Master Index of Archived Threads


Somebody has to Pay

Ashie62 Sep 01 2014 07:21 AM

Apparently not enough people did with Mets tickets so SR VP of ticket sales, Leigh Casterline has been from here job. The Mets rank 21st overall in MLB attendance. [url]http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/94301/report-mets-fire-ticket-sales-vp?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Lefty Specialist Sep 01 2014 09:28 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Although no replacement has been named yet, we have a talented staff in place to handle all ticket related business while we embark on a national search for this role,” the team said Sunday in a statement to The Post. And while you're at it, why don't you embark on a national search for a left fielder and shortstop? Because P.T. Barnum himself couldn't sell seats with this team right now. I'm guessing Curtis Granderson Bobblehead Night was the last straw.

Gwreck Sep 01 2014 09:41 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Personally, I thought she was doing a pretty good job selling tickets at prices befitting a perennial contender when they're instead for a team about to have their sixth straight losing season. If she was herself responsible for the prices, then perhaps this was more justified but I don't think she was the one setting them.

d'Kong76 Sep 01 2014 09:42 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Maybe Boyz ll Men can do a follow up show.. P T Barnum, that's funny!

Edgy MD Sep 01 2014 10:03 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Some cut-rate Timberlake is doing a show 9/27, I think. Not sure if booking postgame talent is her office, but if so, I would have fired her after Cheap Trick cancelled. U of P economics, and a nu mother. I get the idea that she was big into the design of their dynamic pricing scheme. Not above making an appearance at Rugby Expo 2012. [youtube:y8c00f59]FFEfNKBLTC8[/youtube:y8c00f59] Terry probably shouldn't have let the press in on the notion of giving her some time in the outfield.

G-Fafif Sep 02 2014 12:39 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

It is assumed the tickets VP was let go for lousy ticket sales, which positions the Mets as their usual punch line, but it hasn't been substantiated that was the case. It hasn't even been confirmed that it wasn't her idea to leave. It could be anything from philosophical differences on pricing to problems with Jeffy's Cheerios. I understand the Mets haven't exactly earned the benefit of anyone's doubt in off-field matters (and not too many in on-field matters), but I'm willing to wait for the discouraging details of what actually happened to leak out before LOL'ing at the Mets for this move.

Mets Guy in Michigan Sep 02 2014 01:32 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Did something bad happen at Curtis Granderson bobblehead night?

Lefty Specialist Sep 02 2014 01:46 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Did something bad happen at Curtis Granderson bobblehead night? Yup. Curtis Granderson was in the lineup.

G-Fafif Sep 02 2014 02:17 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Lefty Specialist wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Did something bad happen at Curtis Granderson bobblehead night? Yup. Curtis Granderson was in the lineup. And they've doubled down with Curtis Granderson Poster Day on September 14 (probably not the ticket dept.'s idea), wherein the first 20,000 Curtis Granderson Posters thrown will be collected and disposed of by the Citi Field grounds crew.

Nymr83 Sep 02 2014 02:22 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

They should probably cancel this promotion for the good of the team, who WONT throw that crap on the field? Give a voucher for a free hot dog or soda instead, everyone will be happier. Meanwhile, in the grand tradition of t-shirts from champions that never were, send the Granderson posters to be used as wall paper in 3rd world countries, where kids will grow up thinking he was a great player... just as their older siblings now know the Mets won it all in 2000.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Sep 02 2014 05:27 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Never mind the Granderson promotions-- imagine how awkward September 17th's "Fiesta del Leigh Castergine" is going to be.

Edgy MD Sep 02 2014 05:48 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

G-Fafif wrote: It is assumed the tickets VP was let go for lousy ticket sales, which positions the Mets as their usual punch line, but it hasn't been substantiated that was the case. It hasn't even been confirmed that it wasn't her idea to leave. It could be anything from philosophical differences on pricing to problems with Jeffy's Cheerios. I understand the Mets haven't exactly earned the benefit of anyone's doubt in off-field matters (and not too many in on-field matters), but I'm willing to wait for the discouraging details of what actually happened to leak out before LOL'ing at the Mets for this move. Alternatively, you might want to take a jump into Lake Reactionary head first.

Edgy MD Sep 02 2014 05:50 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Be careful not to hit your head on a rock though.

Nymr83 Sep 02 2014 08:46 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

I would suspect that her job performance is a better predictor of Mets' ticket sales than the performances of most 'scapegoat' coaches who get fired performances are of the teams' on-field struggles, thats the business, pretty weird that fans would choose to whine about it now.

Edgy MD Sep 02 2014 08:50 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

There have been 32 people signed up for the "We Love Leigh Castergine" Febbuk page. I'd say there's a better than even chance 0% of them had heard of her before today.

