jacjacatk posted:Ja'Crispy posted:jacjacatk posted:Ja'Crispy posted:jacjacatk posted:The Mets cut this guy last October. And this one. And this one. All more successful and younger than Tebow's been so far, and presumably a dime a dozen. It's essentially a given that someone similar is at least losing development time*, if not an actual roster spot, to Tebow at this point.
* I mean, the Mets could just be keeping him around to sell jerseys and not actually cutting some schmo earning $1K month to make up for the $100K they have invested in Tebow, but there's only so many PAs to go around, so every PA Tebow gets is one a Stefan Sabol doesn't. Not that it matters all that much, since the Stefan Sabols and Tim Tebows of the world are effectively an unlimited resource, as far as MLB teams needing that level of talent are concerned.
The Mets believe that Tebow was better for their business. They think 6'3" 235 lb super fast and strong Tebow was a business better risk than the 5'11" 200 lb guys they saw play for the last few years. I don't get where this is unfair, these guys all got their shot. There is no right of equal chances in this world. If he is bad they will cut him as well. I am assuming Tebow and two other players are now taking the ABs these guys used to get.
Except that it's possible (likely, even) that the decisions regarding Tebow are money, not performance, driven. Which is fine, of course, it is a business, but the idea that Tebow is somehow a better baseball bet than the randoms whose playing time he's now getting is pretty thin. The truth of the matter is that all of them, Tebow included, are the ultimate fungible baseball talent, but it's a lot easier to market Tebow.
Of course that is possible (not likely), but you have to jump through too many hoops and make too many assumptions to get at that. The simplest explanation is that they want/wanted him to succeed and will make their money off of his success.
Why make that assumption about Tebow, when the vast majority of players signed by MLB clubs are signed in the full knowledge that they aren't going to ever amount to anything, and the money the teams expect to ultimately make from them doesn't have anything to do directly with their individual success?
FYI, this is what $150K buys you in the draft. Gene Cone.
The Mets gave Gene Cone $150k to play low A, the Mets gave $100k to Tebow to try to do something, that is what the market priced them out as and both probably really mean nothing to them right now. So what? He is a low risk opportunity, I have been saying that all along. People in business take flyers all the time, nobody makes any plans off of them but if they pan out you are happy. The Wilpons are more concerned about how the Fed raising interest rates this year will effect their commercial real estate business.
I have made no assumptions about Tebow. He is an elite athlete. The Mets kept him in the system and cut others. Those are facts. Elite athletes get more chances to prove they can't play. The only assumptions being made are that this is a crazy get our Madoff money back scheme to bring up Tebow right away to MLB so the Wilpons can sell Tebow 15 jerseys to silly bible thumpers who would do absolutely anything for Tebow. Even better bring him to Florida so he can sell out some small minor league park with his 3-4 ABs a night and we can make a mint off of hot dogs and beer. All problems would then be solved.
My point is usually when people rail against Tebow there is another agenda they are trying to get across and it isn't really the athlete Tebow they don't like. Why make up fairy tales just say what you like or don't like about the guy? I think I have always rooted against the teams he was on and hoped he failed miserably when he played, but he seems like a really decent guy, definitely a leader to accomplish what he has, and is definitely an unbelievable athlete.
Weren't the Mets in the WS two years ago with a few pitchers that were draft picks?