Master Index of Archived Threads


Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD Jan 15 2015 04:34 PM

As noted in the shortstop thread, MLB loan to the Mets was closed out with the cash brought in from selling off minority shares.

Ashie62 Jan 15 2015 05:51 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

Bill Maher, for one, can be thanked.

d'Kong76 Jan 15 2015 06:13 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

And what is he to be thanked for?

Edgy MD Jan 15 2015 07:58 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

Buying a minority chunk of the Mets of course. And taking Jeff W. shirt shopping.

Ashie62 Jan 16 2015 02:02 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

Maher looks like Jason Bay.

d'Kong76 Jan 16 2015 05:42 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

Edgy MD wrote: Buying a minority chunk of the Mets of course. And taking Jeff W. shirt shopping. Yuck. And Yuckier.

dgwphotography Jan 16 2015 11:13 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

Ashie62 wrote: Bill Maher, for one, can be thanked. Thanked?!? Really?!? Fuck him and anyone who helps the Wilpons keep this team.

Edgy MD Jan 16 2015 11:15 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

I'm feeling the love.

d'Kong76 Jan 16 2015 11:23 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

Gotta kinda wonder who (and why) someone would plunk down millions of dollars to mutely spoon in Jeffie's bed.

Ceetar Jan 16 2015 11:38 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

if I was rich and the opportunity to own a piece of a baseball team came up? I'm jumping at that.

d'Kong76 Jan 16 2015 11:50 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

There's more to it for me, can't sugar coat it.

Edgy MD Jan 16 2015 11:55 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

I'd be jumping in, too. My prejudices for the Mets aside, ball teams are great investments. Even when the teams aren't making money, the appreciation is enormous. And clearly, Bill Maher does nothing mutely. One more reason is that being a minority partner is the first step on the road to being the managing partner. Worked out that way for Fred Wilpon, certainly.

d'Kong76 Jan 16 2015 12:01 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

Mutely spooning was a play on silent bed partner. But you knew that.

Edgy MD Jan 16 2015 12:10 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

I didn't mean to suggest I didn't understand.

d'Kong76 Jan 16 2015 12:18 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

I didn't mean to suggest that you were suggesting! That whole money raising scheme was sickening.

Ashie62 Jan 16 2015 12:41 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

Fred Wilpon was speaking during spring training last season and one of the things he said was, to paraphrase was, "the financial doings of the Mets are not going to make him any richer or poorer." I take that to mean the business that is the Mets pales in someway to his other holdings and enterprises. I understand what he means but every venture that turns south has a point where the owner yells "Uncle" and moves on. I am going to believe he is farther away from that number than a few years ago. Maybe he will surprise and pony up on payroll and show the brand is again increasing in value. I hope.

seawolf17 Jan 16 2015 12:46 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

In that picture, Bill Maher looks like mini-TMF/D-Dad's long-lost twin-yet-way-older brother.

Ashie62 Jan 16 2015 12:49 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

This Sterling Equities page from Bloomberg provides info on all of Freds doings. You could pull out the price of a Sterling bond that is currently trading and get a realtime look at the financial picture. Now I just need to find one. [url]http://www.sterlingequities.com/companies/equities_management/index.php

Ashie62 Jan 16 2015 12:55 PM Re: Met Financial Picture Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 18 2015 05:26 PM

Then there is current minority owner Stephen A Cohen formerly of SAC Advisors. He has been banned from Wall Street for life but owns a 20 million dollar chunk of the Mets.

d'Kong76 Jan 16 2015 04:22 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

seawolf17 wrote: In that picture, Bill Maher looks like mini-TMF/D-Dad's long-lost twin-yet-way-older brother. I too thought there was some DiamondKnightesque look there.

themetfairy Jan 16 2015 08:42 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

I cannot get my brain around that one.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 22 2015 05:57 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

Mets report surging ticket sales but payroll stays low By Howard Megdal 3:32 p.m. | Jan. 21, 2015 The Mets are claiming a massive surge in ticket sales this off-season, even as the team's payroll remains tight. Ticket sales are up 19.26 percent over last year, according to Mets executive vice president Lou DePaoli. The numbers represent what would be an astonishing outlier for a team that's failed to add any high-priced talent this offseason or post a winning record since 2008, the two primary drivers of attendance spikes for baseball teams. And the reported surge in ticket sales would also seem to fly in the face of a promise by the team's financially troubled owners to increase payroll when revenue rose. Why would the team invite such trouble with its fan base, after years of misleadingly sunny projections and unfulfilled spending pledges? It makes sense, perhaps, in the context of a lawsuit against the team by a former Mets executive who was in charge of ticket sales, who the team claims to have fired for business reasons. The former employee, Leigh Castergine, is suing Mets C.O.O. Jeff Wilpon and the team for alleged sexual discrimination stemming from her pregnancy during her time as executive vice president of ticket sales. A nearly 20 percent increase in ticket sales during the first offseason after Castergine undermines a claim in her lawsuit that the team's slashing of payroll and public lies about ability to spend created an impossible atmosphere in which to sell tickets. After all, those conditions haven't changed. Official attendance is counted by the team, based on tickets sold, rather than who steps through the gate. And ultimately, teams can provide giveaways to pad those numbers accordingly. So there's little to stop the Mets from claiming attendance is whatever they want, no matter how many empty seats there are at Citi Field, and why there's often audible laughter in the press box when the attendance number is announced. But DePaoli talked about "ticket sales", not "ticket giveaways." And 19.26 percent is a very big number. Team revenue has been trending steadily downward, thanks to annual filings the team must make in conjunction with the roughly $43 million they pay annually to service debt against Citi Field. According to those filings, the Mets saw overall revenue drop to $119.2 million in 2013. That's well off the $180.4 million from 2009, when Citi Field opened. The team actually saw attendance rise slightly in 2014, 0.62 percent, to 2,148,808. But the numbers are similar enough that revenue almost certainly remained at similar levels, though we'll know for sure later this year when the Mets make their 2014 filing. If we assume that overall revenue, which includes parking, concessions, advertising, luxury suites, is moving in line with this apparent attendance jump, as it typically does for MLB teams, that would mean $23 million or so in new revenue. And that would be a big positive, in terms of the owners' financial picture, which has been grim ever since their investments in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme evaporated. But despite messaging going back several years from owner Fred Wilpon on down, that payroll would only rise beyond the bottom-fifth in baseball levels once fans came back, there's been no corresponding increase in payroll this winter. "This is, to me, a break-even business," Wilpon said back in February 2013. "I always strive to break even. I'm not looking to make any money. I strive to break even. So if [fans] don't show up, that's hard. So you have to balance it." The team payroll on Opening Day 2014 was just over $89 million. It's at around $96.7 million at the moment for 2015, by best estimates, and the Mets are actively looking to trade Dillon Gee and his $5.3 million salary to bring it down to right around $92 million, or a stone's throw from last season. Then again, perhaps the Mets are right to be cautious until they've banked all that new cash from the massive jump in attendance, since there's no recent analogue for such a rise in recent MLB history, even among teams that pumped a ton of new money into payroll or experienced unexpected success. The Seattle Mariners experienced the biggest jump in attendance in 2014, going from 1,761,546 in 2013 to 2,064,334, a rise of 302,788, or a jump of 17.1 percent, by far the biggest increase. This didn't happen in a vacuum, though. The Mariners went out and paid Robinson Cano, the best player on the free agent market, $240 million over ten years. This came a few months after extending their best pitcher, Felix Hernandez, at $175 million over seven years. Other talent, like Kendry Morales, Fernando Rodney and Austin Jackson, came in as well. And the team went out and improved from 71 wins in 2013 to 87 wins in 2014. A 19.26 percent jump in ticket sales means the Mets are projecting 2.56 million tickets sold in 2015. That would be a jump of 413,860 tickets sold, or 37 percent higher than the best-case scenario from 2014, a team that spent hundreds of millions to improve the team roster. An email sent by another Mets executive, which was given to Capital, cited a number of games as "of highest demand", including Opening Day, Jacob deGrom Garden Gnome Giveaway Day on May 2, the Steve Miller Band postgame day June 27, Juan Lagares Bobblehead Day on July 11, and the Heart postgame concert day on July 25. But thanks to the handy select-a-seat technology on Mets.com—an innovation, incidentally, of Castergine's—it is possible to see that tickets are still available for all these games, in massive bunches, in virtually every price range. Perhaps those tickets will be snapped up if the Mets have a particularly good season in 2015. But really, the winning is secondary, as it drives ticket sales. Payroll is most closely correlated to a jump in demand. According to the Mets, they've managed the feat without having to spend the money, or win yet, perhaps the kind of economic miracle that might explain why the new baseball commissioner just made Fred Wilpon chairman of MLB's Finance Committee. But those newly energized fans are probably going to be pretty upset when they figure out that even the absurd talking point from Wilpon to cover the real reason for a massive drop in spending on the team—the diversion of team and television revenue to finance Wilpon's parent company debt—didn't come to pass even when the team asserts that fans held up their end of the bargain. Or as Fred Wilpon put it back in February 2013, "The payroll will be commensurate with anything we've ever done because we can do it. Remember, the people have to come to the ballpark obviously. If you have a competitive team, they will. Everything that was in the past, that you guys saw the pain that we went through, is gone. It's gone." Clearly, even if you buy the team's new math, it's not. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/m ... -stays-low

Ceetar Jan 22 2015 07:38 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

man, they made a couple hundred thousand dollars more to this point than last year, That's enough to have paid Hanley Ramirez right? Oooh, and skimmed that article and it's nice to see it's not even factually accurate. It seems to imply that Leigh invented select-a-seat, which is just false.

G-Fafif Jan 22 2015 08:46 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

From RotoWorld's survey of bullpens. The Mets have a bit of a kerfuffle to sort through. Parnell should be ready sometime around the beginning of the season after missing 2014 for Tommy John surgery. Until he returns, the ninth inning belongs to Mejia. The former prospect pitched well enough as the Mets closer. Parnell is a free agent after 2015, while Mejia remains under contract for another four seasons. If he's able, the Mets may want to use Parnell as the closer to keep Mejia's arbitration price under control. Closers earn a lot more coin via arbitration. It hadn't occurred to me to view the closer situation through such a prism. Groping around the bargain bin for a second lefty, sure, but specifically giving opportunities to the pitcher who's less likely to hit you in arbitration? Maybe it's just author Brad Johnson's take. Or maybe this is how the Mets are thinking as they perhaps juggle their two semi-proven closers, each of them having put together about two-thirds of a solid season in the role, respectively. Would like to think Terry or whoever replaces him by June (theoretically) will use the pitcher who closes games best, not whoever will be most efficient to pay in 2016. With the Mets, I've reached the point of believing decisions can be made this way.

Edgy MD Jan 22 2015 08:53 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

In my world, closing opportunities will be given to both those guys and and Familia too, and top relievers will be used in tie games and two-inning (or more) stints. And this may help arbitration, as per Brad Johnson. But no, I don't believe they will use less than their best for cost control's sake, but Terry does seem to be leaning Parnellward.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 22 2015 09:22 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

I think that may be because of the old saw about how you're not supposed to lose your job if you had an injury. (Remember how John Franco whined about that when he lost his closer role to Benitez?) But even if Parnell goes into Opening Day as the "closer" he won't keep the job long if he doesn't perform, so I don't really care who Terry is talking about in January.

Edgy MD Jan 22 2015 09:28 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

Well, espesh since he's not expected to be ready for opening day. In truth, it's not like Mejia pitched so well as to put the question to rest. If he's out-pitched by Parnell or Familyguy, he's out-pitched.

cooby Jan 22 2015 10:31 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

Ashie62 wrote: Then there is current minority owner Stephen A Cohen formerly of SAC Advisors. He has been banned from Wall Street for life but owns a 20 million dollar chunk of the Mets. Somebody else needs to go shirt shopping...for a bigger neck size

d'Kong76 Jan 22 2015 10:34 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

He's got more chins than a Chinese phone book! *the crowd moans* Not sure I'd take on a partner that is banned from Wall St (if he is indeed banned) but hell, it ain't my team.

Edgy MD Jan 22 2015 11:53 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

I may be misremembering, but I think the hammer didn't really come down on him until after he bought in — not that he wasn't under a cloud. The larger issue is that hedge fund managers — or big-name big-shots who can borrow money from them — are starting to look like the only domestic richies who can buy a team, or at least a big chunk of one. What (if anything) this says about our culture, our economy, or baseball, I dunno.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 22 2015 12:07 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

Yeah, Cohen was only under investigation at the time he bought in. And I believe Mahar's quote when he bought in was "It's a National League baseball team in New York. They aren't making many more of those." The only problem with the selling chunks of the franchise thing was that it hit the Wilpons hard in that they couldn't keep selling those luxury suites -- they gave them to the new owners. Wonder how things would be different if the Greenlight capital deal hadn't crashed.

Ashie62 Jan 22 2015 06:40 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

In my humble opinion Greenlight tried to change the terms of the deal so that Einhorn would become majority owner in short time if certain covenants were not met. Kinda like a "trick." It almost worked.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 22 2015 07:20 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

Pretty sure all he did was seek approval to become the majority owner as the terms of the proposed deal allowed. It wasn't like he playing chess against Bobby Fischer.

Nymr83 Jan 22 2015 08:14 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

the "Parnell as closer" thing may make sense not just from the cynical point of view of keeping Mejia's salary down... if the Mets end up out of contention this year Parnell's trade value in July/August looks better to some teams if he has those shiny save numbers. leveraging the artificial value of "the closer role" could be smart on the Mets' part.

Edgy MD Jan 22 2015 09:00 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

That scenario has got a robust cynicism factor of its own.

Zvon Jan 22 2015 10:26 PM Re: Met Financial Picture

Does this go here? Strawberry's deferred compensation auctioned for $1.3M The minimum bid was $550,000. ESPN, which first reported the results, said the buyer will get a monthly check from the Mets for $8,891.82 over the next 18-plus years. Interesting stuff. [url]https://www.google.com/search?q=strawberry+deferred+contract&newwindow=1&hl=en&biw=1536&bih=741&site=imghp&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=hNrBVH6P5LAE1cOBuA0&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&dpr=1.25

Edgy MD Jan 23 2015 06:17 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

Speaks more to "Strawberry's Financial Picture," I think.

Lefty Specialist Jan 23 2015 11:02 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

the buyer will get a monthly check from the Mets for $8,891.82 over the next 18-plus years. Boy, they owe me that just for all the pain and suffering they've inflicted on me over the years.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 23 2015 11:08 AM Re: Met Financial Picture

Edgy MD wrote: Speaks more to "Strawberry's Financial Picture," I think. Here's the thing: if he's in such dire straits that he's forced to sell a $1.3M+ annuity (essentially) for dimes on the dollar... does he really have the leverage to dictate/stick to a hard bid floor?

Edgy MD Jan 23 2015 11:10 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I don't think he sold it. I think the IRS seized it and auctioned it off.