Ceetar Sep 10 2014 01:28 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

You know how the Mets really like to get in on current trends to prove they're hip and all that? Perhaps "Hey, this misogynist stuff is trending..." wasn't the right way? [url]http://nypost.com/2014/09/10/former-exec-mets-fired-me-for-being-pregnant-and-single/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow

Gwreck Sep 10 2014 01:42 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Read the complaint here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrull ... iscriminat

Gwreck Sep 10 2014 01:46 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

G-Fafif wrote: It is assumed the tickets VP was let go for lousy ticket sales, which positions the Mets as their usual punch line, but it hasn't been substantiated that was the case. It hasn't even been confirmed that it wasn't her idea to leave. It could be anything from philosophical differences on pricing to problems with Jeffy's Cheerios. I understand the Mets haven't exactly earned the benefit of anyone's doubt in off-field matters (and not too many in on-field matters), but I'm willing to wait for the discouraging details of what actually happened to leak out before LOL'ing at the Mets for this move. Hard to believe it was even worse than expected.

Lefty Specialist Sep 10 2014 01:58 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

If only Jeffy had a mistress to tape him and Fred ranting about minorities, we'd be all set.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 10 2014 02:00 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Dear god. Maybe this is the thing that finally does it.

d'Kong76 Sep 10 2014 02:03 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Oh, they're gonna have field day with this!

seawolf17 Sep 10 2014 02:03 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Fuckin' hell, Mets.

bmfc1 Sep 10 2014 02:06 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1 ... 013280.pdf Sickening. To think that this is the ownership that Selig did everything he could to keep in place.

d'Kong76 Sep 10 2014 02:16 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Scanning that .pdf someone is in deep deep doo doo. Disc: I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 10 2014 02:19 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

You have to figure in the wake of the Sterling and Rice stories, the authorities will be amped to make an example here. I mean, innocent till proven guilty and all, but holy crap. --Also not a lawyer, but Kong I think anyone can view a court document unless it is filed under seal or whatever.

HahnSolo Sep 10 2014 02:20 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

oh, boy. Sometimes you think Jeff can't come off as a bigger dick, then you read this complaint. Her supervisor and the HR director don't come off any better.

Gwreck Sep 10 2014 02:22 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: --Also not a lawyer, but Kong I think anyone can view a court document unless it is filed under seal or whatever. Yes. I think Kong means "scanning that pdf" as in "quickly reading the document." The document is public record.

d'Kong76 Sep 10 2014 02:25 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Yes, I meant reading, interpreting, and predicting.

themetfairy Sep 10 2014 02:26 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

I'm interested in D-Dad's thoughts when he has a chance to look this over.

Edgy MD Sep 10 2014 02:32 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

If 40% that complaint holds up --- the harassment part anyway --- Jeff is gone. If 55-60% holds up, his dad is gone too. She claims that she was openly harassed in front of other executives, so discovery should be pretty definitive. The part about her job being hard because the Mets didn't sign free agents and it was like being on the Titanic --- that's egregious padding, and it shouldn't be there. House of 'Pon could burn.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 10 2014 02:40 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

I thought the same thing about that, but I guess that's a signal from her lawyer to Jeff's that he's prepared to fight with flamethrowers.

Gwreck Sep 10 2014 03:39 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Edgy MD wrote: The part about her job being hard because the Mets didn't sign free agents and it was like being on the Titanic --- that's egregious padding, and it shouldn't be there. I disagree. The deck chairs on the Titanic quote might have been a bit much, but I'm sure her attorneys would have no problem proving any number of people she's never met both said that and thought that. This case is in the Eastern District of New York, which draws a jury pool from Kings, Queens, Nassau, Suffolk and Richmond Counties. There aren't going to be a lot of jurors with neutral or favorable opinions of Jeff Wilpon in those areas.

Ceetar Sep 10 2014 03:50 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Gwreck wrote: Edgy MD wrote: The part about her job being hard because the Mets didn't sign free agents and it was like being on the Titanic --- that's egregious padding, and it shouldn't be there. I disagree. The deck chairs on the Titanic quote might have been a bit much, but I'm sure her attorneys would have no problem proving any number of people she's never met both said that and thought that. This case is in the Eastern District of New York, which draws a jury pool from Kings, Queens, Nassau, Suffolk and Richmond Counties. There aren't going to be a lot of jurors with neutral or favorable opinions of Jeff Wilpon in those areas. If anything, that statement detracts from her lawsuit. It seems to suggest that she DIDN'T succeed and is an argument that it was an impossible job. Might be hard to prove that the harassment was the reason she was let go, though the harassment in it of itself is enough for a lawsuit I would think. Which I think is what Edgy was getting at? That if it's a harassment lawsuit it's not really about her job performance.

themetfairy Sep 10 2014 03:51 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

The retaliation claim will be particularly hard to defend against, given that they fired her three minutes after learning that she had retained counsel.

