batmagadanleadoff

SNY May Be Part of Mets Deal The Wall Street Journal reports that: The New York Mets would consider selling a portion of its share in the regional sports cable network SNY if it can't otherwise sell a minority stake in the team, according to a person familiar with the matter. Team executives announced on a conference call Friday that they would consider selling up to 25% of the ballclub to a minority partner. They also said Friday that a stake in SNY would not be part of the deal. The person familiar with the matter said the team is confident it can sell a minority share of the ballclub without including a piece of SNY but would consider including a piece of SNY in the deal "if and when it became a necessity." A Mets spokesman declined to comment. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703437304576120691070959136.html Everything's negotiable, they say.

All quiet on the NYT front tonight.

If you didn�t think the Angels were crazy enough The Angels trading for Vernon Wells and his contract was a serious case of Bad Ideas Jeans. But even worse is that they turned down something way better. Joel Sherman at the Post reports: " The way I hear it the Mets and Angels did actually discuss Beltran. But the Angels ultimately saw Wells as the better choice despite the much larger financial investment. The Angels liked that there were no doubts about Wells� health as compared to Beltran, whose knees are a serious wonder. And despite the sense that Wells� defensive game has regressed some, the Angels believed that he was definitely capable of playing center field. They did not believe that about Beltran". (1) The Angels have a potential gold glove center fielder already and if he doesn�t hit enough to stick, they still have Torii Hunter who can pass in center, I�m sure; (2) If Carlos Beltran doesn�t out-produce Vernon Wells this year I�ll eat my hat. There. I said it. I don�t think the Angels understand that players are not just players. They are contracts and assets too, and unless the budget is unlimited � and the Angels are limited � a bad contract like Wells� hurts the team. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/02/if-you-didnt-think-the-angels-were-crazy-enough/

The Angels Weren�t Positive Carlos Beltran Could Play Center Field, Either Is Carlos Beltran still a center fielder? That's a question the Mets will try and find out during spring training. Even Terry Collins has said that Beltran will have to prove he can still play the position, and that he'll be given the chance to play there during the Grapefruit League schedule to give the team a chance to evaluate his mobility. Of course, part of the reason Beltran's position is unclear is that Angel Pagan is poised to take the center field job, shifting Beltran to right. Still, the question of whether Beltran, a three-time Gold Glove winner, can still play in center is a real one. It's also a concern shared by at least one potential trade partner � or, more accurately, a former potential trade partner, as Joel Sherman reports today that the Mets and Angels had discussions about Beltran. Now, it's possible that these discussions weren't very serious � or that a reasonable trade simply couldn't be worked out. But, according to Sherman, the Angels (a team that's said they were willing to increase their payroll to add offense) ultimately decided that Vernon Wells � even with the huge financial commitment associated with employing Wells for the next four years � was a better move. Their reasons, according to Sherman? Just as you'd expect: concerns over Beltran's health, and, yes, doubts whether he can still play center field. http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2011/02/the_angels_werent_positive_car.html

Charting the Mets and Yankees attendance -1962-2010. (from another article on the Madoff mess:

Forbes sez Mets book value is negative $225M Excerpt: Ever since he bought controlling interest of the New York Mets in 2002, Fred Wilpon has used leverage to juice his MLB franchise. He borrowed heavily to buy out Nelson Doubleday, even promising his former partner tens of millions of dollars if the Mets ever moved into a new ballpark (they did, with Citi Field opening in 2009). His team is also on the hook for $40 million a year in debt service tied to the bonds used to finance Citi Field (the bonds now carry a junk rating). Now all this debt could very well come crashing down on Wilpon as a result of his involvement with Bernie Madoff. As I wrote earlier, the Mets and their lease to Citi Field are worth about $845 million. But there is $375 million of debt attached to the Mets franchise and $695 million tied to the ballpark, leaving these assets with an aggregate negative book value of $225 million.

Edgy DC wrote: metsmarathon wrote: it reads to me that the wilpons, in their dealings with madoff, were an uncomfortable mix of negligent and naiive, far moreso that malicious and devious. i don't know if that makes me feel any better. I'll root for negligent and naive. I'm in bed with these people. But do you wanna be?

Ashie62 wrote: I think I do...Could Wilpon be so dense not to see through this? That's the [crossout]million dollar[/crossout] [crossout]47.8 million dollar[/crossout] [crossout]300 million dollar[/crossout] [crossout]400 million dollar[/crossout] [crossout]500 million dollar[/crossout] one thousand million(?) dollar question.