Zvon Jan 23 2015 04:07 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD wrote: I don't think he sold it. I think the IRS seized it and auctioned it off. That's what I got. I didn't even think that was possible in terms of a contract.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2015 10:50 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Met 2015 payroll is currently at approximately $100 million.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2015 09:18 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Met 2015 payroll is currently at approximately $100 million. Or a tick over $96M, depending ... http://risingapple.com/2015/02/02/mets- ... 6-million/

batmagadanleadoff Feb 11 2015 07:32 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

New Baseball commish, sounding a lot like the old commish, sez Mets have puny payroll only because they want to, and that Mets could increase their payroll if they wanted to. excerpt: New MLB commissioner Rob Manfred said he has no doubt that Mets ownership has the capacity to boost its payroll if it deems it worthwhile.... "For a whole host of reasons, it's really not my position to predict when I think they need to spend," Manfred said during a visit last week to ESPN's campus. "I have had ongoing, numerous conversations with both ownership and Sandy [Alderson] about the Mets' situation. ... I think at the point in time that it is their judgment that it is effective to increase their payroll, they'll do that, and they will have the capacity to do it".... Asked point blank if the Mets have the capacity to boost their payroll now, given their seeming lack of appetite to pursue trades for big-ticket items such as Troy Tulowitzki and Ian Desmond to man shortstop, Manfred added: "I don't know what their internal considerations are with respect to individual trades, and it's not appropriate for me to talk about that. But I have never had a question about the Mets' capacity to spend if they decided it was in their baseball interest to spend money. I really don't believe that's an issue." http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/p ... um=twitter

batmagadanleadoff Feb 13 2015 11:00 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

The state of the Wilpons By Howard Megdal 8:17 a.m. | Feb. 13, 2015 Adam Rubin had news this week on the Wilpon settlement with the trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims, Irving Picard: "The trustee who is recovering money for victims of Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme announced Monday another round of distributions of recovered funds had begun. ... And that helps the Mets' owners, the Wilpon family." It's true, to a certain extent. But only technically. You must remember that the trustee settled with the Wilpons in what was effectively a hardship settlement, after determining they didn't have the money to pay even what had been set as a minimum during pretrial motions, $83.3 million. So as part of the settlement, Fred Wilpon and his partners only need to come up with a maximum of $29 million, and not for five years. Now if the amount Picard recovers ultimately drives down the money due from Mets ownership below $29 million, all the better. But they weren't facing some $100 million+ debt coming due. Here are the numbers you have to actually remember, and what keeps Fred Wilpon and his partners up nights (and Wilmer Flores entrenched as a low-cost shortstop). The Mets' parent company, Sterling Equities, continues to finance the $250 million in debt against the team. Sterling also continues to finance more than $600 million in debt against SNY. Below is a partial schedule of what comes out of team revenues directly in twice-annual debt balloon payments for the next eight years. June 2016 - December 2018: $21,950,000 June 2019 - December 2022: $22,000,000 The schedule continues like that through 2045. It all means that the Mets are spending more on financing debt than they are on payroll. So sure, it's nice every time the Madoff trustee announces another victory, primarily because it helps people actually victimized by Bernie Madoff. But Mets ownership has far bigger numbers to worry about. Which is also why you can safely dismiss the qualified comments by new MLB commissioner Rob Manfred on Wilpon finances. Notice that he insulates himself by claiming no knowledge of their ability to spend just before endorsing it. Also via Adam Rubin: http://es.pn/1vHGiwn "Asked point blank if the Mets have the capacity to boost their payroll now, given their seeming lack of appetite to pursue trades for big-ticket items such as Troy Tulowitzki and Ian Desmond to man shortstop, Manfred added: "I don't know what their internal considerations are with respect to individual trades, and it's not appropriate for me to talk about that. But I have never had a question about the Mets' capacity to spend if they decided it was in their baseball interest to spend money. I really don't believe that's an issue." Tell that to the fans about to watch a potential contending team fail to address basic roster holes or depth this winter. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/m ... galacticos

batmagadanleadoff May 06 2015 10:49 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

According to this one-week old Megdal piece, Mets attendance this season is about the same as last year if you take out the outlier home game where Harvey returned/debuted at Citi Field following his arm surgery. How about that Mets attendance? By Howard Megdal 2:27 p.m. | May. 1, 2015 It would be hard to have scripted a more perfect beginning to the season than the one enjoyed by the New York Mets. As usual, the team won on Opening Day—the Mets are 35-11 on the season's first day since 1970—and kept on winning, running out to a 13-3 mark that included a 10-0 homestand and an 11-game winning streak. Matt Harvey looked like Matt Harvey. Bartolo Colon, too, looked like Matt Harvey. The rest of the division lost enough that the Mets opened up a 4.5 game lead on everybody by April 23, and the consensus NL East favorite Washington Nationals began the season 7-13. Accordingly, the team's repeated leaks to Newsday's Steven Marcus and Neil Best, touting a 19.26 percent increase in ticket sales in January, which jumped to 22.6 percent in March, seemed prophetic. If ticket sales had jumped that much before the hot start, imagine where they'd be in the midst of a winning season? But that isn't what's happening, at least not yet. Through Thursday night's game against the Nationals, average attendance this season is 30,430 per game. Last year, through 11 games, it was 28,978 per game. That's an average difference of 1,453 per game, or just five percent over last year's number through eleven games. And nearly the entire difference came from the one-off that was Matt Harvey's first game at Citi Field since 2013 in the second home game of the season. This is unsurprising, and the gap has more to do with the absurdity of the numbers tossed out by the Mets than any failing on their part to sell tickets. Generally, teams who win see an increase in ticket sales. But the significant stronger sales correlation applies to teams that spend money in the offseason. This is even true in the year following either a winning season or a big payroll increase. And by the way, no team, regardless of winning or payroll increases, has seen the kind of purported increases the Mets touted absent the largest driver of such things in many, many years. The reason this matters is that the Mets have repeatedly asserted that they will be raising payroll once attendance improves, putting the impetus on the fans to show up for an inferior product before they invest in it. In the meantime, the team looks good. But the Mets have some clear holes addressable with a payroll more commensurate with the revenue generated in this market, rather than one with Mets owners siphoning off a payroll's worth of that revenue to service their crippling debt load. Thursday night, in the first of a four-game series against the Nationals, the likely division rivals for the top spot, the Mets led 2-0 in the fourth inning. A double-play ball was hit to Wilmer Flores at shortstop. To be clear, this is someone the Mets have repeatedly pointed out publicly they don't believe is likely to field the position adequately, until the money ran out again this winter and they were forced to go with him. Flores muffed the play, and the floodgates opened on the inning. Ultimately, the Mets lost to fall to 15-8, which is good, but 2-5 since the winning streak, which is not. A rough weekend against the Nats, and most of their early statistical cushion will be gone. But maybe that's better: A close pennant race might sell more tickets than if the Mets ran away with it like they did in 1986. The 1986 Mets, though, set a New York City attendance record at the time. And those 1986 Mets also had three of the top six highest-paid players in baseball. It's a fair bet that until these Mets invest in their payroll that much—and there's every reason to believe current ownership cannot do so—the attendance number isn't going to rise much at Citi Field, either. And if you take the Mets at their word about not spending money—the one thing it's been safe to believe about the Mets, post-Bernie Madoff—whatever gains the team has made under Sandy Alderson will continue to be hampered by it. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/m ... attendance

Ceetar May 06 2015 11:02 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

62,971 If you sub out the second game of this season when Harvey pitched for the second game of last season it's closer to 51,000. So sure. give or take 3500 fans a game. (you said a week ago so he's probably not talking about the recent homestand. this is the definition of small sample size)

d'Kong76 May 06 2015 11:06 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Meggy wrote: Generally, teams who win see an increase in ticket sales. Brilliant! Meggy wrote: But maybe that's better: A close pennant race might sell more tickets than if the Mets ran away with it like they did in 1986. The 1986 Mets, though, set a New York City attendance record at the time. And those 1986 Mets also had three of the top six highest-paid players in baseball. Right, chose both ways just to be safe.

batmagadanleadoff May 06 2015 11:12 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 06 2015 11:22 AM

Ceetar wrote: 62,971 If you sub out the second game of this season when Harvey pitched for the second game of last season it's closer to 51,000. So sure. give or take 3500 fans a game. (you said a week ago so he's probably not talking about the recent homestand. this is the definition of small sample size) Sample size doesn't matter much here because Megdal isn't trying to extrapolate a full season attendance figure. He's comparing last year's attendance after x home games to this year's attendance after x home games.

batmagadanleadoff May 06 2015 11:16 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

d'Kong76 wrote: Generally, teams who win see an increase in ticket sales. Brilliant! But maybe that's better: A close pennant race might sell more tickets than if the Mets ran away with it like they did in 1986. The 1986 Mets, though, set a New York City attendance record at the time. And those 1986 Mets also had three of the top six highest-paid players in baseball. Right, chose both ways just to be safe. He's saying that attendance increases correlate more strongly with payroll increases rather than increases in wins. Granted, he doesn't show any of the research, but still ......

batmagadanleadoff May 06 2015 11:18 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Generally, teams who win see an increase in ticket sales. Brilliant! But maybe that's better: A close pennant race might sell more tickets than if the Mets ran away with it like they did in 1986. The 1986 Mets, though, set a New York City attendance record at the time. And those 1986 Mets also had three of the top six highest-paid players in baseball. Right, chose both ways just to be safe. He's saying that attendance increases correlate more strongly with payroll increases rather than increases in wins. Granted, he doesn't show any of the research, but still ...... Correction: Megdal links to this piece.

d'Kong76 May 06 2015 11:25 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I'm with Emerald City Bill's response in that link.

Ceetar May 06 2015 11:25 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: 62,971 If you sub out the second game of this season when Harvey pitched for the second game of last season it's closer to 51,000. So sure. give or take 3500 fans a game. (you said a week ago so he's probably not talking about the recent homestand. this is the definition of small sample size) It's not a small sample size because Megdal isn't trying to extrapolate a full season attendance figure. He's comparing last year's attendance after x home games to this year's attendance after x home games. A. It's still a 5% increase. It's a small sample and there are various noises in data that small. Things like weather, hockey teams in the playoffs, etc. He's throwing away Harvey's start like it's a blip in small sample size data because it fit's his narrative, but fails to account for anything else. B. He's also suggesting that the Mets are lying about the ticket sale increase. No, not suggested, outright stated it. Ignoring for a moment that the ensuing 4 games have already started to prove the Mets right and him wrong, the answer is right in front of him. If the Mets sold more tickets in advance this season, where does he think fans bought them to? Probably cold April games against the Marlins and Phillies? No, not unless Harvey is pitching his first game at Citi Field. Oh look, he was! Turns out that those tickets sold do indeed count towards percent increases in sales. Where else? Perhaps an early May series against the division rival? Oh look, the Mets practically sold out last weekend. I bet a lot of those other tickets were sold for summer games, when it's warm. It wouldn't be hard to look, unless you're going to look at the available tickets for certain games and claim the site lies.

Ashie62 May 06 2015 11:27 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

All this over what Megdal has to say? Really? The guy is a troll.

batmagadanleadoff May 06 2015 12:29 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Ceetar wrote: A. It's still a 5% increase. It's a small sample and there are various noises in data that small.... He's throwing away Harvey's start like it's a blip in small sample size data because it fit's his narrative, but fails to account for anything else. He's essentially saying it's an outlier. Ceetar wrote: B. He's also suggesting that the Mets are lying about the ticket sale increase. No, not suggested, outright stated it. Ignoring for a moment that the ensuing 4 games have already started to prove the Mets right and him wrong, the answer is right in front of him. If the Mets sold more tickets in advance this season, where does he think fans bought them to? Probably cold April games against the Marlins and Phillies? No, not unless Harvey is pitching his first game at Citi Field. Oh look, he was! Turns out that those tickets sold do indeed count towards percent increases in sales. No he's not. He's doubting that a announcement made in January that ticket sales increased almost 20% is sustainable given the Mets roster and salary commitments. That's all to be determined. Sounds, as it always does, like the piece doesn't fit your narrative.

batmagadanleadoff May 06 2015 12:31 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Ashie62 wrote: All this over what Megdal has to say? Really? The guy is a troll. You always make these kind of comments that never really contribute to the discussion. I never know what the hell they're supposed to mean. The truth is a defense, isn't it? You can challenge anything he writes about by addressing the merits, but to dismiss him because, as you say, he's a troll, whatever the fuck that's even supposed to mean? WTF?

Edgy MD May 06 2015 12:32 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

You don't know what a troll is? I mean, he is or isn't, but the definition is pretty clear by now.

batmagadanleadoff May 06 2015 12:39 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD wrote: You don't know what a troll is? I mean, he is or isn't, but the definition is pretty clear by now. Yeah, I know what a troll is supposed to be. But what happens when someone you think is a troll writes the truth? When someone with, perhaps, an axe to grind, nevertheless writes something that's honest and accurate? And is there a word for something like a reverse troll? You know, like someone who goes to ridiculous, almost pathological delusional lengths just to post something positive on the topic on hand? Just to avoid or deny negative comments or criticism, no matter how deserved? Because if there isn't, there should be. How about llort? Like llama, but llort?

Ceetar May 06 2015 12:45 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: A. It's still a 5% increase. It's a small sample and there are various noises in data that small.... He's throwing away Harvey's start like it's a blip in small sample size data because it fit's his narrative, but fails to account for anything else. He's essentially saying it's an outlier. Well sure, the idea that it's payroll that drives ticket sales certainly looks better when you throw out the evidence to the contrary. batmagadanleadoff wrote: B. He's also suggesting that the Mets are lying about the ticket sale increase. No, not suggested, outright stated it. Ignoring for a moment that the ensuing 4 games have already started to prove the Mets right and him wrong, the answer is right in front of him. If the Mets sold more tickets in advance this season, where does he think fans bought them to? Probably cold April games against the Marlins and Phillies? No, not unless Harvey is pitching his first game at Citi Field. Oh look, he was! Turns out that those tickets sold do indeed count towards percent increases in sales. No he's not. He's doubting that a announcement made in January that ticket sales increased almost 20% is sustainable given the Mets roster and salary commitments. That's all to be determined. Sounds, as it always does, like the piece doesn't fit your narrative. It's 'sustainable' because you can't unsell a ticket. Also because of the four games after he wrote the post. I'm arguing facts here, not my narrative. I'm surprised ticket sales are up as much as they are, typically I expect that to be a 'year after' type effect. They're already packing the place on weekends and it's not even summer. There are about 1300 Promenade tickets available for the Saturday 6/27 Reds game. Nothing I've seen or read seems to suggest the Mets ticket sale numbers are wrong.

Edgy MD May 06 2015 12:46 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You don't know what a troll is? I mean, he is or isn't, but the definition is pretty clear by now. Yeah, I know what a troll is supposed to be. But what happens when someone you think is a troll writes the truth? When someone with, perhaps, an axe to grind, nevertheless writes something that's honest and accurate? And is there a word for something like a reverse troll? You know, like someone who goes to ridiculous, almost pathological delusional lengths just to post something positive on the topic on hand? Just to avoid or deny negative comments or criticism, no matter how deserved? Because if there isn't, there should be. How about llort? Like llama, but llort? You should probably be a little bit embarrassed and not want to be that asshole's champion. You may even want to reach out to him and say he's not doing the cause any favors. A troll is a terrible thing to be and not something to be associated with. I don't think he is a troll. For better or for worse, he's got his own platform — his own bridge, as it were — and trolls hijack other people's platforms.

batmagadanleadoff May 06 2015 12:53 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Ceetar wrote: It's 'sustainable' because you can't unsell a ticket. Of course it's sustainable. That doesn't guarantee anything. He's saying "we'll see". He's theorizing. Now if the Mets go into a bad fold and drop out of the race, and attendance essentially flattens, we might not know whether it was because of the W-L record or because of the payroll. TBD

d'Kong76 May 06 2015 12:58 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

First thing I do when the Meggy stuff is posted is hit *CTRL F* and search for Madoff to see how long he lasted. Then I read.

batmagadanleadoff May 06 2015 01:00 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD wrote: You should probably be a little bit embarrassed and not want to be that asshole's champion. I'm not his champion. I post his articles here because they're relevant, and nobody else here ever, or hardly ever, posts 'em. Megdal's made enough of a name for himself that he at least deserves some attention. I don't agree with everything he writes. On the other hand, to just dismiss him as a troll in half a sentence is a lazy post. (Not that I'm above writing lazy off the cuff posts either).

Edgy MD May 06 2015 01:07 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You should probably be a little bit embarrassed and not want to be that asshole's champion. I'm not his champion. I post his articles here because they're relevant, and nobody else here ever, or hardly ever, posts 'em. Sounds exactly like a champion to me. Speaking for myself, I don't like to repost any articles. I have done so, but I generally find the practice to be less than ethical, and feel badly when I do it. With regards to Megdal, I don't post his articles because he's just awful — to an obvious extent.

