Edgy MD

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I just finished eating my free Crunchwrap! I'll say this: it was better than horrible. You'll be singing a different tune after you're done taking your Crunchcrap.

Centerfield wrote: Centerfield wrote: The numbers are provided. The link explains the source and the limitations of the analysis. I don't think I ever suggested they were anything but what they are. This is so simple. The numbers come from April 1. You use them to state: To summarize, the Mets were 21st out of 30 teams with a payroll of $101 million. But that's simply not true. You take a projection and cite it as a summary of what happened. It's not. Really? This is your criticism of my post? This is what you are focusing on? Unbelievable. Focusing on? No. Took the time to point out? Yes. And quite believable. I want you to be honest and ask yourself if maybe, just maybe, you are looking to poke holes in my post anywhere you can find it because you don't want my thesis to be correct. I just want to deal in facts. It's easy.

Centerfield wrote: The numbers are provided. The link explains the source and the limitations of the analysis. I don't think I ever suggested they were anything but what they are. This is so simple. The numbers come from April 1. You use them to state: To summarize, the Mets were 21st out of 30 teams with a payroll of $101 million. But that's simply not true. You take a projection and cite it as a summary of what happened. It's not.

I don't think the evidence has shown that the family has been withdrawing money from the team to cover outside depts. I think the evidence shows that they spent their money and the team's money poorly and invested their money and the team's money foolishly. And at the worst time.

Centerfield wrote: Centerfield wrote: There are several reports/rumors that the Wilpons' other businesses are suffering, and that they have been pumping Mets/SNY revenue into other avenues, rather than spending on the team. I would like to read these reports, before getting furious over anything. Well, there is one in the Strat-O-Matic thread. Report in the Strat-o-Matic thread wrote: The Mets have the TV cash coming in everybody else in baseball does, and then some � they started cashing in earlier, thanks in part, again, to a big loan from Bernie Madoff. They've just been siphoning off that revenue since Madoff went bust to keep the parent company afloat, the kind of thing that should bother MLB but so far hasn't. This does not say the Wilpons have siphoned money from the team to support external businesses. What this is trying to say (badly) is that the Mets have siphoned money from SNY to support the Mets. They've used revenue (and principle even) from a profitable business to invest in the team. Which, desperate as it may be from their point of view, is the sort of thing we'd want to support, isn't it?

(1) Suggests my numbers are incorrect They're a projection from the start of the year that is out of date. (2) States that I offer rumor as fact You offer rumor and suggest it's worthy of consideration. I don't think it is. Enough facts are known. (3) And characterizes my position as one that despises the owners, reviles them as cheapskates and ripoff artists, and feels victimized. I characterized the fans who feel this way as with you. It's pretty comfortably close to what you describe. This is silly. You don't know what victimized means? Are we going to get this granular? How exhausting.

Well, I thought you were grilling me over the issue of the profitability of the team. Things are shifting now. Yes, I know the Wilpons have sold off other holdings.

d'Kong76 wrote: So long as they remain a private family company no one really will knno what they're real financial picture is. As for getting MLB loans, they can saute, flambe, bake and deep fry the books to do that especially since they always have the Madoff loop hole. Poor people don't sell Chicago office buildings for an $80 million profit. I'm certain they aren't poor, and I certainly haven't suggested they are. I don't think that's what is being discussed.

Centerfield wrote: There are several reports/rumors that the Wilpons' other businesses are suffering, and that they have been pumping Mets/SNY revenue into other avenues, rather than spending on the team. I would like to read these reports, before getting furious over anything. Citing the opening day projected payroll as "the payroll" over and over is disconcerting enough. Let's please not get into offering rumor as fact. My team is National League Champion. With a break or three, they'd be marching in a World Series parade. I'm certainly not furious. If I was, then there's never any reason not to be furious. And I don't mean this post as a criticism of anyone here, because it seems a large part of the fan base feels that this not a big deal. My experience is that the fan base is with you. They despise the owners, revile them as cheapskates and ripoff artists, and feel victimized. At least they mostly did until August.

What do I win, Johnny?

That would be a case of what goes around coming around, except the Wilpons stayed afloat by using the Mets and the team-owned media partner SNY as their personal piggybank. I'm not sure what this is meant to suggest.

