Hurry, let's chat about De Aza before it's too late

[Edgy MD]

You really think there's a single admission in there that he has withdrawn money from the Mets organization to pay off personal debt?

[Ceetar]

That article says none of those things. It's talking about personal and Sterling debt and revenues, not Mets revenues.

The Mets revenues were down, they were losing money. He's talking about operating the team at a loss, and not being able to do that because of debt/Madoff, etc. The fan quote supports what I've been saying all along, that the Mets payroll was directly linked to Mets (not SNY,etc ) revenue. That's gone up, though no one's released the 2016 presale numbers that I've seen, but they're not obligated to immediately max out in December.

Yes, we'd all like them to put the pedal down and nab the big guy, but there ARE legitimate baseball reasons to not sign Heyward or Cespedes and it's certainly not a situation where failing to sign them puts the Mets in a tight spot playoffs wise. The risk/reward balance there isn't that great.

[Centerfield]

You really think there's a single admission in there that he has withdrawn money from the Mets organization to pay off personal debt?

Personal as in Fred Wilpon? I don't know. Personal as in Wilpon Family/Sterling Equities? I think so.

This was the party line about Madoff before:

Jeff Wilpon in 2008:

"The individual partners lost some money at Madoff. But it doesn't affect the Mets. It doesn't affect the Citi Field project. It doesn't affect (team-owned television network) SNY or any of our operating businesses. How is that possible? We have other money. Just because you guys don't know how much money we have, we have other money and other funds outside of (the Mets). It's called diversification."

If that were actually the case, when asked about Madoff, you'd expect Fred to answer similarly.

You heard what Jeff said. Madoff has nothing to do with the Mets. It was not a factor. Zero. The Mets payroll is completely independent of our other holdings.

But that's not what he said. He said:

“I think there is a balance there. It wasn’t, as people have written, the reason. There was a balance there because we had to make sure that the banks got paid off all of the debt."

Sounds like an admission to me. And I think it is reasonable for Megdal, or anyone else, to think so.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Ceetar wrote: First clue is that of course he's financially constrained, as everybody is. even the Dodgers are making certain decisions with finances in mind.

Please, everyone should be as financially constrained as the Magic Money Machine.
Funny you pick LA, a team with triple the Mets payroll.
(slight exaggeration for effect)

[Centerfield]

Anyway, the larger point is that Megdal, Harper, Calceterra, Rosenthal, are all calling out the Wilpons for their inability (or unwillingness) to spend. They join Michael Powell, Kevin Kernan, and others who started calling them out last week.

I view this as a good thing.

The biggest obstacle the Mets have to winning it all is not the offense, or the bullpen. It's the owners. And it will continue to be so.

Megdal, imperfect as he may be (and I don't agree with the bad Ponzi scheme comparison), is an agent of good for us right now. He is painting a picture of the Wilpons that may force them to act differently, or perhaps force MLB to get involved. Which would be a freakin' home run for us.

And if it does nothing but shame the Wilpons further, than so be it. They are actively contributing to my misery. If something helps make them miserable (and doesn't hurt the Mets) then I'll gladly rally around it.

[Edgy MD]

But that's not what he said. He said: “I think there is a balance there. It wasn’t, as people have written, the reason. There was a balance there because we had to make sure that the banks got paid off all of the debt."

Thank you. I assure you that you don't have to keep bolding things for me. I could read it 100 times. "... [T]he banks got paid off all of the debt" does not, by definition, equal "I've used/I'm using Mets revenues to cover my personal debt." It would be astounding for him to admit such a thing. It would put his head in a noose.

But we're in tortured reading territory here. it's just one absurd thing in his absurd article. Why are you willing to torture it to convince yourself it's credible? You follow his mania, that everything said against Wilpon, no matter the basis, must be true, because Wilpon, you'll find that you're sailing with Ahab.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Centerfield wrote: Anyway, the larger point is that Megdal, Harper, Calceterra, Rosenthal, are all calling out the Wilpons for their inability (or unwillingness) to spend. They join Michael Powell, Kevin Kernan, and others who started calling them out last week. I view this as a good thing.

