Master Index of Archived Threads


Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon stories

batmagadanleadoff May 22 2011 10:52 PM

From this week's long New Yorker article on Wilpon and the Mets which I am right now reading -- but paused to post this here quote: Fred Wilpon on Reyes and Wright: In the game against the Astros, Jose Reyes, leading off for the Mets, singled sharply up the middle, then stole second. “He’s a racehorse,” Wilpon said. When Reyes started with the Mets, in 2003, just before his twentieth birthday, he was pegged as a future star. Injuries have limited him to a more pedestrian career, though he’s off to a good start this season. “He thinks he’s going to get Carl Crawford money,” Wilpon said, referring to the Red Sox’ signing of the former Tampa Bay player to a seven-year, $142-million contract. “He’s had everything wrong with him,” Wilpon said of Reyes. “He won’t get it.” After the catcher, Josh Thole, struck out, David Wright came to the plate. Wright, the team’s marquee attraction, has started the season dreadfully at the plate. “He’s pressing,” Wilpon said. “A really good kid. A very good player. Not a superstar.” Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011 ... z1N9EKqKUR

bmfc1 May 23 2011 05:28 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

"We're a shitty team" Ike Davis, the sophomore first baseman and the one pleasant surprise for the Mets so far this season, was up next. “Good hitter,” Wilpon said. “Shitty team—good hitter.” Davis struck out. Angel Pagan flied out to right, ending the Mets’ threat. “Lousy clubs—that’s what happens.” Wilpon sighed. The Astros put three runs on the board in the top of the second. “We’re snakebitten, baby,” Wilpon said.

HahnSolo May 23 2011 06:33 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Oh, mother of god.

metirish May 23 2011 06:37 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Read this on the train in , brilliant stuff from Toobin , reading it again to let it soak in. love this line from Toobin Wilpon must prove that he was a dupe rather than a crook

G-Fafif May 23 2011 06:40 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Fascinating article. In his Fred from Locust Valley mode, he actually sounds like a Mets fan, which is something it's never occurred to me he is. Of course, like many of the Freds from Locust Valley who call Steve Somers, I'm not sure I'd want him owning my team. Madoff: What a sociopath. Even more so from his comments. Koufax: Must be sorry he stayed in touch with Fred. Rich guys giving themselves clubby nicknames and globehopping in search of better weather: Cringe. Pedro Beato: "Who's that weird old guy yelling at me about Brooklyn?" The Dodger overkill: At least he admits it was. Sell. Find Jeff something else to do with the rest of his life.

Ceetar May 23 2011 06:52 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

He does sound like a Mets fan. But I don't care about his baseball opinions, we already knew they were poor and he's admitted himself in October with the Alderson stuff that he's not smart enough to make baseball decisions. Well fine, gimme your money and let Alderson do it (and if you don't have money, get lost). Falls back to the autonomy thing. Actually, reading that quote about Reyes is actually rather tame. Carton and the radio/twitter were blowing it up, but all he said was he's not getting paid as much as Crawford, which people have been touting as the 'ceiling'. Has Reyes? maybe, but it could just be the media too. Is it any different then Cashman telling Jeter that he should test the waters?

themetfairy May 23 2011 06:57 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I'm just shaking my head here. G-Fafif - you nailed it.

metirish May 23 2011 07:25 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

it occurs to me that this is not a very good way for Fred to drum up business at the gates.

seawolf17 May 23 2011 07:28 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I'm just shaking my head. It's crazy.

smg58 May 23 2011 07:33 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

metirish wrote: it occurs to me that this is not a very good way for Fred to drum up business at the gates. It's also not a very good way to drum up confidence in his players.

metsmarathon May 23 2011 07:42 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 23 2011 07:47 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Stunning (and I'm only a third of the way through). Though I suppose it speaks for his propensity to have not known wtf he was doing when investing, or anything else.

metirish May 23 2011 07:51 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Jeff in his box at Citi showing off models of private jets ......nice

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 23 2011 07:55 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

At least I have a new sig line

Centerfield May 23 2011 08:02 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Holy crap.

batmagadanleadoff May 23 2011 08:03 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 23 2011 08:06 AM

"Don't worry, Dad. As soon as Bernie gets out jail and starts a new fund for us to invest with, everything'll turn out OK". "What, Dad? What's with the Herman Munster face?" "How come you never smile?" "What are you talking about?"

Benjamin Grimm May 23 2011 08:04 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I have such Wilpon fatigue.

metirish May 23 2011 08:05 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I have such Wilpon fatigue.

batmagadanleadoff May 23 2011 08:11 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Fred Wilpon wrote: [Reyes] thinks he’s going to get Carl Crawford money.... He’s had everything wrong with him.... He won’t get it. When I read this quote, I thought that Fred meant that no team would pay Reyes that kind of money --- not just the Mets.

Centerfield May 23 2011 08:12 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

You just don't say stuff like that. What a fucking idiot.

TransMonk May 23 2011 08:13 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Maybe he shouldn't have said what he said...but, personally, I don't disagree with any of his statements.

batmagadanleadoff May 23 2011 08:14 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Centerfield wrote: You just don't say stuff like that. What a fucking idiot. Fred just made it that much easier for Wright to go elsewhere when his time is up here. Players don't forget comments like Fred's.

metirish May 23 2011 08:18 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Fred Wilpon wrote: [Reyes] thinks he’s going to get Carl Crawford money.... He’s had everything wrong with him.... He won’t get it. When I read this quote, I thought that Fred meant that no team would pay Reyes that kind of money --- not just the Mets. Is Steinbrenner said it he'd be alive obviously but it would be seen as a hard line stance....nothing wrong with it I think.

Edgy MD May 23 2011 08:20 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Centerfield wrote: You just don't say stuff like that. What a fucking idiot. Well, folks do all the time. Fans do all the time. But owners don't say that about their company and employees while on the record. Makes me wonder if his mental capacity is on the wane.

batmagadanleadoff May 23 2011 08:21 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Fred also said: "Seaver thinks we're going to erect a statue in his honor at Citi Field. But he blew too many no-hitters. He's no Sandy Koufax. He won't get it".

MFS62 May 23 2011 08:27 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

It answered one question that had never been answered before, but had been danced-around: Omar did have full autonomy to make those moves (since Fred blames the "schmuck"). Later

metirish May 23 2011 08:27 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I think by that schmuck he meant himself.

Edgy MD May 23 2011 08:32 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Yeah, judging by the rest of the article, it's hard to blame a dimming mind. More likely frustrations with a terrible start and lousy judgment. Funny to see this cartoon woven into the text.

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 23 2011 08:45 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

It answered one question that had never been answered before, but had been danced-around: Omar did have full autonomy to make those moves (since Fred blames the "schmuck"). Later No effing way he's referring to Omar there, nor does that remark answer your question.

Centerfield May 23 2011 08:49 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

He had to have meant those comments to be off the record. No?

Ceetar May 23 2011 08:54 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Centerfield wrote: He had to have meant those comments to be off the record. No? I would guess probably so, given the context. A. It was a long, 5 meetings, interview process. B. It wouldn't about baseball really. Who knows if he even meant it or it was an in-game overblown reaction like many fans have? Of course, that doesn't actually change anything. He's still an idiot for saying it to a reporter, and an idiot of he lets Wright or Reyes get away.

metirish May 23 2011 09:00 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Fred doesn't like bunting, that's a good thing.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 23 2011 09:01 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

metirish wrote: Read this on the train in , brilliant stuff from Toobin , reading it again to let it soak in. love this line from Toobin Wilpon must prove that he was a dupe rather than a crook He goes a long way toward proving this with going on the record and forgetting himself with Toobin. This all smacks of a dupe thinking he's playing a shark's PR game. The thing is, even if the access works to make him seem more honest and innocuous in re: Madoffstuff, it ultimately makes it near-impossible for him to keep and run his business effectively. That which may help him hold onto his business financially will only help kill said business (which, as we all know, is far from healthy)-- call it the Chemo PR Treatment. As a bunch of people have said here and elsewhere, the content of what he's saying about the team is pretty damn tame considering what Mets fans were saying at the time; the game they attended, IIRC, was just before the 6-game winning streak, just about at the nadir for anyone with any sort of emotional connection to the Mets. So, yeah, it's understandable as an excited utterance. It's still admissible, though, so to speak.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 23 2011 09:12 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Toobin on Brian Lehrer's show on WNYC now, discussing the article. He offers his doubts about the validity of Picard's charges-- "Why would he keep half of his liquid assets in the world in something he suspected was a Ponzi scheme? Even if you assume he's a rational bad guy... that would be a crazy thing to do."

Willets Point May 23 2011 09:13 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Thinking: "Maybe he was a dupe after all. He's not smart enough to be a conspirator." Oh wait that's a different Picard.

metirish May 23 2011 09:14 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

By Adam Rubin David Wright offered this response to Fred Wilpon's comments labeling him not a superstar (but a very nice guy): "Fred is a good man and is obviously going through some difficult times. There is nothing more productive that I can say at this time."

Fman99 May 23 2011 09:59 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

What dopey shit coming from Fred. George Steinbrenner must be rolling around on his bed of coals reading this.

Ceetar May 23 2011 10:03 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Fman99 wrote: What dopey shit coming from Fred. George Steinbrenner must be rolling around on his bed of coals reading this. George would probably be thinking "That wuss, I would've walked down to the clubhouse after than and fired Beltran myself!" I'm bored of this story already. Blah blah rich owner guy runs his mouth. wish it wasn't an offday.

seawolf17 May 23 2011 10:28 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Well, yes, except that he's the rich guy who signs the checks, and therefore the single most important guy who determines what happens with this franchise that we allegedly love, despite the fact that they kick us in the collective nuts every chance they get.

TransMonk May 23 2011 10:41 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Maybe Fred believed The Rapture was going to occur on Saturday and none of his comments would actually make it to print today.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 23 2011 11:02 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 23 2011 08:59 PM

Ceetar wrote: Centerfield wrote: He had to have meant those comments to be off the record. No? I would guess probably so, given the context. A. It was a long, 5 meetings, interview process. B. It wouldn't about baseball really. Who knows if he even meant it or it was an in-game overblown reaction like many fans have? Of course, that doesn't actually change anything. He's still an idiot for saying it to a reporter, and an idiot of he lets Wright or Reyes get away. Toobin was asked this during the WNYC interview. He said, "Yeah, it's possible," and praised Fred at all times for being a "good" and "standup" guy who wouldn't back away from any of this stuff. Toobin also mentioned that he had his pad out at virtually all times, even at the stadium. THAT probably should have been Fred's first clue that he wasn't off-the-record.

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 23 2011 11:12 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I'm honestly not concerned with the player's feelings getting hurt, or whether Wilpon's remarks aren't a thousand times milder than what other folks who also love the Mets say here every day. The real damage here is to Wilpon's entire perception by and relationship to the fans. There is no way Reyes goes to another team now without the fans pinning it on Fred Wilpon forever. Really, it was a favor to the players who can now get away with "betraying" the fans when they make their decisions.

Valadius May 23 2011 11:18 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Really, the only hope for this team is for the Wilpons to sell it.

themetfairy May 23 2011 11:22 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Toobin/Wilpon = Pearlman/Rocker

Ashie62 May 23 2011 11:29 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

The potential Exodus of Pelfrey, KRod, Beltran, Reyes will be this generations 'massacre" and management will be blamed with little ill will towards the players.

seawolf17 May 23 2011 11:30 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Yes to both Vlad and Ashie.

metirish May 23 2011 11:34 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Joelsherman1 Supposedly Wilpon's ace p.r. men crafting follow-up statement My guess: "Fred wants to apologize for omitting that Jason Bay sucks, too." the denial or mis-representation of things said is often ugly and this will probably prove the same.

Ceetar May 23 2011 11:36 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: The real damage here is to Wilpon's entire perception by and relationship to the fans. There is no way Reyes goes to another team now without the fans pinning it on Fred Wilpon forever. Good. That's another log on the "not resigning Reyes would be a disaster" pyre. Soon it'll be big enough even Steve Phillips would've seen it. I assume Wilpon will say he was frustrated with the results and may have exaggerated his feelings.

batmagadanleadoff May 23 2011 12:02 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

One possibility is that Fred's comments were very calculated, and purposely designed to eventually push his stars to other teams. Perhaps Fred crunched the financials and already knows without doubt, that which we fans still hope isn't true -- that the Mets won't be able to afford to re-sign either Reyes or Wright, no matter how things break. Just one theory.

seawolf17 May 23 2011 12:20 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

batmagadanleadoff wrote: One possibility is that Fred's comments were very calculated, and purposely designed to eventually push his stars to other teams. Perhaps Fred crunched the financials and already knows without doubt, that which we fans still hope isn't true -- that the Mets won't be able to afford to re-sign either Reyes or Wright, no matter how things break. Just one theory. I hat this organization.

Edgy MD May 23 2011 12:28 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

batmagadanleadoff wrote: One possibility is that Fred's comments were very calculated, and purposely designed to eventually push his stars to other teams. Perhaps Fred crunched the financials and already knows without doubt, that which we fans still hope isn't true -- that the Mets won't be able to afford to re-sign either Reyes or Wright, no matter how things break. Just one theory. He doesn't need to push anybody anywhere.

batmagadanleadoff May 23 2011 12:34 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

seawolf17 wrote: I hat this organization. What's maddening is that I've been enjoying this Mets team much more than I thought I would a month and a half ago. With three key players due back in the near-term (Wright, Davis & Pagan) the Mets aren't too far back of the Wild Card leader -- and none of the other Wild Card contenders appear to be dominant or un-catchable. In any other season, I'd say that the Mets are one pick-up away (a starting pitcher, ideally) from helping themselves considerably. But given the economic problems that surround the Mets, I wonder just how feasible that one pick-up is? It's also possible that ownership's reckless spending has already doomed the Mets to years of mediocrity and that the mediocrity clock has begun to tick -- and the team hasn't yet paid out a single penny in damages from the Picard lawsuit.

Edgy MD May 23 2011 12:36 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Well, try and think of the pickup as something from among Davis, Wright, Pagan, and Santana --- or just Santana if you were already factoring the other three into your optimism --- and you can maintain your hope, if you can keep away the very rational doubts that Santana will have much to offer this this season.

Gwreck May 23 2011 12:39 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's also possible that ownership's reckless spending has already doomed the Mets to years of mediocrity There's nothing wrong with the Mets that can't be fixed with large infusions of cash, whether its in the form of premium free agents, the bonuses necessary to obtain top talent in the draft or whatever (even construction costs to reconfigure the left-field wall). The bad signings of the past are only a burden if the team doesn't have the financial ability to recover from them.

batmagadanleadoff May 23 2011 12:41 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Edgy DC wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: One possibility is that Fred's comments were very calculated, and purposely designed to eventually push his stars to other teams. Perhaps Fred crunched the financials and already knows without doubt, that which we fans still hope isn't true -- that the Mets won't be able to afford to re-sign either Reyes or Wright, no matter how things break. Just one theory. He doesn't need to push anybody anywhere. He might. What if the Mets are so broke that they know that they wouldn't be able to afford to re-sign their stars even if the stars offered the franchise a home team discount? Perhaps Wilpon would rather offend his players to the point of no return in order to mask his inability to re-sign them.

Ceetar May 23 2011 12:44 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Maybe what Wilpon is trying to say is, there is no way Jose gets Crawford money, because he's already signed an extension that hasn't been announced and it's less than that. I don't think the Mets are doomed to mediocrity in payroll. We'll see I guess, what Alderson does around the deadline, and of course where the Mets are. I wonder if that would convince people? If they brought in someone 'expensive'? But the i believe this argument basically reaffirmed that the 200million goes to the team, but if they lose the lawsuit they'll have to sell.

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 23 2011 12:56 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I'd like to remark on how terrific an article this was, capturing Fred as the loving-but-clueless father of Everything That's Wrong With The Mets, from its lukewarm support of its own players, to the dumb stadium, to the spoiled son playing with private jets, to the mismanaged finances, to ownership's overinflated confidence in its own baseball smarts, to the tin ear for fans and good media, to the stupid patriotic hats which make me hate America. Well done Toobin and Fred!!!!!

Edgy MD May 23 2011 12:58 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: One possibility is that Fred's comments were very calculated, and purposely designed to eventually push his stars to other teams. Perhaps Fred crunched the financials and already knows without doubt, that which we fans still hope isn't true -- that the Mets won't be able to afford to re-sign either Reyes or Wright, no matter how things break. Just one theory. He doesn't need to push anybody anywhere. He might. What if the Mets are so broke that they know that they wouldn't be able to afford to re-sign their stars even if the stars offered the franchise a home team discount? Perhaps Wilpon would rather offend his players to the point of no return in order to mask his inability to re-sign them. He doesn't have to say anything to not resign them. Being a dick certainly makes him look worse than being broke.

TheOldMole May 23 2011 01:02 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Get rid of the Wilpons.

dgwphotography May 23 2011 01:04 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I'm just shaking my head here...

batmagadanleadoff May 23 2011 01:23 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker Edited 2 time(s), most recently on May 23 2011 01:26 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Being a dick certainly makes him look worse than being broke. Those that have as much money as Fred has, or had as much money as Fred had, would rather be perceived as a dick than as broke, I guess. I think it's a given that they're all dicks anyway. Otherwise, they wouldn't have made all that money in the first place. Especially in Fred's business. They can trot out all the underlings and slaves in the world to say otherwise --- all the Larry Kings and Sandy Koufaxes -- but I doubt that Wilpon's the nice guy everyone seems to claim. The last thing they want to fess up to is that they can no longer afford what they once could. Anyway, I merely threw that out as a theory to consider and knock around a bit. I'm not hanging my hat on that one.

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 23 2011 01:26 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Yeah, I wouldn't. What really comes through is Fred's stunning lack of guile, especially when you consider they set the whole thing up as a means of telling a good story.

Edgy MD May 23 2011 01:47 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Stunning lack of gule for Fred. Stunning surfeit of balls for Katz. Got it.

seawolf17 May 23 2011 01:52 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I thought it was Fred who claimed to have the balls.

metirish May 23 2011 01:53 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

David Waldstein for what it's worth thinks the comments were "TOTALLY calculated".

Ashie62 May 23 2011 01:57 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

One day, after a long fly out or two to right and a few days of Wilponian madness David Wright may go to Sandy and say. "I'll make it easy for you, trade me!"

metirish May 23 2011 02:01 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

seawolf17 wrote: I thought it was Fred who claimed to have the balls. no , no , Saul has the big balls , Fred has the big mouth.

soupcan May 23 2011 02:03 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Ahhh, poor Fred. I don't have a problem with his comments - Jose may in fact get Crawford money, but he won't deserve it and the team that gives it to him will most likely regret it. I'd be happy if the Mets negotiated in good faith with Jose, even if he ends up leaving. My problem is that I'm under the impression that they won't. David Wright was becoming a superstar but so far it hasn't happened. I feel for Fred. The general consensus is that he's a good guy to do business with and a good guy in general but I'm still rooting for Picard. New ownership is the only thing I can see that will turn the Mets around. It's a given that Jose is gone -yes Ceetar, sorry to tell you that he did not sign a secret extension - and the spending, no matter what they say about all those contracts coming off the books - will not increase. The only hope in my mind is a new regime that realizes that a winner in this town may cost you money but will certainly make you money. Something the team in the Bronx fiigured out a while ago. Jeff Wilpon is a joke with a bad haircut and Long-guy-land accent so thick it sounds like he should be making me a sandwich instead of playing with his jet plane models. Can't believe that he is the guy calling the shots. Saul Katz will be played by Wallace Shawn in the movie.

Ceetar May 23 2011 02:05 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

It's roughly the farthest thing from a given that Reyes is gone. I don't actually think he's signed an extension already, but depending on how long it takes to finalize the sale I imagine it could happen mid-season.

Edgy MD May 23 2011 02:07 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Well, the farthest thing from a given is to have him signed. I think discussing what constitutes a superstar is a red herring. What justifies Carl Crawford money is more of a meat-and-potatoes issue to me. Meanwhile, Carl Crawford: .209 / .243 / .277 // .520. An OPS+ of 43. The Mets: not the only team with problems.

seawolf17 May 23 2011 02:07 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

soupcan wrote: Saul Katz will be played by Wallace Shawn in the movie. Inconceivable!

metirish May 23 2011 02:09 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

yeah , no one deserves Carl Crawford money , especially Crawford. I bet if the Mets had traded for Wright Fred would be lauding him as a superstar, and that's what I don't like about that comment , maybe it's true and maybe not but he's your guy Fred.

TransMonk May 23 2011 02:13 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Ceetar wrote: It's roughly the farthest thing from a given that Reyes is gone. I think it is more likely that Jose is playing for another team next year than playing for the Mets. Nothing in this article has or will change that likelihood, IMO.

Ceetar May 23 2011 02:16 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Edgy DC wrote: Well, the farthest thing from a given is to have him signed. I think discussing what constitutes a superstar is a red herring. What justifies Carl Crawford money is more of a meat-and-potatoes issue to me. Meanwhile, Carl Crawford: .209 / .243 / .277 // .520. An OPS+ of 43. The Mets: not the only team with problems. This is basically why the actual content of the comments isn't really important. You don't see anybody out there saying Reyes will get more than Crawford do you? So Fred implying that his injury history, however exaggerated it may be, will probably keep him from the perceived maximum isn't hard to take. Same with the 'superstar' designation. What does that mean? That Wright will get less than Pujols gets this year? I'd say the farthest thing from a given that he won't be resigned is that it's still up in the air. When it really comes down to it though, I can't imagine Alderson would let him get away. They'd actually lose money and I don't see any indication that Alderson's intending on going to a "3-year we suck but got good prospects" plan.

metirish May 23 2011 02:18 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I can't imagine Alderson would let him get away I can , and easily too. I can't imagine Alderson giving Reyes the 6/7 it will take to keep him. I can see other teams giving it to him though.

Edgy MD May 23 2011 02:22 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I can imagine a lot of things. The farthest thing from a given that he'll be elsewhere would be if he was dead or something. Knock wood. But more seriously, I think what's important is that a guy losing control of an image-based business is so desperately off-message. I think it's obvious. And I don't know how Jay Horwitz works 90-hour weeks and yet this happens so frequently. Jay's retirement would mean a lot to this team. I fear he'd be dead in two weeks, however. Fred probably does also.

TransMonk May 23 2011 02:25 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Ceetar wrote: I can't imagine Alderson would let him get away. Why didn't Sandy sign him to an extention last offseason? Hell, why is he not signing him to an extention now that he has been the best (and most healthy) player on the team this season?

G-Fafif May 23 2011 02:29 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Fred calls the FAN...sort of.

Ceetar May 23 2011 02:30 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

TransMonk wrote: Ceetar wrote: I can't imagine Alderson would let him get away. Why didn't Sandy sign him to an extention last offseason? Hell, why is he not signing him to an extention now that he has been the best (and most healthy) player on the team this season? I thought it was foolish not to resign him last year, but Sandy hadn't been with the team. He knew he had the option, picked it up, and focused on all the other billion things he had to do. I can't blame him for wanting to see Reyes play and understand how valuable he is to this team and fanbase. I don't know why he's not signing him yet. Waiting for closer to midseason? Waiting for the sale to go through (to solidify finances/budget for the next couple of years and have a clearer picture)? Leavig him out there as bait to get a real feel for what other GMs feel they'd be willing to part with in their organization? Waiting for a good summer day at home to announce it to try to pump up the desire to go to the game?

metirish May 23 2011 02:36 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

G-Fafif wrote: Fred calls the FAN...sort of. Dying over here.

