FAKE NEWS - Payroll 2018

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Not sure how this means that 'we' (not even quite sure who the 'we' is here) are screwed. .

the implications are, i think, that if they can afford to make new investments they can't be as cashed strapped as we're claiming they are that they need to pilfer (an undisclosed, private amount of) profits from the Mets/SNY and they should've just sunk that investment money into the Mets.

[ashie62]

Frayed Knot wrote: Well the Mets aren't investing here, the Wilpons are, or, more accurately, Sterling Equity which makes sense seeing as how they're in the building/real estate business. Not sure how this means that 'we' (not even quite sure who the 'we' is here) are screwed. ... the $1 billion redevelopment of Belmont Park will be privately funded by the Islanders and the Oak View Group, whose investors include Madison Square Garden Co., owned by James Dolan, and Mets owner Sterling Equities, which was founded by Fred Wilpon.

To coin a phrase I would hope Sterling to "Make the Mets great again." This is lending for sure. Sterling had choices. Seems like an all in for the new complex before us. God save the Islanders, I like them.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Not sure how this means that 'we' (not even quite sure who the 'we' is here) are screwed. . The implications are, i think, that if they can afford to make new investments they can't be as cashed strapped as we're claiming they are that they need to pilfer (an undisclosed, private amount of) profits from the Mets/SNY and they should've just sunk that investment money into the Mets.

The Wilpons do continue to invest the Mets. When the team sold off minority shares, it was members of the Wilpons and their companies (like SNY) that bought in. That was a cash infusion.

Unfortunately for payroll watchers, a lot of that cash went to pay off many of the team's non-payroll obligations, which is the ongoing issue. But liquidating one or leveraging one asset to invest in another is what guys like this do. This is probably a good point to get into this scheme (or they see it as such), and they probably think it'll help the Mets down the road. Whether it will is another story.

I think the reality the last few years has that there's a level of debt service the organization has had to prioritize before expanding payroll, and they have to get budget approval by their creditors. That may have eased during the periods of success in recent years, but (and I'm going deeper into speculation here), restrictions may have returned following 2017's declining success and declining revenues.

[nymr83]

Assuming that the Wilpons' know their real estate business (and I'd assume that, they made their money there) why is the Islanders thing at Belmont bad for the Mets? at worst, its neutral for the Mets if the Wilpons plan to keep the profits over at Sterling. At best, its good for the Mets if its profitable and helps the Wilpons pay off debts that they are now allegedly paying off through Mets' money

[Centerfield]

I don't know that what you're saying is correct.

My understanding is that the "team" cannot sell any shares in itself. The team, the Mets are the asset, not the owners.

The Wilpons sold minority shares in the Mets. And the Wilpons (Fred and Jeff) sold them to other Wilpon family members, SNY and Dave Einhorn.

The cash infusion that such sale generated went toward paying down the loan from MLB, and paying down some of the debt to Bank of America.

The reason that there was a loan from MLB and a crippling loan from Bank of America is because the Wilpons leveraged the Mets. They took out loans against the revenue the team derives. If they lost $70 million, as Fred claimed at the time, it's because of the crippling debt he placed upon the Mets when the Wilpons took out loans.

Those proceeds of those loans were used to make Madoff payments.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: Those proceeds of those loans were used to make Madoff payments.

They were also made because Wilpon money tied up in Madoff-associated accounts was untouchable due the lawsuit. There was a cashflow aspect of it.

Even today, we have no idea how much the Wilpons actually lost to Madoff, and how much of that was actual cash versus expected return on investments that they budgeted for.

[G-Fafif]

Sherman says Mets have set a ~$135 million payroll for 2018 -- because contending isn't really something they imagine happening.

The opening payroll number will be roughly $20 million less in 2018, a concession that the rotation might never be the powerhouse they hoped it'd be. That realization, in conjunction with other factors, has lowered the Mets' internal assessment of their playoff chances from this time last year. And, thus, lowered how much the Wilpons and Saul Katz are willing to invest in the roster. They have not surrendered to a rebuild, banking in particular that Mickey Callaway, Dave Eiland an upgraded devotion to preparing and monitoring their pitchers will allow the Mets to rebound toward 85-plus wins. But there also will not be a significant offseason splurge. Sandy Alderson has roughly $10 million remaining to spend on free agents or trades and can expand that to a larger amount if he can, say, deal someone such as Juan Lagares or AJ Ramos. The way the Mets have operated under Wilpon ownership is that the GM receives a general payroll number -- this year it will be in the mid-$130 millions, from what I have decduced in conversations with people inside and outside the organization. But the Wilpons then tell their GM to come to them with any deal he likes regardless of cost and sell the merits, and that leaves open the possibility of increasing payroll. But, again, that sales job is easier to make in years when the leadership believes it has a strong contender.

