Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yeah, Cohen was only under investigation at the time he bought in. And I believe Mahar's quote when he bought in was "It's a National League baseball team in New York. They aren't making many more of those." The only problem with the selling chunks of the franchise thing was that it hit the Wilpons hard in that they couldn't keep selling those luxury suites -- they gave them to the new owners.

Wonder how things would be different if the Greenlight capital deal hadn't crashed.

[ashie62]

In my humble opinion Greenlight tried to change the terms of the deal so that Einhorn would become majority owner in short time if certain covenants were not met. Kinda like a "trick." It almost worked.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Pretty sure all he did was seek approval to become the majority owner as the terms of the proposed deal allowed. It wasn't like he playing chess against Bobby Fischer.

[nymr83]

the "Parnell as closer" thing may make sense not just from the cynical point of view of keeping Mejia's salary down... if the Mets end up out of contention this year Parnell's trade value in July/August looks better to some teams if he has those shiny save numbers. leveraging the artificial value of "the closer role" could be smart on the Mets' part.

[Edgy MD]

That scenario has got a robust cynicism factor of its own.

[Zvon]

Does this go here?

Strawberry's deferred compensation auctioned for $1.3M

The minimum bid was $550,000. ESPN, which first reported the results, said the buyer will get a monthly check from the Mets for $8,891.82 over the next 18-plus years.

Interesting stuff.

https://www.google.com/search?q=strawberry+deferred+contract&newwindow=1&hl=en&biw=1536&bih=741&site=imghp&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=hNrBVH6P5LAE1cOBuA0&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&dpr=1.25

[Edgy MD]

Speaks more to "Strawberry's Financial Picture," I think.

[Lefty Specialist]

the buyer will get a monthly check from the Mets for $8,891.82 over the next 18-plus years.

Boy, they owe me that just for all the pain and suffering they've inflicted on me over the years.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Edgy MD wrote: Speaks more to "Strawberry's Financial Picture," I think.

Here's the thing: if he's in such dire straits that he's forced to sell a $1.3M+ annuity (essentially) for dimes on the dollar... does he really have the leverage to dictate/stick to a hard bid floor?

[Edgy MD]

I don't think he sold it. I think the IRS seized it and auctioned it off.

[Zvon]

Edgy MD wrote: I don't think he sold it. I think the IRS seized it and auctioned it off.

That's what I got. I didn't even think that was possible in terms of a contract.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Met 2015 payroll is currently at approximately $100 million.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Met 2015 payroll is currently at approximately $100 million.

Or a tick over $96M, depending ...

http://risingapple.com/2015/02/02/mets-current-payroll-tick-96-million/

[batmagadanleadoff]

New Baseball commish, sounding a lot like the old commish, sez Mets have puny payroll only because they want to, and that Mets could increase their payroll if they wanted to.

excerpt:

New MLB commissioner Rob Manfred said he has no doubt that Mets ownership has the capacity to boost its payroll if it deems it worthwhile.... "For a whole host of reasons, it's really not my position to predict when I think they need to spend," Manfred said during a visit last week to ESPN's campus. "I have had ongoing, numerous conversations with both ownership and Sandy [Alderson] about the Mets' situation. ... I think at the point in time that it is their judgment that it is effective to increase their payroll, they'll do that, and they will have the capacity to do it".... Asked point blank if the Mets have the capacity to boost their payroll now, given their seeming lack of appetite to pursue trades for big-ticket items such as Troy Tulowitzki and Ian Desmond to man shortstop, Manfred added: "I don't know what their internal considerations are with respect to individual trades, and it's not appropriate for me to talk about that. But I have never had a question about the Mets' capacity to spend if they decided it was in their baseball interest to spend money. I really don't believe that's an issue."

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/97285/new-commish-weighs-in-on-mets-issues?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[batmagadanleadoff]

