batmagadanleadoff

Jim Hickman and family. A rare view of the Butterball Field cage from the parking lot.

Seaver and Ryan at Butterball Field. You can see the rectangular white sign in the Seaver photo.

Did you colorize that photo? I've never seen that picture, and I've seen a lot of Mets stuff. What a find!

Mets � Willets Point wrote: Lunchbucket's already claimed the A's. I don't do KTE's. I do the cards. It's mostly mindless, and therapeutic, especially when the Bingo Hall's closed for the day.

Zvon wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Butterball doesn't strike me as the sort of pitcher who, in 1962, could demand a specific uniform from his team. The reason I'm asking for strong evidence is because I myself don't know the answer. This is a very tough question. Botz's number might be in a Spring Training roster, if the Mets printed one. Botz's photo might've appeared in newspapers when the Mets won their first game ever. But even so, the Mets didn't have uniform numbers on the front of their jerseys in 1962, so a photo of Botz might not be of any help in solving this question. Bob lives in Milwaukee. I'll call him up on the tele-phone. I'd feel really bad if he didn't remember though. You could also mail him some of those Butterball Mets cards you made, and ask him, by mail, if he remembers what his Met uni # was. He might ask you, in return, what the hell is the Sadecki Spot? And he definitely won't know about the cage, which wasn't installed until 1964.

I'm making a Gil Hodges card for 1968. Using two sources for info, the UMB and wikipedia. I hope everyone's checking in on Zvon's site periodically. It's a real Mets fans' treat. He's been creating some amazin' amazin' Met images since his site went up a few weeks ago. http://metsfantasycards.blogspot.com/

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I have a question, not sure where to put it. It's research for a fake card I'm working on so I'll post it here. I'm making a Gil Hodges card for 1968. Using two sources for info, the UMB and wikipedia. The UMB says that the Mets released Hodges on May 22, 1963. Also that he managed the Washington Senators from 1963 to 1967. Wikipedia says that Gil was traded to the Washington Senators in late May for outfielder Jimmy Piersall so that he could replace Mickey Vernon as Washington's manager. Which is correct? I think they're both correct. The 5/22/63 date is correct. For some odd reason, I've always committed that date to memory as being the day the Mets sent Hodges to the Senators, who then sent Piersall to the Mets the next day. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1915&dat=19630523&id=A6A0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=3HIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1043,3227477

I don't see how the National League team from New York City could have done any worse. And yes, I didn't forget about 2000. Or the Beltran-Delgado-Wright-Reyes years. But the prolonged lows -- most of the '90's -- the total surrender of the fanbase to the Yankees - the current economic disaster with corresponding Baltic Avenue payroll, which might not be over despite what Fred and Fredo claim. I'll go out on an extremely shaky limb (I'm really shaking here) and say that it would've been better with Doubleday.

Zvon wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Okay. Here's the ultimate trivia question. I'm gonna need the answer, and good proof. What uniform number did Butterball wear with the Mets during Spring Training, 1962? Butterball!! I love this guy! bump He wore 45 on the Braves. I'll go with that but I looked pretty hard (meh, 5 minutes, but that's a lot in internet time) and I can't find Metly proof. I have Brave proof. http://mlblogsthesproutingnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/bob-botz-braves.jpeg Butterball doesn't strike me as the sort of pitcher who, in 1962, could demand a specific uniform from his team. The reason I'm asking for strong evidence is because I myself don't know the answer. This is a very tough question. Botz's number might be in a Spring Training roster, if the Mets printed one. Botz's photo might've appeared in newspapers when the Mets won their first game ever. But even so, the Mets didn't have uniform numbers on the front of their jerseys in 1962, so a photo of Botz might not be of any help in solving this question.

Zvon wrote: I have a question, not sure where to put it. It's research for a fake card I'm working on so I'll post it here. I'm making a Gil Hodges card for 1968. Using two sources for info, the UMB and wikipedia. The UMB says that the Mets released Hodges on May 22, 1963. Also that he managed the Washington Senators from 1963 to 1967. Wikipedia says that Gil was traded to the Washington Senators in late May for outfielder Jimmy Piersall so that he could replace Mickey Vernon as Washington's manager. Which is correct? I think they're both correct. The 5/22/63 date is correct. For some odd reason, I've always committed that date to memory as being the day the Mets sent Hodges to the Senators, who then sent Piersall to the Mets the next day.

