Master Index of Archived Threads


Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Centerfield Dec 14 2014 07:41 PM

Vic Sage wrote: All i'm saying here is that an owner of a franchise in NYC that can't afford to spend enough to be in the top 1/3 of payrolls instead of the bottom 1/3 should be facing an outcry demanding he sell the team. There should be skywriting and billboards and photobombs and every other form of fan revolt conceivable. It should not be dismissed easily with "well, that's the way it is", and it especially shouldn't be lauded as a good strategy of wise restraint. And its not that spending more guarantees anything, but its supposed to be one of the competitive advantages a big-market team should have, and we as fans that pay the highest prices in the league for EVERYTHING have a right to expect. And when they don't, its entirely appropriate to call them on it, not excuse them for it. And not because fan protests will force a change of direction, much less a sale, but because it makes us feel better to call them on it. Let the truth be spoken for its own sake. It will help us sleep better at night. In three succinct paragraphs, Vic has summed up the biggest problem of this Wilpon regime. Sure, the Wilpons get a ton of criticism, but in fact, they deserve more. How are they not being run out of town? If they cannot, as owners, figure out a way to carry a high payroll when the team is located in New York, they really have no business owning that team.

Frayed Knot Dec 14 2014 07:46 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Centerfield wrote: How are they not being run out of town? Because it's a private business where one family owns a majority share of a business with at least the potential to make money even if it's not making any (or much) now. IOW they have neither a reason nor the interest in selling and, short of an organized and disciplined mass boycott (and when exactly have those ever succeeded in sports?), there's really no way to get them out.

Vic Sage Dec 14 2014 08:45 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Doesn't matter if it works or not. Do it anyway. It'll embarrass them at cocktail parties. It'll make them just a tad apprehensive about attending any public events. Whatever joy they seem to milk out of owning a baseball franchise may curdle, even just a tiny bit. And, personally, I'll settle for some Wilponian discomforture in the short term. they should share our pain, hiding behind their plexiglass walls.

metirish Dec 14 2014 08:54 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

A huge part of the problem with the Wilpon's is that they see the Mets as part of the family lineage and trust, like their fucking grandkids not yet born will be running the team, they are not selling.

Frayed Knot Dec 14 2014 09:02 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Doesn't matter if it works or not. Do it anyway. It'll embarrass them at cocktail parties. It'll make them just a tad apprehensive about attending any public events. Whatever joy they seem to milk out of owning a baseball franchise may curdle, even just a tiny bit. And, personally, I'll settle for some Wilponian discomforture in the short term. they should share our pain, hiding behind their plexiglass walls. And that's fine too. I'm not trying to talk anybody out of anything here, but fans have been yelling shit about the Wilsons since the 90s - including during times when the team was good. But the bottom line is that it's different than trying to embarrass Woody Johnson into firing his GM, and that, unless fans are TRULY willing to boycott games, cancel SNY, stop buying merchandise, etc. -- and to stick to it even if the team finds itself 40-29 during the second week of June!! -- then the effect is to be spitting into the wind.

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 08:32 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Frayed Knot wrote: - and to stick to it even if the team finds itself 40-29 during the second week of June!!. Not happening. Not every happening to any team. An owner would have to be legitimately evil that supporting him would feel like kicking babies. (And for obvious reasons, no owner will make it that far before being ousted. See the NBA/Clippers) A winning season will bring in all the casual fans (especially with a pathetic Yankee team) who barely think twice about who owns the team, and might be hard pressed to remember their names. But there are also those of us that just don't freaking care. It is what it is, I just want to watch baseball not discuss theoretical finances that we know, and will know, next to nothing about.

Vic Sage Dec 15 2014 08:44 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

their finances aren't "theoretical"... they're actual, and have actual impact on my team's ability to win. And if you don't see that, then you're ceetarded. and again, FK, it's not "sptting in the wind". It's spitting on their Benz. And slashing their tires. Maybe sugar in the gas tank. It won't stop them from fixing the car back up and driving it home to their north shore mansion, but they may have to think about where they park it next time.

d'Kong76 Dec 15 2014 08:46 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 15 2014 08:58 AM

Vic Sage wrote: It'll embarrass them at cocktail parties. "I don't embarrass easily, my daddy's rich!"

Centerfield Dec 15 2014 08:54 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

I don't pretend that any of our bitching will actually convince them to sell the team. But as fans of the team, I don't see why we are not all calling them out on it. Constantly. It is the biggest obstacle facing this franchise. It is far more central (and pressing) than getting a shortstop or a right handed bench player. So much focus has been about the Madoff scandal, and how the Mets owners have been affected by it. But let's remove Madoff for a second. How is it acceptable that a team playing in NY had to invest their money with a Ponzi scheme, in order to support a competitive payroll? Shouldn't they be able to support a large payroll without illegal returns?

Vic Sage Dec 15 2014 08:55 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

our billionaires aren't rich enough.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2014 08:57 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Vic Sage wrote: their finances aren't "theoretical"... they're actual, and have actual impact on my team's ability to win. And if you don't see that, then you're ceetarded. and again, FK, it's not "sptting in the wind". It's spitting on their Benz. And slashing their tires. Maybe sugar in the gas tank. It won't stop them from fixing the car back up and driving it home to their north shore mansion, but they may have to think about where they park it next time. Great ideas, Vic. Hey, d'ya think I could borrow your log-on password for this site? This way, whenever I go off on another Wilpon rant, I can sign my posts with your handle, and then there'll be a civil and even constructive dialogue to follow, instead of the usual "Again with the Megdal" and "Who the hell are the owners supposed to be signing with this crop of free agents?" and "What, a team can't win the World Series with a payroll below $100M?" and "What, you don't like dijonnaise?"

Edgy MD Dec 15 2014 08:59 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Whatever "it" is, I've certainly seen constant calling out of the Mets ownership. Whether you want to invest more in it and coordinate it more is certainly up to you. But I disagree that it's not the central conversation with regard to the team. And then batmagadan jumps into another thread to preemptively decry his victimization.

