batmagadanleadoff

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: After reading the latest NYT article on the Mets Madoff mess, I can safely opine that Alderson had to have been well informed about the Mets financial problems when he accepted the GM position. (There was speculation in the press that the Mets may have withheld crucial information about their finances from Alderson). If you truly believe that, then it's mostly time to put this story behind us. Alderson asserts that has had no affect, won't likely have an affect this year, and he doesn't see it becoming an issue in the future. At least as far as the actual team and signing players goes. Alderson's comment might be true. But I tend to ignore it and give it zero weight because Sandy would've made the same comment even if he knew it to be false. The most credible comments are those made against one's interests. Why should Alderson being reasonably informed about the Mets finances when he took the GM job serve as grounds to ignore the stories being reported about the Mets finances?

After reading the latest NYT article on the Mets Madoff mess, I can safely opine that Alderson had to have been well informed about the Mets financial problems when he accepted the GM position. (There was speculation in the press that the Mets may have withheld crucial information about their finances from Alderson). I also believe that if it weren't for the Mets $$ problems, it would have been business as usual as far as forming the front office just below the owners -- Minaya would have stayed or would've been replaced by another clown/puppet, instead of by a strong figure.

How many teams take out loans of that magnitude to meet current liabilities not fixed to a specific asset? How many teams do so at the lender of last resort... twice? MLB isn't the bank, or any other capital-supplying firm... they're the people you go to when those people won't lend you money. Is this an established fact or your informed impression? From the New York Times: The direct intervention of Commissioner Bud Selig to help sustain the operations of the [Mets] is perhaps the most striking evidence yet of the financial distress that for many months has plagued the team�s owners, Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz.... The Mets have exhausted baseball�s standard bank line of credit � at least $75 million Selig and the sport�s owners make available to teams for a variety of reasons in the course of any year.... Thus, the additional money provided by Selig � done in secret last November � may well have been crucial in keeping the club functioning.... Selig�s decision to give what amounts to extraordinary assistance to one of the sport�s most prominent and highly valued teams � one owned by Wilpon, a man Selig has long regarded as a close personal friend � could anger other team owners, who might well wonder why their money is being used to rescue a team with a $140 million payroll.... �The fact that the loan is coming from baseball would be a jarring event because, as with the Texas Rangers, the league is effectively a lender of last resort,� said Marc Ganis, a sports industry consultant. �It would indicate the team cannot get loans from normal commercial sources, which could be taken as a sign of very significant problems.�

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: As per all available sources, the Wilpons-- if you include the $25 million, which is ON TOP of the $75 million that MLB had already (inexplicably) lent them-- are dealing with about $500M in debt on the team and associated assets... and that's BEFORE the clawback even comes into account. Rubin doesn't have a grudge, homes; he has a calculator. And we don't know the terms of any of those loans. We don't know when or under what conditions any of those loans can be called in. The Mets might be operating with the sword of Damocles hanging overhead. Beats me. Who knows? But why predict these loans are going to be called in now, of all times? Wouldn't it make sense to wait until the Mets were stabilized, post lawsuit? Or you know, when they have money? Calling them in now could cut the Mets off from the best likelihood of them making money to be able to pay said loans. Whatever happens, the Mets are still going to be here this year, and next year. As will SNY. It brings in revenue. I haven't seen any reports that suggests this might be the case though, besides wild speculation of what could happen. Anything could happen. the Mets could settle and this could be over next week. Well of course it's possible that the Wilpons will emerge from this mess somewhat victorious, with their majority ownership interest in the Mets preserved. But you seem to be taking the position that they will, instead of that they might. And you don't want to consider anybody's POV that they might not. A five year old who still believes in Santa Claus is endearing. An adult who still believes in Santa Claus is naive, at the very least. This reminds me of another thread.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: As per all available sources, the Wilpons-- if you include the $25 million, which is ON TOP of the $75 million that MLB had already (inexplicably) lent them-- are dealing with about $500M in debt on the team and associated assets... and that's BEFORE the clawback even comes into account. Rubin doesn't have a grudge, homes; he has a calculator. And we don't know the terms of any of those loans. We don't know when or under what conditions any of those loans can be called in. The Mets might be operating with the sword of Damocles hanging overhead.

Ceetar wrote: I'd rather believe the lies of the people that actually have the most knowledge of the situation. You broke your own record.

Ceetar wrote: yeah, but the WSJ guy wasn't correct at the time, because the Madoff suit wasn't until recently. The guy's a gal. But on point -- is this be the dumbest thing you've ever written here? I lost track.

