Mets Don't Spend, But Even Cheaper Teams Do Better

So let's say we've all just resigned ourselves to the fact that this offseason will not contain the big splash we'd all hoped it out. The Mets are cheap, are going to remain cheap, and there's nothing we can do about it. But, even for cheap clubs, it seems they aren't very good at it. Joel Sherman of the New York Post agrees, with this to say about how they can improve.

The Mets have conditioned their faithful to talk longingly about getting to a $100 million payroll, when really this franchise has the peripheral benefits that should support at least a $140 million-ish roster...

The Mets need to be about the bottom up. A persistent problem from when they were contenders in 2007-08 and dreadful the past five years is a lack of depth that destroys them as the season progresses. From Aug. 1 on over the past seven years, you simply see the Mets giving too many at-bats to players such as Cory Sullivan, Chris Carter, Nick Evans, Willie Harris, Mike Baxter and Omar Quintanilla...There have been too many late-season days when they too closely resemble the Long Island Ducks. They need to fortify the whole roster, even with money tight.

Photo by Michael Baron

Sherman is right. Even with the money they are spending, they aren't doing a very good job of even bringing in Major League players. If we have to accept that we are going to spend like a small market franchise, can't we at least expect to be a successful small market franchise? We don't even get that.

A lot of people defend Sandy Alderson for not being the main cause of the team having a low payroll, and I agree, it probably is the Wilpons holding the purse strings tight. But at what point can we blame him for not effectively using the means he does have? We need more "buy low" success stories than Marlon Byrd for this team to start winning again soon under the current conditions.