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 09:04 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Centerfield wrote: So much focus has been about the Madoff scandal, and how the Mets owners have been affected by it. But let's remove Madoff for a second. How is it acceptable that a team playing in NY had to invest their money with a Ponzi scheme, in order to support a competitive payroll? Shouldn't they be able to support a large payroll without illegal returns? they weren't illegal until he got caught. Unless you want to play the 'there were in on it' game. But either way, it wasn't that they couldn't support a team without it, it's that they had an avenue to invest money that gave them the best return. Every single rich person does that. We don't deserve a super high payroll just because we're arrogant New Yorkers. It's a simple equation, either they put players and a team on the field that we enjoy watching and you do, or they don't and you don't. I still enjoy it. Could I enjoy it more? sure. That doesn't give me the right to demand they operate the team at a loss* or run it the way I think they should. And we don't know what their finances are. those are private. Are they running at a loss? or is that creative accounting (spoiler: all big businesses are creative accountants) that counts ancillary costs of the team as costs buy ancillary profits as Sterling profits? (i.e. does the Citi money count towards revenue when people say the Mets lost money last year?) But people have been saying they're going to be bankrupt and have to sell any day now for years. IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. The best we can hope for is the Mets win next year, and people flock to the team, and spend money. Revenue going up, at least with Alderson here, will likely lead to more spending as needed. THAT is what I'm focused on.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2014 09:11 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Vic Sage wrote: their finances aren't "theoretical"... they're actual, and have actual impact on my team's ability to win. And if you don't see that, then you're ceetarded. and again, FK, it's not "sptting in the wind". It's spitting on their Benz. And slashing their tires. Maybe sugar in the gas tank. It won't stop them from fixing the car back up and driving it home to their north shore mansion, but they may have to think about where they park it next time. Wanna know how I've been protesting? I haven't bought a single ticket directly from the Mets during the Citi Field era. Not one! Every ticket I've ever paid for came from the secondary market ... tickets already paid for ... from StubHub or friends and acquaintances that already paid for their tickets. The Mets still get my hot dog and yearbook money, though. Although I did buy one or two recent yearbooks on ebay.

d'Kong76 Dec 15 2014 09:24 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

I think many here go to far fewer games than in year's past.

Benjamin Grimm Dec 15 2014 09:30 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Last year I went to five Mets games, but two of them were in Pittsburgh and two were in Seattle. The Mets haven't been getting too much of my money for quite a while now. Getting up to Queens from where I live is too much of a hassle for me to do it regularly. Even when the Mets were contending (2006 through 2008) I'd still only go two or three times per year. The Madoff thing really had the Wilpons on the ropes; I was hoping it would lead to their being forced to sell the team. But they managed to survive that (I really suspect that Bud Selig owns a lot of the blame for this) and now I think that we're stuck with them for the long haul. Making their tenure as miserable as possible is a nice idea, though.

Vic Sage Dec 15 2014 09:50 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

We don't deserve a super high payroll just because we're arrogant New Yorkers yes, you're right. we don't deserve a super high payroll just because we're arrogant New Yorkers, we deserve it because NY is the BIGGEST SPORTS MARKET ON THE FUCKING PLANET. NY teams get more media money, more merch money, more ticket, parking, concession money, more licensing money, more ad money THAN ANY OTHER SPORTS MARKET ON THE FUCKING PLANET. The Mets own a regional sports network. they have a sweetheart deal with the city for their stadium. They are the national league descendants of both GIANTS and DODGERS fans, giving them 2 fanbases to draw on initially, which made their peak attendance greater than the Yankees in their peak years. Whether they are currently winning or not should not preclude an appropriately financed operation in this market from having a competitive payroll, equivalent to Boston, Philly, LA, Chicago, SF, Toronto, St.L,... or even smaller market teams like Arizona, Cinncinatti, Milwaukee... MILWAUKEE, FER CHRISSAKES! I'm not asking them to spend what the Yankees spend... the MFYs are a international brand borne of their many championships; they are able to monetize that like nobody else. But what about the Dodgers, the Sox, the Phillies, the Giants? Current winning/losing trends and profits have only a tangential relationship to a franchise's overall value, and its the value that should drive payroll, not last year's P/L statement. How much of the value of the team should owners be willing to spend each season? That's a question nobody asks. And why? We're the ones that create that value. Don't even arrogant NYers, paying the highest prices for everything connected to a baseball game, have a right to expect that the value we create (not the PROFIT, the VALUE) be reinvested in the team we root for? Why is this basic fact so completely lost on you? You overlook our inability to pursue big contract players (either in trade or FA), and deem it a good business strategy. Our underfunded ownership has us locked into a cycle of perpetual mediocrity (at best), and you treat it like its a fact as uncontrollable as the weather, rather the result of their conscious decision making. Why is this even a controversial point? This is the reality. The only open question is how do we as fans respond to that fact? Peaceful protest? Civil disobedience? Armed Insurrection? Numb obeisance? These are the same choices any population faces when confronted by endless abuse by its ruling class. You want to go "bah bah bah" all the way home? great. Me? I'm sick of this shit. I don't know what I'll do about it, but i have consciously chosen to attend fewer games every year. And when that nice group sales lady called me at my office to pitch CitiField for our corporate events, i explained to her that she should call me back when Freddie and Jeffie sell the team. will it do any good? fuck no. but it makes me feel better. Its like voting for 3rd party candidates. I've never regretted voting for Nader, because he's the only one who represented my values. I'm not going to support pricks just because i'm not given a choice. And i'm not going to go gently into that good night without some raging against the dying of the light. on edit: and D'Kong, you can use my name whenever you like, my brother. We've been thru the wars together. But these kids today...

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 09:57 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

I didn't really read that rant. I don't see why you don't understand that losing, in addition to Madoff, building a new stadium, and that all happening during a recession, led to a decrease in revenue for the Mets and that winning, more than the Wilpons becoming cash-flush again, is the biggest thing that will correct it. And there are a billion examples of how investing the money in players FIRST doesn't always work out due to the nature of human beings, health, and the luck inherent in baseball. The Mets will have a higher payroll when it's financially responsible to do so. Yes, they'd probably be a little higher now if the Wilpons were funneling money from other avenues, like SNY, towards the team and not towards debt. Sort of the way, (supposedly, because I haven't delved into this discussion) the Dolans operate the Rangers, or did, at a loss because it's such a small portion of the overall portfolio. That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. On the hope that eventually all that money will generate a winning team and they'll make it back.

Vic Sage Dec 15 2014 09:58 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

"bah, bah, bah"

Benjamin Grimm Dec 15 2014 09:59 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. No, I want them to accept that they can't afford to run a New York City sports franchise as it ought to be run, and they should sell to someone who can.

