Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: It's 'sustainable' because you can't unsell a ticket.

Of course it's sustainable. That doesn't guarantee anything. He's saying "we'll see". He's theorizing. Now if the Mets go into a bad fold and drop out of the race, and attendance essentially flattens, we might not know whether it was because of the W-L record or because of the payroll.

TBD

[Guest d'Kong76]

First thing I do when the Meggy stuff is posted is hit *CTRL F* and
search for Madoff to see how long he lasted. Then I read.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: You should probably be a little bit embarrassed and not want to be that asshole's champion.

I'm not his champion. I post his articles here because they're relevant, and nobody else here ever, or hardly ever, posts 'em. Megdal's made enough of a name for himself that he at least deserves some attention. I don't agree with everything he writes. On the other hand, to just dismiss him as a troll in half a sentence is a lazy post. (Not that I'm above writing lazy off the cuff posts either).

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You should probably be a little bit embarrassed and not want to be that asshole's champion. I'm not his champion. I post his articles here because they're relevant, and nobody else here ever, or hardly ever, posts 'em.

Sounds exactly like a champion to me.

Speaking for myself, I don't like to repost any articles. I have done so, but I generally find the practice to be less than ethical, and feel badly when I do it.

With regards to Megdal, I don't post his articles because he's just awful � to an obvious extent.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: It's 'sustainable' because you can't unsell a ticket. Of course it's sustainable. That doesn't guarantee anything. He's saying "we'll see". He's theorizing. Now if the Mets go into a bad fold and drop out of the race, and attendance essentially flattens, we might not know whether it was because of the W-L record or because of the payroll. TBD

no, those tickets are sold.

The only way he becomes 'right' I guess is if the Mets tank but trade for Tulowitski and attendance keeps going up.

really he's not making any points except that the Mets are probably wrong. And he's claiming they asserted things that they merely hinted about in veiled PR speak. He uses the words 'purported increases' which infers he thinks they're lying. Nevermind that all they said was tickets sales are up X to this point. It's a completely un-proveable statement from where we stand anyway.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Mets insured David Wright contract
By Scott Gelman
@Gelman_Scott on May 26, 2015, 11:32p

David Wright is set to see a back specialist but the Mets may not be responsible for his entire contract if he ends up on the disabled list for an extended period of time. Wright was diagnosed with spinal stenosis over the weekend, and according to FOX Sports' Ken Rosenthal, the Mets insured Wright's contract. Once Wright is out for 60 days, Rosenthal notes the Mets would "recoup 75 percent of his contract" while he is still not able to play. Wright will determine what action needs to be taken moving forward after consulting with a specialist in California. Ultimately, New York is hoping Wright will be healthy, however if he is unable to play for at least the next few months, the club will not be financially responsible. New York signed Wright to an extensive contract after the 2012 campaign and he established himself as a consistent third base option, playing in 112 games in 2013 and 134 games last season. The deal will pay Wright, who has only played in eight games in 2015, $20 million a season for each of the next four seasons, $15 million in 2019, and $12 million in 2020. Wright, 32, has not made an appearance since April 14 and was subsequently placed on the disabled list after pulling his right hamstring. The Mets were optimistic as Wright was prepared to begin his rehab assignment but the organization shut him down again on May 6 after he suffered from back problems. Despite being cleared to resume baseball activities, Wright's rehab was shut down again three weeks later. While New York was not initially convinced the injury was notably serious, Wright was diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis last weekend. Comparable versions of the ailment ended the careers of Lenny Dykstra and New York Giants running back David Wilson, however NYU director of spine service Dr. Jeffrey Goldsetin told Newsday the outcome "really depends on the patient." The Mets, after a 5-4 victory over the Phillies on Tuesday night, are sitting at 26-21, good for second place in the National League East. New York has had difficulty scoring runs early in 2015 and the loss of Wright will likely not make scoring any easier. Eric Campbell (.185/.306/.284 in 25 games) and Dilson Herrera were both expected to replace Wright at third base, however Herrera was placed on the disabled list with a broken finger. Wilfredo Tovar and Alex Castellanos are minor league options, and while the Mets could add a third baseman via a trade, General Manager Sandy Alderson told the New York Post it may be too early to determine if the Mets need a long-term replacement for Wright. Prospect Matt Reynolds may be a candidate, however he has never played third base at the professional level. Surgery is not considered to be an option for Wright at this point, according to Mike Puma of the New York Post, but if the Mets find themselves in contention without Wright, adding a third baseman might become a goal. New York will continue to monitor Wright's status, but if he does not take the field for 60 days, the club could spend elsewhere since his contract is insured.

http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2015/5/26/8664581/mets-david-wright-contract-insured

[dgwphotography]

This franchise has become such an embarrassment. Would this be a story with any other team?

[ashie62]

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You should probably be a little bit embarrassed and not want to be that asshole's champion. I'm not his champion. I post his articles here because they're relevant, and nobody else here ever, or hardly ever, posts 'em. Sounds exactly like a champion to me. Speaking for myself, I don't like to repost any articles. I have done so, but I generally find the practice to be less than ethical, and feel badly when I do it. With regards to Megdal, I don't post his articles because he's just awful � to an obvious extent.

