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
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
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.
|
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.
|
batmagadanleadoff Oct 02 2013 10:55 AM Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason |
|
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 |
||
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 |
|
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.
|
Edgy MD Oct 02 2013 02:12 PM Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
That...
|
Ashie62 Oct 02 2013 04:53 PM Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason |
||
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:
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 |
|
I hope not...
|
Ashie62 Oct 03 2013 02:17 PM Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason |
|
Cause they suck?
|
batmagadanleadoff Oct 05 2013 04:32 PM Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason |
|
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
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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.
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
||
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 |
|
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-
|
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 |
|
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.
|
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.
|
batmagadanleadoff Oct 07 2013 07:23 PM Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason |
|
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 |
|
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 |
||
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 |
|||
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):
|
86-Dreamer Oct 09 2013 07:30 AM Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason |
|
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.
|
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
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.
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...
|
Ceetar Oct 20 2013 09:14 AM Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason |
|
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).
|
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]
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.
|
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.
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 |
|
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 |
|
Not an increase in spending and payroll
|
Ashie62 Mar 28 2014 07:27 PM Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason |
|
Kase... you still have that plate in your head....
|
Edgy MD Mar 28 2014 07:51 PM Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason |
||
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...
|
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.
|
Edgy MD Mar 29 2014 08:10 AM Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason |
|
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.
|
Mets Guy in Michigan Mar 29 2014 02:13 PM Re: Mets Finances -- The Offseason |
|
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.
____________________ Forbes: Mets Franchise Value Continues To Decline
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 |
||
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.
|
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.
|
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 |
|
[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]
|