Ceetar May 06 2015 01:11 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: It's 'sustainable' because you can't unsell a ticket. Of course it's sustainable. That doesn't guarantee anything. He's saying "we'll see". He's theorizing. Now if the Mets go into a bad fold and drop out of the race, and attendance essentially flattens, we might not know whether it was because of the W-L record or because of the payroll. TBD no, those tickets are sold. The only way he becomes 'right' I guess is if the Mets tank but trade for Tulowitski and attendance keeps going up. really he's not making any points except that the Mets are probably wrong. And he's claiming they asserted things that they merely hinted about in veiled PR speak. He uses the words 'purported increases' which infers he thinks they're lying. Nevermind that all they said was tickets sales are up X to this point. It's a completely un-proveable statement from where we stand anyway.

batmagadanleadoff May 28 2015 02:54 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Mets insured David Wright contract By Scott Gelman @Gelman_Scott on May 26, 2015, 11:32p David Wright is set to see a back specialist but the Mets may not be responsible for his entire contract if he ends up on the disabled list for an extended period of time. Wright was diagnosed with spinal stenosis over the weekend, and according to FOX Sports' Ken Rosenthal, the Mets insured Wright's contract. Once Wright is out for 60 days, Rosenthal notes the Mets would "recoup 75 percent of his contract" while he is still not able to play. Wright will determine what action needs to be taken moving forward after consulting with a specialist in California. Ultimately, New York is hoping Wright will be healthy, however if he is unable to play for at least the next few months, the club will not be financially responsible. New York signed Wright to an extensive contract after the 2012 campaign and he established himself as a consistent third base option, playing in 112 games in 2013 and 134 games last season. The deal will pay Wright, who has only played in eight games in 2015, $20 million a season for each of the next four seasons, $15 million in 2019, and $12 million in 2020. Wright, 32, has not made an appearance since April 14 and was subsequently placed on the disabled list after pulling his right hamstring. The Mets were optimistic as Wright was prepared to begin his rehab assignment but the organization shut him down again on May 6 after he suffered from back problems. Despite being cleared to resume baseball activities, Wright's rehab was shut down again three weeks later. While New York was not initially convinced the injury was notably serious, Wright was diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis last weekend. Comparable versions of the ailment ended the careers of Lenny Dykstra and New York Giants running back David Wilson, however NYU director of spine service Dr. Jeffrey Goldsetin told Newsday the outcome "really depends on the patient." The Mets, after a 5-4 victory over the Phillies on Tuesday night, are sitting at 26-21, good for second place in the National League East. New York has had difficulty scoring runs early in 2015 and the loss of Wright will likely not make scoring any easier. Eric Campbell (.185/.306/.284 in 25 games) and Dilson Herrera were both expected to replace Wright at third base, however Herrera was placed on the disabled list with a broken finger. Wilfredo Tovar and Alex Castellanos are minor league options, and while the Mets could add a third baseman via a trade, General Manager Sandy Alderson told the New York Post it may be too early to determine if the Mets need a long-term replacement for Wright. Prospect Matt Reynolds may be a candidate, however he has never played third base at the professional level. Surgery is not considered to be an option for Wright at this point, according to Mike Puma of the New York Post, but if the Mets find themselves in contention without Wright, adding a third baseman might become a goal. New York will continue to monitor Wright's status, but if he does not take the field for 60 days, the club could spend elsewhere since his contract is insured. http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2015/5/26/8 ... ct-insured

dgwphotography May 28 2015 03:12 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

This franchise has become such an embarrassment. Would this be a story with any other team?

Ashie62 May 28 2015 03:49 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You should probably be a little bit embarrassed and not want to be that asshole's champion. I'm not his champion. I post his articles here because they're relevant, and nobody else here ever, or hardly ever, posts 'em. Sounds exactly like a champion to me. Speaking for myself, I don't like to repost any articles. I have done so, but I generally find the practice to be less than ethical, and feel badly when I do it. With regards to Megdal, I don't post his articles because he's just awful — to an obvious extent. Mags you are the poster boy for troll.

Ceetar May 28 2015 03:53 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

dgwphotography wrote: This franchise has become such an embarrassment. Would this be a story with any other team? yes.

Frayed Knot May 28 2015 04:39 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

dgwphotography wrote: This franchise has become such an embarrassment. Would this be a story with any other team? Sure it would. Whether it would get played up as much with some other team is questionable, but there's nothing about the circumstances of this story which make it unique to the Mets. Insurance plans for players with expensive and long term contracts are common.

dgwphotography May 28 2015 07:40 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I realize that this is hardly scientific, but searches for Homer Bailey and Stephen Strasburg didn't pull up any articles regarding insurance like the aforementioned article. The only articles I found regarding Strassburg were in relation to the Nationals shutting down Strassburg, and what Boras said regarding any consequences for the Nationals if they didn't follow doctor's orders...

Edgy MD May 28 2015 08:10 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

They took out an insurance policy against an eventuality that may well be coming to pass. I can't see how this reflects poorly on them. Insurance on contracts has grown far less common since the dot-com boom era, as premiums have gone up higher since big cash outs were collected. (Was Mo Vaugn one?) But they're certainly not unheard of. The last thing I am is embarrassed.

Ceetar May 28 2015 08:58 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

those guys aren't insurance type guys. Try A-Rod. Try Prince Fielder. (both turn up some stuff) Pujols too, but he hasn't been as injured to make it pop up in claims. Plus, this is private information and not as readily available. Sabathia too. You'll find these articles on any large-sum free agent contract where the player spends a significant time on the DL.

TransMonk May 28 2015 10:51 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

To me, the only potentially alarming thing about the article is the sentence that batmags bolded....specifically the "60 days" part. I can see conspiracy therorists raising a stink if David comes back shortly after June 15th, looks as good as new and has no other issues for the remainder of the year (not that I agree). Otherwise, like others have said, insurance is common for high dollar players these days.

batmagadanleadoff May 28 2015 11:23 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

TransMonk wrote: To me, the only potentially alarming thing about the article is the sentence that batmags bolded....specifically the "60 days" part. I can see conspiracy therorists raising a stink if David comes back shortly after June 15th, looks as good as new and has no other issues for the remainder of the year (not that I agree). Otherwise, like others have said, insurance is common for high dollar players these days. I agree with most of the earlier posts here, that the insurance policy itself isn't unusual, or any cause for alarm. But the leak might be another story. If you wanna play conspiracy theory, I've got two of them, and they depend on whether this info was leaked at the FO's request or against its wishes. (I assume it's a leak because the source is unnamed. But if the info wasn't leaked, then the info was disclosed with the FO's blessing, and you can skip one of my theories). If the FO orchestrated the leak, then the conspiracy theory is that it was done so as a preemptive strike against what the FO anticipates will be negative press about Madoff and the Mets limited budget and how though the team is broke, they blew a disproportionately high percentage of their allowance on an aging player that's now breaking down. If there's any truth to this theory, than the FO might already know that Wright's gonna be out for a long stretch. If the insurance info was leaked against the owners' wishes, then your idea makes sense as a conspiracy theory. It's kind of far-fetched and diabolical to believe, though, that Wright would be unnecessarily shelved for a long period of time to meet the 60 day period, but not so far-fetched to believe that the FO would pad a shorter amount of time to Wright's inactive status to trigger the insurance policy. In any case, my mind tends to run cynical and diabolical and given this FO and their economic status, I don't put anything past 'em.

Edgy MD May 29 2015 05:14 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Wait, what has been leaked? The existence of the policy itself has long been publicly known.

d'Kong76 May 29 2015 05:35 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

[fimg=750:xyxhjtf3]http://urbanomnibus.net/redux/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/8684611010_54c730fa53_b.jpg[/fimg:xyxhjtf3]

Frayed Knot May 29 2015 06:25 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 29 2015 07:21 AM

dgwphotography wrote: I realize that this is hardly scientific, but searches for Homer Bailey and Stephen Strasburg didn't pull up any articles regarding insurance like the aforementioned article. I have no idea why Strasburg & Bailey are the specific examples here, but OK; Strasburg's injury occurred during his rookie year rather than during a longterm contract (one that he still doesn't have). I guess he was technically still on his signing deal but much of that is up-front bonus money with smaller year to year salaries tacked on and the bottom line is that there's little point (or at least little cost vs benefit sense) in shelling out for insurance on players in their pre-FA years. Whether the Reds have insurance on the recently signed Bailey or not I have no idea. I do know it's tougher and more expensive to get insurance on pitchers (making this a not-great comparison in the first place) and the frequency of TJ surgery these days might make that an uninsurable condition. But even if it is insurable, TJ in this era is mostly a fixable situation with a more or less known recovery period. What clubs want insurance for is the degenerating type of injuries that prematurely shut down careers in the midst of a player's most expensive years (Albert Belle, Mo Vaughn, Jeff Bagwell). If Wright falls into this group then the presence of a policy that would partially compensate for what would be a HUGE loss to the team is simply good business. I also don't get this conspiracy theory tied to the 60-day limit. So if Wright sits out until day 62 and then returns then this proves a conspiracy because, behind the scene, Fred & Jeff & Saul are high-fiving each other over the policy saving them a portion of two days salary? I know stuff like this makes for good jokes occasionally (and, more commonly, a lot of bad ones) but we're going to have to do a little better than this.

Edgy MD May 29 2015 07:05 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

From what I've read, it's next to impossible — or so prohibitively expensive so as to put it beyond consideration — to get insurance against an elbow or shoulder injury for a pitcher, particularly one that has already been hit by such an injury.

d'Kong76 May 29 2015 07:05 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

It's too bad we no longer have a reputable mole here like when HVAC Guy at Shea kept us posted. Ya know, a union guy, a guy that knew how things really worked and got done in the front offices. *clink*

d'Kong76 May 29 2015 07:12 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

This is a little dated, and I'm not going to look for newer stuff, but it's got some interesting things of note on the subject from The Big Guys across the pond... http://www.lloyds.com/news-and-insight/ ... r_30042008

dgwphotography May 29 2015 07:41 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Frayed Knot wrote: dgwphotography wrote: I realize that this is hardly scientific, but searches for Homer Bailey and Stephen Strasburg didn't pull up any articles regarding insurance like the aforementioned article. I have no idea why Strasburg & Bailey are the specific examples here,. After a long day at work, they were the first two who I thought of. I was admittedly too tired to really dig further.

Ceetar May 29 2015 08:03 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD wrote: From what I've read, it's next to impossible — or so prohibitively expensive so as to put it beyond consideration — to get insurance against an elbow or shoulder injury for a pitcher, particularly one that has already been hit by such an injury. Read up a little more yesterday and it seems like it's the prohibitively expensive bit. Really it works pretty much like it works for us. preexisting conditions raise the cost and the premiums and the deductibles. read somewhere that insurance policies are usually 3-year renewable deals.

batmagadanleadoff May 29 2015 09:04 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD wrote: Wait, what has been leaked? The existence of the policy itself has long been publicly known. Has it? Well, conspiracy theories are usually easy to debunk, anyways.

batmagadanleadoff May 29 2015 09:26 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Wait, what has been leaked? The existence of the policy itself has long been publicly known. Has it? Well, conspiracy theories are usually easy to debunk, anyways. Still, yesterday's news reads like the existence of Wright's insurance policy was made public for the first time.

batmagadanleadoff May 29 2015 09:32 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Wait, what has been leaked? The existence of the policy itself has long been publicly known. Has it? Well, conspiracy theories are usually easy to debunk, anyways. Still, yesterday's news reads like the existence of Wright's insurance policy was made public for the first time. Rosenthal's tweet doesn't read like the policy was publicly disclosed prior to yesterday. Just sayin'. Of course, the tweet's vague enough to go either way. Got an old link referencing this policy? [fimg=544]https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8764/17614199193_af11135ba3_o.jpg[/fimg] [fimg=422]http://urbanomnibus.net/redux/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/8684611010_54c730fa53_b.jpg[/fimg]

Ceetar May 29 2015 09:39 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Why would the policy be publicly disclosed? It's not a public policy. There are a couple mentions about insurance if you go back to 12/2012, but nothing concrete because it wasn't part of the press release. Rubin did mention in one of those that his previous contract was insured.

batmagadanleadoff May 29 2015 09:45 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Ceetar wrote: Why would the policy be publicly disclosed? It's not a public policy. There are a couple mentions about insurance if you go back to 12/2012, but nothing concrete because it wasn't part of the press release. Rubin did mention in one of those that his previous contract was insured. I'm indifferent and made no comment on why an insurance policy would or wouldn't be disclosed. Edgy, and now you, both say that the existence of this policy was already known. I simply asked for a link, that's all.

Edgy MD May 29 2015 09:53 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Wait, what has been leaked? The existence of the policy itself has long been publicly known. Has it? Well, conspiracy theories are usually easy to debunk, anyways. Still, yesterday's news reads like the existence of Wright's insurance policy was made public for the first time. Respec-teufle-y, no way. It was discussed openly in light of the Yankees' situation with Alex Rodriguez's contract (also insured). No leak. No scoop. Here's a good primer on the contract insurance game — from 2+ years ago — referencing both Rodriguez and Wright. The newsworthy angle that isn't being discussed is that the Mets may not be able to collect on the policy at all — or there may be an embarrassing public scuffle over the matter — as the insurer can certainly view Wright's back condition as a pre-existing one.

batmagadanleadoff May 29 2015 09:58 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Wait, what has been leaked? The existence of the policy itself has long been publicly known. Has it? Well, conspiracy theories are usually easy to debunk, anyways. Still, yesterday's news reads like the existence of Wright's insurance policy was made public for the first time. Respec-teufle-y, no way. It was discussed openly in light of the Yankees' situation with Alex Rodriguez's contract (also insured). No leak. No scoop. Here's a good primer on the contract insurance game — from 2+ years ago — referencing both Rodriguez and Wright. The newsworthy angle that isn't being discussed is that the Mets may not be able to collect on the policy at all — or there may be an embarrassing public scuffle over the matter — as the insurer can certainly view Wright's back condition as a pre-existing one. That article merely speculates or assumes that Wright's new contract will be insured. It doesn't report that the contract definitively is or will be insured. And none of yesterday's articles read like this is old news.

TransMonk May 29 2015 10:04 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Megdal seems to be saying, "It's not just me, guys."

Ashie62 May 29 2015 07:32 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Megdal is speculating at "what could be or bot be" four yours down the road.

Gwreck May 29 2015 08:27 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Megdal was not speculating on anything. The piece was reporting what other reporters who cover the Mets had to say.

Frayed Knot May 29 2015 09:09 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Except that Medgel links to a Joel Sherman's article as evidence for his statement that "even the team itself sounds publicly resigned to losing Harvey" while the article says no such thing. The speculation in that piece that Harvey will leave via free agency is clearly all Sherman's but Medgel deftly transfers those thoughts to team management and passes it off as if sourced material.

Ashie62 May 30 2015 09:55 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

It all sounds like pacayune bs.

Gwreck May 31 2015 10:42 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Frayed Knot wrote: Except that Medgel links to a Joel Sherman's article as evidence for his statement that "even the team itself sounds publicly resigned to losing Harvey" while the article says no such thing. I was referring to where he cited the expectations of Tony DiComo and Mark Carig, who he cited as both believing that Harvey will be leaving when he becomes a free agent.

Edgy MD May 31 2015 03:03 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Carig in one paragraph says"I think he's gone. And if he's on a different team, I'm gonna say yes, it would be the Yankees. That's just the reality of what this is." And then in the next, to go by this report, rants against fans being obsessed about what's going to happen 2019. That sounds like a man who needs a reality check.

Ceetar May 31 2015 07:34 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Headley and McCann's money comes off that year, and A-Rod's comes off a year earlier in 2018. Sure, the Yankees might be able to sign Matt Harvey, but they'd probably have to really overpay to get him to come to a losing team.

Frayed Knot May 31 2015 09:39 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