[Ceetar]

lol, I put roughly zero faith in Sherman's deduction capabilities sourced by people inside AND OUTSIDE? the organization.

And then he basically contradicts himself by admitting it's a soft budget. Like, if Sandy can't convince the Wilpons Neil Walker basically pays for himself in wins, he's worthless.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'm a lot more sympathetic to sherm than most here but I found that article required better sourcing.

I'm pretty sure the difference between last year and this is that we wound up with Walker and Bruce and probably didn't need to. I don't believe the opinion of the awesomeness of the pitchers changed so much, we certainly had questions going in last year too, or should have had.

[Centerfield]

Meanwhile Sandy is on record saying that the Mets would have a "healthy" budget this year.

I don't know. I don't think Sandy would put himself out there like that if the budget were falling by $20 million. I mean, we can argue over what is "healthy". I mean, I would consider top 5 to be healthy for a NY team, but I imagine that at the very least you'd have to be in the top half to make a credible argument.

I guess we have no idea, but I just don't see the payroll falling that much.

[nymr83]

Centerfield wrote: Meanwhile Sandy is on record saying that the Mets would have a "healthy" budget this year. I don't know. I don't think Sandy would put himself out there like that if the budget were falling by $20 million. I mean, we can argue over what is "healthy". I mean, I would consider top 5 to be healthy for a NY team, but I imagine that at the very least you'd have to be in the top half to make a credible argument. I guess we have no idea, but I just don't see the payroll falling that much.

Healthy depends on more than just the market. the needs of the team, and what is available, matter - with degrom, syndergaard, conforto (and the team believes in Rosario and Smith) under team control for cheap "healthy" doesnt need to be top 5 for me at all.

if the Mets were to go out and add Yu Darvish, Lorenzo Cain, another reliever, and a right-handed complement to Smith i'd consider the offseason a rousing success, and they'd still be nowhere near top 5 but they'd have a 'healthy' budget.

'healthy' to me for a NY team means "the budget isn't a constraint on acquiring the players who are available that meet our needs".

right now, i'd say the Mets arent meeting that threshold.

[Centerfield]

Nymr83 wrote: Centerfield wrote: Meanwhile Sandy is on record saying that the Mets would have a "healthy" budget this year. I don't know. I don't think Sandy would put himself out there like that if the budget were falling by $20 million. I mean, we can argue over what is "healthy". I mean, I would consider top 5 to be healthy for a NY team, but I imagine that at the very least you'd have to be in the top half to make a credible argument. I guess we have no idea, but I just don't see the payroll falling that much. Healthy depends on more than just the market. the needs of the team, and what is available, matter - with degrom, syndergaard, conforto (and the team believes in Rosario and Smith) under team control for cheap "healthy" doesnt need to be top 5 for me at all. if the Mets were to go out and add Yu Darvish, Lorenzo Cain, another reliever, and a right-handed complement to Smith i'd consider the offseason a rousing success, and they'd still be nowhere near top 5 but they'd have a 'healthy' budget. 'healthy' to me for a NY team means "the budget isn't a constraint on acquiring the players who are available that meet our needs". right now, i'd say the Mets arent meeting that threshold.

Fair. I certainly don't condone spending just for the sake of spending. I would say so long as the team is capable of putting a team reasonably expected to win around 95 games and compete for a division championship, I'd be ok with that.

[ashie62]

How about Matz and Conforto for Yelich.

Any thoughts?

[Ceetar]

Ashie62 wrote: How about Matz and Conforto for Yelich. Any thoughts?

yes, but it's Christmas so I won't voice them.

[nymr83]

Ashie62 wrote: How about Matz and Conforto for Yelich. Any thoughts?

if Sandy gave up Conforto for Yelich straight up, I'd lead the way to Citi with the torches and pitchforks

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

That would be a tough deal for either side to make. As I mentioned in another thread, Yelich is the kind of guy they intend to collect 2 or 3 very good prospects for. Matz is basically damaged goods, and needs to re-establish himself before he'll be worth anything. Losing Conforto for Yelich defeats the purpose from our perspective anyway.

I don't believe the Mets can get him unless they unload what remains of the farm.

