Master Index of Archived Threads


Less Wilpon?

G-Fafif Dec 04 2019 01:46 PM

https://twitter.com/nypost_mets/status/1202327157948715008?s=21

G-Fafif Dec 04 2019 01:47 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

https://twitter.com/timbhealey/status/1202327744379408389?s=21

Gwreck Dec 04 2019 01:48 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

The Mets' statement is in response to a Bloomberg story that is reporting that there are talks for Cohen to buy up to 80% of the team. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-04/mets-in-talks-to-sell-up-to-80-of-team-to-steve-cohen-k3rra77k

G-Fafif Dec 04 2019 01:49 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

https://twitter.com/jeffpassan/status/1202327475109408771?s=21

Ceetar Dec 04 2019 01:57 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

80% would be different, but it sounds like switching to a more standard 'board of investors' type thing. So no saying Jeff couldn't just continue doing 5 year terms until he dies. Especially if Cohen's stake is still group managed by his group and he doesn't take an active role. And of course, there's no real reason to think Cohen would make things better. He does seem better at crime at least.

Johnny Lunchbucket Dec 04 2019 01:59 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

I was hoping for less than 5 years

Gwreck Dec 04 2019 02:08 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

=Ceetar post_id=27599 time=1575493057 user_id=102]80% would be different, but it sounds like switching to a more standard 'board of investors' type thing.

No, it doesn't “sound” like that at all. The statement that the Wilpons will remain in charge for the next 5 years is deliberately vague. It could be because terms of the sale aren't finalized; it could be that's all they want to confirm at this point. The very obvious implication is that the Wilpons will not be in control in year 6. Particularly as they have neither confirmed nor denied the key part of the Bloomberg article.

And of course, there's no real reason to think Cohen would make things better.

It's not debatable that the Mets' current ownership is bad. I suppose a “it could always get worse” approach is technically accurate but certainly is a strange argument to make.

Ceetar Dec 04 2019 02:16 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

There's at least half a dozen worse owners in MLB already, to say that 'it could get worse' isn't a stretch. It absolutely sounds like that. The only thing they explicitly confirmed was literally that the Wilpons would retain control for 5 years. Also Sterling doesn't quite own 80% of it by themselves, so there's all sorts of other moving parts to ponder after.

Ceetar Dec 04 2019 02:18 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Healey tweeting now that Cohen will be the 'owner' after the 5 years now, fwiw. Of course, Cohen is not a good person either. Will he run a baseball team better? perhaps. He does seem to be a _better_ criminal, as I said.

Johnny Lunchbucket Dec 04 2019 02:31 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

51% makes him the owner. 80% makes him like, a super owner.

A Boy Named Seo Dec 04 2019 02:33 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

What do we know about this guy other than he tried to buy the Dodgers, too?

86dreamer Dec 04 2019 02:33 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Cohen is not the least bit likable, but the minute he takes over he will steamroll over anyone in the organization that is not 100% focused on winning. Hopefully he has more patience to see through the Wilpon's roadblocks than Einhorn did. I wan to know exactly when the 5 year waiting period starts because I will be counting down the days!

86dreamer Dec 04 2019 02:35 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

He has probably already sent Beltran a laptop, camera and garbage can

kcmets Dec 04 2019 02:36 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Why a five year countdown? Either sell or don't. Fuck them and their continued decades of smoke and mirrors.

G-Fafif Dec 04 2019 02:40 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

https://twitter.com/ken_rosenthal/status/1202341293554307073?s=21

kcmets Dec 04 2019 02:43 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Why Ken, why?!? I'll be approaching SS and Medicare in five years. My ticker, my ticker!!!

seawolf17 Dec 04 2019 02:43 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

There's obviously a lot more to this story that will come out over time. I can't get too excited yet, but it certainly *seems* like a step in the right direction.

HahnSolo Dec 04 2019 02:44 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Hmm. If the five year thing is true (and I tend to think the timing could change, once the ball gets rolling), long-term contract negotiations would get interesting. If say next year, Brody wants to sign a guy for 5-6 years, does Cohen get a say?

G-Fafif Dec 04 2019 02:50 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

https://twitter.com/timbhealey/status/1202335599937695745?s=21

batmagadanleadoff Dec 04 2019 02:53 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

=Ceetar post_id=27604 time=1575494175 user_id=102] There's at least half a dozen worse owners in MLB already, to say that 'it could get worse' isn't a stretch. It absolutely sounds like that. The only thing they explicitly confirmed was literally that the Wilpons would retain control for 5 years. Also Sterling doesn't quite own 80% of it by themselves, so there's all sorts of other moving parts to ponder after.

You're usually the first, and only one here, to oppose my anti-Wilpon posts. And now you're putting a damper on this incredible breaking story. Why would anyone do that? Do you actually like the Wilpons?

Centerfield Dec 04 2019 02:54 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS. DO NOT DIE FOR FIVE YEARS.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 04 2019 03:08 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

=Ceetar post_id=27599 time=1575493057 user_id=102] And of course, there's no real reason to think Cohen would make things better. He does seem better at crime at least.

Really? Two first place finishes in 31 seasons and willful indifference to investing in history's largest Ponzi scheme, thus miring the Mets in a decade long financial squeeze and you're skeptical about an ownership chqnge?



You're fucking nuts.

Frayed Knot Dec 04 2019 03:11 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

A Boy Named Seo wrote: What do we know about this guy other than he tried to buy the Dodgers, too? What I know is virtually nothing, so I went to the unimpeachable source of WikiPedia to find out that: - he's a 63 y/o Great Neck, Long Island native with an economics degree from Wharton School of Penn who learned risk through playing poker before borrowing money to get into money management - now based in Greenwich and Stamford, CT, he runs POINT72 Asset Management - estimated personal wealth of $13.6 billion which, according to Forbes Magazine in 2016, made him the 30th richest person in the country - currently with wife #2 whom he married in 1991, had two kids with #1, 4 more with #2, plus #2 brought one of her own into the mix. Apparently he lives with all seven. - in 2009 he was sued by first wife over charges stemming from the hiding of assets concerning their long-ago separation agreement. Initially dismissed in court, in 2013 an appeals court revived the charges. [Quoting from Wiki now]: Writing for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Pierre Leval said [first wife] Patricia Cohen had made a “plausible” allegation that Steven Cohen had concealed the $5.5 million during negotiations on a separation agreement in 1989, which preceded the divorce. The revival of the lawsuit comes amid mounting pressure on Steven Cohen over an insider trading investigation that led to last Friday's arrest of Michael Steinberg, one of Cohen's closest confidantes at SAC Capital [predecessor of POINT72]. Also in March, SAC affiliates reached two civil insider trading settlements totaling nearly $616 million with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. One of the civil settlements has won court approval. SAC neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing in either case. Steven Cohen has not been accused of wrongdoing. - and speaking of billions, the Showtime series BILLIONS (which I've never seen) is "loosely based" on former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara's account of his legal battles with Cohen and his company(s). - he's a avid art collector & supporter - funds PTSD and mental health programs for vets - donated to a PAC supporting Chris Christie

Ceetar Dec 04 2019 03:24 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=27626 time=1575497328 user_id=68] =Ceetar post_id=27599 time=1575493057 user_id=102] And of course, there's no real reason to think Cohen would make things better. He does seem better at crime at least.

