Author’s note: A special thanks to my well-respected colleague Gonzo Will for the inspiration for this piece which resided in today’s edition of “The Sunday Question.”
——————————————————————————————-
The Nattering Nabobs of Negativity are in their heyday right now. The Wilpons (or, as many of the challenged folks insist on calling them, “The Wilpon’s”—when exactly did apostrophes becomes part of plurals?) have to sell part of the team! That’s why we have been dumpster-diving all offseason—they’re broke! That’s why we won’t re-sign Jose! That’s why Jeff has been seen at the Queens unemployment office!
Maybe, maybe not.
The Nabobs of course forget that by most accounts, the Wilpons MADE money from Madoff. The “clawback” litigation (undoubtedly not comprehended by most of these folks) exists in the Wilpon case for two reasons: they made money and they HAVE money. Lots of it. As folks who understand business know, when you have businesses like the Wilpons do, you do not have hundreds of millions lying around in savings accounts.
Hence, since the controversial and aggressive lawyer in the clawback litigation has been known to do, he is going after the “deep pockets” as attorneys in cases like this do. He will try to get everything he can from the Wilpons for his clients, and for his undoubtedly exorbitant fee. If the Wilpons did in fact have some sort of insider knowledge, then this will surely be justified. But even if they didn’t, they know that a settlement could still cost them hundreds of millions to end the case (and avoid years of litigation and bad press).
Will this mean they are “broke” and have to sell? We have no idea. But that doesn’t stop speculation.
——————————————————————————————-
Would the team be better off with another owner? This is indeed the question.
There are many different answers, in many sports.
When George Steinbrenner took over the Yankees in the early 1970s, an ossified corporate structure had run one of baseball’s best names into the ground. George immediately rebuilt the team, and they have won seven titles and made twenty playoff appearances under his family’s rule.
Jerry Jones bought a Cowboy team in similar straits and they won three Super Bowls in four years. In retrospect, this was largely due to a couple of great moves including Minnesota’s ridiculous Walker trade, and the coaching of Jimmy Johnson. Today, the Cowboys are like the Redskins—led by a high-spending owner whose team is usually among the game’s most highly-paid underachievers.
The NBA saw the Seattle SuperSonics purchased by owners who took a successful, locally-popular team and stole it away to Oklahoma. The NJ Nets were in the midst of the only great period on their NBA history when Bruce Ratner bought the team, and proved that he was indeed the personification of the first syllable of his last name, using the team for real estate purposes, turning a conference champ into a cellar-dweller, and then selling out.
So, new ownership can indeed be a serious crapshoot.
——————————————————————————————-
The Wilpons were part of the Met renaissance which took place in the 1980s, but possibly a very small part. They did not become full-time owners until 2002. Since then the team has been among the game’s highest spenders, seen the playoffs once and posted a sub-.500 record.
Overall, a very disappointing situation to be sure, and of course ownership must be held somewhere between largely and mostly responsible.
In this case, the cliché “success has many fathers but failure is an orphan” is just not accurate. Omar Minaya is the father of this failure.
Omar took over with previous experience; his bio will always state one incredible trade as the primary legacy of his time with Montreal. One of the worst trades in history. Still, Omar was well-liked, inspired loyalty from his underlings, and by most accounts is a good man with a good heart. But he clearly is the man most responsible for the team’s current state.
After 2006 most fans felt we were witnessing the beginning of something; in retrospect it was a one-year wonder—a fluke even. After 2007 and 2008, fans hoped and many were sure we were “one or two pieces away.” We weren’t. We were a flawed team whose starpower allowed us to contend, but whose serious lack of depth stretched the team in ways that made success over 162 games impossible. 2009 and 2010 showed the team for what it had become—a true Potemkin Village of a squad.
Shiny, expensive all-stars headed the roster—great to feature in TV ads and ticket-sale promotions and on the cover of the yearbook; but the whole organization was rotting at its core.
The Jerry Manuel-led major league club was becoming a “country club” environment where the inmates truly ran the asylum. The minor league teams were producing players who did not run out balls in their early MLB at bats. Players at all levels were failing to stay in shape, resulting in the last two years of endless injuries. Injuries weren’t prevented by conditioning, and when they occurred they were seemingly misdiagnosed or treated incorrectly. Overall, the organization truly rotted away, from top to bottom; in performance, record, attitude, health, etc.
Despite the promise of 2006, despite the impressive numbers of hugely paid stars Omar brought in, his ultimate legacy will be leaving behind a team which finished in fourth place two straight years, and will definitely be favored to do it again in 2011.
——————————————————————————————-
Still, didn’t Fred Wilpon hire Omar and perhaps keep him on 1-2 years too long? Absolutely and positively.
Did this show questionable judgment? Sure did.
But can we be sure that Wilpon selling controlling interest will fix this? No, we sure cannot.
The Wilpons brought in three former GMs, led by Alderson, to try and fix the true mess Omar left behind. No matter what the ceaseless whiners say, the team will again have one of the game’s highest payrolls in 2011. If the Wilpons were in as bad of a financial state as many like to believe, we would surely have seen some of the team’s stars traded for prospects to save tens of millions. This has not occurred.
While it is annoying to watch the Yankees spend maybe $60 million more than the Mets, this is life. The Yankees have had internationally-known stars and fans across the globe since the 1920s. No team can compete with this. The Mets still spend a reasonable amount and it is reasonable to expect that when the tens of millions of dollars are freed up from expiring contracts, that Alderson will begin spending again, and probably more wisely than Omar did.
The feeling here is that it is too early to declare the Wilpons broke and decide that we are rebuilding. The thought here is that patience is needed. What if we are 6 games above .500 in mid-July and some attractive players are available for trade, which would entail adding salary? Or what if we do finish 4th again and tens of millions can be spent to truly improve the team next offseason?
The feeling here is that these eventualities must be given a chance to occur, and we must see how the team deals with them before we can make definitive judgments about the future.
——————————————————————————————-
Yes, a Steinbrenner or a Jerry Buss or a Rooney family would be nice; but sports is also filled with owners like Bruce Ratner and Daniel Snyder and the Bidwills and the Dolans.
Before being so certain that the Wilpons selling would be a dream, we should give Alderson a chance to remake the franchise. Remember, the team did not have a winning record until Frank Cashen’s fifth season. Alderson’s had the job for three months.