The state of the Wilpons
By Howard Megdal 8:17 a.m. | Feb. 13, 2015

Adam Rubin had news this week on the Wilpon settlement with the trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims, Irving Picard: "The trustee who is recovering money for victims of Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme announced Monday another round of distributions of recovered funds had begun. ... And that helps the Mets' owners, the Wilpon family." It's true, to a certain extent. But only technically. You must remember that the trustee settled with the Wilpons in what was effectively a hardship settlement, after determining they didn't have the money to pay even what had been set as a minimum during pretrial motions, $83.3 million. So as part of the settlement, Fred Wilpon and his partners only need to come up with a maximum of $29 million, and not for five years. Now if the amount Picard recovers ultimately drives down the money due from Mets ownership below $29 million, all the better. But they weren't facing some $100 million+ debt coming due. Here are the numbers you have to actually remember, and what keeps Fred Wilpon and his partners up nights (and Wilmer Flores entrenched as a low-cost shortstop). The Mets' parent company, Sterling Equities, continues to finance the $250 million in debt against the team. Sterling also continues to finance more than $600 million in debt against SNY. Below is a partial schedule of what comes out of team revenues directly in twice-annual debt balloon payments for the next eight years. June 2016 - December 2018: $21,950,000 June 2019 - December 2022: $22,000,000 The schedule continues like that through 2045. It all means that the Mets are spending more on financing debt than they are on payroll. So sure, it's nice every time the Madoff trustee announces another victory, primarily because it helps people actually victimized by Bernie Madoff. But Mets ownership has far bigger numbers to worry about. Which is also why you can safely dismiss the qualified comments by new MLB commissioner Rob Manfred on Wilpon finances. Notice that he insulates himself by claiming no knowledge of their ability to spend just before endorsing it. Also via Adam Rubin: http://es.pn/1vHGiwn "Asked point blank if the Mets have the capacity to boost their payroll now, given their seeming lack of appetite to pursue trades for big-ticket items such as Troy Tulowitzki and Ian Desmond to man shortstop, Manfred added: "I don't know what their internal considerations are with respect to individual trades, and it's not appropriate for me to talk about that. But I have never had a question about the Mets' capacity to spend if they decided it was in their baseball interest to spend money. I really don't believe that's an issue." Tell that to the fans about to watch a potential contending team fail to address basic roster holes or depth this winter.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2015/02/8562283/capital-sports-biz-report-state-wilpons-red-bulls-anti-galacticos

[batmagadanleadoff]

According to this one-week old Megdal piece, Mets attendance this season is about the same as last year if you take out the outlier home game where Harvey returned/debuted at Citi Field following his arm surgery.


How about that Mets attendance?
By Howard Megdal 2:27 p.m. | May. 1, 2015

It would be hard to have scripted a more perfect beginning to the season than the one enjoyed by the New York Mets. As usual, the team won on Opening Day�the Mets are 35-11 on the season's first day since 1970�and kept on winning, running out to a 13-3 mark that included a 10-0 homestand and an 11-game winning streak. Matt Harvey looked like Matt Harvey. Bartolo Colon, too, looked like Matt Harvey. The rest of the division lost enough that the Mets opened up a 4.5 game lead on everybody by April 23, and the consensus NL East favorite Washington Nationals began the season 7-13. Accordingly, the team's repeated leaks to Newsday's Steven Marcus and Neil Best, touting a 19.26 percent increase in ticket sales in January, which jumped to 22.6 percent in March, seemed prophetic. If ticket sales had jumped that much before the hot start, imagine where they'd be in the midst of a winning season? But that isn't what's happening, at least not yet. Through Thursday night's game against the Nationals, average attendance this season is 30,430 per game. Last year, through 11 games, it was 28,978 per game. That's an average difference of 1,453 per game, or just five percent over last year's number through eleven games. And nearly the entire difference came from the one-off that was Matt Harvey's first game at Citi Field since 2013 in the second home game of the season. This is unsurprising, and the gap has more to do with the absurdity of the numbers tossed out by the Mets than any failing on their part to sell tickets. Generally, teams who win see an increase in ticket sales. But the significant stronger sales correlation applies to teams that spend money in the offseason. This is even true in the year following either a winning season or a big payroll increase. And by the way, no team, regardless of winning or payroll increases, has seen the kind of purported increases the Mets touted absent the largest driver of such things in many, many years. The reason this matters is that the Mets have repeatedly asserted that they will be raising payroll once attendance improves, putting the impetus on the fans to show up for an inferior product before they invest in it. In the meantime, the team looks good. But the Mets have some clear holes addressable with a payroll more commensurate with the revenue generated in this market, rather than one with Mets owners siphoning off a payroll's worth of that revenue to service their crippling debt load. Thursday night, in the first of a four-game series against the Nationals, the likely division rivals for the top spot, the Mets led 2-0 in the fourth inning. A double-play ball was hit to Wilmer Flores at shortstop. To be clear, this is someone the Mets have repeatedly pointed out publicly they don't believe is likely to field the position adequately, until the money ran out again this winter and they were forced to go with him. Flores muffed the play, and the floodgates opened on the inning. Ultimately, the Mets lost to fall to 15-8, which is good, but 2-5 since the winning streak, which is not. A rough weekend against the Nats, and most of their early statistical cushion will be gone. But maybe that's better: A close pennant race might sell more tickets than if the Mets ran away with it like they did in 1986. The 1986 Mets, though, set a New York City attendance record at the time. And those 1986 Mets also had three of the top six highest-paid players in baseball. It's a fair bet that until these Mets invest in their payroll that much�and there's every reason to believe current ownership cannot do so�the attendance number isn't going to rise much at Citi Field, either. And if you take the Mets at their word about not spending money�the one thing it's been safe to believe about the Mets, post-Bernie Madoff�whatever gains the team has made under Sandy Alderson will continue to be hampered by it.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2015/05/8567141/capital-sports-biz-report-how-about-mets-attendance