Certainly not a bad thing! I saw Rosenthal and Reynolds this morning on
MLB channel going over the whole money thing and lack of star acquisition.
The Wilpon's just have no shame or conscious (I know this is old news) if
they can sit in their office and watch MLB's own channel basically call them
cheap and unable to be a big market team.
I really don't get why they're so Teflon coated with so many fans.

[Ceetar]

They go through this every offseason. (and otherwise) but this week is a week of filler posts and content and reduced readership and for all the posts to be going up now suggests to me that there's really nothing interesting to say.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Whatever, this lil' drummer boy hangs up his tom-tom at noon tomorrow.

[Centerfield]

But that's not what he said. He said: “I think there is a balance there. It wasn’t, as people have written, the reason. There was a balance there because we had to make sure that the banks got paid off all of the debt." Thank you. I assure you that you don't have to keep bolding things for me. I could read it 100 times. "the banks got paid off all of the debt" does not, by definition, equal "I've used/I'm using Mets revenues to cover my personal debt." It would be astounding for him to admit such a thing. It would put his head in a noose. But we're in tortured reading territory here. it's just one absurd thing in his absurd article. Why are you willing to torture it to convince yourself it's credible? You follow his mania, that everything said against Wilpon, no matter the basis, must be true, because Wilpon, you'll find that you're sailing with Ahab.

I understand now. Gotcha. So Wilpon was saying that because he has all this personal debt, he cannot supplement the Mets, who were losing money during this time. That works too. I, personally, did not read it that way, but as you said, I may have been biased by the characterization asserted to it by Megdal.

I don't think you have to stretch to read my way though.

And more importantly, I get your larger point about Megdal. The whole comparison to a Ponzi scheme is weak, and meant to be intentionally inciteful. But he also speaks a lot of truth about ownership, and the predicament we are in. And I want to support those who criticize the Wilpons.

[Edgy MD]

He actually says he has no personal debt.

[Centerfield]

“There is no one in my family — the Katz family, Wilpon family, kids, whatever — there is no one who has any personal bank debt. Zero. Everything has been paid. No one owes a dollar to anybody.”

A statement that I believe was intended to be misleading.

Intended effect: Hey, look, we are debt free!

Actual meaning: It's all non-recourse financing. (Meaning the debt is not in the name of the individuals, but in the different Sterling entities)

You don't actually believe that the Wilpon business have no debt do you?

[Edgy MD]

Centerfield wrote: A statement that I believe was intended to be misleading.

It certainly might be. I nonetheless don't see what you could be characterizing as "So Wilpon was saying that because he has all this personal debt... ." He's saying the opposite, whether it's true or not.

[Centerfield]

Oh, I see what you were getting at. I should have used past tense.

How I read Fred's words:

So, we had a ton of debt, and so yeah, we used some Mets money for a few years, but we're all good now. No debt at all.

How you read Fred's words:

So, yeah, we had a ton of debt. So we couldn't afford to supplement these money-losing Mets for a couple of years. But we're all good now. No debt.

Is that about right?

[Edgy MD]

No, I read Fred's words as "The team had a ton of debt, and was losing money from over-investing before the crisis hit. We had to get the organization caught up on those payments, and retiring some of the more pressing loans, while trying to get the organization back into a break-even point."

[Centerfield]

Then we disagree. I don't think that is a reasonable reading of Fred's words. If that were the case, the answer to the Madoff question would have been an unequivocal no, rather than the watery "balance" answer that he offered.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, I know. But I'm not being unreasonable any more than I'm gloating. It's like we're speaking different languages.

He in no way suggested that he's taking money from the team to cover his personal debts. Concluding that he said this is what is unreasonable.

And that, among any number of reasons from that article alone, is why this writer you support, despite your better sensibilities, is without credibility.