If we finish fourth again and at this time in 2012 payroll is sitting at $100-120 million, then it will be time for panic.
Right now it is time for rational patience.
111 comments
Prismo
1/30/2011-6:31pm at 6:31 pm (UTC -4)
A very well written piece Kingman, and my only very tiny small insignificant gripe is the line about the Oklahoma City Thunder. I believe as the Supersonics attendance was down, but here in Oklahoma the Thunder are the only professional sports team and they’re seriously a big deal. Games sell out regularly and that’s a pretty big feat for a previously unexplored market.
Anyway, aside from that very very very minor point, I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said!
I really only have 2 concerns with the Mets:
1. This sh*tshow will continue. It just seems like the Mets and their fans can’t catch a break; the Wilpons ALWAYS have to be in the news. And even when it’s not totally their fault (Madoff), it still counts. It would be nice for the team to actually fly under the radar for awhile.
2. What will the 2012 payroll be? Now, as long as it’s a good team, I don’t really care what the payroll is, but this is the first time since the scandal where A LOT of money will be cleared up. It’ll be interesting to see if the Wilpons actually allow Sandy to spend back to the $145M line, or if they tell him to stop at $135M (for example) and then make up an excuse. I can picture this quote from some Wilpon or another after next offseason when the payroll sits at $135M:
“There certainly was no ‘budget’ for the team – Sandy had and has free reign to build the best possible team for our fans. We simply believe that we’ve filled out the roster well and will be a serious contender in 2012.” -____ Wilpon
kingman 26
1/30/2011-6:38pm at 6:38 pm (UTC -4)
Thanks Prismo; I sincerely appreciate it.
As for the NBA, well you are in Oklahoma and I used to live in Seattle for a decade!
The OK owners definitely hid their intentions, and then tried to blackmail the city into a new arena when the Sonics’ arena had just been beautifully rebuilt a decade before and was great—in a fine neighborhood, great urban location, VERY easy parking and freeway access, the monorail right to the heart of downtown, etc.
Howard Schultz, the Starbucks founder who sold to the OK folks deserves some of the blame.
In addition, to their credit, the very well-educated folks of Seattle refused to allow the city to spend hundreds of millions to again rebuild an arena which had just been rebuilt.
I have no doubt that OK City is a great choice for a team—the NBA has mastered the art of being the only show in town in cities like Portland, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, etc., and OK City is surely a fine addition to that.
But this is irrelevant to the idea that the team was still somewhat stolen away from the beautiful Pacific Northwest.
Prismo
1/30/2011-6:40pm at 6:40 pm (UTC -4)
I didn’t know you used to live in Seattle!
Well I have no reason to further defend the Thunder. I went to my first ever NBA game last weekend to see the Knicks here in OKC and after leading pretty much the entire game, the Knicks surrendered a buzzer-beater 3pt shot by Kevin Durant to lose. It was pretty devastating and I would be very happy if they took this team away and placed it back in Seattle.
kingman 26
1/30/2011-6:44pm at 6:44 pm (UTC -4)
HAHA! I am a Net fan, so nice to see it is not just us he torches!
Yeah, in my last life, I lived in Seattle from 1989–2001; played in a band there in the heyday of The Grunge Era. Played lots of great shows, recorded three CDs, etc, but, alas, was in one of the bands who did not quite make it to the big time.
Seriously though, and I have traveled a lot, it is one of the USA’s very best cities in just about every respect—physically beautiful, utterly livable, so very much going on, loaded with culture, tolerant of all political viewpoints—just a truly great place.
stickguy
1/30/2011-7:32pm at 7:32 pm (UTC -4)
if you really want the gory details, Bill Simmons (espn page 2) wrote some great, in depth analysis pieces on the whole situation. basically the NBA sold out the sonics fans.
saltygary
1/31/2011-12:51pm at 12:51 pm (UTC -4)
Yea he wrote a great peice and continually mentions this situation. I would not be shocked that a team like the Raptors, Grizzlies, T-Wolves or Hornets (again) get moved to Seattle. That market can do a better job with one of those teams.
stickguy
1/30/2011-6:39pm at 6:39 pm (UTC -4)
nice piece. And props for being one of the 2 bloggers (greg P. being the other) that will actually use a word that might require a trip to the dictionary.
I agree with your premise. You can assume/speculate/panic all you want, but until there is some tangible evidence that the wilpons are broke/pathological liars/the devil’s own spawn, I will accept them at their word that the ongoing Madoff stuff is not impacting the operation of the team. and as of yet, have not seen that.
one quibble though. Seeing a 120mill payroll does not necessarily mean panic time. It could mean success with young players finally (and the 2006 club payroll was about 100mill, as was the 2008 WS champs, some team I won’t mention)
kingman 26
1/30/2011-6:41pm at 6:41 pm (UTC -4)
Thank you sir, and thanks for the fine compliment.
As for the quibble, yeah, that is a good point.
I guess I was meaning to say that IF we finish 4th AND there are some good FA/trade options and money is not spent, then it might be time for panic.
But point taken.
Thanks for reading.
TRS86
1/30/2011-7:06pm at 7:06 pm (UTC -4)
Even then I think I have mentioned my feeling is it would be foolish to expect Sandy to go right back to the well next off-season and move payroll back up to 150M in locked in contracts. I expect one big position player (could be Reyes) and one big to decent pitcher, then 1 year contracts again. In other words staggering of big money contracts.
metsfan4decades
1/30/2011-7:09pm at 7:09 pm (UTC -4)
I agree with this also.
Not unless we pull off a miracle and go to the WS this year. Then we’ll have a little more leeway with payroll
metsfan4decades
1/30/2011-7:02pm at 7:02 pm (UTC -4)
Excellent piece, Kingman.
‘Omar was well-liked, inspired loyalty from his underlings, and by most accounts is a good man with a good heart. But he clearly is the man most responsible for the team’s current state.’
I too am sure Omar is a good guy. However, I don’t think he was here one or two years too long. – in hindsight now I don’t think he was the best GM for the job when hired. I’ll give him credit for the first couple of years but after that, it’s like he panicked. Regardless, he’s gone now, the Wilpons had realized it was time for a change and so far, I’ve liked what they’ve done.
Hindsight also shows us that Jerry taking over when Willie was fired might have been fine, but given him an extension surely was not. Again, I hope these types of poor decisions are a thing of the past with the new FO.
Are the Wilpons broke? I really don’t think so.