Really? Two first place finishes in 31 seasons and willful indifference to investing in history's largest Ponzi scheme, thus miring the Mets in a decade long financial squeeze and you're skeptical about an ownership chqnge?



You're fucking nuts.


Is willing indifference better or worse than decisive cheating? I'm saying it's worse, but I guess I could be convinced.



You know nothing about the guy expect he's not Wilpon. I don't get elated for change for change's sake. gimme facts. and arguably a 5 year window is going to be a worse situation than either owning the team.



It's also not absurd to think the Mets could win the World Series in 2020, and that's really where like 99% of my Mets emotions are focused. Whichever rich goon owns the team.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 04 2019 03:31 PM Re: Less Wilpon? Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 04 2019 03:34 PM

=Ceetar post_id=27628 time=1575498270 user_id=102] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=27626 time=1575497328 user_id=68] =Ceetar post_id=27599 time=1575493057 user_id=102] And of course, there's no real reason to think Cohen would make things better. He does seem better at crime at least.

Really? Two first place finishes in 31 seasons and willful indifference to investing in history's largest Ponzi scheme, thus miring the Mets in a decade long financial squeeze and you're skeptical about an ownership chqnge?



You're fucking nuts.




You know nothing about the guy expect he's not Wilpon.


But I know the Wilpons and that's enough. You know what else? I'm running out of toilet paper. But because I might get struck by lightning, I won't risk going to the store. I'll just walk around with shit all over the outside of my ass until the invisible man in the sky answers my prayers and magically drops a pack of Charmin in my bathroom like he was TV Barbara Eden or something.



It might get worse. Oh my.

Centerfield Dec 04 2019 03:34 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

By the way, how Wilponian is it to announce this the day Wheeler walks? Jeff: Man. The fans are pissed. Like really pissed. What can we do? Brodie: Should we go after Strassburg? Bumgarner? Fred: Announce we are selling. They'll forget all about Wheeler.

Johnny Lunchbucket Dec 04 2019 03:46 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

In actuality word leaked, that sparked the sportswriter types who don;t read Bloomberg, and they're in damage control. I've sorta been waiting for this day for some time -- Fred's getting up there, needs to get his affairs in order, but my worry was that he'd just leave it all to Jeff's kids.

Centerfield Dec 04 2019 03:52 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

I wonder if SNY suddenly turns on the Wilpons the minute the check clears.

kcmets Dec 04 2019 03:54 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=27629 time=1575498700 user_id=68]I'll just walk around with shit all over the outside of my ass until the invisible man in the sky answers my prayers and magically drops a pack of Charmin in my bathroom like he was TV Barbara Eden or something.

If Jeannie's blinking in, wish for more than ultra soft toilet paper.



Maybe some joy roll! Hah!

G-Fafif Dec 04 2019 04:00 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Steve's a sweetheart. Like most modern sports franchise owners. https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/billionaire-steven-cohen-ramps-up-gop-donations-amid-hedge-fund-comeback

A Boy Named Seo Dec 04 2019 04:37 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

FK with the excellent Know Thine Ownermy

Ceetar Dec 04 2019 06:05 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

=Centerfield post_id=27635 time=1575499955 user_id=65] I wonder if SNY suddenly turns on the Wilpons the minute the check clears.

It seems like the math here is that they're not selling their stakes in SNY. the Sterling bits and their personal shares seem to add up to 80%.

Lefty Specialist Dec 04 2019 07:05 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

I'm a little suspicious about all this. It's just a weird arrangement, saying that Fred and Jeff are still running things for five years. If you're going to buy the Mets, why not just do it? Why have this bizarre interregnum where there are lame-duck owners? I need a little more confirmation before I get too excited. But yeah, I'm definitely determined to stay alive for five years and outlast the Wilpons.

Edgy MD Dec 04 2019 07:18 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Tim Healey wrote: After the five-year window during which the Wilpons keep their titles, Steven Cohen will be the Mets' "control person," which is basically baseball's term for owner. Thanks for mansplaining that one, Tim.

MFS62 Dec 04 2019 07:29 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Lefty Specialist wrote: If you're going to buy the Mets, why not just do it? They want to wait for the statute of limitations on Cohen's business dealings to expire. Later

LWFS Dec 04 2019 07:29 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Steve's a sweetheart. Like most modern sports franchise owners. https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/billionaire-steven-cohen-ramps-up-gop-donations-amid-hedge-fund-comeback I mean, yeah. [YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/-OO9LloDSJo[/YOUTUBE]

Fman99 Dec 04 2019 08:08 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=27629 time=1575498700 user_id=68] But I know the Wilpons and that's enough. You know what else? I'm running out of toilet paper. But because I might get struck by lightning, I won't risk going to the store. I'll just walk around with shit all over the outside of my ass until the invisible man in the sky answers my prayers and magically drops a pack of Charmin in my bathroom like he was TV Barbara Eden or something. It might get worse. Oh my.

I'm intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

G-Fafif Dec 04 2019 09:44 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

https://twitter.com/metsbackpage1/status/1202433234157625344?s=21

Lefty Specialist Dec 05 2019 06:34 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

Is it too late for a dark-horse late entry in the Tabloid Derby? :)

smg58 Dec 05 2019 06:43 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

I don't get the whole control thing. Will the Wilpons be the majority stakeholders or not, and if not, why let them keep "control" over how the team is run? What am I missing?

Centerfield Dec 05 2019 08:37 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

=Ceetar post_id=27656 time=1575507942 user_id=102] =Centerfield post_id=27635 time=1575499955 user_id=65] I wonder if SNY suddenly turns on the Wilpons the minute the check clears.

It seems like the math here is that they're not selling their stakes in SNY. the Sterling bits and their personal shares seem to add up to 80%.






I heard that last night too. This is important. The Wilpons gave SNY a sweetheart deal, limiting the revenue to the Mets. If that deal remains in place, revenues could be dampened until it runs out. The Wilpons may not be done with us just yet.

LWFS Dec 05 2019 08:38 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=27629 time=1575498700 user_id=68] =Ceetar post_id=27628 time=1575498270 user_id=102] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=27626 time=1575497328 user_id=68] =Ceetar post_id=27599 time=1575493057 user_id=102] And of course, there's no real reason to think Cohen would make things better. He does seem better at crime at least.

Really? Two first place finishes in 31 seasons and willful indifference to investing in history's largest Ponzi scheme, thus miring the Mets in a decade long financial squeeze and you're skeptical about an ownership chqnge?



You're fucking nuts.




You know nothing about the guy expect he's not Wilpon.


But I know the Wilpons and that's enough. You know what else? I'm running out of toilet paper. But because I might get struck by lightning, I won't risk going to the store. I'll just walk around with shit all over the outside of my ass until the invisible man in the sky answers my prayers and magically drops a pack of Charmin in my bathroom like he was TV Barbara Eden or something.



