Color me skeptical that anyone, Sandy Alderson included, can build a winning team in 2012 with the extremely limiting financial parameters currently facing the Mets.

But if anyone can, it’s Alderson.

He needs pitching depth, as previously discussed. And he needs to do it with minor league free agents. So as targets go, Chuck James is a good bet.

James pitched to a 2.30 ERA in Triple-A last season, a 2.32 ERA in 2010. He split time between starting and relieving, so he fits the swingman who can be sent down that Alderson described earlier this week. And the price is right: no guaranteed MLB contract or spot on the 40-man roster necessary.

James is also left-handed, so if he doesn’t provide help as a starter or long reliever, he can be another lefty out of the pen. One warning, though: his MLB stats suggest he has no platoon advantage, so tread carefully on making him a second Tim Byrdak.

This isn’t signing Jose Reyes or Yu Darvish. But it is maxing out the things Alderson can do, and that story shouldn’t be lost due to the financial storm.

Just confirmed from the Mets that the team did not place a bid in the sealed bidding process for Nippon Ham Fighters hurler Yu Darvish.

Hey, it never hurts to ask.

Darvish, who projects as a frontline starting pitcher, presumably exceeded the team’s remaining player budget, which is [THIS SPACE FOR SALE].

No word from the Mets on exactly how much they didn’t bid.  The Yankees, true to form, reportedly did.

More on this story as it develops, which it won’t, since the Mets didn’t bid.

You know, unless Johan Santana can’t start the season, and then he’s your fourth starter. Or there’s another injury as well, always possible with pitchers, and then he’s your third starter.

That’s the only reasonable conclusion out of Sandy Alderson’s comments yesterday, when he pointed out something obvious- Johan Santana, off of shoulder surgery that has taken most pitchers more than a year to return from, is no sure thing to start the season- and added something puzzling,  after making it clear that he doesn’t expect any major moves in the rotation.

Here’s the comment on pitching depth:

“The problem with rotation depth is you have to hit the sweet spot. You have to find somebody who could be a swingman—because if everything goes right, we don’t have a spot in that rotation. So it’s got to be somebody who can either be a swingman out of the bullpen, or somebody who could go to Triple-A initially and maybe move up and down.

“There are some interesting names out there. We have to hit the right spot with the guy that gives us the kind of flexibility that will ultimately give us the depth. And that’s not always easy to find.

“We claimed [Jeremy] Hafner off waivers yesterday. I think he’s the kind of guy that would fit what we’re looking for in terms of depth – somebody that has options that we can move back and forth. He’s not an established name, but someone we think nonetheless might be helpful.”

Let’s break this down. Because they have five starters, they don’t want to take the chance that adding a sixth starter could produce a logjam.

Really?

First of all, Dillon Gee still has options.  And frankly, after a season of 84 ERA+ and 4.46 xFIP, he didn’t exactly make the case that he is indispensable and needs to remain in the rotation no matter what.

Second, let’s game this out. Let’s say Santana is healthy and dominating, Gee becomes a mainstay so great this spring that even keeping him as a long man is impossible to stomach, and the Mets have the unfortunate problem of a sixth starting pitcher who simply can’t fit in the rotation.  Oy, such problems. What to do?

Simple. The Mets trade a starter if stuck in that awful, never-going-to-happen position.

So yes, we know what this is really about. I hate to repeat myself on this, but the Mets are using Jeremy Hafner as sixth starter for the same reason they are using Mike Nickeas as their backup catcher.

Even a reasonable fallback plan is beyond their means right now.

The Mets gave up some outfield depth and right-handed hitting at the catcher position by non-tendering Mike Baxter and Ronny Paulino.

Baxter, a Queens native, had pop and could play the outfield corners. The move leaves the Mets in even greater need of backup plans for presumed starters Jason Bay, Andres Torres and Lucas Duda.

As for Paulino, his exit clears a path for Mike Nickeas, a good defensive catcher with a suspect bat.

The moves allow the Mets to officially add Jon Rauch and Frank Francisco to the 40-man roster, so they can quit sneaking around. Good for them!

To get a sense of what not having much money does to a team’s ability to compete, take a look at what’s going on at catcher for the Mets. (Try as I might to just write a piece about player acquisition, I think it’s an incomplete job at best if not put into financial perspective.)

The Mets have Josh Thole, a perfectly reasonable first option at catcher. He bats left-handed, has struggled (in few appearances) against left-handed pitching. But offensively, he’s above-average against righties for a catcher. So the perfect solution is to pair him with a very good right-handed hitting catcher.

And catchers who can play 60-70 games and mash lefties aren’t especially expensive, since most teams don’t have a Josh Thole already. Someone like Kelly Shoppach is a free agent, will probably get around $2 million to sign, and has a career OPS of .909 against lefties.