Wait a minute... Jonny Gomes was on the Royals? Jonny Gomes.

So what did we learn before and after the medical emergency? Is the staff (apart from perhaps Geren) expected to return? Is Laggy going in for surgery? What do we know about Cespedes' health? Is he on the back nine at Cherry Creek as we speak (or type)? How pissed were they at Wally for the 51s' collapse down the stretch?

d'Kong76 wrote: I over-quoted, I was responding more to this part and not this year. Edgy MD wrote: The Mets hadn't been profiting in recent years. I'm pretty confident in this. I mean, I don't think the owners have been selling off pieces of the team and soliciting emergency loans from impatient creditors as a ruse to pocket money.

d'Kong76 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: The Mets hadn't been profiting in recent years. They are profiting now. Does anyone really know this? They got the cry-poverty books, the tax books, the MLB loan's books, the partner's books... No, I certainly have to say that I honestly don't. It's an inference. They sure seem to have had a pretty good year, winning the pennant on a relatively modest payroll. That certainly may have been offset in part (or even in whole) by the salary they took on, but my guess is they have something like balanced books depending on whether loan repayments are counted as an operating expense (which they should be). So, in the end, they probably break even or worse, but the idea that the organization was profitable this year apart from addressing the dept burden? I don't know but I feel safe assuming, yeah. Else, this baseball racket is a fool's enterprise. They are also in a position to project better future revenues, which to some extent, they can leverage. Of course, overdoing that, as much as Madoff, is what seems to have gotten them behind the eight ball.

Alderson did not eat breakfast this morning and felt hot under the television lights affixed over the podium in the room, it was later explained. He wore his jacket during the entire nearly hour-long session in a warm room. He is feeling OK now and was being looked at by the Mets' training staff. It was really embarrassing when DePodesta jumped up to the podium and shouted, "At last! The general managership is MINE! Bow before me, FOOLS! It's my pennant NOW!!!! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Oh... is he coming to... ? He's OK? Good, then. Never mind."

The Mets hadn't been profiting in recent years. They are profiting now. So it's relevant, because they clearly needed to balance the books to get good with their creditors. They indeed had a top 6 payroll in 2000-2011, and were still derided as cheap. I don't see the criticism changing anytime soon no matter how circumstances change. But we should acknowledge � here at least � when they change. I haven't seen final numbers, but I imagine they had a payroll closer to $110 million than $101 million. They took on salary with like 11 straight transactions. Pretty much every transaction they did this year starting with trading Cory Mazzoni for �lex Torres added salary.

Sandy's Friday To-Do List Hydrate. Extend qualifying offer to Daniel Murphy. Make list of potential coachies to replace Bob Geren. Talk to Terry about bullpen philosophy. Download Next Stop Wonderland on Netflix.

Whoah.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Hell, he was making $8 mil this year and he had no leverage. Sure he did. He had arbitration. I also don't think he'll get five years and $70 million.

I'm not sure what the payroll was, but that $101 million number certainly can't be accurate, as that's an opening day figure.

Centerfield wrote: But don't you have to be worried about payroll when offering a three year, forty million dollar deal to someone who might have a cheap successor waiting in the wings? They all might have a cheap successor waiting in the wings. Certainly Granderson and Cuddyer were signed under such circumstances. Colon too. "We're signing you for X amount of time, but we have replacements in development and only half expect you to be holding down the job at the end of the line. I'm curious how long you can keep the kids at bay. Good luck." If I think the projected-production-per-dollar cost works, I have to be attracted to it. I think a three-year deal allows that transition to happen or not, as circumstances warrant, and Murphy's versatility in particular allows the team to pivot over the course of the contract, perhaps a few times. And sure, if Murphy continues to prosper but so does his cheap successor, trades can always clear up such conflicts. Embrace the redundancy!

Look at us, getting 42 votes. In a goofy poll too (no offense). The Pool is viable again.

These ones stink, compared to the prior batch. Lots of forced puns, some bad photoshopping, and copious overselling the sidebar story of the Synderlunch.

Yeah, I was torn between $12 mills and $13 million annually. I figured he'd keep shopping if I only gave him a million more than Cuddyer. GUYS CARE ABOUT THAT! I'm not worried about payroll. I'm worried that the guy gives me a return on my outlay.