Chad Ochoseis May 23 2011 03:12 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

G-Fafif wrote: Fred calls the FAN...sort of. It took 4 1/2 years, but you've topped the October 15, 2006 entry. This is my new favorite FAFIF article ever.

Frayed Knot May 23 2011 03:37 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

his hope was a rope and he should have known ... a terrible blow, but that's how it goes and Freddie's in a corner now ... [youtube]ECgBXkil7YI[/youtube]

Ceetar May 23 2011 04:46 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Chad Ochoseis wrote: G-Fafif wrote: Fred calls the FAN...sort of. It took 4 1/2 years, but you've topped the October 15, 2006 entry. This is my new favorite FAFIF article ever. and Somers just used the 'getting ethnic' line in his monologue. spot on.

Ashie62 May 23 2011 04:50 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Ceetar wrote: Maybe what Wilpon is trying to say is, there is no way Jose gets Crawford money, because he's already signed an extension that hasn't been announced and it's less than that. I don't think the Mets are doomed to mediocrity in payroll. We'll see I guess, what Alderson does around the deadline, and of course where the Mets are. I wonder if that would convince people? If they brought in someone 'expensive'? But the i believe this argument basically reaffirmed that the 200million goes to the team, but if they lose the lawsuit they'll have to sell. I'd say Fred was just greasing the wheels for Reyes' exit, and enjoying it.

batmagadanleadoff May 23 2011 05:12 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

soupcan wrote: Ahhh, poor Fred.... The general consensus is that he's a good guy to do business with and a good guy in general .... I'm so sick of reading those quotes. Let's ask Nelson Doubleday if Fred is such a great guy. Let's ask Nelson Doubleday if you can do business with Fred on a handshake alone. Let's ask all those Mets employees who were steered to Madoff's funds only after being screened for their lack of financial knowledge and barred from asking any questions about their investment if Fred is such a great guy.

Frayed Knot May 23 2011 05:20 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Yeah, that 'Poor Nelson' bandwagon is going to have to leave without me.

Edgy MD May 23 2011 05:21 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I'd loathe to make a paragon of virtue out of Nelson Doubleday either. Neither do I think him particularly victimized.

batmagadanleadoff May 23 2011 05:25 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I'm not sayin' that Doubleday was a victim or a paragon of virtue. I didn't say any of that. But Nelson's my Exhibit A in the case against being able to do business with FW with a handshake alone.

batmagadanleadoff May 23 2011 07:25 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

"Dad, why can't we say that it was Omar, disguised as you, that made all those controversial statements to Toobin? "And if Omar doesn't go along with my plan, we'll fire him".

Frayed Knot May 23 2011 08:17 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'm not sayin' that Doubleday was a victim or a paragon of virtue. I didn't say any of that. But Nelson's my Exhibit A in the case against being able to do business with FW with a handshake alone. How so? When Doubleday the company sold the team to Doubleday the person a clause was triggered which allowed minority owner Wilpon to have right of first refusal to become an equal partner. I miss the part where the fact that Fred exercised that right makes him underhanded. If Nelson didn't know about the clause perhaps he should have (sound familiar?) and whether he did or not is hardly Fred's problem. And, yes, we get it, Jeff is a rich guy's son.

seawolf17 May 23 2011 08:30 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Jeebus, Greg, that's awesome.

batmagadanleadoff May 23 2011 09:20 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Frayed Knot wrote: I'm not sayin' that Doubleday was a victim or a paragon of virtue. I didn't say any of that. But Nelson's my Exhibit A in the case against being able to do business with FW with a handshake alone. How so? When Doubleday the company sold the team to Doubleday the person a clause was triggered which allowed minority owner Wilpon to have right of first refusal to become an equal partner. I miss the part where the fact that Fred exercised that right makes him underhanded. If Nelson didn't know about the clause perhaps he should have (sound familiar?) and whether he did or not is hardly Fred's problem. You’re right. It wasn’t Fred’s problem. It was Nelson’s. Doubleday was the recipient of bad lawyering, or sloppy lawyering -- or at the very least, a lawyer that couldn’t foresee all of the different ways that a team could be transferred from one entity to another. This lack of foresight prevented Doubleday’s lawyer from drafting the right of first refusal clause in a way that would’ve afforded Doubleday maximum protection and also, the precise protection Nelson wanted to have when the 1986 transfer occurred. Again, you’re right to say that this wasn’t Fred’s problem. But it was never intended that Fred have the right to challenge the transfer from Doublday Corp. to Nelson: the imperfect clause that ultimately defined the co-owners' rights when ownership was transferred was inconsistent with the spirit of Fred and Nelson’s original understanding. But while Fred was legally in the right to enforce the letter of their agreement, the incident undermines the notion that one can deal with Fred with a simple handshake -- my point of contention. It seems to me that Fred will honor the handshake so long as the handshake affords Fred greater rights than the contract. Otherwise, Fred will put the handshake back inside his pocket and claim that “a deal is a deal and I’ve got the writing to back me up”.

MFS62 May 23 2011 09:35 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

This wouldn't be the first time a New York baseball owner did something like this to use as a smoke screen during a Legal and/or financial investigation. Back in the 80's, I was in Tampa on business. The headlines down there were saying that one of Steinbrenner's companies was being investigated for major illegal dealings (Ship building? real estate? I don't recall which) with indictments being handed down shortly. I wondered how the New York press would handle that news. When I got back to New York, the headlines screamed "Steinbrenner Blasts Winfield" (for lackluster play). Funny how news of the legal stuff wasn't being mentioned. Later

Frayed Knot May 23 2011 09:37 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

"But it was never intended that Fred have the right to challenge the transfer from Doublday Corp. to Nelson: the imperfect clause that ultimately defined the co-owners' rights when ownership was transferred was inconsistent with the spirit of Fred and Nelson’s understanding." I'll probably regret asking this because I really don't care about this long-buried situation - but where the fuck is this 'that wasn't the intent' coming from? Rights of first refusal are hardly a rarity in business contracts but somehow only when discussing the Mets and the poor & lamented (we'll leave out bigoted and drunken for the time being while the beatification is going on) Nelson Doubleday do I hear this presented as if some sort of underhanded and sneaky form of robbery with the gun (one poster here described it as "a swindle"). I know it's national jump on Fred month, but I missed the part where Wilpon publicly pledged to never to try to increase his minority share and I certainly don't get this poor Nelson routine.

Ashie62 May 23 2011 09:43 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

MFS62 wrote: This wouldn't be the first time a New York baseball owner did something like this to use as a smoke screen during a Legal and/or financial investigation. Back in the 80's, I was in Tampa on business. The headlines down there were saying that one of Steinbrenner's companies was being investigated for major illegal dealings (Ship building? real estate? I don't recall which) with indictments being handed down shortly. I wondered how the New York press would handle that news. When I got back to New York, the headlines screamed "Steinbrenner Blasts Winfield" (for lackluster play). Funny how news of the legal stuff wasn't being mentioned. Later Sounds familiar doesn't it?

batmagadanleadoff May 23 2011 09:46 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I'll probably regret asking this because I really don't care about this long-buried situation - but where the fuck is this 'that wasn't the intent' coming from? Rights of first refusal are hardly a rarity in business contracts but somehow only when discussing the Mets and the poor & lamented (we'll leave out bigoted and drunken for the time being while the beatification is going on) Nelson Doubleday do I hear this presented as if some sort of underhanded and sneaky form of robbery with the gun (one poster here described it as "a swindle"). I know it's national jump on Fred month, but I missed the part where Wilpon publicly pledged to never to try to increase his minority share and I certainly don't get this poor Nelson routine. Nelson didn't view the transfer from Doubleday Co. to himself as a real transfer. Costly mistake. You don't expect the Wilpon's version of their "understanding" to coincide with the Doubleday version, do you? BTW, I sense hostility and also anger in your posts to me. All of them. Am I imaging things? Because I'm starting to get a complex whenever you address my posts.

Frayed Knot May 23 2011 09:58 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Nelson didn't view the transfer from Doubleday Co. to himself as a real transfer. Don't know why. It required MLB clearance just like a real transfer. Costly mistake. Yup. And, again, Doubleday's problem not Wilpon's. You don't expect the Wilpon's version of their "understanding" to coincide with the Doubleday version, do you? Don't see why not. And even if Nelson didn't see it that way it hardly makes what Wilpon did scheming and underhanded as you are clearly claiming. BTW, I sense hostility and also anger in your posts to me. All of them. Am I imaging things? Because I'm starting to get a complex whenever you address my posts. Yup. Everyone's picking on you again. It's all organized, we discussed the whole thing at the last meeting you weren't invited to.

batmagadanleadoff May 23 2011 10:05 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Frayed Knot wrote: Everyone's picking on you.... It's all organized, we discussed the whole thing at the last meeting you weren't invited to. So now you speak for everybody? I guess I was imagining all of that hostility and anger. Obviously.

G-Fafif May 23 2011 10:34 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

One of the tidbits I learned (besides Fred being more mental than I would have suspected) was he hung around Shea in the late '70s with his pal Joe Torre while his other pal Joe Pignatano got Jeffy a BP catching job. It never occurred to me that Fred went to Mets games before owning the team. Also, those deep Brooklyn roots and great friendships didn't stop him from sanctioning the dismissals of the Joes a couple of years into his part-ownership.

Edgy MD May 23 2011 10:48 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

MFS62 wrote: This wouldn't be the first time a New York baseball owner did something like this to use as a smoke screen during a Legal and/or financial investigation. Back in the 80's, I was in Tampa on business. The headlines down there were saying that one of Steinbrenner's companies was being investigated for major illegal dealings (Ship building? real estate? I don't recall which) with indictments being handed down shortly. I wondered how the New York press would handle that news. When I got back to New York, the headlines screamed "Steinbrenner Blasts Winfield" (for lackluster play). Funny how news of the legal stuff wasn't being mentioned. Later I don't believe this for a minute, and I have trouble believing you do.

Edgy MD May 23 2011 10:52 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

G-Fafif wrote: One of the tidbits I learned (besides Fred being more mental than I would have suspected) was he hung around Shea in the late '70s with his pal Joe Torre while his other pal Joe Pignatano got Jeffy a BP catching job. It never occurred to me that Fred went to Mets games before owning the team. Also, those deep Brooklyn roots and great friendships didn't stop him from sanctioning the dismissals of the Joes a couple of years into his part-ownership. I don't really expect him to have more loyalty than necessary here, do you? He wasn't senior partner in this decision. Managers get fired and Torre had a longer tenure than most, and a longer tenure than virtually all who've lost as consistently as him.

G-Fafif May 23 2011 10:58 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Edgy DC wrote: G-Fafif wrote: One of the tidbits I learned (besides Fred being more mental than I would have suspected) was he hung around Shea in the late '70s with his pal Joe Torre while his other pal Joe Pignatano got Jeffy a BP catching job. It never occurred to me that Fred went to Mets games before owning the team. Also, those deep Brooklyn roots and great friendships didn't stop him from sanctioning the dismissals of the Joes a couple of years into his part-ownership. I don't really expect him to have more loyalty than necessary here, do you? He wasn't senior partner in this decision. Managers get fired and Torre had a longer tenure than most, and a longer tenure than virtually all who've lost as consistently as him. No, not really. I imagine the friendships Toobin wrote about (in this case and others) were more likely glorified acquaintanceships.

Edgy MD May 23 2011 11:02 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Sounds right. Billy Crystal/Richard Nixon/MC Hammer-type special-access-for-rich-and-powerful-guys relationships.

metirish May 24 2011 07:10 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

If like me you heard the name Toobin before but couldn't place him then you might be surprised like I was that he's the CNN legal correspondent. oh , that's who he is.

Ceetar May 24 2011 07:14 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I'd actually never heard the name before. Where's the KTE? I want to talk baseball!

metirish May 24 2011 07:22 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Linked from JCL on Twitter [youtube:1revit8b]NY0BAMgrucE&feature=share[/youtube:1revit8b]

Edgy MD May 24 2011 08:09 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Freddie (of Freddie and the Dreamers) holds a strange fascination for me. He briefly served as a bridge between Buddy Holly and Elvis Costello --- bespectacled, awkward, twitchy, and somehow someone able to assemble those uncool traits to present a character folks would identify with.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 08 2011 08:49 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Nov 11 2011 09:19 PM

"Dad, why can't we say that it was Omar, disguised as you, that made all those controversial statements to Toobin? "And if Omar doesn't go along with my plan, we'll fire him". Dad ... instead of selling 10 two percent shares for $20 million each, we could offer 200 two percent shares at just two million dollars each. We simply increase the supply and demand by a couple of octaves. As the Mets shed low-level employees, the Wilpons cast about for high-level help By Howard Megdal 1:18 pm Nov. 8, 2011 Ever since the collapse of a deal between Mets owner Fred Wilpon and Greenlight Capital's David Einhorn back in September, it's been clear that there would be negative financial consequences for the team's ownership group. It just wasn't clear what those consequences were going to be. After all, Einhorn's pact—which called for the hedge-fund manager to pay $200 million to receive a 33 percent stake in the team, with the right to increase that stake to majority ownership in five years for a token amount—was mostly about providing a means for Mets ownership to pay off short-term debts, such as a loan from Major League Baseball and the team's estimated $70 million in 2011 losses. But a pair of news items from late last week detailed exactly how rocky the short term will be for the New York Mets without David Einhorn's money. Late Friday afternoon, it was reported that the Mets were laying off approximately 10 percent of their staff. And the New York Post's Josh Kosman laid out the terms for minority-ownership stakes being offered by the team in hopes of attracting a replacement for Einhorn's investment. The first piece of news provides anecdotal insight into why retaining star player Jose Reyes this off-season will be so difficult for the Mets—a team cutting approximately 15 low-paying jobs would seem unlikely to turn around and invest $20 million per season in a shortstop. But it is the second piece of news that provides a fuller picture of just what a tough winter the ownership group of the New York Mets may be in for. The team is trying to sell minority shares of the team based upon a valuation of $950 million. While that may be high (Forbes had the team at $747 million as of April 2011, and the intervening events since certainly haven't increased that value), let's suppose for a moment that the figure is legit. It would mean that an investment of $20 million would be worth a little more than a two percent share in the team, while $30 million would get a minority owner a little more than three percent. While shares in a team that lost $50 million in 2010 and $70 million in 2011 (and which can expect a further drop in revenue next year if it doesn't have Jose Reyes to draw fans) may not seem like a great investment, the Mets are offering a sweetener that's the equivalent of a CD—three percent a year annually, now through 2017, paid back on top of the initial investment. The investor also has the option to keep the team stake, but forfeit the three percent annual interest. If the Mets, who have dropped in value from $912 million in April 2009 to $747 million in April 2011—a nearly 20 percent drop—continue to lose value, that minority stake would be worth significantly less over a six-year run with Wilpon ownership. The chances of receiving that three percent interest, on top of a return of principal, are not good. The buyer is required to believe that Wilpon and his partners will have money left over to pay interest in 2017, even though they still owe $430 million against the team, with the principal of that loan due in June 2014, and another $450 million against SNY, with the principal of that loan due in June 2015. A judgment or settlement with the trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims Irving Picard, who is suing the Met owners for $386 million, (and potentially far more on appeal), would almost certainly also come in line ahead of any deal made with new minority owners now. Simply put, the Wilpon group's proposition calls to mind the one offered by Groucho Marx to the ambassador from Sylvania in Duck Soup: GROUCHO: Now, how about loaning this country 20 million dollars, you old skinflint? AMBASSADOR: 20 million dollars is a lot of money. I shall have to take it up with my minister of finance. GROUCHO: Well, in the meantime, could you let me have 12 dollars until payday? AMBASSADOR: 12 dollars? GROUCHO: Don't be scared, you'll get it back. I'll give you my personal note for 90 days. If it isn't paid by then, you can...keep the note. As much as the Mets' owners need someone to take them up on their offer, it's hard to see what anyone would, on anything like the terms they're talking about. While making payroll isn't currently a consideration, since it is the off-season, the Mets have a revenue-sharing payment due to Major League Baseball by the end of November of between $15-20 million, and owe around $26 million in their twice-annual debt payments on Citi Field to the city of New York on December 15. To date, MLB has been patient and forgiving of the Mets—a loan of $25 million due back at the end of the 2011 season hasn't been paid back yet, but Commissioner Bud Selig continues to support this ownership group publicly, if vaguely. But chances are the city of New York won't be as patient or forgiving, potentially triggering a rush from the other lenders to get what money they can now. Notice who the Kosman piece says Met ownership had to reassure about its minority owner plan—its other lenders. This head-just-above-water routine will continue for as long as the owners can keep it going. It was the decision to invest so much of their money with Bernie Madoff that put Wilpon and his partners in their current financial predicament; it may end up having been their decision to sabotage the Einhorn deal that drags them under. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/c ... level-help

Fman99 Nov 08 2011 09:49 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Fuck. This article was the first thing that made me really believe in my heart that Jose Reyes would not be back in 2012.

metirish Nov 09 2011 05:45 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

That made for grim reading , do the Mets pay into pension funds for former players or only for employees like Pete Flynn?

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2011 07:56 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Fman99 wrote: Fuck. This article was the first thing that made me really believe in my heart that Jose Reyes would not be back in 2012. Dude, the Mets are preparing you for a 2012 payroll that might now all of a sudden be as low as $90M, not $100M or $110M. $90M. Because (according to them) they'll need the wiggle room to make (big giggle) mid season pennant chase moves. That's $90M ... and about 60% of the $90M will go to three guys (Santana, Bay and Wright) -- two of which might reasonably suck big time next year. They also will forego on Reyes because, among other reasons, they now admit that they don't see themselves contending in 2012 even though they need to get down to $90M to contend better. Because to contend, they need to jettison perhaps baseball's best shortstop, who's still only 28 years old. The team speaks from three or four sides of its mouth. They're fucking broke is what it is and any other explanation from them, though understandable, is still insulting.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2011 08:32 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Ah, unfortunately the breakfast scones will be replaced by breakfast muffins. Additionally, meeting cantaloupe will unfortunately be eliminated. You're asked to bring in your own fruit, ah, perhaps even something handheld. Maybe that's an apple, ah for some that might be a banana. Alright, let's just keep it rollin, rollin, rollin. Page 79, um, unfortunately I'm called upon to review the dry erase board rules.

MFS62 Nov 09 2011 08:40 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ah, unfortunately the breakfast scones will be replaced by breakfast muffins. Additionally, meeting cantaloupe will unfortunately be eliminated. You're asked to bring in your own fruit, ah, perhaps even something handheld. Maybe that's an apple, ah for some that might be a banana. Alright, let's just keep it rollin, rollin, rollin. Page 79, um, unfortunately I'm called upon to review the dry erase board rules. If you took a vote of WFAN callers, they would say the Wilpons should continue to eat cantaloupe. Later

HahnSolo Nov 09 2011 08:46 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

As much as the Mets' owners need someone to take them up on their offer, it's hard to see what anyone would, on anything like the terms they're talking about. While making payroll isn't currently a consideration, since it is the off-season, the Mets have a revenue-sharing payment due to Major League Baseball by the end of November of between $15-20 million, and owe around $26 million in their twice-annual debt payments on Citi Field to the city of New York on December 15. To date, MLB has been patient and forgiving of the Mets—a loan of $25 million due back at the end of the 2011 season hasn't been paid back yet, but Commissioner Bud Selig continues to support this ownership group publicly, if vaguely. But chances are the city of New York won't be as patient or forgiving, potentially triggering a rush from the other lenders to get what money they can now. Notice who the Kosman piece says Met ownership had to reassure about its minority owner plan—its other lenders. This head-just-above-water routine will continue for as long as the owners can keep it going. It was the decision to invest so much of their money with Bernie Madoff that put Wilpon and his partners in their current financial predicament; it may end up having been their decision to sabotage the Einhorn deal that drags them under. Sad, grim, pathetic. Ladies and Gentlemen, Your 2012 New York Mets!

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 09 2011 08:50 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I think the sooner the Mets go Chapter 11 the better, but I'm afraid it could be a long, slow spiral.

HahnSolo Nov 09 2011 08:56 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think the sooner the Mets go Chapter 11 the better, but I'm afraid it could be a long, slow spiral. Is this the Megdal piece you referred to a while back in the other thread?

Ceetar Nov 09 2011 09:22 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

No one thought they'd ever find a minority investor either. Ultimately they did though. Wouldn't they have reached an agreement if they were desperate? after all, it wasn't Einhorn (supposedly) that caused it to fail. And the Mets didn't then turn to a second bidder, but choice an alternative solution.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 09 2011 09:25 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

How's that alternative solution coming along? I think the real question here is what part if any did that hotshot advisor they hired played in the dissolving of the Einhorn deal. These guys don't get paid millions to make deals that unravel before they're ever consummated.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2011 09:36 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Ceetar wrote: Wouldn't [the Mets] have reached an agreement if they were desperate? after all, it wasn't Einhorn (supposedly) that caused it tfail. I'm guessing that, contrary to the MetSpeak, it was Einhorn that broke off the deal, not the Mets. I'm guessing that in the end, Einhorn found the Wilpons to be untrustworthy, making promises on the one hand, and then on the other hand, working behind Einhorn's back to undermine those same promises.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2011 09:37 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Ceetar wrote: No one thought they'd ever find a minority investor either. Ultimately they did though. How do you know?

metirish Nov 09 2011 09:38 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Ceetar wrote: No one thought they'd ever find a minority investor either. Ultimately they did though. Wouldn't they have reached an agreement if they were desperate? after all, it wasn't Einhorn (supposedly) that caused it to fail. And the Mets didn't then turn to a second bidder, but choice an alternative solution. No one thought they would ever find a minority investor,really? My memory is they had several to choose from. I think the sooner the Mets go Chapter 11 the better, but I'm afraid it could be a long, slow spiral. this is the fear alright , they will do anything to keep the team.

HahnSolo Nov 09 2011 09:38 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I continue to chuckle at the Gene Wilder pic.

Ceetar Nov 09 2011 09:47 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: No one thought they'd ever find a minority investor either. Ultimately they did though. How do you know? Err? I was listening? Everyone said the same line "Why would someone want to give the Wilpons money if these are the circumstances..etc etc" They weren't right then, so why should I think they're right now, about a significantly smaller sum of money?

Edgy MD Nov 09 2011 09:51 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I think the hotshot advisor did what he was paid to do, telling them was Einhorn's deal had them in a better-than-likely position of losing the team. So they balked. I think they probably don't go Chapter 11. They just... shrink. I mean... MLB's not calling their loans, and they're settling affairs so they have cash on hand to stay current with their other debt obligations whether the team is generating or not. Bud probably has more guys than Alderson embedded in the organization to ensure his creditor's are fiscally prudent, even if that means stinking up the joint. David Howard was half-right in saying the team was getting lean like other organizations in this era. What he didn't include was that it was like other organizations that got stupid when things were good.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 09 2011 09:54 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Edgy DC wrote: I think the hotshot advisor did what he was paid to do, telling them was Einhorn's deal had them in a better-than-likely position of losing the team. So they balked. Then why announce it in the first place? It's obvious something changed in the inbetween.

