Shuffling the deck upstairs

[Zvon]

I've been reading this and all the links and I must say I was very ignorant of the situation surrounding the Wilpon/Doubleday partnership.
I had read snippets here and there over the years but never really looked at the full picture.
I remember reading once that Doubleday was more of a "baseball guy" than Wilpon.
I don't see any evidence of that here.
From what I'm reading Doubleday may not have made things any better. Or any worse.
I can't say at this point.

One thing is clear is that we would not now have a stadium that pays tribute to Ebbets Field if he had his way.
I found this interesting. And that bad TV deal makes me think he thought the team had more of a Phillies kind of
market base as opposed to comparing the team to the Yankees model. That observation could be off base but interesting to me.

I wanna learn more about all of this.
Please continue this conversation. (

dgwphotography wrote: Wasn't Fred the major player in buying the team from the DeRoulet's? IIRC, Fred didn't have the needed capital, and brought the proposal to Nelson, and had to convince him to buy in.

From a linked article here:

When the team went on the market in 1980, Mr. Wilpon was a successful real estate developer, but he hardly had the kind of wealth necessary to buy a team. He approached his friend John Pickett, then the owner of the New York Islanders, about mounting a bid. Mr. Pickett declined, but he did match him with another member of the Long Island aristocracy: Mr. Doubleday. In the beginning, Doubleday Publishing owned 95 percent of the team. Mr. Doubleday gained a reputation as a hands-off owner who let general manager Frank Cashen make all the baseball decisions. The strategy paid off in 1986, when a Mets team filled with young players cultivated by Mr. Cashen won the World Series. But around the same time, Mr. Wilpon was outmaneuvering Mr. Doubleday, parlaying his 5 percent stake into half-ownership. At the time, Mr. Doubleday was selling the publishing company that owned the Mets to the German firm Bertelsmann A.G. But Mr. Wilpon had a right of first refusal in the event of any sale of the team, and his lawyers made it clear he was ready to exercise it. In a settlement, the two men agreed to become equal partners, paying Bertelsmann $81 million for the team. It has been said that Mr. Doubleday never forgave Mr. Wilpon.

[Mex17]

What Zvon posted (and Frayed Knot paraphrased) is what happened. . whatever word or term you want to use to describe it is fine by me. But the basic truth of it is that it is not what Doubleday intended to have take place. The greater, and more important, truth is that the result of it has had a severe negative impact on the team's ability to succeed.

Doubleday made things better via means of passive noninterference. Wilpon then attempted to re-invent a wheel that had already produced a World Champion.

Which brings me back to my original point. Despite everything, I am still holding out hope that they can learn from their mistakes. Methinks that there is a jumble at the top right now. If one of the two Wilpons were to excuse himself from the stage voluntarily, and if authority was then properly shifted down the chain a bit (for real this time), then perhaps we can get back on the right track. By every account, in spite of the rather ruthless business tactic of 24 years ago, these are good men with noble intentions. But another "Apology Day" media blitz one day after the season ends ain't gonna cut the mustard this time. Fundamental change is needed.

These could have been proofread a little better for grammar mistakes here and there (sorry, Healy, but it's true), but I don't think that the content was pulled out of the sky just for grins and giggles.

http://www.baseballdigest.com/2009/07/08/the-new-york-mets-destined-to-fail-part-i/
http://www.baseballdigest.com/2009/07/08/the-new-york-mets-destined-to-fail-part-i/
http://www.baseballdigest.com/2009/10/05/the-new-york-mets-destined-to-fail-part-3/

[Zvon]

I think an apt way to put it is that Wilpon elbowed his way in, and possibly elbowed Doubleday out.

I need to read more about the 2003 bidness.

[ashie62]

Zvon wrote: I think an apt way to put it is that Wilpon elbowed his way in, and possibly elbowed Doubleday out. I need to read more about the 2003 bidness.

Buckethead for owner!

[Frayed Knot]

Mex17 wrote: What Zvon posted (and Frayed Knot paraphrased) is what happened. . whatever word or term you want to use to describe it is fine by me. But the basic truth of it is that it is not what Doubleday intended to have take place.