Ashie62 Sep 10 2014 04:17 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

That alleged behavior by Jeff Wilpon is hard for me to believe; but I thought Ray Rice was a nice guy.

Gwreck Sep 10 2014 04:18 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Ceetar wrote: It seems to suggest that she DIDN'T succeed and is an argument that it was an impossible job. Might be hard to prove that the harassment was the reason she was let go, though the harassment in it of itself is enough for a lawsuit I would think. Which I think is what Edgy was getting at? That if it's a harassment lawsuit it's not really about her job performance. The point is that she was given a difficult job but the Mets thought she was succeeding at it (for example, earning her bonuses). Her job performance is of course relevant to a harassment lawsuit. Her complaint brings it up to reinforce that there was no legitimate reason to fire her.

Edgy MD Sep 10 2014 04:31 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Gwreck wrote: The part about her job being hard because the Mets didn't sign free agents and it was like being on the Titanic --- that's egregious padding, and it shouldn't be there. I disagree. The deck chairs on the Titanic quote might have been a bit much, but I'm sure her attorneys would have no problem proving any number of people she's never met both said that and thought that. I don't care what people said and thought. How is the fact that the Mets don't win enough actionable? If it is, I'm filing tomorrow. OE: I see, you're saying it helps establish that she was effective at her job. OK. Maybe.

Ceetar Sep 10 2014 05:08 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: The part about her job being hard because the Mets didn't sign free agents and it was like being on the Titanic --- that's egregious padding, and it shouldn't be there. I disagree. The deck chairs on the Titanic quote might have been a bit much, but I'm sure her attorneys would have no problem proving any number of people she's never met both said that and thought that. I don't care what people said and thought. How is the fact that the Mets don't win enough actionable? If it is, I'm filing tomorrow. OE: I see, you're saying it helps establish that she was effective at her job. OK. Maybe. It either helps establish she was effective or is an excuse for why she wasn't. I think what she's trying to establish is that her superiors actively inhibited her ability to do her job. But this feels like an HR person complaining that the company switched from PAYCHEX to ADP and it's not as good. Who really knows (well, hopefully someone that has to testify) what they discussed about her job and duties when they hired her. But generally ticket sales are separate from roster, despite what people like to think. Leigh was never supposed to go to Sandy and say "Hey, I'd like to do "so and so" promotion, can you sign someone that fits that profile?"

bmfc1 Sep 10 2014 05:26 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Ceetar is right. Her attorney is establishing her credibility--she was good at her job--and discrediting the inevitable argument that she wasn't by discussing the obstacles that she faced (trying to sell tickets to a bad team).

Edgy MD Sep 10 2014 07:48 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

“We have received and reviewed the complaint. The claims are without merit. Our organization maintains strong policies against any and all forms of discrimination.”

d'Kong76 Sep 10 2014 07:54 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

[fimg=400:3knveh7w]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8KoaXEw6vxI/Tsn3n2fQ9jI/AAAAAAAAAFw/d_XK4LevcnM/s1600/2+shrug.jpg[/fimg:3knveh7w] . [bigpurple:3knveh7w]Case closed![/bigpurple:3knveh7w]

G-Fafif Sep 10 2014 10:53 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

I wasn't envisioning all this a couple of weeks ago, but when her departure was leaked (nothing was ever officially announced), two things stuck with me in the rush to pin the LOL tail on the Wilpons: 1) Why was something like the dismissal/departure of a senior vp of ticket sales leaked? I mean, who knew who she was outside of the really obsessive Mets fans and maybe season ticketholders? 2) The scapegoating explanation seemed unlikely. The Mets don't fire managers or coaches for lousy records, why would they suddenly decide to kick out the head of ticket sales for empty seats with a month to go in the season? Just figured something wasn't adding up. Didn't think it added up to Jeff Wilpon allegedly being more of an actionable jerk than usual (but is that part really surprising?). Reading the part of the complaint that outlines how (allegedly) badly the Mets were run in terms of letting go marquee players and F. Wilpon gave the New Yorker incendiary quotes running down his own product, plus how much they were inflating ticket prices, is reminiscent of the "Grimey" episode of The Simpsons. That's the one in which new power plant employee Frank Grimes is dropped into Springfield and is instantly taken aback that someone as chock full of foibles as Homer Simpson is still alive, keeping a good job and maintaining a pretty decent lifestyle. Grimes isn't part of the Springfield tableau, so he's incredulous at what everyone else in town takes for granted. As Mets fans, we're used to all this. Yet you can't help but step back for a moment after reading the complaint and think, "Say, Fred did tell a reporter how little he thought of his best players, they did usher Reyes and Dickey out the door at the heights of their respective accomplishments and tickets were disgustingly overpriced...how do they still own this team again?"

