The thrifty A's won more games in June than the $360-million Mets

The Oakland Athletics went 10-16 in June. That's below-mediocre but also incredible when compared to the $364-million Mets' record in the same month.

After ponying up more than a third of a billion dollars to build their current roster, all the Mets could do in June was amass a paltry 7-19 record. The Mets payroll this year is $300 million larger than the A's but somehow, someway, the A's did enough to outperform them.

Why pay Starling Marte $78 million a year when you could have Esteury Ruiz making less than a mil and on pace to swipe 80 bags as a rookie?

Obviously signing players that demand big contracts gives your team a better chance to win but as the Mets prove, it doesn't guarantee a thing. At the end of the day, the Mets are paying for past production and set-in-stone expectations. The A's, on the other hand, are paying for bargains, potential, and upside.

There is not a lot to celebrate about this season around Oakland and the Athletics baseball organization, so when an opportunity arises we have to bask in it. Even if it comes at the expense of another team and their fanbase's misery.

Mets fans are pissing and moaning about their management even though the ownership is breaking the bank to try and win a chip. Too bad for them, and with the trade deadline just a month away, the club is now looking more like a potential seller than an actual buyer come August.

Don't get it wrong. A's fans would love to be in a situation where a team full of All-Stars is underperforming. You can't buy managerial competency so even though the A's owner is cheap, we are halfway there when it comes to the ingredients needed to compete.

What will this management team be able to accomplish once they get an infusion of that Las Vegas cash? We have to assume things we'll get better. By the look of it, the A's are already approaching, if not trumping, MLB-richest-Mets levels of production.