Did they lie in Oct when they said the Madoff scandal won’t affect the Mets operations? At the time, I believe what they said was probably true. I’m not sure when that billion dollar lawsuit first became known to the Wilpons but I think that when they realized they would be spending big $$ to fight it or settle for more than 48 MIL out of court, that’s when the tied turned with potential $$ problems for the operations of all things Mets. That coupled with the 30-35% estimated loss or under protected profits for 2009/2010.
Going forward, I’m sure we’ll be reading about this as yet another distraction during the season.
I was really looking forward to the new regime and going forward. Now, for awhile, I’m afraid it will be a new year, but yet another controversy with all the distractions.
stickguy
1/30/2011-7:31pm at 7:31 pm (UTC -4)
well, we still don’t know if they are lying, or did before. They continue to say that it does not impact operations, and even taking on a limited partner does not mean that (it certainly impacts their investment portfolio, but that is not part of the discussion!)
The suit is also not new. The basics have been known for a long time, including what different people earned/lost. They are just working down the list going after people (not all at the same time). So if they really couldn’t cover payroll, they would have kept Omar and had him dump salary.
even the idea of “not spending” and “not getting anyone” is bogus. They spent about 10mill alone on the starting rotation (adding Young and Capuano, and major raises to Pelf and Dickey). New catcher, bunch of new pen arms, lots of new bench guys, 2B options, and MiL depth. This roster had a lot of turnover.
I don’t blame madoff for the team not adding any expensive players this of season. I blame Omar and Jeffy for loading up the roster with so much guaranteed money.
when the final numbers shake out, this is probably going to be the highest payroll ever (or just missing at #2). So sorry if it annoys some people that they didn’t jack it up another 10-20mill.
metsfan4decades
1/30/2011-7:40pm at 7:40 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t blame madoff for the team not adding any expensive players this of season. I blame Omar and Jeffy for loading up the roster with so much guaranteed money.
I whole-heartedly agree on this.
I know the Wilpons knew they’d have to pay back some of the supposed profit. Just not sure when they realized Picard was coming after them for like a billion. I did read where they had been privately seeking investors for several months now. I’m surprised that was not leaked out.
kingman 26
1/30/2011-8:53pm at 8:53 pm (UTC -4)
Thank you MF4D!!
Your praise truly means a great deal.
njstuckintx
1/30/2011-7:36pm at 7:36 pm (UTC -4)
Don’t go judging me on my inability to utilize apostrophes!
kingman 26
1/30/2011-8:52pm at 8:52 pm (UTC -4)
That was most definitely NOT aimed at ANYONE here.
Aimed at the morons (sorry TRS!) who inhabit FWICG.com, the Ledger, Mets.com and some of our sister blogs who I will be classy enough not to name.
TRS86
1/30/2011-9:08pm at 9:08 pm (UTC -4)
Hey!!! I call only TRDM home.
kingman 26
1/30/2011-9:11pm at 9:11 pm (UTC -4)
LOL! I KNOW!!
I was just apologizing for being my inflammatory self and using the word “morons”!!
TRS86
1/30/2011-9:12pm at 9:12 pm (UTC -4)
Nah it really does apply to some of them. It’s ok.
hazmet
1/30/2011-7:44pm at 7:44 pm (UTC -4)
Another good read, I personally could care less if they stay or if they go as The Clash might opin but you have a statement in here that I’ve been pondering:
“If the Wilpons were in as bad of a financial state as many like to believe, we would surely have seen some of the team’s stars traded for prospects to save tens of millions. This has not occurred.”
Here’s the thing, the only star that’s proven to remain healthy and have any value is David Wright. Beltran, Reyes, Santana, Bay, Delgado all injured last year, or recent years, or recovering from injuries. So even if they wanted to trade away what qualifies as our stars they couldn’t since they have had no value based on their health and weight of contract. So we’ll never really know what they may have done since their state as one of the highest baseball payrolls has basically been locked in by unmoveable contracts due to injury. Except for Wright. So while they can claim to have one of the highest payrolls I often wonder if they could have moved some dollars would they have. In my heart, I don’t believe they would have otherwise they wouldn’t have signed Bay last year when they had a chance to really strip cost. Even if Bay’s cost could be seen as a swap of Delgado’s cost. Really, a decrease from Delgado’s contract. But still they could have done nothing if they wanted to save money. There are other reasons the Wilpons rub me the wrong way on occassion but not investing in the team is not one of them. As the ancient proverb goes “May you live in interesting times” welp we got that again.
TRS86
1/30/2011-7:49pm at 7:49 pm (UTC -4)
Well of course if they could move Castillo and Perez they would have. Same most likely for Beltran. Those type moves are just good business more than salary dumps.
hazmet
1/30/2011-7:57pm at 7:57 pm (UTC -4)
Notice how I didn’t mention Castillo & Perez since the premise called for stars. But including them aprox $77M of their payroll is tied up in 7 players. 6 of which are pretty much unmoveable.
stickguy
1/30/2011-8:08pm at 8:08 pm (UTC -4)
at least 1/2 the bad deals, and the 2 big pieces of dead wood, will be off the books after this year. Hopefully K Rod too, if money really is going to be an issue.
hazmet
1/30/2011-8:16pm at 8:16 pm (UTC -4)
Moving K-Rod too in season would be awesome.
stickguy
1/30/2011-8:42pm at 8:42 pm (UTC -4)
alderson would certainly be earning his money if he can pull that off, and get something worthwhile back.
metsfan4decades
1/30/2011-8:09pm at 8:09 pm (UTC -4)
Isn’t that a sign of a good franchise? I mean the Yankees have like $75 million tied up for the next two years in 3 BP arms.
hazmet
1/30/2011-8:12pm at 8:12 pm (UTC -4)
But the Yankee’s $$’s you’re citing I’d assume are healthy contributing arms as opposed to $$ tied up in injuries or bad contracts that contribute little and/or unmoveable.
stickguy
1/30/2011-8:15pm at 8:15 pm (UTC -4)
the deals for ollie and luis are irrelevant if you have the money to just go out and get a replacement and ditch them.
metsfan4decades
1/30/2011-8:19pm at 8:19 pm (UTC -4)
LOL…well I was being facetious but was referring to Mo, Soriano and Feliciano.
stickguy
1/30/2011-8:04pm at 8:04 pm (UTC -4)
looking at the current roster, probably wright is the only guy that you could have traded and gotten real talent back (while also off loading salary).