Gwreck wrote: That Bonilla's deferred payments were invested with Madoff is not new; that rumor was around a while ago but never confirmed. Yes. But the point that the NYT wants to make, I'm supposing here, is that the Mets were so sure that they could invest Bonilla's salary in a fund that would not only generate whatever interest rates Bonilla agreed to for his deferred payments, but on top of that, also generate a profit for the Mets. You have to assume that Bonilla was represented by a team of sophisticated lawyers and finance guys when he contracted with the Mets. If those "Madoff" rates of gain were as sure a thing as Wilpon allegedly thought, then Bonilla's team would've known about them, being savvy and all, and knowing the market. Bonilla's team would have then negotiated a higher rate of return for their client, thus cutting into the Mets anticipated profit. Maybe the point of all of this is that Bonilla's team never considered the kind of spread that the Mets were anticipating, because that spread was unrealistic. Do you see where this is going?

Vic Sage wrote: As i recall, my `71 MetPodgers were ... NY c - Grote 2b - Boswell SS - Harrelson CF - Agee LF - Jones UT - Teddy Martinez SP - Seaver, Sadecki RP - frisella, McGraw Why no Ken Singleton? His 1971 walk rate made Rickey Henderson look like a hacker.

The New York Times ain't letting go of the Mets-Madoff story. Excerpts: When the Mets negotiated their larger contracts with star players � complex deals with signing bonuses and performance incentives � they sometimes adopted the strategy of placing deferred money owed the players with Mr. Madoff�s investment firm. They would have to pay the player, but the owners of the club would be able to make money for themselves in the meantime. There never seemed to be much doubt about that, according to several people with knowledge of the arrangements. �Bernie was part of the business plan for the Mets,� a former employee of the club said. But Mr. Wilpon involved more than his team with Mr. Madoff. He also encouraged certain friends to invest. �The relationship between Fred and Bernie became closer and closer because Bernie was returning more and more to Fred in terms of his investments while Bernie is getting exposure from Fred and Saul,� said Jerry Reisman, a lawyer in Garden City, N.Y., who has represented 10 or so commercial real estate investors who lost a total of some $150 million to Mr. Madoff. �They both relied on one another,� he said. �It was reciprocal, symbiotic. They both relied on each other for money, and Bernie also relied on Fred for contacts.� According to an analysis of the list of Mr. Madoff�s 15,000 clients, done by Jamie Peppard, a former financial auditor who has studied the Madoff case, more than 500 accounts can be tied to Mr. Wilpon and Mr. Katz.

Why am I not surprised that Gates Brown snored like a locomotive?

I can't tell you how many games Gates Brown won with a big pinch-hit in late innings, with Scherman closing it out for Seaver. 1971 Gates Brown was the most controversial figure in my lifetime of playing SOM. In my first draft league (with some of my neighborhood friends) I drafted Brown, intending to start him in every single game. In the real world, Brown, in his prime, was a devastating crusher of right handed pitchers who almost never batted against southpaws. He was the platoon player. (I looked up his career stats -- he faced RHP's 2,295 times and LHP's just 250 times. This ratio must be in record-setting territory for a player with more than 2,500 lifetime PA's.) True to form, the real Brown, in 1971, hit righthanders like an MVP -- .342/.410/.542. He faced LHP's just six times in 1971, but slugged .800 and OPS'ed 1.133 against them. To give you an idea of what an OPS of 1.133 meant in 1971, the league leaders in OPS that season were Hank Aaron (NL-1.079) and Bobby Murcer (AL-.970) Brown's '71 season SOM card was devastating against both lefties and righties. I played Gates regularly. My friends were amused, probably even annoyed, but protested only mildly. My use of Gates Brown was an egregious abuse of the realism principle. Brown almost never played against lefties in the real world -- and his impressive SOM card against lefties was based on a minuscule sample size of six plate appearances. And I knew and understood all of this, even though I was a little kid and the word "egregious" might not have been in my vocabulary, then. But because there was no prohibition against using Brown every day, I prevailed. Rules were rules. And no rules were no rules. I won the tournament, and Brown had some of the biggest hits in that league. For our next 1971 SOM draft, I devised a formula so that players' SOM PA's would be limited to roughly but not exactly, the number of PA's they accumulated in the real world 1971. Here, my friends were not amused and protested vehemently. In the end though, my formula was accepted. Nobody wanted to risk an unrestricted Gates Brown on somebody else's team. On August 7, 1968, Brown made history. He wasn't in the starting lineup, so he decided to grab two hot dogs from the clubhouse. He was ordered by manager Mayo Smith to pinch hit. He stuffed the hot dogs in his jersey to hide them from his manager. "I always wanted to get a hit every time I went to the plate. But this was one time I didn't want to get a hit. I'll be damned if I didn't smack one in the gap and I had to slide into second�head first, no less. I was safe with a double. But when I stood up, I had mustard and ketchup and smashed hot dogs and buns all over me. "The fielders took one look at me, turned their backs and damned near busted a gut laughing at me. My teammates in the dugout went crazy." After fining Brown $100, Smith said, "What the hell were you doing eating on the bench in the first place?" Brown: "I decided to tell him the truth. I said, 'I was hungry. Besides, where else can you eat a hot dog and have the best seat in the house'"[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_Brown

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: 1971, San Diego. Wrong. "Nelson" was Ed Kranepool's teammate on the 1974 Mets.** haha. ** 1973, too.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: What chance did the 1971 Padres ever have, with two 1962 Mets ("Nelson" Miller and Cannizzaro) on their roster? There's a trivia question! When was the last time two members of the 1962 Mets were teammates?

