Met Financial Picture in Fifteen

[Centerfield]

d'Kong76 wrote: I mostly agree too. But, when he says the forum doesn't get it all he's doing is looking to poke some of us with a stick. Fuck it, won't be the first time he's made me take some time off. Let's go Mets.

New rule. No more stick poking.

I'm looking at you fman.

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: I mostly agree too. But, when he says the forum doesn't get it all he's doing is looking to poke some of us with a stick. Fuck it, won't be the first time he's made me take some time off. Let's go Mets.

So where did I write that "the forum" doesn't get it? Show me. Name names. I'm just tired of reading posts that state that money doesn't matter, that the Mets don't need to spend more money, that all the money in the world wouldn't improve this team be even one simple win. It's ridiculous. Take it up with them when you read their posts. You won't though, not in million years, because your responses are based on the poster and not the post.

You're accusing me of poking sticks at you? That's even funnier than the idea that the Mets might get Jay Bruce this year.

[metsmarathon]

if the mets can't afford to spend more money on payroll than they currently are...

a) the cespedes trade is still better than the gomez non-trade, both this year and next
sandy's grand plan is finally making hte most of what little resources are available
c) the wilpons are to blame for the situation, as it was their investments in madoff that laid the cumbling foundation for it all
d) the mets are a worse team than they likely would be if they had more money available to spend on payroll, because having more money to spend doesn't mean having to spend it poorly. i mean, do you think the mets would be a better team if they spent even LESS on payroll?

[dgwphotography]

Centerfield wrote: CF and Ceetar Financial Discussions (Cliff's Notes Version) CF: I want owners who support a large payroll and spend wisely. Ceetar: Yes, but a large payroll doesn't insure success. CF: Agreed. But it increases a team's likelihood of success and sustained excellence. Ceetar: But it doesn't always work. Look at the (insert name of bad team). The money is not helping them. CF: Agreed. I want the owners to support a large payroll and spend it wisely. Not like (bad team). Ceetar: But lots of teams spend poorly! Look at (another team) and (another team)! They also spent poorly. Don't you think (bad team) regrets signing (overpaid player)? Bad bad. CF: Yes. Spending foolishly is bad. I want to spend wisely. Ceetar: We are in first place! CF: Yay! Ceetar: The owners owe you nothing.

LOL! This is what happens when you try to talk to someone who is constantly covering their eyes and ears, and yelling, "LA LA LA LA THE WILPONS ARE GOOD!!!!!" You would be better off trying to convince Rush Limbaugh of the virtues of Planned Parenthood...

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: I mostly agree too. But, when he says the forum doesn't get it all he's doing is looking to poke some of us with a stick. Fuck it, won't be the first time he's made me take some time off. Let's go Mets. So where did I write that "the forum" doesn't get it? Show me. Name names. I'm just tired of reading posts that state that money doesn't matter, that the Mets don't need to spend more money, that all the money in the world wouldn't improve this team be even one simple win. It's ridiculous. Take it up with them when you read their posts. You won't though, not in million years, because your responses are based on the poster and not the post. You're accusing me of poking sticks at you? That's even funnier than the idea that the Mets might get Jay Bruce this year.

Look, it's REALLY REALLY simple. I want the Mets to field a winning ballclub consistently. I DON'T CARE how they do that. Money sometimes leads to winning, but it's the winning I care about. If they do it by spending tons of money, by developing prospects, by voodoo, by kidnapping Bryce Harper or developing super serum, it doesn't really matter. some people seem to be suggesting the Wilpons are the worst people ever based on solely the money part, but they've given me to this point what I want out of a baseball team.

The Mets could've spent more money and been dominate, perhaps. As I mentioned earlier, take a flyer on Kang over Flores or sign Johnny Peralta. Both solid money moves that means not playing Flores and/or Tejada. But whatever, they're winning now. They've got enough offense elsewhere to fake it with the averagish Tejada and occasional Wilmer. You can resume your money-griping if they continue to not address that spot this offseason, despite the influx of cash.

[Benjamin Grimm]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'm just tired of reading posts that state that ... all the money in the world wouldn't improve this team be even one simple win.