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 10:02 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. No, I want them to accept that they can't afford to run a New York City sports franchise as it ought to be run, and they should sell to someone who can. same thing.

Vic Sage Dec 15 2014 10:03 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Vic Sage wrote: "bah, bah, bah"

Frayed Knot Dec 15 2014 10:10 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. No, I want them to accept that they can't afford to run a New York City sports franchise as it ought to be run, and they should sell to someone who can. I think they think they can get back to being in that position even if they're not there now.

d'Kong76 Dec 15 2014 10:18 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Vic Sage wrote: on edit: and D'Kong, you can use my name whenever you like, my brother. We've been thru the wars together. But these kids today... That was señor batmags, but thanks!!

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 15 2014 10:26 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Again, which big free agent from this year, last year or even the year before did you want them to sign? Foolishly over-spending just to prove you are a big-market team doesn't make sense. It's not like they haven't offered a $100 million contract to any player recently. Just because it was one of our own guys -- Wright -- doesn't mean it didn't happen. And it's not like they've been utterly hapless. Recently, yes. We got deep into the playoffs in 2006 and would have been there again in 2007 and 2008 if not for the epic collapses. You are talking about 6 years of sucking. For a club rebuilding from the bottom up, I don't think that's unreasonable. Who knows what might have happened last year had the All-Star ace and closer not been lost to Tommy John surgery. Maybe I'm a little too removed, but I guess I don't see them as all that evil. Talk to a Marlins fan about evil.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2014 10:42 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: And it's not like they've been utterly hapless. One first place finish in 26 years. In a division with mostly, just four other competitors.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2014 10:44 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. On the hope that eventually all that money will generate a winning team and they'll make it back. No. Mets fans want the Wilpons to get the hell out of baseball. What's so hard about this?

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2014 10:48 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

d'Kong76 wrote: on edit: and D'Kong, you can use my name whenever you like, my brother. We've been thru the wars together. But these kids today... That was señor batmags, but thanks!! Great, Vic. But how do I know if you meant that me any you been through the wars instead of you and Kong? I wanna go home! [fimg=644]http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4328/1686/1600/ryan0163.jpg[/fimg]

d'Kong76 Dec 15 2014 10:51 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

batmagadanleadoff wrote: One first place finish in 26 years. In a division with mostly, just four other competitors. That's literally half my life. Half!

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 10:52 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. On the hope that eventually all that money will generate a winning team and they'll make it back. No. Mets fans want the Wilpons to get the hell out of baseball. What's so hard about this? So you're saying it's not about the Mets then, you've just decided you hate the Wilpons. fine. Take it to a business forum, I thought this thread was at least tangentially about the Mets.

d'Kong76 Dec 15 2014 10:54 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

What's to like about them? I really can't think of anything.

Edgy MD Dec 15 2014 10:55 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Again, which big free agent from this year, last year or even the year before did you want them to sign? Foolishly over-spending just to prove you are a big-market team doesn't make sense. It's not like they haven't offered a $100 million contract to any player recently. Just because it was one of our own guys -- Wright -- doesn't mean it didn't happen. And it's not like they've been utterly hapless. Recently, yes. We got deep into the playoffs in 2006 and would have been there again in 2007 and 2008 if not for the epic collapses. You are talking about 6 years of sucking. For a club rebuilding from the bottom up, I don't think that's unreasonable. Who knows what might have happened last year had the All-Star ace and closer not been lost to Tommy John surgery. Maybe I'm a little too removed, but I guess I don't see them as all that evil. Talk to a Marlins fan about evil. Six years of coming up on the red side of the win-loss ledger, certainly. I'd dispute the notion that it has been six years of sucking.

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 10:56 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

d'Kong76 wrote: What's to like about them? I really can't think of anything. I don't really think about them much. They're not even on the 40man.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2014 11:00 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. On the hope that eventually all that money will generate a winning team and they'll make it back. No. Mets fans want the Wilpons to get the hell out of baseball. What's so hard about this? So you're saying it's not about the Mets then, you've just decided you hate the Wilpons. fine. Take it to a business forum, I thought this thread was at least tangentially about the Mets. Oh. I see. Because the Wilpons aren't about the Mets. Not even tangentially. And this thread isn't about the Wilpons, who aren't about the Mets not even tangentially And the Mets puny payroll has nothing to do not even tangentially with the Wilpons finances. And that hideous scoreboard out in center field and its ridiculous sister scoreboard in right-center wasn't authorized by the Wilpons. And when the Mets once forced us mustard loving fans to put as much mayonnaise on our hot dogs as we put mustard on them just so that the team could save I don't know $45.00, that wasn't about the Wilpons either. Not even tangentially. And that stupid 42 in the rotunda, that just fell from the sky.

d'Kong76 Dec 15 2014 11:01 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 15 2014 11:03 AM

Ceetar wrote: I don't really think about them much. They're not even on the 40man. They don't think about you much either. Believe me.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2014 11:02 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

d'Kong76 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: One first place finish in 26 years. In a division with mostly, just four other competitors. That's literally half my life. Half! Oh, great. We're like the same age and all.

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 15 2014 11:03 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Edgy MD wrote: Again, which big free agent from this year, last year or even the year before did you want them to sign? Foolishly over-spending just to prove you are a big-market team doesn't make sense. It's not like they haven't offered a $100 million contract to any player recently. Just because it was one of our own guys -- Wright -- doesn't mean it didn't happen. And it's not like they've been utterly hapless. Recently, yes. We got deep into the playoffs in 2006 and would have been there again in 2007 and 2008 if not for the epic collapses. You are talking about 6 years of sucking. For a club rebuilding from the bottom up, I don't think that's unreasonable. Who knows what might have happened last year had the All-Star ace and closer not been lost to Tommy John surgery. Maybe I'm a little too removed, but I guess I don't see them as all that evil. Talk to a Marlins fan about evil. Six years of coming up on the red side of the win-loss ledger, certainly. I'd dispute the notion that it has been six years of sucking. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: And it's not like they've been utterly hapless. Until they changed the format two years ago, first place wasn't the bee's all. They went to the World Series and deep into the playoffs the year before as the wild card. And Edgy's right, they did finish second last year. A very soft second, to be sure. But having lived through the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the team was hopeless and pathetic, I don't see the Wilpons as anywhere near as bad.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2014 11:04 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

You like everybody.

d'Kong76 Dec 15 2014 11:11 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: But having lived through the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the team was hopeless and pathetic, I don't see the Wilpons as anywhere near as bad. My head is going to explode.

Edgy MD Dec 15 2014 11:21 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Benjamin Grimm Dec 15 2014 11:22 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. No, I want them to accept that they can't afford to run a New York City sports franchise as it ought to be run, and they should sell to someone who can. same thing. Same thing? The Wilpons keeping the team and losing money and selling the team are the same thing???

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 15 2014 11:24 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

I think there's probably still room to argue whether the Wilpons are actually evil or not, but that they're incompetent, awful stewards of the Mets is almost beyond debate. They are absolutely the worst.

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 11:35 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. No, I want them to accept that they can't afford to run a New York City sports franchise as it ought to be run, and they should sell to someone who can. same thing. Same thing? The Wilpons keeping the team and losing money and selling the team are the same thing??? no, wanting them to operate at a loss and wanting them to sell in order to get someone in here who will operate them at a loss is the same thing. And then what? They'll win if they spend more money? We know those things aren't directly correlated. They'll spend and suck but at least they SPENT! right? I see almost as much "Stupid Omar" stuff for doing just that as I do Wilpon hate.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2014 11:37 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

It's impossible to spend a lot of money wisely if, you know, you don't spend a lot of money.

Centerfield Dec 15 2014 11:38 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Again, which big free agent from this year, last year or even the year before did you want them to sign? We are not talking about any specific move. We are talking about having the financial flexibility to take chances and absorb those expenses should they not work out. You can do this with a large payroll. You cannot do this when you have no margin for error. But if you need examples, Nelson Cruz, Jose Abreu, Yasmany Tomas are a few. You could also trade for high-risk contracts like Jose Reyes or Matt Kemp. It also allows you to trade Colon and get the highest return, rather than off-setting his value by asking teams to cover his contract. Again, we are not talking about any specific move, it's about having the flexibility to make multiple moves and absorb the ones that don't work out. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Foolishly over-spending just to prove you are a big-market team doesn't make sense. No one has proposed this. And changing a thesis to make your position appear stronger is a sure sign that your position is weak. No one has said the Mets should foolishly over-spend. In fact, I've proposed just the opposite. They should wisely spend to the level you'd expect from a franchise playing in the biggest market in the world. And no one is saying that the goal here should be to prove they are a big market team. The goal is to make the team better. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: It's not like they haven't offered a $100 million contract to any player recently. Just because it was one of our own guys -- Wright -- doesn't mean it didn't happen. Even with the contract, they are in the bottom tier of payrolls. I want them to spend more money, so we can get more good players. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: And it's not like they've been utterly hapless. Recently, yes. We got deep into the playoffs in 2006 and would have been there again in 2007 and 2008 if not for the epic collapses. You are talking about 6 years of sucking. For a club rebuilding from the bottom up, I don't think that's unreasonable. Who knows what might have happened last year had the All-Star ace and closer not been lost to Tommy John surgery. And if you are happy with how they have performed, then that's great. You are exactly the type of fan the Wilpons are looking form. I am not happy with their performance. I want better. I want more. Spending more money, I feel, will help accomplish that. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Maybe I'm a little too removed, but I guess I don't see them as all that evil. Talk to a Marlins fan about evil. I don't think anyone in baseball is evil. I want them to spend money. If they are not able to do so, they are incompetent. I would like my favorite team to be run by competent people.

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 11:39 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

And the other thing is..Sandy Alderson. He's deep into a long-term plan, and while a new owner with money to burn will certainly help, it's not like he's going to be all "well NOW I'm going to sign Scherzer and Hanley and trade for Tulo and a doctor for him!" Worse would be if a new owner decided he needed fresh blood. Then we're basically resetting the plan. Alderson, while fallible, is a pretty good GM. He's a great ameliorate for disgust over Wilpon finances. batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's impossible to spend a lot of money wisely if, you know, you don't spend a lot of money. Yes, but luckily It's still possible to spend money wisely, even if it's not in bucketloads. And win. And by extension, get more money.

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 11:41 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: I don't really think about them much. They're not even on the 40man. They don't think about you much either. Believe me. Of course not. The different is I don't expect them to. I'll take what I can get and talk about the things I want, but I'm not going to go up in flames because the Wilpons used the wrong paint swatch in their building.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2014 11:45 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's impossible to spend a lot of money wisely if, you know, you don't spend a lot of money. Yes, but luckily It's still possible to spend money wisely, even if it's not in bucketloads. And win. And by extension, get more money.

Yeah, but that's extremely difficult --- a position the NY team should never be in. They gotta make every dollar count 'cause their payroll is in the bottom third. That's no room for error. None. Everything's gotta break. No injuries. No setbacks. Everybody plays at least as good as they did last year. And that's almost entirely unrealisitic and naive to expect. Money is what a team uses to fix those problesm .. to get another leftfielder when the first one doesn't pan out, etc.

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 11:50 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's impossible to spend a lot of money wisely if, you know, you don't spend a lot of money. Yes, but luckily It's still possible to spend money wisely, even if it's not in bucketloads. And win. And by extension, get more money. Yeah, but that's extremely difficult --- a position the NY team should never be in. They gotta make every dollar count 'cause their payroll is in the bottom third. That's no room for error. None. Everything's gotta break. No injuries. No setbacks. Everybody plays at least as good as they did last year. And that's almost entirely unrealisitic and naive to expect. Money is what a team uses to fix those problesm .. to get another leftfielder when the first one doesn't pan out, etc.

Yes, the margin for error is smaller, but it's not as minuscule as you make it out to be.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2014 11:54 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Centerfield wrote: It also allows you to trade Colon and get the highest return, rather than off-setting his value by asking teams to cover his contract. This is a great example. It's almost a guarantee that one of Niese or Gee, plus Murph, will be gone by Opening Day, if not shortly after. And make no mistake about it -- those moves'll be salary dumps forced, by more than anything else, the Mets poverty. (You've heard of the Mets and the Jets and the Sets and the Nets. Well, say hello to The New York Debts! Hah!) It may be true that the Mets think they now have a surplus of pitching and need to cut someone on the staff loose. And Sandy may very well get a useful piece or prosepct for Niese or Gee. But the Mets are so broke that they hafta get rid of one of those two, even if they didn't want to. Their payroll is at about $100M, chump change for a NY team, but the NY Debts can't afford that payroll, and probably need to trim down to the sub $90M level they've established in recent years. They might not be able to move Colon 'cause he makes $11M and who'd wanna pay Colon that amount? And the Mets are too broke to trade Colon and carry, say, half of his salary going forward. So because of their poverty, the Mets have to get rid of pitchers like it or not and also their second baseman, who though flawed as he is, isn't anywhere near the top of the list of the things the Mets need to fix.

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 11:56 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Centerfield wrote: It also allows you to trade Colon and get the highest return, rather than off-setting his value by asking teams to cover his contract. This is a great example. It's almost a guarantee that one of Niese or Gee, plus Murph, will be gone by Opening Day, if not shortly after. And make no mistake about it -- those moves'll be salary dumps forced, by more than anything else, the Mets poverty. (You've heard of the Mets and the Jets and the Sets and the Nets. Well, say hello to The New York Debts! Hah!) It may be true that the Mets think they now have a surplus of pitching and need to cut someone on the staff loose. And Sandy may very well get a useful piece or prosepct for Niese or Gee. But the Mets are so broke that they hafta get rid of one of those two, even if they didn't want to. Their payroll is at about $100M, chump change for a NY team, but the NY Debts can't afford that payroll, and probably need to trim down to the sub $90M level they've established in recent years. They might not be able to move Colon 'cause he makes $11M and who'd wanna pay Colon that amount? And the Mets are too broke to trade Colon and carry, say, half of his salary going forward. So because of their poverty, the Mets have to get rid of pitchers like it or not and also their second baseman, who though flawed as he is, isn't anywhere near the top of the list of the things the Mets need to fix. none of these things are actually true though.

d'Kong76 Dec 15 2014 11:57 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

I would love to see the real set of books at this joint... http://www.sterlingequities.com/index.php

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2014 11:58 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: It's impossible to spend a lot of money wisely if, you know, you don't spend a lot of money. Yes, but luckily It's still possible to spend money wisely, even if it's not in bucketloads. And win. And by extension, get more money. Yeah, but that's extremely difficult --- a position the NY team should never be in. They gotta make every dollar count 'cause their payroll is in the bottom third. That's no room for error. None. Everything's gotta break. No injuries. No setbacks. Everybody plays at least as good as they did last year. And that's almost entirely unrealisitic and naive to expect. Money is what a team uses to fix those problesm .. to get another leftfielder when the first one doesn't pan out, etc. Yes, the margin for error is smaller, but it's not as minuscule as you make it out to be.

There's almost no margin for error because they're already tapped out. Unless they wanna trade their stud prospects. This is like those descendants of the Mayflower pilgrims having to sell their antique furniture to pay their bills because they've squandered their bank accounts. And fix those quote boxes. You've got me saying what you said and you saying what I said.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2014 11:59 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 15 2014 12:00 PM

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Centerfield wrote: It also allows you to trade Colon and get the highest return, rather than off-setting his value by asking teams to cover his contract. This is a great example. It's almost a guarantee that one of Niese or Gee, plus Murph, will be gone by Opening Day, if not shortly after. And make no mistake about it -- those moves'll be salary dumps forced, by more than anything else, the Mets poverty. (You've heard of the Mets and the Jets and the Sets and the Nets. Well, say hello to The New York Debts! Hah!) It may be true that the Mets think they now have a surplus of pitching and need to cut someone on the staff loose. And Sandy may very well get a useful piece or prosepct for Niese or Gee. But the Mets are so broke that they hafta get rid of one of those two, even if they didn't want to. Their payroll is at about $100M, chump change for a NY team, but the NY Debts can't afford that payroll, and probably need to trim down to the sub $90M level they've established in recent years. They might not be able to move Colon 'cause he makes $11M and who'd wanna pay Colon that amount? And the Mets are too broke to trade Colon and carry, say, half of his salary going forward. So because of their poverty, the Mets have to get rid of pitchers like it or not and also their second baseman, who though flawed as he is, isn't anywhere near the top of the list of the things the Mets need to fix. none of these things are actually true though. None? Wow.

d'Kong76 Dec 15 2014 12:00 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Oh, great. We're like the same age and all. I was born in 1962, same year as the Mets.

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 12:01 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Yes, the margin for error is smaller, but it's not as minuscule as you make it out to be. There's almost no margin for error because they're already tapped out. Unless they wanna trade their stud prospects. This is like those descendants of the Mayflower pilgrims having to sell their antique furniture to pay their bills because they've squandered their bank accounts. And fix those quote boxes. You've got me saying what you said and you saying what I said. Says who? They lost Harvey last year, spent money to sign Colon. They had no outfield and signed two guys. One worked, the other didn't, so they signed another guy this year AND another backup. Who says they're tapped out? I'm not saying they're flush, but a lot of evidence points to them having at least a little more cash, but you gotta wait for your the right cards before you put your last chips in.

Centerfield Dec 15 2014 12:25 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Ceetar wrote: I didn't really read that rant. And there is the reason that it is pointless to have a discussion with you. In order to have a productive discussion (or argument) there must be mutual respect between the parties. One demonstration of such respect is taking the time to understand the other side's position. You do none of this. In fact, it looks like you go out of your way to distort the other's position to give yourself credibility. This is why arguing with you is pointless and maddening. It's like trying practice tennis with a partner that continuously slugs the ball over the fence. Eventually you just want to strangle him. (And it's official, the thread has evolved into arguing about arguing. All threads lead to arguing about arguing.)

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 12:29 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: I didn't really read that rant. And there is the reason that it is pointless to have a discussion with you. In order to have a productive discussion (or argument) there must be mutual respect between the parties. One demonstration of such respect is taking the time to understand the other side's position. You do none of this. In fact, it looks like you go out of your way to distort the other's position to give yourself credibility. This is why arguing with you is pointless and maddening. It's like trying practice tennis with a partner that continuously slugs the ball over the fence. Eventually you just want to strangle him. (And it's official, the thread has evolved into arguing about arguing. All threads lead to arguing about arguing.) Yes, but until we blow past the emotions and the hyperbole and get to actual facts what's the point really? The first two lines were inane, and wrong, and loud. I didn't feel like I was going to get anything from the rest of it.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2014 12:33 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

batmagadanleadoff wrote: And it's not like they've been utterly hapless. One first place finish in 26 years. In a division with mostly, just four other competitors. Until they changed the format two years ago, first place wasn't the bee's all. They went to the World Series and deep into the playoffs the year before as the wild card. If the Mets finished in first in 2007 and '08, they wouldnt'a hadda worry about qualifying as a Wild Card and the infamous and terrible collapses wouldn'ta happened. Is it too much to ask of the NL team from NY to top their division of four competitors more than once in 26 years? Because the Wilpons weren't given enough competitive advantages to field a team good enough to beat just four other teams? Even the Pirates won the NL East more often than the Mets in that time span, and the Pirates haven't been in the division in over 20 years. Who the hell has to primarily rely on a Wild Card finish to get into the playoffs? I'll tell ya who: poor teams from small markets. And even the team from Tampa Bay figured out how to compete against the behemoth Yankees. Do you know that the team from Tampa Bay, competing directly against Bosox and the Yanks has two first place finishes and two second place Wild Card qualifiying finishes in just the last seven seasons?

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 12:44 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Do you know that the team from Tampa Bay, competing directly against Bosox and the Yanks has two first place finishes and two second place Wild Card qualifiying finishes in just the last seven seasons? And they did it primarily by spending money to fix mistakes.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2014 12:57 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Do you know that the team from Tampa Bay, competing directly against Bosox and the Yanks has two first place finishes and two second place Wild Card qualifiying finishes in just the last seven seasons? And they did it primarily by spending money to fix mistakes. No. The Rays are smart, but also relatively poor, so they can't afford to make mistakes. The Mets should be able to afford mistakes. That's the rich team's cushion and it's built into their rich team top percentile payroll.

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 01:09 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Do you know that the team from Tampa Bay, competing directly against Bosox and the Yanks has two first place finishes and two second place Wild Card qualifiying finishes in just the last seven seasons? And they did it primarily by spending money to fix mistakes. No. The Rays are smart, but also relatively poor, so they can't afford to make mistakes. The Mets should be able to afford mistakes. That's the rich team's cushion and it's built into their rich team top percentile payroll. Whatever the Mets 'should be' they're not due to sustained losing. The Rays in this situation probably would've had to cut ties with David Wright too. And Murphy, and wouldn't have signed Granderson. The Mets don't have that revenue stream, right now. They don't, or can't, operate at a loss trying to plug holes with money and get to a point where it's not a loss anymore. They're working to rectify that by making smarter investments over throwing money at it to see what sticks. I'm okay with that plan. You don't have to be, but you not liking that plan, for whatever reason, doesn't mean it's a horrible small-market plan beneath the New York market.

d'Kong76 Dec 15 2014 01:22 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

What do we really know about the Mets' revenue stream?

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 01:32 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

d'Kong76 wrote: What do we really know about the Mets' revenue stream? only what's reported...so nearly nothing. multiple places report how much they lost each of the last few years, but did little digging into what those numbers represent. To me, it seemed like they were reporting just revenue from MLB and fans in/at the park against just payroll. Which only tells you so much.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 15 2014 01:41 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

d'Kong76 wrote: What do we really know about the Mets' revenue stream? They reportedly lost $10 million in 2013 on $238M in revenues. --Attendance and payroll were virtually unchanged in 2014, but all clubs got new boost as a result of new TV contract. So you figure they still lost something in 2014 but maybe not quite as much. (that is a wild guess tho, could be a lot of expenses in there wrt refinancing, harrassment lawsuits, ticket giveaways etc etc). But it's probably not a lot different than that.

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 01:59 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: What do we really know about the Mets' revenue stream? They reportedly lost $10 million in 2013 on $238M in revenues. --Attendance and payroll were virtually unchanged in 2014, but all clubs got new boost as a result of new TV contract. So you figure they still lost something in 2014 but maybe not quite as much. (that is a wild guess tho, could be a lot of expenses in there wrt refinancing, harrassment lawsuits, ticket giveaways etc etc). But it's probably not a lot different than that. attendance was about the same and ticket prices didn't really change. There are things like power costs, property taxes, etc too. Raises for Citi Field employees, or layoffs of Citi Field employees. More office employees. You have to figure most of that's negligible though. But does that include ad revenue? did that go up or down? I presume they got a decent rent check from Amway. Does that include the naming right checks? money from SNY? who knows. Does it include debt payments? interest on those debts?

Mets Guy in Michigan Dec 15 2014 02:22 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Again, which big free agent from this year, last year or even the year before did you want them to sign? We are not talking about any specific move. We are talking about having the financial flexibility to take chances and absorb those expenses should they not work out. You can do this with a large payroll. You cannot do this when you have no margin for error. But if you need examples, Nelson Cruz, Jose Abreu, Yasmany Tomas are a few. You could also trade for high-risk contracts like Jose Reyes or Matt Kemp. It also allows you to trade Colon and get the highest return, rather than off-setting his value by asking teams to cover his contract. Again, we are not talking about any specific move, it's about having the flexibility to make multiple moves and absorb the ones that don't work out. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Foolishly over-spending just to prove you are a big-market team doesn't make sense. No one has proposed this. And changing a thesis to make your position appear stronger is a sure sign that your position is weak. No one has said the Mets should foolishly over-spend. In fact, I've proposed just the opposite. They should wisely spend to the level you'd expect from a franchise playing in the biggest market in the world. And no one is saying that the goal here should be to prove they are a big market team. The goal is to make the team better. I don't think I changed the thesis at all. The criticism was that the team is cheap because it is not spending a lot of money. My point is that there were not players worth spending a lot of money on becoming available in recent years. And if you are spending money on players who aren't worth it, you're spending it foolishly. When I asked which players you wanted to spend it on, I'd say Nelson Cruz was a big risk because of PED taint. Abreu appears to be the real deal, but international players with no major league experience are a huge risk and not that many have delivered over time, like Ichiro has. Tomas is a big question mark. It's not like the Wilpon Mets have never spent on big contacts. Beltran, Pedro, Bay, Santana, the Wright extension were all with these guys. Granderson was a fairly big name and contract. Does it suck that they helped build a new stadium and got sucked into a Ponzi scheme right as the great recession hit? Absolutely. But it seems like after bottoming out, they're rebuilding the team the right way and not trying to buy a pennant. Even the Yankees are at a point where they are having trouble hiding all their mistakes.

Edgy MD Dec 15 2014 02:49 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

The funny thing is that they were broadly derided as cheap when the payroll was in the top bracket. You spend that much and fall short of the World Series in 2006 and collapse in 2007 and 2008, while still retaining the long-term commitments that you invested in with the expectations of excelling in those seasons and beyond, you're in trouble. This plane was gonna crash whether or not Madoff happened or not, assuming everything breaks the way it did on the field. Sandy's first year here, they had a $142,797,166 payroll, with loads of money committed to unmovable contracts for players giving him nothing or near to it. Only three teams were reported to have lost money that season --- two of them lost $10 million or less, and the Mets lost around $40 million.

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 02:58 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

well, that plane crash was fairly horrific with just about everyone getting hurt in '09 and even '10. Suddenly the slope on the backend of the mountain became a cliff. And the Mets kept running like Wile E. Coyote before they realized it. (i.e. Jason Bay)

Centerfield Dec 15 2014 03:12 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

I don't think I changed the thesis at all. The criticism was that the team is cheap because it is not spending a lot of money. My point is that there were not players worth spending a lot of money on becoming available in recent years. And if you are spending money on players who aren't worth it, you're spending it foolishly. When I asked which players you wanted to spend it on, I'd say Nelson Cruz was a big risk because of PED taint. Abreu appears to be the real deal, but international players with no major league experience are a huge risk and not that many have delivered over time, like Ichiro has. Tomas is a big question mark. You just named two players that could have been the difference between making the playoffs, and having another mediocre season. I would venture to say if they had signed Cruz and Abreu, they would have made the playoffs. Those additions add $20 million to the payroll, which would have put them at 14th in the league. Let me repeat that, if you added $20 million to the payroll, they still would have only been 14th in the league. If you invested in Cruz and Abreu, these players were certainly worth this money. You say they are a huge risk. They are only a huge risk if you are short on money. To the $88 million small market Mets, these players were too risky, and were not options. To the $118 million big-market Mets (the team I want) these players are, perhaps, worth the risk. And the upside is huge. The fact of the matter is that there are good buys and bad buys in every off-season. A team with resources can afford to take gambles. Some work out, some don't. But the team with resources is playing. Let me illustrate this with an example. You have two options prior to the 2014 season: Option 1: The Mets have 88 Million Dollars. They spend money prudently. They develop their talent. Focus on scouting. They build their team the "right way without trying to buy a pennant". Option 2: The Mets have 88 Million Dollars. They spend money prudently. They develop their talent. Focus on scouting. They build their team the "right way without trying to buy a pennant". But all of a sudden, they find an extra $30 million dollars. Money they can use to gamble on free agents. Do you take the extra money and take Option 2? Or do you still stick with Option 1? Only a fool would choose Option 1. Let's take it one step further. What if, with that extra money, the Mets had invested in Cruz and Abreu. Do you still take Option 1? No. Of course you take Option 2. Now, instead, of Cruz and Abreu, let's say that the Mets had foolishly given all of the money to Shin Soo Choo (by all means, a bust). Do you take Option 1 or Option 2? You still take Option 2. Because as bad as Choo was, he still would have tied Granderson for the highest OPS among Met outfielders. In Option 2, you have blown all your money on garbage, leaving you only $88 million to spend wisely. In Option 1, you only have $88 million. But you are no worse off. Even if your gamble goes horribly wrong, you are arguably better than the team with no money to begin with. It's not like the Wilpon Mets have never spent on big contacts. Beltran, Pedro, Bay, Santana, the Wright extension were all with these guys. Granderson was a fairly big name and contract. No one ever said the Mets never spent money on big contracts. The criticism was that the Mets should be in a position to spend more. Does it suck that they helped build a new stadium and got sucked into a Ponzi scheme right as the great recession hit? Absolutely. But it seems like after bottoming out, they're rebuilding the team the right way and not trying to buy a pennant. Even the Yankees are at a point where they are having trouble hiding all their mistakes. Every club in baseball suffered the same recession. Half of those clubs in the top half have new stadiums. None of that has stopped them from spending money. St. Louis and San Francisco develop talent, spend money, and win. They do not make excuses. The Mets did not get sucked into a Ponzi scheme. The owners did. And the owners should be capable enough to put a profitable high-payroll team on the field regardless of their personal finances. None of these are excuses for not increasing the payroll. It's true that the Yankees are having trouble hiding their mistakes. But this is yet another example of you citing foolish spending to counter my argument for wise spending.

Ceetar Dec 15 2014 03:24 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

The difference of course being that your 118 Mets ARE the 88 Mets if those signings don't work out, which for a third-place mid-70s win team, is quite a gamble. Are you actually better off with taking a shot and failing? Probably not. What you forget is that now you've got that dead spot on the roster, that it's rare for any team to just cut unless it's real close to the end of their commitment. With option 2, you still have to spend wisely. It's not free money to gamble with, you should still pick your spots. and sometimes that spot is next year. or via acquiring a player midseason that has a contract. Not only that, signing Abreu basically means jettisoning Ike DAvis for less, in Spring, because there is nowhere to play him. Duda too probably. So no, you probably don't get the playoffs. Because some of Abreu's production is going to come at the expense of Duda's. Most of it probably. Cruz doesn't hit 40 HR in Citi Field AND probably gives more of it back via defense. Especially over Chris/Eric Young and den Dekker and Nieuwenhuis. (presuming you mean instead of Chris Young)

Vic Sage Dec 15 2014 03:39 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

I had written yet another "rant", but i just deleted it because what's the point. "Bah, bah, bah".

d'Kong76 Dec 15 2014 04:24 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Don't delete rants! Ranting makes the world go round!

batmagadanleadoff Dec 15 2014 04:34 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs Edited 4 time(s), most recently on Dec 16 2014 10:29 AM

Ceetar wrote: The difference of course being that your 118 Mets ARE the 88 Mets if those signings don't work out, which for a third-place mid-70s win team, is quite a gamble. Are you actually better off with taking a shot and failing? Probably not. What you forget is that now you've got that dead spot on the roster, that it's rare for any team to just cut unless it's real close to the end of their commitment. With option 2, you still have to spend wisely. It's not free money to gamble with, you should still pick your spots. and sometimes that spot is next year. or via acquiring a player midseason that has a contract. Not only that, signing Abreu basically means jettisoning Ike DAvis for less, in Spring, because there is nowhere to play him. Duda too probably. So no, you probably don't get the playoffs. Because some of Abreu's production is going to come at the expense of Duda's. Most of it probably. Cruz doesn't hit 40 HR in Citi Field AND probably gives more of it back via defense. Especially over Chris/Eric Young and den Dekker and Nieuwenhuis. (presuming you mean instead of Chris Young) Oh, enough already. Stop complicating this with convoluted gibberish! A baseball team with a $125M payroll budget has more options than a team with an $85M budget. And the team with the smaller budget can spend its money unwisely just as easily as its wealthier counterpart can.

Centerfield Dec 15 2014 04:36 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

d'Kong76 wrote: Don't delete rants! Ranting makes the world go round! Yeah, for real. I would have read it.

metirish Dec 15 2014 05:58 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: I don't really think about them much. They're not even on the 40man. They don't think about you much either. Believe me. Home run right there , even at Shea

Mets – Willets Point Dec 15 2014 07:34 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Ah, the annual off-season "Wilpons Must Go!" thread. A comforting Crane Pool holiday tradition.

d'Kong76 Dec 16 2014 07:40 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

Ms. Met bless us all! Everyone!

Vic Sage Dec 16 2014 07:50 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

SHOW US THE PLAN... AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

batmagadanleadoff Dec 24 2014 04:28 PM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

One down. Any skywriters out there? Mets Fan Raising Money For Billboards In Effort To Get Wilpons To Sell Team December 24, 2014 12:03 PM [fimg=533]https://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/127517148.jpg?w=620&h=349&crop=1[/fimg] Fans of the New York Mets sit alone in the upper deck during the game against the Cincinnati Reds at Citi Field on September 28, 2011 NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — It’s no secret that Mets fans have been frustrated with their team’s owners for years and eagerly want the Wilpons to sell. Well owners can’t be fired, but one disgruntled Mets fan is determined to get Fred and Jeff out of Queens. Gary Palumbo, who describes himself as a “long-suffering Mets fan that grew up in Fairfield County and now reside(s) in the great state of NH,” has started a Kickstarter campaign in an effort to make Mets fans’ wishes comes true. The title of Palumbo’s page on Kickstarter is entitled “FreeMetsFans Sell The Team! Billboard.” On the page, which you can visit here, Palumbo writes the following: I love the Mets and believe the owners are not responsible stewards of the team. Their poor decisions have placed the team into a position where they no longer invest in a manner of placing the team in contention for the playoffs. They manage the team simply to keep it as a family heirloom. This project is simple, I would like us to create a message and place it on the billboard. Something like: #FreeMetsFans Sell The Team! or #FreeMetsFans New Owners Needed! Two billboards on Roosevelt avenue are currently placed on hold to see if we can raise the funds over the next 30 days. The launch date for them is tentatively scheduled for 03/30/2015 (MLB opening day) and would remain in place for four weeks. Once funding is raised, I would like all of the contributors to recommend a message and we can vote on the best ones along with voting of how the design will look. The money needed is $5000. Renting the two billboards will cost $4000 for 4 weeks. There is a $450 charge to print and install the images onto the boards. The rest of the money will go to cover the Kickstarter commission and production of thank you gifts to the contributors. The main goal for my project is for us to come together with a collective voice and be able to represent our frustration. It’s also about having fun and not being hateful. It’s just a game, BUT I really want the Mets to be better at it with long term continued success. As of Wednesday afternoon, the cause had 48 backers. A sum of $1,159 of the pledged $5,000 goal has been raised. There are 23 days left to donate. During the NFL season, a group of Jets fans raised money for billboards in an attempt to get general manager John Idzik fired. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/12/24/ ... sell-team/ [fimg=544]https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/projects/1537238/photo-1024x768.jpg?1418870901[/fimg]

d'Kong76 Dec 25 2014 09:53 AM Re: Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

I'd be shocked if they raised another $3,800... will be fun to watch the countdown. Does anyone remember the huge banner in the upper deck of the Shea seats...Demons be gone, exorcise Shea? I'm surprised googling there isn't a picture of it somewhere.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 04 2015 11:32 PM Ya Gotta Leave

Disgruntled Met fans channel their inner wordplay ... conceive and pay for this brilliant billboard: ___________________________ Mets fan pays for anti-ownership billboard, with two more on the way near Citi Field BY Amara Grautski NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Published: Wednesday, March 4, 2015, 5:54 PM Updated: Wednesday, March 4, 2015, 11:17 PM When one Mets fan reached his breaking point with the team’s ownership group this offseason, he drew inspiration from an unlikely source: Jets fans. Gary Palumbo, 39, followed the success of the “Fire John Idzik” billboards — funded by Gang Green supporters trying to put the team’s GM out of a job — and decided to erect some of his own, aimed at Mets owner Fred Wilpon, president Saul Katz and COO Jeff Wilpon. On Wednesday, along Interstate 95 and about eight miles north of the Mets’ spring training home in Port St. Lucie, Fla., a billboard went up with the message “Fred, Jeff & Saul, Ya Gotta Leave.” On April 6, along opposite sides of Roosevelt Ave. in Queens, two more will go up near Citi Field: one with the same message, another with “Fred, Jeff & Saul, Sell the Team.” “You have all these exciting young players coming up,” Palumbo said of the Mets’ offseason, “but in my viewpoint, they didn’t do enough to support them.” That was that. Palumbo decided that the Wilpons were “clearly unable” to operate the team properly — a team that hasn’t made the playoffs since 2006. The Connecticut native, who has cheered for the Mets since he was 10 years old, created a Kickstarter campaign with the goal of raising $5,000 to pay for the installation and printing of two anti-ownership billboards near the Queens ballpark. Turns out, there are more than a few fired-up Mets fans: He ended up with $6,700. This billboard is one of two set to go up near Citi Field on April 6. Courtesy of Gary Palumbo This billboard is one of two set to go up near Citi Field on April 6. The additional funds, he said, went toward adding the new signage in Florida. All three billboards will remain up for four weeks. Although the strategy worked for the anti-Idzik segment of Jets fans — he was fired in December — Palumbo realizes that he most likely can’t force out the Wilpons. “You can’t take down a billionaire with a billboard, and if you could, you’d have thousands of them across the U.S.,” he said. He is, however, looking to apply some pressure. “If you have the media here saying one thing, and then a segment of the http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... -1.2137736