metsmarathon

Two executives heavily involved in major league finances said it would be wise for the Mets to reduce payroll dramatically; even to, say, the $70 million range as soon as the 2012 season. This hardly would solve all of the Wilpons� financial problems because they carry hundreds of millions of dollars in debt before even learning their ultimate fate in the Madoff debacle. But the two executives felt even a stripped-down version of the Mets still would draw no worse than two million spectators to Citi Field. That would allow the Mets to make money, moving banks to feel less edgy about current loans and, possibly, even consider future loans. so let me get this straight. there's actually somebody who believes that, after a wilpon firesale wherein they whittle down the payroll to $70M, the mets would be able to pull in two million spectators to citi, presumably at the current ticket prices, and that with such an attendance-payroll ratio, the mets would be able to turn a profit? really? they cut payroll in half and only six hundred thousand fewer mets fans come out to the citi? after the past few seasons, with all the madoff bullshit, with the current fan bloodlust, and you tell me that not only would they dump reyes, but also wright, and you think they'd still draw 25,000 a game? shit. i think we'd get outdrawn by the fucking pirates. the only time we'd have good attendance is if the mfy were in town.

i look at this the same way i look at the knicks trading away patrick ewing. beware glen rice.

if he were released and signed somewhere new, the new team would surely not be held to the vesting option as it is not part of their contract. at least, i can't imagine a scenario where that would not hold true. but, how do vesting contracts work when you release the player prior to the vesting? i know that if he gets released, the mets are on the hook for the remainder of his contract for that year, and that if he signs with a new team, he signs a new contract with them. but what if he then finishes game 55. since the vesting option was a part of the contract with the mets, which they are still obligated to honor, must they not also honor the vest? i mean, if the mets released oliver perez last year, they'd be paying him his full due salary this year. would the same hold true for a vesting option? is there any sort of precedence here? could it be that releasing frankie could be the dumbest possible thing for the mets to do.

i think htey like plans and stability as they would seem to be prerequisites for a presumptively successful season. and presumptions of successful seasons is typically what drives season ticket purchases and advance ticket sales. if they mets start playing real baseball and start playing well, nobody will care. but nobody will have already bought those tickets if the promise isn't there.

i'm surprised they never put that old hotdog wrapper up for bid with the rest of the shea memorabilia.

we need to get these things happening on the other side of the hudson...

that is a seriously ugly mansion jeter's building. i mean, it looks like it was designed by HOK. it's as much an english manor as ysiii is ysi

10 pedro beato?

i believe murphy has the potential to be a good offensive player, and i hope that he is ready to show that this spring while also showing that he can passably field the position. because i like his upside. and i hope that he wins the job because it means that not only would the best player win teh job, but that murphy will have progressed to live up to his potential, and to my aspirations for him. also it means i get to wear my sweet green murphy t-shirsey again.

does it matter that, in the past two years, the mets as a team have hit one more home run at home than on the road? +3 in 09, -2 in '10 granted, the pitching is just plain wonky. +4 in 09, -41(!) in '10 it can be done.

it started the moment he signed that ridiculous contract, and they've been glomming onto anything remotely befitting the standard, 'his sucking must surely be related to and evidence of a serious character flaw' ever since.

how awesome would it be to have a mr.met bowling ball? i mean, the hat might get in the way at times, but it'd still be freaking awesome.

metirish wrote: Ceetar wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Jon Heyman practicing some serious douchecraft against Luis Castillo. Wow..just wow. What a fucking prick Heyman is , just downright nasty to link Castillo's brothers surgery to Luis not going to Walter Reed that time , who even thinks of shit like that? i thought of it right away. in a "i wonder who will be the first douchebag to link the two" kinda way

i expect he just barely, and quite unpopularily, makes the rotation out of spring trianing. by the end of april, with an ERA approaching six, he's on his last legs. in his first game of may, he improbably throws a no hitter, but still walks seven, including the winning runs. it is his last start as a met.