He is also the guy that would have caused the most uproar, and sent the biggest message. Although they could have tried to spin it, it would have been hard to convince anyone that it wasn’t purely to keep the team afloat and that they were broke.
more likely, you would have seen them try to move guys like Bay at $.50 on the dollar, something that could have been interpreted differently (as in positively!)
metsfan4decades
1/30/2011-8:21pm at 8:21 pm (UTC -4)
They trade Wright and I’ll just be sighing in frustration over that….
wannybackstra
1/30/2011-8:55pm at 8:55 pm (UTC -4)
what i take from this — and agree with generally — is that you can’t fault ownership that has been willing to spend like the Wilpons have.
i’m no omar supporter by any stretch — he’s an average GM with hits and misses like any other. but criticism of him from his montreal days is a little unfair because many thought the team would be contracted and that its prospects were not of any use. that doesn’t excusing him from making bad deals but you can understand why he would overpay to take a shot at winning.
kingman 26
1/30/2011-9:01pm at 9:01 pm (UTC -4)
Yes sir, but one could be forgiven for thinking that Omar could–and perhaps should–have gotten a hell of a lot more for a deal which included Cliff Lee, Grady Sizemore AND Brandon Phillips.
hazmet
1/30/2011-10:26pm at 10:26 pm (UTC -4)
Well SNY announced an interest from a group let by:
Martin Luther King III
Ed Kranepool
Don Clendenon Jr.
And one other guy I can’t recall
In addition to the Georgi Vodka owner, who, I read today sent the Wilpons the a chicken the day after the Randolph firing as a protest to the approach. Yeah, that’s away to court favor.
metsfan4decades
1/31/2011-12:11am at 12:11 am (UTC -4)
A chicken? LOL….wow.
Man, I just hope this doesn’t turn into a 3 ring circus under the Big Top.
stickguy
1/31/2011-12:18am at 12:18 am (UTC -4)
it’s the mets. 3 rings is probably the minimum.
TRS86
1/31/2011-7:52am at 7:52 am (UTC -4)
I mean this as far from racist as possible but I am a little shy thinking about MLK III as a potential owner. Especially at the percentage they are seeking.
As a Charlotte suburbs guy I was excited when Johnson bought the Bobcats. Thinking the BET owner would do a great job marketing his product the same way he was able to make BET into a giant. Sure I did not agree with most of the things BET was known for but you could not argue with success. It became clear however that he was more about the african american ownership status than he was about making Charlotte a contending team.
So in my ignorant bliss without knowing what MLK III stands for this thought is going through my mind. I shall do more research and actually take a stand on this but for now feel free to call me ignorant and ill-informed.
kingman 26
1/31/2011-8:51am at 8:51 am (UTC -4)
Wow.
Prismo
1/31/2011-9:11am at 9:11 am (UTC -4)
Comes off as a little racist buddy.
njstuckintx
1/31/2011-9:22am at 9:22 am (UTC -4)
Racism. Reverse Racism. It exists on all levels. I think I understand what TRS is trying to get at, even though it came off not so eloquently. Granted, it wasn’t like David Dukes penned it, so you got that going for you TRS!
Basically I think he’s saying he doesn’t want a new owner to become the owner to make a political/race/creed/sociological type point of the whole thing. He wants an owner to become the owner because they want to win. And his initial feelings is that the group headed by MLK the 3rd might not be doing it for all the right reasons. He’s entitled to feel that way. May not be true, but then again…
TRS86
1/31/2011-9:27am at 9:27 am (UTC -4)
Right, my hopes are that he is but after Johnson I just have that need to investigate further. Unfortunate for me I guess.
kingman 26
1/31/2011-9:27am at 9:27 am (UTC -4)
Do ALL black folks think alike?
Do all WHITE folks??
Surprisingly disappointing comment.
TRS86
1/31/2011-9:29am at 9:29 am (UTC -4)
“So in my ignorant bliss without knowing what MLK III stands for this thought is going through my mind. ”
Again, I am reserving judgment until I do more research. Don’t see how that is damning a race to thinking alike. I think it’s unfortunate that the thought crossed my mind but because of the previous issue and my lack of knowledge on King’s background it did. Sure I could have not mentioned anything but I was hoping that my more intelligent brethren here at TRDM could enlighten me on MLK III’s baseball interest.
stickguy
1/31/2011-11:02am at 11:02 am (UTC -4)
didn’t he make his money as a beer distributer? If so, and since beer = baseball, maybe that is the angle!
seriously though, I have never heard of the guy before, and other than his name, it would be a giant “who”?
and the interesting thing is, for the other named suiters, they were described as “billionaire that invented vitamin water” and “billionaire vodka guy with cute girls next to him”.
MLK was listed as the sone of his father (wait, wouldn’t that make him luke? Oh never mind).
so without knowing more, it was unclear to me at least what his connection was. Serious money player, or figurehead front man for someone else, with a name (and possibly situation) that would make it hard to discredit the group. Not like going after Mark Cuban would be!
as to the agenda angle, interesting question that can be asked about many owners (but not neccesarily about race). Does cuban want to be the first official Owner/Gm (hell, modern age manager)? does some rich guy just want to become “popular”? Is it a media guy buying the team for programming content?
hell, Bruce Ratner bought the Nets as a scam to rip off the city in a real estate deal.
so yeah, I would like to know what angle any of these guys has! Beyond making lots of money of course.
TRS86
1/31/2011-11:13am at 11:13 am (UTC -4)
Yeah, as I said this quote scares me a little
“I believe in the merit and American value of creating an example, and, if I personally, or as part of a collective, can advance the vision of a more diverse ownership group in professional sports, domestically or internationally, then, like my father, I am prepared to act in that spirit,” he said.”
stickguy
1/31/2011-11:32am at 11:32 am (UTC -4)
well, it seems in these PC times mentioning race at all is taboo. but what you are saying here would apply to any (underrepresented?) group. If a woman had said it, there would be the same question (are they coming in to win, or to create the 1st female FO?)
kingman 26
1/31/2011-1:27pm at 1:27 pm (UTC -4)
Wrong Stick.
TRS–what exactly about this comment gives you “fear?”
“I believe in the merit and American value of creating an example, and, if I personally, or as part of a collective, can advance the vision of a more diverse ownership group in professional sports, domestically or internationally, then, like my father, I am prepared to act in that spirit,” he said.””