[Ceetar]

62,971

If you sub out the second game of this season when Harvey pitched for the second game of last season it's closer to 51,000.

So sure. give or take 3500 fans a game.

(you said a week ago so he's probably not talking about the recent homestand. this is the definition of small sample size)

[Guest d'Kong76]

Meggy wrote: Generally, teams who win see an increase in ticket sales.

Brilliant!

Meggy wrote: But maybe that's better: A close pennant race might sell more tickets than if the Mets ran away with it like they did in 1986. The 1986 Mets, though, set a New York City attendance record at the time. And those 1986 Mets also had three of the top six highest-paid players in baseball.

Right, chose both ways just to be safe.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: 62,971 If you sub out the second game of this season when Harvey pitched for the second game of last season it's closer to 51,000. So sure. give or take 3500 fans a game. (you said a week ago so he's probably not talking about the recent homestand. this is the definition of small sample size)

Sample size doesn't matter much here because Megdal isn't trying to extrapolate a full season attendance figure. He's comparing last year's attendance after x home games to this year's attendance after x home games.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: Generally, teams who win see an increase in ticket sales. Brilliant! But maybe that's better: A close pennant race might sell more tickets than if the Mets ran away with it like they did in 1986. The 1986 Mets, though, set a New York City attendance record at the time. And those 1986 Mets also had three of the top six highest-paid players in baseball. Right, chose both ways just to be safe.

He's saying that attendance increases correlate more strongly with payroll increases rather than increases in wins. Granted, he doesn't show any of the research, but still ......

[batmagadanleadoff]

Generally, teams who win see an increase in ticket sales. Brilliant! But maybe that's better: A close pennant race might sell more tickets than if the Mets ran away with it like they did in 1986. The 1986 Mets, though, set a New York City attendance record at the time. And those 1986 Mets also had three of the top six highest-paid players in baseball. Right, chose both ways just to be safe. He's saying that attendance increases correlate more strongly with payroll increases rather than increases in wins. Granted, he doesn't show any of the research, but still ......

Correction: Megdal links to this piece.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I'm with Emerald City Bill's response in that link.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: 62,971 If you sub out the second game of this season when Harvey pitched for the second game of last season it's closer to 51,000. So sure. give or take 3500 fans a game. (you said a week ago so he's probably not talking about the recent homestand. this is the definition of small sample size) It's not a small sample size because Megdal isn't trying to extrapolate a full season attendance figure. He's comparing last year's attendance after x home games to this year's attendance after x home games.

A. It's still a 5% increase. It's a small sample and there are various noises in data that small. Things like weather, hockey teams in the playoffs, etc. He's throwing away Harvey's start like it's a blip in small sample size data because it fit's his narrative, but fails to account for anything else.

B. He's also suggesting that the Mets are lying about the ticket sale increase. No, not suggested, outright stated it. Ignoring for a moment that the ensuing 4 games have already started to prove the Mets right and him wrong, the answer is right in front of him. If the Mets sold more tickets in advance this season, where does he think fans bought them to? Probably cold April games against the Marlins and Phillies? No, not unless Harvey is pitching his first game at Citi Field. Oh look, he was! Turns out that those tickets sold do indeed count towards percent increases in sales.

Where else? Perhaps an early May series against the division rival? Oh look, the Mets practically sold out last weekend.

I bet a lot of those other tickets were sold for summer games, when it's warm. It wouldn't be hard to look, unless you're going to look at the available tickets for certain games and claim the site lies.