[nymr83]

Conforto is a year and half younger with more years of cheaper team control remaining. he was already the better hitter last year. why would that be at all tough for the Marlins? it would be a terribly dumb decision by the Mets.

[Vic Sage]

healthy' to me for a NY team means "the budget isn't a constraint on acquiring the players who are available that meet our needs".

this.

[ashie62]

Nymr83 wrote: Conforto is a year and half younger with more years of cheaper team control remaining. he was already the better hitter last year. why would that be at all tough for the Marlins? it would be a terribly dumb decision by the Mets.

Not if Conforto pops his capsule again. Beyond that JCL kinda hit the nail on this.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Mike Vaccaro of the Post continues the drumbeat.

A simple solution for Wilpons if they hate owning Mets so much

[MFS62]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Mike Vaccaro of the Post continues the drumbeat. A simple solution for Wilpons if they hate owning Mets so much

That isn't the first, and probably not the last, article like that.
This entire thread is about how much money the Wilpons will or won't spend on the team.
Fans suggesting they sell the the team is a logical request if they won't.

Later

[Edgy MD]

I'm not comfortable with the article being built on a premise (the Wilpons hate owning the Mets) that the author feels no obligation to establish, instead relying on "let him come out and show me it's not true."

It kind of stinks of President-Obama-was-born-in-Kenya logic.

[Centerfield]

I disagree. The premise has been set in an article by his colleague. If you want to challenge his source that is one thing, but Vaccaro is not assuming a premise.

It says Fred was irate, that this continues a pattern of hand-wringing, and that he is surprised and dismayed every time the Yanks go big. Which frankly, is all the friggin time.

And frankly I’m ok with calling out the Wilpons. Let them answer for their actions.

[Guest 41Forever]

That's a ridiculous hit piece.

He's basing his comments on an "industry source," which is so vague that it means nothing. Vaccaro demands accountability from the Wilpons while exhibiting none of it himself.

I see no evidence that the Wilpons "detest" the fans. That's nonsense. Object to how they spend their money, or not spend their money. That's fine. But show me how they detest their fans.

As I said earlier in the thread, I'd still recommend that they become more visible and start talking to the media a little more. That might go a ways toward explaining why things the way they are.

[Centerfield]

He has reached out to the Wilpons for comment but they have refused to comply.

Does that mean Vaccaro cannot write about them?

[Guest 41Forever]

Centerfield wrote: He has reached out to the Wilpons for comment but they have refused to comply. Does that mean Vaccaro cannot write about them?

He absolutely can write about them. But when he hangs the central premise of his column on something like “an industry source” he should be held accountable for what he writes. If that belief is so widespread, then he should be able to find someone who will go on the record to say something. That makes for a stronger column, and then the focus is on the merits of what the is saying rather than the accuracy of it.

If I was advising them on who to talk to, I wouldn’t start with the guy who calls part of his column “Vack’s Whacks” because that makes me think I wouldn’t get a fair shake.

If he wants to write a column saying its frustrating that no one from the family is talking to the media or anyone else, that’s a fair statement. But if he’s going to make wild claims that the Wilpon’s hate owning the team and detest fans, then he needs to find a stronger source for that than an unnamed “industry source.”

[Centerfield]

Fair. I think the article was meant to further the discussion, and he probably feels pressure to do more than just regurgitate Carig’s thoughts from a week ago. I don’t think the Wilpons really detest the fans or owning the team. In fact, I bet they love owning the Mets. But just have no clue how to do it effectively.

The “detest the fans” mantra is clearly overstated. But they do seem to have a disregard unusual for owners. That loyalty oath they asked for years ago was part of it. The comment that they would spend more if people bought more tickets furthered this. It doesn’t work that way. You commit to winning. You put a great product on the field, then the fans show up. Even last year the Mets fans did their part.

[batmagadanleadoff]

If you're in the fancy seats, the Wilpons made sure you get a urinal divider if you have to take a piss. The peasants could piss all over themselves and on each other for all the Wilpons care, because if you're not in the fancy sections, you ain't getting a urinal divider.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: If you're in the fancy seats, the Wilpons made sure you get a urinal divider if you have to take a piss. The peasants could piss all over themselves and on each other for all the Wilpons care, because if you're not in the fancy sections, you ain't getting a urinal divider.

That's probably how the Wilpons were able to sign Yoenis: from all the money they saved on urinal dividers.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Two first place finishes since 1988. As if anything else needs to be said.