batmagadanleadoff Sep 11 2014 08:49 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

An early analysis of the The Mets Suck allegations contained in the Leigh Castergine complaint. Plus Madoff stuff. Discrimination suit poses multiple threats to Jeff Wilpon By Howard Megdal 8:02 a.m. | Sep. 11, 2014 1 follow this reporter Former Mets senior vice president of ticket sales Leigh Castergine has filed a sexual discrimination complaint against Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon, alleging that Wilpon "frequently humiliated" her during her pregnancy, often in the presence of witnesses, and ultimately fired her for seeking a remedy with the team's human resources department. The Mets issued a statement responding to the allegations which said, "The claims are without merit. Our organization maintains strong policies against any and all forms of discrimination." The complaint comes as Wilpon and his family seek to stabilize their finances and their hold on the team. It also happens to be hitting the news in the wake of Donald Sterling's forced exit as owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, Bruce Levenson selling his share of the Atlanta Hawks, means Wilpon's actions are going to be discussed within the framework of another league seeing multiple owners depart over questions of discrimination. Merits aside, the complaint seems designed to take advantage of this, as well as the Wilpon family's involvement in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi schemes, and their subsequent public mistatements about the state of their own and the team's finances. At one point, the complaint says, "Moreover, the team has been unable to acquire premier talent, in part, because of its serious financial woes. ...The Team's ownership and front office have only made things worse. For example, Mets executives persisted in publicly denying the Team's financial difficulties despite the obvious freefall in player payroll ... each season, the Mets' front office insisted that the team had the ability to spend money on new players, only to see payroll drop even further." Castergine is a Wharton-educated businesswoman who received a promotion from the Mets just prior to her pregnancy. She could be a tricky opponent in a courtroom, and she's certain to be a problematic opponent for Wilpon and the Mets in the public eye. That leaves the question of exactly why this case didn't settle before Castergine filed. A two-week period offered the chronological opportunity, and multiple attorneys I spoke to described it as extremely unlikely that Anne C. Vladeck, the decorated, top-shelf attorney representing Castergine (sort of an anti-Gloria Allred), would have proceeded without attempting a settlement. It is of course possible that Wilpon has a solid, factual defense. But cases have often been settled in spite of this, particularly when the defendant is an owner in the litigation-averse world of Major League Baseball. Another possibility is that Castergine is asking for more money than Wilpon, the son of Mets owner Fred Wilpon, is capable of paying. The statutes under which the suit was filed do not carry with them caps on damages. And with Castergine seeking not just compensatory damages but punitive damages, a jury that found Wilpon liable would be instructed to set out an amount commensurate with what he can pay, and one designed to sting. Remember, this is still the same family that managed to settle with Irving Picard, trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims, because they were out of funds back in 2012. Since then, they've managed to stay afloat largely by borrowing against the skyrocketing equity in their 65 percent stake in S.N.Y., using the local sports television network boom to stave off bankruptcy. But borrowing further against that to pay off a potential sexual discrimination lawsuit, doing so quickly, and in time to avoid a lawsuit is not easy. Nor is any insurer they have to cover such events likely to be sympathetic to a quick resolution, avoiding any further damage to Wilpon's reputation. Said insurer wouldn't much care what happens to Wilpon's public standing. It is also possible that this is about more than the possibility of monetary damages. Certainly, the complaint signals that the plaintiff is also well aware of the power of the allegations to affect the Wilpons in the court of public opinion, as well as their standing in the league. The fact that these are still only allegations means that unlike the secret tape and elevator video that forced the N.B.A. and N.F.L. to take action against a racist owner and wife-beating star player, respectively, Major League Baseball isn't yet compelled to do anything. But it faces a potential crisis should it not even try to determine whether a team owner acted as Castergine alleges Wilpon did. Failing to investigate the matter fully, at least, is going to look awful within the public context of N.F.L. commissioner Roger Goodell's actions after the league was sent a tape of Rice knocking his fiancee unconscious and dragging her out of an elevator. The structure of the lawsuit itself, too, makes potential league actions more complicated. As a veteran attorney in sexual discrimination matters explained it, by pointing out how many other people in the organization—such as chief financial officer Lou DiPaoli and chief counsel David Cohen—allegedly failed to act, it poses a threat not just to Jeff Wilpon but to the collective management of the New York Mets. Figuring all this out, for now, is Bud Selig, who is commissioner of baseball until January. In 2014, the conversation has been about Selig's legacy, something clearly important to him. The extent to which the Mets have been gutted, as part of his legacy, is both seldom talked about publicly, and something acutely understood by both the team's fan base and most of Wilpon's fellow owners. But if Jeff Wilpon lacks the cash to make this go away, or Leigh Castergine decides she wants more than cash for it to happen, then Bud Selig will have to make a decision about whether to let one of his owners go to trial, or to do whatever he can to prevent that from happening. Should the proceedings extend beyond January, and Selig punts, new commissioner Rob Manfred will have the opportunity to weigh in. Manfred, whose first public appearance after winning the job of commissioner-elect was to watch Mo'ne Davis pitch, will be acutely aware of what his actions in this matter will tell the public about him. The state of the Wilpons, as owners, wasn't great before the lawsuit. The team's debt of more than $600 million against their ownership stake in S.N.Y. comes due next year. It either needs to be paid, which obviously can't happen, or re-financed the way the $250 million debt against the team was this past year. That would also need to be approved by Major League Baseball. Back in 2011, Selig nixed a potential deal between wayward Dodgers owner Frank McCourt and Fox for the Dodgers' television rights, citing concern over the "further diversion of Dodgers assets for the personal needs of Mr. McCourt." By contrast, Selig approved the re-finance of Mets team debt in 2014, and it was widely expected the same would be true of Manfred with the 2015 S.N.Y. debt. One who clearly expected it was Fred Wilpon, who forcefully advocated for Manfred during a contentious election battle last month before crowing about Manfred's election in the owner-sympathetic Daily News. But it was Selig and Wilpon who shared a long history together. Expecting more of the same from Manfred was less about that relationship and more about not knowing what level of unseemliness would have to become public before he's moved to make a change. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/m ... eff-wilpon

