Skywriting, Billboards and Photobombs

[Centerfield]

Vic Sage wrote: All i'm saying here is that an owner of a franchise in NYC that can't afford to spend enough to be in the top 1/3 of payrolls instead of the bottom 1/3 should be facing an outcry demanding he sell the team. There should be skywriting and billboards and photobombs and every other form of fan revolt conceivable. It should not be dismissed easily with "well, that's the way it is", and it especially shouldn't be lauded as a good strategy of wise restraint. And its not that spending more guarantees anything, but its supposed to be one of the competitive advantages a big-market team should have, and we as fans that pay the highest prices in the league for EVERYTHING have a right to expect. And when they don't, its entirely appropriate to call them on it, not excuse them for it. And not because fan protests will force a change of direction, much less a sale, but because it makes us feel better to call them on it. Let the truth be spoken for its own sake. It will help us sleep better at night.

In three succinct paragraphs, Vic has summed up the biggest problem of this Wilpon regime. Sure, the Wilpons get a ton of criticism, but in fact, they deserve more. How are they not being run out of town? If they cannot, as owners, figure out a way to carry a high payroll when the team is located in New York, they really have no business owning that team.

[Frayed Knot]

Centerfield wrote: How are they not being run out of town?

Because it's a private business where one family owns a majority share of a business with at least the potential to make money even if it's not making any (or much) now.
IOW they have neither a reason nor the interest in selling and, short of an organized and disciplined mass boycott (and when exactly have those ever succeeded in sports?), there's really no way to get them out.

[Vic Sage]

Doesn't matter if it works or not. Do it anyway.

It'll embarrass them at cocktail parties. It'll make them just a tad apprehensive about attending any public events. Whatever joy they seem to milk out of owning a baseball franchise may curdle, even just a tiny bit. And, personally, I'll settle for some Wilponian discomforture in the short term. they should share our pain, hiding behind their plexiglass walls.

[metirish]

A huge part of the problem with the Wilpon's is that they see the Mets as part of the family lineage and trust, like their fucking grandkids not yet born will be running the team, they are not selling.

[Frayed Knot]

Doesn't matter if it works or not. Do it anyway. It'll embarrass them at cocktail parties. It'll make them just a tad apprehensive about attending any public events. Whatever joy they seem to milk out of owning a baseball franchise may curdle, even just a tiny bit. And, personally, I'll settle for some Wilponian discomforture in the short term. they should share our pain, hiding behind their plexiglass walls.

And that's fine too. I'm not trying to talk anybody out of anything here, but fans have been yelling shit about the Wilsons since the 90s - including during times when the team was good. But the bottom line is that it's different than trying to embarrass Woody Johnson into firing his GM, and that, unless fans are TRULY willing to boycott games, cancel SNY, stop buying merchandise, etc. -- and to stick to it even if the team finds itself 40-29 during the second week of June!! -- then the effect is to be spitting into the wind.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: - and to stick to it even if the team finds itself 40-29 during the second week of June!!.

Not happening. Not every happening to any team. An owner would have to be legitimately evil that supporting him would feel like kicking babies. (And for obvious reasons, no owner will make it that far before being ousted. See the NBA/Clippers)

A winning season will bring in all the casual fans (especially with a pathetic Yankee team) who barely think twice about who owns the team, and might be hard pressed to remember their names.

But there are also those of us that just don't freaking care. It is what it is, I just want to watch baseball not discuss theoretical finances that we know, and will know, next to nothing about.

[Vic Sage]

their finances aren't "theoretical"... they're actual, and have actual impact on my team's ability to win. And if you don't see that, then you're ceetarded.

and again, FK, it's not "sptting in the wind". It's spitting on their Benz. And slashing their tires. Maybe sugar in the gas tank. It won't stop them from fixing the car back up and driving it home to their north shore mansion, but they may have to think about where they park it next time.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Vic Sage wrote: It'll embarrass them at cocktail parties.

"I don't embarrass easily, my daddy's rich!"

Edited December 15, 2014 by Guest

[Centerfield]

I don't pretend that any of our bitching will actually convince them to sell the team. But as fans of the team, I don't see why we are not all calling them out on it. Constantly.

It is the biggest obstacle facing this franchise. It is far more central (and pressing) than getting a shortstop or a right handed bench player.

So much focus has been about the Madoff scandal, and how the Mets owners have been affected by it. But let's remove Madoff for a second. How is it acceptable that a team playing in NY had to invest their money with a Ponzi scheme, in order to support a competitive payroll?

Shouldn't they be able to support a large payroll without illegal returns?

[Vic Sage]

our billionaires aren't rich enough.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Vic Sage wrote: their finances aren't "theoretical"... they're actual, and have actual impact on my team's ability to win. And if you don't see that, then you're ceetarded. and again, FK, it's not "sptting in the wind". It's spitting on their Benz. And slashing their tires. Maybe sugar in the gas tank. It won't stop them from fixing the car back up and driving it home to their north shore mansion, but they may have to think about where they park it next time.

