No Longer Saul in the Family

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Another team might have kept Dickey, kept Beltran, kept the since-departed Reyes from that team. Pairing those three with David Wright and adding at the margins would almost certainly have meant the Mets winning more games over the past several years.

There's also a very good chance that those three players would have broken down considerably. Would we have won more games with those guys short term? Sure. Will the team be better long-term with the players Sandy got for Dickey and Beltran? Certainly.

And, I've said it before, but I don't think there was a player available last winter who was worth breaking the bank for. Overpaying to appease scribes like Howard is how we get Vince Coleman-types. These same scribes will for years, hopefully, be writing about the exploits of Syndergaard, Wheeler....

[G-Fafif]

Get your hopes up about returning to .500, perhaps, but not so much offing the Wilpons, the Post suggests.

[N]o matter how badly long-suffering Mets fans would like to see the cash-strapped Wilpon ride off into the sunset, the team�s ownership structure almost guarantees Wilpon staying in control of the team, The Post has learned. Wilpon is the sole Mets managing general partner, and that means even if his family�s share of the team gets reduced to a minority stake, he will continue to run the club, sources close to the situation said. Katz, who serves as the president of the team, quickly denied the report. �There is no truth to the reports of any intention of selling,� he said. �I have no intention of selling my share of the Mets, nor have I ever had any intention of selling my share.� While a sale may not be in his current plans, Katz does not have to worry about Wilpon losing control of the losing team. �Someone who buys Saul�s stake would have no rights,� a source close to the situation said. And even if a majority of new owners wanted to remove Wilpon as general partner, they would find it very difficult to do so, sources added. Many Major League teams have general partners who own minority stakes in their teams. Those GPs cannot be forcibly removed. For example, the Steinbrenner family owns between 25 percent and 50 percent of the Yankees, a well-placed source said, and Hal Steinbrenner is the GP. The Steinbrenner family has the first right to buy any Yankees stake put up for sale. It is unclear if Wilpon � who sources believe does not have the liquidity to buy out Katz � also has the first option to buy out partners. Of course, if Katz sells, it could increase slightly the possibility that Wilpon could lose the team. For example, if a new co-owner was not willing or able to fund any future losses, the team�s overall financial problems could force Wilpon out.

[Edgy MD]

I'm thinking that the team is 18-19, with help hopefully on the way, the concern shouldn't be about assigning blame at all, but about root-root-rooting for the home team. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Maybe, but what a waste of energy and lack of perspective arguing over "WHO'S TO BLAME?!" --- treating a season as a blameworthy writeoff at 18-19.

Can you pull it back in line?
Can you salvage it in time?

What can you do
To save a party?
Parcheesi?! Charades?!
A spur-of-the-moment
Scavenger hunt?!
Or Queen of the Nile?!

Terry hasn't even broken out the Parcheesi board yet.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Maybe a strobe light in the clubhouse would work!

[Gwreck]

Edgy MD wrote: Maybe, but what a waste of energy and lack of perspective arguing over "WHO'S TO BLAME?!" --- treating a season as a blameworthy writeoff at 18-19

I would submit it's perfectly reasonable to appreciate that the team is competitive and enjoyable, etc. while simultaneously recognizing that the last five seasons were awful.

[ashie62]

I thought this thread was about Saul from Breaking Bad...crap

[Edgy MD]

Gwreck wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Maybe, but what a waste of energy and lack of perspective arguing over "WHO'S TO BLAME?!" --- treating a season as a blameworthy writeoff at 18-19 I would submit it's perfectly reasonable to appreciate that the team is competitive and enjoyable, etc. while simultaneously recognizing that the last five seasons were awful.

Is this really about the last five seasons? That wasn't what was going on in that column at all.

Want to know what happened the last five seasons? The team, that had been spending beyond it's means for a while, lost the illusion that they could afford to do this when the Madoff scandal broke. In a perfect storm, their markers were coming due on long-term, expensive, foolish, unmovable contracts.

Who's to blame for this? Everyone of us knows the answer. Madoff in in his fraud and Wilpon in his foolishness. What's to argue about?