Edgy MD Sep 11 2014 08:59 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

My current thinking is that this isn't the type of action that ends in a courtroom, but the type that ends in a settlement and a non-disclosure agreement. And that maybe hopes for the Mets won't be relieved of their owners, but rather continue on with a wearier version of the same, and a more tarnished brand. This thinking could change by the end of the day or the hour.

Lefty Specialist Sep 11 2014 09:18 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

It's all speculation of course, but if Castergine knew exactly what to ask for in damages so that the Wilpons couldn't settle it immediately, then well played indeed. Bernie Madoff, the gift that keeps on giving.

d'Kong76 Sep 11 2014 09:18 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Edgy MD wrote: My current thinking is that this isn't the type of action that ends in a courtroom, but the type that ends in a settlement Unless the Mets have a Jeffie-is-an-ass Contingency Fund, there goes the increased budget for 2015.

Edgy MD Sep 11 2014 09:23 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

How much is the suit demanding?

d'Kong76 Sep 11 2014 09:25 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

I don't think there was an actual figure in there.

bmfc1 Sep 11 2014 09:40 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

There is no demand. I am surprised that the Wilpons didn't settle but maybe they didn't have the money or maybe they think that they can't win.

Diamond Dad Sep 11 2014 10:18 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

While you should never take the allegations in a complaint as if they are true, in this case much of what is alleged here either seems like it might be true and sounds plausible for Jeff. But the very fact that they fired a senior female employee just a few months after she returned from Maternity leave, allegedly for poor job performance, is a historically stupid thing to do. Even if none of the other allegations were true, this would be very bad and any employment lawyer would advise against it. But, the reality is that they will probably settle the case and there will be no changes in management. I doubt that this is the kind of case that will result in Fred firing his kid.

Centerfield Sep 11 2014 10:21 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Diamond Dad wrote: But the very fact that they fired a senior female employee just a few months after she returned from Maternity leave, allegedly for poor job performance, is a historically stupid thing to do. Even if none of the other allegations were true, this would be very bad and any employment lawyer would advise against it. Yup. And unless they have a series of negative reviews on record preceding this firing, I would say it's even historicallier stupider.

MFS62 Sep 11 2014 10:24 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Now that there's a new commissioner, he may not be as friendly to the Wilpons as the one who looked the other way at their Ponzi involvement and then gave them money to make up for their "losses". This harassment scandal and lawsuit could be the oiling of the slippery slope that Anti-Wilpon fans been waiting for. Later

Edgy MD Sep 11 2014 10:29 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

There isn't a new commissioner yet. As noted above, Manred enjoyed Wilpon's support in ascending to his new office. Beyond that, has anyone --- even Irving Picard --- asserted that Bud Selig was aware that the Wilpons were investing in a Ponzi scheme?