I really doubt that anyone is saying that.

[Guest d'Kong76]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: So where did I write that "the forum" doesn't get it? Show me.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I guess you and a couple of others here

I apologize, I exaggerated a little on that one.
I need to get an online attorney for this stuff, does that
Simpson's lawyer still lurk? PM me!

[TransMonk]

metsmarathon wrote: if the mets can't afford to spend more money on payroll than they currently are... a) the cespedes trade is still better than the gomez non-trade, both this year and next sandy's grand plan is finally making hte most of what little resources are available c) the wilpons are to blame for the situation, as it was their investments in madoff that laid the cumbling foundation for it all d) the mets are a worse team than they likely would be if they had more money available to spend on payroll, because having more money to spend doesn't mean having to spend it poorly. i mean, do you think the mets would be a better team if they spent even LESS on payroll?

This. Completely. Especially B.

I truly believe that Sandy's plan will be more sustainable and could create a longer tradition of winning than throwing money at quick fixes (I'm looking at you, Omar). That being said, eventually a biggish move will need to be made to push them over the top and I think we will find out at that point where the Wilpons stand. Personally, I was not expecting that biggish move to occur at the 2015 trade deadline.

[ashie62]

A long post season run may loosen the pursestrings.

We're in first, be happy!

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: There's very little of that here. Please provide examples. Bullshit. What for?

It would be the honorable thing to do.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Fred Wilpon refinances $700M of Mets, SNY debt The financial condition of Mets owner Fred Wilpon has taken another Amazin� turn. Wilpon and co-owner Saul Katz last month quietly refinanced roughly $700 million of debt owed by the team and SportsNet New York, the regional sports network controlled by their Sterling Equities, two sources close to the situation said. Sterling owns 65 percent of SNY and 60 percent of the Mets. The new five-year loans against the separate entities carry lower interest rates and tie the maturity dates together, sources added. It is not known if Sterling was able to take any cash out of its investment, but the refinancing came as the Mets increased payroll by acquiring several players to help the team in its playoff run. Sterling had most recently refinanced Mets debt in early 2014 � months before the principal on its loans were due. It had refinanced the SNY debt a year earlier. Wilpon�s financial situation was very different not that long ago. Back in 2010 and 2011, the money-losing Mets didn�t have the cash to make revenue-sharing payments � forcing them to borrow $65 million from Major League Baseball and Bank of America. That money was repaid in 2012 when Wilpon and Katz sold minority interests in the team. Wilpon has significantly cut Mets payroll in recent years, and now the Mets are close to being profitable, sources said. Attendance this season is up 14 percent over last season. Meanwhile, the values of MLB teams and regional sports networks have been rising. The Mets and SNY declined comment.

http://nypost.com/2015/08/19/fred-wilpon-refinances-700m-of-mets-sny-debt/

[Ceetar]

Never. Selling.

[Edgy MD]

Now I feel so stupid about all that cash I dropped on the billboard.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Guess they're not so poor afterall, you're only as rich as what
people are willing to loan you at improved terms and conditions.

[duan]

and Carlos Gom�z' OPS as an Astro is now ? .516
Maybe that Hip is bothering him!

[Lefty Specialist]

When you owe $10,000, the bank owns you.
When you owe $700 million, you own the bank.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Everyone should be as poor as the Wilpons. Sell an office
building or two... jeez.

[Gwreck]

Ceetar wrote: Never. Selling.

The only bad thing about the Mets resurgence is that it forestalls/postpones the chance of new ownership.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Not to be ghoulish or nothing but you figure when Fred goes there will be some shuffling around. More likely that the Chapter 11 everyone has been waiting for.

[Ceetar]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Not to be ghoulish or nothing but you figure when Fred goes there will be some shuffling around. More likely that the Chapter 11 everyone has been waiting for.

My understanding was Jeff was mostly running things at this point anyway, but yeah, there definitely will be some of that. I wouldn't expect anything to be particularly different. One rich guy much the same as the next rich guy. The "refinancing" of executives. Some shiny new titles for some, different roles for others.