MFS62 wrote: Just curious. With Ed Kranepool's name being mentioned in stories about potential new ownership offers, has the CPF been experiencing an increase in hits to the site? Any way to check that out? Later googling kranepool, our beloved forum shows up on page 4. binging kranepool, an archive of our beloved forum shows up no sooner than page 22. member sites show up sooner, but if we're seeing an increase in traffic, it's taking the scenic route, and possibly getting lost along the way. but we're happy to have ya! welcome abordick!

keep poking the angry bear to get him kicked out of the zoo. i like it.

nickeas, nieuwenhuis, niese

on twitter, buster olney wrote: The Mets' best defense in Madoff suit:We signed Oliver Perez and Luis Castillo to $60m deals-and WE were supposed to sniff out Ponzi scheme?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: smg58 wrote: bmfc1 wrote: "Known or should have known" is going to be tough to prove. That's terrible language. If the former is true, there's no need to include the latter. By including the latter, it implies that they can't prove that the Wilpons knew. And "should have known" means what, exactly? A number of investment firms were suspicious about Madoff but didn't act on their suspicions. The Wilpons, as bmfc pointed out, are real-estate specialists. And besides... what does "should have known" mean? Had opportunity to know? Had ample circumstantial proof if they'd looked? That they should have been educated better on how their meat was made, or that they presumably were? If I direct someone to order from a menu I either (A) know is poisoned ahead of time or ( find out is poisoned prior to meal service/as the meal is being served, and I say nothing, then I'm criminally liable-- and liable, as well, in a civil suit-- for that person's illness/death, yes? But if I've eaten there before, had good experiences (despite never having been in the kitchen/asking exactly what I'm having), and don't know ahead of time, or indeed, until a coroner's report tells me so, then how the hell can I be liable? I'm not a chef, or a restaurant professional... I'm a (semi-)informed customer making a recommendation. but what if the day before you'd seen an ambulance out front of the restaurant, lights all a-flashing..?

Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: So they either made money, lost some, or lost a ton depending on what day of the week it is. I can't get too involved in this stuff until we're within a Prince Fielder HR of what the facts are supposed to be. Also depending on how you define complicated words like "loss" and "profit". And people really do this for a living? I'm going to kick a laywer the next time I see one. can't wait for the next board meet-up!

The complaint is further undercut by another fundamental fact not mentioned by the Trustee: if the Sterling partners had thought Madoff might be engaged in a fraud - a conclusion they never reached - their recourse would have been to go to the SEC, the watchdog that licensed Madoff and that is there to protect customers. This would have been a futile exercise. As we know now, the fraud would not have been uncovered. zing!

749. To obtain a coveted BLMIS account through Sterling, however, was not easy. Sterling internally needed to approve the account, and Saul Katz had the final say. Far more outsiders were turned down than actually got into the elite pool of Madoff investors through Sterling. 750. Sterling took great strides to insulate the outsider account-holders from Madoff, as one of the requirements to obtain a BLMIS account through Sterling was that all communications regarding the account had to go through Sterling; never directly through Madoff or anyone else at BLMIS. this does not look good. i'm beginning to reverse my field on this whole thing...

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.

if i may ask... what's the proper course of action then? lets say i have a friend who tells me that he can make me rich, and that i need to invest with him. i scrounge up what i can, and sadly, it amounts to a meager $26.20, but i'm hoping it can increase to thepoint where i could be a player the next time the mets come up for sale. a few years down the line, as my buddy tells me that i'm getting richer and richer, and after i've invested more and more money with him - i'm up to $5,000, but he tells me he's sitting on a good $10,000 more - i start to think something is up. he's driving around a really fancy souped up corolla, and is always giving me a hard time when i ask him to outlay some cash. what can i do? i don't want to lose my money. yet, apparently, if i try to get it back, it can be taken from me. is the appropriate course of action to simply alert the authorities, and sit back and wait for the chips to fall wherever they may, and in the meantime leave their money in the hands of the guy they think is running a con? would the wilpons have been able to walk away with their principal investments had they withdrawn it (and only it), and then turned in madoff?

what does 4(B)43 mean? fielded by 4, bobbled, picked up and thrown to 3?