After his stint on the bike, [Jeff Wilpon'll] hit the computer and scan the net, Googling for everything related to the Mets that day, until exhausting his search to the point where he has nothing left to read anymore. I wonder if Jeff lurks here. Sounds like he would. He probably hates me if he does. (Like just about everybody else here) Don't make yourself a martyr, it's unattractive. And i assure you everybody here doesn't hate you. Most folks just don't give you (or me, or anybody else) a second thought, one way or the other. I'm sure only those who really know you have any interest in hating you. This is embarrassing. I made what I thought was an off the cuff remark. I didn't expect such an ... I dunno ... strong response.

metirish wrote: Willets can assign me a team. I can't wait.

I think I lost you at your first sentence. Doesn't losing $10M mean losimg $10M? Payroll would have had to have been zero for the Mets to have made $80M.

G-Fafif wrote: I don't remember anything specific about Fred. The author may have meant it in a general sense. Or was just misremembering. I didn't remember that either. Hence the thread title.

After his stint on the bike, [Jeff Wilpon'll] hit the computer and scan the net, Googling for everything related to the Mets that day, until exhausting his search to the point where he has nothing left to read anymore. I wonder if Jeff lurks here. Sounds like he would. He probably hates me if he does. (Like just about everybody else here)

I knew about Nelson's shots at the heir to the throne. But the quote in full: Eleven seasons have elapsed since the day former Mets partner Nelson Doubleday prophesized Fred Wilpon would run this organization into the ground, while additionally offering a less than kind opinion regarding Jeff Wilpon on his way out the door. leaves no doubt that Doubleday was referring to Fred running the Mets into the ground, not Fredo, at least according to the author, anyway.

Eleven seasons have elapsed since the day former Mets partner Nelson Doubleday prophesized Fred Wilpon would run [the Mets] organization into the ground.... Read the rest at http://risingapple.com/2013/10/01/grace-time-time-ownership-clock-back/

Ceetar wrote: expected to lose more than 10 million, and waaaay more than that coming off the books implies the Mets have a lot of money they can spend to break even. Both articles stress that the Mets are able to keep losses low only by slashing costs (i.e., payroll) rather than by increasing revenues. So I'm not so sure that I agree with you there. It appears to me that the Mets will need to keep payroll at current Mickey Mouse levels to avoid losing significantly more money than they lost in 2013. My WAG, based on what I read today, is that the Mets get to refinance their big impending debt payment and thus, avoid paying principal for another while. I remain somewhat skeptical, however, about the Mets ability to sign even a Sin Choo Choo type free agent. Unless practically nobody else wants that guy.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Where's my double applause for Bill Virdon?