How pointing out that one line, which is so obviously and flagrantly baseless, can lead to this much parsing, is beyond me. I'm glad I didn't bother with the rest of his article but I wish I hadn't bothered responding at all.

[nymr83]

i'm so fed up with all this crap from Megdal and his ilk.

if the Wilpons don't spend they get to pound the Wilpons all day for not spending.

if the Wilpons do spend thats great too because then they can pound the Mets again next year for not spending MORE money while also pounding them for the signings that didnt work out and then blaming wilpon if ANY of those players were not the MOST expensive ones available (see: Jason Bay).

Finally, since its their column, they get to never return to the guys they advocated for that sucked a big fat cock - have you seen any writers with a mea culpa for writing about how the "cheap skate Wilpons" should have signed Stephen Drew? nope. what about that HORRIBLE Reyes deal the Mets didn't sign? nope. and you wont see any of them apologizing when the Cespedes/Upton contracts turn to SHIT either.

The Mets made it to the World Series, SUCK IT to Megdal!

[Guest d'Kong76]

Not defending H-Meg, but the Mets made it to the WS in spite of the Wilpons.
And cheaping pace with the Cubs will probably keep them out of the WS unless they
get lucky again.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, I know. But I'm not being unreasonable any more than I'm gloating. It's like we're speaking different languages. He in no way suggested that he's taking money from the team to cover his personal debts. Concluding that he said this is what is unreasonable. And that, among any number of reasons from that article alone, is why this writer you support, despite your better sensibilities, is without credibility. How pointing out that one line, which is so obviously and flagrantly baseless, can lead to this much parsing, is beyond me. I'm glad I didn't bother with the rest of his article but I wish I hadn't bothered responding at all.

I don't think you're being unreasonable. I think we just view our respective takeaways as not reasonable. It happens. We should blame Wilpon for being vague and Martino for not following up for clarification.

And like I said, I get what you are saying about Megdal. I think you could have easily cited to the Ponzi scheme characterization, for which there really is no defense.

But for now, he is helping to rally against the Wilpons, and anyone who does that these days is ok in my book!

And, your criticisms of him aside, he does get a lot of things right in his articles.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I can't believe this is even a debate. Fred said that payroll was trimmed "in part" because of "debt". Does anyone here think that Fred wasn't referring to Madoff debt? The Mets sold 49% of the team a few years ago to a select group of investors, including Bill Maher. Does anyone think that the proceeds from those sales wasn't used to pay back Madoff debt -- i.e., non Mets related debt?

You know, the Mets have a powerful financial incentive to not invest in the team. MLB allowed the Mets to use the team as collateral against the various outstanding enormous loans. So if Fred and Saul, for example, suddenly find a spare $20M under the couch cushion and must now decide whether to use the new-found money to either increase payroll or to pay down more of the debt --- from a strict financial POV, the smarter play is to pay down the debt. $20M applied to debt is a $20M increase in the equity that the owners have in the team. It's essentially $20M in the owners' pocket in the long run. But $20M invested in the team doesn't guarantee a $20M increase in team revenue or even an increase in team performance. Putting that money to payroll is riskier, investment-wise. You can thank the lords of baseball for letting the owners essentially mortgage the Mets to pay back Madoff debt, and then chuckle as they torture themselves to tell you that this is different than the McCourt thing.

[Ceetar]

Considering the Mets lost money for most of the last 6 years, it's actually hurt them.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I can't believe this is even a debate. Fred said that payroll was trimmed "in part" because of "debt". Does anyone here think that Fred wasn't referring to Madoff debt? The Mets sold 49% of the team a few years ago to a select group of investors, including Bill Maher. Does anyone think that the proceeds from those sales wasn't used to pay back Madoff debt -- i.e., non Mets related debt?

[fimg=200]http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2x2691603/boy-raising-hand.jpg[/fimg]

Considering it was immediately reported afterwards that the team turned around and used that money to close the team's loans with MLB and Bank of America, with the balance going into then-current operating costs, and that several of the shares were bought by the family themselves, either directly or by SNY, yes, I think that money was used to cover team debt.

