batmagadanleadoff

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy DC wrote: He'll hit some Luzinski shots.... Wow. Greg Luzinski. That's who Duda reminds me of, except I didn't know it before your Bull reference. SH*T YES! That's who I've been thinking of, and haven't been able to figger. You weren't even born when the Bull was rocketing the lame offerings of de Roulet era Mets hurlers. His homers would continue to bounce around the Vet Stadium outfield seats for what seemed like minutes and minutes as if the stadium was the insides of one gigantic pinball machine. Late '70's Mets games against the Phillies were fun. Not.

Edgy DC wrote: He'll hit some Luzinski shots.... Wow. Greg Luzinski. That's who Duda reminds me of, except I didn't know it before your Bull reference. .300/.385/.500 140 OPS+ The big boy breaks on through this season. MVP caliber hitting in 2012.

Ceetar wrote: and it means more baseball talk and less finances talk. yay! Speak for yourself. I was looking forward to the Picard trial more than I was looking forward to the 2012 regular season.

He's back! 15-11, has once special afternoon where he deals the first no-hitter in team history. Wow, Mich. You've got Johan at 15-11 and Niese at 17-10. And they're pitching for a team that many expect will lose 85-90 games this season. Of course, there's a chicken-egg aspect here: If Niese and Johan go a combined 32-21, the Mets probably lose less than 85 games. Santana breezes through fourth start *** Santana�s changeup appeared in prime form all afternoon. He twice struck out Freese on pitches that caused the Cardinal's bat to go flying into foul territory down the third-base line -- once on a slider, once on a changeup. "I threw some good ones out there. When I'm able to set everything up, and throw my fastballs and mix my changeups, sometimes that happens," Santana said about the bat-flying episodes. "I'm pretty sure he was trying to hit a ball and I threw the right pitch and he swung and missed. It's good to see those swings sometimes." http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/40565/santana-breezes-through-grapefruit-start-no-4

Vic Sage wrote: yeah, i don't get the point of pining over a guy with a career 93 OPS+. Ankiel? I thought you were talking about Andres Torres.

The New Yorker weighs in. Excerpt: All of this is excellent news for the Mets owners, who were hanging onto their ballclub by the skin of their teeth. Had they lost the trial, it is almost certain they would have lost the team as well. The settlement gives them some much-needed breathing room, and allows them to avoid the embarrassment and cost of going to court. That said, many obstacles remain for the Wilpons, as they are still weighed down by massive debt: over a billion dollars combined on the team, a new stadium, and their regional sports network, SNY. On top of that, the team itself has become a financial drain. After years of late-season collapses, disappointing play, and off-field drama, fan confidence has hit a new low. Attendance has dropped sharply�the team lost seventy million dollars last year�and payroll has dropped with it. In fact, this year�s payroll will be fifty million dollars lower than last year�s, the largest such drop in baseball history. Things got so bad last year that the team had to take out a twenty-five-million-dollar emergency loan from Major League Baseball and a forty-million-dollar �bridge� loan from Bank of America. To raise capital, the Wilpons are selling off twenty-million-dollar minority-ownership stakes in the team. While your twenty million dollars won�t buy you any say in how the team is actually run, you do get a four-per-cent ownership stake, a sweet business card, and the option of being paid back with interest in six years. The Wilpons are signalling that they have locked up twelve such stakes, which will provide a much-needed infusion of cash to pay back their creditors. The twist, of course, is that at least one of the stakes is being bought by SNY, which the Mets partially own. In other words, the team is lending money to itself. On top of that, three more of the stakes are being bought by the owners themselves. Sound crazy? Welcome to the world of the Mets. This was undoubtedly a great day for the Wilpons, but was it a good day for the Mets? Much of the uncertainty about the Wilpons� finances has dissipated, and fans won�t have to sit through the indignity of a trial when they just want to watch baseball. Still, it�s unlikely that the payroll will return to its pre-Madoff level any time soon. Even Sandy Alderson, the Mets general manager, recently admitted, �Our job is to outperform our payroll.� And let�s not forget about the team itself, which is off to a dreadful start this spring. Their young and exciting first baseman, Ike Davis, has Valley Fever, a potentially serious lung infection, while their best player, David Wright, is already injured. Those players who are on the field have been sloppy and ineffective, and it seems improbable that the team has much of a chance of besting the Phillies and Braves. At the very least, the trial would have served as a perverse diversion from the circus on the field, and we could have blamed the team�s likely insipid play on all the distraction. But who knows�perhaps this team really will surprise us. Until then, let�s watch some baseball and hope for the best. Leo Hindery, the founder of the Yankees� YES network and former Obama economic advisor, put it best yesterday: �It would be nice to eat a hot dog, watch some nice kids play baseball, and not ask about Mr. Picard in a lawsuit none of us really understood to begin with.� Amen. Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2012/03/good-news-for-mets-owners-if-not-mets-fans.html#ixzz1ph6wEt4s

I'm not following you. Megdal makes a credible case that the $240M to be received by the Mets will be used almost entirely to make loan repayments. So according to Megdal, unless the Mets make large profits this season, the Mets are unlikely to increase payroll significantly. Because the money won't be there. You say the Mets spent the $40M on 2012 expenses? What expenses? The secretarial pool's dental plan? The team cut $50M in salary and jettisoned a whole minor league team.