But just before signing his many relief pitchers, Sandy Alderson let it be known that the plan was to go with what they had at catcher. And tonight, at the non-tender deadline, the Mets are expected to cut Ronny Paulino loose.

Who is likely to fill the void? Either Mike Nickeas, a good defensive catcher who doesn’t appear able to hit, or Lucas May, one of three minor leaguers the Mets signed today. And as Ted Berg points out, May has displayed the ability to hit lefties well at a number of minor league stops.

But it is also important to put those numbers in perspective, something Major League Equivalents (MLEs) do for us.  That .339/.410/.642 line in 2010 against lefties looks great. But he did it for Alberqueque of the Pacific Coast League. What is the MLB translation for such production? .241/.308/.398. Afraid the change in levels, and the transition from the hitter-happy PCL, brings that number down quite a bit.

So let’s review, shall we? For around $2 million, they could retain Ronny Paulino- who, to be fair, got a great deal of criticism from within the team for his game-calling- or Kelly Shoppach. As mentioned, Shoppach’s career OPS against lefties is .909; Paulino’s is .860.

Or for the major league minimum, they could get Lucas May, whose best production at Triple-A against lefties still projects to just a .706 OPS.

Realistically, a major league team should have both, because if Shoppach is signed and gets injured, Plan B is necessary. So hopefully, that’s what happens. Sandy Alderson certainly knows how useful a lefty-masher as Thole backup is- he’s the one who signed Paulino to begin with last year.

However, if what Alderson effectively said turns out to be the case- they had money to spend on the bullpen, or a backup catcher, but not both-it is just a reminder that the current financial problems experienced by ownership are doing much more than just denying the fan base Jose Reyes, and will continue to erode the team’s ability to fix problems for as long as they remain.

The flurry of activity continues.

Ken Davidoff of Newsday reports that the Mets have signed Frank Francisco to a two-year contract. Jon Morosi reports the deal is for $12 million over two years. That’s a lot, but Francisco should provide decent value for the money. Still, feels like a bit of an overpay.

Francisco, 32, is a consistent strikeout pitcher (career 9.9 per 9, 9.4 per 9 in 2011) who usually walks around 3 per 9. He’s instantly supplanted Ramon Ramirez as the team’s best relief pitcher, a title he held on Twitter for around five minutes.

The Mets bullpen as a whole now looks like this:

Francisco

Rauch

Ramirez

Parnell

Byrdak

Parnell Edit: Parnell only counts once. Thanks, Gobias Industries.

Acosta

Beato

Herrera

That’s a solid group. Nice job, Sandy Alderson. Too bad the ownership can’t provide you with even a little more money; would be nice to see how you’d fix up the rest of the team.

An interesting trade appears to be close for the Mets.

New York would send Angel Pagan to the San Francisco Giants for outfielder Andres Torres and reliever Ramon Ramirez.

The trade makes a ton of sense for the Mets.

In Torres, they are getting a hitter just a year removed from posting an OPS+ of 122 while playing an extremely good center field. His offense dropped precipitously in 2011, just like Pagan’s, but Torres’ defense remained stellar. And after making just $2.2 million last year, he’ll probably check in around $3 million in arbitration; Pagan will get more like $5  million.

So it isn’t clear that Pagan is a better bet than Torres in 2012, both come with one-year commitments, and Torres is much cheaper.

But wait; there’s more.

Ramon Ramirez is a very good relief pitcher. He struck out nearly a batter an inning in 2011, walked a reasonable 3.4 per nine, and made just $1.65 million last year, putting his salary around $2.5 million in arbitration this year. He’ll instantly become the best relief pitcher on the Mets, which says a great deal about current inventory, to be sure, but reiterates that Ramirez is a help for this team.

No, they didn’t just win the pennant, for those who want to dismiss any minor move. But this is a good move for the Mets.

Multiple reports tonight have the Mets signing Jon Rauch, pending a physical.

Rauch is an extremely tall relief pitcher, and on an inexpensive one-year deal, the Mets got the kind of price-per-inch steal that will make people jealous throughout the garment district.

Rauch posted a 4.85 ERA in 2011, but that is likely the result of a home run rate that actually quadrupled from 2010. Since his fly ball rate remained pretty static, he’s a solid rebound candidate.

Jim Duquette has the deal at $3.5 million over one year. Rauch is a good bet to get some late outs. A solid signing; they needed relief pitching.

Here’s an artist’s rendering of what it will look like when Rauch stands next to Daniel Herrera.

The Mets now have the league’s tallest and shortest players under team control, having just missed out on Jonathan Broxton, baseball’s heaviest. Hopefully, a trade for 145 pound Michael Martinez of the Phillies is next on the agenda.

So the bad news is, Jose Reyes is property of the Miami Marlins. The good news?

The earth hasn’t crashed into the sun?

No, the good news (or, more appropriately, the somewhat silver lining) is that Sandy Alderson is in a position he’s familiar with. He needs to build a team on an extremely limited budget. It would be foolish to blame him for not spending money. No one asks a homeless man why he doesn’t buy tailored suits.