Great ideas, Vic. Hey, d'ya think I could borrow your log-on password for this site? This way, whenever I go off on another Wilpon rant, I can sign my posts with your handle, and then there'll be a civil and even constructive dialogue to follow, instead of the usual "Again with the Megdal" and "Who the hell are the owners supposed to be signing with this crop of free agents?" and "What, a team can't win the World Series with a payroll below $100M?" and "What, you don't like dijonnaise?"

[Edgy MD]

Whatever "it" is, I've certainly seen constant calling out of the Mets ownership. Whether you want to invest more in it and coordinate it more is certainly up to you. But I disagree that it's not the central conversation with regard to the team.

And then batmagadan jumps into another thread to preemptively decry his victimization.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: So much focus has been about the Madoff scandal, and how the Mets owners have been affected by it. But let's remove Madoff for a second. How is it acceptable that a team playing in NY had to invest their money with a Ponzi scheme, in order to support a competitive payroll? Shouldn't they be able to support a large payroll without illegal returns?

they weren't illegal until he got caught. Unless you want to play the 'there were in on it' game. But either way, it wasn't that they couldn't support a team without it, it's that they had an avenue to invest money that gave them the best return. Every single rich person does that.

We don't deserve a super high payroll just because we're arrogant New Yorkers. It's a simple equation, either they put players and a team on the field that we enjoy watching and you do, or they don't and you don't. I still enjoy it. Could I enjoy it more? sure. That doesn't give me the right to demand they operate the team at a loss* or run it the way I think they should.

And we don't know what their finances are. those are private. Are they running at a loss? or is that creative accounting (spoiler: all big businesses are creative accountants) that counts ancillary costs of the team as costs buy ancillary profits as Sterling profits? (i.e. does the Citi money count towards revenue when people say the Mets lost money last year?) But people have been saying they're going to be bankrupt and have to sell any day now for years.

IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

The best we can hope for is the Mets win next year, and people flock to the team, and spend money. Revenue going up, at least with Alderson here, will likely lead to more spending as needed. THAT is what I'm focused on.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Vic Sage wrote: their finances aren't "theoretical"... they're actual, and have actual impact on my team's ability to win. And if you don't see that, then you're ceetarded. and again, FK, it's not "sptting in the wind". It's spitting on their Benz. And slashing their tires. Maybe sugar in the gas tank. It won't stop them from fixing the car back up and driving it home to their north shore mansion, but they may have to think about where they park it next time.

Wanna know how I've been protesting? I haven't bought a single ticket directly from the Mets during the Citi Field era. Not one! Every ticket I've ever paid for came from the secondary market ... tickets already paid for ... from StubHub or friends and acquaintances that already paid for their tickets. The Mets still get my hot dog and yearbook money, though. Although I did buy one or two recent yearbooks on ebay.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I think many here go to far fewer games than in year's past.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Last year I went to five Mets games, but two of them were in Pittsburgh and two were in Seattle. The Mets haven't been getting too much of my money for quite a while now. Getting up to Queens from where I live is too much of a hassle for me to do it regularly. Even when the Mets were contending (2006 through 2008) I'd still only go two or three times per year.

The Madoff thing really had the Wilpons on the ropes; I was hoping it would lead to their being forced to sell the team. But they managed to survive that (I really suspect that Bud Selig owns a lot of the blame for this) and now I think that we're stuck with them for the long haul. Making their tenure as miserable as possible is a nice idea, though.

[Vic Sage]

We don't deserve a super high payroll just because we're arrogant New Yorkers

yes, you're right. we don't deserve a super high payroll just because we're arrogant New Yorkers, we deserve it because NY is the BIGGEST SPORTS MARKET ON THE FUCKING PLANET.

NY teams get more media money, more merch money, more ticket, parking, concession money, more licensing money, more ad money THAN ANY OTHER SPORTS MARKET ON THE FUCKING PLANET.

The Mets own a regional sports network. they have a sweetheart deal with the city for their stadium. They are the national league descendants of both GIANTS and DODGERS fans, giving them 2 fanbases to draw on initially, which made their peak attendance greater than the Yankees in their peak years.

Whether they are currently winning or not should not preclude an appropriately financed operation in this market from having a competitive payroll, equivalent to Boston, Philly, LA, Chicago, SF, Toronto, St.L,... or even smaller market teams like Arizona, Cinncinatti, Milwaukee... MILWAUKEE, FER CHRISSAKES! I'm not asking them to spend what the Yankees spend... the MFYs are a international brand borne of their many championships; they are able to monetize that like nobody else. But what about the Dodgers, the Sox, the Phillies, the Giants? Current winning/losing trends and profits have only a tangential relationship to a franchise's overall value, and its the value that should drive payroll, not last year's P/L statement. How much of the value of the team should owners be willing to spend each season? That's a question nobody asks. And why? We're the ones that create that value. Don't even arrogant NYers, paying the highest prices for everything connected to a baseball game, have a right to expect that the value we create (not the PROFIT, the VALUE) be reinvested in the team we root for?