Mags you are the poster boy for troll.

[Ceetar]

dgwphotography wrote: This franchise has become such an embarrassment. Would this be a story with any other team?

yes.

[Frayed Knot]

dgwphotography wrote: This franchise has become such an embarrassment. Would this be a story with any other team?

Sure it would.
Whether it would get played up as much with some other team is questionable, but there's nothing about the circumstances of this story which make it unique to the Mets. Insurance plans for players with expensive and long term contracts are common.

[dgwphotography]

I realize that this is hardly scientific, but searches for Homer Bailey and Stephen Strasburg didn't pull up any articles regarding insurance like the aforementioned article.

The only articles I found regarding Strassburg were in relation to the Nationals shutting down Strassburg, and what Boras said regarding any consequences for the Nationals if they didn't follow doctor's orders...

[Edgy MD]

They took out an insurance policy against an eventuality that may well be coming to pass. I can't see how this reflects poorly on them.

Insurance on contracts has grown far less common since the dot-com boom era, as premiums have gone up higher since big cash outs were collected. (Was Mo Vaugn one?) But they're certainly not unheard of.

The last thing I am is embarrassed.

[Ceetar]

those guys aren't insurance type guys.

Try A-Rod. Try Prince Fielder. (both turn up some stuff)

Pujols too, but he hasn't been as injured to make it pop up in claims. Plus, this is private information and not as readily available.

Sabathia too.

You'll find these articles on any large-sum free agent contract where the player spends a significant time on the DL.

[TransMonk]

To me, the only potentially alarming thing about the article is the sentence that batmags bolded....specifically the "60 days" part.

I can see conspiracy therorists raising a stink if David comes back shortly after June 15th, looks as good as new and has no other issues for the remainder of the year (not that I agree).

Otherwise, like others have said, insurance is common for high dollar players these days.

[batmagadanleadoff]

TransMonk wrote: To me, the only potentially alarming thing about the article is the sentence that batmags bolded....specifically the "60 days" part. I can see conspiracy therorists raising a stink if David comes back shortly after June 15th, looks as good as new and has no other issues for the remainder of the year (not that I agree). Otherwise, like others have said, insurance is common for high dollar players these days.

I agree with most of the earlier posts here, that the insurance policy itself isn't unusual, or any cause for alarm. But the leak might be another story. If you wanna play conspiracy theory, I've got two of them, and they depend on whether this info was leaked at the FO's request or against its wishes. (I assume it's a leak because the source is unnamed. But if the info wasn't leaked, then the info was disclosed with the FO's blessing, and you can skip one of my theories).

If the FO orchestrated the leak, then the conspiracy theory is that it was done so as a preemptive strike against what the FO anticipates will be negative press about Madoff and the Mets limited budget and how though the team is broke, they blew a disproportionately high percentage of their allowance on an aging player that's now breaking down. If there's any truth to this theory, than the FO might already know that Wright's gonna be out for a long stretch.

If the insurance info was leaked against the owners' wishes, then your idea makes sense as a conspiracy theory. It's kind of far-fetched and diabolical to believe, though, that Wright would be unnecessarily shelved for a long period of time to meet the 60 day period, but not so far-fetched to believe that the FO would pad a shorter amount of time to Wright's inactive status to trigger the insurance policy. In any case, my mind tends to run cynical and diabolical and given this FO and their economic status, I don't put anything past 'em.

[Edgy MD]

Wait, what has been leaked?

The existence of the policy itself has long been publicly known.

[Guest d'Kong76]

[fimg=750:xyxhjtf3]http://urbanomnibus.net/redux/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/8684611010_54c730fa53_b.jpg[/fimg:xyxhjtf3]

[Frayed Knot]

dgwphotography wrote: I realize that this is hardly scientific, but searches for Homer Bailey and Stephen Strasburg didn't pull up any articles regarding insurance like the aforementioned article.

I have no idea why Strasburg & Bailey are the specific examples here, but OK; Strasburg's injury occurred during his rookie year rather than during a longterm contract (one that he still doesn't have). I guess he was technically still on his signing deal but much of that is up-front bonus money with smaller year to year salaries tacked on and the bottom line is that there's little point (or at least little cost vs benefit sense) in shelling out for insurance on players in their pre-FA years.
Whether the Reds have insurance on the recently signed Bailey or not I have no idea. I do know it's tougher and more expensive to get insurance on pitchers (making this a not-great comparison in the first place) and the frequency of TJ surgery these days might make that an uninsurable condition. But even if it is insurable, TJ in this era is mostly a fixable situation with a more or less known recovery period. What clubs want insurance for is the degenerating type of injuries that prematurely shut down careers in the midst of a player's most expensive years (Albert Belle, Mo Vaughn, Jeff Bagwell). If Wright falls into this group then the presence of a policy that would partially compensate for what would be a HUGE loss to the team is simply good business.