Ceetar Sep 11 2014 10:30 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Centerfield wrote: But the very fact that they fired a senior female employee just a few months after she returned from Maternity leave, allegedly for poor job performance, is a historically stupid thing to do. Even if none of the other allegations were true, this would be very bad and any employment lawyer would advise against it. Yup. And unless they have a series of negative reviews on record preceding this firing, I would say it's even historicallier stupider. Likely they'll cite ticket sales, or other data from this season. Likely nothing will change, we'll get no real truth on that matter but will all suspect Jeff's a misogynistic asshole. What they should probably do, irregardless of what happens with the suit, is publicly push forward a gender equality program. make female employees pay match male employees pay and publicize that fact (not the salaries obviously) and institute a matching paternity/maternity leave program that favors taking care of our kids and not rewarding men for not doing so and punishing women for doing so. What they'll probably do: paint something pink and have a Woman's right charity host a promotion next year.

themetfairy Sep 11 2014 10:47 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Hey - who is that handsome man who decided to pay us a visit? :)

Centerfield Sep 11 2014 10:56 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

My real name is Ja... Oh, you meant him. Right. That would make more sense.

themetfairy Sep 11 2014 11:16 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

You're quite handsome as well CF, but I see you here all the time

Lefty Specialist Sep 11 2014 11:42 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Ceetar wrote: What they'll probably do: paint something pink and have a Woman's right charity host a promotion next year. They'll up the the donation per win from $2500 to $3000 for the Katz Institute for Women's Health, and call it a day.

Edgy MD Sep 11 2014 11:59 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Dumb question, but the Katz Institute for Women's Health --- is that Katz as in Saul Katz?

Gwreck Sep 11 2014 12:24 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Named in honor of Saul and Iris Katz, indeed.

Lefty Specialist Sep 11 2014 12:35 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Yes sir. Saul gets to write off the donations to his own foundation. Big balls indeed.

Edgy MD Sep 11 2014 06:08 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

WOR just aired an add for Leeds Brown Law firm: "Have you been the victim of sexual harassment? ..."

Diamond Dad Sep 11 2014 07:28 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

The Mets cannot possibly fight this lawsuit. It is a nightmare to defend. If they were really smart, they would reinstate her to her old job and fire Jeff. Of course, that won't happen. So, what will happen is that the Mets will file an Answer to the Complaint in federal court, denying all the important allegations, and then get into mediation and work out a settlement that will not include any admission of wrongdoing and will require confidentiality and non-disclosure of the terms of the settlement. SHe will get paid off handsomely, and will find a job with some other organization and the Mets will pretend like it never happened. That's what happens with serial assholes who are in positions of great power in their organization -- they misbehave and then pay off the victims and nobody has the power or the inclination to hold them accountable. I've seen it happen many times.

bmfc1 Sep 11 2014 08:26 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

DD: I agree that this is the likely path so why didn't the Mets settle before this was filed? From one article, her attorney is not a publicity seeker so she would have sought a settlement. Is it possible the Wilpons think they can beat these charges? Are the Wilpons just stupid (let me rephrase: stupid off the field, too)?

Gwreck Sep 11 2014 08:27 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

There is also the possibility - admittedly small - that this actually goes to trial. Castergine is represented by the same attorney who won a $11.6M* punitive damages award for Anucha Browne Sanders against the Knicks and Jim Dolan. Admittedly, a big part of the problem there was that Dolan refused to consider settlement. Sad to say, I think it's an open question as to whether Jeff Wilpon is that stupid. * settled for $11.5 M prior to appeal

Diamond Dad Sep 11 2014 08:41 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

The Vladick firm is a well-known plaintiff's shop. I wouldn't say that they are publicity seekers per se, but this case was filed lightning fast, and brought in federal court (where it doesn't really belong) and then announced to the press. All that sounds like a squeeze play. If you wanted to try this case, you would bring it in state court. As it is, they don't really have a basis to be in federal court, but they trumped up an FMLA claim that isn't really there just so that they could have federal jurisdiction. The proper way to process a case like this is to (a) contact the other side and discuss settlement in advance, then (b) file with the EEOC and then let the EEOC attempt to mediate. If the case is not settled at the EEOC level, then you get a "right to sue" letter and you can bring an action in federal court. The fact that they rushed to file this and publicize it suggests that they are looking for a quick settlement so that the Mets can avoid the bad publicity. But if the case did get to a trial, it would be a nightmare for the team.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 11 2014 08:46 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

You've got a Winston Wolfe thing going there with the expert advice and the tuxedo, I gotta say.

Diamond Dad Sep 11 2014 08:55 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Not what I was going for . . . but I'll take it!

Ceetar Sep 12 2014 07:29 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Diamond Dad wrote: The Vladick firm is a well-known plaintiff's shop. I wouldn't say that they are publicity seekers per se, but this case was filed lightning fast, and brought in federal court (where it doesn't really belong) and then announced to the press. All that sounds like a squeeze play. Also, as unfair as it is, suing your prior employee doesn't look good in job interviews, no matter the grounds. Especially with the chances that similar employees might actually agree with Jeff's supposed comments.

