Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


Mets Finances -- The Offseason (Bonus: 2014 season content)

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 02 2013 10:08 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 14 2014 03:52 PM

Mets owners look to refinance $250M loans
By Josh Kosman
September 30, 2013 | 11:58pm


NY Mets principal owner Fred Wilpon, right, and partner Saul Katz, left.

One of the more important negotiations for the Mets this off-season will be their move to refinance roughly $250 million in bank debt, The Post has learned.

It’s too bad for Mets’ fans that even if the franchise hits a home run with its lenders and manages to pull off the deal without paying any principal, it won’t affect the budget for players’ salaries next season, sources said.

That’s because the team is deciding now how much money the GM has to make acquisitions, and the refinancing talks are slated for this winter.

However, fruitful talks with the banks could see an increase in moneys allotted for 2015 salaries, a source said.

Owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, looking at a sizable principal payment this spring, have started reaching out to banks, sources added.

The owners want to postpone repaying principal while they continue to shore up finances after several years of steep losses, burdensome debt and a showdown with the trustee for the victims of Bernie Madoff.

“The big question for the Mets is whether they will need to make a principal payment,” a source said.

Team owners remain confident that with the value of the team rising, they will not need to pony up any cash during the refinancing, sources said.

“This is seen as a decent loan,” a source close to the lending group said.

The Mets are expected to lose more than $10 million this year, sources said, after a $23 million loss in 2012 and the $70 million lost in 2011.

The Amazin’s are in a better bargaining position with their lenders now than they were just two years ago, when the banks said the team violated the terms of its loan covenants.

The Mets were able to raise $240 million last year by selling 40 percent of the team to a group of minority investors that included hedge-fund honcho Steven Cohen and comedian Bill Maher.

On the bright side, the value of all MLB teams has risen since Guggenheim Partners ponied up more than $2 billion for the LA Dodgers in March 2012.

The Mets maintain they now are worth a whopping $1 billion, up from an estimated $600 million in early 2012.

A Mets spokesman declined comment.


http://nypost.com/2013/09/30/mets-owner ... 50m-loans/

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 02 2013 10:11 AM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

And now, the Mets' rebuilding plans depend on J.P. Morgan Chase
By Howard Megdal
11:27 am Oct. 2, 2013

The New York Mets' media blitz on Monday, in conjunction with extending the contract of manager Terry Collins, produced the kind of headlines the team was presumably hoping for.

"Terry Collins officially back, and Mets seem ready to spend," and "Alderson: Mets set to spend this offseason" and "Jeff Wilpon, Sandy Alderson say it's time for Mets to stop talking and start winning."

And why not? As Alderson pointed out on Monday, the Mets have $25 million in salary commitments for 2014, David Wright's $20 million and Jon Niese's $5 million. Even if they bring everybody back who is arbitration eligible, that's another 11 players, at an estimated $22.3 million. That's just north of $47 million.

And back in June, Alderson said the Mets should have a $90-100 million payroll, so the team could add "enough to be competitive because we can use the money on position players, which is our problem right now.”

Soo what's the holdup?

Oh, right. The crippling debt.

The New York Post reported on Tuesday that Fred Wilpon and his partners are reaching out to banks now, attempting to re-finance the $250 million loan due against the team in June 2014 without having to pay any more of the principal due.

There's some really useful information within that news, so let's break it down.

For one thing, it allows us to account for that $160 million the Mets owners got last winter, borrowing from the last bit of equity they had in their ownership stake of S.N.Y. Annually, the Mets have been servicing their debt to the tune of roughly $90 million, between the loan against the team coming due, the loan against S.N.Y., now greater than $600 million, due in 2015, and the twice-annual debt balloon payments on Citi Field.

That the other $70 million went toward paying down that loan, from $320 million to $250 million, means the last of the money is almost certainly gone.

The Post also reported that the Mets lost only $10 million in 2013, down dramatically from the $70 million loss in 2011. But that difference of $60 million is a reflection of decreased payroll spending, not of increased revenue. (The Mets have seen revenue drop significantly over the past few years, thanks to fielding a team degraded by lack of resources.)

Now, the Mets have a winter to survive without selling minority shares in the team (been there, done that), or by tapping their equity in S.N.Y. (also been there, done that). It is noteworthy that when they did the latter last winter, they managed to get only an additional $160 million, even though the value of S.N.Y. doubled from $1 billion to $2 billion since the Mets owners originally borrowed $450 million against it back in 2010. It is also noteworthy that during this re-financing, the term of the loan didn't change: it's still coming due in 2015.

But first the Mets need to get past that $250 million due next year. Whether they can is entirely up to J.P. Morgan Chase, which essentially needs to weigh things like whether by delaying, they stand a better chance of getting their money, or if they are better off forcing a sale now, when they are at the front of the line, chronologically. This seems to matter to J.P. Morgan Chase, as it did both when they refused to let David Einhorn ahead of them in the repayment line during negotiations in the summer of 2011, or by forcing the Mets to reduce the amount due to David Wright between the day he signed his extension and June 2014.

Hypothetically, they could give up this chronological position, and also determine that delaying without asking for any principal is best, and even be comfortable with the Mets spending on free agents this winter to help improve the chances of the Mets becoming profitable again. But there's been no indication that they're happy to do any of these things before now, which has led to the years of austerity.

There's another problem, beyond even getting the loan refinanced, extended, and avoiding any principal payment: the Mets' owners then need money to spend on the team. Remember, they've managed to cover team losses and finance their debt, not with incoming capital each of the past two years, but by selling the asset of minority shares for 2012, and borrowing against S.N.Y. for 2013. With these options closed to them now, exactly how they raise the money to cover any 2014 losses, let alone finance their debt, remains another problem to solve.

And once that's taken care of, then, and only then, can they conceivably move forward with some kind of budget for 2014. Every dollar spent on a free agent might well be a dollar ownership needs to cover losses and debt service, just as has been the case in prior winters, but without the infusion of capital from minority share sale or additional loan against S.N.Y. It's all got to come from somewhere.

It's been darkly amusing to watch the Mets, 18 months after the trustee suing them determined they were circling the financial drain, make statements of good financial health absent any change or reason to believe them, even within the context of taking basic steps merely to survive. They've done so again. Now it'll be up to the good people at J.P. Morgan Chase to determine how closely those statements can hew to reality.

It isn't any wonder that the vision of competitiveness back in June from Sandy Alderson has given way to this kind of hazy conversation. We want to believe their promises. But what the Mets do won't necessarily be up to them.


http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... rgan-chase

Ceetar
Oct 02 2013 10:36 AM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

expected to lose more than 10 million, and waaaay more than that coming off the books implies the Mets have a lot of money they can spend to break even.

Is anyone really suggesting that the Wilpons will be planning to reach into Mets profits to make payments? It seems if they were that strapped that they were banking on the team being profitable in 2013 so they could milk money off the top, they'd have lost control years ago.

It is looking like the Mets will be profitable next year. That seems to be part of the plan of hiring Alderson to start with and it's a good base to work with. See? Things are looking up.

Ashie62
Oct 02 2013 10:46 AM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

I don't believe any creditor would want to drive the Mets into Bankruptcy and leave the disposition of assets to a trustee.

Companies in far far worse shape than Wilpon get loans and restructuring in larger amounts everyday...

JP Morgan does not want to own a baseball team, they want to get paid and are likely to offer manageable terms...

I don't believe any of this will have a serious impact on the 2014 payroll...