It might get worse. Oh my.


Ceetar wasn't saying this won't end well; he was just counseling some restraint in this here fist-pumping jamboree. Also, nothing he was saying was false; as FK detailed, Cohen is a pretty big piece of fraud-with-legs.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 05 2019 08:54 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

And of course, there's no real reason to think Cohen would make things better. He does seem better at crime at least. Really? Two first place finishes in 31 seasons and willful indifference to investing in history's largest Ponzi scheme, thus miring the Mets in a decade long financial squeeze and you're skeptical about an ownership chqnge? You're fucking nuts. You know nothing about the guy expect he's not Wilpon. But I know the Wilpons and that's enough. You know what else? I'm running out of toilet paper. But because I might get struck by lightning, I won't risk going to the store. I'll just walk around with shit all over the outside of my ass until the invisible man in the sky answers my prayers and magically drops a pack of Charmin in my bathroom like he was TV Barbara Eden or something. It might get worse. Oh my. Ceetar wasn't saying this won't end well; he was just counseling some restraint in this here fist-pumping jamboree. Also, nothing he was saying was false; as FK detailed, Cohen is a pretty big piece of fraud-with-legs. Yes, yes and yes but my first reaction wouldn't be that Cohen might be worse than the Wilpons even though it's "technically" possible , because it can hardly get any worse. Two first place finishes yada yada yada. Meanwhile, I sure wish someone could flesh out this quote appearing in the NY Post: While denying it publicly, the Mets have spent at least the past year looking behind the scenes for a whale seeking to buy a majority stake. Saul Katz — Fred Wilpon's brother-in-law, real estate partner and part-owner of the Mets — has been wanting to divest, sources say. His children are said not to be gung-ho about having Jeff Wilpon lead the franchise into the future. It led to recognition that a messy succession was coming in which the family might splinter enough to lose control of the team. I always imagined that if the Wilpons were ever to sell their majority interest in the Mets it would come about because Saul Katz wanted to sell his share. But what I can't figure out is why wouldn't the Wilpons buy out Katz? I mean, they would have to anyways if they wanted to continue owning the Mets, unless they envisioned Katz's heirs staying on as co-owners in some joint arrangement with the Wilpons. Does this mean that perpetual ownership of the Mets by the Wilpons wasn't possible without Katz's kids holding on to their inherited interest in the Mets as well? Does this mean that the Wilpons don't have the resources to buy out Katz? The other take from this is that jeez, everybody thinks Jeff Wilpon's an asshole.

Lefty Specialist Dec 05 2019 09:26 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

I'm betting that yes, the Wilpons are too highly leveraged to buy out Saul Katz. But here they get to have their cake and eat it too. They're the heads of the franchise for another 5 years, but Cohen pumps more and more money in each year. They cash out with billions, literally. Paging Elizabeth Warren: Cohen is one of the world's more famous art collectors, sometimes spending nine figures on a single work. In 2015, he spent $141.3 million on Alberto Giacometti's “Pointing Man” sculpture — more money than the Mets have ever spent on an individual player's contract. [FIMG=200]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EK_ciQCXsAAviDi.jpg[/FIMG]

Centerfield Dec 05 2019 09:36 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

That's a lot to pay for a statue of Glenn Sherlock waving everyone home.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 05 2019 09:51 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

So youse might not believe this but I might have some supernatural psychic powers that brought about this development that the Wilpons are about to sell their majority interest in the Mets. I thought about telling this story yesterday but figured that nobody would believe it. But today, I'm suddenly in the mood to tell it so here goes: The last coupl'a weeks, I've been posting images of this baseball card set I made last year. These cards: [FIMG=363]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49096249647_d374abfa8c_c.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=363]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49095764133_6690413c57_c.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=363]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49095821518_df33219c68_c.jpg[/FIMG] when I realized that I didn't finish the set. I still needed to make a Steven Matz card. Which I finally did last week. Actually, I made several Matz cards. About a half a dozen. The Matz cards tell a story. And then I realized that I never made a manager card for the set. So a few days ago, I made a Mickey Callaway card. The Callaway card is the epilogue to the story told in the Matz cards. And yesterday, as I was putting the finishing touches on the Callaway card, the Wilpon story broke. Here's the Callaway card: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49173275498_427b2a580f_c.jpg>

batmagadanleadoff Dec 05 2019 09:56 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

So youse might not believe this but I might have some supernatural psychic powers that brought about this development that the Wilpons are about to sell their majority interest in the Mets. I thought about telling this story yesterday but figured that nobody would believe it. But today, I'm suddenly in the mood to tell it so here goes: The last coupl'a weeks, I've been posting images of this baseball card set I made last year. These cards: [FIMG=363]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49096249647_d374abfa8c_c.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=363]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49095764133_6690413c57_c.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=363]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49095821518_df33219c68_c.jpg[/FIMG] when I realized that I didn't finish the set. I still needed to make a Steven Matz card. Which I finally did last week. Actually, I made several Matz cards. About a half a dozen. The Matz cards tell a story. And then I realized that I never made a manager card for the set. So a few days ago, I made a Mickey Callaway card. The Callaway card is the epilogue to the story told in the Matz cards. And yesterday, as I was putting the finishing touches on the Callaway card, the Wilpon story broke. Here's the Callaway card: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49173344498_a29e0877c7_c.jpg>

Ceetar Dec 05 2019 10:17 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

finances are all hidden and secret and all. I imagine Katz' kids just want the payout more than they're worried about Jeff, no matter what they think of him. You can't really argue that the franchise isn't constantly increasing in value making you richer and richer. Do we have any inkling of what the breakdown is at Sterling? Like if Katz actually own/control more of the company? It's not like they're really going to be divested of Wilpon, he'll still be mucking around there right? And I saw someone insinuate that Cohen had 20% already..did he buy out the other three minority owners at some point? I didn't think so. Sterling owns 68% (they bought back the SNY shares, which was just a fancy way to pay for the Mets while Sterling assets were frozen), Fred, Jeff, Katz each have a 4% share individually. That's the reported 80%. I'd guess they'll sell Katz 4%, plus the Sterling 68, bring it to 76?

LWFS Dec 05 2019 10:24 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

[Quote="Ceetar"]finances are all hidden and secret and all. I imagine Katz' kids just want the payout more than they're worried about Jeff, no matter what they think of him

This. I mean, you've got to really, REALLY love baseball to prefer baseball and talk-radio-and-Twitter-hate, directed your way, over money.

Lefty Specialist Dec 05 2019 10:25 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

Wait. Time traveling aliens? Can they speed up the 5 years needed to get rid of Jeffy and Fred?

batmagadanleadoff Dec 05 2019 10:27 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

=Ceetar post_id=27748 time=1575566228 user_id=102] finances are all hidden and secret and all. I imagine Katz' kids just want the payout more than they're worried about Jeff, no matter what they think of him.