Jeff and Saul and SNY buying new shares of the team to cover team debt is an example of them putting money into the team — not taking money out. In other words, it's an example of what you so desperately want them to do more of.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/sources-say-mets-reap-240m-on-12-minority-shares-1.3612447

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577292142248703420

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-mets-close-deal-sell-12-minority-shares-team-repaid-25m-loan-mlb-article-1.1047096

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: Considering the Mets lost money for most of the last 6 years, it's actually hurt them.

What hurt them? What's "it's"?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I can't believe this is even a debate. Fred said that payroll was trimmed "in part" because of "debt". Does anyone here think that Fred wasn't referring to Madoff debt? The Mets sold 49% of the team a few years ago to a select group of investors, including Bill Maher. Does anyone think that the proceeds from those sales wasn't used to pay back Madoff debt -- i.e., non Mets related debt? Considering it was immediately reported afterwards that the team turned around and used that money to close the team's loans with MLB and Bank of America, with the balance going into then-current operating costs, and that several of the shares were bought by the family themselves, either directly or by SNY, yes, I think that money was used to cover team debt. Jeff and Saul and SNY buying new shares of the team to cover team debt is an example of them putting money into the team — not taking money out. In other words, it's an example of what you so desperately want them to do more of.

Actually I don't want Jeff and Saul to increase their stake in the team, but I know whatcha mean. But besides, that MLB loan was necessitated because of the Madoff hit. That's why the Mets had to borrow money from MLB in the first place. Me, I don't have a problem with what the Mets do with their money and what goes where and where goes what. If Fred and Saul wanna blow it all on whores and whiskey, god bless 'em. It's their money. My problem is that they don't have enough money to run the team properly. This is not debatable. And anyone who wants to pick nits here by reminding me that I don't know precisely how much money the Mets have or haven't because it's all so secret and private is just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

[Edgy MD]

I didn't do that. You asked a question and I answered it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: I didn't do that. You asked a question and I answered it.

You didn't do ... what?

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: And anyone who wants to pick nits here by reminding me that I don't know precisely how much money the Mets have or haven't because it's all so secret and private is just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

no, that's not true. We DO know how much money the Mets have. and how much they make.

We DON'T know how much the Mets owners have. You're demanding the Wilpons spend their own money above and beyond what the Mets asset brings in. In some cases this is fair, after all the money they make from SNY and such is a direct result of the Mets and you could maintain that using that revenue is sustainable because you're investing in the main product that's making you that money. But it's still not the Mets money nor is it within MLB's legal right to demand that they invest it that way.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I didn't do that. You asked a question and I answered it. You didn't do ... what?

Your last sentence in your prior post.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: And anyone who wants to pick nits here by reminding me that I don't know precisely how much money the Mets have or haven't because it's all so secret and private is just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. no, that's not true. We DO know how much money the Mets have. and how much they make. We DON'T know how much the Mets owners have. You're demanding the Wilpons spend their own money above and beyond what the Mets asset brings in. In some cases this is fair, after all the money they make from SNY and such is a direct result of the Mets and you could maintain that using that revenue is sustainable because you're investing in the main product that's making you that money. But it's still not the Mets money nor is it within MLB's legal right to demand that they invest it that way.

I don't care what the owners do with their money. I simply believe that they don't have the funds to run the team the way it should be run. I don't care where the money comes from or where it goes. But they don't have the money to run the team. Just look at their actions ever since the Madoff scandal broke. Their comments. The payroll level. Everything.

They don't have enough money to run the team the right way. A little Occam's Razor here ferchrissakes instead of convoluted obfuscation and the ridiculous stretch of the imagination and absurd logic that because Megdal's pieces are flawed (I agree) the Mets have no financial problems and nothing that Megdal ever wrote has a ring of truth to it.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Guest