I also don't get this conspiracy theory tied to the 60-day limit. So if Wright sits out until day 62 and then returns then this proves a conspiracy because, behind the scene, Fred & Jeff & Saul are high-fiving each other over the policy saving them a portion of two days salary?
I know stuff like this makes for good jokes occasionally (and, more commonly, a lot of bad ones) but we're going to have to do a little better than this.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

From what I've read, it's next to impossible � or so prohibitively expensive so as to put it beyond consideration � to get insurance against an elbow or shoulder injury for a pitcher, particularly one that has already been hit by such an injury.

[Guest d'Kong76]

It's too bad we no longer have a reputable mole here like
when HVAC Guy at Shea kept us posted. Ya know, a union
guy, a guy that knew how things really worked and got done
in the front offices.

*clink*

[Guest d'Kong76]

This is a little dated, and I'm not going to look for newer stuff,
but it's got some interesting things of note on the subject from
The Big Guys across the pond...

http://www.lloyds.com/news-and-insight/news-and-features/archive/2008/04/batter_up_lloyds_steps_up_to_the_plate_with_baseball_cover_30042008

[dgwphotography]

Frayed Knot wrote: dgwphotography wrote: I realize that this is hardly scientific, but searches for Homer Bailey and Stephen Strasburg didn't pull up any articles regarding insurance like the aforementioned article. I have no idea why Strasburg & Bailey are the specific examples here,.

After a long day at work, they were the first two who I thought of. I was admittedly too tired to really dig further.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: From what I've read, it's next to impossible � or so prohibitively expensive so as to put it beyond consideration � to get insurance against an elbow or shoulder injury for a pitcher, particularly one that has already been hit by such an injury.

Read up a little more yesterday and it seems like it's the prohibitively expensive bit. Really it works pretty much like it works for us. preexisting conditions raise the cost and the premiums and the deductibles. read somewhere that insurance policies are usually 3-year renewable deals.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Wait, what has been leaked? The existence of the policy itself has long been publicly known.

Has it? Well, conspiracy theories are usually easy to debunk, anyways.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Wait, what has been leaked? The existence of the policy itself has long been publicly known. Has it? Well, conspiracy theories are usually easy to debunk, anyways.

Still, yesterday's news reads like the existence of Wright's insurance policy was made public for the first time.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Wait, what has been leaked? The existence of the policy itself has long been publicly known. Has it? Well, conspiracy theories are usually easy to debunk, anyways. Still, yesterday's news reads like the existence of Wright's insurance policy was made public for the first time.

Rosenthal's tweet doesn't read like the policy was publicly disclosed prior to yesterday. Just sayin'. Of course, the tweet's vague enough to go either way. Got an old link referencing this policy?

[fimg=544]https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8764/17614199193_af11135ba3_o.jpg[/fimg]

[fimg=422]http://urbanomnibus.net/redux/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/8684611010_54c730fa53_b.jpg[/fimg]

[Ceetar]

Why would the policy be publicly disclosed? It's not a public policy. There are a couple mentions about insurance if you go back to 12/2012, but nothing concrete because it wasn't part of the press release. Rubin did mention in one of those that his previous contract was insured.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: Why would the policy be publicly disclosed? It's not a public policy. There are a couple mentions about insurance if you go back to 12/2012, but nothing concrete because it wasn't part of the press release. Rubin did mention in one of those that his previous contract was insured.

I'm indifferent and made no comment on why an insurance policy would or wouldn't be disclosed. Edgy, and now you, both say that the existence of this policy was already known. I simply asked for a link, that's all.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Wait, what has been leaked? The existence of the policy itself has long been publicly known. Has it? Well, conspiracy theories are usually easy to debunk, anyways. Still, yesterday's news reads like the existence of Wright's insurance policy was made public for the first time.

Respec-teufle-y, no way. It was discussed openly in light of the Yankees' situation with Alex Rodriguez's contract (also insured). No leak. No scoop.

Here's a good primer on the contract insurance game � from 2+ years ago � referencing both Rodriguez and Wright.

The newsworthy angle that isn't being discussed is that the Mets may not be able to collect on the policy at all � or there may be an embarrassing public scuffle over the matter � as the insurer can certainly view Wright's back condition as a pre-existing one.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Wait, what has been leaked? The existence of the policy itself has long been publicly known. Has it? Well, conspiracy theories are usually easy to debunk, anyways. Still, yesterday's news reads like the existence of Wright's insurance policy was made public for the first time. Respec-teufle-y, no way. It was discussed openly in light of the Yankees' situation with Alex Rodriguez's contract (also insured). No leak. No scoop. Here's a good primer on the contract insurance game � from 2+ years ago � referencing both Rodriguez and Wright. The newsworthy angle that isn't being discussed is that the Mets may not be able to collect on the policy at all � or there may be an embarrassing public scuffle over the matter � as the insurer can certainly view Wright's back condition as a pre-existing one.

That article merely speculates or assumes that Wright's new contract will be insured. It doesn't report that the contract definitively is or will be insured. And none of yesterday's articles read like this is old news.