Madoff's Curveball" by Jeffrey Toobin & other Wilpon stories

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: I think we're well beyond the 'living well' option as well.

You really think that? My experience is that there's always room for redemption in public life --- particularly for the rich. George Steinbrenner went from untouchable outcast to secular saint in a few short years.

Michael Jackson. Michael Milken. Michael Vick. While there's a pulse in the body, there's time for another act.

Ceetar wrote: I don't know if it's Horwitz' fault or just that right now the Mets are really between a rock and a hard place and there really isn't a good solution (besides winning).

In other words, living well.

[G-Fafif]

Read the book. Thought it was strong, demystifying advocacy journalism.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: I think we're well beyond the 'living well' option as well. You really think that? My experience is that there's always room for redemption in public life --- particularly for the rich. George Steinbrenner went from untouchable outcast to secular saint in a few short years. Michael Jackson. Michael Milken. Michael Vick. While there's a pulse in the body, there's time for another act. Ceetar wrote: I don't know if it's Horwitz' fault or just that right now the Mets are really between a rock and a hard place and there really isn't a good solution (besides winning). In other words, living well.

Interesting though, is who determines what 'redemption' is. Michael Vick has been redeemed by the NFL and it's sponsors and the media. But I talked to an Eagles fan friend this season who understand the whole "you root for the laundry not the player" concept but still felt wrong about it. He's certainly not redeemed in her eyes.

Denying access to the clubhouse (which would've had zero affect on the book since it wasn't about the Mets players and most of them have as little insight to the matter as we do) is a petty move but it's not really a big deal because the fan base at large does not care about who's credentialed and their interactions with the club.

G-Fafif wrote: Read the book. Thought it was strong, demystifying advocacy journalism.

He's advocating a pretty anti-Wilpon stance though isn't it? Isn't it common sense for the Wilpon party to want to bar access when they can?

This is where I get back to the BBWAA thing. The idea that the media is supposed to be this check on the subject it's covering. The BBWAA is (are they? I'm going off of Megdal's post here. Could the Mets legitimately revoke say David Lennon's credentials?) supposed to be the protection of the writer/reporter from the club, but since they're still seemingly behind the times, they don't care in this case.

I'm not agreeing with the Mets here, because what they did was petty and vindictive without providing them any value, I'm just curious about how this whole thing shakes out. I'm interested in the evolution of the sports media and credentials and how they all interact.

[Edgy MD]

Edgy wrote: Michael Jackson. Michael Milken. Michael Vick. While there's a pulse in the body, there's time for another act.

I don't know if it's Horwitz' fault or just that right now the Mets are really between a rock and a hard place and there really isn't a good solution (besides winning).

Edgy wrote: In other words, living well.

Interesting though, is who determines what 'redemption' is. Michael Vick has been redeemed by the NFL and it's sponsors and the media. But I talked to an Eagles fan friend this season who understand the whole "you root for the laundry not the player" concept but still felt wrong about it. He's certainly not redeemed in her eyes.

I hardly meant to say any of them were finished products on the road to public redemption, only that they aren't finished --- even Jackson, who doesn't have a pulse.

Denying access to the clubhouse (which would've had zero affect on the book since it wasn't about the Mets players and most of them have as little insight to the matter as we do) is a petty move but it's not really a big deal because the fan base at large does not care about who's credentialed and their interactions with the club.

Big deal or not, we're talking about whether it was the right move.

[Ceetar]

What if it was simply a move? may have been petty but does that make it wrong?

What if it's false redemption? Is it right for Vick or Jackson (or Paterno is another example) to eventually be redeemed?

[G-Fafif]

Read the book. Thought it was strong, demystifying advocacy journalism. He's advocating a pretty anti-Wilpon stance though isn't it? Isn't it common sense for the Wilpon party to want to bar access when they can?

Howard's never been shy about his advocacy: He's a Mets fan seeking the truth. He's advocating a pro-Mets stance, just not a pro-Wilpon stance. He represents an established, legitimate outlet in the Journal-News. There is no common sense to this move, just bad PR executed out of pique.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Those of us who care about this franchise should try to organize an Arab Spring.

[metirish]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Those of us who care about this franchise should try to organize an Arab Spring.

at Spring Training , take over the town of Tradition , how cool would that be? Our HQ could be that pizza joint made famous by Spencer and Garcia.

[G-Fafif]

metirish wrote: Our HQ could be that pizza joint made famous by Spencer and Garcia.

And our rallying cry could come from that song made famous by Buckner and Garcia.

[bmfc1]

About "advocacy": Megdal made his case that the Wilpons knew of Madoff's illegal activities and convincingly presented it with facts from court filings and with opinions from independent sources. The reader is free to agree or not. If the Wilpon's disagree, then I'm sure they can supply any evidence that Megdal might have overlooked or not known about.

[Ceetar]

bmfc1 wrote: If the Wilpon's disagree, then I'm sure they can supply any evidence that Megdal might have overlooked or not known about.

