After "Madoff's Curveball"

[batmagadanleadoff]

Wilpon Passes Burgers and the Buck
By HARVEY ARATON
Published: May 23, 2011

We can easily envision Fred Wilpon in the lavish confines of his Citi Field box, munching on his Shake Shack burger and complaining to Jeffrey Toobin of The New Yorker about the performance of his marquee players in relation to their reputations and remuneration. Fred Wilpon complained about three of the Mets' marquee players in a New Yorker article. From one suffering Mets fan to another (Toobin discloses his rooting interest in a newly published article), Wilpon�s comments come across like barfly banter during an extended interview while watching his slumping Mets lose to the Houston Astros in April. The comments were obviously not conveyed in the madcap manner of a George Steinbrenner, whose player critiques � �Dave Winfield is Mr. May!� � were often delivered as angry, outrageous smears. Mets fans would agree with Wilpon that Jose Reyes is not worth �Carl Crawford money;� that David Wright is �a really good kid,� but �not a superstar;� and that Carlos Beltran is �65 to 70 percent of what he was.� But although Wilpon is no mean-spirited autocrat, he reveals himself to be a why-me whiner and a first-rate revisionist. He may have fingered himself as the dummy who gave Beltran $119 million in 2004 based on one productive postseason, but that is about all the accountability he serves Toobin along with the burgers. Wilpon gets even with Beltran, though. In his largely Teflon retrospective of the team�s �snakebitten� recent history, it was the called strike taken by Beltran to end the 2006 National League Championship Series that set off or symbolized all that has since gone wrong. Forget how Beltran and the others of a now-shamed era took just two seasons to turn what had been Wilpon�s 71-victory embarrassment of a team into a 97-victory division champion that fought into the ninth inning of Game 7 of the N.L.C.S. with just one experienced and reliable starting pitcher. Forget how Beltran, Reyes and Wright spearheaded the three highest season�s attendance records in Mets history � 3.37 million in 2006, 3.85 million in 2007 and 4.04 million in 2008, the last go-round at Shea Stadium. Forget how the Mets� profitable cable television network, SNY, started in such timely fashion on the backs of the aforementioned players and under the leadership of the since-departed and widely discredited Omar Minaya and Willie Randolph. As bitterly as those seasons ended, how much were they worth to a franchise whose desperate financial straits have far more to do with its owners than its players? And although Wilpon�s comments in The New Yorker article are supplementary to a profile of him and an examination of the continuing Bernard L. Madoff imbroglio, they seem to follow in the pattern of a one-size-fits-all defense: When life and profits are good, everyone is Fred Wilpon�s friend, part of a big, happy family. When caught in a downpour of misfortune, he seems to feel victimized and betrayed by everyone who failed to remind him to carry an umbrella. How a $1 billion suit brought against Wilpon and his partner, Saul Katz, plays out is up to them and Irving H. Picard, the trustee who is seeking the money on behalf of Madoff victims. But the baseball record should be set straight in the wake of Wilpon�s self-serving New Yorker comments, however uncharacteristic. Many flawed performers have contributed to the Mets� recent miseries, including Beltran, Reyes and Wright. But to publicly diminish them (while perhaps damaging their trade value) without acknowledging ownership�s role in the organizational dysfunction that engulfed the Mets after the 2006 postseason borders on deceit. Even after Beltran succumbed without a full swing of the bat in the N.L.C.S., the Mets were doing fine until a subversive element in the franchise core tore at the fabric of what Randolph and Minaya had so quickly quilted. Was it the lone destabilizing influence of Tony Bernazard, a former Minaya crony who ultimately was exposed and fired? Or was it as many suspected � an inside job by Jeff Wilpon, who overreacted to the N.L.C.S. failure and set out to fix what wasn�t broken by virtue of the crown of entitlement placed upon his head by Daddy? It all feels like ancient history now, but that doesn�t mean the Mets weren�t run on so many levels like a college fraternity house � right down to the longtime clubhouse manager, Charlie Samuels, whose shadow business of allegedly stolen memorabilia landed him in the arms of the law. Wilpon has been steadfast in his legal entanglements, guaranteeing vindication of the charges made by Picard that he and Katz were willfully ignorant of the Madoff crimes and profited at the expense of others. It is a complicated case, and maybe Wilpon, who had more than $500 million invested with Madoff when the scheme was exposed, has a right to feel like a victim, no matter what the outcome is. But the collapse of the Mets is more on his house than it is on Carlos Beltran, Jose Reyes or even Oliver Perez. Yes, Wilpon�s comments were made in the context of a game, in the mind-set of a fan. But he is no ordinary fan. He is the owner. He, above all, is accountable. If he wants to find fault, look first in the mirror.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/sports/baseball/fred-wilpon-passes-burgers-and-the-buck-on-mets-troubles.html