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 02 2013 10:55 AM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Ceetar wrote:
expected to lose more than 10 million, and waaaay more than that coming off the books implies the Mets have a lot of money they can spend to break even.


Both articles stress that the Mets are able to keep losses low only by slashing costs (i.e., payroll) rather than by increasing revenues. So I'm not so sure that I agree with you there. It appears to me that the Mets will need to keep payroll at current Mickey Mouse levels to avoid losing significantly more money than they lost in 2013.

My WAG, based on what I read today, is that the Mets get to refinance their big impending debt payment and thus, avoid paying principal for another while. I remain somewhat skeptical, however, about the Mets ability to sign even a Sin Choo Choo type free agent. Unless practically nobody else wants that guy.

Ceetar
Oct 02 2013 12:22 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
Ceetar wrote:
expected to lose more than 10 million, and waaaay more than that coming off the books implies the Mets have a lot of money they can spend to break even.


Both articles stress that the Mets are able to keep losses low only by slashing costs (i.e., payroll) rather than by increasing revenues. So I'm not so sure that I agree with you there. It appears to me that the Mets will need to keep payroll at current Mickey Mouse levels to avoid losing significantly more money than they lost in 2013.


sure. Payroll was about 90 million this year. If they lost 10, that means they made 80 million. (Of course, that's a sketchy number as no one knows if it includes naming rights (probably not) or even MLB licensing money)

Megdal floats ~$47 million after arbitration. rough, because guys might get non-tendered or agree to deals slightly lower than expected via arb. Fine. That's still $33 million dollars covered by revenue, that the Mets don't need to 'find money' for or be covered by the Wilpons. Of course, that's assuming they're assuming equal attendance, but if they spend even some of that I doubt they lose much in that dept.

So again, it boils down to if the Wilpons were budgeting way out years ago with the expectation of being able to pull money from the Mets accounts in 2014+ by never signing anybody. It's possible, but I don't know if that's the case.

Additionally, as the Wilpons desire to refinance and creatively account probably hinges somewhat on the amount of money they actually have, they might be better off projecting a 0 balance from the Mets. Especially if keeping them is a priority. "See Chase? We have no expected income from that, your best interest is to refinance". Hence the "Alderson is free to spend" meaning he's free to spend Mets money, as he's always been free to, there just hasn't been any. Now there is.

Let's see.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 02 2013 12:59 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

I think I lost you at your first sentence. Doesn't losing $10M mean losimg $10M? Payroll would have had to have been zero for the Mets to have made $80M.

Ceetar
Oct 02 2013 01:01 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
I think I lost you at your first sentence. Doesn't losing $10M mean losimg $10M? Payroll would have had to have been zero for the Mets to have made $80M.


they spent 90 and lost 10.


so how much did they make? (Gross, not net)

80.

what's payroll currently at for 2014.

$47.

The Mets are currently estimated to make $33 million in 2014.

Lefty Specialist
Oct 02 2013 01:52 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

JPMC will refinance the loan. They don't want the hassle of writing it down and forcing the sale of the asset. It's like the old saying, "If you owe the bank ten thousand dollars, they own you. If you owe them ten million dollars, you own them."

HahnSolo
Oct 02 2013 01:59 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

I'm lost too. Now, I'm not much of an economist Ceet and am probably in total misunderstanding about what you are saying, but if they spent $90m on payroll and the franchise lost $10m, where do you get that they made $80m? I don't get how the franchise's loss, subtracted from what they spent on payroll gives you a "made" $80m.

Edgy MD
Oct 02 2013 02:06 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

His distinction is gross vs. net. They made 80 million gross (before accounting for expenses). They lost 10 million net (after accounting for expenses.

But of course, that 80 million figure is rather goofy. They made far more. And they spent far more than the team's payroll.

Edgy MD
Oct 02 2013 02:12 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
Both articles stress that the Mets are able to keep losses low only by slashing costs (i.e., payroll) rather than by increasing revenues.

The first doesn't really say that. The second implies that, but it's certainly not true.

Ceetar
Oct 02 2013 02:28 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Edgy MD wrote:
His distinction is gross vs. net. They made 80 million gross (before accounting for expenses). They lost 10 million net (after accounting for expenses.

But of course, that 80 million figure is rather goofy. They made far more. And they spent far more than the team's payroll.


right, it's goofiness is a large part as to why we really have no idea what the financial picture is.

I think that that's strictly ticket/stadium sales versus payroll. But I'm not even sure it's accounting for the deals with Aramark or Union Square Hospitality Group. Hell, we don't even know if the Mets get a cut of hot dog sales or get a flat fee from Aramark. It might not even count ad sales or parking fees.

Ashie62
Oct 02 2013 04:49 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Lefty Specialist wrote:
JPMC will refinance the loan. They don't want the hassle of writing it down and forcing the sale of the asset. It's like the old saying, "If you owe the bank ten thousand dollars, they own you. If you owe them ten million dollars, you own them."


That...

Ashie62
Oct 02 2013 04:53 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Edgy MD wrote:
batmagadanleadoff wrote:
Both articles stress that the Mets are able to keep losses low only by slashing costs (i.e., payroll) rather than by increasing revenues.

The first doesn't really say that. The second implies that, but it's certainly not true.


Payroll is not the only place to cut costs...The are many items on the fixed cost side of the ledger to evaluate..

Winning more games would be the easiest quickest way to increase revenues.

Vic Sage
Oct 02 2013 08:49 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

if winning more games would be easy, why haven't they?

MFS62
Oct 02 2013 09:24 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

I'm not a financial guy, so I'll just go back to the Megdal article for a moment:
It's been darkly amusing to watch the Mets, 18 months after the trustee suing them determined they were circling the financial drain

I'll bet Megdal is amused by the situation, darkly or brightly. He should stick his head in that drain and listen to someone flush.

Later

Gwreck
Oct 03 2013 11:37 AM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

I also would note that it's reasonable to assume that gross revenues will also be decreasing in 2014.

Ashie62
Oct 03 2013 02:16 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Gwreck wrote:
I also would note that it's reasonable to assume that gross revenues will also be decreasing in 2014.


I hope not...

Ashie62
Oct 03 2013 02:17 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Vic Sage wrote:
if winning more games would be easy, why haven't they?


Cause they suck?

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 05 2013 04:32 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason



Sports Business
Mets’ Promise of Cash Isn’t Promise to Spend
By RICHARD SANDOMIR
Published: October 5, 2013

excerpt:

Sandy Alderson’s comments last Monday about the Mets’ off-season spending could not have comforted fans whose patience and desire to buy tickets are understandably frayed after five consecutive years of losing.


Alderson, the Mets’ general manager, said the team had plenty to spend now that about $40 million in contracts was coming off the books. He called that flexibility, and perhaps it is, given the bind that contracts like Johan Santana and Jason Bay’s put the team in. But it is not the sort of flexibility that induces gleeful dancing on the 7 train. Why? Because he said that the team’s payroll might not exceed this year’s, about $87 million.

Or, he added, it could go down.

Three conclusions can be divined from Alderson’s statements:

? The Wilpon family is still too strapped to let Alderson elevate the payroll much beyond where it was.

? Alderson had better spend that $40 million with the combined savvy and wizardry of past and present general managers like Pat Gillick, John Mozeliak and Walt Jocketty.