It's not like speculating about Harvey leaving at FA time is going out on a limb or anything; hell, folks here have been doing it for a while. My objection to Medgel is that he claims [u:2ys8pwu2]the team has admitted as much[/u:2ys8pwu2] and then proceeds to back none of it up while linking to just another writer speculating along with the rest of us. It doesn't make the speculation bad, just the journalism.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 11 2015 11:50 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Mets, in first, look again to next year By Howard Megdal 2:19 p.m. | Jun. 10, 2015 The New York Mets are in their seventh season since they last finished with a winning record. The New York Mets are also in their seventh season since ownership could rely on Bernie Madoff for uncommonly consistent returns and a slush fund for spending. These two facts are not coincidental. Accordingly, no one should be surprised by the revelation in Kevin Kernan's Sunday column that an offense-starved team is "targeting 2016 as their real target date to make a splash." But let there be no question about why this is. It has nothing to do with the pace of the rebuilding effort, necessitated by ownership's inability to afford a major league payroll in the top two-thirds of the league, despite a cash cow of a TV network, the largest market in the league and an influx of national television revenue. As previously reported, general manager Sandy Alderson has been turned down many times when asking for funds to go get a player. And the inability to add even marginal depth this offseason has left this Mets team particularly bereft in case of an injury. Nor does it reflect the team's current standing. The Mets, even after getting no-hit by the Giants Tuesday night, are in first place in the National League East more than a third of the way through the season. The reality, as multiple members of the front office have explained to me, is a simple one: Alderson has no idea what he can spend, or even when he'll know. And their frantic efforts to supplement pitching with an improved offense is severely restricted as a result. That's a far more difficult problem than simply a frugal budget. Give someone $100, and it's hard to afford a car. Fail to tell him how much money he has, and it's impossible to buy a car. The remarkable reality of a first-place team pushing back its own timeline for financial reasons would seem to fly in the face of the MLB commissioner Rob Manfred's own vote of confidence for Mets ownership this spring. Manfred said, back in March: "I think adding players comes at the point in time that you've built your farm system up and you have a really good core of players on the field. And then it's effective to spend. I think the Mets have made great progress in terms of the young talent they have. And I know, at the point in time that they think it's appropriate, they will spend to supplement players." That statement works as long as the "they" isn't baseball operations, but rather an ownership group who continues to put its own financial survival, which requires financing massive debt against team, TV network and stadium, ahead of any investment in the team itself. The same line has been used throughout Sandy Alderson's tenure, regardless of where the team is on the field. Back in 2010, when Alderson took the job, he said this: "I wasn't hired to apply a Moneyball approach to the New York Mets. I would not have accepted the position were I required to run the Mets on a shoestring budget. ... But we do have to get through a somewhat difficult period from a standpoint of our payroll because we already have most of it committed." Mets payroll at the time topped $140 million. Here in 2015, despite massive increases in revenue around the league, and a national television infusion of cash, the Mets find themselves with a payroll of around $100 million, bottom third of the league. And as we now know from Steve Kettmann's book, which included more than 100 interviews with Alderson, that Alderson believed this by February 2011: "Immediately after the Madoff litigation was made public, I realized that was going to have some impact on what we were going to be able to do." And so it has been ever since. In 2012. In 2013. In 2014. In 2015. But as the Alderson rebuild has produced more players, there's been a separation between on-field expectations and off-field realities. Mets fans could see the team wasn't close to winning, and thus each summer would begin hot-stove dreaming a bit early. Each winter, the team did very little, relying on internal, already-paid-for players. Some of these have worked out (Lucas Duda), some of these haven't (Ruben Tejada), but Alderson made no secret of it: he didn't view either one as a "core player" back in 2013. That both are still here is more a consequence of the enormous barrier to making deals during his tenure than any change in his beliefs, though Duda has certainly proven himself since. So the target date for relevance has continued moving back, even with the improved on-field performance that was supposed to trigger spending to move the Mets from talented group of homegrown talent into a team maximizing their window. As Alderson said in the summer of 2013, "Was 2014 always a target year? Yeah. It should be an important year for us." As Alderson said, famously, in spring of 2014, about his call for the Mets to try and win 90 games, "This team is now about being successful. Being successful is not some nebulous concept about winning or being competitive or playing meaningful games some month later in the calendar. This is about concrete expectations about what we need to do. The 90 wins is about challenge. It's about changing the conversation." And after the Mets did little to add to a 2014 team that won 79, not 90, adding Michael Cuddyer and little else this past winter, the spring produced this leaked moment from Fred Wilpon's closed-door meeting with manager Terry Collins that, according to Collins, Wilpon "expects a much better team." Not that anyone heard this from Wilpon himself, who hasn't made himself available to reporters since the spring of 2013, a press conference in which he claimed, falsely, that he and the team were debt-free. Indeed, even the talking point from the organization about Wilpon has shifted from "of course he can afford to run a large-market team" to how much he cares about winning, as if that matters even slightly if he lacks the means to make it happen. And yet, here are the 2015 Mets, their best pitchers excelling and critically in their cheap, pre-arbitration years. Offensive help is on the way from the farm with outfielder Michael Conforto and shortstop Amed Rosario impressing, but how quickly they can arrive in New York and hit major league pitching, no one can say. And without ownership able to lock down these pitchers as they get more expensive, the Mets could find themselves with enough hitting just as it's time to, say, trade Matt Harvey. So as Alderson and his lieutenants cast about for more hitting, all too aware that targets with big contracts are likely off-limits (though one never knows; the money for Bartolo Colon magically showed up about 48 hours before the Mets signed him), the team continues to hold the top spot in a division the Nationals have underachieved enough to make competitive. But the analog Mets fans need to be hoping for here is 1973, when it took only 82 games to win the N.L. East. And that requires the Nationals to keep on playing well below capacity all season, an unlikely outcome. Otherwise, it looks like whatever improvements the Mets can muster to an offense among the worst in the National League, especially since May 1, will have to come from within. Hope that Travis d'Arnaud, activated Wednesday, can stay healthy and productive. Hope Daniel Murphy's quad heals quickly. Hope Juan Lagares remembers how to hit as he did even last year. Pray nothing happens to Lucas Duda, by far the team's best offensive player. It's a strange position for a first place team with good young players in the biggest market in the league. But thanks to MLB continuing to allow Fred Wilpon and his partners to divert that revenue toward financing their company's debt, that's reality for the 2015 Mets, and any Mets team, contending or otherwise. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/m ... -next-year

Ceetar Jun 11 2015 12:33 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

dude, the horse is already dead.

TransMonk Jun 11 2015 12:43 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Megdal may be a hack and a one-trick pony, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything behind the trick he is offering.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 11 2015 12:51 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

It's like a self-propelled machine: Telling this story especially by this point requires willful interpretations of things (often wobbly things like unverified facts or snippets in an opinion piece) that a reporter's cyncial mind would know aren't accurate. This entire piece is built upon a partial line in an opinion column by know-nothing old-media columnist Kevin Kernan. How devoted to the cause do you need to be to find this a valid hook? I'm a shitty reporter irl and I wouldn't do this.

d'Kong76 Jun 11 2015 12:52 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I didn't read it, but I kinda like the title of the piece. oe: posted before reading jcl's post

Frayed Knot Jun 11 2015 01:20 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

He starts off by citing, in quotes no less, Kernan's line from a column last week about the team targeting 2016 as the real year for contention, something Kernan never backed up or indicated where it came from, or qualified whether it was an assumption, an opinion, a flat-out statement, or something voiced (even anonymously) from within. But Medgel goes ahead and runs with it as if now a universally agreed upon fact then adds that "Sandy Alderson has been turned down many times when asking for funds to go get a player". Really? When did that happen (and apparently happen again, and again, and again ... )? You'd think THAT would make news if and when it occurred or when it became public knowledge but, even though I don't claim to read every press released, I never heard anything resembling that to the point where I've more often heard exactly the opposite even if I dismiss such stuff as more akin to public relations that stated policy.

MFS62 Jun 11 2015 01:43 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

He doesn't even how to misuse a quote from another writer. Once you see the title of the piece and the byline, you know what its going to say. Later

Gwreck Jun 11 2015 02:06 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Forget the Kernan stuff. The quote from Sandy was telling: "Was 2014 always a target year? Yeah. It should be an important year for us." Well, he missed on that. That's worthy of discussion. So is discussion of the Mets' failure to get sufficent offense. It's not second-guessing to point out now that the Mets are offensively starved when it was clear that they were short on offense following what was done to the team in the offseason. I'm sure that the Mets' financial picture is more complicated than pointed out in this or any other Megdal article but the results still speak volumes. I agree with TransMonk. I don't really care if Megdal's articles are a "one-trick pony;" there's still a valid point being made.

Ceetar Jun 11 2015 02:11 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

err, I think the injuries to Wright, Murphy and d'Arnaud are the main culprits in making this team 'offensively starved' No quote from Sandy is telling. 2014 was an important year. He didn't say it was going to be a contending year, a 'go for it year'. all years are important. What he's really saying is nothing.

d'Kong76 Jun 11 2015 02:17 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I'm working on a column.... Mets Cheap and Broke Revisited. It's really a series of columns that I'll be publishing every couple of days for the next five years. Banging the drum often makes me more creditable!

Gwreck Jun 11 2015 02:18 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Yes, no team ever suffers injuries and it's [crossout:bhxq8eae]a good idea[/crossout:bhxq8eae] acceptable to plan as if your starters will be healthy all year instead of having some efficient redundancy.

d'Kong76 Jun 11 2015 02:23 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I wanna get a gig at capitalnydotwhatever! It was a cold and windy day when Fred got the call that Bernie Buddster was a swindler and a cheat...

Ceetar Jun 11 2015 02:25 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Gwreck wrote: Yes, no team ever suffers injuries and it's [crossout]a good idea[/crossout] acceptable to plan as if your starters will be healthy all year instead of having some efficient redundancy. You're not getting efficient redundancy for David Wright, he's elite. You're not getting efficient redundancy for Travid d'Arnaud, catchers are hard to come by and you had at least some hope that Plawecki WAS better than any random veteran guy. You had Herrera and Tejada for Murphy, and that's generally worked out fine. Nieuwenhuis probably would've been fine over the aggregate, just like Mayberry will be. The outfield's kinda been fine too, expect for Lagares who's sorta coming around now anyway. I'm not really sure what the obvious solution here was that the Mets whiffed on. I mean, I would've taken Peralta personally to play SS. That's one, but it's not easy to say that that was financially driven either. Maybe they didn't trust him to bounce back amid PED stuff.

Edgy MD Jun 11 2015 02:27 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Gwreck wrote: It's not second-guessing to point out now that the Mets are offensively starved when it was clear that they were short on offense following what was done to the team in the offseason. Forgive me, but what was done to the team in the offseason?

Frayed Knot Jun 11 2015 02:55 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Forget the Kernan stuff. The quote from Sandy was telling: "Was 2014 always a target year? Yeah. It should be an important year for us." Sure it was. So was 2013, and 2015, as will be 2016. "Well, he missed on that. That's worthy of discussion." -- Discuss away. Just don't start twisting offhand statements by who-knows-who into evidence that 2015 has already been written off. "So is discussion of the Mets' failure to get sufficent offense. It's not second-guessing to point out now that the Mets are offensively starved when it was clear that they were short on offense following what was done to the team in the offseason." -- But did these things happen because Sandy got turned down for players? He claims it's happened "many times" but offers neither the source of that statement nor an idea of which players, when, or how often. "I'm sure that the Mets' financial picture is more complicated than pointed out in this or any other Megdal article but the results still speak volumes. I agree with TransMonk. I don't really care if Megdal's articles are a "one-trick pony;" there's still a valid point being made. -- The problem is he's laying out questionable and/or unsubstantiated claims and then using them as the foundation for the rest of the piece. He's certainly free to bring up the topic but all he does is say the same things over and over again whenever he finds a new line in someone else's column to serve as a launching pad. Old stories but with no new info.

TransMonk Jun 11 2015 03:04 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Ceetar wrote: err, I think the injuries to Wright, Murphy and d'Arnaud are the main culprits in making this team 'offensively starved' I don't believe the 2014 offense was a Michael Cuddyer away from being a reliable offense on the whole...no matter how elite Wright is. I think they would still be below league average as a team in most stats this season even if all these guys were mostly healthy.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jun 11 2015 03:44 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Perhaps 2014 was going to be a target year until the team's showcase player was sidelined for the entire year, and there, through fate, was an extraordinarily weak free agent class with few, if any players, worth offering a huge contract. I think Howard used to have decent stories. He seemed to go off the rails after the team yanked his credentials. I've don't think I've seen a properly sourced story from him in a long time. Instead, it seems we get whispers, insinuations and quotes from equally agenda-driven opinion writers. Was he the one who called the Mets cheap and broke because the team charged the trainer to use the camp for his clients during the off-season? Howard doesn't cover the Mets. He's an agenda in search of an article.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jun 11 2015 03:46 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

TransMonk wrote: Ceetar wrote: err, I think the injuries to Wright, Murphy and d'Arnaud are the main culprits in making this team 'offensively starved' I don't believe the 2014 offense was a Michael Cuddyer away from being a reliable offense on the whole...no matter how elite Wright is. I think they would still be below league average as a team in most stats this season even if all these guys were mostly healthy. But when they had those guys, they were peeling off an 11-game winning streak. All teams have injuries, but haven't the Mets led all of baseball with people on the DL? I'm not saying we don't need a bona fide slugger, because we do. But they've stayed in and around first place with a lineup filled with injury replacements.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 11 2015 03:50 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

TransMonk wrote: Ceetar wrote: err, I think the injuries to Wright, Murphy and d'Arnaud are the main culprits in making this team 'offensively starved' I don't believe the 2014 offense was a Michael Cuddyer away from being a reliable offense on the whole...no matter how elite Wright is. I think they would still be below league average as a team in most stats this season even if all these guys were mostly healthy. It's debatable whether Cuddyer is even an asset. The jury's still out on that one. And it's been a while now since David Wright was an elite player. I'm waiting patiently for the reveal that the owners forced Alderson to re-sign Wright in 2012, against Sandy's better instincts. Those Mets were so rotted out, that they probably wouldn't have won half their games even if Wright won the MVP in the first year of his newest contract. Frayed Knot wrote: He starts off by citing, in quotes no less, Kernan's line from a column last week about the team targeting 2016 as the real year for contention, something Kernan never backed up or indicated where it came from, or qualified whether it was an assumption, an opinion, a flat-out statement, or something voiced (even anonymously) from within. But Medgel goes ahead and runs with it as if now a universally agreed upon fact then adds that "Sandy Alderson has been turned down many times when asking for funds to go get a player". Really? When did that happen (and apparently happen again, and again, and again ... )? You'd think THAT would make news if and when it occurred or when it became public knowledge but, even though I don't claim to read every press released, I never heard anything resembling that to the point where I've more often heard exactly the opposite even if I dismiss such stuff as more akin to public relations that stated policy. I think Megdal's main point here is that Alderson is running the team essentially blindfolded. If true, you wouldn't read that in the press unless some insider leaked that info. It's obvious that Megdal has developed contacts within the organization who are privvy to top-level information. This was apparent at least since the days after the Madoff scandal broke, when the Mets were shopping shares of the team to interested investors. And in an organization as dysfunctional as the Mets, struggling with enormous economic pressures, it's not so far-fetched that there would be disgruntled employees, working under difficult conditions, perhaps unfairly pressured or blamed for the Mets failing, who would want to leak that info. Granted, you have to take a leap of faith to credit an article based entirely on off the record sources, but the thing is plausible. And consistent with what you can see with your own two eyes. This sports story has been underreported, especially in proportion to its magnitude and its locale. And especially given the strong similarites with baseball's ouster of McCourt. I'm still amazed at how first Selig, and now Manfred, can sweep this under the rug with nothing more than the dog ate my homework juvenille logic, while escaping the scrutiny of the media.

Frayed Knot Jun 11 2015 05:02 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

It's obvious that Megdal has developed contacts within the organization who are privvy to top-level information. This was apparent at least since the days after the Madoff scandal broke, when the Mets were shopping shares of the team to interested investors. And in an organization as dysfunctional as the Mets, struggling with enormous economic pressures, it's not so far-fetched that there would be disgruntled employees, working under difficult conditions, perhaps unfairly pressured or blamed for the Mets failing, who would want to leak that info. Granted, you have to take a leap of faith to credit an article based entirely on off the record sources, but the thing is plausible. And consistent with what you can see with your own two eyes. But he's not even using off the record or anonymous sources. He usual move, including the one he uses here, is to cite stuff he finds in the articles of others which either doesn't say or doesn't prove what it claims it does and builds a new article around it as if he's discovered heretofore unreleased photographs from the grassy knoll. And then he throws in statements about Sandy being turned down for multiple player acquisitions with absolutely no proof, no backing, and no examples. If this is actually news then he didn't get the story (as Ben Bradlee would say), and if it's speculation then he shouldn't be passing it off pretending it isn't. And all for the point of what - that the Mets finances have been problematic since the Madoff scandal? Gee thanks Ace. All this doesn't make the topic unworthy of discussion, but it does make it shitty journalism. This sports story has been underreported, especially in proportion to its magnitude and its locale. And especially given the strong similarites with baseball's ouster of McCourt. I'm still amazed at how first Selig, and now Manfred, can sweep this under the rug with nothing more than the dog ate my homework juvenille logic, while escaping the scrutiny of the media. There's scarcely been an article written, or commentary about, the Mets for the last, what is it - 6 or 7 years now, that doesn't mention, if not dwell on, their financial situation and how it affects the team on the field.

Edgy MD Jun 11 2015 05:11 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

This guy is a disgracefully bad poseur of a journalist. Why do you re-post him without comment? At least offer us something of your own. Being a provocateur by cutting a Megdal fart in a crowded room has got to be getting old.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 11 2015 09:27 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

The reality, as multiple members of the front office have explained to me, is a simple one: Alderson has no idea what he can spend, or even when he'll know. And their frantic efforts to supplement pitching with an improved offense is severely restricted as a result. That's a far more difficult problem than simply a frugal budget. Give someone $100, and it's hard to afford a car. Fail to tell him how much money he has, and it's impossible to buy a car. [emphasis, mine] This, I think, is the crux of the article. If true, Megdal broke a story that warrants major sports coverage.

G-Fafif Jun 12 2015 05:54 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I appreciate the sharing of stories in this space. Thanks batmags.

d'Kong76 Jun 12 2015 06:46 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

What's really funny is that Sell the Team NOW!!! was right like a dozen years ago (at least!) and it was right under our noses.

Nymr83 Jun 12 2015 08:43 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I am thankful to not be so jaded or cynical that I have to spend my time beating a dead horse about Bernie Madoff and the FIRST PLACE NEW YORK METS finances in the middle of the FIRST PLACE METS season. Being Megdal is probably even more miserable than reading him. Save this garbage for November.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 12 2015 09:37 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I guess some people, their heads might explode if they hadda keep track of the on field and off field stuff all at the same time. The Mets are in first place in the middle of June? Good for them. Congratulate the players responsible for this, and everyone in the organization that made this happen. But this doesn't excuse ownership from running the team the way they've been running it for the last, I dunno, it'll be 10 years before you even realize it. There's no reason, no justification. The Mets should have a payroll in the top three, four or five of baseball. Always. Among other things. And first place doesn't get the owners off the hook.