What about this makes you think winning will not be a part of that vision?
Creating an example solely by being an owner—might he create an even better example by being a successful WINNING owner?
The more I think about it, the more wrong you are here—Johnson bought the Bobcats to make money and was enough of an frigin egomaniac to name the team after himself.
King might be buying the team to surround himself with the best people and invest enough to win. And to set a great example.
TRS86
1/31/2011-1:48pm at 1:48 pm (UTC -4)
It has less to do with race than it does what I say here “It became clear however that he was more about the african american ownership status than he was about making Charlotte a contending team. ”
With me having no idea of what King’s baseball or business background is (other than the fact that he is well known for trying to make money off of his father’s legacy even trying to copyright the I have a dream speech) I took the quote negatively and came here hoping to be enlightened on his baseball qualifications and potential motives. Instead I get caught up in a racism debate. While I could be sorry I brought it up, being called a racist or intimidated for thoughts that occur to me in genuine does not really bother me at all. Again I am confident with my own position.
TRS86
1/31/2011-9:26am at 9:26 am (UTC -4)
Yeah, not trying to be racist at all and if so I could have been much more sure in my stance or not said anything at all. Again, just saying that I felt burned by Johnson in Charlotte who no doubt bought the Bobcats to further his own goals without any interest in bettering the team.
My initial thought with MLK III was unfortunately what is his motive? I am not saying his motive is not genuine. After I do a little research I may find that his motive is that he loves baseball, feels a connection with the Mets and wants to be part of a WS team in Queens.
kingman 26
1/31/2011-9:29am at 9:29 am (UTC -4)
So, Johnson and King are both black, so therefore they both have the same motives in buying a team.
TRS86
1/31/2011-9:32am at 9:32 am (UTC -4)
Nope, you are not really reading what I am saying.
“My initial thought with MLK III was unfortunately what is his motive? I am not saying his motive is not genuine. After I do a little research I may find that his motive is that he loves baseball, feels a connection with the Mets and wants to be part of a WS team in Queens.”
If you pay attention to my doubts you would notice that I have yet to say that is MLK III’s motives. Just that I feel more compelled to research those motives.
CaseStreet
1/31/2011-9:33am at 9:33 am (UTC -4)
When you start off a comment with: “I mean this as far from racist as possible but…”, you probably should go ahead and not hit submit.
Other than being Black, I don’t see the connection between Johnson (BET) and the group. Is there another connection I’m missing.
Mostly though, I’m pretty sure “ignorant and ill-informed” are the correct choice of words if you think the actions of one Black owner (Johnson) has any connection to how this group might act as owners.
I like the idea, especially since it’s not just one person but a group of people including Kranepool.
njstuckintx
1/31/2011-9:37am at 9:37 am (UTC -4)
So when people say they don’t want Cuban as an owner, is it because of their distaste for Latin American Communist Haters? Sorry, I couldn’t resist and it made me chuckle.
My one suggestion is we start discussing Ray Knight in another thread, as this line of conversation in general (not specific to you, Case, at all) may cause some nice web hits but isn’t going to take us any where we all want to go.
TRS86
1/31/2011-9:41am at 9:41 am (UTC -4)
No it comes more from this Case.
“I believe in the merit and American value of creating an example, and, if I personally, or as part of a collective, can advance the vision of a more diverse ownership group in professional sports, domestically or internationally, then, like my father, I am prepared to act in that spirit,” he said.”
Again, I could have not said anything but my hopes were to become more educated on his motives instead of giving me a lesson in race etiquette. Again I am confident in myself enough to know that I am not racist.
Ceetar
1/31/2011-10:06am at 10:06 am (UTC -4)
yeah. I’d like to know the motives. Even in Kranepool, who pretty much said he doesn’t have any passion in the team. While I wouldn’t want a Steinbrenner passion owner, I do want people that truly care about baseball and are buying a team for that reason, not for business reasons. or not solely anyway. The Wilpons are actually probably as close as you get.
Which of course, is all moot. The Wilpons are not selling the team and it looks like this decision was to help insure that they won’t have to. Obviously anything could happen, but they’re not any closer to selling than they were a year ago.
stickguy
1/31/2011-11:08am at 11:08 am (UTC -4)
when in doubt, follow the old standby.
follow. the. money.
I believe that is where you will find Kranepool. Probably he puts up nothing, and gets 1% for using his name.
The king quote though does make you wonder. I don’t care what color a guy that buys the team is if their goal is to build a winning dynasty. But if the primary goal is to establish “firsts”, then I will wonder.
not really any different than worrying that Dolan will buy them out, and install his kids in all the key learership roles, while firing Sandy to put some doofus croney into the role.
TRS86
1/31/2011-11:13am at 11:13 am (UTC -4)
Yeah that was more my issue. I associated that quote that King made with something similar that Johnson said before destroying the Bobcats. Not really race related as much as my questioning motive.
Prismo
1/31/2011-11:57am at 11:57 am (UTC -4)
“When you start off a comment with: “I mean this as far from racist as possible but…”, you probably should go ahead and not hit submit.”
+1000000
This is about the LAST thing I want to argue or even talk about on RDM.
TRS86
1/31/2011-12:06pm at 12:06 pm (UTC -4)
Again you are missing the point and I am not afraid to discuss the issue because of fear or political correctness. Again, due to his quote I am curious about the motive that motive has nothing to do with if I am racist or not. Plain and simple. I don’t need to be educated on racial etiquette. Pretty confident in my position and lack of prejudice.
If MLK III is the guy that ends up buying a significant share of the Mets will it not be fair game to question his motive just like how we questioned Sandy’s motive for coming to the Mets?
You think MLK III did not set himself up for those questions with the comment that I have published? It has nothing to do with race except in the fact that I am curious about motive based on what I have read. Not really concerned if my questioning of that makes me appear racist. I would question Donald Trump’s motive if he made a comment like the one above.
stickguy
1/31/2011-12:22pm at 12:22 pm (UTC -4)
you should have led with the quote, since that put your comment into context.
Trump is an interesting case. what if he made comments about wanting to buy the emts so he could put in a lots parlor in the stadium?
Maybe Cuban is the best option after all. at lest he would be fun. I mean, can you imagine Jeffy up on the dugout in a retro jersey, dancing with Mr. Met? Cuban I could see running out to take a bat to an umpire.