[ashie62]

Mets fans would agree with Wilpon that Jose Reyes is not worth �Carl Crawford money;� that David Wright is �a really good kid,� but �not a superstar;� and that Carlos Beltran is �65 to 70 percent of what he was.�


Bullshit..

[G-Fafif]

From Waldstein: Big Pelf stops fiddling with his cap and licking his fingers long enough to make with the subtle Midwestern humor (I recognize Kansan when I hear it).

�I think guys will be upset,� pitcher Mike Pelfrey said. �But we�re all a family: ownership, coaches and players. Sometimes people say things they regret. It�s a mistake and you learn from it. Maybe next spring when we have our media workshop for the players, Fred can come and sit in on it.�

[Guest Edgy DC]

Ashie62 wrote: Mets fans would agree with Wilpon that Jose Reyes is not worth �Carl Crawford money;� that David Wright is �a really good kid,� but �not a superstar;� and that Carlos Beltran is �65 to 70 percent of what he was.� Bullshit..

Come on. You've backed the trash truck up and dumped on all three of those guys. With passion and vigor you have.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Here's the obligatory cheapass video:

[youtube:7xwqajsw]NY0BAMgrucE[/youtube:7xwqajsw]

[G-Fafif]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Here's the obligatory cheapass video: [youtube]NY0BAMgrucE[/youtube]

Worth the entire fusillade of idiocy just for that.

I don't suppose Jeffy has ever taken a good picture.

[soupcan]

Ashie62 wrote: Mets fans would agree with Wilpon that Jose Reyes is not worth �Carl Crawford money;� that David Wright is �a really good kid,� but �not a superstar;� and that Carlos Beltran is �65 to 70 percent of what he was.� Bullshit..

Jose isn't worth that kind of deal. Not saying he won't get it, but he isn't worth $20 million per for 7 years.

Wright isn't a superstar. He isn't. Sorry, it's true. Fred's dead right on that one. David's a really good player and I like him and want to keep him but not a superstar. Not yet anyway.

The Carlos thing I'd mildly disagree with but I understand why he said it and why he feels it.

[TransMonk]

I feel the same way as Soupy.

[seawolf17]

soupcan wrote: Jose isn't worth that kind of deal. Not saying he won't get it, but he isn't worth $20 million per for 7 years. Wright isn't a superstar. He isn't. Sorry, it's true. Fred's dead right on that one. David's a really good player and I like him and want to keep him but not a superstar. Not yet anyway. The Carlos thing I'd mildly disagree with but I understand why he said it and why he feels it.

LALALALALALALA I AM NOT LISTENING LALALALALALALA

[Guest themetfairy]

Assuming arguendo that everything that Fred said was right, I nonetheless think that it shows poor judgment for a team's owner to say those kind of things in front of a reporter.

[Centerfield]

Agreed. The issue is not whether these are true, or whether any one of us agree with them. It's the fact that it's idiotic for an owner to be saying such things to a reporter. I say it goes beyond poor judgment...and into "What a fucking idiot" territory.

You know you're in bad territory when the justifications for your behavior start with "What's the big deal? Steinbrenner used to...."