Edgy MD Jun 12 2015 09:50 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Some people.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 12 2015 09:55 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Don't act like nobody here knows the Wilpons are incompetent fools unable to make money selling the Mets to Mets fans. They're the worst, everyone knows that.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 12 2015 09:58 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Don't act like nobody here knows the Wilpons are incompetent fools unable to make money selling the Mets to Mets fans. They're the worst, everyone knows that. I'm not. If I post a positive article about Jacob deGrom, am I assuming that nobody but me knows how good deGrom is?

Ceetar Jun 12 2015 10:11 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Don't act like nobody here knows the Wilpons are incompetent fools unable to make money selling the Mets to Mets fans. They're the worst, everyone knows that. I'm not. If I post a positive article about Jacob deGrom, am I assuming that nobody but me knows how good deGrom is? If it's a crappy post yes. If it's an interesting post talking about various aspects of his success, no. I honestly don't give a crap about the Wilpons. it's not about keeping track of off field/on field stuff at the same time, it's that I ONLY CARE about the on field stuff. I barely care about the minor league stuff. Sure, the off-field stuff informs the on-field stuff in some way. But we're not obligated to have the top payroll. The Wilpons put out a product. Take it or leave it. I'm not writing long diatribes criticizing Indra Nooyi for not re-releasing Crystal Pepsi because that's what I really want him to do with her company. COKE re-released Surge cola. GET WITH THE PROGRAM INDRA! You're an embarrassment to soda companies.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 12 2015 10:24 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Ceetar wrote: Don't act like nobody here knows the Wilpons are incompetent fools unable to make money selling the Mets to Mets fans. They're the worst, everyone knows that. I'm not. If I post a positive article about Jacob deGrom, am I assuming that nobody but me knows how good deGrom is? If it's a crappy post yes. If it's an interesting post talking about various aspects of his success, no. No. Idea. Whatsoever. Ceetar wrote: I honestly don't give a crap about the Wilpons. it's not about keeping track of off field/on field stuff at the same time, it's that I ONLY CARE about the on field stuff. I barely care about the minor league stuff. Good for you. I don't give a shit about the Dr. Who TV show, or that on-line scrabble game you guys play. And you couldn't pay me to listen to a Rush record. Figure out what this next sentence should be, if I was in the mood to write it.

d'Kong76 Jun 12 2015 10:29 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Ceetar wrote: Sure, the off-field stuff informs the on-field stuff in some way. But we're not obligated to have the top payroll. The Wilpons put out a product. Take it or leave it. Horse piddle! They're lucky they have addicts like us who hang around in spite of them. batmagadanleadoff wrote: The Mets should have a payroll in the top three, four or five of baseball. Always. Agreed. Where do they rank this year? Anyone know?

batmagadanleadoff Jun 12 2015 10:30 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Bottom third.

d'Kong76 Jun 12 2015 10:31 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: And you couldn't pay me to listen to a Rush record. No reason to get blasphemous on us now!!

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 12 2015 10:34 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

You couldn't pay me to drink Crystal Pepsi at a Rush concert with Jeff Wilpon. edit -- yes you can

batmagadanleadoff Jun 12 2015 10:35 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

d'Kong76 wrote: And you couldn't pay me to listen to a Rush record. No reason to get blasphemous on us now!! That band gets rave critical reviews, especially from trained musicians. But I can't ever get past that singer's voice. What was Lee's voice famously described as by the NYT: "like a munchkin giving a sermon".

d'Kong76 Jun 12 2015 10:37 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Pulling in at #18, your NY Mets... http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

Ceetar Jun 12 2015 10:38 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: Sure, the off-field stuff informs the on-field stuff in some way. But we're not obligated to have the top payroll. The Wilpons put out a product. Take it or leave it. Horse piddle! They're lucky they have addicts like us who hang around in spite of them. Well sure, but they DO have us. But just because we're addicts doesn't mean we have an added right or insight as to how the meth should be made. Ceetar wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Don't act like nobody here knows the Wilpons are incompetent fools unable to make money selling the Mets to Mets fans. They're the worst, everyone knows that. I'm not. If I post a positive article about Jacob deGrom, am I assuming that nobody but me knows how good deGrom is? If it's a crappy post yes. If it's an interesting post talking about various aspects of his success, no. No. Idea. Whatsoever. I don't need to read a repost of a "deGrom is good" topic either if it's already been done to death. I can read the ones that were already posted. if you find a new article with new info, post that, sure.

Ashie62 Jun 12 2015 10:39 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

The first Rush Double live album "All the Worlds a Stage" is killer.

d'Kong76 Jun 12 2015 10:41 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: What was Lee's voice famously described as by the NYT: "like a munchkin giving a sermon". Never heard that... funny. Here's an instrumental: [youtube]WbsC_fGArVc[/youtube]

dgwphotography Jun 12 2015 06:30 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I went to school with a cousin of Alex Lifeson, and met him and Geddy Lee after a show during the Signals tour. It was not at all what you would expect the back stage of a rock concert in the 80's to be like.

Edgy MD Jun 12 2015 06:42 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

"You guys rock!! It's so cool to finally mee... are you playing Parcheesi?"

dgwphotography Jun 12 2015 06:53 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

LOL - that's pretty close. they had their families with them, which I thought was pretty cool.

Frayed Knot Jun 12 2015 07:39 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Geddy Lee, btw, huge Blue Jays fan. You can often see him on camera in seats behind the plate during home games.

d'Kong76 Jun 12 2015 07:57 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I thought he was a big Cubs fan. OE: Maybe I'm remembering he got interested in baseball because the Cubs were on TV a lot in the afternoons.

Frayed Knot Jun 12 2015 08:03 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

A Toronto boy born and raised. And, trust me on this one, if there's highlight film from a Jays game, brother C doesn't miss it if it includes shots of Geddy

Frayed Knot Jun 12 2015 08:08 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

d'Kong76 wrote: I thought he was a big Cubs fan. OE: Maybe I'm remembering he got interested in baseball because the Cubs were on TV a lot in the afternoons. I heard Curtis Granderson in an interview a few days ago saying that he was NOT a Cubs fan even though he grew up in Chicago because he'd get pissed off when WGN was broadcasting afternoon games when he got home from school and 'Saved by the Bell' got pre-empted. So he became a Braves fan instead. Maybe that explains the 3 Ks tonight.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 14 2015 07:43 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 14 2015 08:20 PM

... it's been a while now since David Wright was an elite player. I'm waiting patiently for the reveal that the owners forced Alderson to re-sign Wright in 2012, against Sandy's better instincts. Those Mets were so rotted out, that they probably wouldn't have won half their games even if Wright won the MVP .... It's coming, little by little. Joel Sherman speculates: Why have the Mets not solved their problems? Here are the main reasons: 1. Money spent poorly: This administration has not been given open purse strings, but it was permitted to spend on four position players — extending David Wright and Juan Lagares, and signing Curtis Granderson and Michael Cuddyer. None of that is working out real well. Ownership probably was the motivating force to retain the popular Wright (for eight years at $138.5 million), but Alderson was hired — in part — to talk his bosses out of dubious decisions. And Alderson was on record that it was a bad idea to give second-generation contracts to players when it came to Jose Reyes, yet it was done for Wright. read it all at http://nypost.com/2015/06/13/mets-offen ... der-sandy/

Edgy MD Jun 14 2015 08:08 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Joel Sherman: another place not to look for insight.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jun 14 2015 09:58 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

d'Kong76 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: And you couldn't pay me to listen to a Rush record. No reason to get blasphemous on us now!! Oh man, how did I miss this Rush bashing? Geddy has been singing in a much lower register for the past decade or so. Great stuff. You don't know what you are missing.

Ceetar Jun 15 2015 06:45 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD wrote: Joel Sherman: another place not to look for insight. I was going to bitch about that excerpt and halfway through I realized there were so many holes I didn't know where to start. I can't tell if he's arguing that the Mets should or shouldn't spend money.

d'Kong76 Jun 15 2015 09:33 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Ceetar wrote: I can't tell if he's arguing that the Mets should or shouldn't spend money. That's how Joel rolls... stuff like signing Wright was dubious but if they didn't pay him he gets to write three pieces on the cheap/dumb/ un-yankee like Mets... he wins either way. It's the most crooked game in the city and the lemmings lop it up.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 15 2015 10:41 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: I can't tell if he's arguing that the Mets should or shouldn't spend money. That's how Joel rolls... stuff like signing Wright was dubious but if they didn't pay him he gets to write three pieces on the cheap/dumb/ un-yankee like Mets... he wins either way. It's the most crooked game in the city and the lemmings lop it up. You'd get different opinions everywhere, whether it's the NY tabloids, this forum or anywhere else. The Wright signing was dumb and also, the Mets couldn't, and still can't afford David Wright. They had a sub $90M payroll and they decided to pay a declining player already in his 30's at the start of the contract $18M a year to play on a team that wasn't going to win half its games no matter what Wright did and was years away from contending? I don't even see the issue or the controversy. (Actually, I do see the controversy. But no one said it doesn't take big balls to run a team and do the right thing). With those economic constraints, the Mets couldn't afford the luxury --- and that's exactly what it was, a luxury --- of keeping Wright around mainly because of his popularity and perhaps because fans made fun of the Mets career batting records -- puny for a team that's been around for half a century. Yeah, I know, you're already mocking that last one. But who knows what moronic reasons kicked in, because with eff and Jeff running things, any ridiculous notion is a possible driving force. They shoulda bailed on Wright while they were ahead and let Alderson do his magic trade stuff.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 15 2015 10:49 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I agree it was a reach for the Mets to sign Wright to an extension like they did given their other financial issues but there's probably an argument to be made for it in terms of the larger picture (i.e.: The Mets could not be taken seriously without Wright, would invite the kind of public ridicule and calls for scrutiny they're getting now, there was every chance Wright could be worth the investment etc etc) If they thought the Reyes backlash was bad, Wright would have been many many times worse. Also, no indication that without him on the books they'd necessarily devote the $$ to others.

Ceetar Jun 15 2015 10:58 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I agree it was a reach for the Mets to sign Wright to an extension like they did given their other financial issues but there's probably an argument to be made for it in terms of the larger picture (i.e.: The Mets could not be taken seriously without Wright, would invite the kind of public ridicule and calls for scrutiny they're getting now, there was every chance Wright could be worth the investment etc etc) If they thought the Reyes backlash was bad, Wright would have been many many times worse. Also, no indication that without him on the books they'd necessarily devote the $$ to others. or that they specifically passed on guys because he was on the books. He still might be worth it. Overall he's got a pretty team-friendly deal. It's easy to point to the injuries, but spinal stinosis is not something you can predict. that's an argument against lost contract period, because a guy could get by a bus tomorrow. I mean, he had an amazing year, followed by an average year that maybe would've been better had he not played through injuries and taken 30 days off, and then this year. fwiw, Fangraphs has Wright at being worth $60 million so far while being paid about $40.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 15 2015 11:05 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: and was years away from contending Judging by the standings, the number of years until they would contend is a mere two.

d'Kong76 Jun 15 2015 11:08 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Lazy question, and I heard the answer over the weekend but already can't remember... how long before Wright's contract insurance kicks it?

TransMonk Jun 15 2015 11:14 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

IIRC, the team can get back 75% of this year's salary once he's missed 60 games. So, I'm guessing within the next week?

Edgy MD Jun 15 2015 11:17 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Doesn't fit the Sherman narrative.

d'Kong76 Jun 15 2015 11:19 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Sounds about right... hard to call the Wright signing with the insurance slant a bad business decision the way I see things.

d'Kong76 Jun 15 2015 11:19 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD wrote: Doesn't fit the Sherman narrative. Nor uncle-mags. With the insurance, his contract just wasn't as big a gamble as some would like us to believe.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 15 2015 11:34 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Benjamin Grimm wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: and was years away from contending Judging by the standings, the number of years until they would contend is a mere two. Wright already had an injury history at the start of the contract. And in actuarial terms, he was already past his prime. Two years is enough for me to put the idea in the "against re-signing Wright column". Did Alderson privately think the Mets would be contending in 2015 when he re-signed Wright? I wonder. Plus, the team's still broke, and Wright's being paid about 20% of the whole payroll.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 15 2015 11:36 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

d'Kong76 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Doesn't fit the Sherman narrative. Nor uncle-mags. With the insurance, his contract just wasn't as big a gamble as some would like us to believe. Like they knew Wright'd be reduced to a disability write-off. The likely risks were that the team would suck no matter what Wright did, or that Wright's production would decrease markedly.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 15 2015 11:38 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Doesn't fit the Sherman narrative. Nor uncle-mags. With the insurance, his contract just wasn't as big a gamble as some would like us to believe. Like they knew Wright'd be reduced to a disability write-off. The likely risks were that the team would suck no matter what Wright did, or that Wright's production would decrease markedly. OE -- These are the kinds of risks a big payroll team can afford to take. The Mets aren't that team.

d'Kong76 Jun 15 2015 11:39 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Like they knew Wright'd be reduced to a disability write-off. No one said they did.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 15 2015 11:40 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

d'Kong76 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Doesn't fit the Sherman narrative. Nor uncle-mags. With the insurance, his contract just wasn't as big a gamble as some would like us to believe. We can debate this all day long. People have different opinions. But when you make this into a personal thing, using big words like "narrative", I should just stop responding to your posts.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 15 2015 11:41 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

d'Kong76 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Like they knew Wright'd be reduced to a disability write-off. No one said they did. So then why are you justifying the signing --in hindsight -- by bringing up the insurance angle?

d'Kong76 Jun 15 2015 11:42 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I'm not justifying anything... I'm saying it wasn't as big a gamble as you make out (or want to believe).

Centerfield Jun 15 2015 11:43 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Yes, but aren't we asking the Mets to act like a big-market team? I can understand getting on them for moves not made, but I can't hold them up for the money they spend. I was all for the Wright extension. I hope they spend more.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 15 2015 11:46 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Centerfield wrote: Yes, but aren't we asking the Mets to act like a big-market team? No. We're asking the Mets to be a big-market team, not act like one. The Mets are that guy who goes out and buys a $2,000.00 suit even though he's about to get his lights shut off because he's can't pay the electric bill.

Edgy MD Jun 15 2015 11:50 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Like they knew Wright'd be reduced to a disability write-off. I'm not sure what this sarcasm is getting at. You don't know the future. Nobody does. What is wise is to consider possible outcomes, estimate their likelihoods, manage risks, and live maturely with whatever results come to pass. This is what was done. The Mets are that guy who goes out and buys a $2,000.00 suit even though he's about to get his lights shut off because he's can't pay the electric bill. I don't see how you can possibly make this analogy honestly while decrying their refusal to buy more suits. This would be a fair, if bitter, way to describe the Minaya regime, not this one. Some ugly-ass suits, at that.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 15 2015 11:54 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Like they knew Wright'd be reduced to a disability write-off. I'm not sure what this sarcasm is getting at. You don't know the future. Nobody does. What is wise is to consider possible outcomes, estimate their likelihoods, manage risks, and live maturely with whatever results come to pass. This is what was done. So criticizing the Wright re-signing is forbidden?

batmagadanleadoff Jun 15 2015 11:56 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 15 2015 11:57 AM

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Like they knew Wright'd be reduced to a disability write-off. I'm not sure what this sarcasm is getting at. You don't know the future. Nobody does. What is wise is to consider possible outcomes, estimate their likelihoods, manage risks, and live maturely with ever results come to pass. This is what was done. The Mets are that guy who goes out and buys a $2,000.00 suit even though he's about to get his lights shut off because he's can't pay the electric bill. I don't see how you can possibly make this analogy honestly while decrying their refusal to buy more suits. This would be a fair, if bitter, way to describe the Minaya regime, not this one. Some ugly-ass suits, at that. I don't criticize the Mets for not spending money. Not really. I criticize the Mets for not even having the money they need to be spending. Which they ought to have.

d'Kong76 Jun 15 2015 11:57 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

There's a difference between questioned and forbidden.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 15 2015 11:57 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

d'Kong76 wrote: There's a difference between questioned and forbidden. So what's the difference, in practical terms?

Ceetar Jun 15 2015 11:59 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I didn't know Yogi posted here. "The Mets giving Wright money is a clear example of them not having any money!"

d'Kong76 Jun 15 2015 12:02 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: There's a difference between questioned and forbidden. So what's the difference, in practical terms? I'm not going to play doc g-esque word games with you. If something was forbidden you'd be censored or worse. You are not, you're being questioned. Please.