TRS86
1/31/2011-12:24pm at 12:24 pm (UTC -4)
Most likely right.
njstuckintx
1/31/2011-12:35pm at 12:35 pm (UTC -4)
TRS, this is from Hardball talk on MSNBC.
Over the weekend we learned that Martin Luther King III is interested in becoming one of Fred Wilpon’s “strategic partners.” Last night he released a statement confirming this interest:
“I believe in the merit and American value of creating an example, and if I personally, or as part of a collective, can advance the vision of a more diverse ownership group in professional sports, domestically or internationally, then, like my father, I am prepared to act in that spirit. There has been a lot of discussion and speculation about my participation in the acquisition of the New York Mets. The public release of those discussions was premature.”
King is planning on meeting with the Wilpons this week.
I may be wrong about this, but I don’t recall King ever being mentioned as a potential owner or head of an ownership group. I imagine, however, that the Mets sale is going to bring out a lot of unusual suspects. It’s been a while since either the Mets or Yankees sold, and since then the value of those franchises compared to all of the others has become apparent. That said, I continue to believe that the Wilpons will have a hard time simply selling off a quarter of the team, either because they owe too much to government for that to make sense for them or because potential buyers realize that they have an opportunity to take the team over rather than merely be satisfied with a non-controlling share. As Joel Sherman reports, Major League Baseball officials feel the same way. They’ve gone so far as to call the Wilpons “delusional” in this regard.
As for King himself: his career has been a tad spotty. He lost reelection as a Fulton County commissioner in the early 90s after revealing that he owed the federal government more than $200,000 in back taxes. He was suspended as the head of the Southern Christian Leadership conference after the board cited him for inactivity and insubordination to the board’s interests (though he came back and improved in the role). Some have charged that King has sought to commercialize his father’s legacy by doing things like licensing (for profit) the “I have a dream” speech and suing media outlets who use it without the family’s authorization.
kistics
1/31/2011-12:35pm at 12:35 pm (UTC -4)
I agree with you in questioning the motive. But I guess we won’t know the true motive in anyone until 4-5 years down the road regardless who buys the team.
I think what we (fans) all want to see is for someone to buy the team (partial or not) with the priority of winning and then everything else that comes with it (profit, political power, etc). I doubt that will happen with whomever is buying the team, but I hear what you are saying.
TRS86
1/31/2011-12:39pm at 12:39 pm (UTC -4)
Again, my fear after that comment was what happen in Charlotte would happen to the Mets.
kingman 26
1/31/2011-1:19pm at 1:19 pm (UTC -4)
Ever occur to you that YOU may be missing the point here?
This debate is ridiculous.
Johnson and King are both blacks. Blacks have not been in sports team ownership roles often. Johnson’s team has done poorly. Therefore we should fear the Mets will be like the Bobcats with a black owner.
Embarrassing and ridiculous.
Even if King DOES want to do it largely to advance minority ownership, what the hell does that have to do with the skill set of King or the people he will associate with? How in the world does any of this somehow suggest that he will ignore the team’s quality of play on the field? Where are you getting this other than the similarity of their skin color? Johnson’s not a civil rights activist or the close relative of one. He’s a businessman.
You are truly judging King by the color of his skin and not the content of his character.
Weak.
And again, whatever his motives, you are fearing weak performance by the Mets under King solely due to the Bobcats’ owner’s performance.
And only because they are both black.
TRS86
1/31/2011-1:40pm at 1:40 pm (UTC -4)
Kingman if at this point you don’t see my point and still believe my intentions were of a racist decree I can’t change your mind nor do I really care to attempt to. Again I am confident in myself and whether I am racist or not and do not need etiquette from someone else.
If you got a warm and fuzzy feeling from that speech about his motives then same to you. I did not and I am not afraid to say so. Not a big deal. You want to champion yourself and your cause at my expense go ahead.
njstuckintx
1/31/2011-9:18am at 9:18 am (UTC -4)
I’ve come to a point of circular logic on this one. The Wilpons aren’t selling 50.0000001% of this team, so it’s all pretty moot, barring complete financial meltdown, and if that is the case, they’ll have to sell the whole thing. Will that bring in a good owner? Will that usher in another (or a continuation, if you will) dark time in Mets history? I have no clue and thinking on it is getting me no closer to anything I want to get close to. Can someone call Mr. Doubleday? Maybe he’d come back?
Better the devil you know vs. you know there has to be a better devil than this one…
So, instead of going round and round, I think I’m going to get off this merry-go-round topic. Look kids. Big Ben… Parliament.
metsfan4decades
1/31/2011-9:50am at 9:50 am (UTC -4)
IDK…I think some have a rosy idea of Doubleday’s time with the Mets. If I remember correctly, there problems with him too, especially near the end. I know his parting words were a dig concerning Jeff and how he’ll bring down the franchise now that Fred was turning over more of the reigns to him. He might very well have been on the right path but was that the only reason he let them buy him out? If so, man, nothing like sticking to your guns and making a stand…..
metsfan4decades
1/31/2011-9:55am at 9:55 am (UTC -4)
Here’s a link to the NY TImes story on the whole sorted mess when they were ending their partnership. Sounds like Doubleday was one unhappy camper….
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/14/sports/baseball-owners-of-mets-make-a-deal.html
njstuckintx
1/31/2011-10:01am at 10:01 am (UTC -4)
Yeah. I’m not sure if that leads me to believe he would be good to have back or if it points to the fact that there has been trouble in Wilponville for a long time.
stickguy
1/31/2011-12:31pm at 12:31 pm (UTC -4)
TRS’s little hot button there brought up an interesting question.
after hearing so much about the wilpons, does anyone actually want a “public” owner at this point? Not me.
If the team does get sold, I want it to be to someone without an agenda, that has no interest in public appearances, and is frankly boring as hell.
I will go so far to say that I would be happy to not even know the owners name. And I certainly never want to see my favorite blogs taken over by endless discussions about ownership and personal financial nonsense.
njstuckintx
1/31/2011-12:32pm at 12:32 pm (UTC -4)
Maybe the Rooney family wants to get into baseball?
