Sherman took a new tack rather than citing anonymous sources that might or might not exist or giving his own hackneyed prescription as to what the team should do. Instead, he’s trying to appeal to the populace that inhabits the Mets' fan base with a piece entitled, “If Granderson is Mets’ only move, Sandy (Alderson) has failed fans.”
Does Sherman have a point amid the muck? Not really. It is not reasonable nor realistic that the Mets should sign Stephen Drew for what Scott Boras is demanding; should have paid the $60 million it would’ve taken to get Jhonny Peralta to select the Mets over the Cardinals; or give up the package it will take to get Asdrubal Cabrera. It’s strange how the same writers who are saying teams should copy the template of the Rays and Athletics suddenly alter the argument to include the New York market as a reason the team should spend more when the New York team is doing exactly what the Rays and Athletics do. Which is it? Or does it depend on what is convenient for the moment?
Klapisch’s piece somehow managed to surpass Sherman’s in terms of whiny speculation about club finances and whether or not the decision not to spend is based on determination of player value or lack of funds. I’ve never quite understood what the difference is. On the same token as a team with homegrown talent being “better” than one that was built through spending power, who cares? The record is what it is no matter how the team was put together. The World Series trophy is just as shiny.
The Cardinals spent $53 million on a player in Peralta that was expected to command around $15 million less than what he got. This was after the Phillies paid $16 million to Marlon Byrd. Subsequently, the Yankees gave $153 million to Jacoby Ellsbury. The Mariners gave $240 million to Robinson Cano. Scott Kazmir got $22 million from the A's. Phil Hughes received $24 million from the Twins. Scott Feldman – Scott Feldman – got $30 million from the Astros. Boras wants $140 million for Shin-Soo Choo. One can only guess what Boras is requesting for Drew considering the somewhat misplaced love he’s getting from the media and stat people. Presumably, he’ll want more than Peralta got because Drew is a year younger and doesn’t have a PED suspension in his past. None of these are players the Mets or anyone else should be breaking the bank for. They might anyway, but it doesn't mean they should. Because some teams are willing to do it, doesn’t make it a smart decision. These prices are insane and the Mets probably overpaid and gave a year beyond what Alderson wanted to for Granderson.
Klapisch mentions “shock” as if it’s unreasonable to be shocked at the amount of money being tossed around. Were the Mets supposed to pay the money it would’ve cost to get Peralta to spurn the Cardinals and then use him as their showpiece for the winter? He also refers to Granderson as an “upgrade in center field” even though Granderson’s going to play left. Given these quandaries, lack of definable plans as to what they should do rather than complaints as to what they did do, and the absence of fact-checking in the assertions, can we take the financial extrapolations Klapisch makes seriously?