If that was the case, then you'd figure Katz's kids would simply say they want to cash in rather than continue to own the Mets -- instead of insulting and disparaging a family member and close business partner and the son of another family member and close business partner. This story that the Katz kids would rather sell their interest in the Mets than work with Jeff has legs as far as I'm concerned, until further notice from first-hand sources.

Vic Sage Dec 05 2019 11:27 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

the other thing we know is that he'll be the richest owner in baseball, with a stated willingness to spend that money on players. I'll take that over the Ponzi-impoverished Wilpons nickel and diming us in the biggest media market in the world.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 05 2019 11:43 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

Vic Sage wrote: the other thing we know is that he'll be the richest owner in baseball, with a stated willingness to spend that money on players. I'll take that over the Ponzi-impoverished Wilpons nickel and diming us in the biggest media market in the world. Who wouldn't? Ceetar, that's who. His posts about Cohen have now gone way beyond his other nutty idea that it's distracting to ever talk about the Wilpons. Meanwhile, there's some more breaking news: ESPN is reporting that according to Fred Wilpon, the Mets would've signed both Wheeler and Cole if Sandy Alderson didn't talk the Wilpons out of making those moves.

Ceetar Dec 05 2019 11:54 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

I didn't say I wouldn't take Cohen, I said it's impossible to know what a Cohen-run franchise would look like. Hell, we've already seen a rich, 'committed to spending', alpha type owner run a franchise in NY. poorly for the most part. There are richer owners all over baseball, doing worse jobs. It'd be like hearing Chris Christie was going to be the next president.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 05 2019 11:58 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

=Ceetar post_id=27779 time=1575572040 user_id=102] I didn't say I wouldn't take Cohen, I said it's impossible to know what a Cohen-run franchise would look like. Hell, we've already seen a rich, 'committed to spending', alpha type owner run a franchise in NY. poorly for the most part. There are richer owners all over baseball, doing worse jobs.

But why would anyone stress that point? We already have just about the worst ownership group in baseball.

Ceetar Dec 05 2019 12:27 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=27782 time=1575572329 user_id=68] =Ceetar post_id=27779 time=1575572040 user_id=102] I didn't say I wouldn't take Cohen, I said it's impossible to know what a Cohen-run franchise would look like. Hell, we've already seen a rich, 'committed to spending', alpha type owner run a franchise in NY. poorly for the most part. There are richer owners all over baseball, doing worse jobs.

But why would anyone stress that point? We already have just about the worst ownership group in baseball.


probably not even bottom five, but regardless..



not only is this deal not done, but possibly not even for the exact terms we're talking about, it's at least 5 years away reportedly. If told me it was taking place in January? Sure, I'll buy into some dreaming of better times, a lot of baseball I'm going to enjoy before 2025, if it even goes down like that. (perhaps the Wilpons negotiate 8, who knows until it's final)



1. Those five years are an issue. All sorts of lame-duck conflicts and nonsense. It easily could be worse for these five years than before or after. And I don't like that. This is a fun team right now, and I'd rather an increased shot at this bunch winning it all now than getting a new owner in 2025.



2. Richest owner or not, I'm not positive you spend 2 billion and then just open up and spend another 500 million in commitments on Vlad and Tatis Jr in 2025. Maybe,but there could be a lag period too.



3. flat out just being rich and spewing money all over the place and cheating anyone in your way does not necessarily qualify you to run a baseball team. Whatever finance crony friends Cohen has are probably better than the 'random Michigan connection friends' Wilpon has, but I'd rather judge these things on their individual merits and hires.



4. Even if it's all true, if he's much better than the current bunch (presuming he fires them all instantly and remakes it) there's still a reasonable shot it doesn't work. That the pitcher he signs breaks, that he picks a GM that seemed smart but isn't.



So yeah, I just don't have it in me to be super excited that the chances the Mets make the playoffs in the second half of the decades has gone from like 6% to 10% or whatever you want to qualify it at. Mets 2025 baseball probably doesn't make my top 100 concerns and so excuse me for being skeptical that some other rich scumbag is the answer to all the Mets woes.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 05 2019 12:40 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Oh, I see. Baseball owners are fungible. Lorinda de Roulet shoulda held on to the team, then. She'd be two billion dollars richer and everything else'd be the same.

Centerfield Dec 05 2019 02:17 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

It's pointless to argue with him. I do it too, then ask myself why I bothered. Anyone with half a brain can see that the team was going to go nowhere with the Wilpons at the helm. They were never going to commit to building a division winner, they were never going to commit to a rebuild. So all we could hope for is a mid-80s win team catching fire and getting hot. Which happens about once a decade. So any new owner, even if we knew nothing about them, would be a welcome change. Yes, there is a risk that the incoming group could be even worse than the Wilpons, but the chances are low. And what little we do know about him, is encouraging. He's smart, successful, had deep pockets, and most importantly, is too busy to play GM. He put out a notice to his investors yesterday that his time would not be divided. He's probably at least a little bit evil too. Which is perplexing. What do you do when the guy who will provide great personal benefit to you (in this case, a winning baseball team) also happens to be a terrible guy. Do we perform mental gymnastics and pretend he's not? Do we justify being happy by arguing that anyone who's successful enough to be an owner is also a bad guy? (not completely true) Or do we just accept it and say this is a downside to achieving our goals. This must be what it's like to be Republican. Anyway, it's an exciting time. And although the deal could fall through, and we don't know any of the details yet, and because the Mets may still be saddled with a terrible TV contract courtesy of the Wilpons, we have no idea how any of this will pan out. But we have something today that we didn't have yesterday. And that's hope. So fuck you Wilpons. Hurry up and get the fuck out.

Edgy MD Dec 05 2019 03:54 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

I think the Wilpons are, like, the fifth-worst ownership group in the New York area, so I'm not so sure the chances of doing worse are that low.

Ceetar Dec 05 2019 04:40 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Edgy MD wrote: I think the Wilpons are, like, the fifth-worst ownership group in the New York area, so I'm not so sure the chances of doing worse are that low. depends if you count Dolan twice or not. Also I have plenty of hope. Hell, Diaz locates his slider a half inch lower on average and the Mets might've made the playoffs last year. And again, we know almost nothing about the proposed deal or what will happen in 5 years precisely. . What's to say Mr "too busy to play GM" doesn't just say "oh, I guess let's just let minority owner Jeff Wilpon continue to be at the helm"? And how do we know he's smart? Specifically smart about things like baseball?

Edgy MD Dec 05 2019 05:16 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Yeah, I'd be happy to replay last season with the same players and a different manager. The Mets were the better team than the Nats for half the season. The Nats just got hot at the right time. Hey, maybe in the replay, Céspedes doesn't fall into the hole!