Ceetar wrote: I'm not saying there aren't issues, but if the extra money they owe/lost as a result of Madoff doesn't happen, they have no more issues than anyone else. This is queensy ballsy. Ceetar wrote: The whole situation here is how much of a loss they're at because of it, and if it's manageable. That they only borrowed XXX suggests that they can in fact pay their players. They only borrowed more than the team's value. Ceetar wrote: but everything they've told us so far is with that loan factored in. The Mets haven't told us anything. The Mets announced a 25% stake sale only because they couldn't find any buyers on their terms, privately. Then they held a press conference mainly, it seemed, to remind everybody that the Mets are a private corporation and that their finances aren't any of our business. Then they put a positive spin on the details of the Picard lawsuit, coincidentally or not, a few days before the judge decided that he would unseal the complaint. If the Mets had their way, we wouldn't know one iota about the contents of the Picard complaint. The team publically browbeat that WSJ reporter who, last year, wrote that the team faces liabilities from the Madoff scam large enough to wipe out the Wilpons' ownership interest in the Mets. This too was denied by the Mets. What exactly did the Mets tell us that has even a hint of credibility?

metirish wrote: Batmag, I can put you down for two tickets? , get you out of the house while helping the Wilpon's, win win really. I don't know what you're talking about, or what two tickets for what but I don't wanna help the Wilpons. I'm rooting against them. Because otherwise, the future is Jeffy. The Madoff situation is serendipity to me, because before, I was regrettably resigned to the Wilpons owning the Mets for the rest of my life.

Gwreck wrote: What do you think of the Times' allegations, notwithstanding that their sources are secret? I think the Wilpons and Katzes are totally screwed and need to sell the entire team. It's beginning to look that way, but who the hell knows how these things'll turn out. Lawsuits are like ballgames: anything could happen. That the Mets were scraping bottom and had to take out a $25M emergency loan from MLB just to sustain operations sounds dire.

Gwreck wrote: Pretty poor proofreading job on the article put on their website. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/sports/baseball/26mets.html) First sentence reads that $25 million was loaned, without referencing a source for the information. 4 paragraphs later, we learn that the Mets "have exhausted baseball�s standard bank line of credit ... but again, no source for the information. 9 paragraphs later, there's this line: "The baseball executive said he believed Selig had loaned the Mets in the neighborhood of $20 million." No mention of who this executive is. I wonder if the Times' source might be one of the current potential Mets' buyers, who got to look at the team's books, but had to sign a confidentiality agreement before peeking. There are lots of reasons for keeping sources anonymous, other than sloppy editing. What do you think of the Times' allegations, notwithstanding that their sources are secret?

Rarely.

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: Okay, but I think the _spirit_ of the question is Who do you want to be the best 2Bman? Wouldn't your interpretation render Grimm's companion thread as either redundant or superfluous? Meaningless? Ceetar wrote: I think it's a reasonable expectation for Collins and Sandy to field the team of the best available options, at least to a degree right? You could start a "Who do you think is the Mets best 2b candidate" thread? That would cover all bases. No, I think who you legimately think is going to be the best 2B is different than who you want it to be. If you're going to support my original point, then please ignore my looking in the mirror post, which I posted before I read this post that i'm now responding to.

Ceetar wrote: Okay, but I think the _spirit_ of the question is Who do you want to be the best 2Bman? I think it's a reasonable expectation for Collins and Sandy to field the team of the best available options, at least to a degree right? I mean, this isn't Jerry we're talking about. Hey, kid ... don't give up so easy. You could've suggested that this thread, in a roundabout way, is asking us to opine as to which Met is the best candidate for 2b? If that were true, then I might've taken the easy way out because then, I essentially said that the best candidate is the best candidate. But on the other hand, isn't asking us to name our preference for 2b the same as asking us to identify who the best candidate is? Don't we prefer the best? Chew on this for awhile. It's like looking at a mirror and seeing yourself looking at a mirror.

Ceetar wrote: Okay, but I think the _spirit_ of the question is Who do you want to be the best 2Bman? Wouldn't your interpretation render Grimm's companion thread as either redundant or superfluous? Meaningless? Ceetar wrote: I think it's a reasonable expectation for Collins and Sandy to field the team of the best available options, at least to a degree right? You could start a "Who do you think is the Mets best 2b candidate" thread? That would cover all bases.

Ceetar wrote: Who do I want to be the next Mets 2b-man? This one's easy, especially since I'm not emotionally attached to any of the candidates. I want the best 2b-man to be the Mets next 2b-man. I could care less whose name is attached to that title. The Mets can't go wrong by playing the best guy, even if that guy is, ahem, Luis Castillo. (See, 2010 seson). But as soon as it becomes reasonably apparent that the Mets aren't in contention (if that should happen) then I'll go with AnybodyButCastillo, whose future is limited no matter what. Unless playing Castillo improves the Mets haul from a subsequent Castillo trade. This is the easy answer. You could say the same about Perez and the rotation. And I probably would. Wouldn't you want Perez to get the most starts if he's the Mets best pitcher? Who says the easiest answer can't be the most sound answer? That Occam guy with the razor wouldn't. Ceetar wrote: Also, just because Castillo looks like the best, and puts up a .390 OBP in April, doesn't mean he shouldn't be replaced by Murphy in May either. (Or vice versa) All we're really talking about is who gets to walk out to second that first time. I didn't formulate the question. I only answered it. If Castillo isn't the Mets best 2b-man in the month of May, then I would prefer that Castillo not be the starting Mets 2b-man in the month of May. I would hope that the Mets allow themselves the open-mindedness and flexibility to make changes when it becomes obvious that second stringers are outplaying first stringers. Otherwise, Mike Jacobs would've played in every game last year just because he played most of the first few. i don't understand the gist of your post. Are you saying that someone other than the best 2b-man should start?