[batmagadanleadoff]

I'll bet that in the end, nothing will come of Fred's disses. I understand the inevitable firestorm of reporting that Fred's comments generated, but in the end, whatever destiny awaits Beltran, Reyes and Wright as far as re-signing with the Mets or going elsewhere, will happen anyway -- unaffected by yesterday's comments. That's what I believe. If Alfred Hitchcock were still alive and agreed with me, he'd say that Fred's comments are one big MacGuffin.

OE: But I can't guarantee that I won't change my mind 20 minutes from now.

[dgwphotography]

Centerfield wrote: Agreed. The issue is not whether these are true, or whether any one of us agree with them. It's the fact that it's idiotic for an owner to be saying such things to a reporter. I say it goes beyond poor judgment...and into "What a fucking idiot" territory. You know you're in bad territory when the justifications for your behavior start with "What's the big deal? Steinbrenner used to...."

My CEO just used those exact words in reference to Fred.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'll bet that in the end, nothing will come of Fred's disses. I understand the inevitable firestorm of reporting that Fred's comments generated, but in the end, whatever destiny awaits Beltran, Reyes and Wright as far as re-signing with the Mets or going elsewhere, will happen anyway -- unaffected by yesterday's comments. That's what I believe. If Alfred Hitchcock were still alive and agreed with me, he'd say that Fred's comments are one big MacGuffin. OE: But I can't guarantee that I won't change my mind 20 minutes from now.

I agree with that too, but what matters, sort of, is the perception that what's to come will be colored by these remarks. I don't know if that can ever be undone. As Edgy said it's an image business he's in.

I also agree with the columnists who pointed out what selfishness and lack of accountability the whole thing illustrates, as if clearing his name in the Madoff thing justifies whatever damage might come to anyone else.

[metirish]

I hate to be a prick but can someone relieve Jay Horowitz of his job. I have felt for a long time that this organization needs an outside public relations firm and not the bumbling Jay beloved by many but seemingly incapable of doing this job.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The shitstorm that has befallen the Mets this week won't end with Fred's New Yorker comments. Sports Illustrated's next issue will include a feature on the Mets in which Wilpon remarks that the Mets are "bleeding money" and are poised to lose another $70M this season.

Report: Mets 'bleeding cash'

New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon said the team is "bleeding cash" and could lose $70 million this season in an interview with Sports Illustrated that was obtained before release by the New York Daily News. Wilpon also said that he fears he could lose the Mets if the trustee for victims of Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme wins a $1 billion lawsuit against the team and the owner's other interests. Wilpon said he is willing to settle based on the $295 million in fictitious profits he earned, but will not settle based on $700 million in principle he and partners invested with Madoff. Former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has been mediating talks between Wilpon and the trustee, Irving Picard. "Gov. Cuomo has not been able to at this stage convince them that the 700 is not going to be obtainable," Wilpon told the magazine. Wilpon has been trying to sell a stake in the team to raise much needed cash. The magazine reported that if he can raise $200 million, $25 million will pay back an emergency loan to Major League Baseball, $75 million will be used to pay down team debt of $427 million and $100 million will go to operating expenses. According to the magazine, Madoff investments were supposed to offset debt owed to players. When the Mets wanted to get rid of Bobby Bonilla after the 1999 season, they would have owed him $5.9 million. Instead, they decided to invest that money with Madoff at a return of 10-12 percent. They would pay Bonilla $1.2 million per year for 25 years, payments based on an interest rate of 8 percent per year. So in theory, had Madoff's schemes not tanked, a seemingly horrible financial decision would have in fact created a net profit. Picard, meanwhile, contends that Wilpon has not provided enough documentation outlining the relationship between the Mets and Madoff, according to the New York Times. The trustee claims that the club had 16 accounts with Madoff and invested tens of millions of dollars in business. The Wilpon camp counters that it has provided over 700,000 pages of documentation and there is no evidence that the Mets or any other Wilpon entity knew that Madoff was engaged in fraud.

