Folks and Their Blogs in 2013

[Guest Swan Swan H]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Who knows what the deal is between the Mets and Amway, but they couldn't have chosen a worse co-tenant from a pure image standpoint. The Mets really are terrible at owning the Mets. Unfortunately they are the only ones who do!

Yup. Only a pathetic organization like the Mets would partner with Amway.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

I confessed I missed this line and the paragraph:

A spokeswoman for Amway confirmed for me that the opening took place on Saturday. The Mets have yet to respond to multiple calls and emails asking for comment. At the website promoting the new storefront, Amway describes it this way: "The Amway� Business Center at Citi Field is a dynamic, one-of-a-kind facility. It was created to provide all IBOs with a dedicated space to freely connect, learn new valuable insights, and share the exciting Amway opportunity with prospects. From reserving meeting rooms to learning about upcoming training events � everything you want to know about the Business Center can be found on this page. Just be sure to check back often for new and exciting announcements!"

Apologies to Howard.

But, just getting them to confirm an opening and pulling a paragraph from a website isn't quite the same as an interview.

[Edgy MD]

I don't get it. I mean, I get that Amway wold want to re-present themselves as a legit act by opening a storefront or two. But why not in a strip mall in King of Prussia, PA?

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: I don't get it. I mean, I get that Amway wold want to re-present themselves as a legit act by opening a storefront or two. But why not in a strip mall in King of Prussia, PA?

I don't know much about how businesses choose to operate, but King of Prussia, PA isn't Queens, NY. I don't even really know what Amway does, and I'm not sure how a store facing eminently destroyed junkyards (or people going to McFaddens) is prime location, but I guess they want a foothold or something.

[metsmarathon]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Amway also wanted to lease some Citi Field scoreboard advertising. But there's no more room.

good god that makes my eyes bleed...

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

Maddoff, Amway,... can we get Herbalife for the trifecta?

[Edgy MD]

I think AIG makes the third.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

Edgy MD wrote: I think AIG makes the third.

You're right. I'm surprised Wilpon hasn't signed a member of the Ponzi family to play outfield.

[Edgy MD]

I think AIG should be Duda's new nickname, because he's too big to fail.

[seawolf17]

AIG sponsored Endy's bobblehead! That's brilliant.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Everything About This Mets-Amway Business Is Just Baffling
By Will Leitch

Last night, Capital New York writer and notorious Mets gadfly Howard Megdal came up with quite the scoop, one he appears to have garnered simply by being the only reporter who has looked at Citi Field since Saturday: Amway, of all freaking places, has moved into a storefront at Citi Field, just "a few feet away from a Mets ticket booth." (Here's what the storefront looks like.) This is one of the most baffling Mets stories since we've started writing about the team. The Mets aren't talking, so we thought maybe you'd walk through it with us, so we can try to understand what in the hell is going on. Let's suss out all of the strange aspects to this. 1. Of all the businesses in the world for the Mets to associate themselves with, they chose one that has been sued for being a pyramid scheme. There are so many shady corporations in the world to do business with. You could pick one with ties to insider trading or the subprime lending crisis. One that pollutes the environment. One profiting off third-world child labor. So many options! But nope � the Mets decided to have a big sign on the side of their stadium with the name of a company that settled a class-action lawsuit for $155 million that claimed it was "a pyramid scheme in which distributors rarely sell products to outside customers, only to other new distributors they bring in, who must bring more recruits in to make money." The Mets couldn't have picked a stranger corporate partner if they had decided to sign a deal with a gardening company that happened to be called Madoff Landscapers. 2. Amway doesn't even have stores. Seriously: This is the first Amway storefront in the United States. (They have one in London.) Amway's site says, "Credible Opportunity Messaging greets all IBOs and their prospects as soon as they walk in the door," which is going to be quite a surprise for any sauced Mets fans who stumble in thinking it's McFadden's. Let's think about this for a moment: Of all the places in the entire country Amway would decide to open up its first storefront, the company chose Citi Field. They could have picked the Mall of America. They could have picked the Atlantic City Boardwalk. They could have picked the Vegas Strip. Nope: They're in Citi freaking Field. 3. The Mets don't really have a lot of storefronts. Or, like, any. It's not like Citi Field is just riddled with businesses crawling all over each other to be a part of the Mets experience. Look at that picture again. Amway's the only one there. We didn't even know the Mets were selling storefront space in the first place. We are not sure which is worse: that the Mets would decide to make their first storefront business Amway, or that the Mets decided to start selling storefront space and the only business that had the slightest interest was, in fact, Amway. It's insane, all of it. No matter the explanation � and again, the Mets aren't talking, and one probably shouldn't expect them to � one thing is clear, and eternal: The Mets are the Mets are the Mets are the Mets.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/02/everything-about-mets-amway-is-baffling.html

[metsmarathon]

hey, cool, there's an amway ad up on the billboards, too.

now they need to sell space to pyramid breweries, too.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Edgy MD wrote: I think AIG makes the third.

Didn't we already have Spongetech?

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Here's our stories about the Amway storefront, with photos. Comments from Amway, too.

http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2013/02/amway_opens_first_us_storefron.html

http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2013/02/amways_deal_with_mets_drawing.html

[G-Fafif]

Mets � Willets Point wrote: Maddoff, Amway,... can we get Herbalife for the trifecta?

LOSE FANS NOW.
ASK US HOW!