Centerfield Sep 12 2014 07:43 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

At the headquarters of Sterling Enterprises, immediately following a meeting in which good coffee was served... Diamond Dad: Freddie, lead the way. Boys, get to work. Jeff Wilpon: A please would be nice. Diamond Dad: Come again? Jeff Wilpon: I said a please would be nice. Diamond Dad: Get it straight assclown - I'm not here to say please, I'm here to tell you what to do and if self-preservation is an instinct you possess you'd better fucking do it and do it quick. I'm here to help - if my help's not appreciated then lotsa luck, gentlemen. Saul Katz: No, Mr. Diamond Dad sir, it ain't like that, your help is definitely appreciated. Jeff Wilpon: I don't mean any disrespect, I just don't like people barking orders at me. Diamond Dad: If I'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast and I need you guys to act fast if you wanna get out of this. So, pretty please... with sugar on top. Settle the fucking case.

Diamond Dad Sep 12 2014 08:59 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Yeah, it went something like that . . . (As always, ROFL reading this stuff.)

Valadius Sep 12 2014 09:39 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

This could finally... FINALLY... be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The recent light thrown on sports' treatment of women could not have come at a worse time for li'l Jeffy.

Edgy MD Sep 12 2014 09:50 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

First post in seven months for Vladdy. Welcome back.

Valadius Sep 12 2014 09:58 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Nothing gets me more excited about the Mets than the prospect of Jeff Wilpon carrying a packing box filled with model airplanes as he's kicked out of "his" ballpark.

themetfairy Sep 12 2014 06:38 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

This idiocy took place during Leigh's maternity leave, and certainly did nothing to help ticket sales.

themetfairy Sep 12 2014 06:52 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Edgy MD wrote: How much is the suit demanding? She's asking for her job back; lost wages, pension and other lost benefits; punitive damages; pain and suffering; attorneys fees and other assorted items with an unspecified dollar value.

Lefty Specialist Sep 12 2014 06:58 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Getting her job back would be, well, awkward. Even if she won, I doubt she'll ever set foot inside Citifield again unless it's as an owner.

d'Kong76 Sep 12 2014 07:01 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

She's asking for money, and she'll get it.

themetfairy Sep 12 2014 07:14 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Of course she is. But in response to the question of what the suit is demanding, reinstatement is on the wish list.

d'Kong76 Sep 12 2014 07:16 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Just boiling it down, Counselor. :+)

themetfairy Sep 12 2014 07:18 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

When they say it's not about the money, it's about the money. But not for nothing, she needs to be able to establish that she's ready, willing and able to return the work as part of the claim.

Diamond Dad Sep 13 2014 11:04 AM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Her best chance for most money is if she were actually awarded reinstatement. Then the Wilpons would have to pay her off in order to get her to forego her right to reinstatement. The likelihood is just a straight money settlement. She won't walk away empty handed here.

Edgy MD Sep 16 2014 07:20 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Mark Healey brought up the Leon Lee incident in his blog, and it is relevant. Since Jeff Wilpon is enjoying the benefit of the doubt the organization never gave to Lee, it might be a good idea if Jeff took a leave of absence, pending the resolution of the issue, and/or if the board asked him to.