? The Mets are, for now, a middle-market franchise playing in New York. That is what happens when a team’s owners have been fleeced by Bernard L. Madoff and have made some bad free-agent signings, and their ballpark grows emptier each season.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/sport ... .html?_r=0

d'Kong76
Oct 05 2013 08:18 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Amusing you stopped quoting when you hit the next
sentence that didn't fit your agenda.

Edgy MD
Oct 05 2013 08:21 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

My main takeaway is that Fred Wilpon uses words like "Zimmo."

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 05 2013 09:28 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Kong76 wrote:
Amusing you stopped quoting when you hit the next
sentence that didn't fit your agenda.


If I really did have an agenda (and I can guess accurately as to what you probably think my agenda is) then the portion of the NYT article that I didn't quote would support rather than undermine that agenda. I suppose you can claim that some small and mid market teams are somewhat successful, but this would depend on how you define success. You wanna call the Pittsburgh Pirates a success because they're in the playoffs this year? I can't stop you.

The truth is that the wealthy or big market teams are twice as likely to make the playoffs as their poorer cousins. And the bottom 10 or so market/payroll teams have virtually no chance to win a World Series. I'd be very happy to support a mid-market team, especially if I was paying Pittsburgh cost of living expenses and Miami ticket prices.

You've been fucked up the ass by the Mets owners: they built a small market stadium and figured to make up the revenue lost from a smaller seating capacity by raising ticket prices to among the highest levels in MLB. But you can't notice that because you're half crazed from your own forum agenda, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Mets.

d'Kong76
Oct 05 2013 09:29 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

You are one bitter prick.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 05 2013 09:38 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Kong76 wrote:
You are one bitter prick.


No. You're the bitter prick. You work yourself into a godammn frenzy every time you check into this forum and see one of my posts. And then you have to muster every ounce of self-restraint you can possibly muster just to stop yourself from writing some stupid insulting post directed at me. Right? Bingo? Which you can't do anyway. So how does this work again? You take another shot at me. And then when I respond, I'm a bad guy for responding. Right?

d'Kong76
Oct 05 2013 09:49 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

No 'godammn frenzy' over here, batmags.

Telling me "You've been fucked up the ass by the Mets owners"
is confrontational.

metirish
Oct 05 2013 09:52 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Am having terrible visions of Fred and Saul and the hershey highway.....

Mets – Willets Point
Oct 05 2013 09:56 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

metirish wrote:
Am having terrible visions of Fred and Saul and the hershey highway.....


You didn't need to share.

metirish
Oct 05 2013 10:00 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

I'm blaming Batnags.

Ceetar
Oct 06 2013 04:13 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

I divined a fourth conclusion. Spending for the sake of spending just because you suddenly have the money to spend is not the best way to build a contender.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 07 2013 02:04 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Ceetar wrote:
I divined a fourth conclusion. Spending for the sake of spending just because you suddenly have the money to spend is not the best way to build a contender.


And that's exactly what the Mets'll say if they don't spend what they implied they'd spend for 2014. And you'll never know if they're being honest or full of shit and still financially strapped.

The real silver lining here is that the Mets don't have to increase payroll to buy more talent. About $40M worth of 2013 payroll was tied up in dead contracts (Santana & Bay). So the Mets can get an additional $40M worth of talent without increasing payroll.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 07 2013 02:07 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
Ceetar wrote:
I divined a fourth conclusion. Spending for the sake of spending just because you suddenly have the money to spend is not the best way to build a contender.


And that's exactly what the Mets'll say if they don't spend what they implied they'd spend for 2014. And you'll never know if they're being honest or full of shit and still financially strapped.

The real silver lining here is that the Mets don't have to increase payroll to buy more talent. About $40M worth of 2013 payroll was tied up in dead contracts (Santana & Bay). So the Mets can get an additional $40M worth of talent without increasing payroll.


And knowing the Mets, what they'll probably do is reduce 2014 by about $20M and sell it to the fan base as increasing real talent by $20M.

Mets – Willets Point
Oct 07 2013 02:10 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Jeff will spend the other $20M on hookers and blow.

Vic Sage
Oct 07 2013 02:20 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

About $40M worth of 2013 payroll was tied up in dead contracts (Santana & Bay). So the Mets can get an additional $40M worth of talent without increasing payroll.


well of course that's not true.

Other than the expiring contracts, there are 8 guys up for arbitration (where salaries only go up), and 16 not yet arbitration eligible but still likely to get salary increases (if they make the team). There are only 2 under contract: Niese (5m) and Wright (20m). And they will still owe Santana $5.5m and Harang $2m to buy out their 2014 deals, giving them $7.5m of dead money on the budget for next year.

So even if they sign nobody new, the payroll would end up in the range of $65m after all those salary bumps, by my rough calculations, to field this year's team next year. This would give them about $20-$25m to play with at most, assuming they plan to keep within the same mid-market budget range. That's enough for 1 big guy or a couple of smaller ones.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 07 2013 06:04 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Gaaah. What a silly oversight. Well at least the principle holds true, if not the full $40M.

d'Kong76
Oct 07 2013 06:44 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Does the number really matter? If they spend $80M this off-
season you'll find something wrong with it. Admit it.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 07 2013 06:49 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

I probably would. The owners are a disaster area. Just about everything Mets they've touched has turned to shit. But you'd find something to pick on in my posts no matter what I wrote. You've been doing this since about my first week here. But go ahead and blame me for the state of things with the Mets.

d'Kong76
Oct 07 2013 06:56 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

There are plenty of others who point out your OCWD lol.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 07 2013 07:00 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Kong76 wrote:
There are plenty of others who point out your OCWD lol.


Like who? And what's OCWD.

d'Kong76
Oct 07 2013 07:03 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Obsessive Compulsive Wilpon Disorder!

Fman99
Oct 07 2013 07:08 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Intra-forum animosity is the best. I just read this thread while jerking off into a coffee can.

This is the greatest thing since I offended Cooby for making a joke about women's self-examination of their breasts for tumors. Or maybe it was for comparing my neglect of adopted prospect Dylan Owen to a teen who abandons her baby in a dumpster at the prom. I forget.

d'Kong76
Oct 07 2013 07:15 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

No real animosity here, but I know what you mean.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 07 2013 07:21 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

The Wilpons are the baddest, most deplorable thing to ever happen to the Mets. The Wilpon problem dwarfs the Seaver trade in magnitude and in scope, and also, because the de Roulet Mets were probably a last place team even with Seaver. A year ago, these owners didn't even have the funds to keep the stadium lights on -- they had to borrow multi-millions of dollars from MLB twice just to meet basic operating expenses. There's overwhelming credible and compelling evidence that they had to have known that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme, including the fact that Sterling even solicited investors for Madoff while simultaneously enforcing Madoff's bizarre raise-a-red-flag rule prohibiting those new investors from asking the most basic questions about their investments. This makes the Wilpons out and out crooks rather than dumb or unwitting sympathetic victims. They don't even deserve to own the team. Because looking back, it appears that the owners were able to get the loans they needed to buy out Doubleday based on a balance sheet full of imaginary Madoff holdings. The Madoff situation alone might set the organization back by 5-10 years, maybe more. Had enough? This doesn't scratch the surface. How about one first place finish in 25 years even though there are only four other teams in their division (five from 1989-1993)? How about one all star game in 50 years, even though hosting an all star game isn't like winning a World series: every team gets one -- usually every 25 years or so? want me to go on? I can, you know. Because it's all my fault, not the Wilpons. But you go ahead and be a real happy Mets fan because the NYT reports that mid and small market teams can have some success.