Yeah..but they're not going to provide it to Megdal, they're going to provide it to the court.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: What if it was simply a move? may have been petty but does that make it wrong?

You exist in quite the relativistic universe.

Yes, it was wrong.

Ceetar wrote: What if it's false redemption? Is it right for Vick or Jackson (or Paterno is another example) to eventually be redeemed?

And you also spin things way off into the stratosphere away from the point.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: What if it was simply a move? may have been petty but does that make it wrong? You exist in quite the relativistic universe. Yes, it was wrong. Ceetar wrote: What if it's false redemption? Is it right for Vick or Jackson (or Paterno is another example) to eventually be redeemed? And you also spin things way off into the stratosphere away from the point.

You brought those guys up.

and we all exist in a relativistic universe. I'm just more wishy washy on taking a firm stance.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

metirish wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Those of us who care about this franchise should try to organize an Arab Spring. at Spring Training , take over the town of Tradition , how cool would that be? Our HQ could be that pizza joint made famous by Spencer and Garcia.

How do you propose we mark our territory?

The Wilpon regime sure does like to project the benevolent-baseball-man/magnanimous aura, but the regime's past and present actions sure do give the opposite impression. Honestly, a good portion of my weariness with them these days is about style-- I'd almost prefer a Steinbrenner type; he may have been an inveterate, irredeemable asshole, but he was a bit more up-front about it (blatantly illegal stuff notwithstanding).

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: metirish wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Those of us who care about this franchise should try to organize an Arab Spring. at Spring Training , take over the town of Tradition , how cool would that be? Our HQ could be that pizza joint made famous by Spencer and Garcia. How do you propose we mark our territory? The Wilpon regime sure does like to project the benevolent-baseball-man/magnanimous aura, but the regime's past and present actions sure do give the opposite impression. Honestly, a good portion of my weariness with them these days is about style-- I'd almost prefer a Steinbrenner type; he may have been an inveterate, irredeemable asshole, but he was a bit more up-front about it (blatantly illegal stuff notwithstanding).

World was a different place back then, what with no internet or forums to talk about it, but did the insane stuff Steinbrenner did in the 80s/90s (before they were good) get this much buzz? Even some of the more innocuous stuff?

[metirish]

If Fred, Jeff and Saul get roughed up and lose their argyles so be it....

[G-Fafif]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: The Wilpon regime sure does like to project the benevolent-baseball-man/magnanimous aura

They would've been great stewards of the Boston Braves in the 1930s or some similarly hopeless outfit.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: What if it was simply a move? may have been petty but does that make it wrong? You exist in quite the relativistic universe. Yes, it was wrong. Ceetar wrote: What if it's false redemption? Is it right for Vick or Jackson (or Paterno is another example) to eventually be redeemed? And you also spin things way off into the stratosphere away from the point. You brought those guys up. and we all exist in a relativistic universe. I'm just more wishy washy on taking a firm stance.

Yes, I brought those guys up. And you seem to be misreading the why of it.

Ceetar wrote: I'm just more wishy washy on taking a firm stance.

Yeah, that's what I mean. I don't know why. These are pretty clear-cut choices.

[Edgy MD]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I'd almost prefer a Steinbrenner type; he may have been an inveterate, irredeemable asshole, but he was a bit more up-front about it (blatantly illegal stuff notwithstanding).

Bleh. Et tu?

Give me the bumbling fools every time.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Hell, I'd cut them some slack if they were just a little more fun. I mean, I'm not asking for New Millennium Veeck or anything, but... they're old-fashioned without any real sense of history (Met history, anyways). It's the worst of both worlds, y'know?

Ultimately, this is entertainment, right? So if you're not suited to be competent, professional, and ruthlessly efficient... give me some fucking bread and circus, dig?

[Edgy MD]

The Mets. Are awesome.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Edgy DC wrote: The Mets. Are awesome.

Says the man wearing these*....


* I love that the lenses are orange.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I've generally loved Sandomir's work of late. But did he really just pad out this article with 2-3 paragraphs of this-guy-with-the-same-name stuff? He might as well have made the title really big, and increased the page margins.

Another Sandomir piece on John Maine, but this time without any reference to John Maine:

Mets Owners� Witness Facing Scrutiny Again By RICHARD SANDOMIR Published: February 6, 2012 In 1999, a stockbroker working for Dean Witter Reynolds was convicted of fraud for selling fake or dubious investments in what was ultimately described as a Ponzi scheme. The broker, Dean Turner, spent time in federal prison. But he was not the only one punished in the case. The Securities and Exchange Commission went after his supervisor at Dean Witter, accusing him of failing to properly oversee Turner and ignoring a �red flag� that might have helped the brokerage�s customers avoid millions in losses. The supervisor, George Kolar, fought the charges and enlisted on his behalf an expert witness � a former stockbroker and Smith Barney executive named John Maine. Maine testified that the supervisor�s responsibilities for protecting against fraud were limited, and effectively ended when he reported suspicions about the broker up the chain of command at Dean Witter. The expert testimony didn�t fly. Indeed, the S.E.C. judge overseeing the case against the supervisor actually offered a withering critique of Maine�s testimony. Maine �had not read any case law on the topic� at hand, Thomas Kelly, the administrative law judge, wrote in his opinion. The judge also said that it appeared Maine�s �written expert testimony was prepared in large part� not by Maine, but by the supervisor�s lawyers who had hired him. The supervisor was ultimately fined $20,000 and suspended from being a brokerage supervisor for six months. As for his admonished expert, Maine continued his career, eventually testifying hundreds of times in courts, arbitrations and mediations. Today, Maine is the sole expert witness for the owners of the Mets, Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz. They are battling accusations by the trustee for Bernard L. Madoff�s victims that they turned a blind eye to signs that Madoff might have been up to no good during what the world now knows were his years of orchestrating a historic fraud. Maine, in this different, much more significant case, has submitted a report saying that investors like Wilpon and Katz would have had no reason to suspect Madoff. �The customer has no way of policing the broker�s internal operation and consequently is not required to be concerned about it,� Maine wrote in court papers submitted last month. Maine�s submission was part of the latest legal filings in a case that appears headed to trial next month. At trial, lawyers for the Madoff trustee hope to lay out what they argue is substantial evidence that Wilpon and Katz, their status as mere investors notwithstanding, ignored ample evidence that Madoff�s operation was too good to be true. Wilpon and Katz contend that the evidence is twisted or fabricated. The trustee�s lawyers have met Maine�s expert opinion with a critique that is more pointed � and adversarial � than the one offered by the judge in the 1999 case. They attacked what they claimed was Maine�s lack of experience and expertise. They said his opinion about the case, and the obligations of Wilpon and Katz as longtime and profitable investors with Madoff, was unsupported by �surveys, sources, books, treatises, industry guides, periodicals, studies or any other objective third-party analysis.� Actually, Maine cited in his report 36 cases that support his view that customers like Wilpon and Katz, unlike professional brokers or government regulators, had no special duty to be alert to, much less uncover, Madoff�s fraud. Maine, contacted by telephone last week, would not discuss his work for the Mets. Of course, in this yearlong legal battle, the lawyers for Wilpon and Katz do not think much of the trustee�s experts. Both sides, in fact, have formally asked the judge to toss the contributions of the other side�s experts. Such requests are not unusual. Last year, some of the testimony by Steve Pomerantz, one of the trustee�s experts, was ruled inadmissible in a class-action case in Illinois. It is interesting at minimum to see that Maine has again come under tough criticism. The trustee�s lawyers have noted that Maine has been out of the day-to-day financial securities business for more than two decades. They assert, instead, that he makes a full-time living as an expert witness. Thomas O. McGarity, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said that jurors tended to be skeptical of experts who made their living as witnesses. �It takes away from their credibility,� said McGarity, who said that the best witnesses were usually people still employed in the industry they were testifying about. McGarity, who has written about the admissibility of expert testimony in trials, agreed with the trustee�s assertion that an expert�s report needs third-party analyses because they are �performed by competent experts unrelated to case,� and therefore unbiased, he said. As for the written testimony Maine gave in 1999 that the judge noted was prepared largely by Kolar�s lawyers, McGarity said: �Lawyers always play a role in the drafting of expert testimony. But to have it track the language of their briefs sounds like the expert didn�t put in much independent thought.�

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/sports/baseball/mets-owners-witness-facing-scrutiny-again.html

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Edgy DC wrote: The Mets. Are awesome.

Oh, granted. When I said "they," I meant the Wilpons.

[metirish]

bmfc1 wrote: The Mets have denied credentials to Howard Megdal for the upcoming season: http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2012/02/06/a-note-on-access-and-the-mets/ I don't know what the standards are for credentials but if he received credentialing last year, then not giving it to him this year is vindictive and petty. If the Mets have a problem with his writing, then sue him for libel or get another reporter to give their "side of the story."

fairly interesting conversation between Megdal and Cerrone on twitter right now.

[Edgy MD]

Anybody who knows how to re-publish that badminton match in sequence, please do.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Anybody who knows how to re-publish that badminton match in sequence, please do.

http://theropolitans.com/2012/02/did-you-miss-mets-bloggers-disagreeing.html

[metirish]

Handbags , nothing more.

[Edgy MD]

Megdal seems to be coming across a little tender, huh? I had read Cerrone's post out of context earlier and didn't think it discredited Howard at all.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Megdal seems to be coming across a little tender, huh? I had read Cerrone's post out of context earlier and didn't think it discredited Howard at all.

Cerrone seemed very careful to not 'take sides' and try to be objective. Medgal lashed out and blamed his relationship with SNY, which is what most Metsblog commenters do when they disagree.