batmagadanleadoff Sep 19 2014 07:45 PM Re: Somebody has to Pay

Powerfully harsh words about Jeff Wilpon and the state of the Mets in light of the Castergine lawsuit: MLB can take stand NFL didn't in vetting Jeff Wilpon accusations with severe potential consequences Jeff Passan By Jeff Passan September 10, 2014 9:56 PM Yahoo Sports [fimg=544]http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/KWaXl1ciTlnkMzQ3laK49Q--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTYzODtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz05NjA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/Sports/USA_Today/20131210_ajl_mb2_019-50357b58756c7e3c886be6c3f9fe0385[/fimg] A lawsuit Wednesday alleged that Jeff Wilpon, the chief operating officer of the New York Mets, harassed and later fired one of his senior vice presidents because he didn't agree with her pregnancy. If this is true – if these disgusting, abhorrent acts of misogyny receive even one iota of confirmation – one of Bud Selig's final acts as commissioner must be to rid Major League Baseball of this nepotistic fraud once and for all. Selig, or his successor Rob Manfred, must do this because baseball needs to tell the world it is a safe place for women. That its top executives won't scoff and sneer and bungle the issues that face women every day like the NFL did the Ray Rice case. MLB shouldn't do this as a reaction to Rice; it should because it is the right thing to do. Whether it's a left to the jaw or a barrage of dehumanizing insults, a system that allows any kind of mistreatment toward women is broken. Baseball likes to consider itself a progressive sport, dating back to Jackie Robinson's breaking the color line and through today, with Billy Bean serving as an ambassador to the LGBT community. Women occupy a number of high-ranking positions in baseball. One such woman worked as a senior vice president for the Mets. Her name is Leigh Castergine, and she ran ticket sales for the Mets until Wilpon fired her three weeks ago after demeaning her for nearly a year with churlish comments about being pregnant without being married, according to her lawsuit. The idea of a Wilpon playing moral superior – of someone from the family that profited off the Ponzi scheme Bernie Madoff used to cripple lives holding himself in such esteem – dovetails with the stories of social and emotional incompetence that have chased him during his years running the Mets. It takes a remarkable level of ineptitude to make Jim Dolan look like the more competent of the New York sports scions. For years, Selig's soft spot for the Wilpon family has allowed him to overlook their need for a loan to stay afloat amid the Madoff chaos, their mismanagement of a jewel franchise into the sort that operates like a low-revenue pauper, their public flubs that made #LOLMets a thing. Selig enabled the Mets knowing majority owner Fred Wilpon planned on gifting the franchise to Jeff, an underqualified bully who never would have sniffed sports-franchise ownership were he not bequeathed his last name. Now MLB faces this reality: Jeff Wilpon sits on the board of directors for MLB Enterprises and MLB Network. The former group procures national broadcasting, sponsorship and licensing deals, and the latter is the public face of the sport. It's one thing to have a reprobate in ownership; it's another to give him a position of power in rooms where billion-dollar deals are negotiated. Does a company really want to do business with an entity that confers power on a man who allegedly told a Mets employee he is "old fashioned and thinks [Castergine] should be married before having a baby"? A man who told her that "when she gets a ring, she will make more money and get a bigger bonus"? A man who, in front of a room of executives, laid out two rules for dealing with Castergine, according to the lawsuit: "Don't touch her belly and don't ask how she's doing; she's not sick, she's pregnant"? If this is the sort of behavior MLB represents, it's just as bad as the NFL. Sports can be a miserable place for women, a cesspool of sexual harassment and abuse. It is incumbent on leagues not just to remind women they are a vital part of the sporting experience but actively encourage their involvement. Hopefully, more women in positions of power equal less Neanderthal behavior from a sporting culture awash in it. Because nowhere should a woman have to hear what Leigh Castergine allegedly heard. When considering whether to accept an advertisement from an electronic cigarette company in February, the lawsuit alleges, Wilpon said: "I am as morally opposed to putting an e-cigarette sign in my ballpark as I am to Leigh having this baby without being married." My ballpark. Mine. That's how Jeff Wilpon carried himself for years, as the cock of the walk, the all-knowing executive who, in reality, knew only how to take a proud franchise and run it into the ground. He directs the Mets with the vision of a mole, and people around the sport – from players to agents to executives – wish he would learn to burrow into the ground like one, too. The lawsuit alleges that Wilpon fired Castergine on Aug. 20 because she hadn't met sales goals. He allegedly said "something changed" and she wasn't "as aggressive as she once had been," and all of this came after Castergine went to a woman named Holly Lindvall, the Mets' executive director of human resources, and reported all of Wilpon's remarks. Lindvall's response, according to the suit: "She instead urged Castergine to quit." When she didn't, Wilpon offered Castergine a severance package of five weeks' salary, provided she didn't pursue legal claims, including harassment and discrimination, against the team. She instead sued, and baseball now is in a position of action. An immediate investigation is warranted, and considering the Mets' inner circle of executives is small, it should not take long. Baseball can vet Castergine's claims in short order, and if even one of them is true, do what is necessary. The impact could be massive. Mets fans for years have bemoaned the Wilpon ownership, knowing Fred planned on handing the franchise to Jeff. If MLB makes it clear, as it should, that it will not stand for misogyny of any sorts in its ranks, and Jeff Wilpon is shown to have engaged in systemic abuse, his ouster could alter his father's plans. The Mets long ago deserved better owners, and now is Selig's chance to remedy his own errors or Manfred's to remedy his predecessor's. And, more than that, it's baseball's chance to take a stand. Sports needs people with the courage to say it is not OK for anyone in a position of power, be it physical or political, to use it in the mistreatment of women. Sports is at its finest when it's inclusive, when the Leigh Castergines of the world can go to work without fear their bosses will discriminate against them for the sin of being a woman. The opportunity exists. The time is right. The priority is evident. MLB should be a safe place for women, and that starts with an immediate investigation to see if Jeff Wilpon is as bad a person as he is an executive. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mlb-can-ta ... 09001.html