[Ceetar]

If you're interested in some of what Alderson had to say to bloggers:

http://www.amazinavenue.com/2013/2/28/4038400/mets-sandy-alderson-transcript-interview-blogs

[G-Fafif]

Followup: Howard Megdal's lengthy interview with Amway's VP of marketing.

[Edgy MD]

The Mets had an asset (curbside retail space), needed a tenant, the money was right, and they'll be gone by winter. Fiscal crisis makes for strange bedfellows.

[G-Fafif]

Howard goes to Amway so you don't have to.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Yes, but will Amway approach us in our seats, or in line at Shake Shack?

Megdal may sound one-note at times, but when he does some legwork-- gimmicky or no-- he's devastating.

[Edgy MD]

Faith and Fear in Flushing wrote: When I saw [Pedro Feliciano] wearing one of those adorable Mr. Met caps a couple of weeks ago, I realized the picture wasn�t quite right. Pedro Feliciano needn�t wear a cap with Mr. Met�s image emblazoned on it. Mr. Met should be wearing a cap with Pedro Felicano�s face affixed squarely above the bill.

How hard can this be?

[batmagadanleadoff]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Yes, but will Amway approach us in our seats, or in line at Shake Shack? Megdal may sound one-note at times, but when he does some legwork-- gimmicky or no-- he's devastating.

Yeah. I thought that Megdal's latest Amway piece was terrific. Brilliant thoughts often seem so obvious with the benefit of hindsight. But Megdal, I believe, is the first reporter to note the hypocrisy between Wilpon, on the one hand, recently boasting of a major financial recovery while simultaneously presenting himself in such financial ruins so as to be declared essentially judgment proof by Picard, the Madoff litigation trustee.

[Ceetar]

That's because it's not hypocrisy. They aren't claiming they're in financial ruin to avoid Picard judgement, they're claiming they're not at fault to the point of not having to be the ones to pay the other victims. Quite different than not having any other money or prospects for improvement.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: That's because it's not hypocrisy. They aren't claiming they're in financial ruin to avoid Picard judgement, they're claiming they're not at fault to the point of not having to be the ones to pay the other victims. Quite different than not having any other money or prospects for improvement.

Picard essentially let the Mets off the hook because of their perceived inability to pay a large judgment, not because Picard doubted their culpability. And besides, if the Mets claimed financial ruin, it's a hypocrisy in light of their recent claims to the contrary, no matter what the reason.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: That's because it's not hypocrisy. They aren't claiming they're in financial ruin to avoid Picard judgement, they're claiming they're not at fault to the point of not having to be the ones to pay the other victims. Quite different than not having any other money or prospects for improvement. Picard essentially let the Mets off the hook because of their perceived inability to pay a large judgment, not because Picard doubted their culpability. And besides, if the Mets claimed financial ruin, it's a hypocrisy in light of their recent claims to the contrary, no matter what the reason.

Megdal's point was that Picard had the resources and the talent and the legal force of court orders to thoroughly comb through the private financial picture of Wilpon/Katz/Sterling, and that the Mets couldn't strong arm Picard they way they always brush off news reporters with their "It's none of your business, we're private" mantra. Therefore, Picard's judgment that the Mets are broke is more credible than effWilpon's recent statement painting a rosy financial picture for the Mets near future.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: That's because it's not hypocrisy. They aren't claiming they're in financial ruin to avoid Picard judgement, they're claiming they're not at fault to the point of not having to be the ones to pay the other victims. Quite different than not having any other money or prospects for improvement. Picard essentially let the Mets off the hook because of their perceived inability to pay a large judgment, not because Picard doubted their culpability. And besides, if the Mets claimed financial ruin, it's a hypocrisy in light of their recent claims to the contrary, no matter what the reason.

the financial world is hardly that black and white. claiming, suggesting, or proposing solutions that would keep them from paying much is not that same thing as financial ruin, and the Wilpons have remained pretty steadfast in their claim that they were fine. Plenty of evidence may have suggested, or suggests, that that's not the case, but no one's seen their books either.

The Wilpons aren't paying nothing to Picard either, it's not much compared to the numbers they floated, but they probably never expected that much. You ask for the moon and then settle for something less than that. Picard determined that what they agreed to was the best result, for any number of reasons.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2013/03/new_york_mets_critic_finds_his.html

Here's our version.

[stevejrogers]

A Cardinal fan notes on how badly the Mets have demoralized their fanbase!

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, we got that.

[stevejrogers]

I know its piling on Edge, but this is still an aggregation thread.

This is probably the most damming part of the piece though:

You can't help but feel for David Wright, who is likely going to lead the Mets in just about every offensive category by the time his career is over. He already leads the franchise in hits, doubles, RBIs and runs, and he's third in homers and, sort of amazingly, fifth in stolen bases. And after the Mets signed him to a seven-year extension in the offseason, he's going to be on the team through 2020. It's tough to see how they're not going to be seven miserable years. His surrounding cast probably won't ever be this feeble again, but the Mets are farther away than they were two years ago. It's hard to even cheer for Wright; it feels like obligation, and it just requires too much energy. There's no energy to spare. It requires a ton of Mets fans' energy just to drag themselves out to the game. I love Mets fans, and I love this franchise. They have the best mascot, the best ballpark food and a general pluck in their fanbase's moroseness they try to hide but can't. The world of baseball is a better place when the Mets matter. This is not something that is fun to see. It's no wonder so many Mets fans are choosing not to. I'd be trying to escape to my happy place too.