Frayed Knot

Anytime anyone slips out of the icy grip of the four-letter network I consider it a good thing. This also (and not coincidentally) moves him out of the realm of "insider" pay interweb.

If this were a year ago we could toss in a joke about Angel throwing the snowball to the wrong base.

I remember George Plimpton, fairly late in his life, writing a piece about 'Caddyshack'. Mostly it was about how for years he was constantly being told that he absolutely HAD to see this movie; about how much he, as a golfer, would enjoy all the wonderful one-liners, inside golf jokes, and country club satire. So he finally did - maybe two decades after its release. He thought it was trash. Not quite sure that had I been friends with George P. I'd have been so quick to recommend it as his kind of flick.

Nate Colbert (although the '72 version, not '71) was for a time (and maybe still is) the answer to the trivia question about what hitter had the largest percentage of his team's RBIs. Colbert knocked in 111 in a year when the Padres scored all of 488 runs. No one else on the team even reached 50 and only two - Leron Lee and Cito Gaston - broke 40. Scary hitter with a short prime.

Mildly entertaining crude-humor-fest, [crossout]nothing more[/crossout] with a lot of great lines.

I believe Candlestick was the one who had an artificial turf infield with a regular grass outfield for a time. Or was that Comiskey?

The "Pedro Pick" for June's draft is cemented at #44. The only ranked FA yet to sign is 'Type B' infielder Felipe Lopez and if/when he does sign the compensation the BoSox will receive will slot in at #47 so nothing before that will be affected. Currently our overall draft picture looks like: #13, #44, then 71st, 101st, 132nd, and then every 30 picks after that. If Lopez does sign a deal and does so with someone other than the Sawx then all those picks after the first two get pushed back one slot.

Ummm, it's kind of hiding in my computer. The snag is that I'm not good at converting it into a pdf file that would be easily viewable. KC used to do that for me and then store the result on some web space so it could be seen via a link but he couldn't use the most recent files I sent him and I haven't gotten around to doing anything else with it.

The difference here is that money won or lost had little to do with how smart you were or when you got in or got out and a lot to do with how and when and IF Madoff credited you with "gains" on "investments" that were never made. It's the early investors who usually make out in Ponzi schemes not because they were more timely or smarter but solely on account of being first; you can't screw the first wave because then you'll never get the second and third waves on which the whole scheme depends. The trustee's goal here is to go after those who did get paid and spread those never-real "profits" around to soften the blow among those who lost a lot or even everything.

Gwreck wrote: Ceetar wrote: Wonder who holds the option for the third Dickey year. As reported above, the team. You mean he doesn't even get a vest with that?!? Sheesh, Omar would have at least given him a free vest. PS - the Dickey/Hope thing is the post of the week.

Plus the club apparently felt the need to increase its Nordic component in this years camp.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Well, yeah. Obviously the Mets know what their exposure is, their worst case scenario, and probably, the odds of actually sustaining those risks. No one is implying that the Mets don't know. BTW, I edited my last post to add some other articles in addition to ESPN's Insider piece. My only point was that the ESPN piece was speculative to the point of being a useless waste of cyber-ink. It seems to exist only so as to say "see, we said so way back on day one" if this does turn out to cost the Wilpons control of the team, or "we said there was no way of knowing" if it doesn't ... and therefore we were right either way, a trait that network seems to have carried over from their specialty of endless and useless pre-analysis of football games.

But according to this ESPN article, no one knows what the Mets exposure is: At a time when Fred Wilpon is being targeted by others who lost money in the Bernie Madoff deal, the New York Mets are seeking new investors. Without knowing exactly how much money the Wilpons have, or what they stand to lose, we can't know exactly when or how this will be resolved. But it's safe to say that the Madoff scandal could, in the end, be viewed as a turning point in Mets history -- a domino that could eventually lead to change in the team's ownership http://espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/olney_buster/id/6071048/madoff-scandal-mets-turning-point All that says it that WE - as in we here at ESPN writing this excuse for an article - have no idea what the level of exposure is therefore we have no problem making the bold prediction that this may, or may not, affect the future of the Wilpon ownership depending on how things turn out. I'm surprised that they didn't also throw in that IF the Steelers win the turnover battle, and IF they stay out of too many 3rd-and-longs, and IF don't commit numerous costly penalties, and IF they control the line of scrimmage then they stand a good chance of winning the big game next Sunday. Obviously whoever gets into this thing as a minority owner is going to have a helluva lot more knowledge of the finances before jumping in.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: According to this Crain's Business article, the Mets exposure is the $48M surplus over and above their principal investment. Makes a whole lot more sense than 1 billion