I never claimed it was what Doubleday had in mind, but that hardly makes it a "swindle" or even something remotely underhanded. Rights of first refusal aren't uncommon business practices and that Nelson was blind-sided by it is his fault not Fred's.

The greater, and more important, truth is that the result of it has had a severe negative impact on the team's ability to succeed. Doubleday made things better via means of passive noninterference. Wilpon then attempted to re-invent a wheel that had already produced a World Champion.

That's a whole lotta speculation because it all pre-supposes that the winning was destined to continue if only laid-back Nelson had stayed in charge and meddling Fred never bought a bigger share. But no team wins forever and nothing was going to keep Hernandez & Carter from getting old (or Cashen for that matter), or Gooden & Straw on the straight & narrow, or guarantee that the next generation is going to be as good as the last one. And, make no mistake, if/when the team started going downhill there'd be screams for the owner to 'Don't Just Stand There - Do Something' . IOW, a more activist ownership would be seen as the solution in that case and not the problem.

Which brings me back to my original point. Despite everything, I am still holding out hope that they can learn from their mistakes. Methinks that there is a jumble at the top right now. If one of the two Wilpons were to excuse himself from the stage voluntarily, and if authority was then properly shifted down the chain a bit (for real this time), then perhaps we can get back on the right track. By every account, in spite of the rather ruthless business tactic of 24 years ago, these are good men with noble intentions. But another "Apology Day" media blitz one day after the season ends ain't gonna cut the mustard this time. Fundamental change is needed.

No one - least of all me - is trying to claim that the Wilpons are running a glitch-free empire here or that their interference (some might call it simply running the team they own) is always for the best. My only point earlier is that I just don't think having Fred maintain titular control even as Jeff becomes more the public face as opposed to bestowing the crown on Jeff's head while Fred does little more than sit in the background whispering things like 'remember, whoever comes to you about the Barzini meeting is the traitor" in his ear amounts to a hill of beans in this crazy world. [mixed classic movie metaphor alert]. Real change isn't going to come merely by shuffling title acronyms around.

[Zvon]

Mex17 wrote: What Zvon posted (and Frayed Knot paraphrased) is what happened. . whatever word or term you want to use to describe it is fine by me. But the basic truth of it is that it is not what Doubleday intended to have take place. The greater, and more important, truth is that the result of it has had a severe negative impact on the team's ability to succeed. Doubleday made things better via means of passive noninterference. Wilpon then attempted to re-invent a wheel that had already produced a World Champion. Which brings me back to my original point. Despite everything, I am still holding out hope that they can learn from their mistakes. Methinks that there is a jumble at the top right now. If one of the two Wilpons were to excuse himself from the stage voluntarily, and if authority was then properly shifted down the chain a bit (for real this time), then perhaps we can get back on the right track. By every account, in spite of the rather ruthless business tactic of 24 years ago, these are good men with noble intentions. But another "Apology Day" media blitz one day after the season ends ain't gonna cut the mustard this time. Fundamental change is needed. These could have been proofread a little better for grammar mistakes here and there (sorry, Healy, but it's true), but I don't think that the content was pulled out of the sky just for grins and giggles. http://www.baseballdigest.com/2009/07/08/the-new-york-mets-destined-to-fail-part-i/ http://www.baseballdigest.com/2009/07/08/the-new-york-mets-destined-to-fail-part-i/ http://www.baseballdigest.com/2009/10/05/the-new-york-mets-destined-to-fail-part-3/

ty for these articles Mex.
Can you possibly fix that so part two is available?
There are two Pt. 1s and a 3.

[Mex17]

Part II:
http://www.gothambaseball.com/2009/09/the-new-york-mets-destined-to-fail-part-2/

[Zvon]

Part II: http://www.gothambaseball.com/2009/09/the-new-york-mets-destined-to-fail-part-2/

ty sir

I don't read the end of books before I read the beginning and middle as well.

[Mex17]

Frayed Knot wrote: But no team wins forever and nothing was going to keep Hernandez & Carter from getting old (or Cashen for that matter), or Gooden & Straw on the straight & narrow, or guarantee that the next generation is going to be as good as the last one.

A true enough statement. But to force a 180-degree shift immediately after what you are shifting from resulted in what it resulted in seems a little. . .what?

Arrogant?
Out of touch?
Completely insane?

[Guest Edgy DC]

What 180-degree shift?

What force?

What what?

There's nothing there!

[Guest Edgy DC]

And you're again attackign people's character based on absloutely nothing.

Arrogant? Insane? What the hell?

[Mex17]

Edgy, I think your desire for a perfect Met world, possibly combined with your disdain of the "evil media", has completely blinded you from what we have been talking about here. There have been several references (and not just by me) in this thread that Wilpon promptly got his hands in the operations that dealt with the on-the-field product as soon as he attained the 50% ownership. If you don't believe me, ask others. I am arguing that doing so was ridiculous in the aftermath of a world championship that was attained by the completely opposite type of arrangement between ownership and the "baseball department".

And nobody is slandering anyone here. This is a casual internet message board, it's not the New York Times or anything (even it it was, language like this could easily appear in an Op-Ed piece without much of a problem I would think).

Edited August 18, 2010 by Guest

[Mex17]

And I'm not attacking the man's character. I'm attacking his judgement.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Mex17 wrote: Edgy, I think your desire for a perfect Met world, possibly combined with your disdain of the "evil media" has completely blinded you from what we have been talking about here.

Your amateur mental health applied to Fred Wilpon is outrageous enough. Please don't pretend to psychoanalize me. I ask you for facts. Very specific facts. I even ask you what specifically you are referring to, and you give me quotes of words that I haven't typed. Seriously.

There have been several references (and not just by me) in this thread that Wilpon promptly got his hands in the operations that dealt with the on-the-field product as soon as he attained the 50% ownership.

What? What? What are you talking about? Name one deal and cite Wilpon's connection to it and we're dealing in something resembling the real word.

If you don't believe me, ask others.

Who?

I am arguing that doing so was ridiculous in the aftermath of a world championship that was attained by the completely opposite type of arrangement between ownership and the "baseball department".

So doing what? In particlar, what? Please don't tell me I'm blind.

And nobody is slandering anyone here.

Wow, words in my mouth again. What you're are doing here is making a baseless smear.

This is a casual internet message board, it's not the New York Times or anything (even it it was, language like this could easily appear in an Op-Ed piece without much of a problem I would think).

On better days, it's a rational forum. Not today though.

And I'm not attacking the man's character. I'm attacking his judgement.

"Arrogant" speaks to character. "Swindle" speaks to character. "Insane" speaks to mental health. Words mean things. Give me a break.

[Mex17]

I never realized that the words "slander" and "smear" had such disparate definitions.

Why don't you start reading the links that I provided? Or are you not going to believe of word of them because they didn't pass through Jay Horowitz's desk? Or that they are someone's daydreams that were written down and published just for the hell of it?

I like rational, but I can do without "pollyanna".

Edited August 18, 2010 by Guest

[nymr83]

Mex17 wrote: Or are you not going to believe of word of them because they didn't pass through Jay Horowitz's desk?

welcome back Sal/Bret, we've missed you!!

[Mex17]

You complain about the other place but you are creating that very problem here and now.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Mex17 wrote: I never realized that the words "slander" and "smear" had such disparate definitions.

You don't realize a lot of things.

Mex17 wrote: Why don't you start reading the links that I provided?

Yeah, great, sentence fragments and innuendo. Whoop-de-do.

I'm really not going to ask again. Please name one deal and cite Fred Wilpon's connection.

Or are you not going to believe of word of them because they didn't pass through Jay Horowitz's desk?

Have I quoted Jay Horwitiz? (One O, people!) I haven't. So stick that sarcasm right back up your ass where it came from.

Or that they are someone's daydreams that were written down and published just for the hell of it?

It's Mark Fucking Healy! He's writing like an eighth-grader and putting a black hat on one guy and a white hat on the other. It offers no evidence of the damn question I'm asking you.

I like rational, but I can do without "pollyanna".

What the fuck!? What have I said that qualifies that?

If you really want to resort to playground namecalling, you can take it to some forum where they invite that sort of thing. All I'm inviiting is answer to a question.

[Guest Kong76]

Mex17 wrote: You complain about the other place but you are creating that very problem here and now.

You one of those Grand Slam Single bitches now Mex :-)?

Edited August 18, 2010 by Guest

[Zvon]

[Mex17]

I DON"T want to do that. You are the one making this an arcimonious exchange.

And "Mitchell for McReynolds" (if you insist).

Healy might not win a Pulitzer anytime soon but, again, I highly doubt that he pulled all of that out of his ass.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Mex17 wrote: You complain about the other place but you are creating that very problem here and now.

I don't know what other place you are talking about. You keep putting these words in my mouth.

You are the one making this an arcimonious exchange.

Stop it. I've challenged you to back up these ridiculous attacks.

And "Mitchell for McReynolds" (if you insist).

"If you insist." I asked failry for you to back up your account multiple times.

Of course you name that. Only two real deals in the 1986-1987 offseason and Ed Hearn and Rick Anderson for David Cone doesn't dovetail with the thesis.

And the whole thing of showing Wilpon's fingerprints on it, I won't insist on that. I'm done asking.

[Mex17]

What do you want, notarized affadavits? Sorry I can't provide those.

I'd probably have to re-read "Worst Team Money Can Buy" (or browse through it) for more ammo but I have a life to live.

I think that you are more pissed at me then I am at you (over something that is not worth it). I can't be bothered with it.

[Zvon]

Very interesting stuff in those articles. I wasn't as much interested in Healys spin as I was in the facts, and there are many mentioned.

But I have to wonder if somebody types this stuff up for Healy like 5 minutes before lunch and is in a rush to get it done.
How could a man in his position write that awful, lol? That's pretty wacky.

From all the info I have read so far I do think a Walternate universe where Doubleday was not elbowed around by Wilpon would have made for a much different Met past, for some stretches better, for they surely could not have been worse. I do believe the Mets took a turn south when Fred took the reins and began pulling on them.

In spite of that we (or he) did eventually field the great teams of 1999-2000 and that whole time with Steve Phillips as GM is not touched on here.
If Healy is going to go there, he's got to keep going. This was written in 2009 and he has not brought the entire picture into focus.

This article about McIlvane/out,Phillips/in was very interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/17/sports/despite-a-dose-of-success-mets-replace-mcilvaine.html

As was this one about Art Howe. And these two articles are written by people who know how to write and
if someone types up their stuff for them they have them do it way before lunch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/sports/baseball/16mets.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

As Rorschach used to say : "...must investigate further."

Hey, Mex and Edge, you guys should....I wanted to say get a room but that's not right.
Whats the opposite of a room?
You guys should get a big open field and each go to opposite sides of the field and turn your backs on each other.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Which specific facts are you referring to?

Because if you look at the 1986-1987 offseason, the facts do not support the assertion that the Mets failed to win aother championship because Wilpon immediatedly insisted, after winning one, to remake the team by getting rid of the troublemakers. It doesnt' hold up.

[Zvon]

Edgy DC wrote: Which specific facts are you referring to? Because if you look at the 1986-1987 offseason, the facts do not support the assertion that the Mets failed to win aother championship because Wilpon immediatedly insisted, after winning one, to remake the team by getting rid of the troublemakers. It doesnt' hold up.

If you are talking to me:
That's not my assertion. My assertion is that I think the team might have been in better hands had things gone the other way around, and Doubleday was left to run the team the way he was doing it up til '86, when Fred gained more control.

And the facts are all the things in those articles that are in fact true, not spins or opinions.
Things that happened.

At this point in my readings the picture is incomplete.
I must learn more. From Steve Phillips up to Minaya.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Those articles are clearly loaded with opinion disguised as fact. Clearly. He cites sources where people take issue with Cashen and then says that Wilpon is really the one who is being fingered.

I don't want to be too hard on Healy. Much of what's on the internet is opinion disguised as fact. But come on. He's got nothing everybody on this forum doesn't have. He's watched a whole lot of baseball, has his favorites, and has his opinions.

Are you really buying this? Isn't it OK to just accept that Frank Cashen made some really deft moves, but made some mistakes also and his success wasn't sustainable. Isn't it OK to lament the failure to win more than one championship with the knowledge and perspective that unfortunately four of their starters were out for at least two months in 1987, that in 1988 Johnson rolled the dice and left Gooden in for one more batter and lost on that roll. Even in 1985, they were one break away --- Strawberry's injury, Sisk's injury, Chapman sucking his way out of the majors, Johnson vetoing Cashen's attempted deal to re-acquire Seaver. Do we really have to find a hidden conspiracy of Wilpon frustrating Doubleday and driving Cashen toward counterproductive moves? Sustaining a peak is always hard.

Even looking at that 1986-1987 offseason --- the one where Wilpon took over in in a fit of "insanity" and began a "180-degree" turn --- was one (a) of modest transactional activity, and ( that the Mets profited from on the whole, when the losses of the Mitchell/McReynolds deal are held up against the gains of Cone/Hearn-Anderson deal.

And for the love of Joan Payson, most "troublemakers" on the Mets stuck around for years. Hernandez was named captain!

[Frayed Knot]

In particular, the McReynolds/Mitchell trade - which has been entered as evidence of one of the destructive or at least meddling acts of the newly empowered Sir Fred of Wilponia - wasn't anything of the sort.

Joe McIlvane, long-time ML scout, head NYM scout since 1981, and asst GM by 1985, told the story more than once about how he LOVED Kevin McReynolds, thought he was the best amateur player he ever scouted (JMc joined the Mets right after Strawberry did) was sorry he never got the chance to draft him and wasn't about to miss out on a chance to trade for him if available.
So with him in the #2 chair of player personnel decisions and Cashen not only still ensconced as #1 but also having all the power of a WS-winning GM who turned the club around inside 5 years to the most dominant team the NL has seen since the Big Red Machine of the mid-'70s and hasn't seen since, does anyone really think that the reason this trade was made was strictly because Fred was fraidy-scared of having Kevin Mitchell in the locker room?

btw, that trade was almost universally lauded at the time (a case of the rich getting richer was the main take) and, while I know McReynolds has his detractors among NYM fans, I liked the deal then and still like it now. The larger point being that if this is what's being used to show that Wilpon's more hands-on approach was the key to the downfall of the mid-'80s dominance I think it's being done by those who are starting with their conclusion and then attempting to retro-fit whatever evidence they find into their "proof".

Edited August 20, 2010 by Guest

[Zvon]

Those articles are clearly loaded with opinion disguised as fact. Clearly. He cites sources where people take issue with Cashen and then says that Wilpon is really the one who is being fingered.

By facts I mean what happened. Who was hired. Who was fired. Etc.
I am not interested in the mans personal opinions, which are pretty clearly laid out.

Are you really buying this?

I'm not buying anything.
I'm reading up and making my own assessment.

I've never really been a fan who was all into what the front office did.
I was into the team on the field in front of me.
I was aware that people behind the scenes put this team together.
The team they put together was the team I followed.
Pure and simple.

I had nothing good or bad to say about the Mets front office until Grant let Seaver go.
Peripherally I was aware of good Met GMs like Johnny Murphy and Frank Cashen but I just
figured these were people who were very good at their jobs, nothing more.

Frayed Knot wrote: In particular, the McReynolds/Mitchell trace - which has been mentioned as evidence of one of the destructive or at least meddling acts of the newly empowered Sir Fred of Wilponia - wasn't anything of the sort.

I also liked McReynolds and thought that as a good move at the time.
What happened in retrospect is simply what happened.
I see no evidence that Wilpon being afraid of Mitchell was a fact.
So I discount that.

[Vic Sage]

that trade was almost universally lauded at the time

McReynolds...
Chainsaw...
long, slow strokes...

ahhh, that's better.
What were you saying?