[ashie62]

All this over what Megdal has to say? Really? The guy is a troll.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: A. It's still a 5% increase. It's a small sample and there are various noises in data that small.... He's throwing away Harvey's start like it's a blip in small sample size data because it fit's his narrative, but fails to account for anything else.

He's essentially saying it's an outlier.

Ceetar wrote: B. He's also suggesting that the Mets are lying about the ticket sale increase. No, not suggested, outright stated it. Ignoring for a moment that the ensuing 4 games have already started to prove the Mets right and him wrong, the answer is right in front of him. If the Mets sold more tickets in advance this season, where does he think fans bought them to? Probably cold April games against the Marlins and Phillies? No, not unless Harvey is pitching his first game at Citi Field. Oh look, he was! Turns out that those tickets sold do indeed count towards percent increases in sales.

No he's not. He's doubting that a announcement made in January that ticket sales increased almost 20% is sustainable given the Mets roster and salary commitments. That's all to be determined. Sounds, as it always does, like the piece doesn't fit your narrative.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ashie62 wrote: All this over what Megdal has to say? Really? The guy is a troll.

You always make these kind of comments that never really contribute to the discussion. I never know what the hell they're supposed to mean. The truth is a defense, isn't it? You can challenge anything he writes about by addressing the merits, but to dismiss him because, as you say, he's a troll, whatever the fuck that's even supposed to mean? WTF?

[Edgy MD]

You don't know what a troll is?

I mean, he is or isn't, but the definition is pretty clear by now.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: You don't know what a troll is? I mean, he is or isn't, but the definition is pretty clear by now.

Yeah, I know what a troll is supposed to be. But what happens when someone you think is a troll writes the truth? When someone with, perhaps, an axe to grind, nevertheless writes something that's honest and accurate? And is there a word for something like a reverse troll? You know, like someone who goes to ridiculous, almost pathological delusional lengths just to post something positive on the topic on hand? Just to avoid or deny negative comments or criticism, no matter how deserved? Because if there isn't, there should be. How about llort? Like llama, but llort?

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: A. It's still a 5% increase. It's a small sample and there are various noises in data that small.... He's throwing away Harvey's start like it's a blip in small sample size data because it fit's his narrative, but fails to account for anything else. He's essentially saying it's an outlier.

Well sure, the idea that it's payroll that drives ticket sales certainly looks better when you throw out the evidence to the contrary.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: B. He's also suggesting that the Mets are lying about the ticket sale increase. No, not suggested, outright stated it. Ignoring for a moment that the ensuing 4 games have already started to prove the Mets right and him wrong, the answer is right in front of him. If the Mets sold more tickets in advance this season, where does he think fans bought them to? Probably cold April games against the Marlins and Phillies? No, not unless Harvey is pitching his first game at Citi Field. Oh look, he was! Turns out that those tickets sold do indeed count towards percent increases in sales. No he's not. He's doubting that a announcement made in January that ticket sales increased almost 20% is sustainable given the Mets roster and salary commitments. That's all to be determined. Sounds, as it always does, like the piece doesn't fit your narrative.

It's 'sustainable' because you can't unsell a ticket. Also because of the four games after he wrote the post.

I'm arguing facts here, not my narrative. I'm surprised ticket sales are up as much as they are, typically I expect that to be a 'year after' type effect. They're already packing the place on weekends and it's not even summer. There are about 1300 Promenade tickets available for the Saturday 6/27 Reds game. Nothing I've seen or read seems to suggest the Mets ticket sale numbers are wrong.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You don't know what a troll is? I mean, he is or isn't, but the definition is pretty clear by now. Yeah, I know what a troll is supposed to be. But what happens when someone you think is a troll writes the truth? When someone with, perhaps, an axe to grind, nevertheless writes something that's honest and accurate? And is there a word for something like a reverse troll? You know, like someone who goes to ridiculous, almost pathological delusional lengths just to post something positive on the topic on hand? Just to avoid or deny negative comments or criticism, no matter how deserved? Because if there isn't, there should be. How about llort? Like llama, but llort?

You should probably be a little bit embarrassed and not want to be that asshole's champion. You may even want to reach out to him and say he's not doing the cause any favors. A troll is a terrible thing to be and not something to be associated with.

I don't think he is a troll. For better or for worse, he's got his own platform � his own bridge, as it were � and trolls hijack other people's platforms.