This New York Times article makes more sense to me. Excerpt: The Wilpon accounts were targeted, at least in part, because, according to Picard, they were �net winners� in Madoff�s Ponzi scheme, withdrawing more money from the accounts than they put in. But Picard also has the leeway to seek additional sums from Madoff clients, depending on what his investigations reveal about their conduct. One person involved in the Madoff cases said it was possible that Picard was seeking as much as $1 billion from Wilpon and Katz. �I think he has a very serious problem,� the person said of Wilpon. �If that�s true, he might have to sell the Mets.� The person asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the Mets� situation. I don't see how the penalty on the Wilpons could wind up higher than even their total investment ($1billion vs $500-some million) but I suspect that 1B number is just a shoot for the moon that doesn't really mean much in the end.

MFS62 wrote: Ashie62 wrote: Douchebags with hair. Which reminds me. Why would anybody want to invest in the Mets (as a financial investor, not a fan) as long as the two douchebags with hair would still have controlling interests, and be making the decisions? Later There are already minority owners in the team as there are in most teams and in many non-sports businesses as well - and I bet few if any of them are the decision makers.

Gwreck wrote: Didn't Dave Howard angrily deny the Mets would sell back in August 2009? Yes. Yes he did. I believe he called claims that the Wilpons would sell was "flat-out wrong," "false," "irresponsible," "very disturbing," "outrageous" and "unfounded" noting that the team was "not for sale, in whole or in part." So a statement in mid-2009 has to also hold true in early 2011 (and presumably for all time and ever and ever) in order to not be cast as a lie?

NEW YORK (WFAN/AP) � The New York Mets are exploring a partial sale of the team as they face a lawsuit from a trustee trying to reclaim money for victims of the Bernard Madoff swindle. Court-appointed trustee Irving Picard said the Mets made nearly $48 million in Madoff�s scheme. According to Picard, the Mets originally invested about $523 million, but eventually withdrew about $571 million from the accounts. The Mets� owners, Fred Wilpon and son Jeff, say they are looking into the sale to �address the air of uncertainty created by this lawsuit.� They also want to provide assurance that the team will continue to have the �necessary resources to fully compete and win.� The Wilpons have retained former deputy baseball commissioner Steve Greenberg to assist them.

TransMonk wrote: I think the idea is that the Wilpons are going to be financially down for several years and need some new money infused to keep the Mets competitive. They have been denying (lying about) this for some time, but IMO, this confirms that the Madoff thingy was bad news for Fred and Sterling...more than they were letting on about. In the long run, this will be good for the Mets. I think it's more like a hedge should they get bitch-slapped by the results of the lawsuit and want someone to come aboard who is essentially going to help absorb that hit if it does come but at the same time is betting that it won't happen and gets a share of the team going forward for his risk.

Willets Point wrote: But Seattle gets The Edge. I thought it was Jeter who had the edge?!?

Your eyes need a check-up.

Murphy did a passable job in 2008. Not in the outfield he didn't. The general rule is that if someone can handle SS defensively they can handle anywhere else (except catcher). Problem with Muffy was that he was never anything other than a mediocre at best 3B in college or in the minors. When Jeter is moved (to the outfield), there will be stories waxing poetic about how the Yankees have been successful with shortstops moving to center. They will mention past Mantle, Tresh, Murcer and Kubek. Funny though. They will fail to mention that those players were in their 20s when they made the move. (Maybe not Kubek). For the most part (except Kubek) they were moved before their careers ever got going. None of those guys were ever going to cut it as SS - but, hell, you could say the same thing about half the major leaguers, many of whom played SS either in the minors or as amateurs. With Kubek: I hadn't realized he played as much OF as he did although (looking it up) it appears to be more a case of mixing it in here and there rather than an in-career position change ala Banks or Yount. dgwphotography wrote: Nope - I fear they are eying someone else... You wonder if Cashman's statement was a "slip" designed to let Reyes + agent know that they're willing to move Jeter if they can find the right candidate?

Early lock of the season: Colin Firth is winning best actor.

The hell with a salary cap, how 'bout a team weight limit?

They obviously realized that we were in the midst of the 'World Series of Sit-Coms' and didn't want to foul up the schedule of such an important event.