Edgy MD Nov 09 2011 10:12 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I figured absorbing the advisor's advice is what changed. I think: (1) They had a deal. (2) It was seemingly sweet for them --- with the cash influx to get them good with their creditors and fund a competitive operational salary budget for a few years --- with the caveat that they lose the team if they don't meet their obligations. (3) They arrogantly believed that the influx of money would be so steadying to the organization, and that they'd be so responsible, and the future was so bright, that there was no reasonable scenario where they would fail to meet their obligations. (4) The advisor put his staff to work poring over the agreement. (5) The staff told the advisor, and then the advisor told the Wilpons, "No way --- you're totally going to lose this team. You may have been the smartest guy on some other block. But this Einhorn guy is the smartest guy in every block he's ever lived on. See this clause? Now see this codicil? Got that? Now that doesn't seem too intimidating, right? But look at these revenue projections. THAT'S the optimistic set of projections, Mr. Wilpon. That's if everything goes right between now and 2016. Housing market returns by 2013. Your main stars don't get hurt. The president strikes a debt deal with Congress. The Avengers wins a half a dozen Oscars. Stevie Wonder wins a 'Where's Waldo?' contest. When was the last time everything went right? What I'm saying is that if you sign this deal you are signing away the Mets." (6) The 'Pons went back to the table, saying, we just, you know, want to take a look at this clause and this codicil. (7) Einhorn, being the smartest guy on the block, saw that their interest were cutting too much into his own, and realized that if he really wanted to own this team, he had a better chance giving the Wilpons a chance to collapse, and then sweeping in later. (8) They agreed to disagree. They're differences were irreconcilable. They both, in the end, want control of the team. The advisors probably recommended this bond-selling alternative as the less-risky way to get some cash. But bills come due. Oh, they do.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2011 10:35 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: No one thought they'd ever find a minority investor either. Ultimately they did though. How do you know? Err? I was listening? Everyone said the same line "Why would someone want to give the Wilpons money if these are the circumstances..etc etc" They weren't right then, so why should I think they're right now, about a significantly smaller sum of money? The Mets may indeed have sold some minority shares. But I don't know that. And I don't think that you know, either. You read the press simply questioning the value of the new offerings and then chose to jump to an optimistic conclusion. When the Mets open the books, or some minority shareholder comes forward to openly discuss his or her new acquisition, or we have some other compelling evidence, then we'll know. Until then, all we have is Jeff's say so. The Mets declined comment. [But] Mets COO Jeff Wilpon said the auction to sell the minority stakes was going very well. Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/m ... z1dEM3pw6F

Ceetar Nov 09 2011 11:47 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I'm not being optimistic about it, I'm simply pointing out that the Mets have little to gain from pretending to find minority investors or from only offering options that are completely unrealistic. Just because a bunch of sports writers don't think it's a good investment that anyone would want to take doesn't mean the millionaires and billionaires out there think the same way. There is just so much murkiness and unknowns there, including not even knowing how the Madoff situation will be settled and for how much. Yes, it seems pretty likely they dropped payroll projections (at least, the numbers they talk about, it's yet to be determined) by 20+ million after they lost Einhorn, but that doesn't mean all is completely doomed and we're just in a waiting game here.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 09 2011 12:03 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Why, there's every chance Jeff will find $200 million between the cushions on his couch.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 09 2011 12:12 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Ceetar wrote: I'm not being optimistic about it, I'm simply pointing out that the Mets have little to gain from pretending to find minority investors .... Not true. They have everything to gain from pretending that their situation is rosier than they know it to be. They're still selling tickets .. always selling tickets ... which generate parking revenues, and food and souvenir sales, yada yada. And they're still selling advertising. That's how the team makes the money. The bleaker the picture, the less likelier it is that fans will commit to tickets now, before next season even starts. This is a business. The Wilpons are in it to take your money, not to tell you the truth.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 09 2011 12:28 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Well, yeah, but even if they tell us that they have a lot of interest from "minority investors", if their off-season moves are limited to things like coaxing Tom Hausman out of retirement, very few of us will be lulled into thinking everything is okay.

Edgy MD Nov 09 2011 01:07 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Re-Sign Hausman NOW!!! What?

batmagadanleadoff Nov 11 2011 09:11 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Well, yeah, but even if they tell us that they have a lot of interest from "minority investors", if their off-season moves are limited to things like coaxing Tom Hausman out of retirement, very few of us will be lulled into thinking everything is okay. I don't know. Just because they can't fool you ....

batmagadanleadoff Nov 11 2011 09:16 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Ceetar wrote: I'm not being optimistic about it, I'm simply pointing out that the Mets have little to gain from pretending to find minority investors or from only offering options that are completely unrealistic. Just because a bunch of sports writers don't think it's a good investment that anyone would want to take doesn't mean the millionaires and billionaires out there think the same way. There is just so much murkiness and unknowns there, including not even knowing how the Madoff situation will be settled and for how much. Yes, it seems pretty likely they dropped payroll projections (at least, the numbers they talk about, it's yet to be determined) by 20+ million after they lost Einhorn, but that doesn't mean all is completely doomed and we're just in a waiting game here. And another thing. (As John Madden used to say). The Mets never specifically said that they obtained any additional financing through this plan to sell small shares to investors. They merely said that things were going well, or other words to that effect --- words so vague and open-ended that they could be taken to mean anything. When pressed by the press for more specific information, charming Jeff Wilpon fell back on the privacy bs, essentially stating that it wasn't any of our business to know. So if the Mets did obtain more financing, why wouldn't they come out and say it?

batmagadanleadoff Nov 16 2011 09:18 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: I'm not being optimistic about it, I'm simply pointing out that the Mets have little to gain from pretending to find minority investors or from only offering options that are completely unrealistic. Just because a bunch of sports writers don't think it's a good investment that anyone would want to take doesn't mean the millionaires and billionaires out there think the same way. There is just so much murkiness and unknowns there, including not even knowing how the Madoff situation will be settled and for how much. Yes, it seems pretty likely they dropped payroll projections (at least, the numbers they talk about, it's yet to be determined) by 20+ million after they lost Einhorn, but that doesn't mean all is completely doomed and we're just in a waiting game here. And another thing. (As John Madden used to say). The Mets never specifically said that they obtained any additional financing through this plan to sell small shares to investors. They merely said that things were going well, or other words to that effect --- words so vague and open-ended that they could be taken to mean anything. When pressed by the press for more specific information, charming Jeff Wilpon fell back on the privacy bs, essentially stating that it wasn't any of our business to know. So if the Mets did obtain more financing, why wouldn't they come out and say it? Plan B to Raise $200 Million for Mets Is Going Slowly The New York Times wrote: Just over two months ago, the Mets watched the $200 million they sorely needed vanish. Their deal to sell one-third of the team to the hedge fund manager David Einhorn had fallen apart after months of negotiations. Confidently, they put Plan B into action, and their investment banker on the sale even stated that this was the way they should have raised money from the start. This time, they would not look for a single powerful buyer. This time, they would raise the $200 million by selling 10 limited partnership units, or shares, in the Mets for $20 million apiece. So, 10 weeks later, how is that plan going? The answer is slowly. At this point, none of the units have been sold, said two people briefed on the status of the sales who spoke on the condition of anonymity. They added that there were strong buyer commitments for as many as seven of the shares. However, until there are equally firm offers for the other units, it is possible that none of them will be sold. “These things can drag on for months and months,” said Robert Boland, a sports business professor at New York University’s Tisch Center. “Usually, it’s about the parameters of the contract.” Earlier this month, Jeff Wilpon, the Mets’ chief operating officer, said that the team had an “internal timetable” for completing the sales that it was not going to share with the public. “There’s not a deadline,” he said. “There’s not a date circled, or anything like that.” If the Mets are successful in finding buyers for all 10 units, there is talk they could even sell two more, raising their take to $240 million. But for the moment at least, the large cash infusion that the Mets have needed since early this year remains out of reach. And all of this is occurring as the Mets contemplate how much they might be willing, or able, to spend to keep the free-agent shortstop Jose Reyes in a Mets uniform. Would the Mets be more aggressive on the Reyes front if the sales of the limited partnerships had already been completed? That’s not clear. What is certain is that the Mets have had three straight losing seasons at Citi Field, marked by continually declining attendance. And without Reyes — and any expectations that 2012 will be a more competitive season — ticket sales could plummet further. Meanwhile, Major League Baseball has been waiting patiently for the Mets to get a handle on their financial problems. To a considerable degree, the office of Commissioner Bud Selig has been preoccupied lately with the more serious, and sensational, financial problems of the Los Angeles Dodgers and their owner, Frank McCourt, who has now agreed to sell the team. Nonetheless, the Mets still owe baseball $25 million that they borrowed a year ago, when they had a cash shortage. They were told to repay the loan by the end of June, when, they presumably believed, they would have the $200 million in hand from Einhorn. They have now been delinquent for more than four months, but baseball has not chosen to respond by deducting any of the Mets’ share of national income from such revenue sources as television and licensing. By selling units costing $20 million each, the Mets have been betting that they could attract wealthy investors who are also fans and who would be intrigued by investing a large amount of money — but not $200 million — to be part of ownership. Those in the pool of possible investors rounded up by the Mets’ adviser, Allen & Company, can buy a full unit or a partial one in conjunction with several other people. “My sense is the Wilpons, who used stakes and options to get control of the team, would prefer to have a lot of small partners than one big one,” Boland said. Several sports business experts said that it would be prudent for Allen & Company to wait until all 10 units are accounted for before selling them so as to avoid any negative implications that they can’t raise all the money they need. Marc Ganis, president of SportsCorp, a Chicago-based consulting firm, said he doubted Major League Baseball would even approve a piecemeal approach. “In order to assure the Mets have sufficient liquidity to address their financial problems fully and avoid having another cash-flow problem next year,” Ganis said, “it’s unlikely M.L.B. will allow a sale of interests unless the minimum needed, which they’ve said is $200 million, is brought in.” Boland and Ganis added that concern about the management of the team, which has presided over an estimated $120 million in losses the past two seasons, might be causing some potential investors to balk at committing their own millions. Still looming for Wilpon and Saul Katz, the Mets’ co-owner, is a lawsuit filed by the trustee for the victims of Bernard L. Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. The trustee is seeking $83 million to $386 million from the Mets’ owners — well below the $1 billion the trustee originally sued for. Meanwhile, the Mets are offering incentives to make potential investors comfortable. For one thing, the investors will not be asked to kick in any extra money for six years in the form of capital calls, the Sports Business Journal first reported. Second, investors have an option to get their money back in five years, with 3 percent interest compounded annually.

Ceetar Nov 16 2011 09:30 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Joel Sherman wrote: Joelsherman1 Person with strong Wall St ties tells me #Mets new strategy to sell $20M stakes at 3 pct interest already has several commitments

Vic Sage Nov 17 2011 08:38 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

no need to resort to quote Joel Douchebag, when you've got the NYTimes article stating: They added that there were strong buyer commitments for as many as seven of the shares. Wilpons simply can't sell them until they have commitments for all ten units. If true, they're actually further along than i thought.

metirish Dec 12 2011 05:22 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Mets, Struggling for Cash, Receive $40 Million Bank Loan By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and RICHARD SANDOMIR Published: December 12, 2011 The owners of the Mets, needing cash and unable to turn to Major League Baseball for more financial help, received a $40 million loan from a major bank in the past six weeks. The team described the arrangement as a “bridge loan,” meant to aid them as they try to raise money through the sale of minority stakes in the club. The loan marks the second time in a year that the Mets have received an infusion of cash. A year ago, the team’s owners, Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, received a $25 million loan from Major League Baseball, but they have not been able to repay it. Meanwhile, Sandy Alderson, the club’s general manager, said last week that the organization had lost $70 million in 2011 alone. Earlier this year, the team’s owners appeared to have a plan to address their financial problems: selling a roughly $200 million stake in the team to the hedge fund tycoon David Einhorn. But after months of negotiations, the owners called off the deal in September, in part because they did not want to give Einhorn a path to becoming the team’s majority owner. At the time, Wilpon and Katz said that “ownership has provided additional capital to cover all 2011 losses and is moving forward with the necessary resources to continue to operate the franchise.” And the owners said they were confident they could easily raise the $200 million they needed by selling 10 minority shares in the team for $20 million each. The $200 million was going to be used, they said, to pay off debts to their banks and to Major League Baseball, and to finance team operations. The recent $40 million loan suggests that the effort to sell minority shares in the team was not generating the cash that the owners needed in the near term. The owners, through a spokesman, said the loan had been approved by Major League Baseball and the other banks to which they are already indebted. Bank of America was the source of the $40 million loan, according to a person with knowledge of the deal. The club earlier this month lost shortstop Jose Reyes, widely considered its best player, to the Miami Marlins, and its extremely modest player acquisitions in recent weeks suggest the team is not operating like a big-market, marquee team. The implications of the team’s latest outside financing are not easy to forecast. But two people with knowledge of the team’s finances said that if a full lineup of minority stake investors was not in place by next spring, and cash not in hand, Wilpon and Katz might have to confront the prospect of selling the team entirely. The men first had to face that possibility last December when they learned they were the target of $1 billion lawsuit brought by the trustee representing the victims of Bernard L. Madoff’s fraud. The trustee has accused the men of having turned a blind eye to the possibility that Madoff was a fraud while they enriched themselves with his steady, outsize investment returns. Wilpon and Katz are facing a jury trial this spring at which they could be forced to explain themselves, and their years of investing with Madoff. Their potential liability could be hundreds of millions of dollars. People familiar with the team’s situation have said the owners had firm commitments from at least seven investors interested in buying a small share of the team for $20 million apiece. Still, until all are sold, none of the investors have had to turn over cash. Vince Gennaro, a consultant to several major league teams, said that the $40 million loan “says to me that their finances continue to be tight, that there is a cash pinch.” He added: “The team underperformed, and this tides them over until they get their money. They need cash flow.” Now, Gennaro said, between the bridge loan and the $25 million owed to baseball, “the first $65 million has to go out the door” should the team sell an adequate number of shares in the team. Joseph Ravitch, a veteran sports banker who is a partner in the Raine Group, said the ability of the team’s owners to secure another $40 million in loans established that the team was still considered a valuable holding. But, Ravitch added, a bridge loan usually carries a high interest rate, and he said that they “don’t lack for clarity about their ability to recover the loan against an asset.”

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 12 2011 05:46 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

who would lend these guys money anymore?

Ceetar Dec 12 2011 05:49 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: who would lend these guys money anymore? the Mets? a lot of people. Despite 'losing money' the team still generates a ton of revenue. And they're not going to be contracted. Even if the Wilpons eventually go under.. wouldn't the Mets still owe the money? and Bank of America may be one of the first paid..ahead of say David Wright..

TransMonk Dec 12 2011 05:52 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

It's time for the Wilpons to just admit defeat.

G-Fafif Dec 12 2011 05:55 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: who would lend these guys money anymore? Somehow reminded of the modestly amusing 1997 film Kiss Me Guido wherein the title character answers an apartment-sharing ad placed by a "GWM," which the "Guido" in question assumed meant Guy With Money. And if banks assume you're a guy with money, apparently they'll lend you more of it.

Ceetar Dec 12 2011 05:57 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

TransMonk wrote: It's time for the Wilpons to just admit defeat. well, they're clearly not doing that. They're not even going all-in, saying 'fuck it', keeping Reyes, and trying to turn it around fast and be profitable. It's almost like they're trying not to lose, which doesn't seem to bode well for the short term. They've cut payroll enough that they'll probably only lose like 50 mill this year if they have a similar record, and they can probably sustain that another 3-4 seasons at least.

metirish Dec 12 2011 06:10 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Ceetar wrote: TransMonk wrote: It's time for the Wilpons to just admit defeat. well, they're clearly not doing that. They're not even going all-in, saying 'fuck it', keeping Reyes, and trying to turn it around fast and be profitable. It's almost like they're trying not to lose, which doesn't seem to bode well for the short term. They've cut payroll enough that they'll probably only lose like 50 mill this year if they have a similar record, and they can probably sustain that another 3-4 seasons at least. yeah and that's what fucking blows, these wankers would field a team capable of losing 90 games as long as they continued to own it.They will do what's in their interest rather than the franchise.

Ceetar Dec 12 2011 06:22 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

and it really seems like the quickest path to success is hoping the Wilpons get it together.

Edgy MD Dec 12 2011 07:03 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

The people who would lend them money are people that (a) like the size of that interest, and (b) who see there's still some collateral left in the team, even as they don't have the resources left to run it.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 12 2011 07:14 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Ceetar wrote: and it really seems like the quickest path to success is hoping the Wilpons get it together. Perhaps they can find another crook to give them 12% interest on their investments too.

Valadius Dec 12 2011 07:30 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

TransMonk wrote: It's time for the Wilpons to just admit defeat. They will never admit defeat. Jeffy won't get to play with his model planes anymore.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 12 2011 08:10 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

The New York Times wrote: The implications of the team’s latest outside financing are not easy to forecast. But two people with knowledge of the team’s finances said that if a full lineup of minority stake investors was not in place by next spring, and cash not in hand, Wilpon and Katz might have to confront the prospect of selling the team entirely. We can only hope. But several anonymous insiders regarded as credible by the media have already stated that the Mets are on course to obtain another $200M in financing by selling between 10-20 small shares in the team. According to inside sources, the Mets are offering 3% interest on those minority stake investments. But with no path to ownership, it's tough to see the lure. The 3% gain is taxable. I'm too lazy to look this up, but I'm sure that our resident bonds expert Ashie --when he's feeling better -- could easily find some safe bond investments that pay 3% and are tax-free. And the potential new Mets investors will probably end up at the back of the line, way behind other better secured investors, should the Mets go belly up or declare bankruptcy, either by choice or involuntarily.

Lefty Specialist Dec 13 2011 07:38 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

You lend money to the Mets knowing that if they're forced to sell the team, it'll sell for enough to make you whole. There's no real downside risk. That's why Bud's not sweating his $25 million. The '$20 million investors' are what I can't figure. I'm imagining the conversation: "So if I give you twenty million dollars, what do I get in return?" "The thanks of a grateful Fred Wilpon." "That's it?" "Yup, that's it." "Gee, where do I sign?"

Edgy MD Dec 13 2011 07:45 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Well, they aren't necessary killing each other for the opportunity, but a guaranteed return on your investment in a volatile market is something. Plus there're the same appeals there always is for buying into an asset with a long established history that is nonetheless troubled. You're buying low and, if the assett rebounds, you can score big. If it doesn't, you (and perhaps some of your confederates) have a foot in the door when controlling interest is put up. Major league baseball teams have a legally protected monopoly. If you've got the skitch, they're always good investments. I wouldn't be shockets if half the $20 million investors turn out to be fronts for Einhorn.

Vic Sage Dec 13 2011 08:01 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

"shockets" ... really? Are you making up words again? And Einhorn is too smart to invest in this team without a clear path to ownership; that's what queered the deal in the first place.

seawolf17 Dec 13 2011 08:02 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Vic Sage wrote: "shockets" ... really? Are you making up words again? And Einhorn is too smart to invest in this team without a clear path to ownership; that's what queered the deal in the first place. That was my impression, yes. He wanted a shot at the whole shebang, and the Wilpons wouldn't give him one.

Edgy MD Dec 13 2011 08:07 AM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

Vic Sage wrote: "shockets" ... really? Are you making up words again? Oh and you bought "skitch"? I was trying to sound like I knew what I was talking about by fabricating jargon. I got halfway home, I guess. Vic Sage wrote: And Einhorn is too smart to invest in this team without a clear path to ownership; that's what queered the deal in the first place. Yes, well, what I'm trying to sugest is that he's so crackwaddle smart, that he might find a way to outmaneuver them by finding a backdoor clear path. You should listen to me. I know words.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 13 2011 03:08 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

A Bridge Loan Too Far I don't believe the news that the Mets have sought--and received--another loan from MLB should be all that shocking. But this, combined with the recent loss of Jose Reyes to the free spending Marlins (another team with dubious finances), set off many fans' You Gotta Be Effin' Kidding Me Alarms. This morning, I even heard a WFAN caller say he would root for the Nationals over the Mets this coming season. While I suspect this caller is either hyperbolizing or not much of a fan (while also sounding like the kind of guy who proposes a Mike Nickeas for Justin Verlander trade), his words were indicative of the kind of anger and fear inspired by this news. It's one thing for the Mets to take a pass on a high priced free agent, home grown or not. It's another entirely to need a $40 million get-me-over from Bud Selig's Money Store. The line thus far has been that this piddling eight-figure loan is just to tide the Mets over until their wonderful minority shares scheme takes off. That plan is going swimmingly thus far, because the Wilpons have told us it is, and anything else is none of our business, apparently. That's why it's never been explained exactly why anyone would buy shares in an institution with steadily mounting debt, whose owners will probably be forced to sell majority stake before long. Or why the Mets' best hope for a viable, well financed minority owner, David Einhorn, mysteriously dropped out this summer, never to be heard from again. I've defended the Wilpons on this site before. Around this time last year, I still believed they weren't so much dishonest as gobsmacked, so stunned by the Madoff mess they were slow to realize the true depths of their financial situation. But at this point, I feel there is more evidence that they're simply not telling the truth about the status of their coffers. Or even worse, are possessed of a god-like level of self delusion or crippling amount of stupidity to not realize they don't have enough money to own a baseball team anymore. So the Wilpons are either liars or morons with blinders. In either case, I'd rather they not have anything to do with my favorite team. And yet, I can't blame them entirely for this mess. In the face of financial ruin, they're simply trying to hang on to their biggest, most valued asset. Wouldn't you? It takes two to tango in this situation: One to hold out his hand, and the other to fork over the cash. For the latter, we have to blame Bud Selig, MLB commissioner and Wilpon BFF. Fred Wilpon, after all, was instrumental in ousting Faye Vincent and installing Selig as Commissioner For Life, and for that Selig is eternally grateful. It's the main reason why Wilpon, and not his former co-owner Nelson Doubleday, is now the sole owner of the Mets. If Wilpon was anybody else, would he be toast by now? It's impossible to say, but if the Frank McCourt affair proved anything, it's that if Selig wants someone gone, he can make them disappear with Mafia speed. Granted, McCourt did Selig a huge favor by doing colossally idiotic and unethical things like putting his family on the payroll with no-show jobs and spending lavish amounts of money on ridiculous expenses. But it was clear from day one that the main reason Selig tossed McCourt to the curb when times got tight is that he was not part of Selig's "inner circle." More than anything else, Selig simply did not want that man to own a baseball team anymore. If the Wilpons' situation isn't exactly analogous to McCourt's--they haven't, as far as I know, attempted to hire a faith healer on the Mets' dime--it is disturbingly familiar to that of another embattled former owner, Tom Hicks. As owner of the Texas Rangers, Hicks was a comparatively good citizen, but he stretched himself too thin and took out far too many loans to cover expenses. He too sought to sell minority shares in his team, until the enormity of his cash problems became painfully obvious. A planned sale of the team was squashed when Hicks' creditors realized the proceeds wouldn't cover his enormous debts. Selig threatened an MLB takeover of the Rangers, much in the way he'd done with the Expos. Hicks was forced to declare bankruptcy and the team was finally sold at auction to the current Peter Greenberg-Nolan Ryan ownership. In other words, when Selig even threatens severe action, things get done. The differences between Hicks' situation and that of the Wilpons' is becoming increasingly academic. And yet, Selig has not so much as had a harsh word for the Wilpons. He continues to play along with their Potemkin village version of reality, and it does no one a bit of good, least of all the Wilpons themselves. If Bud Selig and Fred Wilpon really are good friends, the best thing Selig can do is to gently guide his friend out MLB's backdoor. http://www.amazinavenue.com/2011/12/13/ ... an-too-far _____________ Or even worse, are possessed of a god-like level of self delusion or crippling amount of stupidity to not realize they don't have enough money to own a baseball team anymore. Anymore? It's possible that for all of their past wealth, whatever it was, the Wilpons never amassed the scratch needed to own and operate New York's NL MLB franchise. It's no secret that in 1980, Wilpon/Katz couldn't afford much more than a 5% stake in the Mets. And according to one of Picard's current legal theories, the Wilpons/Katz could not have purchased Doubleday's share of the team some 10 years ago, were it not for the unrealistically high and fabricated profits they were receiving from Madoff. We might learn, one day, that without Madoff's steady stream of cash, Sterling's stake in the Mets, as highly leveraged as it is, was never anything more than a tenuous house of cards.

Edgy MD Dec 13 2011 08:09 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I don't believe the news that the Mets have sought--and received--another loan from MLB should be all that shocking. But this, combined with the recent loss of Jose Reyes to the free spending Marlins (another team with dubious finances), set off many fans' You Gotta Be Effin' Kidding Me Alarms. Am I missing something, or wasn't there only a new loan from a major bank? This morning, I even heard a WFAN caller say he would root for the Nationals over the Mets this coming season. An FAN listener writing a story about the Wilpons based on the opinions of FAN callers? Pass.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 13 2011 08:47 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

I tend agree with BatMag's comment: I don't think the Mets/Wilpon had much of a financial strategy beyond these killer returns from Madoff and they are at sea without them. I know they were somewhat unlucky in addition to being dumb with the timing of the economic downturn, but least you'd expect of the Mets is the ability to sell the Mets to Mets fans and they are failing at that pretty spectacularly. Johnny Amazin Opinions there has the source of the loan wrong in the first sentence, it's hard to take him much more seriously from there.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 13 2011 09:11 PM Re: "Madoff's Curveball", by Jeffrey Toobin, "The New Yorker

AA did get the source of the loan wrong. Unless AA meant to write that the Mets received MLB's approval to take on that second loan. Still, the main point of the AA piece, methinks, is that the extra $200M that the Mets are negotiating to obtain is nothing more than a band-aid in the Mets financial catastrophe. At least that's what Megdal's new piece implies. Sterling borrowed over $400M against the Mets and another $400M+ against SNY -- and those loans come due soon. They owe NYC about $50M/year on their Citi Field loan. All this before factoring in any Madoff damages. Work out the numbers for yourself: Banks and Major League Baseball prop up the Wilpon group, but for how long? By Howard Megdal 11:48 am Dec. 13, 2011 Has the New York Mets ownership group become too big too fail? That is the question at the moment, since the New York Times reported Monday evening that Bank of America provided Wilpon and his partners with a $40 million bridge loan, even though between debt against the team, against their television network, and against Citi Field, the ownership group has around $1.5 billion in debt at the moment. That doesn't include a penny of what they might need to pay in the lawsuit brought against them by a trustee for the victims of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, in which the Wilpon group was adjudged to have been a net "winner." In reality, even if everything in the current plan goes right, the Wilpon group doesn't have any obvious pathway to solvency. And the latest news simply reinforces the notion that the Mets owners have run out of money, and are also running out of time. This latest bridge loan is supposed to get the team's owners through to March, by which point, they claim, they'll be able to raise $200 million by selling off ten separate minority ownership stakes in the Mets. According to the bank's financing statement, the loan is due back five years from the date of the agreement—November 28, 2016. But that is likely a date created to reassure the other lenders that Bank of America won't jump the line in the event of a bankruptcy. And the Mets confirmed late Monday night that they will pay the approximately $25 million to the city of New York, which is the latest of the twice-annual debt installments due on Citi Field. It represents just the latest in the obstacle course of debt the Wilpon group is picking its way through in an attempt to keep the team and avoid bankruptcy. This latest loan of $40 million, to be paid back in March, is largely needed to pay that Citi Field debt. So let's look at the team's finances, acting under the assumptions that the Mets pay off that debt, and that the $40 million in Bank of America money gets them through the winter. Come March, if the team has completed deals with ten minority investors for approximately $200 million—an extraordinarily tall order—$40 million gets paid back for the bridge loan. Another $25 million, owed to Major League Baseball and currently past due, also gets repaid. That leaves $135 million to get them through the season with a team that lost $70 million last year. While salaries have been slashed—approximately $50 million has come off of the payroll, and most of the Mets' top players have been jettisoned—it is reasonable to expect that they won't draw more fans than they did last year, even at a discount. And with ticket prices cut as well, what tickets do sell won't bring in as much revenue as they did in 2011. But let's be extremely optimistic, and estimate the team loses just $35 million next year. That leaves $100 million. That's just about enough to cover the two more debt payments against Citi Field, the $30 million in interest on the debt against the team, and the $20 million in interest on the debt against SNY. And it doesn't address some other massive issues for this ownership group: the $430 million in debt against the team (due in 2014), the $450 million in debt against SNY (due in 2015), or even a penny of the massive legal fees they'll be paying to fight the Madoff lawsuit, with a trial date set for March 19 of next year. Oh, and they'll owe $200 million, plus 3 percent per year, to their ten minority investors in 2017. So the best-case scenario places them right back in this position a year from now—on the brink. So then why did Bank of America lend these people the money at all? And why did the other lenders go along with it? For Bank of America, which holds a substantial portion of the team's SNY debt, keeping the Wilpon group around in the hope of getting back back some money makes more sense than bailing on them and entering a bankruptcy proceeding with the other lenders. What would follow—and what is an eventuality if the lenders can't nurse the Wilpon ownership back to health—is a free-for-all with massive claims to be paid to a multitude of creditors. And what will exist to pay them? The sale of a team whose value isn't greater than the debt owed against it and its stadium and a TV network, SNY, that isn't worth much without a deal to show Mets games. And rest assured, a new team owner, who may or may not own SNY as well, is going to pay attention to the $150 million per year the Angels recently received for their television rights, and contrast it to the $63 million per year SNY pays the Mets. One way or another, that model will change, and not to SNY's benefit. Once again, none of this includes any potential judgment against Wilpon and his partners in the Madoff suit. That potential burden currently stands at $386 million, with the potential to rise on appeal, and not including substantial legal fees to fight the battle along the way. Two endings are likely here. One is that the Wilpon ownership group misses a payment. This week's debt payment to the City of New York could have done it, for example, but the loan allowed them to keep going. It's hard to see how they'll manage to avoid missing a payment if they fail to find minority investors by March. If they do, it will likely be the point at which the lenders give up on them and race to the front of the line for bankruptcy. Another possible ending is that Major League Baseball enforces its own rules regarding debt—the Wilpon ownership group has been in violation of them for at least three years now—and forces a sale of the team. As a statement from the team made clear last night, M.L.B. signed off on the new loan, just as M.L.B. has allowed the Mets to owe them $25 million long beyond the agreed deadline for repayment. It is hard to believe that the banks and M.L.B., which is watching one of its marquee clubs shrivel and turn to dust before its very eyes, will keep pretending everything is OK for much longer. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/n ... p-how-long

batmagadanleadoff Dec 13 2011 11:07 PM Daily News reports that time is running out on the Wilpons

Excerpt: On the day after word was leaked of the Mets taking out yet another loan, here is what you heard Tuesday from Major League Baseball officials: The walls are closing in on the Wilpons. Nobody was saying that Bud Selig is ready to give the Mets owners the Frank McCourt treatment, and start chasing them toward the door. But neither was there any mistaking the growing concern from inside the MLB offices about the state of the franchise. “They have a lot of things coming due,” was the way one MLB official put it. “They need some things to happen fairly soon.” The official went on to explain that the banks, more so than MLB, are likely to start squeezing the Wilpons. “They’re sort of at the end here with the banks and everything else,” the official said. Suffice to say there is now a level of pessimism among MLB people about whether the Wilpons are going to survive their financial problems, which have become more of a topic of conversation than ever since Sandy Alderson told the world last week the Mets recently lost $70 million unrelated to the ongoing Bernie Madoff matter. Now word has been leaked of a $40 million loan the Mets received from Bank of America six weeks ago, on top of last year’s $25 million loan from MLB on which they were recently granted a deadline extension for repayment until March. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... z1gUDZa7gt Also, GM Alderson sez Mets might complete sale of minority stakes by next month.

metirish Dec 14 2011 06:34 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I can't help but think of this when wondering what's going on in Fred's mind. I think that'his attitude and this may well take a few years to play out but hopefully he'll be forced to sell, hoping not more than two years.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 14 2011 06:46 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Maybe he'll sell the team if he gets elected President of Russia.

Vic Sage Dec 14 2011 08:35 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

lets start a write-in candidacy. Oh and you bought "skitch"? Absatively. It's onomatopoetic.

metirish Dec 14 2011 10:23 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Alderson wasn't even aware of the loan until Monday, is that odd?, probably not. GM: Mets close to having investors in place Originally published: December 13, 2011 2:11 PM Updated: December 13, 2011 9:40 PM By DAVID LENNON david.lennon@newsday.com Mets general manager Sandy Alderson said Tuesday that the Mets expect to have a group of investors in place shortly after the start of 2012, and perhaps as early as January, which would mean a cash influx that could be worth eventually $200 million for the financially hurting franchise. Alderson's comments during the team's annual kids holiday party at Citi Field come on the heels of Monday's acknowledgment by the Mets of a recent bridge loan, which a source said was for $40 million. The loan comes on top of the $25 million the club already borrowed from Major League Baseball more than a year ago. A source said the funds for the bridge loan were secured by Bank of America. "I wasn't even aware of the [bridge] loan until [Monday]," Alderson said, "so it couldn't have had any impact on what I've done. On the other hand, I'm not surprised that with the losses that we sustained last year, they have to be funded somehow, and that's either with cash or debt, and I think a bridge loan makes perfect sense given the investments that are expected to close in January." Alderson was referring to the Mets' strategy of rounding up a group of about 10 investors, at roughly $20 million each, to sell a minority stake in the franchise. Principal owner Fred Wilpon, along with team president Saul Katz and COO Jeff Wilpon, have not provided any details of that process, other than to say it has been "going very well." Alderson was asked later in the day during an interview on Fox Business Network whether the Mets were financially sound. "Yes, I think with this infusion of cash together with the possibility, I think the strong likelihood in the next two or three months that there will be additional investors in Mets ownership, that we should be good to go over the next couple years," he said. The Mets have said they have seven potential investors who are being vetted by Major League Baseball. A source said the team has another six or seven prospects under consideration. The source also said the Mets need only three to meet the goal of 10 investors. The source, however, expects the transactions to close in February. The source said the $200 million from unit sales is earmarked to pay for 2011 and estimated 2012 losses. Jeff Wilpon made a brief appearance at the holiday party, but he did not comment on the recent loan or the pending sale of minority shares. In addition to the two loans, the Mets' ownership group also is facing a lawsuit from Irving Picard, the trustee for the victims of Bernard Madoff. Picard is trying to recover as much as $386 million. There is a jury hearing set for March 19. Alderson already has said that the Mets' 2012 payroll will not exceed $100 million, and could even be below that number, as the team keeps some cash in reserve for amateur signing bonuses later in the year. The Mets didn't make an offer to homegrown shortstop Jose Reyes, who earlier this month signed a six-year, $106-million contract with the Marlins. When asked if the sale of minority shares in the team would help him increase the payroll at some point, Alderson hedged. "I think eventually," he said, "but I wouldn't expect that an influx of capital in January or February would have a major impact on our payroll for 2012, at least going into the season." As for subsequent years, Alderson hinted in the past that the Mets' money problems will plague the team beyond this season, and he did not shy away from that Tuesday, despite a somewhat more optimistic spin. "Anytime there is debt, there's interest to be paid, which presumably is a cash requirement, so I guess theoretically there could be some impact on payroll," Alderson said. "But I really don't believe it will have any. Most teams have debt." With Steven Marcus

Edgy MD Dec 14 2011 10:27 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Mets general manager Sandy Alderson said Tuesday that the Mets expect to have a group of investors in place shortly after the start of 2012, and perhaps as early as January... These two time frames are different how?

Edgy MD Dec 14 2011 10:30 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

The amount of meaningless regurgitations every time the needle seems to move is ridiculous. Covering the Wilpons has become akin to covering the pope --- it's one long 10-million-word deathwatch of a beat, saying next to nothing to people hanging on your every word

batmagadanleadoff Dec 14 2011 10:36 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

... and we expect to finalize our $200M deal with new minority investors by next month. Really. Stay in your seat, son. I sent Sandy up there for your own protection. If you said what Sandy's saying, they'd pelt you with rotten tomatoes.

metirish Dec 14 2011 10:37 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Can't help but laugh

Fman99 Dec 14 2011 01:20 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

"Now, this is my deal here Wade, just give me the money, MLB specifically told me they want to deal with me here Wade. This is MY DEAL." "Listen, Jeffy, no offense, but I don't want you fucking this whole thing up like you do everything. Gave all that money to Jason Bay, for Chrissakes."

metirish Dec 14 2011 01:33 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Brilliant

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 20 2011 01:17 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Mets whacking Kingsport Rookie League team in cost-cutting move. Somehow this hurts more than losing Reyes.

metirish Dec 20 2011 01:20 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Mets whacking Kingsport Rookie League team in cost-cutting move. Somehow this hurts more than losing Reyes. this thread is depressing, hoping one day to open it with news that they are selling it all.

Edgy MD Dec 20 2011 02:05 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Mets whacking Kingsport Rookie League team in cost-cutting move. Somehow this hurts more than losing Reyes. Yeah, in a sense, I felt the same way about them gutting administrative staff. Ugh. One of my favorite minor league trips was to Kingsport to see a game called after two and a half innings. Good folks in smalltown America losing their ball team. Booooo, Mets! I think I'll go open an indy league team there.

Edgy MD Dec 20 2011 02:22 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Rubin says (1) he hasn't confirmed this yet, and (2) Mets would still have the same number of prospects, but more of them would be kicking around St. Lucie playing intrasquad games. I'm expecting he'll get a yes on (1), and I'll respond with a maybe on (2).

batmagadanleadoff Dec 20 2011 02:26 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

metirish wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Mets whacking Kingsport Rookie League team in cost-cutting move. Somehow this hurts more than losing Reyes. this thread is depressing, hoping one day to open it with news that they are selling it all. They'll sell alright. But not before letting David Wright go away for nothing in return. And then they'll sell the team to Jim Dolan. Because Fred Wilpon is a cocksucker who deep down, holds Mets fans in contempt.

Frayed Knot Dec 20 2011 02:38 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Edgy DC wrote: Rubin says (1) he hasn't confirmed this yet, and (2) Mets would still have the same number of prospects, but more of them would be kicking around St. Lucie playing intrasquad games. I'm expecting he'll get a yes on (1), and I'll respond with a maybe on (2). In fairness the Mets have been running with one "extra" farm team at the lowest level for the last number of years having one in both the Appy League (Kingsport) and in the Gulf Coast. Dumping Kingsport in favor of what is in effect the St Lucie Juniors would bring them back down to six domestic teams like most others although it would also probably have the cost saving move of centralizing things in PSL and I think the Appy is considered a small step better than the GCL.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 20 2011 02:58 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

NYPost_Mets Mike Puma May not be the Kingsport team the Mets dump; spoke to Gulf Coast League official who indicated Mets Rookie team in St. Lucie in jeopardy. 1 minute ago

metirish Dec 20 2011 04:26 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

But the Mets are synonymous with St. Lucie, can't see that going down well, unless of course Fred plans on canceling ST to save money.

Frayed Knot Dec 20 2011 05:00 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 20 2011 05:01 PM

metirish wrote: But the Mets are synonymous with St. Lucie, can't see that going down well, unless of course Fred plans on canceling ST to save money. They'd still be in PSL. What they have there now is the 'High-A' Florida State League entry AND a Gulf Coast League affiliate; the GCL being an entry level league where they play a half-season comprised with rosters of new and largely teenage signees from both the recent draft plus the Caribbean. The Mets currently have two entry-level teams: the GCL Mets plus the Appalachian League one in Kingsport and because these low-level leagues rarely draw more than a handful of spectators - other than scouts from other team or the occasional player relative - the big league club frequently owns these clubs as opposed local ownership for the higher minor leagues. I know the Mets own the GCL team (and Brooklyn), not sure about Kingsport. Current pecking order: NYC - MLB Buffalo - AAA International League Binghamton - AA Eastern League Port St Lucie - High A Florida State League Savannah - Low A South Atlantic (Sally) League Brooklyn - Split Season New York-Penn League Kingsport - Rookie Appalachian League Port St Lucie - Rookie Gulf Coast League So if one does disappear, sure, it'll almost certainly be for a cost-cutting move, but it also just puts them back to one entry-level club which is where most teams are and where they were before expanding to the GCL club 5 or 6 years back. The surviving entry level team, plus instructional league stuff, plus the teams they have in the Caribbean would take up the slack.

bmfc1 Dec 20 2011 05:00 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

With the elimination of the Gulf Coast Mets, the Mets have 8 minor league teams. They quickly remind us that most teams have 7 but that doesn't eliminate the fact that there are now 25 or so fewer minor leaguers in the organization which makes it that much tougher to find the next Wright or Reyes. Sell the team Fred. http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/p ... h-gcl-team

G-Fafif Dec 20 2011 05:01 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Darryl's first professional team.

Nymr83 Dec 20 2011 05:27 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

bmfc1 wrote: With the elimination of the Gulf Coast Mets, the Mets have 8 minor league teams. They quickly remind us that most teams have 7 but that doesn't eliminate the fact that there are now 25 or so fewer minor leaguers in the organization which makes it that much tougher to find the next Wright or Reyes. Sell the team Fred. http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/p ... h-gcl-team While I certainly agree with the sentiment of "sell the team Fred", neither Wright nor Reyes was ever as lowly regarded as the 25 players who won't have jobs in the GCL as any true prospects will just end up in Brooklyn or Kingsport instead. Even if the occassional above-average major leaguer is sometimes found among this group the move is a long, long, long way from making it "that much tougher to find" a star player.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 20 2011 06:51 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

To me it's just the pathos of it all. At any other time maybe a consolidation of redundant stuff makes sense but given all that's gone on there's just no way for the Mets to do anything without it looking as though they're cutting every corner to get by, which they are.

metirish Dec 20 2011 06:55 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Next thing you know Fred will want to cut the dental plan for the employees.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 20 2011 07:20 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

metirish wrote: Next thing you know Fred will want to cut the dental plan for the employees. No, not the dental plan. But close. According to Mike Silva's Baseball Digest, a number of sources are indicating that "the Mets are stepping up their attempts to move their only remaining moveable [large] contract, that of David Wright." Can you say $70M payroll? I knew that you could.

metirish Dec 20 2011 07:33 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 20 2011 07:51 PM

Wait, Eric Young now gets back Wright and not Turner?, I kid, wouldn't be at all surprised with a payroll in that low range, I expect in actually.

Edgy MD Dec 20 2011 07:47 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

bmfc1 wrote: With the elimination of the Gulf Coast Mets, the Mets have 8 minor league teams. They quickly remind us that most teams have 7 but that doesn't eliminate the fact that there are now 25 or so fewer minor leaguers in the organization which makes it that much tougher to find the next Wright or Reyes. Sell the team Fred. http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/p ... h-gcl-team Rubin suggests that there won't be 25 fewer prospects, just 25 fewer playing rookie league ball. The same characters (again, so suggests Rubin) would be doing what many others spend their summers doing, playing intrasquad games at Port St. Lucie. As for trading Wright, gerbils, that's a turn.

metirish Dec 29 2011 01:18 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Analysis that's heavy on the speculating ANALYSIS For Mets, Vast Debt and Not a Lot of Time By RICHARD SANDOMIR Published: December 24, 2011 The finances of major professional sports teams exist largely as the secrets of privately held companies, except for the community-owned Green Bay Packers, who report their profits without a hint of resistance. But elements of the Mets’ finances have emerged publicly in the last year that show fans and potential investors how unprofitable the Mets are and also how deeply in debt the operation is. Sports teams do not always make money, and debt is a legitimate way to fuel their growth, as it is in real estate, where Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, the Mets’ owners, made their money and reputations. But the Mets worry Major League Baseball enough to be seen as a troubled franchise on a short tether. Their $430 million loan on the team is due in 2014. Their $25 million loan from M.L.B. is past due and repayment has been extended. They recently borrowed $40 million from Bank of America. Their valuable network, SNY, is also heavily leveraged, to the tune of $450 million, a loan that must be repaid in 2015. And the Mets’ Citi Field bond payments leapt from $19 million last year to $43.7 million. That is a lot of borrowing for a team that lost $70 million last season and had faltering attendance. The team’s financial state is serious enough for Wilpon and Katz to be courting minority investors — a hunt for a cash crutch that is nearly a year in the making — to raise $200 million. All this is happening without the financial grease that once made the Mets’ finances so much easier: profits from Wilpon and Katz’s decades of investing with Bernard L. Madoff. They lost $550 million when Madoff’s Ponzi scheme unraveled three years ago; they face a possible trial next year over claims by the trustee for his victims that they turned a blind eye to signs that Madoff was up to no good, which they deny. “It seems inconceivable they’re going to hold onto the team for the long term when you look at the incredible hurdles they face in 2014 and 2015,” said Howard Megdal, author of an e-book, “Wilpon’s Folly,” in which he details the financial pressures on the team. Mets officials declined to speak about the team’s debt or to discuss Megdal. They issued a statement that said, “We do not publicly address specific issues pertaining to our finances including inaccurate, speculative and ongoing fabrications.” Sports business experts say that the five-year term of the loans on the team and SNY is standard and that the team could refinance and extend them when they are due. But the Mets’ actions — adding debt and seeking investors to buy 10 shares in the Mets for $20 million each — raises questions about whether they can generate enough cash to make all their payments, especially if the team does not rebound on the field. Robert Leib, a financial consultant to sports teams who has examined numerous balance sheets, said that debt was not necessarily a problem, even if it is to finance operating losses, as long as the value of the team is increasing. At least, then, banks and owners know that loans will be repaid through the sale of the team. But Leib, who has not seen the Mets’ books, said, “If what you’re doing is taking down debt to handle operating losses with the knowledge that you’re inadequately capitalized from the get-go, then it’s toxic.” Baseball expects teams to use debt — Commissioner Bud Selig approves all loans — but sometimes, they pile up more than they can bear. M.L.B. also sets limits on borrowings, called the debt service rule, and nine teams were out of compliance with it this year, according to The Los Angeles Times. Chuck Greenberg, who led a group with Nolan Ryan to buy the Texas Rangers last year, said the debt rules were “fairly stringent,” but there were “creative ways to exploit” them by spinning off entities from the franchise, like ticket or real estate arms, “that are not subject to the debt limits on the team itself.” For the Mets, a team with a new ballpark, debt should be no more than 12 times its cash flow, according to a formula in the new labor agreement. But with the Mets’ financial records private, there is no way to know for certain if they are breaking the debt rule. But teams can face breaking points. Too much debt pushed the Rangers into bankruptcy last year. Too little cash sent the debt-ridden Los Angeles Dodgers into bankruptcy last June. “If all three of your core assets — team, media and stadium — are encumbered with bank debt or bond obligations, it limits your agility and makes problem solving more of a challenge,” Greenberg said. Despite setting a ceiling on debt, M.L.B. can be selective in how it enforces the rule. Selig found it easy to push Tom Hicks to sell the Rangers because he had defaulted on $525 million in loans to the Rangers and the Dallas Stars. Selig engaged in a long-running battle with the Dodgers’ owner, Frank McCourt, who had engaged in financial and personal conduct Selig judged to be detrimental to the team and to baseball, and cajoled him into agreeing to sell the important franchise. But he has indulged Wilpon, a friend and ally for 30 years. Unlike McCourt, Wilpon has tried to find minority partners to resolve his continuing cash crunch. So Selig has not installed a monitor to oversee the Mets as he did with McCourt. Selig has in the last few months witnessed the collapse of a deal to sell one-third of the Mets to the hedge-fund wizard David Einhorn, the failure of the Mets to repay baseball’s $25 million loan on time, and the slow pace of the sale of the 10 minority shares. Selig may never tell Wilpon he has to sell. But Selig could be waiting for banks to grow so concerned that they demand that Wilpon sell the team he has owned, outright since 2002, to recover all they are owed. “Bud would leave the dirty work to the banks,” said one banker who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It would be easy for him to ask Fred’s bankers, ‘How’s that loan going?’ ” What seems hard to understand is where the Mets’ owners will get the money to keep up with their debt payments, finance their losses and pay the Madoff trustee a substantial sum through a settlement or a jury verdict. Next season, with lower ticket prices and the prospect of attendance falling further, revenue may tumble again. And the availability of a free luxury suite to all 10 potential minority owners suggests the team cannot sell premium seating at perhaps $200,000 each. One source of financing — barring additional bank borrowing — is coming from within Sterling Equities, the parent company of the Mets. Recently, $40 million became available to buy two more of the minority shares. All of it went to offset losses, said two people familiar with the team’s finances. A version of this article appeared in print on December 25, 2011, on

Edgy MD Dec 29 2011 01:26 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

The news today is that bonds on CitiField have been downgraded by S&P. I'm openly quite ignorant on these matters, and am not sure what this means to the Wilpons, but I guess it could mean that their 4% shares are looking less attractive this morning, and also that it may be harder for them to leverage what they own of the ballpark to pump money into the team, if that's what they hope to do.

Gwreck Dec 29 2011 03:16 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

If you ever wanted proof the Wilpons are truly clueless, check this nugget out from that article (emphasis mine): The team’s preliminary projection that ATTENDANCE WILL RISE to 2.5 million in 2012 from 2.29 million last season

themetfairy Dec 29 2011 03:24 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

If you ever wanted proof the Wilpons are truly clueless, check this nugget out from that article (emphasis mine): The team’s preliminary projection that ATTENDANCE WILL RISE to 2.5 million in 2012 from 2.29 million last season I want what they're smoking.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 29 2011 09:08 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Edgy DC wrote: The news today is that bonds on CitiField have been downgraded by S&P. I'm openly quite ignorant on these matters, and am not sure what this means to the Wilpons.... It means that the bonds will now cost less. And if you know anything about supply and demand, you'd know that more investors will now want the bonds. Because they cost less. Not that this is any of your business. Don't you know that we're a private company?

Edgy MD Jan 05 2012 07:54 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ooooh, here's some action.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2012 02:59 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Brace yourselves therealarieber Anthony Rieber Fred wilpon's extensive interview w/ me and WSJ today is not going to make mets fans happy. Sorry. Story soon.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2012 04:03 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Here it is: Mets' Wilpon: 'I Think We'll Be Fine' By BRIAN COSTA PARADISE VALLEY, Ariz.—Back in New York, he faces heavy debt, staggering losses and a potentially crippling lawsuit. But here, at a lavish mountainside resort, Fred Wilpon was at peace. The embattled Mets owner smiled broadly Thursday as he shook hands with other executives on his way out of Major League Baseball's quarterly owners meetings. And in his first extended public comments since last spring, it was evident just how much he values his place in this exclusive club—and how determined he is to keep it. Wilpon said he understood why many fans hope he'll sell the team, but he remained adamant about his desire to maintain majority control. And he expressed confidence in his ability to do so. A self-made real estate magnate from Brooklyn, Wilpon owns the Mets along with his brother-in-law, Saul Katz, the team president; and his son Jeff Wilpon, the chief operating officer. "How could anybody deny that it's been a challenging time?" Wilpon said. "But I came from nothing. I meet the challenges. So does Saul and Jeff and our whole family. We're meeting the challenges and I think we'll be fine." It has been a dismal year for the Mets, who had their third consecutive losing season in 2011, lost roughly $70 million and recently lost their best player, Jose Reyes, to the Miami Marlins via free agency. But Wilpon may yet have reasons for optimism these days. For one thing, the Mets expect to complete the sale of at least five minority stakes in the team within the next month, according to a person familiar with the matter. That will provide an infusion of at least $100 million, more than half of which will be used to pay off a $25 million debt to MLB and a $40 million bridge loan to Bank of America. The Mets still hope to sell an additional five to seven stakes after that, the person said, with the goal of raising roughly $200 million. Also, MLB commissioner Bud Selig, a staunch ally and longtime friend of Wilpon, agreed Thursday to remain in office for another two years. So the game's highest powers are unlikely to pressure Wilpon to sell. Selig said he was encouraged by the progress the Mets have made in the sale of minority stakes—none of which are complete yet—and reiterated his support for Wilpon. "He's been a great owner," Selig said. "Loves his team. He's everything you'd want in a local owner. He's had some economic problems, not caused by himself, and I have a lot of faith in him that he's working his way through them." Wilpon, 75, declined to discuss the sales process in detail. Nor would he discuss the lawsuit filed against him and Katz by the trustee representing victims of the Bernard Madoff fraud. The case, in which Wilpon and Katz could be liable for up to $386 million, is set to go to trial in March. But Wilpon spoke at length about Reyes, who signed with Miami last month for six years and $106 million. "Reyes was 17 years old when I met him," Wilpon said. "He spoke pretty good English at that time, too. He said to me, 'Can you give me some advice?' I said, 'Yeah, never wipe that smile off your face.'" When asked if Reyes's departure was difficult for him, Wilpon said, "Certainly. … I'm a fan. I understand it, but I'm still pained about it." Of course, Wilpon isn't just a fan. He could have doled out the money to retain Reyes. And in another time, he might have. But with the Mets in the midst of a payroll purge and questions about Reyes's durability, Wilpon was in no position to do so. The payroll is set to drop from $143 million on Opening Day 2011 to less than $100 million this year. "I think we have to get the fans back at the stadium," Wilpon said. "That's a necessity. That's the lifeblood. And to do that, we have to have a good team. We have to be careful that we don't make some of the mistakes that we made in the past, having long-term contracts that didn't work out." The Mets averaged 30,161 fans at Citi Field in 2011, according to Stats LLC, nearly a 7% drop from 2010 and down 22.5% from 2009. Given how low the expectations are for the team this year, it will be difficult to reverse that trend soon. But Wilpon remained optimistic. "I think we're going to be better than you think," he said. "We would hope that Mets fans enjoy going to the ballpark and give this team a try." Even if things break right for the Mets, though—they settle the lawsuit, bring in $200 million from investors and pay off loans to MLB and Bank of America—there's still $375 million debt due in 2014 looming, according to a person familiar with the team's finances. "This is a tough time," Wilpon said. "We're bearing up, I can promise you that."

metirish Jan 12 2012 04:05 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Just read it, bleh, not going anywhere, no surprise. I guess Rieber has his own article but I can't imagine it's much different.

Ashie62 Jan 12 2012 04:24 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

375 Million possibly due in 2014? Rough.

G-Fafif Jan 12 2012 04:58 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

And Jon Huntsman says finishing third in New Hampshire after campaigning there for a year is a ticket to ride.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2012 05:25 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

"Reyes was 17 years old when I met him," Wilpon said. "He spoke pretty good English at that time, too. He said to me, 'Can you give me some advice?' I said, 'Yeah, never wipe that smile off your face.'" I'd like some confirmation of this.

metsguyinmichigan Jan 12 2012 06:21 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I didn't realize Wilpon was 75. Makes sense considering they've had the team for 30 years.

Edgy MD Jan 12 2012 07:25 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Nothing to brace for, anyhow.

Fman99 Jan 12 2012 07:45 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Fred Wilpon continues to wipe his arse with $10 bills while his payroll and attendance shrink to "cock and balls in an Arctic tidepool" sized proportions. Who are the suckers paying $20 million for a Mr. Met reacharound, anyway?

Ashie62 Jan 13 2012 02:36 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Fman99 wrote: Fred Wilpon continues to wipe his arse with $10 bills while his payroll and attendance shrink to "cock and balls in an Arctic tidepool" sized proportions. Who are the suckers paying $20 million for a Mr. Met reacharound, anyway? None yet...maybe they read the prospectus.

Edgy MD Jan 13 2012 05:38 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

We'll see. Alll reports say they'll be announcing the sale of five forthwith. I think we hardly expected Wilpon to skip the owners' meetings as some sort of austerity measure.

metirish Jan 13 2012 06:03 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Edgy DC wrote: We'll see. Alll reports say they'll be announcing the sale of five forthwith. I think we hardly expected Wilpon to skip the owners' meetings as some sort of austerity measure. no, but did he dump his private jet?, not likely.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 17 2012 07:58 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Judge Rakoff denies immediate right of appeal. Trial likely this Spring. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/sport ... uling.html http://online.wsj.com/article/AP396d130 ... 626ee.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... 4120120118 What goes unmentioned in all of these news recaps is that Picard can still appeal Judge Rakoff's rulings; those rulings limited the time frame under which Sterling's behavior might constitute culpable conduct, thus capping damages at about $386M instead of close to $1B. Picard will simply have to wait until the trial is over before appealing.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 27 2012 08:27 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Mets retain John Maine as expert witness in upcoming Picard trial. No, not that John Maine. Expert Witnesses Faulted in Suit Against Mets’ Owners By RICHARD SANDOMIR Published: January 27, 2012 Lawyers for the victims of Bernard L. Madoff have accused the Mets’ owners of enriching themselves with illegitimate profits from his Ponzi scheme. The owners, in turn, have called the lawyers shakedown artists bent on ruining their good reputations to extort money. It has, then, been a mean year all around since the Madoff trustee sued Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, the Mets’ owners, for $1 billion. Now, the two sides are less than two months from going to trial. Hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake. So perhaps it’s no surprise that new court filings show that neither side thinks much of the expert witnesses recruited by the other side. The trustee’s lineup includes Harrison J. Goldin, a former New York City comptroller who faced ethical questions while in office. The Mets’ owners hired John Maine. No, not that John Maine, the sore-shouldered Mets right-hander whom the pitching coach Dan Warthen labeled a “habitual liar” during his last, injury-marred season with the team, in 2010. This John Maine graduated from Dartmouth with a history degree and worked as both a stockbroker and Smith Barney executive, but has not been directly involved in the financial sector since 1990. He now makes his living testifying at trials. As part of the new court filings, this Maine submitted a report supporting one of Wilpon and Katz’s bedrock defenses — that despite their real estate holdings, they are not sophisticated investors and had no reason to doubt, or investigate, Madoff while he was their trusted broker. The trustee, Irving H. Picard, in turn attacked Maine much the way National League teams pounded John Maine the pitcher during that last Mets season, when he was not forthcoming about his injuries, thus angering Warthen. Picard said John Maine the expert witness had issued a report that lacked “any principle or methodology” and cited no “surveys, sources, books, treatises, industry guides, periodicals, studies or any other objective third-party analysis.” He said Maine had been too long removed from a full-time financial post, and he even cited Maine’s failed attempt at running a trout farm. Goldin was treated far more nicely by the Mets’ lawyers. Goldin wrote a report for Picard that stated that Wilpon and Katz did not carry out due diligence before offering employees at their holding company, Sterling Equities, an option to invest their retirement money with Madoff. Another Picard expert, Steve Pomerantz, who holds a doctorate in mathematics, cited 26 red flags that he said should have alerted Wilpon and Katz that something was, well, fishy during their many years of investing with Madoff. The Mets’ lawyers called their conclusions “irrelevant and unfounded.” But Goldin’s and Pomerantz’s credentials — and any fishing sidelights — were not questioned. The Mets had no comment on the case Friday or the factors that went into hiring Maine. Actually, United States District Judge Jed S. Rakoff has more substantial motions before him than whether he will eliminate any expert witness before the jury trial of the Mets’ owners starts on March 19. It is a serious case that turns on whether Wilpon and Katz willfully turned a blind eye from indications that Madoff was up to no good. Rakoff has already dismissed most of the trustee’s claims against the Mets’ owners and has ruled that Picard cannot recover more than $386 million from Wilpon and Katz. In their motion for a summary judgment on Thursday, Wilpon and Katz asked Rakoff to dismiss the last three claims against them and asserted that the evidence gathered by Picard since last fall proved that they were unaware that Madoff was engaged in a fraud. They said that the trustee “has an unlimited budget and has spent millions of dollars trying to find support for his baseless allegations.” Nevertheless, they said, Picard “has no evidence that any defendant was suspicious of Madoff.” Picard’s narrowly focused motion that was filed on Friday asks for a summary judgment on a claim that would let his office recover $83 million in fictitious profits the Mets’ owners received through their Madoff accounts. In his ruling last September, Rakoff said that the trustee “might well prevail” on such a motion. Maine did not return a call seeking comment. He retired as an executive vice president of Smith Barney in 1990 and, apparently looking for something different to do, tried to raise trout in Idaho. In a deposition taken this month, David Sheehan, Picard’s chief counsel, asked Maine about his credentials and knowledge. Maine talked about his experience, along with his failure as a trout entrepreneur. “And my trout herd swam away one morning,” he said. “I hate when that happens,” Sheehan said, in apparent deadpan. “It ruins the whole night,” Maine said. Picard contends that Maine’s work as a stockbroker and office executive in the 1970s and ’80s, and his “brief stint trying to raise trout,” were “outside the scope of the issues to be tried to the jury in this litigation.” In any case, Maine has built a business as an expert witness, mediator and arbitrator in the securities industry. His résumé says he has been retained 1,600 times and testified 600 times. In 2004, he testified for Peter Bacanovic, Martha Stewart’s former stockbroker, when they were tried for conspiracy to hinder a federal investigation into her sale of shares in a stock. Asked by Sheehan in the deposition about the Stewart trial, Maine said: “I was a very minor witness. My mother was so disappointed that my picture was never taken.” As for John Maine the pitcher, he spent 2011 with the Colorado Rockies’ Class AAA team and has now signed a minor league contact with the Boston Red Sox. He once played Santa Claus at a Mets Christmas party, back when everything was considerably more cheerful in Flushing.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 27 2012 08:41 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I've generally loved Sandomir's work of late. But did he really just pad out this article with 2-3 paragraphs of this-guy-with-the-same-name stuff? He might as well have made the title really big, and increased the page margins.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 27 2012 08:50 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Sandomir Good STOP Each sentence = paragraph STOP So 2 Maine sentences, only STOP

metirish Feb 06 2012 07:16 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

If Frank McCourt's L.A. Dodgers go for $2 billion, Fred Wilpon's NY Mets could be worth more Franchise values in baseball are about to take a quantum leap Ever so gradually, Frank McCourt has gone from the most villified owner in baseball to everyone’s guardian angel; from Bud Selig’s worst nightmare to the commissioner’s fondest dream. Such is the stunning fallout from McCourt plunging the Los Angeles Dodgers into bankruptcy court and the subsequent forced auction in which seven or eight of the richest men in America are all bidding against each other for the right to own one of baseball’s signature franchises. The first elimination round was completed last week with those advancing all committed to paying a minimum of $1.5 billion for the team. When you consider the previous highest price a baseball team fetched was the $845 million from Tom Ricketts for the Chicago Cubs in 2009, this is staggering, especially when you also consider the substantial wealth of all the remaining bidders will surely drive the ultimate sale price to $2 billion. Suddenly, from the unlikeliest of sources, franchise values in baseball are about to take a quantum leap that, as recently as six months ago, nobody in the game could have foreseen. “It’s mind-boggling,” said one industry insider. “If the Dodgers are worth two billion, what are the Yankees worth? Between their brand alone, plus their network, stadium and all their other built-in revenue, you’d have to say almost twice as much.” To which I countered: Never mind the Yankees. What about the Mets? “The Mets,” the insider said, “are probably the biggest beneficiaries of all in this Dodger sale.” Who’d have thought it? Certainly not Fred Wilpon. But Frank McCourt is about to be his salvation. For if the Dodgers wind up selling for $2 billion or more, the value of the Mets, a signature franchise in their own right, in the country’s largest media market with their own network and new stadium, despite their present hard times, have to be worth close to $3 billion. “What that means,” said the insider, “is that the Wilpons can now go back to their banks, point to the value of the team, and say: ‘Lend us more money.’” Yes, thanks to Frank McCourt’s multi-million dollar divorce, which set in motion this ironic sequence of events, Wilpon is about to have more collateral than he ever dreamed of. One person who obviously understands what the record-shattering Dodger sale will mean for the Mets — if only because he’s been one of the driving forces in it — is Steve Cohen, the Connecticut-based billionaire founder of SAC Capital Advisors investment firm. It was revealed last week that Cohen was in place to be one of the limited investors in the Mets, spending $20 million for one of 10 shares being offered for sale by the cash-strapped Wilpons in order to enable them to pay down some $65 million in loans. In doing so, you could say Cohen is hedging his bets. In either case, it’s a win-win for him. If he gets the Dodgers, it’s obviously a huge win, but if he doesn’t, his $20 million investment in the Mets figures to be worth a whole lot more with the re-evaluation of the team’s value in the wake of the final Dodger price tag. But what makes this all even more remarkable is the dramatic change of fortunes with the Dodgers from when McCourt first bought them from Fox/News Corp in 2004. At the time, McCourt had most recently been a disappointed suitor for the Red Sox, who, with some deft behind-the-scenes manipulation on Selig’s part, were sold for a then-record $660 million to Florida Marlins owner John Henry in March of 2002. When Fox put the Dodgers up for sale two years later, nobody was interested in them. Philanthropist Eli Broad, acknowledged as the wealthiest man in Los Angeles at the time, showed a token interest in buying the team, but in the end, Selig guided the sale of the team to McCourt for $430 million, about $80 million more than the record price News Corp had paid Peter O’Malley for the team in 1998. Now, 14 years later, O’Malley is back, aligned with one of the remaining bidding groups, trying to buy the Dodgers back for nearly three times more than what he sold them for. So what happened? “What has occurred is a dramatic change of circumstances in that, back in 2004, baseball was still viewed as labor idiots, the Dodgers were locked in a vastly undervalued TV contract, and the economic changes from the 2002 labor agreement hadn’t fully kicked in,” said another industry insider. “You can’t underestimate the value of an expiring TV deal in that market, with both Fox and Time Warner competing against each other. Now, under Selig, baseball has had years of labor peace and franchise values have continued to increase considerably.” Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... z1lbxOcBek Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... z1lbxJXfgM

metirish Feb 06 2012 07:17 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Having a hard time believing that the Mets are worth anywhere near $2 billion...

Ceetar Feb 06 2012 07:27 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

metirish wrote: Having a hard time believing that the Mets are worth anywhere near $2 billion... There is tremendous value there. They're definitely worth more than the Dodgers. It's really interesting though. 3% of 3 billion is 90k. The Mets are selling 3% shares at 20k.

Edgy MD Feb 06 2012 07:32 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

It doesn't matter. This is the key right here. metirish wrote: “The Mets,” the insider said, “are probably the biggest beneficiaries of all in this Dodger sale.” The Dodgers sale will lead to a revaluation of the what they own of the team. How much is a bickering point. They have more value in their leverage-able asset without (if I understand finance) a similar revaluation in the debt they are leveraging it to cover. It could be good for the incoming minority investors too if they get in at the right level.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2012 07:44 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I've wavered back and forth on this suspicion over the last several months but right now I think the Mets are gonna go Chapter 11, and soon. I figure those consultants they brought in are probably negotiating with the various lenders now on some modifications so the deal can be as "prepackaged" as they can make it, maybe as a condition of approving those "investiloans" they're allegedly so close to getting.

metirish Feb 06 2012 07:46 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ceetar wrote: metirish wrote: Having a hard time believing that the Mets are worth anywhere near $2 billion... There is tremendous value there. They're definitely worth more than the Dodgers. It's really interesting though. 3% of 3 billion is 90k. The Mets are selling 3% shares at 20k. I dunno, Dodgers own Chavez Ravine , ups the value a lot.

Frayed Knot Feb 06 2012 07:49 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

The Dodger selling price also includes a [u:1xm7wogd]paid-for[/u:1xm7wogd] stadium plus some surrounding (primo location) land - so be careful about drawing too many equivalencies to the Mets.

Ceetar Feb 06 2012 07:57 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Frayed Knot wrote: The Dodger selling price also includes a paid-for stadium plus some surrounding (primo location) land - so be careful about drawing too many equivalencies to the Mets. not sure how much the paid-for status matters. It's about potential revenue isn't it? Pretty sure a capacity Citi Field makes more than a capacity Dodger stadium. I imagine the property Citi Field sits on is pretty valuable too. Also, more Heyman, but I'm not sure how much money the Mets have lost in comparison to the Dodgers matters either. A lot of that money was/could've been/who knows related to their existing debts and expenditures, not because they're not bringing in a lot of revenue/potential revenue. But as with most of this stuff, it's all financial mumbo jumbo and sports writers are not financial gurus and shouldn't act like one.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2012 08:03 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

not sure how much the paid-for status matters. That's obvious.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 06 2012 08:06 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ceetar wrote: metirish wrote: It's really interesting though. 3% of 3 billion is 90k. The Mets are selling 3% shares at 20k. Three percent of 3 billion is 90 million.

Ceetar Feb 06 2012 08:09 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: not sure how much the paid-for status matters. That's obvious. No really, how much does it matter when projecting a value of a stadium? This stuff is way above my pay grade. % matters too right? how much of the stadium is paid off? Then you get into stuff like were they paying interest or principle? (I'm looking to buy a house soon..guess I'll learn all about that..) And how does that affect bankruptcy? Is it a wiser deal to try to string this process along until they own more of the stadium/just before the next big payment is due? or after it? in terms of filing for it?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 06 2012 08:11 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Frayed Knot wrote: The Dodger selling price also includes a paid-for stadium plus some surrounding (primo location) land - so be careful about drawing too many equivalencies to the Mets. The Mets' potential selling price would-- one would imagine-- include a majority interest in/the entirety of a thriving regional sports network, which-- frankly-- is a MUCH bigger revenue engine.

Ceetar Feb 06 2012 08:12 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: metirish wrote: It's really interesting though. 3% of 3 billion is 90k. The Mets are selling 3% shares at 20k. Three percent of 3 billion is 90 million. right duh. but hell, even if the Mets were only valued at 1billion those they're basically selling 30million for 20 million aren't they? Wouldn't the guaranteed 3% increase in value (or whatever they're pitching as the return on investment on these) then become worthless if they're already "on sale"?

Edgy MD Feb 06 2012 08:17 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I think the Wilpons come out of this.

Ceetar Feb 06 2012 08:21 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Edgy DC wrote: I think the Wilpons come out of this. I've always thought that, I just hope it's not one of those paddling at the edge of the waterfall things. (well it is already, I just hope they grab the damn rope soon and climb out, or go over)

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2012 08:24 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I think they will maintain control as well, unfortunately. That's what those consultants are working on: A way to make that happen.

Edgy MD Feb 06 2012 08:32 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ah, you're predicting a restructuring bankruptcy that they survive. I see.

bmfc1 Feb 06 2012 09:40 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

The Mets have denied credentials to Howard Megdal for the upcoming season: http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2012/02/06/a ... -the-mets/ I don't know what the standards are for credentials but if he received credentialing last year, then not giving it to him this year is vindictive and petty. If the Mets have a problem with his writing, then sue him for libel or get another reporter to give their "side of the story."

Ceetar Feb 06 2012 09:45 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

bmfc1 wrote: The Mets have denied credentials to Howard Megdal for the upcoming season: http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2012/02/06/a ... -the-mets/ I don't know what the standards are for credentials but if he received credentialing last year, then not giving it to him this year is vindictive and petty. If the Mets have a problem with his writing, then sue him for libel or get another reporter to give their "side of the story." It's petty but i'm not sure I blame them either. He was at the December blogger meetup, so it's undoubtedly about his book. And it may very well have come from above but the real issue here is with the membership of the BBWAA. I get that someone like me isn't eligible for membership but Megdal is clearly (to me anyway) on the other side of the line. Can't sue him for libel if he was careful (which I assume he was) about not asserting any of the billion things we know with very little certainty but I imagine it was the negative slant of those uncertainties that pissed them off.

metirish Feb 06 2012 09:46 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

bmfc1 wrote: The Mets have denied credentials to Howard Megdal for the upcoming season: http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2012/02/06/a ... -the-mets/ I don't know what the standards are for credentials but if he received credentialing last year, then not giving it to him this year is vindictive and petty. If the Mets have a problem with his writing, then sue him for libel or get another reporter to give their "side of the story." petty indeed Sean asked why that was, and Jay responded that the Mets “don’t like my reporting”. The team declined to respond to my multiple attempts to reach them for a fuller explanation.

Edgy MD Feb 06 2012 09:54 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Sheesh, I don't blame them for not liking his reporting, but I think they should have about 30 other guys on that list ahead of Howard. Horwitz needs to be de-credentialed, I'm afraid. I appreciate all he's done for the team, but he's a dinosaur and he's hurting the men he's seeking to protect.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 06 2012 10:56 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I wonder if Jay Horwitz reads The Pool?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 06 2012 11:03 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

People who get Horwitz' cooperation all rave about him. I wonder sometimes if there's not a lot of shit he does right, even batting .300 on clusterfuck scandals with the Wilpons in charge would keep a man very busy.

RealityChuck Feb 06 2012 11:04 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Banning Megdal is an even more stupid move than the Amos Otis for Joe Foy trade. The Mets will end up with far worse press than if they just ignored the book and, eventually, they will cave and give him the credentials anyway. There is no way that the team can come out of this without looking terrible. It will be far more damaging to their reputation than any book on Madoff and there is no way they can salvage this gaffe.

Edgy MD Feb 06 2012 11:12 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

People who get Horwitz' cooperation all rave about him. I wonder sometimes if there's not a lot of shit he does right, even batting .300 on clusterfuck scandals with the Wilpons in charge would keep a man very busy. No doubt. I'm thinking what he does right is feed you stories on days when you've got to file and you've got nothing. [list][*]"Hey, know what Vance Wilson's vanity plates mean?"[/*:m] [*]"I bet you didn't know that Manny Acosta's father is baker in Managua whose pastries were favored by both the Contras and the Sandanistas."[/*:m] [*]"Scott Hairston's name, when you rearrange the letters, spells Trots into Cash. It's true!"[/*:m][/list:u] I'm also thinking maybe a lot of the ravers are fellow dinosaurs.

bmfc1 Feb 06 2012 11:16 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

People who get Horwitz' cooperation all rave about him. I wonder sometimes if there's not a lot of shit he does right, even batting .300 on clusterfuck scandals with the Wilpons in charge would keep a man very busy. No doubt. I'm thinking what he does right is feed you stories on days when you've got to file and you've got nothing. [list][*]"Hey, know what Vance Wilson's vanity plates mean?"[/*:m] [*]"I bet you didn't know that Manny Acosta's father is baker in Managua whose pastries were favored by both the Contras and the Sandanistas."[/*:m] [*]"Scott Hairston's name, when you rearrange the letters, spells Trots into Cash. It's true!"[/*:m][/list:u] I'm also thinking maybe a lot of the ravers are fellow dinosaurs. Edgy brings the truth and the funny at the same time. I wonder if Horwitz was fired years ago and, like George Costanza, just kept showing up for work.

Ceetar Feb 06 2012 11:29 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

People who get Horwitz' cooperation all rave about him. I wonder sometimes if there's not a lot of shit he does right, even batting .300 on clusterfuck scandals with the Wilpons in charge would keep a man very busy. No doubt. I'm thinking what he does right is feed you stories on days when you've got to file and you've got nothing. [list][*]"Hey, know what Vance Wilson's vanity plates mean?"[/*:m] [*]"I bet you didn't know that Manny Acosta's father is baker in Managua whose pastries were favored by both the Contras and the Sandanistas."[/*:m] [*]"Scott Hairston's name, when you rearrange the letters, spells Trots into Cash. It's true!"[/*:m][/list:u] I'm also thinking maybe a lot of the ravers are fellow dinosaurs. I still think it's probably from above Horwitz' that the call came from. The "Don't like your reporting" comment seems like his own spin on perhaps more colorful words about the book behind the scenes. But maybe that's his way of covering himself blocking access thinking he's "protecting" the club? *shrug* Eventually they'll probably have to cave and give him access..or maybe not. Did Chris Botte ever re-get credentials the the Islanders? (Different issue, but same club reaction)

Edgy MD Feb 06 2012 11:43 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

It may well be that it came from above Horwitz. It may even be probable. But if I'm the VP of PR with forty years of juice in the organization, I'm insisting to them that the best way to get ahead of this story is by engaging with the writer, not by freezing him. Remind them that living well is the best revenge. Klapisch still has his creds, and he's an assassin.

Ceetar Feb 06 2012 11:53 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Edgy DC wrote: It may well be that it came from above Horwitz. It may even be probable. But if I'm the VP of PR with forty years of juice in the organization, I'm insisting to them that the best way to get ahead of this story is by engaging with the writer, not by freezing him. Remind them that living well is the best revenge. Klapisch still has his creds, and he's an assassin. Klapisch is a BBWAA member, which apparently makes you basically bulletproof? I don't know to what degree they gave info to Megdal but they certainly weren't going to give him every detail anyway. I think we're well beyond the 'living well' option as well. I don't know if it's Horwitz' fault or just that right now the Mets are really between a rock and a hard place and there really isn't a good solution (besides winning).

G-Fafif Feb 06 2012 11:55 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Thin-skinned circular firing squad convening on the Mets' part.

Ceetar Feb 06 2012 12:00 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

has anyone read Megdal's book btw?

bmfc1 Feb 06 2012 12:07 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ceetar wrote: has anyone read Megdal's book btw? I did and it's excellent. He provides the plain-language view of the Sterling Equities financial situation from the perspectives of an economist, attorney and Mets fan. I went into it believing that the standard of "known or should have known" about Madoff's illegal activities would be impossible to meet. People inside the company, such as Saul Katz's son, warned Sterling about Madoff and yet they continued to give him their money. After reading the damning evidence, I now think that either they knew or they are idiots.

Edgy MD Feb 06 2012 12:24 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ceetar wrote: I think we're well beyond the 'living well' option as well. You really think that? My experience is that there's always room for redemption in public life --- particularly for the rich. George Steinbrenner went from untouchable outcast to secular saint in a few short years. Michael Jackson. Michael Milken. Michael Vick. While there's a pulse in the body, there's time for another act. Ceetar wrote: I don't know if it's Horwitz' fault or just that right now the Mets are really between a rock and a hard place and there really isn't a good solution (besides winning). In other words, living well.

G-Fafif Feb 06 2012 12:27 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Read the book. Thought it was strong, demystifying advocacy journalism.

Ceetar Feb 06 2012 12:45 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: I think we're well beyond the 'living well' option as well. You really think that? My experience is that there's always room for redemption in public life --- particularly for the rich. George Steinbrenner went from untouchable outcast to secular saint in a few short years. Michael Jackson. Michael Milken. Michael Vick. While there's a pulse in the body, there's time for another act. Ceetar wrote: I don't know if it's Horwitz' fault or just that right now the Mets are really between a rock and a hard place and there really isn't a good solution (besides winning). In other words, living well. Interesting though, is who determines what 'redemption' is. Michael Vick has been redeemed by the NFL and it's sponsors and the media. But I talked to an Eagles fan friend this season who understand the whole "you root for the laundry not the player" concept but still felt wrong about it. He's certainly not redeemed in her eyes. Denying access to the clubhouse (which would've had zero affect on the book since it wasn't about the Mets players and most of them have as little insight to the matter as we do) is a petty move but it's not really a big deal because the fan base at large does not care about who's credentialed and their interactions with the club. G-Fafif wrote: Read the book. Thought it was strong, demystifying advocacy journalism. He's advocating a pretty anti-Wilpon stance though isn't it? Isn't it common sense for the Wilpon party to want to bar access when they can? This is where I get back to the BBWAA thing. The idea that the media is supposed to be this check on the subject it's covering. The BBWAA is (are they? I'm going off of Megdal's post here. Could the Mets legitimately revoke say David Lennon's credentials?) supposed to be the protection of the writer/reporter from the club, but since they're still seemingly behind the times, they don't care in this case. I'm not agreeing with the Mets here, because what they did was petty and vindictive without providing them any value, I'm just curious about how this whole thing shakes out. I'm interested in the evolution of the sports media and credentials and how they all interact.

Edgy MD Feb 06 2012 12:52 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Edgy wrote: Michael Jackson. Michael Milken. Michael Vick. While there's a pulse in the body, there's time for another act. I don't know if it's Horwitz' fault or just that right now the Mets are really between a rock and a hard place and there really isn't a good solution (besides winning). Edgy wrote: In other words, living well. Interesting though, is who determines what 'redemption' is. Michael Vick has been redeemed by the NFL and it's sponsors and the media. But I talked to an Eagles fan friend this season who understand the whole "you root for the laundry not the player" concept but still felt wrong about it. He's certainly not redeemed in her eyes. I hardly meant to say any of them were finished products on the road to public redemption, only that they aren't finished --- even Jackson, who doesn't have a pulse. Denying access to the clubhouse (which would've had zero affect on the book since it wasn't about the Mets players and most of them have as little insight to the matter as we do) is a petty move but it's not really a big deal because the fan base at large does not care about who's credentialed and their interactions with the club. Big deal or not, we're talking about whether it was the right move.

Ceetar Feb 06 2012 01:01 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

What if it was simply a move? may have been petty but does that make it wrong? What if it's false redemption? Is it right for Vick or Jackson (or Paterno is another example) to eventually be redeemed?

G-Fafif Feb 06 2012 01:07 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Read the book. Thought it was strong, demystifying advocacy journalism. He's advocating a pretty anti-Wilpon stance though isn't it? Isn't it common sense for the Wilpon party to want to bar access when they can? Howard's never been shy about his advocacy: He's a Mets fan seeking the truth. He's advocating a pro-Mets stance, just not a pro-Wilpon stance. He represents an established, legitimate outlet in the Journal-News. There is no common sense to this move, just bad PR executed out of pique.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 06 2012 01:12 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Those of us who care about this franchise should try to organize an Arab Spring.

metirish Feb 06 2012 01:15 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Those of us who care about this franchise should try to organize an Arab Spring. at Spring Training , take over the town of Tradition , how cool would that be? Our HQ could be that pizza joint made famous by Spencer and Garcia.

G-Fafif Feb 06 2012 01:17 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

metirish wrote: Our HQ could be that pizza joint made famous by Spencer and Garcia. And our rallying cry could come from that song made famous by Buckner and Garcia.

bmfc1 Feb 06 2012 01:25 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

About "advocacy": Megdal made his case that the Wilpons knew of Madoff's illegal activities and convincingly presented it with facts from court filings and with opinions from independent sources. The reader is free to agree or not. If the Wilpon's disagree, then I'm sure they can supply any evidence that Megdal might have overlooked or not known about.

Ceetar Feb 06 2012 01:28 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

bmfc1 wrote: If the Wilpon's disagree, then I'm sure they can supply any evidence that Megdal might have overlooked or not known about. Yeah..but they're not going to provide it to Megdal, they're going to provide it to the court.

Edgy MD Feb 06 2012 01:29 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ceetar wrote: What if it was simply a move? may have been petty but does that make it wrong? You exist in quite the relativistic universe. Yes, it was wrong. Ceetar wrote: What if it's false redemption? Is it right for Vick or Jackson (or Paterno is another example) to eventually be redeemed? And you also spin things way off into the stratosphere away from the point.

Ceetar Feb 06 2012 01:35 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: What if it was simply a move? may have been petty but does that make it wrong? You exist in quite the relativistic universe. Yes, it was wrong. Ceetar wrote: What if it's false redemption? Is it right for Vick or Jackson (or Paterno is another example) to eventually be redeemed? And you also spin things way off into the stratosphere away from the point. You brought those guys up. and we all exist in a relativistic universe. I'm just more wishy washy on taking a firm stance.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 06 2012 01:42 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

metirish wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Those of us who care about this franchise should try to organize an Arab Spring. at Spring Training , take over the town of Tradition , how cool would that be? Our HQ could be that pizza joint made famous by Spencer and Garcia. How do you propose we mark our territory? The Wilpon regime sure does like to project the benevolent-baseball-man/magnanimous aura, but the regime's past and present actions sure do give the opposite impression. Honestly, a good portion of my weariness with them these days is about style-- I'd almost prefer a Steinbrenner type; he may have been an inveterate, irredeemable asshole, but he was a bit more up-front about it (blatantly illegal stuff notwithstanding).

Ceetar Feb 06 2012 01:48 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: metirish wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Those of us who care about this franchise should try to organize an Arab Spring. at Spring Training , take over the town of Tradition , how cool would that be? Our HQ could be that pizza joint made famous by Spencer and Garcia. How do you propose we mark our territory? The Wilpon regime sure does like to project the benevolent-baseball-man/magnanimous aura, but the regime's past and present actions sure do give the opposite impression. Honestly, a good portion of my weariness with them these days is about style-- I'd almost prefer a Steinbrenner type; he may have been an inveterate, irredeemable asshole, but he was a bit more up-front about it (blatantly illegal stuff notwithstanding). World was a different place back then, what with no internet or forums to talk about it, but did the insane stuff Steinbrenner did in the 80s/90s (before they were good) get this much buzz? Even some of the more innocuous stuff?

metirish Feb 06 2012 01:49 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

If Fred, Jeff and Saul get roughed up and lose their argyles so be it....

G-Fafif Feb 06 2012 01:50 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: The Wilpon regime sure does like to project the benevolent-baseball-man/magnanimous aura They would've been great stewards of the Boston Braves in the 1930s or some similarly hopeless outfit.

Edgy MD Feb 06 2012 01:54 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: What if it was simply a move? may have been petty but does that make it wrong? You exist in quite the relativistic universe. Yes, it was wrong. Ceetar wrote: What if it's false redemption? Is it right for Vick or Jackson (or Paterno is another example) to eventually be redeemed? And you also spin things way off into the stratosphere away from the point. You brought those guys up. and we all exist in a relativistic universe. I'm just more wishy washy on taking a firm stance. Yes, I brought those guys up. And you seem to be misreading the why of it. Ceetar wrote: I'm just more wishy washy on taking a firm stance. Yeah, that's what I mean. I don't know why. These are pretty clear-cut choices.

Edgy MD Feb 06 2012 01:55 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I'd almost prefer a Steinbrenner type; he may have been an inveterate, irredeemable asshole, but he was a bit more up-front about it (blatantly illegal stuff notwithstanding). Bleh. Et tu? Give me the bumbling fools every time.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 06 2012 02:56 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Hell, I'd cut them some slack if they were just a little more fun. I mean, I'm not asking for New Millennium Veeck or anything, but... they're old-fashioned without any real sense of history (Met history, anyways). It's the worst of both worlds, y'know? Ultimately, this is entertainment, right? So if you're not suited to be competent, professional, and ruthlessly efficient... give me some fucking bread and circus, dig?

Edgy MD Feb 06 2012 06:21 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

The Mets. Are awesome.

Rockin' Doc Feb 06 2012 06:33 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Edgy DC wrote: The Mets. Are awesome. Says the man wearing these*.... * I love that the lenses are orange.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 06 2012 08:17 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I've generally loved Sandomir's work of late. But did he really just pad out this article with 2-3 paragraphs of this-guy-with-the-same-name stuff? He might as well have made the title really big, and increased the page margins. Another Sandomir piece on John Maine, but this time without any reference to John Maine: Mets Owners’ Witness Facing Scrutiny Again By RICHARD SANDOMIR Published: February 6, 2012 In 1999, a stockbroker working for Dean Witter Reynolds was convicted of fraud for selling fake or dubious investments in what was ultimately described as a Ponzi scheme. The broker, Dean Turner, spent time in federal prison. But he was not the only one punished in the case. The Securities and Exchange Commission went after his supervisor at Dean Witter, accusing him of failing to properly oversee Turner and ignoring a “red flag” that might have helped the brokerage’s customers avoid millions in losses. The supervisor, George Kolar, fought the charges and enlisted on his behalf an expert witness — a former stockbroker and Smith Barney executive named John Maine. Maine testified that the supervisor’s responsibilities for protecting against fraud were limited, and effectively ended when he reported suspicions about the broker up the chain of command at Dean Witter. The expert testimony didn’t fly. Indeed, the S.E.C. judge overseeing the case against the supervisor actually offered a withering critique of Maine’s testimony. Maine “had not read any case law on the topic” at hand, Thomas Kelly, the administrative law judge, wrote in his opinion. The judge also said that it appeared Maine’s “written expert testimony was prepared in large part” not by Maine, but by the supervisor’s lawyers who had hired him. The supervisor was ultimately fined $20,000 and suspended from being a brokerage supervisor for six months. As for his admonished expert, Maine continued his career, eventually testifying hundreds of times in courts, arbitrations and mediations. Today, Maine is the sole expert witness for the owners of the Mets, Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz. They are battling accusations by the trustee for Bernard L. Madoff’s victims that they turned a blind eye to signs that Madoff might have been up to no good during what the world now knows were his years of orchestrating a historic fraud. Maine, in this different, much more significant case, has submitted a report saying that investors like Wilpon and Katz would have had no reason to suspect Madoff. “The customer has no way of policing the broker’s internal operation and consequently is not required to be concerned about it,” Maine wrote in court papers submitted last month. Maine’s submission was part of the latest legal filings in a case that appears headed to trial next month. At trial, lawyers for the Madoff trustee hope to lay out what they argue is substantial evidence that Wilpon and Katz, their status as mere investors notwithstanding, ignored ample evidence that Madoff’s operation was too good to be true. Wilpon and Katz contend that the evidence is twisted or fabricated. The trustee’s lawyers have met Maine’s expert opinion with a critique that is more pointed — and adversarial — than the one offered by the judge in the 1999 case. They attacked what they claimed was Maine’s lack of experience and expertise. They said his opinion about the case, and the obligations of Wilpon and Katz as longtime and profitable investors with Madoff, was unsupported by “surveys, sources, books, treatises, industry guides, periodicals, studies or any other objective third-party analysis.” Actually, Maine cited in his report 36 cases that support his view that customers like Wilpon and Katz, unlike professional brokers or government regulators, had no special duty to be alert to, much less uncover, Madoff’s fraud. Maine, contacted by telephone last week, would not discuss his work for the Mets. Of course, in this yearlong legal battle, the lawyers for Wilpon and Katz do not think much of the trustee’s experts. Both sides, in fact, have formally asked the judge to toss the contributions of the other side’s experts. Such requests are not unusual. Last year, some of the testimony by Steve Pomerantz, one of the trustee’s experts, was ruled inadmissible in a class-action case in Illinois. It is interesting at minimum to see that Maine has again come under tough criticism. The trustee’s lawyers have noted that Maine has been out of the day-to-day financial securities business for more than two decades. They assert, instead, that he makes a full-time living as an expert witness. Thomas O. McGarity, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said that jurors tended to be skeptical of experts who made their living as witnesses. “It takes away from their credibility,” said McGarity, who said that the best witnesses were usually people still employed in the industry they were testifying about. McGarity, who has written about the admissibility of expert testimony in trials, agreed with the trustee’s assertion that an expert’s report needs third-party analyses because they are “performed by competent experts unrelated to case,” and therefore unbiased, he said. As for the written testimony Maine gave in 1999 that the judge noted was prepared largely by Kolar’s lawyers, McGarity said: “Lawyers always play a role in the drafting of expert testimony. But to have it track the language of their briefs sounds like the expert didn’t put in much independent thought.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/sport ... again.html

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 06 2012 08:47 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Edgy DC wrote: The Mets. Are awesome. Oh, granted. When I said "they," I meant the Wilpons.

metirish Feb 07 2012 01:22 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

bmfc1 wrote: The Mets have denied credentials to Howard Megdal for the upcoming season: http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2012/02/06/a ... -the-mets/ I don't know what the standards are for credentials but if he received credentialing last year, then not giving it to him this year is vindictive and petty. If the Mets have a problem with his writing, then sue him for libel or get another reporter to give their "side of the story." fairly interesting conversation between Megdal and Cerrone on twitter right now.

Edgy MD Feb 07 2012 01:38 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Anybody who knows how to re-publish that badminton match in sequence, please do.

Ceetar Feb 07 2012 01:48 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Edgy DC wrote: Anybody who knows how to re-publish that badminton match in sequence, please do. [url]http://theropolitans.com/2012/02/did-you-miss-mets-bloggers-disagreeing.html

metirish Feb 07 2012 01:53 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Handbags , nothing more.

Edgy MD Feb 07 2012 02:01 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Megdal seems to be coming across a little tender, huh? I had read Cerrone's post out of context earlier and didn't think it discredited Howard at all.

Ceetar Feb 07 2012 02:06 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Edgy DC wrote: Megdal seems to be coming across a little tender, huh? I had read Cerrone's post out of context earlier and didn't think it discredited Howard at all. Cerrone seemed very careful to not 'take sides' and try to be objective. Medgal lashed out and blamed his relationship with SNY, which is what most Metsblog commenters do when they disagree.

Gwreck Feb 07 2012 05:07 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

This is really very simple, and it indeed appears that Cerrone has reported incorrectly. Check out the key difference in the verbs: Cerrone's story says that Megdal believes the Mets don't like Megdal's reporting. Megdal's editor says the Mets said they don't like Megdal's reporting. Either way, the Mets are morons for doing this, particularly after they already trashed Megdal publicly. There is no way they come out looking anything but petty.

Edgy MD Feb 07 2012 05:20 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I understand that distinction. And Cerrone reviewed it, apologized, and rephrased. It's point worth making but no big whoop and when you publicly unload on the guy with seven straight attacking tweets, you don't exactly come across as the pro's pro you're claiming to be.

metirish Feb 07 2012 05:48 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Cerrone came across like a dick with his " did YOU talk to Jay himself?", " oh it was your agent and you take his word on that?"..paraphrasing there but come the fuck on right there.

Ceetar Feb 07 2012 05:56 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

metirish wrote: Cerrone came across like a dick with his " did YOU talk to Jay himself?", " oh it was your agent and you take his word on that?"..paraphrasing there but come the fuck on right there. Well that's what makes his wording correct. "Megdal believes" because it's not a first hand report.

Edgy MD Feb 07 2012 06:16 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

It wasn't his agent but his editor. (If Megdal had an agent, I'd be a touch jealous.) I didn't read necessarily sarcasm in Cerrone, just clarifying --- limited to 140 characters in a public forum. And he made the corrections.

metirish Feb 07 2012 06:25 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

editor, ok , still a dick .

MFS62 Feb 08 2012 07:44 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Sports reporter Larry Merchant worked for a newspaper in Philadelphia. When he was fired (for being critical of local teams) the back page (sports) headline was: "Merchant Put on Waivers". Later

SteveJRogers Feb 10 2012 08:30 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Whistleblower is saying that the Mets knew exactly what Madoff was, and chose to do nothing about it. Despite having her looking over the books. [url]http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/null/2012/02/5234058/whistleblower-returns-noreen-harrington-once-star-witness-spitzer-crusa

Edgy MD Feb 10 2012 08:34 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

"You don't get it, do you? This is a privilege. You don't get to ask questions.” This tack has has always worked for me with the chicks.

metirish Feb 10 2012 08:36 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Interesting, she would seem to be credible.

Edgy MD Feb 10 2012 08:42 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I just love the account of the patronizing backslapping dude-on-dude environment she must swim in every day, making fools out of a bunch of jockstraps. Which is to say, yeah, she could prove very damaging.

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 08:57 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

again murky financial stuff I barely understand, but it sounds like she's attesting that they should have known that it was crooked. (And didn't the court decide that Picard must prove that they _did_ know, not they should have known?) She infers that they didn't want to do the due diligence in investigating it. It's easy to say in hindsight, 9 years later, "I knew that guy was crooked! I told you so!"

metsmarathon Feb 10 2012 09:55 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

no, she's saying "i told thm back then that it was crooked, and likely a big scam, and they kept pouring more money into it" that's pretty fucking damning.

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 10:01 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

metsmarathon wrote: no, she's saying "i told thm back then that it was crooked, and likely a big scam, and they kept pouring more money into it" that's pretty fucking damning. What's a "feeder fund"? And was that testimony that she discovered that back then, or that's what it turned out to be? Because the lawsuit isn't about this Merkin guy, and she never really got to investigate/meet Madoff.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 10 2012 10:01 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Banner day banner Jay Horwitz bans Noreen Harrington from participating in the Mets upcoming Banner Day. See link, below.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 10 2012 10:02 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ceetar wrote: metsmarathon wrote: no, she's saying "i told thm back then that it was crooked, and likely a big scam, and they kept pouring more money into it" that's pretty fucking damning. What's a "feeder fund"? And was that testimony that she discovered that back then, or that's what it turned out to be? Because the lawsuit isn't about this Merkin guy, and she never really got to investigate/meet Madoff. That's because who the fuck is Noreen Harrington to get to ask any questions?

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 10:07 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: metsmarathon wrote: no, she's saying "i told thm back then that it was crooked, and likely a big scam, and they kept pouring more money into it" that's pretty fucking damning. What's a "feeder fund"? And was that testimony that she discovered that back then, or that's what it turned out to be? Because the lawsuit isn't about this Merkin guy, and she never really got to investigate/meet Madoff. That's because who the fuck is Noreen Harrington to get to ask any questions? irrelevant of course, since Picard has to prove they asked said question and got a "we're cheating" response. But again, is there a difference between hearing it from Merkin and not Madoff?

Edgy MD Feb 10 2012 10:09 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

It's a lot of things. But it's not irrelevant.

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 10:12 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Edgy DC wrote: It's a lot of things. But it's not irrelevant. It's irrelevant to my question about feeder funds.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 10 2012 10:16 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: metsmarathon wrote: no, she's saying "i told thm back then that it was crooked, and likely a big scam, and they kept pouring more money into it" that's pretty fucking damning. What's a "feeder fund"? And was that testimony that she discovered that back then, or that's what it turned out to be? Because the lawsuit isn't about this Merkin guy, and she never really got to investigate/meet Madoff. That's because who the fuck is Noreen Harrington to get to ask any questions? irrelevant of course, since Picard has to prove they asked said question and got a "we're cheating" response. But again, is there a difference between hearing it from Merkin and not Madoff? What's irrelevant? What are you saying?

batmagadanleadoff Feb 10 2012 10:24 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Jay Horwitz announces that Miami shortstop Jose Reyes will be banned from entering Citi Field this upcoming season. Press conference at 1PM.

Edgy MD Feb 10 2012 10:40 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Feeder fund.

Ashie62 Feb 10 2012 10:45 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Harrington is a financial expert. She has the sophistication to make complex financial decisions in a fiduciary capacity, in this case, for her boss. She attempted to perform due diligence on the fund manager and was basically told no you will not. Feeder Fund... A batch of money is invested with Edgy Co. and Edgy Co. offers investors the opportunity to have it fed to and managed by CeetarCo. Jose Reyes invests 100 million with JP Morgan in a JP Morgan owned fund farmed but out or fed to a third party ala Madoff to be managed. Very common now. Well Performing fund managers are in demand to do third party tinkering.

metsmarathon Feb 10 2012 11:24 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

she was the chief investment officer for sterling stamos. she smeleed something fishy about merkin, and madoff too, and reported it to her bosses. she suspected either fraud or illegal activities, either of which sterling stamos shoud have steered clear of, and instead they went all-in. she's clearly an expert, or she likely would not be in the chief investment officering business. i guess the big question is whether she has credibility in whether or not she actually told the katzes what she says she told them. but she certainly has the credibility in that she has the wherewithal to smell a rat and report on it. that rat is the fucking wilpons and fucking katzes. fuck them all. get htem the fuck away from my team.

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 11:27 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

feeder funds one of those 'tricks' that kept Madoff from getting caught for so long? Despite people that apparently suspecting/knowing like Harrington?

Ashie62 Feb 10 2012 11:54 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

metsmarathon wrote: she was the chief investment officer for sterling stamos. she smeleed something fishy about merkin, and madoff too, and reported it to her bosses. she suspected either fraud or illegal activities, either of which sterling stamos shoud have steered clear of, and instead they went all-in. she's clearly an expert, or she likely would not be in the chief investment officering business. i guess the big question is whether she has credibility in whether or not she actually told the katzes what she says she told them. but she certainly has the credibility in that she has the wherewithal to smell a rat and report on it. that rat is the fucking wilpons and fucking katzes. fuck them all. get htem the fuck away from my team. That about sums it up.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 10 2012 12:03 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Sterling Stamos was a hedge fund. Noreen Harrington was its CIO. For the right to earn a commission by investing other people's money, Sterling is obligated to perform due diligence. In other words, Sterling is supposed to investigate the companies or funds that it invests its clients' money with. Sterling was overly invested in Madoff, and therefore, "wanted" to diversify -- to spread its risk ... you know ... don't put all your eggs in one basket and all that jazz -- and so Sterling considered also investing with Melkin's fund, because Melkin's profits were as spectacular as Madoff's. Harrington discovered that Melkin's fund was a feeder for Madoff. In other words, Melkin was investing his funds with Madoff. That's why Melkin's profits were able to match Madoff's This is what feeder funds do: They invest with other funds. In fact, David Boies is currently representing a large class of investors who invested in a hedge fund that in turn, placed much of its capital with Madoff. Boies alleges that this feeder fund did no due diligence at all, and in fact, simply turned over much of its capital to Madoff in return for guaranteed commissions. The fund made multi-millions of dollar while many of their clients were wiped out when Madoff's Ponzi scheme was discovered. Harrington believed that Madoff's fund was illegitimate; that Madoff was either trading on inside information (frontrunning) or operating a Ponzi scheme and fabricating his earnings statements out of thin air. When Harrington tried to obtain Melkin's research/due diligence, she claims she was thwarted, essentially being told that she has no right to question Melkin's investment decisions. Fairfield Greenwich Group link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfield_Greenwich_Group

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 12:09 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Sterling Stamos was a hedge fund. Noreen Harrington was its CIO. For the right to earn a commission by investing other people's money, Sterling is obligated to perform due diligence. In other words, Sterling is supposed to investigate the companies or funds that it invests its clients' money with. Yes, but wasn't the recent decision that Picard had to prove the Wilpons _knew_ that it was a scam, not that they _should have known_? Isn't that obligation to perform due diligence more should have known? Or is that just basically what the Wilpons are going to argue in court when Harrington gives her testimony?

Ashie62 Feb 10 2012 12:13 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Consider due diligence is being being done by salaried and relatively low paid compliance officers who have no great motivation to throw up red flags.

metsmarathon Feb 10 2012 01:01 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

yes. i suppose the wilpons/katzes could argue that when their top ranked corporate office in charge of investigating their investments told them that their investments were in a bogus fund that was either fraudulent or criminal, they should have either listened or comprehended, but did not. if ignoring what someone is telling you is a defense against knowing something, then i guess they could be found faultless. rather, i think that "should have known" means that they should have suspected it but did nothing to investigate nor were ever told by anybody who did any investigating. "knowing" means either learning it oneself or being told it. when she told them that the activity was not above board, at that point, they transitioned from "should have known" to "knowing" if i tell minimm that he's not allowed to draw on the furniture, and he puts crayon to sofa, i am correct in scolding him "you know you're not supposed to write on the couch."

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 01:06 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

metsmarathon wrote: rather, i think that "should have known" means that they should have suspected it but did nothing to investigate nor were ever told by anybody who did any investigating. "knowing" means either learning it oneself or being told it. when she told them that the activity was not above board, at that point, they transitioned from "should have known" to "knowing" It seems far fetched to me that she knew that Madoff was a Ponzi scam years before he was caught. It seems more like she was saying "I think we should look closer at this before preceding" and they basically said "Nah, that's good enough. Let's do it." fine line maybe? I dunno..

Edgy MD Feb 10 2012 01:16 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I think they have a star witness, and if she's got the paper to back herself up, the trustee's case is strengthened. I've been dubious that they could meet the burden of proof. "Knew or should have known"? Well all the investors that Picard represents knew or should have known. But the reports of earnings dazzled them to the point where their wisdom failed them. THAT'S THE SCAM. The Wilkatzes fell for it. Everybody fell for it. Shame on them all, but that's human frailty right there, not criminal negligence or deceit. And then I read this report and... well I'm not so much seeing it that way right now.

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 01:25 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

when did they first start investing with Madoff? Wasn't it in like the 80s? It'd been a while regardless and after that long I imagine it's pretty hard to be convinced by anyone, much less a new employee, that it's a scam. I guess we'll find out soon enough, trials set for mid-March.. Although we've got appeals and all that too right? So not like we get what's most important, a resolution, in March?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 10 2012 01:50 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ceetar wrote: when did they first start investing with Madoff? Wasn't it in like the 80s? It'd been a while regardless and after that long I imagine it's pretty hard to be convinced by anyone, much less a new employee, that it's a scam. It's hard, yes. Because it doesn't behoove you to know it is, because you're making bank. Then when you run something like Sterling Stamos, you're making bank regardless of eventual losses/revelation of a scam, thanks to commissions. When you don't do due dilligence at the hedge fund YOU RUN, that's not turning-a-blind-eye... that's willful disregard.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 10 2012 02:02 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

it was Harrington's strong recommendation that Sterling Stamos not invest with Merkin. Additional due diligence revealed that Madoff and Merkin's strategies did not result in the returns they both claimed, while their footprint in the marketplace was not apparent based on the trades they claimed to have made. In other words, according to Harrington's DD, there was no evidence that Madoff was making the trades he claimed to have made. Harry Markopolos, the individual credited with unearthing Madoff's scheme, also could not find any evidence that Madoff was making any trades. Although the Harrington article doesn't detail her DD, it's reasonable to conclude that Harrington and Markopolos came to the same conclusions about Madoff, independently of each other. In 1999, Markopolos found that one of Rampart's frequent trading partners, Access International, was dealing with a hedge fund manager who consistently delivered net returns of 1-2 percent a month. Frank Casey, one of Rampart's principals, met with Access CEO Thierry de la Villehuchet, and found out the manager was Bernie Madoff, who was secretly operating a wealth management business in which his clients essentially gave him carte blanche to use the money however he wanted. Casey and Rampart's managing partner, Dave Fraley, asked Markopolos to try to design a product similar to Madoff's split-strike conversion in hopes of getting Access to diversify away from Madoff. When Markopolos got his hands on a copy of Madoff's revenue stream, he suspected problems almost immediately. To his mind, Madoff's strategy was so poorly structured that on paper, it couldn't possibly make money. Additionally, his return stream rose upward with only a few downticks--a nearly perfect 45-degree angle. Markopolos knew that the markets were too volatile even in the best of conditions for this to be possible. He believed there were only two ways to explain the figures--either Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme (by paying established clients with newer clients' money) or front running (buying stock for his own account based on knowledge about his clients' orders). Either way, Markopolos believed there was no legal way for Madoff to deliver his purported returns. Markopolos later said that he knew within five minutes that Madoff's numbers didn't add up. It took him another four hours to prove that they could have only been obtained through fraud.[14][15] Despite this, Markopolos' bosses at Rampart asked Markopolos to deconstruct Madoff's strategy to see if he could replicate it. Again and again, he could not simulate Madoff's returns, using information he had gathered about Madoff's trades in stocks and options. For instance, he discovered that for Madoff's strategy to work, he would have had to buy more options on the Chicago Board Options Exchange than actually existed.[14] He also couldn't find any evidence the market was responding to any Madoff trades, even though by his estimate Madoff was running as much as $6 billion--far more money than any known hedge fund even then. In Markopolos' mind, this suggested that Madoff wasn't even trading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Markopolos

batmagadanleadoff Feb 10 2012 02:04 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Ceetar wrote: when did they first start investing with Madoff? Wasn't it in like the 80s? It'd been a while regardless and after that long I imagine it's pretty hard to be convinced by anyone, much less a new employee, that it's a scam. It's hard, yes. Because it doesn't behoove you to know it is, because you're making bank. Then when you run something like Sterling Stamos, you're making bank regardless of eventual losses/revelation of a scam, thanks to commissions. When you don't do due dilligence at the hedge fund YOU RUN, that's not turning-a-blind-eye... that's willful disregard. Sure. Sterling can't avoid its responsibility, and liability, by sticking its head in the sand ... by intentionally looking away.

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 02:05 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Ceetar wrote: when did they first start investing with Madoff? Wasn't it in like the 80s? It'd been a while regardless and after that long I imagine it's pretty hard to be convinced by anyone, much less a new employee, that it's a scam. It's hard, yes. Because it doesn't behoove you to know it is, because you're making bank. Then when you run something like Sterling Stamos, you're making bank regardless of eventual losses/revelation of a scam, thanks to commissions. When you don't do due dilligence at the hedge fund YOU RUN, that's not turning-a-blind-eye... that's willful disregard. It often feels like these financial workings are a lot of people in the know exchanging loopholes and technicalities to basically throw parties with investors money.

Ashie62 Feb 10 2012 04:38 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Sometimes...Trial starts 3/19/2012. Any of those 20 million dollar shares sold yet?

Ceetar Feb 11 2012 09:34 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ashie62 wrote: Sometimes...Trial starts 3/19/2012. Any of those 20 million dollar shares sold yet? They're doing them in one lump deal, so no, but we keep hearing that they have buyers for most/all of them. The Bridge loan probably took away the urgency to need that money immediately, but it's 9 days to Spring Training and you have to imagine they want to get that stuff squared away.

TransMonk Feb 12 2012 08:33 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I read Wilpon's Folly, Megdal's mini-book last night in about 80 minutes. It's actually an easy to understand account of what happened, what is happening and what could happen. Obviously, it was tough to keep the smoke from coming out of my ears during some portions. Megdal makes a pretty decent case that ownership should have at least seen some red flags in their dealings with Madoff by providing specifics and he even delves into the Einhorn situation and how that all fell apart...mostly due to Wilpon's hubris. Essentially, the book explains that Wilpon and Katz have so many loans out on their assets (which are all intertwined and dependent on each other) that even if they sold the team NOW, they would not have enough funds to cover the balances on those loans that come due over the next 3 years. The Wilpons would be ruined and the Madoff victims would get nothing. Also, there is no way that Wilpon does not realize this and that he feels that maybe he can catch lightening in a bottle with a low budget team overachieving that will allow him to stave off bankruptcy for another year. In Fred's mind, a low percentage shot is better than no shot at all. Medgal offers that the best solution would be for the Wilpon's to give the Mets over to the trustees. This would allow the trustees to run the Mets and pay off the debts owed by the team with Sandy Alderson promoted to team president. The trustees would infuse the team with money to put forth a competitive team, ticket revenue would go up and Picard would be able to recover some funds for the Madoff victims after the team's debts were paid. Eventually, the trustees could sell the team in 5-10 years for a profit, as MLB teams are always rising in value. Medgal opines that the Mets might even sell more tickets as soon as 2012 due to the fact that the Wilpons are out and that the trustees could spin that fans buying tickets would directly help the victims of the Madoff scam...kind of like charity. The Wilpons could retain ownership of SNY (the only part of the works that still makes a profit and a part that they could never sell off anyway due to Comcast's first right of refusal to buy the network) in order to try and stave off bankruptcy. Medgal feels this would be the best case scenario for all involved. Either way, after reading this, it is even more obvious that until the Wilpons admit defeat, nothing is going to get better in Flushing.

metirish Feb 12 2012 08:54 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I just bought it, for $2:50....looking forward to reading it.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 15 2012 09:36 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

If I'm interpreting Megdal's latest column correctly and the surrounding innuendo, the Mets had second thoughts about de-credentialing Megdal, flip-flopped, and are now once again granting Megdal access, probably caving in to the overwhelming support for Megdal in the immediate aftermath of the Mets short-lived petulant and spiteful ban. The Mets, however, simply state that Megdal's credentialing never changed. Whatever. If I'm right on the events, then this latest Mets announcement is just as embarrassing as their original ban on Megdal. An Updated Note On Access Posted by: Howard Megdal - Posted in Business of Baseball, Citi Field, Today's Mets headlines on Feb 15, 2012 I have been informed by the Mets that the credentialing process has not changed from 2011. Since I received credentials 100 percent of the time they were requested by The Journal News on my behalf last year, the news comes as a great relief to me. I want to thank all of those who were supportive of me over the past two weeks, not least my editor, Sean Mayer, who stuck by me throughout this process. I have been gratified to hear from so many of you about my work, and I am thrilled that my efforts to write are receiving the response I’ve heard. I will continue to do all I can to report on what I think will most matter to you, hopefully informing in an interesting way, on matters large and small, on and off the field. Now if you’ll excuse me, it’s Jeremy Lin Time. http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2012/02/15/a ... on-access/

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 15 2012 10:56 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

"His credentialing has never changed. We have never been at war with FloridaMarlins. We have always been at war with MiamiMarlins."

G-Fafif Feb 22 2012 02:57 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Seven suckers...I mean minority investors reportedly lined up.

metirish Feb 22 2012 03:12 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Forget about the seven suckers look at the cut of Jeff's hair?

Gwreck Feb 22 2012 03:38 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Forget Jeff's hair, what the hell is that on Terry Collins' head? That's an abomination.

metirish Feb 22 2012 03:57 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Yes, those hats are awful, worse that the ones where the stripes went over the ears.

G-Fafif Feb 22 2012 04:00 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Those caps are a horror show and Jeff is Jeff, but good to see Jay up on his feet again.

TransMonk Feb 22 2012 04:28 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Hey...no drop-shadow on the unis, though.

Ceetar Feb 22 2012 07:00 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

It looks like Jeff was bad-photoshopped into that picture.

Fman99 Feb 22 2012 07:55 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ceetar wrote: It looks like Jeff was bad-photoshopped into that picture. It looks like someone took a divot out of his head with a 4 iron.

metirish Feb 22 2012 08:00 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I should have given the photog credit Photo credit: Newsday/Alejandra Villa | Mets COO Jeff Wilpon, center, at spring training at Port St. Lucie, Fla. (Feb. 22, 2012)

Mets – Willets Point Feb 22 2012 08:02 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ceetar wrote: It looks like Jeff was bad-photoshopped into that picture. We should have a "photoshop Jeff Wilpon into different pictures" contest.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 23 2012 04:04 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

That cap that Terry is wearing is hideous.

TransMonk Feb 23 2012 07:34 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Don't they design all spring training caps to be hideous, horrible, awful abomination? I'm not sure that this is a 2012 phenomenon, folks.

MFS62 Feb 23 2012 07:37 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

TransMonk wrote: Don't they design all spring training caps to be hideous, horrible, awful abomination? That also goes true for the guy not wearing a cap in that picture. Jeff Wilpon is like a Slinky - not good for very much, but it would bring a smile to your face if you rolled it down a flight of stairs. Later

G-Fafif Feb 23 2012 01:13 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Paul Lukas, as if eavesdropping, explores Spring Training caps.

Gwreck Feb 23 2012 04:07 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I'm so glad you have the money for a helicopter trip to Miami and tickets to the Heat-Knicks but not Jose Reyes. Yes, I know the cost is not the exact same.

bmfc1 Feb 23 2012 04:15 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Gwreck wrote: I'm so glad you have the money for a helicopter trip to Miami and tickets to the Heat-Knicks but not Jose Reyes. Yes, I know the cost is not the exact same. You're right Gwreck. Mets management is tone deaf. If they really wanted to go, then hire a limo and leave from the hotel.

metirish Feb 23 2012 04:19 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Yeah, sends the wrong message to fans like us that care about shit. but hey, they scored some big money recently....

metirish Feb 23 2012 05:35 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Richard Sandomir ? @RichSandomir Close Judge will rule on Summary judments in Mets/Madoff case by March 5--but he did toss experts testimony including John Maine's

Edgy MD Feb 27 2012 08:45 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Wilpon currently giving what Ruby Tuesday is calling a "massive" interview. He's acknowledged that, while he has seven shares of the team sold and in escrow, four are sales to SNY.