Who do I want to be the next Mets 2b-man? This one's easy, especially since I'm not emotionally attached to any of the candidates. I want the best 2b-man to be the Mets next 2b-man. I could care less whose name is attached to that title. The Mets can't go wrong by playing the best guy, even if that guy is, ahem, Luis Castillo. ([u:3ljm1rrm]See[/u:3ljm1rrm], 2010 seson). But as soon as it becomes reasonably apparent that the Mets aren't in contention (if that should happen) then I'll go with AnybodyButCastillo, whose future is limited no matter what. Unless playing Castillo improves the Mets haul from a subsequent Castillo trade.

2009-10 Mets and their opponents - HR's 2009 Mets at CF - 49 2009 Mets on road - 46 2009 Opponents at CF - 81 2009 Opponents on road - 77 2009 total HR's at CF - 130 2009 total HR's; Met road games - 123 2009 total HR's; all Met games; Mets and opponents - 253 2010 Mets at CF - 63 2010 Mets on road - 65 2010 Opponents at CF - 47 2010 Opponents on road - 88 2010 total HR's at CF - 110 2010 total HR's; Met road games - 153 2010 total HR's; all Met games; Mets and opponents - 263 2009-2010 total HR's at CF - 240 2009-2010 total HR's; Met road games - 276 2009-2010 CF reduces total HR's by 13% -- (276-240)/276 2009-2010 Mets HR's at CF - 112 2009-1010 Mets road HR's - 111 2009-2010 Mets opponents HR's at CF - 128 2009-2010 Mets opponents HR's in Mets road games - 165 2009-2010 CF reduces opponents HR's by 22% --(165-128)/165

Shirts for sale. Distressed.

Union will monitor Mets' use of K-Rod with option pending Just give Francisco Rodriguez the damn ball. That is the sentiment of MLB players� association head Michael Weiner, who indicated Tuesday the union will be paying attention to whether the Mets try to prevent K-Rod from getting the 55 games finished he needs this season to trigger a $17.5 million option for 2012. �A club�s decision for using a player has to be motivated by trying to win,� Weiner said. �There is arbitration precedent that says a team cannot sit a player down or decline to use him in order to prevent him from earning a bonus or have a year vest. I have every expectation the Mets are going to fully honor the basic agreement.� Weiner, who is making the rounds to all 30 spring training camps � the basic agreement between the players and owners expires after this season � said he�s confident the Mets will continue to operate as usual as they face a lawsuit for up to $1 billion from the Trustee for Bernie Madoff�s Ponzi scheme victims. �We want to make sure contractual obligations to the players are honored, and we�ve been assured through the commissioner�s office that is the case,� Weiner said. �There are no concerns there. It�s in the interests of everybody associated with baseball that the National League franchise in New York be a strong franchise. The Wilpons have always attempted to field a competitive team, they�ve had success at doing that in their tenure and we certainly hope they continue to do that.� http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/metsblog/mlbpa_will_monitor_mets_use_of_rod_UEMAKvGuapjuz1v50ij3eI

Jason Bay predicts he'll hit 30 HR's this season. He said 30 is his goal every year, and while acknowledging that the sprawling dimensions of Citi Field will make it more difficult, Bay isn't conceding anything. "It can be done," he said. He'll probably have to hit 20 on the road. No small feat. I'm surprised that the players are allowed to acknowledge CF's outfield sprawl.

Heyman's all pissy because his leaky Mets sources are out of the loop, and probably out of the building, too; Heyman's days of out-scooping everybody on all things Mets are history*, and these Castillo tweets are the proof. I don't understand why so much venom directed at Castillo. *Unless Jeffy's Jon's source.** ** Unless Jeffy's also suddenly out of the loop.

Brand new copy of Leach's book -- one buck. http://cgi.ebay.com/Things-Happen-Reason-True-Story-Itiner-/310296515101?pt=US_Nonfiction_Book&hash=item483f1d121d

I don't know who Ryan Reynolds is.

Joe Klein, novelist, journalist and author of Primary Colors, on being sued: Excerpt: The sheer joy that attends the beginning of spring training is tempered a bit this year, for me at least, by the messy situation in which the owners of my beloved New York Metropolitan Baseball Club have been entangled. http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/17/pitchers-and-catchers/