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/news/story?id=6583378&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines

[Ceetar]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'll bet that in the end, nothing will come of Fred's disses. I understand the inevitable firestorm of reporting that Fred's comments generated, but in the end, whatever destiny awaits Beltran, Reyes and Wright as far as re-signing with the Mets or going elsewhere, will happen anyway -- unaffected by yesterday's comments. That's what I believe. If Alfred Hitchcock were still alive and agreed with me, he'd say that Fred's comments are one big MacGuffin. OE: But I can't guarantee that I won't change my mind 20 minutes from now. I agree with that too, but what matters, sort of, is the perception that what's to come will be colored by these remarks. I don't know if that can ever be undone. As Edgy said it's an image business he's in. I also agree with the columnists who pointed out what selfishness and lack of accountability the whole thing illustrates, as if clearing his name in the Madoff thing justifies whatever damage might come to anyone else.

I definitely see some of that. It's sounded like he's been pretty hurt by the stuff written about him re: Madoff. Maybe he's a littled jaded/tired of it.

Anyway, since when do rich guys have any accountability except to other rich guys that cheat them out of millions?

[Theoldmole]

I'm sorry. If Reyes is worth Crawford money to some other city that's got no love for him, why isn't he worth that much to the Mets?

[TransMonk]

TheOldMole wrote: I'm sorry. If Reyes is worth Crawford money to some other city that's got no love for him, why isn't he worth that much to the Mets?

See the article about the Mets bleeding cash.

[Chad ochoseis]

According to the magazine, Madoff investments were supposed to offset debt owed to players. When the Mets wanted to get rid of Bobby Bonilla after the 1999 season, they would have owed him $5.9 million. Instead, they decided to invest that money with Madoff at a return of 10-12 percent. They would pay Bonilla $1.2 million per year for 25 years, payments based on an interest rate of 8 percent per year. So in theory, had Madoff's schemes not tanked, a seemingly horrible financial decision would have in fact created a net profit.

In what world does investing $5.9 million at 10-12% net you $1.2 million annually?

[Frayed Knot]

Remember that both the investment and the interest were to compound for a dozen or so years before they even began to tap into it.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Chad Ochoseis wrote: According to the magazine, Madoff investments were supposed to offset debt owed to players. When the Mets wanted to get rid of Bobby Bonilla after the 1999 season, they would have owed him $5.9 million. Instead, they decided to invest that money with Madoff at a return of 10-12 percent. They would pay Bonilla $1.2 million per year for 25 years, payments based on an interest rate of 8 percent per year. So in theory, had Madoff's schemes not tanked, a seemingly horrible financial decision would have in fact created a net profit. In what world does investing $5.9 million at 10-12% net you $1.2 million annually?

By Year 5 or 6, you're over $1M annual return. (Principal keeps growing.)

[Chad ochoseis]

Yeah, I wasn't aware of the 12-year waiting period on the contract. With 12 years for the $5.9M to grow, the math works out perfectly.

[Ceetar]

TransMonk wrote: TheOldMole wrote: I'm sorry. If Reyes is worth Crawford money to some other city that's got no love for him, why isn't he worth that much to the Mets? See the article about the Mets bleeding cash.

People forget that Reyes isn't just a debit, he's also a source of revenue.

[TransMonk]

Ceetar wrote: TransMonk wrote: TheOldMole wrote: I'm sorry. If Reyes is worth Crawford money to some other city that's got no love for him, why isn't he worth that much to the Mets? See the article about the Mets bleeding cash. People forget that Reyes isn't just a debit, he's also a source of revenue.

In terms of what? Ticket sales? He's never going to be much better than he is RIGHT NOW, and the tickets aren't exactly flying out the door.

[Ceetar]

TransMonk wrote: TransMonk wrote: TheOldMole wrote: I'm sorry. If Reyes is worth Crawford money to some other city that's got no love for him, why isn't he worth that much to the Mets? See the article about the Mets bleeding cash. People forget that Reyes isn't just a debit, he's also a source of revenue. In terms of what? Ticket sales? He's never going to be much better than he is RIGHT NOW, and the tickets aren't exactly flying out the door.