Johnny Lunchbucket Dec 06 2019 06:01 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

Pretty strong take in the Snooze. Makes some assumptions and a little over the top, but gets to what's always struck me about the Wilpons: They're just an idosyncratic, weird-ass small family business that makes the same mistakes over and over again and never learns a thing. They just happen to own a business that millions of people care about, so it matters. It has not been clear, for the better part of a decade, whether the Wilpons have enough money to operate a big league team, but the problem was less about the money the Wilpons maybe didn't have and more about the qualities—discernment, patience, humility, the capacity to listen to the baseball people they've hired—that they manifestly did not have. I mean, this graf: More than anything else, the Wilpons' signature neuroses have shaped and limited the teams they've owned. Insofar as the Wilpons really do want to win in an era when many MLB owners just want to get paid, this is good. In every other sense, though, it has been unhelpful and often disastrous. The Wilpons created a toxic and discriminatory front-office culture, never missed an opportunity to insult fans in the cheapest and most chiseling ways, and were never anything but peevish and grudgeful in their public behavior. No one should question their desire to win, but there's no reason to sentimentalize it, either—they wanted to win on their own bespoke terms and those terms only. They wanted to be right and almost never were, and they were so determined in their backwardness that the Mets have only grudgingly engaged with modern baseball practices for the better part of a generation. Link if you take the popups: https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-wilpons-steve-cohen-sale-failure-doom-20191205-qnct6o4uavgldfc5jlfiyc5o3u-story.html

41Forever Dec 06 2019 06:31 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

That column is heavier on snark and insults than on facts. Travis was cut because of one bad game? Really? The things they actually do are damning enough without having to embellish. Your take is more honest.

Ceetar Dec 06 2019 07:31 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

That column is heavier on snark and insults than on facts. Travis was cut because of one bad game? Really? The things they actually do are damning enough without having to embellish. Your take is more honest. Travis was cut because they decided they didn't need him and he wasn't going to add anything. They tendered him a contract as sort of a safety net, but they decided they were fine and moved on. That's how I read it. yeah, that's a more apt take. They also do just enough to ameliorate the frustration at their mistakes, but rarely reverse them. Not enough Mets stuff in the park when it opens, open a museum and slap up some paint. Fine, but you could do so much more. maybe training/medical stuff ain't up to snuff? Write some corporate buzz words and hire a few people you know in that buzz. Great start, but feels like they might've just crossed it off the list as done while other teams are Sabermetricing sleep regularity and delving into biometrics (Mets could be doing this, no one really seems interested into digging into this stuff) Analytics dept only big enough to keep up, not to innovate. Jury's still out. They hired a bunch of guys. the right guys? are they doing stuff? Every once in a while you get hints about things like a system that lets managers replay decisions, but then no one elaborates. Toxic misogynist work culture? I mean, I dunno how to tell. They settled with Leigh and later on fired Alex Anthony for making misogynistic jokes, so they probably put some policies in place? but then they employed Jose Reyes and he wasn't even like, "oh at least he's good so we'll live with it". Could mention Familia too but that seems less cut and dry. Spend top tier money? I mean, they spend, they kept Cespedes extended deGrom, etc, but they're still *wink wink*ing insurance money and the difference between luxury tax # versus actual payroll. (Of course, so do the Yankees, who flat out try not to pay contracted money) According to https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/tax/ they're 5th in Luxury tax payroll and 6th in 40 man 2020 payroll. Of course this is a little bit of baseball-wide issue, that doesn't give them a pass though. The Nationals are crying poor too, basically letting Strasburg go (and Rendon), and they just won the damn series. They probably made enough extra money just in ticket sales to pay both their salaries for 2020 and 2021. Fans clamor for a fanfest. they ignore them. basically deny that fans want it. Group of fans run an unofficial one, even get SNY sponsorship, and finally they're all like "maybe we could have a fanfest now do you guys want to have a booth here? And please don't have yours in January that's when we want to have the official one" Probably a bunch of others.

Edgy MD Dec 06 2019 08:11 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

I saw some truth in the News article, but I think I recognize the Wilpons more in the ceetar post.

Centerfield Dec 06 2019 08:26 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

Tim Healey has an interesting article in Newsday. I can't read it since I'm not a subscriber. In the part that they show you, there is this interesting tidbit: Under the terms of the deal, Fred Wilpon and his son, chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon, will retain their titles for five years — an unorthodox arrangement, many of the specifics of which are not clear yet. After that five-year window, a source said, Cohen will take over the role of “control person” — the top executive and decision-maker in the eyes of Major League Baseball — from Fred Wilpon. Cohen's ownership will need to be approved by a three-quarters majority of the other 29 major-league owners, but that vote is not imminent. The vote for approval typically does not happen until the incoming owner is put forth as the new control person — which, under the current parameters, would not happen until after the 2024 season. https://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/mets-sale-steve-cohen-sny-1.39252944 I haven't heard that anywhere else. And it would seem to contradict what Forbes is saying. I can't imagine Cohen would invest a dime toward payroll until he got approval. I think it's more likely that Cohen will be the control person from day 1, with the Wilpons holding those titles for appearance. And maybe Cohen is willing to some control over the team (with veto power only) for a certain time. But I can't imagine they wait until 2024 for approval.

Ceetar Dec 06 2019 08:38 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

We'll know more when it's finalized. The forbes piece about control is just speculation, based on the finances/control stuff, but not really based on sources. It does make sense though, you can't exactly rollback the sale 5 years later. Especially if he's been rolling along fine with no drama for that time. And what happens then? Jeff just keeps running it cause Cohen can't? But that's what I pondered originally, that we'd go to some sort of 'board of investors' and they'd just keep voting Jeff to run the team. But again, that's just another approval person in a game of telephone to get additional approval for funds. Especially of Cohen wont' "actively" manage to investment, his company will. BVW wants to sign a big guy, asks Jeff, who asks Fred, who asks the Cohen group, who hold a conference call...bleh. Everything we hear about Jeff seems to indicate it won't be a "token" leadership thing, but I wonder if he'd be more cavalier with someone else's money (mostly?). He's still going to be hanging around Flushing and in all the big meetings. He's not just gonna eat the free donuts and observe.

Centerfield Dec 06 2019 09:03 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, I'd be happy to replay last season with the same players and a different manager. The Mets were the better team than the Nats for half the season. The Nats just got hot at the right time. Hey, maybe in the replay, Céspedes doesn't fall into the hole! Acknowledging that anything can happen in a replay, it's misleading to suggest the Mets were close to the Nats. Their starting pitching was better than our's (#2 in MLB versus #7). Their hitting was better. (#6 offense vs. #13). The only place we beat them was the bullpen. (#25 versus #30). They had a better record in the first half (41-40 versus 37-44), and they were better than us in the second half (52-29 versus 49-32). 7 games total for the year. Again, anything can happen in a replay. Maybe Ces comes back and hits 25 HRs, but it's also possible that deGrom and Alonso collide on a popup.

seawolf17 Dec 06 2019 10:03 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

=Centerfield post_id=27880 time=1575648238 user_id=65]it's also possible that deGrom and Alonso collide on a popup.

Could you fucking imagine? Crikey.

Edgy MD Dec 06 2019 11:16 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

While not really serious about the Céspedes, no I didn't mean to be misleading. I wasn't really dividing the season into two temporal haves, so much as speaking of the ebb and flow of the season. The Nats were the best team at the finish, but at almost no time from April to August would I have called them that. And yeah, at some points the Mets looked better. Sometimes a lot better. Just stupider. And so, when the Mets were low, they were lower. The Braves were playing better than either one most of the time. But the Mets were seemingly playing them even going into that stupid Players Weekend sweep at home, when the Mets stupided away all three games.

Lefty Specialist Dec 06 2019 11:38 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

Just wondering, does Steve Cohen have a dipshit son with delusions of grandeur? I'm hoping not.

Edgy MD Dec 06 2019 12:00 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

He's got six children and one a step-child.

LWFS Dec 06 2019 12:26 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Lefty Specialist wrote: Just wondering, does Steve Cohen have a dipshit son with delusions of grandeur? I'm hoping not. He's a wealth-amassment and hedge-fund-venture-capital-bro-hemoth, who pulled himself to a splashy Greenwich pad all the way up from his hardscrabble upbringing on the superrich side of Great Neck. He's a 63-y/o dude, onto the 2nd upgrade spouse, about whom you've heard plenty about splashing money on a Giacometti or parody-of-a-rich-person-sized mansions, and nary a whit of charitable investment, outside of veterans'-group giving that's essentially a sideways way of privatizing the VA... and the occasional art museum handout. He spends more on seed money for cryptocurrency and fin-tech startups yearly than Texas does on its college football coaches, or sub-Saharan Africa does on public health. Thought experiment: what kind of kid do you think he'd raise? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe his assistant picked a kind, wise nanny. BTW, that DN piece was written by ex-Deadspinner/frequent target of CPF ire David Roth. Take issue with some of his tone or elisions, but "vinegary, incoherent grievance" sounds like a pretty tight sum-up of Wilponalia to me.

Lefty Specialist Dec 06 2019 06:49 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Well, I'm hoping if his kids are rich entitled assholes that they have no interest whatsoever in running the team, but are content to watch the money flow in and let professionals decide on bullpen usage and free agent signings.

G-Fafif Dec 06 2019 09:53 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Times collects enough anonymous anecdotes to paint a picture of the Wilpon ownership as less than optimal. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/06/sports/mets-wilpons-sale-cohen.html Tensions between Jeff Wilpon and his relatives have been brewing for years. Many of them work with Sterling Equities, the family's closely held umbrella company, but the baseball team, which last won a World Series in 1986 — before the family took full control — was largely Jeff's domain. For years, some family members have questioned his choices behind the scenes. In 2003, for example, Jeff and his father called on Jeff's younger brother, Bruce, who is fluent in Japanese, to help pursue the free-agent infielder Kazuo Matsui. Soon after Matsui joined the Mets in 2004 and reported to spring training, he injured his finger. Jeff Wilpon was adamant that Matsui play in televised spring training games to build excitement for the season after a last-place finish a year earlier. Bruce was more protective of Matsui and urged caution. The disagreement came to a head when Jeff, seeing a promotional opportunity, wanted Matsui on the field. Bruce pushed back. The argument grew heated and ugly, as Jeff dug in. After that, Bruce rarely, if ever, was involved with the team again. Such accounts of the family and its decision to sell are based on interviews with more than a dozen people with direct involvement with the Wilpon family and the Mets, nearly all of whom asked not to be identified so as not to damage their relationship with the family. Through a spokesman, Fred and Jeff Wilpon declined to comment.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 26 2019 12:19 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

It might not be just Katz's kids forcing the Wilpons to give up the Mets. It might also be that the Wilpons have reached a point where they can no longer afford to run the Mets and thus, must sell the team, no matter what Katz's kids think of Jeff Wilpon. Also, look out for some possible sneaky Fred Wilpon tactics to screw Steven Cohen into investing in the Mets without ever becoming a controlling owner. Although, if the press figured out this sneak tactic, then Cohen has to know about it also. The New York Mets are $350 million in debt (Report) By Kyle Newman - 12/23/2019 The Wilpons are in desperate need of a sale. The New York Mets' bottom line is too far in the red for them to hold onto the team any longer. According to Mike Ozanian of Forbes, the New York Mets are $350 million in debt. That's terrible news for everyone involved, except Steve Cohen. The massive debt means that Fred Wilpon and Jeff Wilpon are going to be forced to sell the team. The Wilpon family is only worth a reported $500 million according to an earlier Forbes report. They simply don't have the capital to run the team anymore. That explains why they've been so hesitant to add payroll for a long time. They simply can't afford to. To be honest, this isn't surprising. In 2011, the New York Times broke a story that the MLB paid the Mets $25 million in secret so they could afford payroll. By rule, when that happens, the MLB should've forced the Wilpons to sell. Nonetheless, they didn't. A close relationship with former MLB commissioner Bud Selig saved them. Now, Ozanian is reporting that Cohen could end up paying $1.5 billion and never have control of the team. He reports that in the current incarnation of talks, Cohen will have 75% control of the team immediately after the purchase. As a condition of the purchase, the Wilpons will stay controlling owners for another five years. This is different from previous reports that said the Wilpons would simply maintain their respective titles for five years. It's an important distinction too. Under MLB rules, Cohen wouldn't need to swear in by the other owners if he isn't the controlling owner. This means that the Wilpons would have five years to convince the other owners that Cohen doesn't deserve to be the controlling owner. That could lead to Cohen cutting a $1.5 billion check and never receiving control of the team. It seems unlikely now, but the Wilpons have always been sneaky businessmen. They tanked two other deals to sell the team in the past, according to Howard Megdal of Forbes. Cohen may end up the majority owner bankrolling the team with no control. It's unlikely a strong businessman like Cohen would risk his money in this way. That being said, this is a scenario that can't be overlooked. Mets fans could be stuck with the Wilpons for years to come, even if a sale does come to pass. https://elitesportsny.com/2019/12/23/new-york-mets-news-organization-is-350-million-in-debt-report/ Here's the link to the underlying Forbes piece: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2019/12/14/why-steve-cohen-may-write-15-billion-check-for-mets-and-never-gain-control/#6e9751306ade

smg58 Dec 26 2019 02:21 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

The Forbes article cites "baseball insiders." Not sure what that means. I also think it's more likely that the Wilpons are that deeply in debt than the team is, unless the stadium has been a far bigger money-suck than we know about. I've seen no evidence that team revenues are bad enough to cause that kind of issue, especially with payroll being relatively low.

Lefty Specialist Dec 26 2019 05:43 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Steve Cohen didn't get where he is by being an idiot. I'm betting he'll be pulling the strings earlier than the Wilpons may want him to.

batmagadanleadoff Dec 26 2019 06:22 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

The Forbes article cites "baseball insiders." Not sure what that means. I also think it's more likely that the Wilpons are that deeply in debt than the team is, unless the stadium has been a far bigger money-suck than we know about. I've seen no evidence that team revenues are bad enough to cause that kind of issue, especially with payroll being relatively low. I'd bet that the answer isn't so straightforward because the Wilpons have complicated their already very complex holdings by intermingling their real estate portfolio with the NY Mets. We know, for example, that the Wilpons have been using Mets revenue to pay back their Madoff debt. Also, it is now being reported that the Mets have lost more than $100M dollars over the last two seasons. Lefty Specialist wrote: Steve Cohen didn't get where he is by being an idiot. I'm betting he'll be pulling the strings earlier than the Wilpons may want him to. Absolutely. And if Cohen senses that this is just a scam ploy so that the Wilpons could hang in there for a few more years, buying time in hopes that a miracle will occur in the meantime that would let the Wilpons keep the team long term, Cohen will simply pull out. This is essentially what the Wilpons tried to pull on Einhorn a few years ago.

Edgy MD Dec 26 2019 07:32 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Lefty Specialist wrote: Steve Cohen didn't get where he is by being an idiot. I'm betting he'll be pulling the strings earlier than the Wilpons may want him to. Well, that may be his play, but ... while I think it's always smart to bet that rich people have a way to stay rich and get richer, it's not necessarily as sure a thing to say that they aren't idiots. When it comes to American sports owners, I think that the incidence of brightness seems to fall somewhere around maybe 38%.

Johnny Lunchbucket Jan 01 2020 08:32 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

I met a guy at a new year's party who said he was a Michigan grad who holds season tickets, and so has met both Fred and Jeff. FWIW, says Fred these days is out to lunch, might be dealing with dementia or other affliction of old age. And can confirm Jeff's an arrogant dick who thinks his brief moment as a professional (who never played) gives him baseball authority. Also confident that Cohen would be baseball's wealthiest owner once he takes over. I hadn't given that much thought but he might be right.

Edgy MD Jan 01 2020 09:05 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

I wonder if Bradley Wilpon is feeling he's being screwed out of his chance at the family business or he's seeing it as a dodged bullet, and he'd rather get a share in the huge pile of Cohen money to play with.

Lefty Specialist Jan 02 2020 07:39 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

Edgy MD wrote: I wonder if Bradley Wilpon is feeling he's being screwed out of his chance at the family business or he's seeing it as a dodged bullet, and he'd rather get a share in the huge pile of Cohen money to play with. I'm thinking it's the latter. Wilpons will still be minority owners after Cohen takes over, so he can still be a jock-sniffer if he wants. And he gets to be fabulously rich without working for it.

nymr83 Jan 02 2020 08:33 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

Lefty Specialist wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I wonder if Bradley Wilpon is feeling he's being screwed out of his chance at the family business or he's seeing it as a dodged bullet, and he'd rather get a share in the huge pile of Cohen money to play with. I'm thinking it's the latter. Wilpons will still be minority owners after Cohen takes over, so he can still be a jock-sniffer if he wants. And he gets to be fabulously rich without working for it. Yeah, "minority owner" generally means you get to have all the fun - except playing GM. Hopefully Cohen will want to fire the player agent at the helm, hire a smart baseball guy, write him a blank check with a mandate to win or else, and then stay out of the way.

Edgy MD Jan 02 2020 09:15 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

Do you really think it's already established that Brodie Van Wagenen isn't smart? Or that his mandate isn't success?

41Forever Jan 02 2020 11:01 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

Lefty Specialist wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I wonder if Bradley Wilpon is feeling he's being screwed out of his chance at the family business or he's seeing it as a dodged bullet, and he'd rather get a share in the huge pile of Cohen money to play with. I'm thinking it's the latter. Wilpons will still be minority owners after Cohen takes over, so he can still be a jock-sniffer if he wants. And he gets to be fabulously rich without working for it. Yeah, "minority owner" generally means you get to have all the fun - except playing GM. Hopefully Cohen will want to fire the player agent at the helm, hire a smart baseball guy, write him a blank check with a mandate to win or else, and then stay out of the way. I'm not ready to give up on Brodie. Obviously not all the moves panned out. But he was doing more than changing players. It sounds like he was changing cultures, especially in regard to the analytics. You have to give him more than a year to build his team, on and off the field.

Centerfield Jan 02 2020 12:47 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

If given the choice, I'd ditch Brodie now, but like 41F, I don't think can necessarily say he's a lost cause. I mean, it's hard to know how many of his moves are him, and how many were dictated by Jeff. Maybe he was speaking out against the Cano trade the whole time. We just don't know. Jim Duquette on the other hand...

Benjamin Grimm Jan 02 2020 01:14 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

I suspect that Brodie was the architect of the Cano trade, and if so, that's a serious mark against him, one that he hasn't yet made up for. (But who knows, maybe he has some genius moves in his future that will put him in the black, but he has some doing to do.)

Frayed Knot Jan 02 2020 01:15 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=29002 time=1577409749 user_id=68]Also, it is now being reported that the Mets have lost more than $100M dollars over the last two seasons.

It's statements like these which keep me from buying the ones we hear/read often about how every team Makes hundreds of millions per year every year.

Centerfield Jan 02 2020 01:36 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Frayed Knot wrote: Also, it is now being reported that the Mets have lost more than $100M dollars over the last two seasons. It's statements like these which keep me from buying the ones we hear/read often about how every team Makes hundreds of millions per year every year. Every baseball team makes tons of money each year. The owners may not, if they've saddled the team with debt that is either unrelated, or used in connection with the purchase of the team, but the business of baseball itself is hugely profitable. And even if those owners run in the red for a bunch of years, the asset increases in value so those "losses" are offset.

Frayed Knot Jan 02 2020 02:28 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Every baseball team makes tons of money each year. This statement: "... it is now being reported that the Mets have lost more than $100M dollars over the last two seasons.", suggests otherwise. You can choose to believe either side, I don't care. I'm just not taking either one of them as a definitive statement of fact.

Edgy MD Jan 02 2020 02:35 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I suspect that Brodie was the architect of the Cano trade, and if so, that's a serious mark against him, one that he hasn't yet made up for. (But who knows, maybe he has some genius moves in his future that will put him in the black, but he has some doing to do.) The Canó trade looked bad on its face, looks worse now, and strongly threatens to continue to tilt away from the Mets. I grossly dislike that trade, but I don't see it as a defining reason to give up on the GM or dismiss him as a not a baseball man. Good GMs make bad deals all the time. I think it's a far more nuanced net of factors that they are to be measured by.

Ceetar Jan 02 2020 02:45 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

big difference between "The Mets lost money last year" and "The Wilpons lost money on the Mets last year" first may technically be true, the second almost certainly isn't.