Ceetar wrote: You've been waiting your whole life for this moment. What I meant was, that money that they borrowed, was money they used for losses this year. for payroll, for salaries, for equipment. They bought things with it. Yes, it balances to 0, but you can't ignore the 65million INCOME from taking out he loan in the first place. But money received from loans isn't income either. The loan has to be repaid. Also, see my edit (OE).

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: He did a good job there, pretending that the $65 million in loans to BoA and MLB doesn't go to cover the 'losses' for this season. They didn't dump that money down a hole, they used it to pay salaries and what not. It's not a debt they owed, it's part of this season's operating expenses. I'm sure they're out a couple hundred thousand on interest and what not, but that's it. Loans aren't losses. Loans are balance sheet liabilities, and don't figure in calculating operating losses. The liability is "balanced" by the cash received on the money borrowed (loan). It's a wash because (excluding interest) the money received is offset by the loan repayment. <-------- Look who I am. You've been waiting your whole life for this moment. What I meant was, that money that they borrowed, was money they used for losses this year. for payroll, for salaries, for equipment. They bought things with it. Yes, it balances to 0, but you can't ignore the 65million INCOME from taking out he loan in the first place. See my edit, above.

Ceetar wrote: He did a good job there, pretending that the $65 million in loans to BoA and MLB doesn't go to cover the 'losses' for this season. They didn't dump that money down a hole, they used it to pay salaries and what not. It's not a debt they owed, it's part of this season's operating expenses. I'm sure they're out a couple hundred thousand on interest and what not, but that's it. Loans aren't losses. Loans are balance sheet liabilities, and don't figure in calculating operating losses. The liability is "balanced" by the cash received on the money borrowed (loan). It's a wash because (excluding interest) the money received is offset by the loan repayment. <-------- Look who I am. OE --Those $65M loans were emergency loans taken more than half a year ago to cover immediate short term needs. Why would you think that those funds were used for 2012 expenses?

Tyson wasn't yet the champion when that picture was snapped. (Neither were the Mets). Here's two more pics; one with Frank Cashen looking on, another with a Met I can't identify.

Megdal Math The Wilpon Group buys some relief, but not for the Mets or their fans. By Howard Megdal 10:13 am Mar. 20, 2012 Fred Wilpon and his partners in New York Mets ownership just won big, twice. Following their $162 million settlement with Irving Picard, the trustee for the victims of Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme, word was put out that Wilpon had sold 12 minority shares in the New York Mets, worth $240 million. The practical effect of Monday's settlement with Irving Picard, trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims, is that the Mets owners don't have to pay anything toward that settlement for four years, and the likelihood is much if not all of what they owe will come from other settlements made by Picard. At the very least, these two developments should mean that for the time being, they'll avoid being forced to sell the team. While it is still unknown who bought all of the minority shares�the already-identified new owners are, well, the old owners, with Jeff Wilpon and Saul Katz each purchasing a share, and SNY, the Wilpon-owned network, purchasing at least four�that matters less than the reality that if the Mets did take in $240 in exchange for 48 percent of the team, then the owners bought themselves time. How much time? Given what is known about their remaining obligations, as much as a year from this sale. Let's take a look at where the money is going. Of the $240 million, $40 million went out the door immediately to pay a bridge loan from Bank of America from last November, $25 million went to pay a past-due loan to Major League Baseball, and at least $100 million to JPMorgan Chase to pay down a portion of the $430 million debt against the team due in June 2014. That's $165 million of the sale that immediately went back out. It may be more: JPMorgan Chase might have needed more money to allow the Mets to take on new debt, which is what the sale is, since the owners can sell their stakes back to the Mets in 2018, for what it cost them plus three percent annual interest. But let's give the Mets owners the maximum possible use of this new money. That leaves $75 million to deal with this year's obligations. The owners will have to make a pair of payments on Citi Field�those payments totaled $43.7 million last year. They'll have $20 million in interest on the $450 million debt against SNY due in 2015, plus $30 million in interest on the $430 million debt against the Mets. If we assume that's been knocked down by a quarter, or even a third�those three obligations still total right around $75 million. That leaves essentially no breathing room for the team to deal with any team losses in 2012. But there is a massive difference between last season's budget, which saw the Mets lose $70 million, and this one. The team chopped $52 million off the books in salary, cut ten percent of their workforce, and even eliminated a minor league team (at an estimated savings of $800,000). If we assume, best-case, that the workforce laid off amounts to even $2 million�doubtful, if you know how M.L.B. employees who aren't on the field or executives are compensated�then we'll estimate that they chopped $55 million off the expenses, getting 2012 losses down to $15 million. The problem there is assuming their intake will be static as well. The Mets managed their 2011 budget with attendance of 2.34 million. Attendance, of course, is the financial lifeblood of a baseball team. Having cut ticket prices significantly, the Mets wouldn't even have the same revenue if every fan who attended in 2011 returned in 2012. And there's little indication that even that is happening so far. With every 200,000 fans worth $25 million to the Mets, even a drop to, say, 1.7 million fans in 2012 would create a shortfall equal to the money they need to pay off 2012 Citi Field debt and interest payments. But again, giving the team the benefit of the doubt�maybe the depleted roster, inspired by Terry Collins, will find a way to scrap their way into contention�let's say that the owners' projection of attendance increasing by ten percent in 2012 is correct. (That projection was rejected by Standard and Poor's late last year, and seems entirely at odds with both the product on the field and fan sentiment, but never mind.) That would keep revenue essentially flat, since they've reduced ticket prices. Their owners' dilemma is that in a year, that $240 million will be spent. And in 2013, they face the same payments all over again: two Citi Field payments, interest on their SNY debt, interest on their Mets team debt. And in the intervening year, because of these crushing obligations, they have little opportunity to improve the on-field product, making it hard to increase revenue. They will no doubt try to make some gesture to the fans to show that they mean to rebuild the threadbare team, even as they claim that all is now well with its owners. But without other circumstances changing, Mets fans will see the organization in almost precisely this position a year from now. And next time, there won't be any more minority shares left to sell. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/null/2012/03/5514367/wilpon-group-buys-some-relief-not-mets-or-their-fans