TRS86
1/31/2011-12:45pm at 12:45 pm (UTC -4)
So in other words you would like them to be owned by the Wilpons part II.
stickguy
1/31/2011-2:37pm at 2:37 pm (UTC -4)
yes, without the son poking his nose in and the ponzi schemes.
barring that, the vitamin water guy could be fun. and since he is only 42 or so, I doubt we have to worry about his kids any time soon.
kistics
1/31/2011-12:51pm at 12:51 pm (UTC -4)
I agree. But I also want owners that care about winning as well as making money.
kistics
1/31/2011-12:57pm at 12:57 pm (UTC -4)
Actually, I don’t care if the owners are out in public or not. George Steinbrener wasn’t exactly the quote owner type.
Mark Cuban doesn’t fit your prototype either, but he’s probably the most passionate fan/owner we would see.
We can say similar things about Jerry Jones as well.
I don’t care if they are politicians or business men or garbage truck driver. As long as they care about winning as much as they are about making some $$.
Ceetar
1/31/2011-1:34pm at 1:34 pm (UTC -4)
I’m not sure you could classify Fred Wilpon as interesting. He’s only public because of the lawsuit,and yet people like Francesa are actually criticizing them for not being more public and revealing every gritty detail about the lawsuit.
Whether they sell the 20% or not, I’m not sure the media is going to be breaking down the blow by blow of this trial. if it goes to trial. Settles out of court, finances are then in order, and we move on, subject to the occasional blurb from the Wilpons when someone hunts them down doing other things like signing uconn to play on SNY.
stickguy
1/31/2011-2:40pm at 2:40 pm (UTC -4)
I would bet that it dies down, other than following the minority owner aspect (if that happens). There really is not much interesting that will happen, since it will be a bunch of lawyers and accountants haggling about minute points, and eventually the make a settlement, the wilpons write a check, and they move on.
this isn’t exactly the OJ trial here. It is going to be hard to come up with anything new or interesting to say.
People will lose interest once ST starts.
saltygary
1/31/2011-1:12pm at 1:12 pm (UTC -4)
Hot stuff going on at RDM Whoot!
This can be a blessing or a curse and only time will determine the outcome. If the team sells a percentage the only people willing to buy are folks that just want to make money nothing else. They wont care about baseball and the connection to their youth, they want money, bragging rights and free chicken taco’s. These types of investors will have a lot of pull and can apply an intense amount of pressure to obtain results. So there will be probably one of two business models. One that lowers payroll, and focuses on emerging talent with a shot to win 1-2 times per decade ala Rays, A’s, Giants, Marlins… Decent markets that have the ability to raise payroll for the winning blip and then go back down and re-start. The other model is the Red Sox, Cubs, Yankees model who the Mets have had a horrendous time emulating. There is the third AAAA model of the Pirates and Royals but if that was emulated then you might as well rename the stadium EgyptField.
If the Mets can properly focus their resources on the farm system/player development, they can be extremely successful with this first business scenario and the peaks and valleys wouldn’t need to be as big like the Rays due to the market they are in.
kistics
1/31/2011-1:19pm at 1:19 pm (UTC -4)
I’ve got the ultimate solution. Let’s all put up couple million per person from TRDMB and we can probably buy part of the Mets. That would be sweet!
Who’s up for it?
saltygary
1/31/2011-1:37pm at 1:37 pm (UTC -4)
If they released corporate bonds, I would definitely purchase some. This would probably be a better idea if the Wilpon’s (that apostrophe is for you Kong) didn’t want to relinquish control. Raise capital and have a “guaranteed” rate for investors. I’m sure fans would buy one simple to frame it…
kingman 26
1/31/2011-1:40pm at 1:40 pm (UTC -4)
LOL!
OK, so I understand, in your above comment, what made you put an apostrophe in “taco’s” but not in ANY other of the plurals in that comment??
saltygary
1/31/2011-1:53pm at 1:53 pm (UTC -4)
HS that is a great pickup. I am extremely guilty of posting comments with poor grammar to get the post out quick and to get back to looking like I’m working. Why taco’s? I don’t even eat taco’s a lot, so its not like they are so dear that I need to present the word correctly. I feel like I will be philosophizing this all day. I’m sure my wife can’t wait…
njstuckintx
1/31/2011-1:59pm at 1:59 pm (UTC -4)
If it is used to show ownership, like it is the Taco’s sauce and cheese, meaning the taco purchased said tasty treats to wear on himself/herself, then by all means, Taco’s away!
metsfan4decades
1/31/2011-1:58pm at 1:58 pm (UTC -4)
Wait, let me check my change jar and I’ll get back to you…..
njstuckintx
1/31/2011-1:52pm at 1:52 pm (UTC -4)
Shouldn’t it be Wilpons’ if we are showing ownership?
stickguy
1/31/2011-2:43pm at 2:43 pm (UTC -4)
they are the wilpons.
it is the wilpons’ team
gipperpdx
1/31/2011-1:55pm at 1:55 pm (UTC -4)
Hmmm…looking at the Wikipedia of MLK III, he has had a rough road and lots of criticism through his professional life. Of course, it has to be pretty difficult to try to live up to that name, but I am concerned by his issues as director of the SCLC and the King center – accused of negligence at both places.
That said, Kraepool as part of the ownership team would be great.
PS: People thinking MLKIII ownership would have the Mets involved in politics / social movements are being a bit silly.
That said, I get TRS’s concern that there may be an element of let’s do this to achieve the (laudable) goal of diversifying the pool of MLB ownership to African American owner(s) and that winning *might* be secondary to that goal. Franky, Krane’s involvement makes me feel that is less likely.
The question is – will the MLK3 group settle for less than a 50/50 split? Will they be willing to be minority stakeholders?
TRS86
1/31/2011-1:58pm at 1:58 pm (UTC -4)
Yet after reading interviews with Kranepool he does not come across as very passionate about the Mets anymore either. The entire group I am sorry makes me question their motives at this time. Sorry, if that bothers some.
TRS86
1/31/2011-2:20pm at 2:20 pm (UTC -4)
More warm and fuzzy feelings: The paper quotes Meli saying the group wants to purchase 50 percent of the team and that it would be “fitting with the legacy of Jackie Robinson essentially transferring to the Mets.”
What is fitting?
TRS86
1/31/2011-2:21pm at 2:21 pm (UTC -4)
Just appears to me that they are the ones trying to make this about race, not me.
kingman 26
1/31/2011-2:44pm at 2:44 pm (UTC -4)
LOL! Keep digging buddy; you’ll be on the other side of the planet soon.