Edgy MD Feb 27 2012 08:47 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Three more shares reportedly awaiting MLB approval.

Edgy MD Feb 27 2012 08:50 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

[list:1pnclrgk][*:1pnclrgk]Sandy's call on locking up David Wright. [/*:m:1pnclrgk] [*:1pnclrgk]All-Star game to be announced soon. Financial details are being hammered out with NYC. [/*:m:1pnclrgk] [*:1pnclrgk]Total shares sold expected to be 12: four SNY, two to "family," and six to others.[/*:m:1pnclrgk][/list:u:1pnclrgk]

Edgy MD Feb 27 2012 08:50 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

[list:rkxa9yxc][*:rkxa9yxc]"...we intend to own the franchise for a very long time"[/*:m:rkxa9yxc][/list:u:rkxa9yxc]

Benjamin Grimm Feb 27 2012 09:11 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

[list][*]"...we intend to own the franchise for a very long time"[/*:m][/list:u]

Ceetar Feb 27 2012 09:13 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

sure he'll get flak for the jokes. Of course, he'll get criticized for whatever he says or doesn't say at this point so he might as well say what he wants. Glad he clarified the All-Star Game thing. NYC Red Tape, gee, who would've guessed that that slows things down? Of course, this means that this information was readily available to all the beat writers who chose instead to say "It's basically official" and spend their time breaking down who arrived to Spring Training when.

TransMonk Feb 27 2012 09:14 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I hat the Wilpons.

Edgy MD Feb 27 2012 09:30 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

[list:20ci9s3g][*:20ci9s3g]...trying to build a young core, THEN spending for big free agents to compliment them. (Burkhardt's inference) [/*:m:20ci9s3g] [*:20ci9s3g]Court proceedings are not tied to David Wright's future. [/*:m:20ci9s3g] [*:20ci9s3g]"Listen, we certainly act in certain broad parameters. But the parameters always change." (Gonna have to check the transcript for the context on that.)[/*:m:20ci9s3g][/list:u:20ci9s3g] http://www.metsblog.com/2012/02/27/reca ... ht-13-asg/

HahnSolo Feb 27 2012 10:16 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

While addressing the media, Mets owner Fred Wilpon said “as long as I can, I plan to be the owner here.” From Metsblog. Context would be important here, but it doesn't read like Fred is all that confident in what he is saying.

MFS62 Feb 27 2012 10:19 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

HahnSolo wrote: From Metsblog. Context would be important here, but it doesn't read like Fred is all that confident in what he is saying. Just like the fans. Later

Edgy MD Feb 27 2012 10:24 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I'm pretty confident that he'll end up continuing to control the team for the foreseeable future.

Edgy MD Feb 27 2012 11:15 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Transcript.

metirish Feb 27 2012 11:21 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ha! Q: What's the status of your financials? FW: (Takes out of a wad of bills from his front pocket)

metirish Feb 27 2012 11:24 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Makes for interesting reading.

Gwreck Feb 27 2012 11:45 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I found this bit remarkably self-aware, and yet still maddeningly frustrating as he fails to acknowledge they are charging NY prices for a Pittsburgh-quality team: But we have a diminished population coming to Citi Field. We need that revenue. We just can't do it on air. We need that revenue to support. And the only way we're going to get that revenue is if we have a competitive, interesting team on the field. Otherwise, they're not going to come just because they love Citi Field.

Ceetar Feb 27 2012 11:57 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Gwreck wrote: I found this bit remarkably self-aware, and yet still maddeningly frustrating as he fails to acknowledge they are charging NY prices for a Pittsburgh-quality team: But we have a diminished population coming to Citi Field. We need that revenue. We just can't do it on air. We need that revenue to support. And the only way we're going to get that revenue is if we have a competitive, interesting team on the field. Otherwise, they're not going to come just because they love Citi Field. They've lowered prices at Citi Field every year. And volume of affordable tickets much less than just about every other NY franchise (in all sports) Dynamic pricing is looking interesting. Looks like they'll be able to better capitalize financially on hype (OD already up about $10). Jury still out on if the corresponding price drop for midweek and crappy games compensates.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 27 2012 12:15 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Wait a minute... FOUR to SNY? Is that legal? He's essentially using one of his businesses to recapitalize another one of them. It's like B-to-B embezzling, no? (And consequently, he's transferring a huge hunk of debt/risk to his only healthy enterprise... which, y'know, should be great for any potential sale value.)

batmagadanleadoff Feb 27 2012 12:28 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Wait a minute... FOUR to SNY? Nothing new there. _______________________ The Mets owners keep peddling a story about new investors, but who's buying? By Howard Megdal 9:23 am Feb. 23, 2012 Here we go again. Newsday reported on Wednesday evening that Fred Wilpon and his partners, who own the New York Mets, had reached an agreement to sell seven minority shares in the club. Only one buyer, Steven A. Cohen, manager of the hedge fund SAC Partners, was identified. But the news, presented by the embattled Mets ownership group as progress, is anything but. If the Mets have only seven minority share commitments, that means they are still three short of the ten they need simply to pay some fast-approaching debts, with their latest deadline, the end of the month, just a few days away. Let's review. For the better part of a year now, the Mets have reportedly been close to a $200 million infusion of capital through the sale of minority shares, first in the person of hedge-funder David Einhorn, then through sales of ten smaller, $20 million blocks. Thanks to the reporting of the Times' Rich Sandomir, we know that two of those blocks are to be purchased by... Fred Wilpon and his partner, Saul Katz. The reason they'd do this, rather than simply invest that money into the team directly, is precisely the same reason the Mets aren't closing on the minority sales individually, but only once they line up ten such investors: the move wouldn't be likely to earn approval from the team's current debtholders. Keep in mind that the minority shares are, in reality, additional debt against the team. Minority owners would earn three percent interest on their shares per year, for six years, and then would have the right to sell those shares back to the Wilpon group and collect their interest. As a result, the current owner of the debt against the New York Mets, JPMorgan Chase, wants a substantial payment from that $200 million investment in exchange for approving the deal. During the Einhorn negotiations, JPMorgan Chase was set to receive half of that money, and held up the deal until they were satisfied in this regard. Sandomir also reported that SNY, the Mets-partnered cable network, would be purchasing four shares, for a total of $80 million. SNY, which is 65-percent owned by Wilpon and his partners, has plenty of motivation to try to bail them out as owners of the Mets. Their minority partner at SNY, Comcast/Time Warner, knows that SNY becomes far less valuable if decoupled from the Mets in terms of ownership. The network earns its profits almost entirely through showing Mets games, and pays a far lower rate for those rights than a new owner would likely demand. So that's six shares. The seventh is from Cohen, who is in the bidding to purchase the Dodgers, and would need to sell whatever Mets share he owns if he manages to buy the Dodgers outright. His purchase amounts to little more than a gesture of goodwill toward Bud Selig and Major League Baseball. In other words, despite months of aggressively seeking buyers, the Mets appear to have found exactly no one, other than people who are already owners, who is willing to risk $20 million in what amounts to a low-return CD from a company with a high chance of bankruptcy. After all, a minority owner can't expect a clear shot at earning back $20 million plus three percent annually in six years if the $430 million debt against the Mets due in 2014, the $450 million debt against SNY due back in 2015, the roughly $600 million remaining in debt payments on Citi Field due twice annually for the forseeable future, or the $386 million lawsuit brought against the owners by trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims, Irving Picard, gets the Wilpons first. Meanwhile, the Mets owners have more immediate hurdles to clear. Wilpon and his partners took out a $40 million bridge loan at the end of November simply to pay one of their Citi Field debt payments on December 15; that bridge loan is due back in March. They still owe $25 million to M.L.B., long past due—the minority sales are supposed to pay that debt, too. And Thursday, Federal District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff will hear arguments about whether he should rule in favor of summary judgment for Picard's seeking of $83 million in fictitious profits Madoff paid the Wilpon group over the final two years of Madoff's scheme. Rakoff has previously indicated that he may well rule in Picard's favor on this. If he does, Wilpon and his partners need to either come up with the $83 million, or post a bond worth 110 percent of the judgment—around $91 million—just to appeal. The math isn't that hard: $83 million judgment plus $40 million in bridge loan repayment plus $25 million to M.L.B. plus $100 million to JP Morgan Chase is a far greater sum than the $200 million they'd raise with ten minority owners. But facing such a problem will require something else first, something that, more than a year after the process started, the Wilpon group doesn't yet appear to have: a single soul willing to put up real money on the premise that Mets ownership will be good for it. Here's what the Mets had to say about it, in a statement: "As has been our practice, we will not comment on any aspect of the limited partnership sale process." http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/n ... hos-buying

Edgy MD Feb 27 2012 12:32 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Is that legal? I don't know why it wouldn't be. I imagine it happens all the time.

TransMonk Feb 27 2012 12:38 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

I believe SNY also has some hefty interest payments of it's own, but it is one of the few Wilpon outlets that still turns a profit...so who knows. Wilpon's only hope is that this team is better than people think...and that it translates into sucess both on the field and at the box office. He's hedging a lot of bets and hoping for some magic to happen...which is really his only choice right now. He's not giving up his team unless someone pries it out of his cold, dead (broke) hands.

Gwreck Feb 27 2012 08:46 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ceetar wrote: They've lowered prices at Citi Field every year. And volume of affordable tickets much less than just about every other NY franchise (in all sports) Dynamic pricing is looking interesting. Looks like they'll be able to better capitalize financially on hype (OD already up about $10). Jury still out on if the corresponding price drop for midweek and crappy games compensates. That they have lowered prices each year doesn't mean the tickets are now priced correctly. Dynamic pricing would be interesting if it was true dynamic pricing, but it isn't, as there is an artificial price floor. There will be no market-value price drop for midweek/early season games because the Mets committed to not dropping the price below the season ticketholder price. Similarly, Stubhub sales also have an artificial price floor because of the minimum $5/ticket service charge and $5 delivery fee. All the dynamic pricing does is allow the Mets to make more money on in-demand games. This is not a consumer-friendly measure.

Ashie62 Feb 27 2012 09:45 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Edgy DC wrote: [list][*]Sandy's call on locking up David Wright. [/*:m] [*]All-Star game to be announced soon. Financial details are being hammered out with NYC. [/*:m] [*]Total shares sold expected to be 12: four SNY, two to "family," and six to others.[/*:m][/list:u] NYC is concerned about the citys cost of hosting the ASG. They paid for a Giants parade for crying out loud. Fred tries to come off that Sandy is under more freedom to put a team together than the financials might suggest. I do not believe him.

Ceetar Feb 27 2012 09:51 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Gwreck wrote: Ceetar wrote: They've lowered prices at Citi Field every year. And volume of affordable tickets much less than just about every other NY franchise (in all sports) Dynamic pricing is looking interesting. Looks like they'll be able to better capitalize financially on hype (OD already up about $10). Jury still out on if the corresponding price drop for midweek and crappy games compensates. That they have lowered prices each year doesn't mean the tickets are now priced correctly. Dynamic pricing would be interesting if it was true dynamic pricing, but it isn't, as there is an artificial price floor. There will be no market-value price drop for midweek/early season games because the Mets committed to not dropping the price below the season ticketholder price. Similarly, Stubhub sales also have an artificial price floor because of the minimum $5/ticket service charge and $5 delivery fee. All the dynamic pricing does is allow the Mets to make more money on in-demand games. This is not a consumer-friendly measure. I'm not sure anyone knows what 'priced correctly' is. Yes, $53 after fees for Promenade Infield is a bit steep. They gouge you on platinum games and dynamic pricing will kill you on games you really like if you're not proactive. It is a business after all. On the other hand I can get in to most weekday game for less than it costs me to get there, or about as much as a regularly priced movie ticket.($13. Never mind IMAX or 3D) Two beers at many bars in the city(often $5-6, not including tip). Even for the top non-platinum tier, the ticket to get in is only $3 more than the Met, which is $25. The Intrepid Museum is $22 (the price of many weekend games). And to me the experience at Citi Field is worth so much more than what I get at those other entertainment options. And those are the cheap options. How about the Circus? Broadway? These are the entertainment options the Mets are competing with.

Ashie62 Feb 27 2012 10:32 PM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

The price of the tickets are reaonable. Its all the other crap that runs my bill up. If I lived in the neighborhood I'd probably go to most games. Beats cable and the interweb anyday.

Ceetar Feb 28 2012 05:57 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Ashie62 wrote: The price of the tickets are reaonable. Its all the other crap that runs my bill up. If I lived in the neighborhood I'd probably go to most games. Beats cable and the interweb anyday. Port Authority bridge toll increases hit me hardest. It's virtually the only downside to having moved from LI to NJ.

metirish Feb 28 2012 06:23 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Kids free in September was a great promotion last season.....will that happen again? When going to games I rarely factor in the Whitstone bridge and parking in to the equation......went to MFY stadium a few years ago and parking was $35 .....a good walk from the stadium too.

Ceetar Feb 28 2012 06:47 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

metirish wrote: Kids free in September was a great promotion last season.....will that happen again? I hope not. (In that they don't have the tickets available to do so) I suspect we'll get all sorts of those promotions though, and good or bad there will be tickets available. Talked with the person in charge of those things in December and she seemed pretty serious about it. Also said the BJs Clubhouse didn't do so well and seemed to take offense when I told her Left Field Landing is the worst section in the park.

Edgy MD Feb 28 2012 06:54 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

When did we get from being disgusted by the Mets' management and refusing to go as a principled statement to the games being too gosh-darned expensive to go to... when we want to... which we don't?

Ceetar Feb 28 2012 06:56 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Edgy DC wrote: When did we get from being disgusted by the Mets' management and refusing to go as a principled statement to the games being too gosh-darned expensive to go to... when we want to... which we don't? When Wilpon mentioned attendance/revenue and how they need it. I'm not sure when anyone was making a principled statement about refusing to go. That's a personal decision that I want no part of. edit: feel free to split off the ticket discussion if you like. I find that stuff kind of interesting, tracking the dynamic pricing and the promotions and whatnot.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 28 2012 08:35 AM Re: Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon sto

Transcript. It's all gibberish, nonsense and double-talk. Did any of the reporters ask follow-ups? Mets principal owner Fred Wilpon held his own news conference on Field 2 Monday morning as the team stretched behind him during the first day of full-squad workouts. Here's what he had to say in the complete 22-minute interview: Q: What's your outlook for the Mets? Fred Wilpon: "You always want to be optimistic and I think what Terry and Sandy have said is that we're going to surprise a lot of people. I think we have some very good players. I think that some of them didn't perform to where they would have liked to last year. I think that they have something to prove. I've been around 33 years and I know it's hard to tell in spring training, but we're very optimistic that this team is going to be far better than you all have reported." Q: What's the status of your financials? FW: (Takes out of a wad of bills from his front pocket) "OK. We're OK. Obviously I can't talk about anything like that in detail. I can't talk about the lawsuit, but that's proceeding as you all have been reading, and we're proceeding with bringing in partners. We have seven partners -- not only numbers of people, some groups -- seven that have money in escrow because they've been through Major League Baseball, we have two that are ready to almost finalize in major league baseball, and then a couple of others that are in the process. It's a real process. If you have three or four people in your group, everybody is vetted. So they're all in there and we hope to be able to close that out shortly." Q: Is it possible that you have more than originally planned? FW: "If nothing falls out right now, we have more than 10. But you never know. We probably would consider selling 12 because we bought the first two, and we said to the partners that, we might, when it's all over, we might consider at some point whether we'll do it now, at some point, we might consider selling two." Q: Of those 12, how many have no ties to the Mets? FW: "For example, there are people that are friends of ours, there's groups - a couple of them - that we don't know at all. The SNY group, they have an interest on both sides, so that was a natural kind of thing. Q: The NY Times said that SNY has four shares. Is that accurate? FW: "Yes." Q: How concerned should Mets fans be about the future and viability of you owning the franchise? FW: "Well, they shouldn't be concerned about us owning the franchise because we intend to own the franchise for a very long time. Whether they're happy about that right now or not I don't know. But don't forget, we cut a lot of payroll that wasn't producing. If you look at the payroll now, it's fluid. I don't know what's going to happen. I don't know what Sandy is going to do. Many of the people that weren't producing are not here now. We didn't make major any moves that Sandy and Terry wanted to make, but we're pretty satisfied with some of the people that were coming back from injury, and pretty satisfied with some of the people whose career years were not great last year, and they weren't satisfied. They think they have a pretty good team. So do I." Q: Is your intention to try to lock Wright up and keep him here for good? FW: "My intention is always to follow what the baseball people - in spite of what you all say, that we're running the baseball department. Sandy Alderson has a great feel for this, so does Terry. And if it works out, I would be thrilled . . . I think there's no finer guy. He's just a very fine young man. Any of us who are old enough to have him as a son would be proud to have him as a son." Q: When will you get the payroll back to spend for big free agents again? FW: "That's Sandy's view. Sandy was the one who said look, he's the architect when he came in of saying, I want to do some things, I want to have some flexibility, and I want to have flexibility in the four or five areas that you can have flexibility in and that's what he's doing. I don't know whether there's someone out there that he might want. I don't remember a time when we've turned down -- when the GM and the manager and the people wanted certain people, look at our history. We had a lot of people, at one period in time, some of it wasn't well invested and you criticized us for that. Right? So now you have a right to say, OK, you'd like seven more stars here, but if some of these guys become stars then . . . ." Q: So it's Sandy's discretion on signing big free agents? FW: "We certainly acted in certain broad parameters, but the parameters have always changed. But I think Sandy made an offer of around $100 million that Jose [Reyes] could have earned if he were healthy. But Jose did what is best for Jose. Jose is a very nice young man and a very good player and we wish him well. I think we've got a very nice young player that's going to play shortstop this year." Q: Not signing Jose a baseball decision instead of a financial one? FW: "I think it was clearly a baseball decision. As you say, are we a little leery of six years, seven-year, eight-year contracts? Yes. Is Sandy leery of it? You bet. Big time leery of it. Listen, others have done it. I don't want to criticize anybody else who's done something different. We did different also, you know. And we were burned. It doesn't mean there won't be some player in the future that we think that we would do something with longer term. But the history has not been very good." Q: Is selling the team in vocabulary or do you plan to own this team long term? FW: "As long as I can, I plan to be the owner of this team." Q: Is 12 shares basically the max for selling minority ownership for you? FW: "It's correct arithmetically, but it's really not correct because you can find teams, a lot of ownership where someone might own 20 percent, and yet they are the control person, so it doesn't matter" Q: Do you have to keep 50.1 percent? FW: "You don't have to. But I doubt whether we would sell significant, that's not the plan right now." Q: How long will it take for Mets to be big players again for top echelon players? FW:"Well, I think it's a combination. When you say financial things, when I said three years ago that the Mets weren't affected by the Madoff thing, I was telling the truth. I know you don't want to hear it - because we weren't sued then. It was prior to the suit, OK. Then did it affect it? Sure. I would tell you that let's see how this team plays. Let's see what we need. I can tell you that my view of what I see in winning teams is they have a core of players and that core usually comes from the minor league system and then they fill in. May he rest in peace, Gary Carter came at the end of '84. And Gary was -- I don't mean a fill-in -- but they were ready for that kind of great player to play around the core that was in place. You look around, Sandy tells me the number of calls that he got on the rightfielder, the number of calls that he got on the injured first baseman, the number of calls he got on some of these young guys is very significant this winter." Q: So there's a waiting period for this next generation to mature and develop? FW: They've had some experience now. We can be talking six months from now or three months from now at the All-Star break and say, well, this core looks like it's matured. He may want to do something then. Q: How much have you been affected by Madoff? FW: "It started with a really big number out there and now, I'm not minimizing it, but it's a different number. So I think the next couple of weeks will tell. We'll see. I think things will become a lot clearer in the next months. Q: What's your message to Mets fans? FW: "My message would be the same message I said to you. I actually believe we have a far better team than what you all feel. And I would tell them to feel good about it. One of the questions is when will you get back? We've got to win the fans back. No, strike that. Win the fans and the customers back. . . . We have a diminished population coming to Citi Field. We need that revenue to support, and the only way we're going to get that revenue is if we have a competitive, interesting team on the field. Otherwise, they're not going to come just because they like Citi Field. So we're hoping to do that and we're hoping that trend starts to go in the other direction this year. Q: What about the lower expectations? FW: "I've stood here many times when you guys have said well, how soon are you going to win the division and who are you going to kill in the World Series, that kind of thing. I've been through that. I've been through the early '80s when we had no one to all of a sudden '83 or '84 and '85 and the core developed. Sure, I would love to stand here and say we're All-Stars at every position. By the way, you can have All-Stars at every position and you know damn well that doesn't mean you win. Q: Will the court proceedings impact Wright's future? FW: No. They're not tied at all. Q: Do the 12 shares includes Jeff's and Saul's stakes? FW: The family purchased two to begin with to start the process, and then we said we would sell 10 . . . up to 10 more. Q: How much was the payroll affected by Madoff. Would Reyes still be a Met? FW: No, because I don't think Sandy would have made that kind of arrangement that he was able to make elsewhere. I think Sandy offered $100 million if he stayed on the field at the year end, and it was less time that he got elsewhere. And that was Sandy's decision. That was absolutely Sandy's decision. Q: Was cutting the payroll your decision? FW: "No, that was in conjunction with our baseball people. . . . No, but remember, we had payroll that wasn't even on the field, and some of it that was on the field wasn't very productive. . . . Your correlation is higher payroll, better team in every single case, and I'm not sure that that has proven to be the case. The Mets have had the highest payroll for numbers of years and we weren't successful. Q: So the payroll wasn't affected by Madoff? FW: "No, because it was affected by the revenues that we got, that was affected by the operations of the team and what the team was doing. There was a point when the suit was almost three times what it is now and seems to be going in hopefully the right direction. It has some effect, but the fact is that was not the deciding factor. Q: Is the 2013 All-Star Game at Citi Field announcement waiting on your loan payback to MLB? FW: The loan has nothing to do with it. I think the hold-up in the announcement is conditions have changed for New York City and their finances and what they can do. . . . We're very optimistic that we will have the All-Star Game in 2013. Q: Will the loan be paid back once all the shares are finalized? FW: That's the plan. None of the money that's coming in, by the way, is going out. All of the money that's coming in is staying in. Q: Are you optimistic about a favorable court result? FW: "I don't want to comment. I'm always optimistic, but I don't want to comment about what's happening in court. Q: Do you have to wait for all the minority investors to come in before MLB approval? FW: We're waiting for the other three to come in. They're all committed. (why need to be done all at once?) People were ready. They were all anxious. They wanted to make sure they were in, so we did it that way. There's one group that has now been approved that probably will be announced. We're not announcing the names, by the way. You guys are all guessing names. . . . It's a great group, by the way, I'll tell you." Q: What will the influx of money allow you to do? FW: "Well it'll be better for the organization because we'll pay off a lot of debt. We'll reduce the mortgage on the debt. And we'll have ready cash, additional ready cash to run the team. Q: Can you add payroll in midseason? FW: "Yes." Q: Do you follow Sandy Alderson on Twitter (@MetsGM)? FW: "No. I think he's got a great sense of humor though."