Because Murph's indestructible.

Suffers fatal injuries diving into the hotel pool from his fourth floor window attempting to save teammate Ike Davis. RIP Vows to return in 2013.

His ritualistic dive into the hotel swimming pool from his second floor balcony goes terribly wrong when Valley Fever dizziness prevents Ike from noticing that the pool has no water. RIP

Edgy DC wrote: Certainly no fun rooting for a guy to stay off the field. I dunno. Playing time's a zero sum game. Every PA Jason Bay takes is a PA someone else isn't taking. Root for Bay and you're rooting against every other LF'er. If Bay's not the best LF'er on the team, he should sit.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I heard they have an Ike/Keith one too. I'm glad they finally got around to this. Give the Mets credit: ever since the de Roulets sold the team, the Mets have allotted a respectable amount of money to commercial poster-size advertising every season.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: The Mets still don't think that Wayne Garrett is good enough. If I had my camera with me, I woulda photographed the big 50th Anniversary poster featuring Jose Reyes on the left and Ruben Tejada on the right.

effWilpon sez: Mets' payroll decrease has not been due to his ongoing Bernard Madoff litigation, but to a desire to transform the organization's baseball-operations philosophy. "I was tired of throwing money at something and not getting success," Wilpon said. Hey! Make up your mind. So now the $90M payroll is the result of your newfound thrifty philosophy. Last week, the payroll size was all on Sandy. Whatever Sandy wanted. The crushing debts saddling the Mets were irrelevant. If Sandy wanted a $200M payroll, the Mets would have a $200M payroll. also sez that Wright's future is entirely in Alderson's hands: In a rare 22-minute interview at the Mets' Spring Training complex, Wilpon put third baseman David Wright's future in general manager Sandy Alderson's hands, saying that it will be up to Alderson to decide whether to keep Wright in Flushing long term. If effWilpon is already absolving himself of any involvement should one of the Mets all-time most popular players be traded, this probably means Wright's a goner. Sandy insisted. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120227&content_id=26875620&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

Phillies Run Differential: 2009 +111 2010 +132 2011 +184

metsguyinmichigan wrote: He's back! 15-11, has once special afternoon where he deals the first no-hitter in team history. Wow, Mich. You've got Johan at 15-11 and Niese at 17-10. And they're pitching for a team that many expect will lose 85-90 games this season.

Good pitching is more valuable in a smaller stadium. A top pitcher can pitch in any stadium. And the Phillies have lotsa tops. That's why the Phillies are formidable.

Great. (rolls eyes) Wait'll the Wilpons start feeling their oats again. First thing they do is bring back the black uniforms and cancel Banner Day. They don't need to be nice to us anymore. Maybe they'll demolish the Promenade, too. Because the stadium's too big as it is.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: By setting a damages floor, but also openly expressing skepticism that trustee can prove his case, it seems like he is providing both sides with motivation to settle. If Picard settles, he can't take an appeal. And Picard most likely wants to appeal the ceiling on damages imposed by Judge Rakoff. My guess is that this lawsuit will be around for years. Or not. Mets and trustee settle for $162M. Details to follow. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/sports/baseball/mets-owners-pay-162-million-to-settle-madoff-suit.html I'm guessing that the Wilpons think that they can afford this hit. Otherwise, why settle? Sigh.

I love the rainbows, too. BTW, the team whiffed on this year's Colt.45 throwbacks. The throwback lettering is slightly wrong, as is the wisp of smoke coming out of the gun barrel to form the big "C".