If you're not obsessed with the Wilpons, then your head's in the sand.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 07 2013 07:23 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Kong76 wrote:
No real animosity here, but I know what you mean.


Of course not. Because you say so.

d'Kong76
Oct 07 2013 07:27 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

I feed the ostriches, my head is above the sand ...

Fman99
Oct 07 2013 07:27 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

d'Kong76
Oct 07 2013 07:48 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Uh, let's keep the lid on that F'99!

Benjamin Grimm
Oct 08 2013 06:31 AM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

batmagadanleadoff wrote:
If you're not obsessed with the Wilpons, then your head's in the sand.


I would say... if you're not obsessed with the Wilpons then you have a healthy perspective about what is and isn't important in your life.

86-Dreamer
Oct 08 2013 03:06 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Vic Sage wrote:
About $40M worth of 2013 payroll was tied up in dead contracts (Santana & Bay). So the Mets can get an additional $40M worth of talent without increasing payroll.


well of course that's not true.

........And they will still owe Santana $5.5m and Harang $2m to buy out their 2014 deals, giving them $7.5m of dead money on the budget for next year.



Whoa, why would they owe anything to Harang? I am pretty sure they signed him as an FA after he cleared waivers. I'd lose all remaining faith in management if they burned $2 million of next years payroll for a few meaningless starts by Harang.

Ceetar
Oct 08 2013 08:38 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

86-Dreamer wrote:
Vic Sage wrote:
About $40M worth of 2013 payroll was tied up in dead contracts (Santana & Bay). So the Mets can get an additional $40M worth of talent without increasing payroll.


well of course that's not true.

........And they will still owe Santana $5.5m and Harang $2m to buy out their 2014 deals, giving them $7.5m of dead money on the budget for next year.



Whoa, why would they owe anything to Harang? I am pretty sure they signed him as an FA after he cleared waivers. I'd lose all remaining faith in management if they burned $2 million of next years payroll for a few meaningless starts by Harang.


supposedly they factored in the buyouts into the 2013 budget.

Vic Sage
Oct 08 2013 09:04 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

According to Cots contracts (a pretty reliable source):

Harang: 2014 mutual option between $7M and $8M ($2M buyout)

2014 option valued at:
*$7M with 360 IP in 2012-13, including 175 IP in 2013
*$7.5M with 380 IP in 2012-13, including 180 IP in 2013
*$8M with 400 or more IP in 2012-13

86-Dreamer
Oct 09 2013 07:30 AM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

According to Cots contracts (a pretty reliable source):

Harang: 2014 mutual option between $7M and $8M ($2M buyout)

2014 option valued at:
*$7M with 360 IP in 2012-13, including 175 IP in 2013
*$7.5M with 380 IP in 2012-13, including 180 IP in 2013
*$8M with 400 or more IP in 2012-13



but the Mets did not sign him to that contract, assume it on waivers or trade for it. they signed him to a minor league deal. I don't believe they have any obligations related to his former contract:

http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/0 ... deal/?_r=0

Vic Sage
Oct 09 2013 09:35 AM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Sorry, my mistake then... i thought we had assumed his contract.

Be that as it may, i don't think the $2m will have a significant impact on their off-season plans and the 2014 budget, one way or the other. Assuming it will be around $85M-$90M, that gives them $20M-$40M to spend this upcoming year, subject to arbitration results and contract renewal costs. If they non-tender a bunch of the arb-eligible guys and keep the others at a relatively low price (including the renewals) by populating the bench with kids instead of vets, then yes, $40m may be available. more likely, though, it'll be closer to $20-$25M.

Ceetar
Oct 09 2013 02:18 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Megdal floating $47 million after arbitration in the second post in this thread. I didn't fact check him, but the expected arb numbers are readily available, although the Mets rarely actually arbitrate, the contract values are usually pretty close anyway. (in part because the expected values are readily available) Maybe someone like Davis gets a smidge less, but still, $47 and then fill out the roster with 500mill guys and you still have a pretty penny to sign guys, not spend it all, and still have a lower payroll.

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 19 2013 11:55 AM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

There but for the grace of Selig go the New York Mets
By Howard Megdal
2:37 pm Oct. 16, 2013

LOS ANGELES—Mets fans could be forgiven for watching the Los Angeles Dodgers in the National League Championship Series, and thinking that the Dodgers' story could easily be unfolding at Citi Field.

After all, Major League Baseball managed to force out Dodgers owner Frank McCourt, while extending a loan to Fred Wilpon and his partners that kept them afloat financially.

The two were very different, insisted Bud Selig, commissioner of baseball, back in 2011. He never explicitly said why, of course, suggesting distinctions that largely boiled down to intent.

McCourt looted the Dodgers for his own financial gain, lowered payroll drastically, and his only way out of his own financial mess was to use the equity in rapidly expanding television value, something Selig rejected.

By contrast, according to this thinking:

"In New York, the Wilpons -- Fred and his son Jeff -- generally have tried to act in the best interests of their team for 30 years," Jon Heyman wrote back in April 2011. "They certainly haven't used the club as their personal piggy bank, which is what Frank McCourt appears to have done in his seven years in Los Angeles."

Yes, well, about that. In March 2012, Wilpon and his partners sold minority shares in the team, not for any gain for the Mets, but simply to stay afloat. $110 million of that $240 million went to pay down some principal on a massive loan against the team, the rest to pay back loans from Major League Baseball and Bank of America that kept them from insolvency, along with debt service.

And even that minority sale, largely to S.N.Y., came in exchange for the Mets extended their way below market television deal with S.N.Y. Put another way, the Mets monetized their local television deal like so many other teams, but used it to hold onto the team.

You know, like Frank McCourt tried to do.

As for that payroll, which was over $140 million in 2011: it was in 2013, functionally, lower than McCourt's $83 million that was so untenable for Major League Baseball back in 2011. That's a bigger gap than it even seems, with salaries climbing in the intervening years. This, despite Mets ownership borrowing another $160 million against their stake in S.N.Y., something only worth as much as it is thanks to the below-market television rights deal the network enjoys with the Mets. And payroll, incidentally, looks to be dropping this winter, even more, as Mets ownership figures out how to navigate that large loan against the team.

“I keep reading they’re similar but they’re clearly not similar,” Selig said in April 2011. “Anyone who portrays that as similar is wrong.”

They're sure not similar anymore. In the 2011 offseason, while the Dodgers could offer Matt Kemp eight years, $160 million as part of the course of normal business operations during a bankruptcy, Jose Reyes headed elsewhere as the Mets lined up a bridge loan to stay afloat until March.

Dodger Stadium gave thunderous cheers to Adrian Gonzalez Tuesday night when he lined an R.B.I. single down the right field line. Gonzalez, acquired from the Red Sox, is due another $106 million over the next five years. Kemp is injured. Doesn't matter: the new Dodgers ownership is willing, and able, to spend whatever it takes to get to the playoffs. The team's best hitter, Hanley Ramirez, was acquired as a salary dump from the Miami Marlins, earning $15.5 million this year, and $16 million next year. The team's Game 5 pitcher, Zack Greinke, signed last winter for six years, $159 million. The most exciting player they have is Yasiel Puig, purchased by new Dodgers ownership as, essentially, a seven-year, $42 million lottery ticket.

And if he hadn't paid off, they'd just go out and get somebody else. They can afford to, and you can argue, given the link between payroll and attendance (certainly reflected at Dodger Stadium), they can't afford not to.