Edgy MD Jun 15 2015 12:10 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I demand that I be persecuted! This place sucks!!

batmagadanleadoff Jun 15 2015 07:03 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: and was years away from contending Judging by the standings, the number of years until they would contend is a mere two. Wright already had an injury history at the start of the contract. And in actuarial terms, he was already past his prime. Two years is enough for me to put the idea in the "against re-signing Wright column". Did Alderson privately think the Mets would be contending in 2015 when he re-signed Wright? I wonder. Plus, the team's still broke, and Wright's being paid about 20% of the whole payroll. Two years, but three seasons later. It's semantics, but "two years" sounds like in the second year of Wright's contract instead of the third. It's too long to wait to justify the contract. It was the kind of contract the Phillies or the Dodgers or the Bosox could afford. The Mets can't anymore. And I'm guessing that Alderson knew that, but was obligated to act on the owner's impulses.

Nymr83 Jun 15 2015 08:37 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

The Mets need to spend money but need to be chastised for spending money on the 2nd best position player the farm system ever produced. Got it.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 15 2015 11:55 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Nymr83 wrote: The Mets need to spend money but need to be chastised for spending money on the 2nd best position player the farm system ever produced. That's right. Nymr83 wrote: Got it. You don't get it. By your logic, the Mets should pay Tom Seaver $25M to pitch for them. After all Seaver's the best player they ever produced. The team's broke. When you have a sub $90M payroll and you're years away from contending, you don't give 20% of the whole bankroll to a guy who's 30 at the beginning of the contract. Why is this so hard to understand? You can disagree. You can go and believe that Alderson was all for this. But you and Yogi don't even get what I'm saying. Granted, the Mets may have a big out, if Wright's disabled to the point where insurance coverage is triggered. But they didn't know that would happen at the signing.

Edgy MD Jun 16 2015 05:03 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I've already spoken to that last point. Your amazing response was that you were being forbidden from being critical.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 16 2015 09:12 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD wrote: I've already spoken to that last point. Your amazing response was that you were being forbidden from being critical. I take it back. Apparently, I'm not forbidden. Discouraged, perhaps. I don't know. Please forgive me.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 08 2015 12:22 PM Mets Finances 2015

Below is Grantland's short Maddening Mets piece, apart of a collection on baseball's most intriguing story lines. I posted this piece here in the finance thread because unless you cover the Mets daily, or almost daily, it's irresponsible to write about the team without referencing their terrible financial situation -- which Grantland, to their credit, does. For comparison's sake, you might want to read the section on the Astros remarkable transformation, going from a historically bad team, to perhaps, the best team in baseball, all in two years. It's a stark contrast to the Mets, who are run by incompetents, and not just because they got Madoffed. This ownership hasn't had one original baseball thought ever, bumbling and meddling their way through a half assed rebuild. If they weren't so concerned about what the people who tune into Mike Francesca think, they might've let Alderson tear down the team in 2012, making the difficult decision to cut ties with their great star David Wright. The Maddening Mets Michael Baumann: If it proves to be even remotely real, what the Mets have done with pitching prospects over the past few years has to stand out as one of the most impressive player development feats in recent memory. Jacob deGrom, Matt Harvey, Noah Syndergaard, and Steven Matz are all pre-arbitration starters whose stuff and performance merit the front-end starter mantle, though the latter two still have something to prove. Producing four young pitchers of this quality at the same time would be impressive enough if (1) any of them other than Syndergaard was supposed to be this good, and (2) the Mets didn’t have two other quality major league starters in the rotation. By season’s end we could look at this rotation as the best in baseball, and when a team has a front four that good, that young, and that outrageously underpaid, the hard part of constructing a contender is done. Or it would be if the Mets weren’t as bad at everything else as they are good at producing starting pitching. Their offense — and I can think of no more damning criticism in 2015 — is Phillies-like, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Ordinarily, a big-market team would be able to throw money at this problem by acquiring veteran hitters (and it wouldn’t take much of a hitter to upgrade what the Mets have) or by signing one or more of its young pitchers to a contract extension, thereby earning more time to fix the offense internally. But the Mets aren’t an ordinary big-market team, because their owners, the Wilpon family, were swindled into relative pauperism by Bernie Madoff, and have committed other sins that are worse morally but less impactful on the field. In order to attract top talent to New York — or anywhere, really — a team needs not only money but goodwill, or at least the impression that the franchise is run competently. (The Knicks striking out in free agency last week is proof of that.) The Mets, unfortunately, have neither of those things, and GM Sandy Alderson might have already made his fatal mistake by signing Michael Cuddyer instead of a quality veteran hitter last offseason. The Mets have done the hardest part of building a World Series contender. The juxtaposition of that and what’s left undone makes them fascinating. http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015- ... ory-lines/ I started a new Finance thread because I couldn't find any of the other ones. The prickly search engine must be on summer vacation today, turning up barely half a dozen articles with the word "Megdal".

Ceetar Jul 08 2015 12:28 PM Re: Mets Finances 2015

oh god that's bad. come on, the Knicks and the Mets are apples and oranges for a variety of reasons. and if you don't think Michael Cuddyer is synonymous with quality veteran hitter you clearly don't watch baseball.

Edgy MD Jul 08 2015 12:34 PM Re: Mets Finances 2015

The search engine seemingly won't come up with a link that's less than a year old. It's been like that since the start of June, I think. Its productivity seems to correlate with the Mets.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 08 2015 11:40 PM Re: Mets Finances 2015

Edgy MD wrote: The search engine seemingly won't come up with a link that's less than a year old. It's been like that since the start of June, I think. Its productivity seems to correlate with the Mets. Whew. Because I was beginning to wonder whether the words "Madoff" and "Megdal" were programmed into unsearchable terms.

MFS62 Jul 09 2015 06:27 AM Re: Mets Finances 2015

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Whew. Because I was beginning to wonder whether the words "Madoff" and "Megdal" were programmed into unsearchable terms. They will ever be united, like Jonestown and Kool-Aid. Later

d'Kong76 Jul 09 2015 07:44 AM Re: Mets Finances 2015

Seems they just keep writing the same thing over and over. I sup- pose it's partially OK to keep updating and changing some words and names around because no moves have been made to bolster the offense yet. But jeez, it's the same tired drum. And there is still plenty of time left until the trading deadline. batmagadanleadoff wrote: If they weren't so concerned about what the people who tune into Mike Francesca think, they might've let Alderson tear down the team in 2012, making the difficult decision to cut ties with their great star David Wright. Why Francessa's show; has it been documented that his show in particular is monitored and the course of business is directly con- ducted by what comes out of his fat face and his sheep? C'mon. Were you clamoring for this in 2012? I don't really recall a cut- ties-with-David-and-continue-the-rebuild-without-him campaign by too many people. I could be wrong. I'd have to see it in black and white to believe it. To rehash, not signing him after losing Jose would have been the final dagger in the heart of half of Mets Nation after all they'd been through. The Wilponhateclub* gets it both ways though, don't they? Don't sign him, cheap. Sign him, cheap (but un-original, bumbling, meddling and half-assed). * used solely for effect, no one here likes the Wilpons.

Edgy MD Jul 09 2015 09:11 AM Re: Mets Finances 2015

That article is more flattering than it is indicting, at least over the first two paragraphs. The thesis we come around to by the third paragraph, that the Mets are failing to sign free agents in a large part because of their image, is surreal. As if the Mets were hotly pursuing Scherzer, but he went in a different direction because of the classier organization that Washington offered.

Ashie62 Jul 09 2015 09:23 AM Re: Mets Finances 2015

Its no too late to get a slugger.

d'Kong76 Jul 09 2015 09:31 AM Re: Mets Finances 2015

Edgy MD wrote: That article is more flattering than it is indicting, at least over the first two paragraphs. I don't find.. If it proves to be even remotely real the Mets weren’t as bad at everything else ... remotely flattering. It comes off as all-too-typical, hey this is the Mets we're talking about, not the Yankees or NY Football Giants. Much like you will hear on Mr. Francessa's show. Mileage may vary. Do people get paid to write at ESPN's Grantland Enterprises or is it some kind of other setup?

Edgy MD Jul 09 2015 09:38 AM Re: Mets Finances 2015

Well, certainly they aren't remotely flattering, but those are the indicting bits. (Merged with the parent thread.)

Frayed Knot Jul 09 2015 09:46 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I think we've just found our new all-purpose acronym: QVH - a Quality Veteran Hitter Definitions of such will be a little tough to pin down although after the fact vision of one will be 20/20 as always.

Ashie62 Jul 09 2015 03:55 PM Re: Mets Finances 2015 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 09 2015 04:09 PM

Cuddyer is no longer a quality veteran hitter. He is Jason Bay 2.0

Edgy MD Jul 09 2015 04:02 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I may be wrong, but I think you are quoting my post, but seemingly speaking to a point contained elsewhere.

Ashie62 Jul 09 2015 04:10 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Fixed, sorry Edgeward.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 10 2015 09:27 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

And now, a word from your old friend, HM ... On a budget, the Mets go for broke By Howard Megdal 8:33 p.m. | Jul. 31, 2015 There are reasons to be deeply concerned about the way the last week transpired for the New York Mets. But general manager Sandy Alderson, by completing his third and biggest trade Friday afternoon for outfielder Yoenis Cespedes, has relegated those concerns to 2016 and beyond. Mets ownership did not, in the end, provide a dollar of help beyond the money it had already budgeted, and is now recouping, from the injured David Wright and twice-suspended Jenrry Mejia. But the trade significantly improved the team anyway, and the Mets are in position to challenge the Nationals in the NL East. By dealing minor league pitchers Michael Fulmer and Luis Cessa on Friday afternoon, Alderson also served a public relations panacea to an outraged fan base after a deal for Carlos Gomez was scuttled at the last moment. Cespedes is a big bat and a big name, but without the salary obligation beyond 2015. For teams with real budgets, Gomez's 2016 salary was an asset, which is why he was quickly traded for a king's ransom on prospects after the Mets balked. Cespedes, however, is a free agent after the season. But that, of course, is a 2016 problem. For now, it's full speed ahead trying to secure a playoff berth, and Cespedes should help with that. On Gomez: the Mets asserted it was over concerns about his hip, while Milwaukee let it be known that the deal was cancelled over financial concerns from the Mets. Alderson forcefully denied this Friday afternoon, and the Mets have been uniform on this point on background as well. The subsequent actions certainly support the Brewers more than the Mets on this, however. The Mets, according to the Brewers, wanted some help with Gomez's $9 million salary in 2016. And once the deal fell apart, the Mets did not take on a penny in 2016 obligations this week. While failing to do so certainly doesn't prove the Brewers right, had the Mets subsequently added Jay Bruce and his $12 million 2016 salary, it would have dispelled at least the idea that they couldn't add that much salary. Moreover, the Brewers subsequently traded Gomez to the Astros, a notoriously finicky team about injury prevention, and it certainly stretches credibility to imagine the Astros okayed a damaged Gomez hip that the Mets, a team well known for, let's say, a more laissez faire approach to injuries found too problematic. So this is the opportunity cost, really, of not having the option to take on any contracts, or money generally. Gomez plays center field, while the Cespedes acquisition may push Curtis Granderson's far more limited defensive ability to center if Michael Cuddyer returns from a knee injury. But the Mets also could have added Cespedes and Gomez to an outfield in need of help in both center and a corner. There was always Jose Reyes to improve at shortstop, owed $22 million in 2016 and 2017. These were not, ultimately, things Sandy Alderson could do, and none of it would have pushed the team in the league's largest market, which owns its own TV network, into the top third of the league in payroll. All of which makes the upgrades Alderson did find even more remarkable. In Cespedes, the Mets added someone who instantly becomes their best hitter: a 125 OPS+ is just ahead of Lucas Duda's 121 and Curtis Granderson's 119. Juan Uribe and Kelly Johnson are league average hitters who can fill in credibly at positions of need like third base, second base and even first base and corner outfield in Johnson's case. And Tyler Clippard is not only a useful reliever, he specializes in getting lefties out, critical on a team lacking a true lefty specialist. That all of this came at the low, low cost of the money they'd recouped from David Wright's insured contract and the $2.39 million Mejia won't be paid in 2015 for missing all but 20 days of the season due to PED suspensions can even count as a victory itself, since ownership actually reinvested most of this already-budgeted money in the team. Presumably, the largely ironic shoutout Alderson gave to Fred Wilpon and his partners for this basic bit of treating the team like a baseball team and not merely a machine to help finance their parent company's debts drew laughter within a baseball ops department repeatedly asked to thread the thinnest of needles. Nevertheless, that's just what they've done. They won't recoup a pick when Cespedes leaves via free agency, of course, another reason teams prefer not to trade for players in their walk years. Teams around baseball, the Mets included, love Fulmer, who they had to give up to get Cespedes. And this Mets team will have to answer many of the same roster questions in 2016 without these rentals, while the way the Gomez deal fell apart leaves legitimate concern over just how much, if any resources, Mets ownership will give Alderson to address it all this winter, assuming additional players aren't surprisingly suspended or sufficiently injured to trigger additional insurance rebates. (Michael Cuddyer, here's looking at you.) But every one of these are 2016 and beyond problems. The 2015 Mets are three games out entering Friday's play, in striking distance of the division-leading Nationals, and as equipped for a pennant race as a team with these financial limitations could possibly be. For fans told since the day Bernie Madoff went bust to keep on waiting, that already qualifies as a cause for celebration. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/m ... -go-broke#

Ceetar Aug 10 2015 09:28 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

The extra millions the Wilpons rake in from a playoff race/berth and the subsequent raise in revenue associated with ad prices and the like is pretty much going to clinch them never ever selling.

Mets Guy in Michigan Aug 10 2015 11:14 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

At least he waited until the final graph to mention Madoff.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 10 2015 11:50 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Adjusting for Megdalness, it's actually a pretty cogent set of points, with which I agree pretty much to the letter. Fulmer and Cessa is a pretty penny in 2015 prospect-yuan for a no-compensation-pick/no-hope-of-retention rental. Gomez would have solved a lineup problem AND relieved some pressure on Lagares (To rest? To heal, then move?) for next year, too, at below market rates, for the cost of a good-looking-but-not-fantastic-under-the-hood Wheeler and Flores, who-- heartstrings aside-- is pretty damn near move-him-to-anyone-who-still-believes-he's-a-long-term-starting-middle-infielder territory.

d'Kong76 Aug 10 2015 12:23 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Adjusting for Megdalness, it's actually a pretty cogent set of points, with which I agree pretty much to the letter. Fulmer and Cessa is a pretty penny in 2015 prospect-yuan for a no-compensation-pick/no-hope-of-retention rental. Gomez would have solved a lineup problem AND relieved some pressure on Lagares (To rest? To heal, then move?) for next year, too, at below market rates, for the cost of a good-looking-but-not-fantastic-under-the-hood Wheeler and Flores, who-- heartstrings aside-- is pretty damn near move-him-to-anyone-who-still-believes-he's-a-long-term-starting-middle-infielder territory. I think probably the best thing I've seen of his on the Mets. Maybe The Bernster falling to the last sentence means he will finally fall off his agenda-strewn coverage in the coming weeks.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 10 2015 12:28 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I doubt that. The article is still soaked in speculation and relies almost entirely on interpretations of other people's reporting. Really, was anyone here expecting a "sorry, guys, I was the wrong the whole time!" piece had they made a deal for Bruce instead?

metsmarathon Aug 10 2015 01:37 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

this year, gomez has the same OPS as daniel murphy, very nearly the same OBP and SLG. and while he's still a good defender, it seems he's dropped off of late. the cost for him was a starting pitcher with promise who has performed at the major league level and with upside remaining, and a starting, albeit struggling, shortstop. instead, we traded away two pieces unlikely to make an impact in our future club, for the player with the 13th highest fWAR in baseball (19th in bWAR), and who just so happens to have been as big a fish as any traded this year*. given the choice ... i'd rather, so much rather, have cespedis this year, and still have flores and wheeler for the future, rather than have what's left of carlos gomez next year, but with neither flores nor wheeler, at the cost of two minor leaguers who are unlikely to make a meaningful major league contribution. and it has nothing to do wit the finances, either. hell, i wouldn't be surprised if the reason gomez' hips scared us off is because of the possibility of snagging cespedis at a far better price.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 10 2015 02:14 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Really, was anyone here expecting a "sorry, guys, I was the wrong the whole time!" piece had they made a deal for Bruce instead? Oh you're killing me. What's the abbreviation for rolling on the floor laughing my ass off? I'm so bad at all that internet fancy lingo and stuff. As if the Mets could afford Jay Bruce. Howie nailed it. And then Leiter nailed it for recognizing that Howie nailed it in the first place. Here's some Megdal sass that really hit home with me: Presumably, the largely ironic shoutout Alderson gave to Fred Wilpon and his partners for this basic bit of treating the team like a baseball team and not merely a machine to help finance their parent company's debts drew laughter within a baseball ops department repeatedly asked to thread the thinnest of needles. Because I can't tell you how fucking annoying it was to have to read all week long how segments of the mainstream press gave the Wilpons the thumbs up treatment for "allowing" Alderson to acquire Cespedes. Because, really, what the fuck did the Wilpons do? They didn't add any salary. In fact, by presumably pocketing the money from Wright's insurance policy, the Mets actually lowered the Spring Training payroll -- which is what I thought they'd do all along -- probably by trading Gee for prospects in a salary dump -- but Wheeler's injury foreclosed that option. So in the end, they didn't open up the wallet to get Cespedes. They didn't trade their top-tier prospects, either. (I'm not necessarily complaining here, just noting). What they did do is "allow" Alderson to deal prospects that weren't at the top of the deck. What other options were there? Did anyone expect Alderson to acquire a big bat by packaging Mayberry, Campbell and Alex Torres? So the Wilpons are now getting credit even though they once again, handcuffed their GM. And then Megdal just shredded the idea that it was the Brewers that nixed the Gomez deal. Not that we know for sure what really happened, but from what we do know, and given how this franchise has been run for many years now, it's hard to believe that the Brewers puled out. Occam's Razor. That article wouldn't have been any worse even if Madoff was mentioned in the first sentence. The imprint of the Mets dire financial situation is all over that transaction and in fact, every single thing that the FO does.

d'Kong76 Aug 10 2015 02:29 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Oh you're killing me. What's the abbreviation for rolling on the floor laughing my ass off? I'm so bad at all that internet fancy lingo and stuff. Generally it rofl or lmao... not a combo of the two! lol

Ceetar Aug 10 2015 02:57 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

nobody thinks the Brewers pulled out. One Milwaukee beat writer took a shot at the Mets an blamed finances, multiple other sources cite the hip. Statistics support the hip being an issue. Actual Gomez quotes support the hip being an issue. That's too risky for Wheeler. It's a negotiation. You could probably quibble about who said 'forget it' last, whether it was the Mets after seeing the medicals, or the Brewers after the Mets said 'not Wheeler', but it was pretty clearly about the hip and not finances, previous red flags or assumptions about the Mets finances aren't really necessary.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 10 2015 03:40 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Ceetar wrote: it was pretty clearly about the hip and not finances, previous red flags or assumptions about the Mets finances aren't really necessary. And you know this to be true because ........?