TRS86
1/31/2011-2:52pm at 2:52 pm (UTC -4)
Really? Again I am not intimidated by the race conversation at all King. Everything your read quote wise about this move from the potential investors has something to do with race and nothing has been said about winning or really even baseball.
Sorry if you feel me questioning that motive is racist. Good for you. Go champion that cause.
kingman 26
1/31/2011-3:03pm at 3:03 pm (UTC -4)
Not really racist. Just disappointingly meaningless and irrelevant, that’s all.
Johnson and King have exactly ONE thing in common—being black.
That’s it.
stickguy
1/31/2011-2:45pm at 2:45 pm (UTC -4)
they actually think because an A-A owner buys the team, it would inherit the legacy of the player that broke the color barrier?
OK then.
actually, after reading the other stuff posted, I would say that they are ALL about the money. the rest is just fluff for the media.
TRS86
1/31/2011-2:53pm at 2:53 pm (UTC -4)
Perhaps you are right. But what money would they stand to gain really in this type of investment? Unless they got controlling interest.
stickguy
1/31/2011-3:14pm at 3:14 pm (UTC -4)
2 things.
1) a stake in an MLB team. Only 30 of them, and not easy to do, and very rare to get a major piece of one in NY.
2) the sharks smell blood in the water, and are looking for a bargain.
and beyond that, anyone coming in at 25% would look for the rights to buy it all if they need to sell.
kingman 26
1/31/2011-3:18pm at 3:18 pm (UTC -4)
3) If the Mets win the WS in 3 years, the 25% will be worth much, much more than it will cost to buy right now.
stickguy
1/31/2011-2:46pm at 2:46 pm (UTC -4)
lets see, a 2nd generation hack kid, trying to skate along on his fathers coattails.
We already have jeffy, what do we need him for?
Ceetar
1/31/2011-2:53pm at 2:53 pm (UTC -4)
I could do without the conspiracy and speculation.
blah blah, Selig knew about this, demanded the Wilpons get control of it and hired Sandy to keep them respectable. hah. stupid
the Mets _must_ sell all the team. no one would ever want to invest in the team with the Wilpons in control. We’ve asked _everyone_ that has any interest in teh whole wide world and they agree they just have to have SNY thrown into the mix or else.
metsfan4decades
1/31/2011-3:28pm at 3:28 pm (UTC -4)
I can’t remember where but in some story this morning I read where Sandy was unaware of this impending lawsuit.
Now that sounds a little suspect to me, but whatever. I don’t know that it would have changed anything with him being named GM had he known (if he did not really know).
Ceetar
1/31/2011-3:33pm at 3:33 pm (UTC -4)
Well, I think the _Wilpons_ were probably unaware of the lawsuit. Or at least the massive nature of it.
stickguy
1/31/2011-4:48pm at 4:48 pm (UTC -4)
the madoff stuff has been known for at least 2 years +. I remember seeing the wilpons/mets/sterlings mentioned prominantly in the WSJ back then in pieces about the scam.
not sure when the 47mill profit # first surfaced, but it was not real recent. and the clawback process has been chugging along for a long time too. It only got to the wilpons recently (they did not file all the suits at the same time, they are working down a list).
saltygary
1/31/2011-4:31pm at 4:31 pm (UTC -4)
This is for you Kong:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154025/dont-forget-the-hot-sauce-chulo
Prismo
1/31/2011-4:37pm at 4:37 pm (UTC -4)
Kingman and I called this yesterday, and it’s quite troubling.
“Alderson expects payroll to be between $140 and $150M this year, which is ‘significantly higher than we’d like to be on an annual basis.’”
Prismo
1/31/2011-4:39pm at 4:39 pm (UTC -4)
FYI:
2009: ~$149
2010: ~$140-143
2011: “significantly less than $140″
Not a good trend.
Ceetar
1/31/2011-4:49pm at 4:49 pm (UTC -4)
I’ve been saying that since the beginning, that while I understand the idea, I’m still skeptical. If he means ~120ish so that if we feel we need to add Johan Santana in any given year, we can do so. then sure. But if it’s a safety net of “We might sign an Oliver Perez who gets hurt and never gets better and would like the extra 20 or so million to replace that worthless spot”..it’s more disturbing.
stickguy
1/31/2011-4:45pm at 4:45 pm (UTC -4)
doesn’t bother me. I want them to put a good, hustling, hungry, youngish team on the field and win a lot of games.
overpaying for aging last contract FAs like Bay doesn’t not really help with any of that.
you can interpret it whoever you want (including not wanting to do, but doing anyway, like when I pay my car insurance!). Hopefully it is not a “can’t” or “won’t”, but a “hope we don’t have to”?
how about they want to make sure that the guys making big money are worth it, and to keep a supply of good young talent on hand to take over and fill holes.
so while it likely means kiss Pujols goodbye, it does not mean kiss Reyes goodbye.
it could, however, mean that when beltran leaves they will look at one of the prospect OFs to take over RF. Same with 2B with Castillo moving out. And very unlikely they decide to pay the next closer mid-teens money!
hell, you can drop today’s payroll from ~148 down to 130 overnight if smoeone would claim ollie and slappy, and the damned team would be better!
Ceetar
1/31/2011-4:51pm at 4:51 pm (UTC -4)
Well, this year, assuming releasing CAstillo and Perez, you’ve got about $33 million of the payroll that is not on the field.
stickguy
1/31/2011-5:20pm at 5:20 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t expect Johan at all this season in games that count, so make that about 42!
as to the lower payroll idea, if K rod does not vest, then you have 14 for him, 19(?) for beltran, 11 for reyes and 18 for the dead wood coming off the books.
without knowing who gets raises, that is 62mill right there. Even if they decide to bank the dead wood, that is still 44 available to spend on resigning reyes, and getting whatever else they want (an OF? most like a SP?).
adjust the 44 of course for the normal guys coming and going and raises that happen. Although right now, the only guy likely to get a decent sized raise is Pelf (unless they keep pagan for another year, but I don’t think he will go up as much).
with any luck they extend reyes and fill RF internally from the farm, and only really would be dabbling in the deep end of the FA pool for a SP pitcher. or more likely, trading for someone about to get expensive!
stickguy
1/31/2011-5:21pm at 5:21 pm (UTC -4)
oh, and of course that 44 becomes 30 if K rod vests, but still plenty to spend, and at least you don’t need to find a closer.