Big News! (update: Mets Minority Stake For Sale)

[G-Fafif]

If Marge Schott emerges as a candidate to own our favorite baseball team, then we're all quite literally going to hell.

[batmagadanleadoff]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: There's bad with money... and then there's BAD with money, plus cheap, plus knee-jerk-interfering, plus racist, plus ACTIVELY sticking it to the fans. Trust me: most, if not all of the above trammel lawns in which the grass is far from green, much less greener than ours. If you disagree, it's because you don't know enough about guys like Snyder, Sterling and the rest... or because you're being willfully ignorant.

That's some endorsement: Fred Wilpon - He's no Marge Schott.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Relative to the "get them out of town" drumbeat, I suppose it may sound like an endorsement. But all I'm saying is that it's no fait accompli that the next owners are going to be any "better" than the Wilpons, and that-- when you consider how many out-and-out bastards and incompetents end up running sports teams*-- the odds aren't necessarily in favor of that.

*Keep in mind: before you get to Dubya in the Rogues' Gallery above, they're all current owners.

OE: With the exception of the very, very recent past owner Hicks.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yeah, I think the obvious message is to be careful what you wish for.

At the price the Mets will fetch, even as damaged goods, I can't imagine a douchebag won't be their next owner.

[Willets Point]

Here's an option I hadn't considered before.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Talk about douchy Met fans.

[Willets Point]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Talk about douchy Met fans.

Douchy or dorky. I'm not sure which.

[metsmarathon]

i look at this the same way i look at the knicks trading away patrick ewing.

beware glen rice.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Willets Point wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Talk about douchy Met fans. Douchy or dorky. I'm not sure which.

Douchy. Too much fratty attention to Charlie Sheen.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

A douche who owns the Mookie/Buckner ball-- along with some other items of questionable provenance-- and paid through the nose for it. (And hey! Pete Nice appearance, y'all!) I'm not sure "fratty" quite captures it... there's something more, and real, and really weird; that it's being overblown by news-outlet-monkeys who don't really get it, either, is besides the point. How can you not see the cracked-- if very, very ephemeral-- beauty of "fire-breathing fists," "winning life," and "I'll drop my ordnance on you?"

But hey, as long as we're speculating... howzabout this Queens native/sports investor? He'd previously been in on a potential Braves bid, so... ?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm still hoping for Robert Abplanalp. I liked that his name is almost a palindrome.

[Edgy MD]

Piazza: teasing the press corps.

Former Mets slugger Mike Piazza says he's 'probably' interested in buying a piece of a baseball team BY Peter Botte DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER Saturday, March 5th 2011, 10:54 AM Theodorakis/News PORT ST. LUCIE - Mike Piazza admits he has thought about buying into a baseball team one day. But the former Mets great said he's currently "not involved in anything specific," including being part of an investment group to help bail out the cash-strapped Wilpons. "Would I be interested in possibly getting involved in a group to buy a team someday? Probably," said Piazza, who was at Mets camp as hitting coach with Team Italy. "I've been thinking about it ... But as far as anything in the forefront, nothing. Down the line, we'll see." Asked if he's been approached by anyone to be part of a group to purchase a stake in the Mets, Piazza smiled and said sheepishly, "I can't confirm or deny that." "Let's just say that I've talked to some people who have interest in getting into the game," he added. "It doesn't cost anything to talk, at least not yet. "But as far as anything right now, any talks, or putting any groups together, no, I'm not involved in anything specific."

[Edgy MD]

Adam Rubin get's the better story out of the non-story.

[MFS62]

Piazza: teasing the press corps. Former Mets slugger Mike Piazza says he's 'probably' interested in buying a piece of a baseball team BY Peter Botte DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER Saturday, March 5th 2011, 10:54 AM Theodorakis/News PORT ST. LUCIE - Mike Piazza admits he has thought about buying into a baseball team one day. But the former Mets great said he's currently "not involved in anything specific," including being part of an investment group to help bail out the cash-strapped Wilpons. "Would I be interested in possibly getting involved in a group to buy a team someday? Probably," said Piazza, who was at Mets camp as hitting coach with Team Italy. "I've been thinking about it ... But as far as anything in the forefront, nothing. Down the line, we'll see." Asked if he's been approached by anyone to be part of a group to purchase a stake in the Mets, Piazza smiled and said sheepishly, "I can't confirm or deny that." "Let's just say that I've talked to some people who have interest in getting into the game," he added. "It doesn't cost anything to talk, at least not yet. "But as far as anything right now, any talks, or putting any groups together, no, I'm not involved in anything specific."