Ceetar Aug 10 2015 04:03 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: it was pretty clearly about the hip and not finances, previous red flags or assumptions about the Mets finances aren't really necessary. And you know this to be true because ........? because of all the evidence and quotes? we'll never know the specifics, but it's a huge stretch to blame it on finances based on any of the information we have. It's pretty hard to spin 'degenerative hip issue'. Maybe he's flat out lying. The best lies are based in fact after all, and well, Gomez has a hip issue.

d'Kong76 Aug 10 2015 04:14 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Ceetar wrote: Actual Gomez quotes support the hip being an issue. This I didn't know. Kinda hard not to side with the horse's mouth on this one.

Edgy MD Aug 10 2015 05:02 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Of course they could have afforded Bruce if he was their guy. He's scarcely more expensive than Cespedes prorated for two months.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 10 2015 08:06 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD wrote: Of course they could have afforded Bruce if he was their guy. He's scarcely more expensive than Cespedes prorated for two months. Yeah, I suppose the Mets could continue to swap prospects to rent high-value players in the walk years of their contracts. Of course, Bruce isn't a free agent and would cost the Mets about $20M through 2016 (a season and a third). How do you get to pro-rate Bruce over two months? I doubt the Mets are in a position to pick up that kind of contract. If they're collecting on Wright's insurance policy, (and I'm not sure that that info gets disclosed) their true payroll is probably 10 or 15% lower than whatever's reflected in salary databases like Cot's. They didn't reinvest the Santana and Bay contracts. The Wright insurance money isn't going into the team. So the puny payroll, remarkably, still continues to shrink. I don't think Bruce is happening.

Ceetar Aug 10 2015 08:27 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Bruce definitely isn't happening now. Why would it? The Mets have Cuddyer, Cespedes, and Granderson. Next year, even if they don't extend Cespedes which might be the right move anyway, they have those two, plus Conforto and Nimmo. They don't NEED Bruce. Gomez helped them in a CF spot, but not with a busted hip. And that's without mentioning that the Mets are already paying a CFer in Lagares. You can't cherry pick when the finances play a part. Why would they pay two center fielders? were they going to move Gomez to a corner? No, not only would they still have a logjam there, he doesn't really have the numbers to play there. Sure, you gamble on the health and bounceback in center (not for Wheeler) but in a corner? no point. Complaining the Mets didn't throw money at Bruce just seems like cherry-picking a reason to be angry. What about Johnny Peralta or Kang? THOSE are the guys that it's much easier to pin a money reason on. They're both gambles in their own way (And Kang isn't playing SS, but they played Flores so that's not really a reason) but the payoff is a hell of a lot higher than Jay Bruce.

Edgy MD Aug 10 2015 08:53 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't think Bruce is happening. Neither do I. I also have little doubt they would have traded for him if he was the deal they found preferable. I'm unsure as to why Bruce is even an issue on August 10.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 10 2015 09:30 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD wrote: I'm unsure as to why Bruce is even an issue on August 10. Me too. I'm not the one(s) who made Bruce an issue.

Mets Guy in Michigan Aug 10 2015 10:03 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Wait, the Mets made a series of moves, including a very big one involving one prospect who was years away (and in the one area where have a surplus of talent) in exchange for arguably the best hitter on the market. Said moves appear to propel team into first place in mid-August for the first time since, what, 2009? and some of you guys are STILL unhappy?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 11 2015 05:39 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'm unsure as to why Bruce is even an issue on August 10. Me too. I'm not the one(s) who made Bruce an issue. Yes you did. That entire article you posted boiled down to this idea : had the Mets subsequently added Jay Bruce and his $12 million 2016 salary, it would have dispelled at least the idea that they couldn't add that much salary.

TransMonk Aug 11 2015 08:51 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Bruce definitely isn't happening now. Why would it? The Mets have Cuddyer, Cespedes, and Granderson. Next year, even if they don't extend Cespedes which might be the right move anyway, they have those two, plus Conforto and Nimmo. They don't NEED Bruce. Don't forget Lagares. I would also throw out an idea that was mentioned in the TV booth last night: d'Arnaud may play some in the outfield next season as well in order to utilize Plawecki and Travis at the same time. I can see where the Mets would have wanted to lean towards a trade that didn't congest the outfield any further next season. I'm not suggesting that any of the options already under contract for next year are better than Gomez or Bruce or that finances had nothing to do with it, but the Mets have too many players for the outfield as it is for 2016.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 11 2015 10:34 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm unsure as to why Bruce is even an issue on August 10. Me too. I'm not the one(s) who made Bruce an issue. Yes you did. That entire article you posted boiled down to this idea : had the Mets subsequently added Jay Bruce and his $12 million 2016 salary, it would have dispelled at least the idea that they couldn't add that much salary. I didn't read the piece as being about Bruce. In fact, I didn't even notice that Bruce was in the piece until I re-read it after I responded to Edgy's post. If anything, I think, Bruce was merely HM's latest prop to demonstrate the Mets poverty. You could probably substitute Gomez (or any $10M/year player, really) for Bruce to make the exact same point. Unless you believe that the Mets backed away from Gomez because of his hip. Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Wait, the Mets made a series of moves, including a very big one involving one prospect who was years away (and in the one area where have a surplus of talent) in exchange for arguably the best hitter on the market. Said moves appear to propel team into first place in mid-August for the first time since, what, 2009? and some of you guys are STILL unhappy? Why can't we? It's not black and white. I can revel in the happenings of the last two weeks or so, about as thrilling a two-week run as any in franchise history. And at the same time, I can still acknowledge that the Mets are embarrasingly broke and are run by owners who, by all reason, should be forced to sell the team by the league. If the Mets win the pennant this year, something that's no longer implausible, they should give the MVP award to Sandy Alderson because Sandy Alderson is basically, steering the Titanic.

Mets Guy in Michigan Aug 11 2015 10:39 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Why can't we? It's not black and white. I can revel in the happenings of the last two weeks or so, about as thrilling a two-week run as any in franchise history. And at the same time, I can still acknowledge that the Mets are embarrassingly broke and are run by owners who, by all reason, should be forced to sell the team by the league. If the Mets win the pennant this year, something that's not implausible, they should give the MVP award to Sandy Alderson because Sandy Alderson is basically, steering the Titanic. But it's not the Titanic if they are in first place in mid-August and have a stud rotation all under control for several years. I'd argue the MFYs, despite pouring money into the team, are more similar to the Titanic with fossils aplenty and some very, very big contracts that are absolute anchors.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 11 2015 10:48 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: But it's not the Titanic if they are in first place in mid-August and ... Financially speaking ....

Ceetar Aug 11 2015 10:53 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Carlos Gomez came into Friday 0 for 12 with eight strikeouts against Washington starter Jordan Zimmermann. But the reason he’s out of the lineup for the third consecutive game was a troublesome right hip that’s been bothering him for the past couple weeks. “I’ve been playing with a wrap around it for the last two weeks,” he said. “I don’t like to (complain) about it, but I haven’t been completely 100 percent. I’d be feeling it running to first base and it got worse, so we stepped back and I’m resting. “I could play through it, but it’s better to play one or two less days (than make it worse).” That's from the Journal Sentinel in Milwaukee. With quotes from Gomez. About his hip. About it hurting. About not being 100%. About missing time. He had an MRI on his hip. When you try to trade damaged goods, you don't get top prospects* in return. The Mets have a bunch of homegrown players. And they have contributors via free agency in Cuddyer, Granderson, Colon. They've got guys in trades. Cespedes, d'Arnaud, Johnson, Syndergaard, Uribe. I'm not really sure what the point of being at the top of the payroll standings does for the Mets exactly. Whatever the cause of it (Yes, mostly money. Maybe all money. We don't know the specifics or how much), the Mets chose to run the team a different way than flat out spending. It's working. THAT is the goal, not the spending. The Mets will spend more, as needed, in the next few years because the financial boon from this run (provided they do actually make the playoffs) will make it impossible to 'hide' money. They've reported losses or minimal gains the last few years, in part due to creative accounting (hint: everyone does this), but they won't be able to fudge that when the flat out ticket sales eclipse the payroll. So they'll reinvest (some of) that money. It's not really that complicated. But the goal isn't to have a top payroll, it's to have a top team. Also, it's not like they're spending nothing.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 11 2015 11:05 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Ceetar wrote: I'm not really sure what the point of being at the top of the payroll standings does for the Mets exactly. I've been reading this line of thinking on this forum from you and a couple of others for what, years now, I think. I guess you and a couple of others here must believe that it wouldn't make a difference if the Mets had an additional 30 or 40 or 50 million dollars a year to spend on payroll ... that those dozens of extra millions of dollars a year wouldn't be able to improve the team at all. Ceetar wrote: We don't know the specifics or how much), the Mets chose to run the team a different way than flat out spending. It's working. THAT is the goal, not the spending. We must have different standards. At no other time in the history of baseball has there been a stronger correlation between payroll levels and team wins. And the Mets, who play in the most lucrative market in the world ... do I have to finish this sentence? They haven't had a winning record in almost a decade. What's working?

d'Kong76 Aug 11 2015 11:32 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I've been reading this line of thinking on this forum from you and a couple of others for what, years now, I think. I guess you and a couple of others here must believe that it wouldn't make a difference if the Mets had an additional 30 or 40 or 50 million dollars a year to spend on payroll ... that those dozens of extra millions of dollars a year wouldn't be able to improve the team at all. There's very little of that here. Please provide examples.

Ceetar Aug 11 2015 11:41 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I guess you and a couple of others here must believe that it wouldn't make a difference if the Mets had an additional 30 or 40 or 50 million dollars a year to spend on payroll ... that those dozens of extra millions of dollars a year wouldn't be able to improve the team at all. You mean like in 2010: "hey we had an off year full of injuries, let's sign a power All-Star bat with a 134 OPS+ who's only 30!" Maybe it's just that I've made my piece with the Mets, at least for now, only spending what they pull in. Attendance is booming as are ticket sales. That'll continue, they'll spend. They've spent to improve the team the last few years. They filled holes in the middle of this one. They weathered injuries. They're in first place. I see no reason to believe they won't do something this offseason as well, but I don't really care if they push the budget to the max and leverage every inch of revenue. Isn't over-leveraging what got them into this mess?

batmagadanleadoff Aug 11 2015 11:58 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

d'Kong76 wrote: There's very little of that here. Please provide examples. Bullshit. What for?

batmagadanleadoff Aug 11 2015 12:00 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

d'Kong76 wrote: There's very little of that here. A little. A lot. It's all subjective. d'Kong76 wrote: Please provide examples. What for? That'll result in a lot of pleasantries. Draw your own conclusions. Or pretend that I make this shit up.

d'Kong76 Aug 11 2015 12:07 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Don't dismiss me bro, I'm just asking you to show your work. You asked Ceetar how he drew his conclusions earlier in the thread. My asking you to do the same is no different.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 11 2015 12:11 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

d'Kong76 wrote: Don't dismiss me bro, I'm just asking you to show your work. You asked Ceetar how he drew his conclusions earlier in the thread. My asking you to do the same is no different. What? You want me to name names? Have you no sense of decency?

d'Kong76 Aug 11 2015 12:17 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Anonymous quotes would be fine.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 11 2015 01:14 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I'd prefer this thread not go there, myself. Suffice it to say there's a little bit of exaggeration going on as a means to make a point. That said I think the Mets must have had concerns that went beyond salary for Gomez since he was relatively cheap to begin with; and probably best-suited for our needs now and next year, if you also believe that Lagares may require elbow surgery (worth mentioning, he would seem to offer proof that you can play a diminished game while injured). Maybe, like Lagares, the concern was he'd require surgery eventually and they didn't anticipate having the financial ability to deal with that. At some level it's always about the money.

d'Kong76 Aug 11 2015 01:19 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

A little bit of exaggeration? It's been FIVE years! And we all know it's about the money. We don't need to be told out of the side of batmags mouth that (some) of the forum is stupid for not seeing so. WE SEE IT!!

Centerfield Aug 11 2015 01:26 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: There's very little of that here. Please provide examples. Bullshit. What for? Because any time you say that "you and a couple others here" believe something, you should be able to say who. But I'll do it for you. ceetar absolutely believes that $30-$50 million extra in available payroll is pointless. He has fought me about this constantly. Mets Guy in Michigan believes that you. It comes across in his post earlier in this thread: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: But it's not the Titanic if they are in first place in mid-August and ... Other than that, I don't see anyone else falling into this camp. For what it's worth, I think most people here agree with batmagadan. Being in first place is great, but the Wilpons are still terrible. Having a NY team with a bottom third payroll is unacceptable, regardless of your place in the standings. It's great that the Mets are in first. And it's great to have a great rotation all under control for the next several years. But as a large market team, they should also be able to spend a boatload of money on established talent that takes this team from being competitive, to dominant. Asking anything less from your owners is to let them off the hook. The counter-arguments about money poorly spent are distractors and irrelevant. No one here is advocating that the additional money be spent poorly. As far as I know, there is no requirement attaching the extra money to poor decisions. What batmags, and Vic, and many others here want is for the Mets do everything that they have done to maximize their resources, and also have at their disposal, the financial capability of a big market team.

duan Aug 11 2015 01:27 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I think Megdal is (as usual) overplaying the thing to the point where he undermines the actual legitimate point he's making. In terms of Gomez, I think it's acceptable for them Mets to think IF Carlos Gomez' hip is bothering him, and we see that there's a genuine attrition (and don't forget they may well have been able to compare to what they had when he was at the club) then what are the chances that he'll outproduce Cuddyer/Conforto/Lagares and if he can't out produce them, what is the point and certainly it is not worth flipping Wheeler plus Flores for him - and certainly (small sample size accepted) his OPS of .630 since joining Heuston might indicate they had a point. Of course, Yoenis Cespedes has an OPS of only .676 ... and by all accounts no dodgy hip.

themetfairy Aug 11 2015 01:29 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Centerfield wrote: For what it's worth, I think most people here agree with batmagadan. Being in first place is great, but the Wilpons are still terrible. Having a NY team with a bottom third payroll is unacceptable, regardless of your place in the standings. It's great that the Mets are in first. And it's great to have a great rotation all under control for the next several years. But as a large market team, they should also be able to spend a boatload of money on established talent that takes this team from being competitive, to dominant. Asking anything less from your owners is to let them off the hook. I love you, man!

d'Kong76 Aug 11 2015 01:43 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I mostly agree too. But, when he says the forum doesn't get it all he's doing is looking to poke some of us with a stick. Fuck it, won't be the first time he's made me take some time off. Let's go Mets.