Rubin is trying to attack somebody for the team's performance this year, crying a never-before situation --- a crisis! --- is afoot because of the mis-management of Alderson. It's utter nonsense and anybody who buys it is cutting his nose off... to spite his shirt.

Meanwhile, the team is stomping a much more expensive Yankee roster with greater concerns, top to bottom.

[nymr83]

The article above may actually be Megdal's Finest

[Mex17]

http://nypost.com/2014/05/18/katz-wanted-to-sell-majority-control-of-mets-with-wilpons/

This one leads me to think that a change in ownership might very well be inevitable. Let's assume for the moment that the Wilpon side of the family cannot sustain control of the team without being supported by the Katz side. Even if Fred convinces Saul to stay in until they both pass away or get too old, who is to say that Jeff can do the same with his cousins? Even if they are close (and they may not be) we are talking about a huge financial commitment and according to this little article the Katz kidz have even less interest in sustaining this than Papa Saul does.

Or it may be inevitable by the time it gets to that anyway. I think that it is still very possible that a new commissioner might not necessarily have the same attitude towards protecting this ownership that Selig does. Just look at the recent example in the NBA. . .Stern looked the other way for decades when it came to Sterling, Silver did not share that attitude nor did he continue that policy (granted, the circumstances between the Wilpons and Sterling could not be more different).

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

As much as they get talked about, multigenerational family businesses are very rare and often blow up.

[Edgy MD]

Maybe. Doubleday and Wilpon certainly came into the game after acquiring the team following a failed inheritance. But if the team gets into the black, it shouldn't be an issue.

[batmagadanleadoff]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: As much as they get talked about, multigenerational family businesses are very rare and often blow up.

Just thinking things through here, but who knows how much $$ Katz is losing every year? If it's at least $10M or $20M and you multiply that by the five or six bad years since the Madoff Ponzi scheme broke, Katz's losses might be in the nine digits. That's enough to make a lot of grandkids, cousins and nephews all of a sudden antsy about their inheritances and trust funds. And they're all supposed to maybe take a huge lifetime financial hit because Saul has to ride out the losses -- all so that Jeff Wilpon could own and control the Mets for the rest of his life?

[Edgy MD]

I don't see any scenario where the Mets lose money for the rest of Jeff Wilpon's life, should he live to a natural age comparable to his father, do you?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: I don't see any scenario where the Mets lose money for the rest of Jeff Wilpon's life, should he live to a natural age comparable to his father, do you?

That's not what I was suggesting, if you're responding to my last post. I was just speculating as to how much more money Saul Katz is willing to lose to prop up the Wilpons. Of course, I don't know how much $$ Katz is losing, I don't know how big Katz's "pie" is, I don't know how many other people have their hands in Katz's pie, and I don't know how much Katz is willing to endure so that Jeff could, one day, own the team. But the question I raised isn't how much $$ the Mets might lose during Jeff's life, but how much $$ the Mets'll continue to lose so long as Saul Katz is still in, and how much of that is Katz willing to lose.

So, having now crossed every "t" in my previous post, (I hope) what are you getting at?

[Edgy MD]

I'm getting at this:

And they're all supposed to maybe take a huge lifetime financial hit because Saul has to ride out the losses -- all so that Jeff Wilpon could own and control the Mets for the rest of his life?

It seemed to suggest the Mets will be losing money every year for the next generation or so. I don't think that's true, but I agree such a situation wouldn't continue for long.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: I'm getting at this: And they're all supposed to maybe take a huge lifetime financial hit because Saul has to ride out the losses -- all so that Jeff Wilpon could own and control the Mets for the rest of his life? It seemed to suggest the Mets will be losing money every year for the next generation or so. I don't think that's true, but I agree such a situation wouldn't continue for long.

What situation won't continue for long? I don't think we're understanding each other here.

Maybe I made my original post sound more complicated than it should have been. All I was asking is how long is Katz supposed to keep losing money if his family has no interest in controlling the Mets long term? If his family doesn't want to run the Mets, then they'd probably prefer the cash. And I'm referring to Katz's family because Katz ain't no tree, if you know what I mean.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: What situation won't continue for long?

The organization losing money every year.