We hope he doesn't have to change positions on that.
Later

[batmagadanleadoff]

In this scenario, the Wilpons conduct a fire sale, selling even David Wright, to retain ownership of the Mets:

Fans hate fire sales by their teams. And Mets fans detest the Wilpons. So putting the two together would seem a worse idea than giving Charlie Sheen a microphone. But, really, it is one of the few gambits the Wilpons have left in trying to retain the team. This is not about endorsing Wilpon ownership. Because it probably would be best for the team and baseball if the Wilpons were to sell the club as a way to restore finances and faith in the Mets. Nevertheless, the Wilpons are fighting ardently to retain the team, and it would not be unique for an ownership in financial hell to make its costliest players available. For the Mets, that would mean not only the free-agents-to-be, Carlos Beltran and Jose Reyes, but also Jason Bay, Francisco Rodriguez, Johan Santana and, yes, even seeing what would be available for organizational icon David Wright. Two executives heavily involved in major league finances said it would be wise for the Mets to reduce payroll dramatically; even to, say, the $70 million range as soon as the 2012 season. This hardly would solve all of the Wilpons� financial problems because they carry hundreds of millions of dollars in debt before even learning their ultimate fate in the Madoff debacle. But the two executives felt even a stripped-down version of the Mets still would draw no worse than two million spectators to Citi Field. That would allow the Mets to make money, moving banks to feel less edgy about current loans and, possibly, even consider future loans. �That approach would be helpful,� one of the executives said. �Banks like to see operating profits over losses and it also would eliminate the need to plug holes in operating costs, which is what forced them to seek extra loans from Major League Baseball.� General manager Sandy Alderson already has said the plan for 2012 is to bring the payroll significantly down from the current $140 million-plus. Much of that will be achieved with expiring contracts for the Pariah Brothers � Luis Castillo and Oliver Perez � plus Beltran, Reyes and possibly K-Rod. But why stop there? The 2012 Mets are unlikely to be legitimate contenders with a $110 million payroll, so why not get the long-term benefits � for the talent base and the Wilpons� finances � of going further? Here is the question: Are the Mets closer to being a champion by continuing to try to build around what they have or by starting over � with the head start that could come from adding prospects through a fire sale? The Mets long have conned themselves that they are just a player or two away from being of championship timber. But I don�t think any NL East team would trade all the players in their organization for those of the Mets. Even the Nationals can imagine their next three-to-seven years being better than the Mets� simply by having Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg under control. The Mets do not have a veteran making significant money who is likely to be a member of their next sustained contender, except perhaps Wright. So why not speed up the process of getting to that next strong roster? Because it will upset the fans? Really? Can they be more upset than they have been the past two years? �Everyone sees the elephant in the room,� an AL executive said. �They need all the moons to align just to win 85 games, and all the moons are not going to align. It is time to get real. And this is the perfect time. The smart fans will get it. They understand that the talent level is not nearly good enough in the majors or the minors. They see what is happening with Madoff. A total renovation is needed.� It would be up to the new front office to create a reservoir of young talent by making strong trades, and then use some of the saved money to invest wisely in the draft and Latin America. The Wilpons have not had the discipline or intellect to stick with a rebuilding plan in the past. But what are their choices now? This is not a desirable path, but probably a necessary one. And $70 million payrolls for a few years do not mean having to stay at that austere (for New York) level for good. Also, remember that a team with a $60 million payroll that spent much of last year in bankruptcy, the Rangers, went to the World Series. For now, though, the Mets must hope Beltran and Reyes are healthy, productive and, thus, viewed as desirable commodities in July. Perhaps Bay and K-Rod can build value, as well. If Santana comes back healthy, it is conceivable that, for example, the Yankees would be willing to absorb a 2012-13 salary of more than $50 million. Wright is the toughest call. He is signed for $15 million in 2012 with a $16 million option for 2013 (or a $1 million buyout). Will the Mets win during the remainder of this contract? If he wants to stay, will Wright be worth a significant extension in his 30s? Or is his best long-term value to the organization as a desirable trade chip? My suspicion is the Mets would get no less, say, than Kansas City received in the offseason for Zack Greinke, especially because the interest would be heavy. I could see teams such as the Angels, Orioles, Braves, Marlins, Cubs, White Sox, Blue Jays, A�s, Cardinals, Brewers, Dodgers, Rockies and Giants all having interest Again, this is not a desirable path. But if these Mets owners really are going to keep the team, then all options need to be considered to make the long-term picture better than the current one. joel.sherman@nypost.com

[Edgy MD]

I don't detest the Wilpons. And though I hate trades, as trades go, I don''t even hate fire sales. I mean, the players shouldn't actually sell at fire sale prices, but get gen-u-ine prospects. And if it comes to pass, it's generally assumed that the first guys on the block will be guys at the end of their contracts. Let's not fan hateflames.

Even beyond that. I mean, can you imagine anybody rioting for dealing Francisco Rodriguez? Or even Jason Bay? Yeah, Wright, sure, but he's like the 10th concern.

In the real world, you control costs of a star associate in your firm coming of age by making him a partner instead of paying him. Baseball outlaws this.

[Valadius]

For God's sake, somebody save us from the Wilpons.

[Edgy MD]

What did they do now?

[ashie62]

Sherman says the Mets are unlikely contender in 2012? Geez. Quite abit of hyberbole throughout.

Charlie Finley tried a fire sale once.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Is Sherman aware that the Strasburg he mentioned is on the shelf for a year with Tommy John surgery and might never be the same pitcher? And we'll see about Harper. Sometimes the most-hyped guys don't pan out.

[ashie62]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Is Sherman aware that the Strasburg he mentioned is on the shelf for a year with Tommy John surgery and might never be the same pitcher? And we'll see about Harper. Sometimes the most-hyped guys don't pan out.

Paul Wilson, Jason Isringhausen & Bill Pulsipher.

[dgwphotography]

Valadius wrote: For God's sake, somebody save us from the Wilpons.

Edgy DC wrote: What did they do now?

They probably voted Republican...

[metsmarathon]

Two executives heavily involved in major league finances said it would be wise for the Mets to reduce payroll dramatically; even to, say, the $70 million range as soon as the 2012 season. This hardly would solve all of the Wilpons� financial problems because they carry hundreds of millions of dollars in debt before even learning their ultimate fate in the Madoff debacle. But the two executives felt even a stripped-down version of the Mets still would draw no worse than two million spectators to Citi Field. That would allow the Mets to make money, moving banks to feel less edgy about current loans and, possibly, even consider future loans.

so let me get this straight. there's actually somebody who believes that, after a wilpon firesale wherein they whittle down the payroll to $70M, the mets would be able to pull in two million spectators to citi, presumably at the current ticket prices, and that with such an attendance-payroll ratio, the mets would be able to turn a profit?

really?

they cut payroll in half and only six hundred thousand fewer mets fans come out to the citi?

after the past few seasons, with all the madoff bullshit, with the current fan bloodlust, and you tell me that not only would they dump reyes, but also wright, and you think they'd still draw 25,000 a game?

shit. i think we'd get outdrawn by the fucking pirates. the only time we'd have good attendance is if the mfy were in town.

[Edgy MD]

"Two executives heavily involved in major league finances" have every reason to WANT the Mets to drop payroll to $70 million.

[batmagadanleadoff]

metsmarathon wrote: so let me get this straight. there's actually somebody who believes that, after a wilpon firesale wherein they whittle down the payroll to $70M, the mets would be able to pull in two million spectators to citi, presumably at the current ticket prices, and that with such an attendance-payroll ratio, the mets would be able to turn a profit? really?

Not me. And not at those ticket prices. The Mets couldn't sell out their prime tickets when CF was brand new.

[metsmarathon]

it not just the ticket purchases. its merchandising, advertising, all that shit. as it is, with teh fan sentiment out there and all that other shit, even without a firesale, i'm unsure that they'll bring in enough revenue to cover a $70M payroll, before they even whisper the thought of a firesale. they'd be bringing in that much less money after one.

and if they are able to make a profit at a $70M pay point, wouldn't their revenues increase with a higher payroll, presuming, of course, that teh higher payroll would have a somewhat commensurate increase in talent and winningness? how much are we really talking about in terms of impact to the bottom line?

if they're losing $30M at $140M, they're not going to be making money at $70M. if they're losing $5M, then the backlash will cost them those same $5M if they're just seen as dumping salary and not improving the team, forget about what would happen in a firesale.

their debt pile is so huge, that if they kept the same revenue, and dropped payroll to zero, they'd still have a huge fucking hole to crawl out of, right?

it seems to me, that if the wilpons want to make money with the mets, they need to spend money on the mets. well, spend it wisely, unlike what all they did with omar.

hmm... unless they want to get down to the marlins/pirates realm where tehy're getting fat off the revenue-sharing. i suppose i'm not accounting for that...

[metirish]

The Mets IIRC had $70 million payrolls in the Howe years , just saying.

[Edgy MD]

I think they were more like $110-115 million.

[metirish]

Edgy DC wrote: I think they were more like $110-115 million.

you are correct , haven't see the 70's since 2000

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2004/12/new-york-mets.html

[ashie62]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: metsmarathon wrote: so let me get this straight. there's actually somebody who believes that, after a wilpon firesale wherein they whittle down the payroll to $70M, the mets would be able to pull in two million spectators to citi, presumably at the current ticket prices, and that with such an attendance-payroll ratio, the mets would be able to turn a profit? really? Not me. And not at those ticket prices. The Mets couldn't sell out their prime tickets when CF was brand new.

I'm sticking by one of my earlier posts, Citified will resemble Shea in the late 70's, but without the charm..