Mets ownership, meanwhile, can't afford much of anything these days.

Bud Selig is right, finally. The situations sure are different. Why'd that happen again?


http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... -york-mets

Ashie62
Oct 19 2013 04:07 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

We may not know the answers to all the finance questions until we see how the 2014 squad shpes up..

Edgy MD
Oct 19 2013 04:49 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

I'd really appreciate a commentary or a statement or something along with the reposting of a guy's essays.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Oct 19 2013 05:59 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

brazenmegdallinkfarm

batmagadanleadoff
Oct 19 2013 08:22 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Jeff Wilpon's mother wears combat boots.

______________________________

Alderson can dream, but the Cardinals are in another league
By Howard Megdal
2:37 pm Oct. 14, 20131

ST. LOUIS—It's a time-honored tradition in baseball for the teams at home in October to watch the playoff teams and dream of emulating them some not-so-distant fall.

Mets general manager Sandy Alderson reportedly harbors such an aspiration: "Sandy Alderson dreams of an October sometime in the next few years when the Mets are in a similar position, trying to win a championship on the strength of their young pitching."

A Daily News column on Alderson's dream goes on to allude to the Mets' "surplus of pitching prospects ..."

The Mets do in fact have lots of decent young pitching compared to, say, what Alderson inherited when he took over as the team's G.M. in October 2010.

There's Matt Harvey, who we'll include on this list, despite the fact that he will be recovering from Tommy John surgery next year, as a pitching prospect who will arrive in 2015.

There's also Zack Wheeler, who held his own in a half-season with the Mets in 2013. There's Noah Syndergaard, who dominated for Double-A Binghamton in 2013. There's Rafael Montero, who pitched quite well at Double-A and Triple-A. And there are a handful of second-tier and third-tier guys, like Jacob deGrom and Cory Mazzoni.

So all the Mets need to do is let those guys come to the big leagues, form a Cardinals-like pitching staff in concert with established starters Jon Niese and Dillon Gee, and they'll be all set.

That is, if absolutely everything goes right with health and performance of these guys; if Jenrry Mejia, who's never stayed healthy, stays healthy, then sure, the Mets would have enough pitching.

Unfortunately, that never happens. And it didn't, by the way, even happen for the Cardinals. The Cardinals are where they are because they built up a massive pitching surplus.

Jaime Garcia was their Jon Niese entering the season, mid-20s, signed to a long-term, team-friendly deal. And his season ended in May, thanks to a shoulder injury requiring surgery. The same thing happened to John Gast, who'd posted a 1.16 E.R.A. in seven Triple-A starts, but was lost for the season, having shoulder surgery. These weren't two random guys, but two highly-touted pitching prospects.

Among those who remained, Shelby Miller is five months younger than Zack Wheeler, the current best combination of potential, big league success and health the Mets have. He put up a 3.73 x.F.I.P. this year in 173 1/3 major league innings, compared to Wheeler's 4.21 in 100.

Miller can't crach the Cardinals' postseason rotation. Wheeler is expected to form part of "a Big Three of Harvey, Zack Wheeler, and Noah Syndergaard that could finally make them serious contenders again", per Harper. The Cardinals have Michael Wacha, Joe Kelly and Lance Lynn in their playoff rotation, along with that Adam Wainwright guy.

"These guys are pretty talented, immensely talented, actually," Wainwright told me at his locker following Game 2 Sunday. "They're great guys, they work hard, they're very talented. What more do you need? From our standpoint, we're kind of in awe what all these guys are doing."

Miller, a truly gifted young pitcher, has so far thrown one inning, total. Why?

Because the Cardinals have even more young pitching out of their bullpen.

There's electric Carlos Martinez, who routinely throws in the upper 90s with his sinker, his four seamer, and then counters with a ridiculous changeup nearly 20 miles per hour slower. Oh, and he's throwing his slider now, which is "a game-changer for him," per Cardinals pitching coach Derek Lilliquist.

There's Trevor Rosenthal, one day older than Wheeler, who put up very similar minor league numbers to Wheeler, then pitched out of middle relief for much of the season in St. Louis, striking out just under 13 batters per nine innings. He can't crack the rotation, either.

Neither can Kevin Siegrist, a lefty starter in the minor leagues, a lefty specialist in the big leagues with a 0.45 E.R.A. this season.

Neither can Seth Maness, an ultra-control artist who walk 0.7 people per nine innings in the minor leagues, and posted a 2.32 E.R.A. in relief for the Cardinals. Neither can Tyler Lyons, a Rafael Montero type who can't even get onto the Cardinals' roster.

By contrast, the Mets's dream bullpen, as described in that News column, is this: "If closer Bobby Parnell returns to form from neck surgery, the Mets could build a similar bullpen, filling it with power arms such as Jeurys Familia, Vic Black, and perhaps a Montero or Mazzoni, plus hard-throwing lefty Jack Leathersich."

I hope so! But that's a pretty big "if" when it comes to Parnell, who is recovering from a neck injury severe enough that his manager said it caused him to lose 30 pounds. Vic Black is a power arm who can't generally find the plate, which is why the Pirates were willing to throw him into the Marlon Byrd/John Buck deal. Leathersich was actually demoted earlier this year, from Triple-A to Double-A.

This is not to say some of these guys couldn't eventually help the bullpen. But any kind of comparison to how the Cardinals did it, staffing their pen with massively successful minor league starters, not fringe minor league bullpen guys, falls apart quickly.

At least the idea is merely that the Mets have enough young pitching, rather than holding onto the idea, propogated back when Matt Harvey (who is super-awesome, but also, just one guy) was healthy, that the Mets have some kind of super-abundance of young pitching they can trade for, you know, hitting. It didn't look terribly realistic then, and it sure doesn't now.

And if you're wondering how the Cardinals got enough hitting to go along with that pitching: Carlos Beltran, the hero of Game 1, signed via free agency. So did Matt Holliday. They developed Yadier Molina, but then they kept him with a massive long-term deal. Even their pitching isn't purely made up of young, low-cost talent. They traded for Wainwright as a minor leaguer, then signed him long-term.

The Cardinals have a lot more young pitching than the Mets do. They've also spent a lot more money than the Mets have. And even if the Mets manage to bridge that enormous talent and budget gap, they'll still run up against the Cardinals, right in their own league, not going anywhere.

"We're still playing this year," Wainwright said. "But it's pretty promising, going forward the next few years, with what our staff is capable of doing."

Other than that, sure, the Mets are the new Cardinals. Maybe they can even trade Zack Wheeler from that pitching surplus for the hitting they desperately need, which is one scenario that's being kicked around.

I mean, you've got to dream, right?


http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/s ... her-league

Edgy MD
Oct 19 2013 08:36 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

I really didn't think it was too much to ask.

Ashie62
Oct 19 2013 08:41 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Some time ago Fred Wilpon said that Baseball was basically a breakeven business for the family. I think what Fred meant was whatever happens with the Mets financially will not make us any richer or poorer. a novelty if you will...

This piece appeared in Forbes almost a year ago and I would argue that the Mets are more of an instrument for to make the numbers work for Fred's entire array of holdings. He could jockey the assets around to increase payroll if he wished, players are an asset, but like McCourt seeks to stay afloat and enrich himself...

Not a great way to enrich a brand..


Taking advantage of low interest rates and the escalating value of regional sports networks, the owners of the New York Mets are working with bankers to move debt from their baseball team to their cable network and perhaps pay themselves a hefty dividend in the process, according to the New York Times.

NEW YORK, NY - NOVEMBER 17: Mets Chairman and CEO Fred Wilpon (R) and the Mets' mascot Mr. Met attend a press conference at City Hall May 16, 2012 in New York. It was announced that at Citi Field and New York Mets will host Major League Baseball's 2013 All-Star game.

The Mets have lost roughly $100 million over the past two seasons because of falling attendance and high debt payments. The team’s owners, Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, leveraged the Mets and the cable network they own two-thirds of (Comcast and Time Warner Cable own the remainder), SportsNet New York, to the hilt. For years the two men relied on fake profits from Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff to backstop their finances. But when Madoff was exposed as a fraud, the Mets lost their ATM.

With revenues falling and no ATM, the team was forced to reduce their payroll by $50 million before this season. It showed on the diamond, as the Mets finished 74-88, 24 games behind the first place Washington Nationals. The Mets only drew 2.24 million fans at Citi Field this season, 17th among MLB’s 30 teams and over 100,000 less than they drew in 2011, despite lowering ticket prices significantly for many seats before the season began.

Wilpon and Katz are looking to refinance the $450 million of debt on SNY to pay down down some of the baseball team’s roughly $330 million of debt, and perhaps pay themselves a dividend with some of the proceeds from the refinancing. The audacity of the owners to pocket money while chopping payroll should not come as a surprise to their fans. Two years ago SNY paid its owners $239 million in dividends. The Mets are also currently in default of baseball’s debt rule, which requires teams not to have debt in excess of 8 times operating income.

The shifting of debt from the team to SNY is a no-brainer. The cable channel’s value is now about $2.5 billion based on 2012 estimated operating income (earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation) of $175 million, and SNY has increased in value the past few years while the value of the Mets, $719 million, fell 4% over the past year. The more valuable asset that is appreciating in value can borrow more at a more favorable interest rate than the less valuable asset that is falling in value.

The real hope for Mets fans is that the team’s owners will not forget their long-suffering fans and also use some of the proceeds from the refinancing to boost payroll and put a better product on the field. If Wilpon and Katz do not boost their investment in the team, then MLB commissioner Bud Selig must tell Mets fans why he forced Frank McCourt to sell the Los Angeles Dodgers because the former owner was sucking cash out of the team for personal uses, while allowing the Mets owners to do the very same thing he accused McCourt of doing.

Fred is dancing on a very slippery slope...

Ceetar
Oct 20 2013 09:14 AM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Ashie62 wrote:
Some time ago Fred Wilpon said that Baseball was basically a breakeven business for the family. I think what Fred meant was whatever happens with the Mets financially will not make us any richer or poorer. a novelty if you will...


I remember hearing this. Had something to do with setting the budget to roughly the revenue. When ends up making the win/lose of it all based on how the Mets actually do. (i.e., they'd set the payroll up to the 85-90 million they expect to make this year or whatever)

Of course, it's whether or not that's changed that's the issue at hand I guess.

MFS62
Oct 23 2013 07:56 AM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

According to Bloomberg Finance, the Mets have the 4th highest value when you include Regional Sports Networks (which make up more than 1/2 of their value).
http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2 ... alues.html

The graphic indicates that the other Sterling Enterprises businesses are excluded from the analysis.

Later

batmagadanleadoff
Mar 28 2014 08:24 AM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 28 2014 08:38 AM

[fimg=333]http://a1.nyt.com/assets/foundation/20140326-140711/images/logos/nyt-logo-185x26.svg[/fimg]

Baseball|Preview
Looking Adrift at Citi Field, Mets Keep Their Wallet Closed

By RICHARD SANDOMIR and KEN BELSONMARCH 27, 2014


Outfielder Juan Lagares amid swirling trash as the Braves visited Citi Field last May. Attendance has fallen by
32.5 percent since the stadium opened in 2009.


Keeping a lid on player payrolls in the nation’s top market means different things to the Yankees and the Mets.

The Yankees feigned salary restraint for months to avoid a big luxury-tax hit — until they signed Masahiro Tanaka for $155 million.

But the Mets are acting with almost as much fiscal restraint as the Oakland Athletics and the Tampa Bay Rays, who lack modern stadiums or their own cable TV networks — factors that should enable the Mets to spend more freely. Instead, their 2014 payroll — somewhere short of $90 million — is not much different from last year’s. Yet the team is approaching this season with significant holes in its lineup that could have been addressed through free-agent acquisitions and might have improved the Mets’ long-shot chances to contend for a playoff spot.

The payroll modesty continues even as the Mets — and the 29 other major league teams — will receive equal portions of new television contracts whose annual average payments are doubling this season to $1.5 billion from $750 million, and despite the recent refinancing of a $250 million loan, at a lower rate, that removes the pressure the Mets were under to repay it in full later this year. But even as money is looser and banks are no longer huffing and puffing at the door of the Mets co-owner Fred Wilpon, the Mets seem to be staying cautious about spending.


A sparse crowd at Citi Field for a game last June.

Last week, General Manager Sandy Alderson said the team’s plan was “a consequence of trying to be somewhat prudent about the money we spend.” Later, he added, “Our goal is to spend money and add payroll every year, not just once every so often, as has been the case the last three or four years.”

It is understandable that Mets fans are restless and frustrated with this approach. Five consecutive losing seasons followed the revelation that Bernard L. Madoff’s multibillion-dollar swindle had devastated the finances of the Mets’ owners. Two years ago, the Mets settled a lawsuit filed by the trustee for Madoff’s victims that had sought as much as $1 billion, accusing Wilpon and others of being willfully blind to warnings that Madoff was engaged in wrongdoing. With that chapter closed, fans expected the Mets to again pursue elite players. Instead, the Mets have continued to stoke suspicions that they remain financially strapped.

“When are we going to shake off the Madoff hangover?” Jack Webb, a Mets fan who grew up in the Bronx and lives in Jacksonville, Fla., said at a spring training game last week. “I think they are holding off. They have a fiduciary responsibility to spend money. If it’s about the money, sell the team.”

His son, Eamon, added, “How long are you going to be a second-rate team in your own city?”

The Mets’ front office has inadvertently fueled fan frustration with statements about improved financial health that, in retrospect, seem to have been overly rosy.

At spring training last year, Wilpon said that the financial pain of the past was over and that real estate, the basis of his wealth, had turned “zimmo.” Soon enough, he promised, “the payroll will be commensurate with anything we’ve ever done, because we can do it.” Seven months later, Alderson declared that in 2014, “we will have more payroll flexibility than we’ve had since I’ve been here.”

But the flexibility that fans have seen amounts to reinvesting about $40 million in contractual obligations that came off their books after last season — the biggest item being the $25.5 million paid last year to the injured left-hander Johan Santana — in three new players. The Mets signed the slugging outfielder Curtis Granderson for $60 million over four years; the 40-year-old starter Bartolo Colon for $20 million over two years; and the veteran outfielder Chris Young for $7.25 million for one year. But that was it, although the roster could clearly use more help.

Alderson said: “We’re trying to ladder our obligations so we can be in the market every year.”

The Mets would not respond to any specific financial questions.

The decision to remain prudent and not risk any of the new national TV money means two gaping holes are left in the infield. By not pursuing a credible free-agent first baseman like James Loney, who ultimately re-signed with the Rays, the Mets have chosen to stick with the underachieving Ike Davis and Lucas Duda. By not signing the free-agent shortstop Stephen Drew, who has evidently priced himself out of the Mets’ range, they are left with the disappointing Ruben Tejada.

If the Mets appear to have a definable strategy, it is to build around pitching. Wilpon and Alderson envision the rise of a young, inexpensive staff that could be a dominant force for years. But for that to happen, Matt Harvey has to make a successful return from Tommy John surgery in 2015; Zack Wheeler has to build on his impressive rookie season; and the very promising minor leaguers Noah Syndergaard and Rafael Montero must show they can excel in the majors. Until then, the mainstays will be the ancient Colon, the young veteran Dillon Gee and the effective, but fragile, Jon Niese.

Perhaps Wilpon will not resume the aggressive spending of past years — the Mets’ payroll peaked at nearly $150 million in 2009 — until the pitching staff becomes an attraction that makes the team a contender and brings fans and revenue back to Citi Field.

The banks that are refinancing the $250 million loan will probably appreciate the Mets’ safe spending. Banks routinely refinance loans to sports teams that are seeking lower rates or additional money, and the Mets got the better rate from a syndicate of banks that was larger than the previous one — an indication that the team’s financial state has improved. In recent years, the Mets needed short-term bridge loans to finance losses and to provide working capital; the owners then had to sell shares to limited partners to raise money to repay the bridge loans and some of its longer-term debt.

Brad Rangell, a former managing director of Citi Private Bank’s sports finance and advisory practice, said that when lenders assess whether to refinance a team’s loan, they look at the “overall credit quality of the team, the owners, and the track record of ownership actually doing what they said they were going to do: Have they met projections? How do they react when things go wrong?”

According to two people briefed on the terms of the Mets’ refinancing, the responsibility for making sure it is repaid will shift from a Mets holding company to Wilpon and Saul Katz, a co-owner and Wilpon’s brother-in-law. The banks required that they put up more collateral, provide personal guarantees of repayment and sign an ownership support agreement that compels them to use whatever assets are necessary to make sure the loan is paid. Ownership support agreements have become more widespread in baseball since the recession and the bankruptcy of the Texas Rangers.

The banks did not impose a salary cap on the Mets as a condition of the refinancing, but, as a practical matter, they did not have to. Raising payroll sharply to lure expensive free agents before attendance recovers is a formula to generate the sort of steep losses that peaked at $70 million for the Mets in 2011. Meanwhile, the drop in average attendance at Citi Field to 26,366 last season — it has fallen by 32.5 percent since the stadium opened in 2009 — has created a predictable downward spiral of ticket, parking and concession revenue.

There are no public profit-and-loss statements available for the Mets that would show the impact of selling fewer and fewer seats at the 42,000-seat ballpark. But a partial snapshot of Citi Field business — which excludes revenue from more than 30,000 seats and player payroll — is available in reports that the team files annually because the ballpark’s tax-exempt bonds were issued by New York City.

Those documents show that revenue from the stadium’s 10,635 most expensive seats has fallen 58 percent, to $41.8 million from $99.3 million in 2009. In that period, concession sales have decreased 29 percent and parking revenue has dropped 20 percent.

Luxury suite revenue inched up a bit to $8.9 million in 2013, but about 10 of the 49 suites — which initially rented for as much as $500,000 a season but cost more each season — are essentially out of circulation; they were given to the limited partners whose investments in 2012 helped repay some debt. The Mets could be hurt by not being able to rent those suites if the team’s fortunes turn positive, and also by any loss of suite holders who did not renew their rentals after their leases expired last season. (Lease lengths vary.)

Jodi Hecht, an analyst for Standard & Poor’s, said she had projected a drop in the 2014 cash flow earmarked to make the annual debt payments of about $43 million. The rating agency reaffirmed its BB rating — two levels below junk — of Citi Field bonds last December. But the agency lifted its formerly negative outlook on the bonds, based on the belief that cash flow will eventually stabilize.

In the stands, a negative assessment may persist. The Mets have won no more than 79 games in any of the past five years.

“They can’t spend enough,” Steve Attias, a Mets fan from Syosset, said during a game at Port St. Lucie last week. “You can’t expect to be on the back pages in New York if you’re not spending.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/sport ... .html?_r=0

Vic Sage
Mar 28 2014 08:36 AM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 28 2014 08:53 AM

while i agree with the basic premise (that the Mets payroll is not consistent with a team playing in the largest media market, that owns a regional sports network and a new stadium, and is largely due to their continuing sketchy solvency post-Madoff *), there is so much that is stupid here.

The Wilpons don't have a fiduciary obligation to "spend"; their obligation is to do their best to field a team that has a chance to win. We have seen too many examples of teams that have spent and failed (including here), and teams that have kept budgets down and won. So spending is a means, a tool, not an end in and of itself.

And the notion that buying mediocre players like Loney and Drew would have been the difference between the Mets being a championship-caliber team this year and not, or even that such signings would have won back their fans, is just laughable. As is the notion that they can't "win the back pages in NY without spending." You win the back page by winning. And winning the back page should not be the goal; it's a side effect.

And you don't usually win by overpaying mediocrities; you win by having more talent on your roster, in its prime, than the other teams... and you use whatever resources you have to acquire such talent [draft picks, prospects, international scouting, FAs, trades]. The smarter you are about allocating those resources, the longer you can keep your roster filled with that talent. While i trust Sandy to allocate the resources, i don't think he has as much at his disposal as he should, and i blame that directly on Freddie and his borderline dealings with suspect investments which have drained the team of revenues it would otherwise have had.

* a franchise that is valued in the top 10, with a payroll in the bottom 10, is the very definition of this problem

Ceetar
Mar 28 2014 08:51 AM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Also it's almost always wiser to spend in increments than all at once. This is the criticism the Blue Jays and Marlins caught recently.

tpgmets wrote:
The payroll of the Mets' active roster peaked at around $42M last year. That's the most they had on the field.


They're going to top that on Opening Day. They HAVE spent. Not saying they don't still have plenty of financial issues and that one year of Ervin Santana or Stephen Drew at a crazy price (if that was ever on the table) wouldn't help, but just because you can start spending again doesn't mean you should definitely give Drew a 3-4 year deal at an overvalued cost, particularly given the current state of the team.

The pictures in that post annoy me. "Hey look, garbage! what am I trying to say here?" and "Let me cherry pick a section or two to really make the attendance look bad" I mean, plenty of people in that picture have jackets on, and we had some cold and rainy nights in June. Is that representative of the average Mets crowd? no.

Ashie62
Mar 28 2014 04:47 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Vic Sage wrote:
while i agree with the basic premise (that the Mets payroll is not consistent with a team playing in the largest media market, that owns a regional sports network and a new stadium, and is largely due to their continuing sketchy solvency post-Madoff *), there is so much that is stupid here.

The Wilpons don't have a fiduciary obligation to "spend"; their obligation is to do their best to field a team that has a chance to win. We have seen too many examples of teams that have spent and failed (including here), and teams that have kept budgets down and won. So spending is a means, a tool, not an end in and of itself.

And the notion that buying mediocre players like Loney and Drew would have been the difference between the Mets being a championship-caliber team this year and not, or even that such signings would have won back their fans, is just laughable. As is the notion that they can't "win the back pages in NY without spending." You win the back page by winning. And winning the back page should not be the goal; it's a side effect.