But he does know what he’s doing. Imagine if Omar Minaya were in charge of doing more with less- he’d sign Alex Cora to play second base and shortstop simultaneously.

So what is on Sandy’s shopping list? According to Jon Heyman, it consists of a closer, a setup man, a backup utility infielder, two backup outfielders and a catcher.  As of today, Alderson’s been told he has $10-15 million with which to do it.

But remember: assuming Mike Pelfrey and Angel Pagan return, that money needs to go a long way. They’d have eight players set to earn approximately $70 million: Johan Santana, David Wright, Jason Bay, R.A. Dickey, D.J. Carrasco, Tim Byrdak, Pelfrey and Pagan.

Even if we assume that the Mets utilize league-minimum salaries on the following: Daniel Murphy, Jon Niese, Ruben Tejada, Bobby Parnell, Ike Davis, Josh Thole, Dillon Gee, Pedro Beato and Lucas Duda- another nine players a around $4.5 million to assume first base, second base, shortstop, right field, catcher, two starting rotation slots and two bullpen slots- that means that $10-15 million needs to cover nine remaining roster slots.

Put another way, Heath Bell wasn’t walking through that door.

Accordingly, Free Agent Fit will now try and evaluate those free agents the Mets are rumored to be interested in through that framework. So no Jimmy Rollins, no C.J. Wilson. (And at those prices, probably for the best,anyway.)

I suggest, as you play Hot Stove League in your head, that you do the same.

Jose Reyes will make $3 million less per season than Carl Crawford, on a deal that lasts a year less, even though Reyes plays a more important defensive position and was a year younger at time of signing.

So you tell me: did the Marlins overpay? Or did the Mets simply let their best, most exciting player go because they didn’t have the money to sign him?

Not to depress you further, but Sandy Alderson’s full meeting with reporters Sunday night contained plenty of reason for pessimism beyond the major topic of the conversation: that Jose Reyes isn’t coming back to New York.

Listen to this answer from Alderson about whether ownership’s losses with Bernie Madoff played a part in the decision not to sign Reyes:

“Bernie Madoff and his specter are always referenced in these situations. I don’t really think Madoff has that much to do with it. But when a team loses $70 million irrespective of Bernie Madoff or anyone else, that’s probably a bigger factor in our approach to this season and the next couple (emphasis added) than anything else.”

In other words, this new austerity isn’t anything temporary. And Alderson didn’t even commit to spending the money not spent on Reyes on other players.

But what does the next couple mean? Let’s say it is the winter of 2012 and 2013. What exactly would put the Wilpon ownership group in position to, at that point, afford anything? They have a $430 million loan against the team due to be paid back in full in June 2014. Think that’s a year they can spring for more payroll? They have a loan against SNY of $450 million due back in full in June 2015. Think that’s a year they can afford anything? And we’re not even touching the $600 million they still owe, in bi-annual increments of around $25 million every six months, nor any judgment against them in the lawsuit brought by Irving Picard, trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims. Or the still-being-negotiated deal with minority investors, which would call for the Mets to come up with around $170 million in 2017. That sounds like a year they’ll increase spending, right?

If it helps any, all that is what makes it unlikely they’ll be around as owners to exercise such draconian measures over even the medium-term.

But we’ll have more here on the potential signing of Matt Capps. And I mean that in the largest possible sense, until the day new owners take over the team.

SI’s Jon Heyman reported that Jorge Posada contacted the Mets about their backup catcher position, but the Mets weren’t interested.

The answer why is a pretty simple one. And the stated reason, that the Mets want a defense-first backup, is only part of it.

The Mets have plenty of needs. A starter to compete with Dillon Gee. A few relievers better than Daniel Herrera. A center fielder better than Angel Pagan. A trading partner for Jason Bay. A Wizard of Oz-style defensive revelation for Lucas Duda.

Pretty much the only thing they don’t need is a catcher who hits righties well. They have Josh Thole under contract already. And that’s the one thing Jorge Posada can be counted on to do at this point in his career.

Really, the presence of Thole cries out for a backup who can hit lefties really well, not defense-first. But I digress.

So much as it would be great to add Jorge Posada, circa 2007 to this lineup, I regret to inform you that time travel is not the new market inefficiency.

Now if the Yankees want to make Nick Swisher available, that’s a different story. Or Eduardo Nunez. Or Dellin Betances. Or David Robertson. I could go on.

See? Finding areas the team needs to improve isn’t hard. It’s finding those spots where the Mets can say “Nope, we’re good” that is the challenge.

So thank you, Jorge Posada. You’ve brightened this Mets fan’s day.

Apparently, however, they are interested in Jason Varitek, the mirror image of Posada at this point. That makes sense, though I’d prefer someone younger for a more strict platoon.

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.