumored, the one remaining reason not to sign Reyes (beware the ides of long-term contracts) didn’t even apply here. Ridiculous.

The Marlins first arrive at Citi Field on Tuesday, April 24 for a three-game series. It is a Tuesday-Thursday, so good news for the Mets- they’ll sell plenty of tickets for some weeknight games. But without Reyes, they probably shouldn’t get used to that.

According to Andy McCullough on Twitter, the Mets have outrighted Nick Evans to Triple-A. Evans, since he’s been optioned approximately 265 times in the past few years, has the right to reject the move and become a free agent.

In the past, Evans stuck around- for instance, at the start of the 2011 season.  But at that point, everybody’s rosters were set. Might Evans go elsewhere with the offseason just beginning? Seems like there’s a better chance. Still, the Mets probably offer a fair amount of playing time if Evans sticks around.

Ridiculously optimistic take? Evans and Pridie off the 40-man roster is to make room for some forthcoming new acquisitions. Cross your fingers; I see Clayton Kershaw and Matt Kemp as really good fits for the Mets. Hey, you never know!

Here’s a chance to do some good and get Mets tickets all at once- a food drive held at Citi Field on Thursday, November 17. Full text of the press release from the Mets follows.

METS, GOYA FOODS AND CITY HARVEST

TO HOLD HOLIDAY FOOD DRIVE

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17 AT CITI FIELD

Fans Donating 10 or More Items Will Receive Voucher Redeemable

For One Pair of Tickets to a Select Mets Game in April 2012

FLUSHING, N.Y., November 8, 2011 – The New York Mets, Goya Foods in celebration of their 75^th anniversary, and City Harvest will host a Holiday Food Drive Thursday, November 17 from 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. at Citi Field.  Fans can drop off their food donation at the City Harvest truck that will be parked in Lot G outside the Mets Team Store.

Fans donating 10 items or more of nonperishable nutritious food will receive a voucher redeemable for one pair of tickets to a select Mets game in April 2012.  In addition, fans can show their voucher at the Mets Team Store at Citi Field to receive 15% off regularly priced merchandise.  Season Ticket Holders who donate food can show their voucher and ID card to get 20% off regularly priced items.  The discount will only be honored Thursday, November 17.

Among the items most needed are: canned fruit and vegetables, plastic jars of peanut butter, packages of hot or cold cereal, and packages of macaroni and cheese.  Items that will not be accepted are: unlabeled, expired, or dented cans; any open packaging; products that need to be refrigerated; or homemade products.

Goya is donating 20,000 pounds of food to kick off the Food Drive.  Fans dropping off food may park in Lot G on 126^th Street between the Right Field Gate and Roosevelt Avenue.

Well, it’s been a quiet week for the Mets- something you ought to assume will be the case moving forward. Jose Reyes met with the Marlins, and a radio station in Miami is reporting he’s nearly signed, though consider me skeptical until it actually happens. Not that I think he’s going back to the Mets, but I think other teams could jump into the bidding as well.

But the Mets will look to improve at the margins, and that makes Chicago’s decision to make Gavin Floyd available an intriguing one for the Mets.

Remember, in 2011, the problem wasn’t offense, believe it or not-the Mets were sixth in the National League in runs scored. They were 13th in ERA. And that’s playing half their games in pitcher-friendly Citi Field. So the gap was actually larger than the raw stats indicate.

The tremendous Joe DeMayo of St. Lucie to Flushing proposed a swap of Angel Pagan for Gavin Floyd, with the Mets adding a marginal prospect to get the deal done (DeMayo had Fernando Martinez or Darin Gorski as suggestions). I’m not sure that gets the deal done, but let’s suppose for argument’s sake that it does. Where does that leave the Mets?

Well, Pagan, who made $3.5 million in 2011 and is arbitration-eligible, would probably make around $5 million in 2012. Floyd is under contract for $7 million in 2012, with a $9.5 million team option in 2013. This strikes me as a bargain rate for someone whose xFIP numbers have been remarkably consistent over the past three years (3.64, 3.69, 3.73) while making 30 starts in each of the past three seasons. Floyd turns just 29 in January; he’d be a tremendous fit in a rotation that badly needs more stability. In Floyd, Pelfrey and RA Dickey, the Mets would have three starters with strong durability track records. That helps alleviate the potential late-season fade of Jonathon Niese, questions about Johan Santana’s ability to return, and a complete absence of other options beyond that (Dillon Gee is the “unidentified leading brand” in every comparison commercial you’ve ever seen of pitchers).

The problem is, to paraphrase Casey Stengel, without Pagan (or even the recently-outrighted Jason Pridie), balls hit to center field will produce a lot of inside-the-park home runs. So it behooves the Mets to actually field a center fielder as well. (No, Jason Bay won’t do.) If they add $2 million in salary with Floyd, can they also afford to bring in a center fielder who is close enough to Pagan’s level to make it a worthwhile upgrade?

Depends, I suppose, on how much you think Rick Ankiel is going to get on the free agent market. Ankiel’s 2.1 WAR last year outdid Pagan’s 0.2, with the lion’s share of Ankiel’s value coming on defense, and Pagan’s defense deflating his value considerably. If Pagan reverts even partially to 2010 form, he’s a much better player than Ankiel has ever been. If he is past his sell-by date, there’s little difference.

If Ankiel can be had for, say, one year and $2 million-he signed for $1.5 last winter- then the Mets would be paying $9 million for Floyd + Ankiel in this scenario, rather than $5 million for Pagan. They may not have Reyes money, but a chance to upgrade in this manner would be useful.

And if they really can’t spend a dime, this scenario evens out by non-tendering Pelfrey, who is likely to make around $5 million in arbitration as well. The upgrade in the rotation would me real, if minimal- Pelfrey is a consistent 4.4-4.5 xFIP pitcher. So if the idea is that Pagan/Ankiel is a wash, the Mets come out slightly ahead.

But if they are dropping from Reyes to Ruben Tejada, they need to come out more than slightly ahead in a bunch of areas just to break even with last season- when they were 77-85. So here’s hoping they can add Floyd without subtracting Pelfrey.

Two points I want to get to on things floating around the Web about Jose Reyes.

First: there’s a cottage industry springing up rooting for Jose Reyes to go to one team as opposed to another in free agency, due to compensation. Simply put: Reyes, as a Type A free agent, would cost the team that signs him a first round pick. Only in the case of the Marlins, for instance, their first-round pick is protected because it is in the top 15. The Nationals, conversely, are at 16, the Tigers 27, the Brewers 28. (Thanks to Joe DeMayo for this info.)

I don’t know, there’s something pathetic about this kind of thing. I’m not saying it doesn’t make sense- once it has become obvious that the Mets aren’t in the mix for Reyes, best possible outcome is worth considering. But it feels like knowing your wife is going to cheat on you, and rooting for it to be with one man over another.

As for Kevin Kernan’s column this morning, where he claims that Jose Reyes’ reggaeton song released in July accurately predicts that he will forsake the Mets, I don’t even know what to say. This would be a ludicrous statement if we didn’t also know exactly how dire the team’s finances are. But… we do. Trying to come up with some other reason why the Mets won’t be signing Reyes is awfully silly.