Centerfield Jan 02 2020 03:07 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Frayed Knot wrote: Every baseball team makes tons of money each year. This statement: "... it is now being reported that the Mets have lost more than $100M dollars over the last two seasons.", suggests otherwise. You can choose to believe either side, I don't care. I'm just not taking either one of them as a definitive statement of fact. The Wilpons bought out Doubleday's 50% interest for $135 million in 2002, meaning the franchise was valued at $270 million. They are now selling to Steven Cohen with a valuation of $2.6 billion. That doesn't happen to businesses that lose $100 million over two years.

kcmets Jan 02 2020 04:07 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Peter pays Paul. Paul pays Peter. Wheels on the bus go round and round. Paraphrasing a Hillary quip re: Trump; the man bankrupted a casino, how the heck can you do that be expected to run a country? I expect one day years from now a book will be written about just how awful the Wilpons have been for NY sports. If it's someone here who isn't already working on it I want a free copy and an acknowledgement haha...

nymr83 Jan 02 2020 06:49 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Frayed Knot wrote: Also, it is now being reported that the Mets have lost more than $100M dollars over the last two seasons. It's statements like these which keep me from buying the ones we hear/read often about how every team Makes hundreds of millions per year every year. Every baseball team makes tons of money each year. The owners may not, if they've saddled the team with debt that is either unrelated, or used in connection with the purchase of the team, but the business of baseball itself is hugely profitable. And even if those owners run in the red for a bunch of years, the asset increases in value so those "losses" are offset. yeah, the owners are going to play a lot of games with their books. at the end of the day the sale price of MLB teams over time should be the only proof you need that things are just swell for the owners.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 02 2020 07:41 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Frayed Knot wrote: Every baseball team makes tons of money each year. This statement: "... it is now being reported that the Mets have lost more than $100M dollars over the last two seasons.", suggests otherwise. You can choose to believe either side, I don't care. I'm just not taking either one of them as a definitive statement of fact. The Wilpons bought out Doubleday's 50% interest for $135 million in 2002, meaning the franchise was valued at $270 million. They are now selling to Steven Cohen with a valuation of $2.6 billion. That doesn't happen to businesses that lose $100 million over two years. Sure it can. It's baseball. So maybe the Mets were valued on how much money they'd generate when run properly. Also, there's only 30 teams and a team is up for sale once every coupl'a years. So maybe a buyer like Cohen will pay a premium just to get to own the team. This is a once in a lifetime chance to own the Mets. If Cohen's worth what's being reported, he can afford to lose $50M on the Mets every year for the rest of his life if he lives to be a thousand years old. $50M to Cohen is like dinner for four at a nice restaurant for any regular person. Even less, because when you have more than $10 billion, you have money you don't really need. You can't analyze these transactions through the eyes of a regular person. Or even a regular rich person. These are masters of the universe.

Frayed Knot Jan 02 2020 08:04 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Besides, this doesn't mean the Mets have lost on the order of $50 million dollars every year over the decades. I'm not even saying that they lost that over the last two seasons, only that because we hear/read such wildly conflicting info from various sources means I'm not going to treat any of it as fact. And, yes, most of the profit motive in owning a sports franchise comes from the idea of it appreciating over time and a great return on the investment at the end. But that's a lot different from saying that all these teams are locked into profits running into the tens (hundreds?) of millions each year simply be opening the gates and turning on the lights.

Ceetar Jan 03 2020 07:51 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=29176 time=1578019303 user_id=68] Sure it can. It's baseball. So maybe the Mets were valued on how much money they'd generate when run properly. Also, there's only 30 teams and a team is up for sale once every coupl'a years. So maybe a buyer like Cohen will pay a premium just to get to own the team. This is a once in a lifetime chance to own the Mets. If Cohen's worth what's being reported, he can afford to lose $50M on the Mets every year for the rest of his life if he lives to be a thousand years old. $50M to Cohen is like dinner for four at a nice restaurant for any regular person. Even less, because when you have more than $10 billion, you have money you don't really need. You can't analyze these transactions through the eyes of a regular person. Or even a regular rich person. These are masters of the universe.

Yeah, and Jeff Bezos can afford to hire more employees and not set up an environment where they're afraid to go to the bathroom because if they're not #EFFICIENT they get docked.



cutting out a $50 million loss on a balance sheet is better than porn to asshole rich guys.

kcmets Jan 03 2020 08:31 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

Not to accountant up; but balance sheets contain assets, liabilities and owner's equity (net worth) and not profits or losses.

Lefty Specialist Jan 03 2020 08:50 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

One of the things value is based on is scarcity. The opportunity to own a MLB team comes only rarely. And 'losing' $100 million dollars can be achieved in a number of ways, especially in a non-public family-controlled enterprise. The loss they're experiencing is most likely due to their heavy debt burden, not the sales at Keith's Grill or the numbers through the turnstiles. Debt burden won't be a problem for Mr. Cohen.

kcmets Jan 03 2020 09:00 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

And really, we've been through this here and there a thousand times. In the clandestine world of baseball, no one knows how much or how little these bent- over humps make. They probably have four sets of books - a) gubbment books, b) owner's books, c) MLB books and the d) leak to the select media books.

nymr83 Jan 05 2020 07:30 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

=Ceetar post_id=29198 time=1578063114 user_id=102] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=29176 time=1578019303 user_id=68] Sure it can. It's baseball. So maybe the Mets were valued on how much money they'd generate when run properly. Also, there's only 30 teams and a team is up for sale once every coupl'a years. So maybe a buyer like Cohen will pay a premium just to get to own the team. This is a once in a lifetime chance to own the Mets. If Cohen's worth what's being reported, he can afford to lose $50M on the Mets every year for the rest of his life if he lives to be a thousand years old. $50M to Cohen is like dinner for four at a nice restaurant for any regular person. Even less, because when you have more than $10 billion, you have money you don't really need. You can't analyze these transactions through the eyes of a regular person. Or even a regular rich person. These are masters of the universe.

Yeah, and Jeff Bezos can afford to hire more employees and not set up an environment where they're afraid to go to the bathroom because if they're not #EFFICIENT they get docked.



cutting out a $50 million loss on a balance sheet is better than porn to asshole rich guys.


Bezos ia running a company for profit. Presumably if Cohen just wanted to make more money there are better ways for him to accomplish that - he wants the best toy in the world and its orange and blue and hopefully beneficial to us if he doeant give a shit except for winning.

Edgy MD Jan 05 2020 09:37 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Blank checks don't exist. Thinking that being rich means you get to overspend on high-profile can't-miss assets is what got the president owned by Russia.

nymr83 Jan 05 2020 10:41 PM Re: Less Wilpon?

Blank check isn't needed. The difference between caring about making 50 mil and be happy breaking even is Mike Trout on your roster. I want the Mets owned by someone who doesnt need the money. Post-Madoff Wilpons arent that owner.

Edgy MD Jan 06 2020 05:52 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

So, then, 29 teams without a Trout. And the one who does, the Angels, can't stop shooting themselves in the foot.

Ceetar Jan 06 2020 09:05 AM Re: Less Wilpon?

=nymr83 post_id=29309 time=1578277825 user_id=54] Bezos ia running a company for profit. Presumably if Cohen just wanted to make more money there are better ways for him to accomplish that - he wants the best toy in the world and its orange and blue and hopefully beneficial to us if he doeant give a shit except for winning.

I hate to break it to you, most of these teams are running them for profit.



and like the Wilpons, and the other 29 owners, that 'toy' is ownership and all the ancillary stuff associated with that. Maybe he doesn't care much about the team-specific financial state but like all these guys there's no real guarantee he wants to make it worse on a lottery ticket that he gets to call himself a world champion.