And you don't usually win by overpaying mediocrities; you win by having more talent on your roster, in its prime, than the other teams... and you use whatever resources you have to acquire such talent [draft picks, prospects, international scouting, FAs, trades]. The smarter you are about allocating those resources, the longer you can keep your roster filled with that talent. While i trust Sandy to allocate the resources, i don't think he has as much at his disposal as he should, and i blame that directly on Freddie and his borderline dealings with suspect investments which have drained the team of revenues it would otherwise have had.

* a franchise that is valued in the top 10, with a payroll in the bottom 10, is the very definition of this problem


I agree and personally believe not much will change until the team changes hands...

Edgy MD
Mar 28 2014 05:27 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Much of what, though? Much has already changed.

d'Kong76
Mar 28 2014 05:37 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

But, knowledge is good!

Ashie62
Mar 28 2014 07:26 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Edgy MD wrote:
Much of what, though? Much has already changed.


Not an increase in spending and payroll

Ashie62
Mar 28 2014 07:27 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

d'Kong76 wrote:
But, knowledge is good!


Kase... you still have that plate in your head....

Edgy MD
Mar 28 2014 07:51 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Ashie62 wrote:
Edgy MD wrote:
Much of what, though? Much has already changed.


Not an increase in spending and payroll

Well that has changed downward extremely.

But the confusion of spending with success --- why doesn't that change?

Ashie62
Mar 28 2014 08:39 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Truthfully.....I don't know...I am used to big is better but the A's win the AL west with regularity...

Tough call...

Later...

Mets Guy in Michigan
Mar 28 2014 10:39 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

But there weren't many grade-A free agents this year worth spending on. Overspending to make a point is how we get stuck with crappy players. Is Choo really the kind of guy you and to spend that kind of money on? The Mets spent a ton of money keeping David Wright -- as they should have.

Let the Yankees overspend on a gimpy Jacoby Ellsbury and risk $100 million on a guy who has never thrown a pitch in the Major Leagues.

It seems like Sandy is building the team through the farm system, and we're building a rotation that could be the envy of the league.

Edgy MD
Mar 29 2014 08:10 AM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

metsguyinmichigan wrote:
Overspending to make a point is how we get stuck with crappy players.

And crippling budget shortfalls.

Sing it to the rafters.

Ashie62
Mar 29 2014 01:04 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Like most things it comes down to investing as wisely as possible... There is more than one way to do it in baseball and it is speculative.

I'm sure the Dodgers, Tigers and Angels would present a case on why they believe these lengthy contracts are in their best investment interest....

Mets Guy in Michigan
Mar 29 2014 02:13 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Like most things it comes down to investing as wisely as possible... There is more than one way to do it in baseball and it is speculative.


Where there any players available this past offseason who you thought was worthy of a big contract? I sure don't.

batmagadanleadoff
Mar 29 2014 02:48 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Last year, Blomberg said two billion. Last week, Forbes said 800 million.

http://www.forbes.com/teams/new-york-mets/


Profile

The Mets had their fifth-consecutive season below .500 in 2013 and have not made the postseason since 2006. The debt-laden team cut its payroll to $87 million last year and attendance fell an average of 1,500 a game at Citi Field to 26,696. The team was stung by the mid-season injury to pitching sensation Matt Harvey that shut him down for the season in August and will likely force him to miss the entire 2014 campaign.


____________________

Forbes: Mets Franchise Value Continues To Decline

Forbes has released their list of franchise values of each Major League Baseball team.

The Mets ranked ninth with a value of $800 million, just behind the St. Louis Cardinals ($820 million).

The Yankees top the chart, coming in at $2.5 billion. This is the 17th year that Forbes has released this list, and the Yankees have risen in value and topped this list each time.

The outlook for the Mets according to Forbes, is not quite as good.

Only three teams fell in value over the past year: the New York Mets, Houston Astros and Miami Marlins. The Mets, down 1% to $800 million, are still going through a period of austerity with an $85 million payroll after the Bernie Madoff debacle. Attendance at Citi Field has fallen for five consecutive years. The team refinanced $250 million of debt and is no longer taking on water under the leadership of GM Sandy Alderson.

Coming in second, with a value of $2 billion dollars, is the Los Angeles Dodgers. Other billion dollar franchises include the Boston Red Sox, Chicago Cubs and San Francisco Giants.


http://metsmerizedonline.com/2014/03/me ... fall.html/

____________

If you ask me, I'd say that I'll know what the Mets are worth when the Wilpons sell.

Ashie62
Mar 29 2014 07:29 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

metsguyinmichigan wrote:
Like most things it comes down to investing as wisely as possible... There is more than one way to do it in baseball and it is speculative.


Where there any players available this past offseason who you thought was worthy of a big contract? I sure don't.


Not offhand....

This player was not available..but if the Angels erred with Pujols they took a step forward with the Trout deal....

Edgy MD
Mar 29 2014 08:05 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

Last year's prove-you're-at-least-serious guy was Michael Bourn. They walked away, let him sign a two-three year deal at $13 million per, and they instead got pretty much most of what Bourn offers out of Eric Young in a trade that was almost a waiver claim.

All this ink is spilled over and over, but it seems easy to see what's going on strategically: hold the line as much as possible on spending until they can build a good enough product to get in the black. They start being able to pay down organizational debts without cutting into the principle, then spending more aggressively will become more viable.

It's not money lost on Madoff investments that's ever been the issue. It's the end of the lie of false income from those investments that they've always believed was covering reckless investments. They've got to spend honestly now and when they spend more, they'll have to spend that honestly too. It's refreshing in it's own stupid way.

I'm just not sure how many other ways there is to honestly write it up. It's maddingly boring how folks have made this ongoing Waiting for Godot sequel out of it.

Ashie62
Mar 29 2014 09:01 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason

A nice start by the Mets that rolls along will bury this thread to about where it belongs....

batmagadanleadoff
May 14 2014 03:54 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason (Bonus: 2014 season conte

Mets Finances are in Tip-Top Shape. Nothing to see here.

Bud Selig is not at all worried about the Mets’ finances:

excerpt

I’ve said this repetitively — I have no concerns about the Mets. I have no reason to have any concerns. Why should I have? That’s the whole point . . . I’m very optimistic about what they’re doing. The only people telling me to have concerns are people who don’t know and haven’t seen any facts . . . I don’t understand these stories because I have all the economic facts — nothing to support (the team is hemorrhaging money). Major League Baseball has all the economic information. This idea that I should have reason to be concerned is just wrong.”

Ceetar
May 15 2014 07:35 AM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason (Bonus: 2014 season conte

I know people want to believe the narratives but he's right, he knows more about the finances than anyone else that's written about them.

batmagadanleadoff
May 15 2014 12:04 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason (Bonus: 2014 season conte

Ceetar wrote:
I know people want to believe the narratives but he's right, he knows more about the finances than anyone else that's written about them.


[fimg=444]http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/4944/omgwtfeyes.gif[/fimg]

Ceetar
May 15 2014 12:08 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason (Bonus: 2014 season conte

although most of the public information also confirms that they're not hemorrhaging money anyway.

d'Kong76
May 15 2014 12:36 PM
Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason (Bonus: 2014 season conte

[fimg=444:fgl75wpu]http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/4944/omgwtfeyes.gif[/fimg:fgl75wpu]
I just tried a couple of times staring at this over and
over. Longest time I could go without laughing was 16
seconds. She's a keeper.