And now, the Mets' rebuilding plans depend on J.P. Morgan Chase By Howard Megdal 11:27 am Oct. 2, 2013 The New York Mets' media blitz on Monday, in conjunction with extending the contract of manager Terry Collins, produced the kind of headlines the team was presumably hoping for. "Terry Collins officially back, and Mets seem ready to spend," and "Alderson: Mets set to spend this offseason" and "Jeff Wilpon, Sandy Alderson say it's time for Mets to stop talking and start winning." And why not? As Alderson pointed out on Monday, the Mets have $25 million in salary commitments for 2014, David Wright's $20 million and Jon Niese's $5 million. Even if they bring everybody back who is arbitration eligible, that's another 11 players, at an estimated $22.3 million. That's just north of $47 million. And back in June, Alderson said the Mets should have a $90-100 million payroll, so the team could add "enough to be competitive because we can use the money on position players, which is our problem right now.� Soo what's the holdup? Oh, right. The crippling debt. The New York Post reported on Tuesday that Fred Wilpon and his partners are reaching out to banks now, attempting to re-finance the $250 million loan due against the team in June 2014 without having to pay any more of the principal due. There's some really useful information within that news, so let's break it down. For one thing, it allows us to account for that $160 million the Mets owners got last winter, borrowing from the last bit of equity they had in their ownership stake of S.N.Y. Annually, the Mets have been servicing their debt to the tune of roughly $90 million, between the loan against the team coming due, the loan against S.N.Y., now greater than $600 million, due in 2015, and the twice-annual debt balloon payments on Citi Field. That the other $70 million went toward paying down that loan, from $320 million to $250 million, means the last of the money is almost certainly gone. The Post also reported that the Mets lost only $10 million in 2013, down dramatically from the $70 million loss in 2011. But that difference of $60 million is a reflection of decreased payroll spending, not of increased revenue. (The Mets have seen revenue drop significantly over the past few years, thanks to fielding a team degraded by lack of resources.) Now, the Mets have a winter to survive without selling minority shares in the team (been there, done that), or by tapping their equity in S.N.Y. (also been there, done that). It is noteworthy that when they did the latter last winter, they managed to get only an additional $160 million, even though the value of S.N.Y. doubled from $1 billion to $2 billion since the Mets owners originally borrowed $450 million against it back in 2010. It is also noteworthy that during this re-financing, the term of the loan didn't change: it's still coming due in 2015. But first the Mets need to get past that $250 million due next year. Whether they can is entirely up to J.P. Morgan Chase, which essentially needs to weigh things like whether by delaying, they stand a better chance of getting their money, or if they are better off forcing a sale now, when they are at the front of the line, chronologically. This seems to matter to J.P. Morgan Chase, as it did both when they refused to let David Einhorn ahead of them in the repayment line during negotiations in the summer of 2011, or by forcing the Mets to reduce the amount due to David Wright between the day he signed his extension and June 2014. Hypothetically, they could give up this chronological position, and also determine that delaying without asking for any principal is best, and even be comfortable with the Mets spending on free agents this winter to help improve the chances of the Mets becoming profitable again. But there's been no indication that they're happy to do any of these things before now, which has led to the years of austerity. There's another problem, beyond even getting the loan refinanced, extended, and avoiding any principal payment: the Mets' owners then need money to spend on the team. Remember, they've managed to cover team losses and finance their debt, not with incoming capital each of the past two years, but by selling the asset of minority shares for 2012, and borrowing against S.N.Y. for 2013. With these options closed to them now, exactly how they raise the money to cover any 2014 losses, let alone finance their debt, remains another problem to solve. And once that's taken care of, then, and only then, can they conceivably move forward with some kind of budget for 2014. Every dollar spent on a free agent might well be a dollar ownership needs to cover losses and debt service, just as has been the case in prior winters, but without the infusion of capital from minority share sale or additional loan against S.N.Y. It's all got to come from somewhere. It's been darkly amusing to watch the Mets, 18 months after the trustee suing them determined they were circling the financial drain, make statements of good financial health absent any change or reason to believe them, even within the context of taking basic steps merely to survive. They've done so again. Now it'll be up to the good people at J.P. Morgan Chase to determine how closely those statements can hew to reality. It isn't any wonder that the vision of competitiveness back in June from Sandy Alderson has given way to this kind of hazy conversation. We want to believe their promises. But what the Mets do won't necessarily be up to them. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/sports/2013/10/8534231/and-now-mets-rebuilding-plans-depend-jp-morgan-chase

Mets owners look to refinance $250M loans By Josh Kosman September 30, 2013 | 11:58pm NY Mets principal owner Fred Wilpon, right, and partner Saul Katz, left. One of the more important negotiations for the Mets this off-season will be their move to refinance roughly $250 million in bank debt, The Post has learned. It�s too bad for Mets� fans that even if the franchise hits a home run with its lenders and manages to pull off the deal without paying any principal, it won�t affect the budget for players� salaries next season, sources said. That�s because the team is deciding now how much money the GM has to make acquisitions, and the refinancing talks are slated for this winter. However, fruitful talks with the banks could see an increase in moneys allotted for 2015 salaries, a source said. Owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, looking at a sizable principal payment this spring, have started reaching out to banks, sources added. The owners want to postpone repaying principal while they continue to shore up finances after several years of steep losses, burdensome debt and a showdown with the trustee for the victims of Bernie Madoff. �The big question for the Mets is whether they will need to make a principal payment,� a source said. Team owners remain confident that with the value of the team rising, they will not need to pony up any cash during the refinancing, sources said. �This is seen as a decent loan,� a source close to the lending group said. The Mets are expected to lose more than $10 million this year, sources said, after a $23 million loss in 2012 and the $70 million lost in 2011. The Amazin�s are in a better bargaining position with their lenders now than they were just two years ago, when the banks said the team violated the terms of its loan covenants. The Mets were able to raise $240 million last year by selling 40 percent of the team to a group of minority investors that included hedge-fund honcho Steven Cohen and comedian Bill Maher. On the bright side, the value of all MLB teams has risen since Guggenheim Partners ponied up more than $2 billion for the LA Dodgers in March 2012. The Mets maintain they now are worth a whopping $1 billion, up from an estimated $600 million in early 2012. A Mets spokesman declined comment. http://nypost.com/2013/09/30/mets-owners-look-to-refinance-250m-loans/

Dennis Ribant and Jack Fisher at the clubhouse at Butterball Field. The Stengel bench is in view.

Today's Met, Larry Stahl (foreground), Butterball Field (background).

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Okay. Here's the ultimate trivia question. I'm gonna need the answer, and good proof. What uniform number did Butterball wear with the Mets during Spring Training, 1962? Butterball!! I love this guy! bump