Aaron Heilman.

What chance did the 1971 Padres ever have, with two 1962 Mets ("Nelson" Miller and Cannizzaro) on their roster?

Vic Sage wrote: and so I used ... the Padres (who had slugger Nate Colbert and pitchers Dave Roberts, Clay Kirby and Bob Miller) I'm suddenly remembering how bad the 1971 Padres were. They had to have been one of the worst teams of the '70s, even with Dave Roberts pitching like a Cy Young candidate. Ed Spiezio, Enzo Hernandez, Don Mason and Clarence Gaston were everyday players who all on-based under .300. Even the de Roulet Mets woulda made mince meat outta that squad.

I think that Candlestick had artificial [crossout:jecwok9n]turd[/crossout:jecwok9n] turf back then. That catcher is a Phillie -- perhaps Bob Boone. His uni is definitely not Bench's #5. Good call on Kingman.

Vic Sage wrote: Was this it? I'm not sure. I never saw the box cover, and only remember the actual team charts themselves. The game was stored in the HS social studies office, and we'd sit in there and play between classes, keeping track of our games in a ongoing league throughout the school year. You could use up to 3 different team charts, and combine them to create your team. That edition of the game had the 1971 teams (you could order other years, too), and so I used the Mets (mostly for Seaver's incredible `71 season), the Padres (who had slugger Nate Colbert and pitchers Dave Roberts, Clay Kirby and Bob Miller) and Detroit (with Mickey Lolich, and Norm Cash, Willie Horton, Al Kaline and Gates Brown off the bench). I did alright. "Was this it" was rhetorical. I'm sure you were playing SI. You had an older box. I could probably name you more 1971 than current major leaguers. I spent a good deal of my childhood --years-- playing the '71 SOM set. And it was while playing a game with the '71 Tigers as a young teen that I had my breakthrough epiphany moment and discovered the value of walks and on base percentage. I still remember the key highlights. In that game, the Tigers beat the Indians in a wild high scoring game that had many lead changes. Al Kaline went 0 for one, but with four walks. Kaline was in the middle of every Tiger rally, including a walk with two outs and nobody on base that kept the last inning alive for Bill Freehan to hit a three run come from behind walk-off homer. Of course, we didn't call game winning HR's walk-offs back then. I took notice of the walks though, and from then on there, I fell in love with the player who could take a walk. That was also probably the last time I ever slotted Bud Harrelson at the top of the lineup.

Was this it?

You shoulda married like this guy did: Just ask Brett Carow, a 31-year-old River Falls, Wis., resident who is one of 10 finalists in Strat-O-Matic's "Ultimate Fanatic" contest. The winner will be announced at the anniversary celebration, and Carow would have to be considered a front-runner for the honor. His credentials, as listed on the Strat website: Brett's Strat-O-Matic resume is quite impressive: over 10,700 baseball games played in 20+ years. In addition to sleeping through prom to participate in an overnight Strat-O-Fest, Brett played Strat-O-Matic throughout the course of his honeymoon and regularly skipped college classes to come to Opening Day. The icing on the cake: Brett's wife scanned a 1941 Ted Williams Strat-O card onto a cake for him in honor of his 10,000th game played. Carow told USA TODAY that the cake, now eaten, symbolizes his love for Strat � and his wife, Carisa. "She's wife number two," says Carow, an account representative for a rental car company. "Wife number one just didn't quite get the Strat thing. But Carisa is fine with it. On our second date, I told her, 'I have a confession to make.' She said, 'You don't have a child from your first marriage, do you?' And I said, no, I play this baseball game..."

Now here's some sky is falling news. Forbes magazine does some back of the envelope number crunching and concludes that the Mets might have to cut their 2011 payroll by an additional $20-30M lower than Alderson's lowest estimate for the 2011 payroll. http://blogs.forbes.com/mikeozanian/2011/02/01/new-york-mets-may-have-to-cut-payroll-by-30-million/ My question is: How is this even possible, assuming it's true? Is there even $20M - 30M in payroll that's not guaranteed? Triple me down on the under 55 in the K-Rod thread.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2011-01-28-strat-50th-anniversary_N.htm

Ashie62 wrote: "It's getting better all the time, it can't get no worse." I think so. I'd rather take my chances with new owners instead of Jeff Wilpon eventually and inevitably running everything when Fred and Saul decide to retire. These clowns had their opportunity. And ever since Davey Johnson was let go about 20 years ago, the NL franchise from New York has had just one first place finish and just one manager who wasn't a turd. I dislike the new stadium more than I like it. I could go on here. The uniforms are ugly, too. But I don't see this Madoff scandal as bad news for the Mets.