[Edgy MD]

I tend to think they have a succession plan firmly in place, and if and when Fred dies, we who survive him will hardly notice the change � at least for the first two years until Jeff decides to send his team on a 2005-like shopping spree. I mean, Jeff Wilpon is already the higher-profile executive and has been for some time.

A more interesting question to me is who is Sandy's successor-in-waiting � Ricciardi, DePodesta, or somebody else.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: I tend to think they have a succession plan firmly in place, and if and when Fred dies, we who survive him will hardly notice the change � at least for the first two years until Jeff decides to send his team on a 2005-like shopping spree. I mean, Jeff Wilpon is already the higher-profile executive and has been for some time. A more interesting question to me is who is Sandy's successor-in-waiting � Ricciardi, DePodesta, or somebody else.

I think more interesting is what the Fred Wilpon patch the Mets will wear all season will look like.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I tend to think they have a succession plan firmly in place, and if and when Fred dies, we who survive him will hardly notice the change � at least for the first two years until Jeff decides to send his team on a 2005-like shopping spree. I mean, Jeff Wilpon is already the higher-profile executive and has been for some time. A more interesting question to me is who is Sandy's successor-in-waiting � Ricciardi, DePodesta, or somebody else. I think more interesting is what the Fred Wilpon patch the Mets will wear all season will look like.

You could win twitter -- and probably an eternity in hell -- by conducting a design contest now.

[Frayed Knot]

Running things and owning things aren't always the same thing and how things proceed following the death of Freddie may come down to factors such as what the 'Estate Tax' situation is at the time.
Some folks in power now are in favor of either eliminating or severely curtailing such laws based on the premise that it's nothing more than re-taxing of money that has already been taxed while others see it as a way of discouraging passed-along wealth. If such taxes are high they can make it tough if not impossible for an asset like a sports team to passed down*.
Now obviously the state of the team, of MLB, and of the Wilpon family at the time will have the most say in what goes on, but at some point Jeff (and presumably his siblings) may be forced to part with it no matter whose name is atop the masthead.






* IIRC the family of Joe Robbie ran into this situation.
Robbie was a self-made Lebanese immigrant who both bought the Miami Dolphins (plus several other teams) and also 'Joe Robbie Stadium (later called something different seemingly every year). But despite being one of the few who "did it the right way" by building the stadium entirely with private money his children (he had a bunch IIRC) were forced to sell because of the estate and personal taxes.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

What do you think?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Edgy MD wrote: ...if and when Fred dies...

If?

Are you suggesting that he might be immortal? What would explain that? Vampirism? When was Fred last seen in daylight? Or perhaps he made some kind of a deal with the devil...

[Ceetar]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Ceetar wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I tend to think they have a succession plan firmly in place, and if and when Fred dies, we who survive him will hardly notice the change � at least for the first two years until Jeff decides to send his team on a 2005-like shopping spree. I mean, Jeff Wilpon is already the higher-profile executive and has been for some time. A more interesting question to me is who is Sandy's successor-in-waiting � Ricciardi, DePodesta, or somebody else. I think more interesting is what the Fred Wilpon patch the Mets will wear all season will look like. You could win twitter -- and probably an eternity in hell -- by conducting a design contest now.

I almost want to do that. it's an off day after all. It'd ruffle enough feathers to make a whole new bird.

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Are you suggesting that he might be immortal? ... Or perhaps he made some kind of a deal with the devil...

Of course he has. He was going to name Jeff "Damian", but that would have been too obvious.
But if you want to hasten Fred's departure from this world, there is a number in Howard Beach you could call.

Later

[Edgy MD]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Edgy MD wrote: ...if and when Fred dies... If? Are you suggesting that he might be immortal? What would explain that? Vampirism? When was Fred last seen in daylight? Or perhaps he made some kind of a deal with the devil...

What can I say? The future is unwritten. I'm open to the unexpected.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: ...if and when Fred dies... If? Are you suggesting that he might be immortal? What would explain that? Vampirism? When was Fred last seen in daylight? Or perhaps he made some kind of a deal with the devil... What can I say? The future is unwritten. I'm open to the unexpected.

Right? Perhaps when his time comes, he'll simply refinance with, like, voudan or Santeria.