Why is this basic fact so completely lost on you? You overlook our inability to pursue big contract players (either in trade or FA), and deem it a good business strategy. Our underfunded ownership has us locked into a cycle of perpetual mediocrity (at best), and you treat it like its a fact as uncontrollable as the weather, rather the result of their conscious decision making.

Why is this even a controversial point? This is the reality. The only open question is how do we as fans respond to that fact? Peaceful protest? Civil disobedience? Armed Insurrection? Numb obeisance? These are the same choices any population faces when confronted by endless abuse by its ruling class. You want to go "bah bah bah" all the way home? great. Me? I'm sick of this shit. I don't know what I'll do about it, but i have consciously chosen to attend fewer games every year. And when that nice group sales lady called me at my office to pitch CitiField for our corporate events, i explained to her that she should call me back when Freddie and Jeffie sell the team.

will it do any good? fuck no. but it makes me feel better. Its like voting for 3rd party candidates. I've never regretted voting for Nader, because he's the only one who represented my values. I'm not going to support pricks just because i'm not given a choice. And i'm not going to go gently into that good night without some raging against the dying of the light.

on edit: and D'Kong, you can use my name whenever you like, my brother. We've been thru the wars together. But these kids today...

[Ceetar]

I didn't really read that rant. I don't see why you don't understand that losing, in addition to Madoff, building a new stadium, and that all happening during a recession, led to a decrease in revenue for the Mets and that winning, more than the Wilpons becoming cash-flush again, is the biggest thing that will correct it.

And there are a billion examples of how investing the money in players FIRST doesn't always work out due to the nature of human beings, health, and the luck inherent in baseball.

The Mets will have a higher payroll when it's financially responsible to do so. Yes, they'd probably be a little higher now if the Wilpons were funneling money from other avenues, like SNY, towards the team and not towards debt. Sort of the way, (supposedly, because I haven't delved into this discussion) the Dolans operate the Rangers, or did, at a loss because it's such a small portion of the overall portfolio.

That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. On the hope that eventually all that money will generate a winning team and they'll make it back.

[Vic Sage]

"bah, bah, bah"

[Benjamin Grimm]

Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so.

No, I want them to accept that they can't afford to run a New York City sports franchise as it ought to be run, and they should sell to someone who can.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. No, I want them to accept that they can't afford to run a New York City sports franchise as it ought to be run, and they should sell to someone who can.

same thing.

[Vic Sage]

Vic Sage wrote: "bah, bah, bah"

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. No, I want them to accept that they can't afford to run a New York City sports franchise as it ought to be run, and they should sell to someone who can.

I think they think they can get back to being in that position even if they're not there now.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Vic Sage wrote: on edit: and D'Kong, you can use my name whenever you like, my brother. We've been thru the wars together. But these kids today...

That was se�or batmags, but thanks!!

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Again, which big free agent from this year, last year or even the year before did you want them to sign? Foolishly over-spending just to prove you are a big-market team doesn't make sense. It's not like they haven't offered a $100 million contract to any player recently. Just because it was one of our own guys -- Wright -- doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And it's not like they've been utterly hapless. Recently, yes. We got deep into the playoffs in 2006 and would have been there again in 2007 and 2008 if not for the epic collapses. You are talking about 6 years of sucking. For a club rebuilding from the bottom up, I don't think that's unreasonable. Who knows what might have happened last year had the All-Star ace and closer not been lost to Tommy John surgery.

Maybe I'm a little too removed, but I guess I don't see them as all that evil. Talk to a Marlins fan about evil.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: And it's not like they've been utterly hapless.

One first place finish in 26 years. In a division with mostly, just four other competitors.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. On the hope that eventually all that money will generate a winning team and they'll make it back.

No. Mets fans want the Wilpons to get the hell out of baseball. What's so hard about this?

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: on edit: and D'Kong, you can use my name whenever you like, my brother. We've been thru the wars together. But these kids today... That was se�or batmags, but thanks!!

Great, Vic. But how do I know if you meant that me any you been through the wars instead of you
and Kong? I wanna go home!
[fimg=644]http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4328/1686/1600/ryan0163.jpg[/fimg]

[Guest d'Kong76]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: One first place finish in 26 years. In a division with mostly, just four other competitors.

That's literally half my life. Half!

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: That's really what the Wilpon-hate is about. Mets fans want them to operate at a loss cause they're rich and this is NY and suck it up and do so. On the hope that eventually all that money will generate a winning team and they'll make it back. No. Mets fans want the Wilpons to get the hell out of baseball. What's so hard about this?

So you're saying it's not about the Mets then, you've just decided you hate the Wilpons. fine. Take it to a business forum, I thought this thread was at least tangentially about the Mets.