Ceetar Aug 11 2015 01:46 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Centerfield wrote: The counter-arguments about money poorly spent are distractors and irrelevant. No one here is advocating that the additional money be spent poorly. As far as I know, there is no requirement attaching the extra money to poor decisions. What batmags, and Vic, and many others here want is for the Mets do everything that they have done to maximize their resources, and also have at their disposal, the financial capability of a big market team. It's not a fucking roadmap. A lot of the money is spent poorly. Spending poorly and then covering up that poor spending with more spending is one of the melange of things that got the Mets into this sticky situation. You're almost obligated to throw more money after bad money to try to justify it all in aggregate. (again, see Jason Bay. Good decision in a vacuum, probably a poor one combined with everything else) So what can you do but spend the money with the maximum return? Go for it when you've got a shot (The Johan Santana example. Bad in a vacuum, probably good overall) Regardless, the Mets and Wilpons OWE US NOTHING. It's a business. There are very few, if any (Dodgers?), run the way you propose. The Mets, through a collection of mostly unavoidable circumstances, got themselves into a sticky situation financially where they DON'T have the mythical 'vast resources' of a NY team in a big market. (again, some creative accounting here, of which we're so far removed from we really, Megdal included, have no idea about) But guess what? the Mets (and by Mets I mean the Mets not Sterling/Wilpon/etc) ARE IN FACT doing everything they can to maximize their resources and revenue streams. Many of the signs point towards light at the end of the tunnel and coming out of the 'rebuilding period' or whatever you want to call it. To suddenly demand they sling money around like the Dodgers in advance of maximizing those resources and revenues is foolish. Yes, maybe if they had money to burn and less loans they could do that and taking a higher percentage shot this/recent years, but they didn't. It's over. The Wilpons will own the team the rest of our lives. The next few years are set up to be pretty good and it seems endlessly tiring to constantly harp on HOW the Wilpons aught to spend their money

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 11 2015 01:54 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I'm going to disagree with the "unavoidable" part, except where the fact that the Wilpons being incompetent means fucking things up is unavoidable.

Ceetar Aug 11 2015 01:57 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm going to disagree with the "unavoidable" part, except where the fact that the Wilpons being incompetent means fucking things up is unavoidable. I mean, everything's avoidable. They could've put more of the stadium burden on the fans/city. They could've decided to build, and pay for, it a few years earlier rather than right as the economy was collapsing. They could've been the smartest people in (on?) Wall Street and dumped Madoff before he was caught. But it feels unlikely.

d'Kong76 Aug 11 2015 02:03 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

The sad thing is is that some 'fans' want to cheapen what's been going on the last (what is it 11 of 15) days with more talk of cheapness. We're all a little (a lot) OCD about the Mets in our own ways... but is now really the time to be beating the Mets still suck drum? I don't think so, stick up for whatever side ya'll want.

Centerfield Aug 11 2015 02:06 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

CF and Ceetar Financial Discussions (Cliff's Notes Version) CF: I want owners who support a large payroll and spend wisely. Ceetar: Yes, but a large payroll doesn't insure success. CF: Agreed. But it increases a team's likelihood of success and sustained excellence. Ceetar: But it doesn't always work. Look at the (insert name of bad team). The money is not helping them. CF: Agreed. I want the owners to support a large payroll and spend it wisely. Not like (bad team). Ceetar: But lots of teams spend poorly! Look at (another team) and (another team)! They also spent poorly. Don't you think (bad team) regrets signing (overpaid player)? Bad bad. CF: Yes. Spending foolishly is bad. I want to spend wisely. Ceetar: We are in first place! CF: Yay! Ceetar: The owners owe you nothing.

Centerfield Aug 11 2015 02:10 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

d'Kong76 wrote: I mostly agree too. But, when he says the forum doesn't get it all he's doing is looking to poke some of us with a stick. Fuck it, won't be the first time he's made me take some time off. Let's go Mets. New rule. No more stick poking. I'm looking at you fman.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 11 2015 02:26 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

d'Kong76 wrote: I mostly agree too. But, when he says the forum doesn't get it all he's doing is looking to poke some of us with a stick. Fuck it, won't be the first time he's made me take some time off. Let's go Mets. So where did I write that "the forum" doesn't get it? Show me. Name names. I'm just tired of reading posts that state that money doesn't matter, that the Mets don't need to spend more money, that all the money in the world wouldn't improve this team be even one simple win. It's ridiculous. Take it up with them when you read their posts. You won't though, not in million years, because your responses are based on the poster and not the post. You're accusing me of poking sticks at you? That's even funnier than the idea that the Mets might get Jay Bruce this year.

metsmarathon Aug 11 2015 02:43 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

if the mets can't afford to spend more money on payroll than they currently are... a) the cespedes trade is still better than the gomez non-trade, both this year and next b) sandy's grand plan is finally making hte most of what little resources are available c) the wilpons are to blame for the situation, as it was their investments in madoff that laid the cumbling foundation for it all d) the mets are a worse team than they likely would be if they had more money available to spend on payroll, because having more money to spend doesn't mean having to spend it poorly. i mean, do you think the mets would be a better team if they spent even LESS on payroll?

dgwphotography Aug 11 2015 02:44 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Centerfield wrote: CF and Ceetar Financial Discussions (Cliff's Notes Version) CF: I want owners who support a large payroll and spend wisely. Ceetar: Yes, but a large payroll doesn't insure success. CF: Agreed. But it increases a team's likelihood of success and sustained excellence. Ceetar: But it doesn't always work. Look at the (insert name of bad team). The money is not helping them. CF: Agreed. I want the owners to support a large payroll and spend it wisely. Not like (bad team). Ceetar: But lots of teams spend poorly! Look at (another team) and (another team)! They also spent poorly. Don't you think (bad team) regrets signing (overpaid player)? Bad bad. CF: Yes. Spending foolishly is bad. I want to spend wisely. Ceetar: We are in first place! CF: Yay! Ceetar: The owners owe you nothing. LOL! This is what happens when you try to talk to someone who is constantly covering their eyes and ears, and yelling, "LA LA LA LA THE WILPONS ARE GOOD!!!!!" You would be better off trying to convince Rush Limbaugh of the virtues of Planned Parenthood...

Ceetar Aug 11 2015 02:54 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: I mostly agree too. But, when he says the forum doesn't get it all he's doing is looking to poke some of us with a stick. Fuck it, won't be the first time he's made me take some time off. Let's go Mets. So where did I write that "the forum" doesn't get it? Show me. Name names. I'm just tired of reading posts that state that money doesn't matter, that the Mets don't need to spend more money, that all the money in the world wouldn't improve this team be even one simple win. It's ridiculous. Take it up with them when you read their posts. You won't though, not in million years, because your responses are based on the poster and not the post. You're accusing me of poking sticks at you? That's even funnier than the idea that the Mets might get Jay Bruce this year. Look, it's REALLY REALLY simple. I want the Mets to field a winning ballclub consistently. I DON'T CARE how they do that. Money sometimes leads to winning, but it's the winning I care about. If they do it by spending tons of money, by developing prospects, by voodoo, by kidnapping Bryce Harper or developing super serum, it doesn't really matter. some people seem to be suggesting the Wilpons are the worst people ever based on solely the money part, but they've given me to this point what I want out of a baseball team. The Mets could've spent more money and been dominate, perhaps. As I mentioned earlier, take a flyer on Kang over Flores or sign Johnny Peralta. Both solid money moves that means not playing Flores and/or Tejada. But whatever, they're winning now. They've got enough offense elsewhere to fake it with the averagish Tejada and occasional Wilmer. You can resume your money-griping if they continue to not address that spot this offseason, despite the influx of cash.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 11 2015 03:05 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'm just tired of reading posts that state that ... all the money in the world wouldn't improve this team be even one simple win. I really doubt that anyone is saying that.

d'Kong76 Aug 11 2015 03:08 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: So where did I write that "the forum" doesn't get it? Show me. batmagadanleadoff wrote: I guess you and a couple of others here I apologize, I exaggerated a little on that one. I need to get an online attorney for this stuff, does that Simpson's lawyer still lurk? PM me!

TransMonk Aug 11 2015 03:52 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

metsmarathon wrote: if the mets can't afford to spend more money on payroll than they currently are... a) the cespedes trade is still better than the gomez non-trade, both this year and next b) sandy's grand plan is finally making hte most of what little resources are available c) the wilpons are to blame for the situation, as it was their investments in madoff that laid the cumbling foundation for it all d) the mets are a worse team than they likely would be if they had more money available to spend on payroll, because having more money to spend doesn't mean having to spend it poorly. i mean, do you think the mets would be a better team if they spent even LESS on payroll? This. Completely. Especially B. I truly believe that Sandy's plan will be more sustainable and could create a longer tradition of winning than throwing money at quick fixes (I'm looking at you, Omar). That being said, eventually a biggish move will need to be made to push them over the top and I think we will find out at that point where the Wilpons stand. Personally, I was not expecting that biggish move to occur at the 2015 trade deadline.

Ashie62 Aug 11 2015 04:20 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

A long post season run may loosen the pursestrings. We're in first, be happy!

Edgy MD Aug 11 2015 05:51 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

batmagadanleadoff wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: There's very little of that here. Please provide examples. Bullshit. What for? It would be the honorable thing to do.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 19 2015 12:33 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Fred Wilpon refinances $700M of Mets, SNY debt The financial condition of Mets owner Fred Wilpon has taken another Amazin’ turn. Wilpon and co-owner Saul Katz last month quietly refinanced roughly $700 million of debt owed by the team and SportsNet New York, the regional sports network controlled by their Sterling Equities, two sources close to the situation said. Sterling owns 65 percent of SNY and 60 percent of the Mets. The new five-year loans against the separate entities carry lower interest rates and tie the maturity dates together, sources added. It is not known if Sterling was able to take any cash out of its investment, but the refinancing came as the Mets increased payroll by acquiring several players to help the team in its playoff run. Sterling had most recently refinanced Mets debt in early 2014 — months before the principal on its loans were due. It had refinanced the SNY debt a year earlier. Wilpon’s financial situation was very different not that long ago. Back in 2010 and 2011, the money-losing Mets didn’t have the cash to make revenue-sharing payments — forcing them to borrow $65 million from Major League Baseball and Bank of America. That money was repaid in 2012 when Wilpon and Katz sold minority interests in the team. Wilpon has significantly cut Mets payroll in recent years, and now the Mets are close to being profitable, sources said. Attendance this season is up 14 percent over last season. Meanwhile, the values of MLB teams and regional sports networks have been rising. The Mets and SNY declined comment. http://nypost.com/2015/08/19/fred-wilpo ... -sny-debt/

Ceetar Aug 19 2015 12:38 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Never. Selling.

Edgy MD Aug 19 2015 01:02 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Now I feel so stupid about all that cash I dropped on the billboard.

d'Kong76 Aug 19 2015 01:04 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Guess they're not so poor afterall, you're only as rich as what people are willing to loan you at improved terms and conditions.

duan Aug 19 2015 04:49 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

and Carlos Goméz' OPS as an Astro is now ? .516 Maybe that Hip is bothering him!

Lefty Specialist Aug 19 2015 07:50 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

When you owe $10,000, the bank owns you. When you owe $700 million, you own the bank.

d'Kong76 Aug 19 2015 08:19 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Everyone should be as poor as the Wilpons. Sell an office building or two... jeez.

Gwreck Aug 19 2015 10:03 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Ceetar wrote: Never. Selling. The only bad thing about the Mets resurgence is that it forestalls/postpones the chance of new ownership.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 20 2015 06:28 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Not to be ghoulish or nothing but you figure when Fred goes there will be some shuffling around. More likely that the Chapter 11 everyone has been waiting for.

Ceetar Aug 20 2015 07:13 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Not to be ghoulish or nothing but you figure when Fred goes there will be some shuffling around. More likely that the Chapter 11 everyone has been waiting for. My understanding was Jeff was mostly running things at this point anyway, but yeah, there definitely will be some of that. I wouldn't expect anything to be particularly different. One rich guy much the same as the next rich guy. The "refinancing" of executives. Some shiny new titles for some, different roles for others.

Edgy MD Aug 20 2015 07:17 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

I tend to think they have a succession plan firmly in place, and if and when Fred dies, we who survive him will hardly notice the change — at least for the first two years until Jeff decides to send his team on a 2005-like shopping spree. I mean, Jeff Wilpon is already the higher-profile executive and has been for some time. A more interesting question to me is who is Sandy's successor-in-waiting — Ricciardi, DePodesta, or somebody else.

Ceetar Aug 20 2015 07:40 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD wrote: I tend to think they have a succession plan firmly in place, and if and when Fred dies, we who survive him will hardly notice the change — at least for the first two years until Jeff decides to send his team on a 2005-like shopping spree. I mean, Jeff Wilpon is already the higher-profile executive and has been for some time. A more interesting question to me is who is Sandy's successor-in-waiting — Ricciardi, DePodesta, or somebody else. I think more interesting is what the Fred Wilpon patch the Mets will wear all season will look like.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 20 2015 07:48 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I tend to think they have a succession plan firmly in place, and if and when Fred dies, we who survive him will hardly notice the change — at least for the first two years until Jeff decides to send his team on a 2005-like shopping spree. I mean, Jeff Wilpon is already the higher-profile executive and has been for some time. A more interesting question to me is who is Sandy's successor-in-waiting — Ricciardi, DePodesta, or somebody else. I think more interesting is what the Fred Wilpon patch the Mets will wear all season will look like. You could win twitter -- and probably an eternity in hell -- by conducting a design contest now.

Frayed Knot Aug 20 2015 07:51 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Running things and owning things aren't always the same thing and how things proceed following the death of Freddie may come down to factors such as what the 'Estate Tax' situation is at the time. Some folks in power now are in favor of either eliminating or severely curtailing such laws based on the premise that it's nothing more than re-taxing of money that has already been taxed while others see it as a way of discouraging passed-along wealth. If such taxes are high they can make it tough if not impossible for an asset like a sports team to passed down*. Now obviously the state of the team, of MLB, and of the Wilpon family at the time will have the most say in what goes on, but at some point Jeff (and presumably his siblings) may be forced to part with it no matter whose name is atop the masthead. * IIRC the family of Joe Robbie ran into this situation. Robbie was a self-made Lebanese immigrant who both bought the Miami Dolphins (plus several other teams) and also 'Joe Robbie Stadium (later called something different seemingly every year). But despite being one of the few who "did it the right way" by building the stadium entirely with private money his children (he had a bunch IIRC) were forced to sell because of the estate and personal taxes.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 20 2015 07:59 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

What do you think?

Benjamin Grimm Aug 20 2015 08:01 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD wrote: ...if and when Fred dies... If? Are you suggesting that he might be immortal? What would explain that? Vampirism? When was Fred last seen in daylight? Or perhaps he made some kind of a deal with the devil...

Ceetar Aug 20 2015 08:06 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I tend to think they have a succession plan firmly in place, and if and when Fred dies, we who survive him will hardly notice the change — at least for the first two years until Jeff decides to send his team on a 2005-like shopping spree. I mean, Jeff Wilpon is already the higher-profile executive and has been for some time. A more interesting question to me is who is Sandy's successor-in-waiting — Ricciardi, DePodesta, or somebody else. I think more interesting is what the Fred Wilpon patch the Mets will wear all season will look like. You could win twitter -- and probably an eternity in hell -- by conducting a design contest now. I almost want to do that. it's an off day after all. It'd ruffle enough feathers to make a whole new bird.

MFS62 Aug 20 2015 08:25 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Are you suggesting that he might be immortal? ... Or perhaps he made some kind of a deal with the devil... Of course he has. He was going to name Jeff "Damian", but that would have been too obvious. But if you want to hasten Fred's departure from this world, there is a number in Howard Beach you could call. Later

Edgy MD Aug 20 2015 08:31 AM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Edgy MD wrote: ...if and when Fred dies... If? Are you suggesting that he might be immortal? What would explain that? Vampirism? When was Fred last seen in daylight? Or perhaps he made some kind of a deal with the devil... What can I say? The future is unwritten. I'm open to the unexpected.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 21 2015 10:33 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: ...if and when Fred dies... If? Are you suggesting that he might be immortal? What would explain that? Vampirism? When was Fred last seen in daylight? Or perhaps he made some kind of a deal with the devil... What can I say? The future is unwritten. I'm open to the unexpected. Right? Perhaps when his time comes, he'll simply refinance with, like, voudan or Santeria.

Zvon Aug 21 2015 10:35 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: What do you think? Classic!

Zvon Aug 21 2015 10:42 PM Re: Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: ...if and when Fred dies... If? Are you suggesting that he might be immortal? What would explain that? Vampirism? When was Fred last seen in daylight? Or perhaps he made some kind of a deal with the devil... What can I say? The future is unwritten. I'm open to the unexpected. Right? Perhaps when his time comes, he'll simply refinance with, like, voudan or Santeria. His time won't come. He's paying vampires to make him immortal. That's where the Wilpons $$ is going. ^Fred in The Strain