In terms of winning. in terms of marketing a homegrown star. In terms of all the people that want to see him play, that will go to _less_ games if they trade him. A team without Reyes is frankly a less exciting one.

[Frayed Knot]

Chad Ochoseis wrote: Yeah, I wasn't aware of the 12-year waiting period on the contract. With 12 years for the $5.9M to grow, the math works out perfectly.

Yeah, that was the whole idea. Rather than paying Bonilla a lump sum up front to make him go away after the 1999 season (his contract ran through 2000) they'd invest a somewhat smaller lump sum and agree to pay him off for a number of years in the future (starting right about now). It's good for the player as he'll need the money more when he's no longer playing and can't earn as much, and the smaller outlay was good for the club's cash flow at the time. Predictably, most of the recent news stories that dealt with this arrangement neglected to explain why it existed and instead acted as if Bonilla was just added to the payroll under some just-discovered secret and incredibly stupid agreement from way back when.

Now of course if that investment turns out not to pay off as expected ...

[TransMonk]

Ceetar wrote: A team without Reyes is frankly a less exciting one.

I agree with you there. He is a fun guy to watch play.

From a business standpoint, it is nearly impossible for me to hope that the Mets, who are going to lose 70 million dollars this season, are going to nearly double Jose's annual salary for a multi-year commintment to a guy who's main attribute (speed) is probably going to be the first thing to decline as he gets older.

There is NO WAY they make Reyes' potential extention salary back without increasing team payroll for the term of the contract. Brass has already said that they are decreasing payroll next season. Reyes is not the type of player that can carry a team, no matter how exciting he is to watch. IMO, he will not be worth the amount of money he is going to be paid in his next contract. I love the dude, but the Mets are in no position to take on that type of commitment.

[Ceetar]

TransMonk wrote: Ceetar wrote: A team without Reyes is frankly a less exciting one. I agree with you there. He is a fun guy to watch play. From a business standpoint, it is nearly impossible for me to hope that the Mets, who are going to lose 70 million dollars this season, are going to nearly double Jose's annual salary for a multi-year commintment to a guy who's main attribute (speed) is probably going to be the first thing to decline as he gets older. There is NO WAY they make Reyes' potential extention salary back without increasing team payroll for the term of the contract. Brass has already said that they are decreasing payroll next season. Reyes is not the type of player that can carry a team, no matter how exciting he is to watch. IMO, he will not be worth the amount of money he is going to be paid in his next contract. I love the dude, but the Mets are in no position to take on that type of commitment.

There are a million reasons why he is in fact worth it. The actual amount they lose this year, and how much they decrease payroll (and they're probably very very related) is still up in the air, but Reyes will be worth it. For instance, just give him Castillo's money and you haven't even really given him a raise to payroll. If the goal is simply to decrease payroll, then fine, decrease it, but no one is coming to the park so you might as well cut it to 40k. release everyone. what's the point? Reyes is part of winning.

Also, his legs are far from his biggest asset. I'd put his swing, his power, and his arm/defense all above the occasional 2B->3B or a bunch of stolen bases.

[TransMonk]

OK, now you've lost me.

He's the leadoff hitter. Speed is his main attribute. He creates excitement by hitting balls to the gap and turning on the jets, or bunting for base hits, or by dancing off of first base in order to distract pitchers. If he had a great swing or anything more than decent power, he'd be batting third. I would imagine the number of fans potentially heading to Citi hoping to see Jose specifically hit a home run or turn a double play is relatively small compared to those hoping to see him steal a base or hit a triple...c'mon.

As for what is up in the air regarding payroll...

The Mets are spending about $142 million this year on payroll, including about $22 million to players who no longer play for them. Around $64 million is due to come off that payroll. How much the Madoff scandal and the team's declining attendance have impacted the club will become apparent this offseason with the answer to this question: Will the Mets re-invest that $64 million into payroll or will they tighten their belts? Wilpon provided that answer to SI when he confirmed the likely scenario is that the Mets will not re-invest most of the money coming off the payroll.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/tom_verducci/05/24/fred.wilpon.mets.madoff/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin