Is There Crying In Baseball?

85 Comments + Add Comment

• Mr North Jersey January 31, 2011 at 3:59 pm

  When you say less than the truth what is it your referring to?

  This is what I know. The Wilpons have said as recently as a few weeks ago that the Madoff issue will not affect the day to day operations of the team.

  Right now I can’t say that had this lawsuit never presented itself they would of spent or acted differently. Considering where the payroll is to begin with it is not beyond reason that the offseason would of went differently had there been no lawsuit.

  We will know probably more by midseason if indeed the lawsuit is impacting the day to day operations. Watching to see if the Mets go agressively over slot during the draft will be one big indicator for me. Another will be how they handle the trading deadline if the Mets are in the playoff race as far as do they add to payroll or not. Finally it could be if they trade Reyes will it be cause they just don’t have money or just that they think he is not worth paying what it will take to resign him?

  I am trying to not get ahead of the story and I can see of course cause for concern but again if a year from now their is a settlement with the Mets not selling the outright control of the team all i will care about is what will they be doing to improve the team.
• Lisa P. January 31, 2011 at 4:07 pm

  I had not heard about that second ponzi scheme until just now. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because they always seemed like decent people. I dont know what to think now. I’m very disappointed in all of this. I wish it could all just go away. I’ve loved this team since 1964 I and I always will, but they make it so tough on us sometimes.
• martin January 31, 2011 at 4:13 pm

  the mets still spend, and always have. this financial nonsense is what stupid fans care about.
• The Coop January 31, 2011 at 4:26 pm

  We’ve all been following the Mets, right? Therefore, we all know crying IS allowed in baseball…so is cursing, drinking, and other things that are directly contributing to my post-traumatic Mets disorder. Heh heh, that’s just a little joke.

  I agree with what Mr North Jerz said and to a degree what Martin said. Right now, any fund/person/investor who profited from the Madoff ponzi scheme is being targeted for their assets right now as a result of the lawsuit. This other lawsuit that came to light, I don’t know enough about it; however, something else to bear in mind is that Sterling’s #1 investment – real estate – took a huge hit starting one year prior to us ever hearing the name Bernard Madoff enter into our lexicon, and that intermingled with this potential lawsuit has them hedging their bets with the Mets, which is probably the sexiest investment they own.

  They still spend. In fact, I was just chuckling that if Omar Minaya gave RA Dickey a $7mm/2yr contract, we’d have skinned him alive.

  Yes, Annie, there is crying in baseball…but let’s wait till the season starts before reaching for the Kleenex.
• alwaysnextyear January 31, 2011 at 4:32 pm

  news of the earlier issue certainly does not look good for them. But, it does not mean that they had any involvement with it (if you read the entire article). Just their money did (through this stamos guy).

  this seems to be the type of funds they invested in (along with lots of other wealthy people). And if you notice, they bailed on Madoff at around the time this other deal went south. So, maybe it was getting gunshy?

  in any case, they have not been proven to be criminals (just poor judges about who to trust with their money), and unless they are, it is no ones business, and should not impact them continuing to own the Mets, if they can afford to do so.

  also, they have not lied. All they ever said about Madoff is that they invested, they were involved with the recovery process, and it was not impacting the running of the mets. and as of now, all that is still true until proven otherwise.

  they also do not owe anyone in the media or the fans any more explanation, or details of their personal financial situation. They just need to pay their bills and run the team. If fans don’t like that, don’t buy tickets.

  this is all interesting diversion now, but most IMO really will not care once the game starts. Owners are background noise. So until they trade reyes and wright because they can’t make payroll, it is being blown way out of proportion.
• alwaysnextyear January 31, 2011 at 4:33 pm

  oh, and to answer the questin, there is no crying in baseball but there is lots of whining on met blogs.
  • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    As the saying goes, “more cheese for that whine?”
• alwaysnextyear January 31, 2011 at 4:53 pm

  more importantly, did anyone else notice how many bottles of diet coke are lined up next to mike in that picture? No wonder there are so many commercials, he must have to get up and pee every 20 minutes.
  • XtreemIcon January 31, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    Tremendous observation.
• Gregga January 31, 2011 at 5:22 pm

  Maybe I’m being naive here, but why should the “Wilpons go”? IS there a requirment that ownership of any professional franchise has to share their internal financial statements with their fanbase? How and what the Wilpon’s invested in and lost, or made money on is their business, not ours. As far as Francessa goes, he’s a fat loudmouth. If he were around when Saint George Steinbrenner got thrown out of baseball not once, but twice, whould he have screamed for Steiney to walk away from the Yankees? I doubt it.
  We all (Met fans), need to relax and worry about the on field product. Let Fred, Jeff and their lawyers and accountants worry about this nonsense.
  In closing, I think one World Championship in 25 years in unacceptable. On thsoe grounds the Wilpons should go. Not this garbage.
• t agee January 31, 2011 at 5:22 pm

  With Commercial Real Estate in limbo and possibly worse for one investor than another, waking up one day to find that you have considerably less cash than you thought, already being committed to building the new stadium, and having increased payroll dramatically while receiving back far less than what could reasonably be expected, the Wilpon’s I’m sure still felt like they could fix this thing.

  Sure they knew the clawback was on deck but 50M’s not going to impact them that much and they did own the team outright.

  One thing we know about the Wilpon’s is that they are almost gullabley optomistic. Thinking they can exchange one bad contract for an even worse one and come out on top.

  2009 they committed 36-54 million on K-Rod, 5M on Putz, 36M on Ollie and 2010 66-80M on Bay. They still thought they could fix this thing. They spent 143M-175M after the news about Maddof came out. I would argue that it clearly shows that Maddof did not curtail the Mets from adding payroll. If anything it made them MORE aggressive (even reckless) in taking on payroll.

  Even if the Maddof thing had never happened the era of wild spending and diminishing returns was going to come to an end. You cannot continue to pour money into something and get less and less of a return with each additional dollar spent.

  I’m quite sure they never expected to be sued for anything more than the excess between what they invested and what they took out. That was what caused them to reevaluate their circumstances. They weren’t lying, they didn’t expect the clawback to be in the neighborhood of one billion dollars. They were thinking 5% of that.

  Of course if actual revenue’s equaled projected revenue’s they would have realized an additional 500 million dollars in 2009 and 2010 and that would have made all the difference.

  In retrospect it’s a little easier to understand the s**t storm that Beltran’s surgery caused in January.

  By this time last year they HAD to have a big money year at Citi or contemplate unpleasant options they are now forced to execute.

  The Wilpon’s have spent a fortune trying to make the Mets World Champions and busted every time. From the Murray/Bonilla/Coleman years to the Vaughn/Alomar/Cedeno/Bernytz years to the current era and I feel bad for them. No one invests the kind of money they did with someone they know is a crook. No one. No one jepordizes their entire business portfolio when they already have way more than they’ll ever need to make a 20% profit instead of a slow and steady 5 or 10. No one.

  They tried to fix an unfortunate event that hurt them in a number of ways without it impacting the Mets (and us) and thought they could. It didn’t work out that way but even if it had the wild era of “irrational exuberance” had run it’s course here anyway.

  I’m going to Citi Field as often as possible to support my favorite team and I’ll be bringing as many people with me as I can and I’m going to enjoy watching them play regardless of the results.

  I’ll bet 56 years ago two fairly large New York Fan Bases would have loved to have had the chance to do just that.
  • gregga February 1, 2011 at 9:37 am

    I agree with you bro. I’m going to CF to root and support the Mets.
    • The Coop February 1, 2011 at 9:41 am

      I’m selling tickets, if y’all are interested
• letsgomets January 31, 2011 at 5:26 pm

  Over the last 10 years the Mets are a sub 500 team. Their payroll is always amongst the highest in the NL. The Wilpons cant keep blaming the players and managers. If they arent capable of running the Mets step aside and sell the Franchise. They stated their personal finances had no bearing on how the Mets are run. Selling 25 percent of a company has a bearing on how the company is run. They arent so truthful. More people should be crying. We deserve a consistently good team and at times a special team.
  • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    “Selling 25 percent of a company has a bearing on how the company is run.”

    Can you expand on why that is so?
    • letsgomets January 31, 2011 at 5:48 pm

      You are changing the dynamics of the company. Its no longer the family owned and operated business. In also hints that mets monies and wilpons monies are not as seperate as they claim.
      • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2011 at 5:55 pm

        OK you saying they are changing the dynamic of the company cause it is no longer 100% owned by the Wilpons but rather for argument’s sake it is now 75% owned.

        How does that change how the company is run?

        As far as what it hints your just speculating that selling 25% means that. When you know for sure let me know.

        If the Mets sell 25% as we discussed they still have majority ownership and unless i am misunderstood they have final say on how the Mets are run.
        • The Coop January 31, 2011 at 6:04 pm

          I have no idea how Sterling Mets is structured but it wouldn’t just be an equity ownership, but they have a unique voting structure. Of course, I’m guessing this, but since they are principal owners they have every right to make their votes count more in a larger group as 75% owners, and the 25% owners. Again, I’m just guessing, but that could theoretically be the case.
          • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2011 at 6:09 pm

            Yeah that may be the case. In the end what I fail to see is how as 75% owners they now won’t be able to implement and follow through with decisions when the Steinbrenners owning less than 35% of the Yankees seem to be calling all the shots with no minority owner interference.
            • happy little mets fans January 31, 2011 at 6:37 pm

              Hey jersey… you write like the wilpons are paying you!!! how much they paying you to kisss thier criminal you know what?????

              SAVE THE WILPONS!!! KEEP THE METS THE LAUGHINGSTOCK OF AMERICA!!!!
              • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2011 at 7:04 pm

                You know it’s ok to come out the closet and admit your really a Mets fan.

                Despite all your anti Met rants it’s clear you cant get enough of Mets blogs. MMO in particular. Why you even seem to enjoy mentioning how highly you think of one of MMO’s longest tenured Mets fans.

                So whenever you ready MMO will be here to welcome you as it’s newest out the closet Mets fan.
              • t agee January 31, 2011 at 7:47 pm

                I think it’s pretty clear he’s been out of the closet for quite a while.
            • letsgomets January 31, 2011 at 6:38 pm

              And would you agree the Yankees are run differently? Who would give the Wilpons hundreds of millions of dollars without a word? Can they even go to Fred stadium? Or do they have to stay in the parking lot? Who would do this without a say?
              • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2011 at 6:44 pm

                I don’t see how this fits with the original question.

                How does the Mets owning 75% of the team as opposed to 100% change how the company is run?

                Unless I am mistaken the same decisions they decide to implement if they owned 100% of the team would not change if they owned 75%.

                I am still waiting for an explanation what would they not be able to do as a business cause they owned 75%.
              • letsgomets January 31, 2011 at 6:57 pm

                Jeff Wilpon doesnt just answer to Dad 100 percent he answers to Dad 75 percent and the other interest holding party. how is the unclear.
              • letsgomets January 31, 2011 at 6:58 pm

                I never stated would be unable to do business because of it.
              • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2011 at 7:10 pm

                Again other than how the ownership is divided the Wilpons owning the majority stock would still make the same business decisions owning 75% as if they owned 100%. Your point was that the “business” would be run differently due to not owning 100%.

                There is no business decision the Wilpons wish to do that will change cause they would own 75% as opposed to 100%.

                The fact that when Jeff decides to do something he will let the minority owner know doesnt mean that changes the way to do business.

                All that does is make an additional copy of whom to send his decision to.
            • The Coop February 1, 2011 at 9:15 am

              If the Steinbrenners own 33% or whatever of the Yankees, my guess is that they may have the remaining 66% split up between several investors, so let’s say they have 10 investors who each 6% or some more/some less. Steinbrenner family in the grand scheme of things have more voting power with their accumulated 33% than the other investors who may own between 6-10%. Just a guess, even if there is an investor with like 15%, they will still have less voting power than them…
              • letsgomets February 1, 2011 at 4:40 pm

                Why do the Yankees have the “brain trust” in Tampa? Its run like a corporation the Mets are run like a deli. I think it would be good for the Mets to have another voice or voices.They still vote.
              • francis February 1, 2011 at 4:58 pm

                i’m pretty sure that the minority stakeholders hold non-voting shares. otherwise the other 66% could team up to overrule the steinbrenners.
• kevin January 31, 2011 at 5:26 pm

  It’s too bad Wilpon turned to Uncle Bernie for financial advice. They should have come to Metsmerized and get their advice from the posters in these comments.
• mets2012 January 31, 2011 at 5:43 pm

  Annie,

  I don’t want to say I told you so.
  What we have to pay attention to is that Wilpons didn’t go to the trial, they settled instead.
  The Madoff deal will be settled out of the court also with at least $ ½ billion.
  The Problem is not just money.
  It will be admitting their involvement of the Ponzi scheme.
  I didn’t know won’t work.
  They bailed out without letting other people know what was going on.
  Many of them were people they introduced to Madoff.
  Can you imagine that I introduced you to Madoff, so you put all of savings and bailed out without letting you know the Ponzi scheme.? Wilpons did that to their employees.
  They are crooks.
  • Donal January 31, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    We don’t know what they knew. They may have pulled that money out because they needed to put it into their real estate ventures, not becaue they had some advanced knowledge it was going to sink.

    That is why the scheme went under anyway. People started demanding their money back.

    Also Sterling Mets =/= the Wilpons. Sterling Mets may not be held accountable for any of the fines the Wilpons are hit with.

    Let’s just wait and see what happens before declaring the world has ended.
  • mets2012 January 31, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    T agee
    “I’m quite sure they never expected to be sued for anything more than the excess between what they invested and what they took out. That was what caused them to reevaluate their circumstances. They weren’t lying, they didn’t expect the clawback to be in the neighborhood of one billion dollars. They were thinking 5% of that.”
    2 years ago they paid out ½ of what they put in and pulled out, so I don’t think they were thinking of 5%..
    Maybe they underestimated Picard but 5% doesn’t make sense.
    So far Picard got almost all of what he asked for.
    • francis February 1, 2011 at 4:59 pm

      i think they did. read the article about the other ponzi scheme they were involved with and you’ll see that the precedent was already set.
• letsgomets January 31, 2011 at 6:00 pm

  The Wilpons are good people who deserve the benefit of the doubt. In addition, if the gloves dont fit then you must acquit. Can somebody get OJ his Hertz gig back so all is right in the world again.
  • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    the fact that somehow you see a connection between the 2 amazes me.
    • letsgomets January 31, 2011 at 6:23 pm

      When things get weird they should get really weird.
• t agee January 31, 2011 at 6:05 pm

  2012, I’m not really up to speed on the whole Maddof thing. It’s a different world then the one I travel in.

  I was trying to say that I think the Wilpon’s felt they would be on the hook for 50 Million, not 1 Billion after the initial shock wore off, the dust started clearing and before the law suits got filed.
  • The Coop January 31, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    Keep in mind T-Agee that the papers aren’t reporting OTHER people who profited from the Ponzi Scheme. These are glamorous (well, sort of lol) baseball team owners who are incredibly visible. What about Joe Schmoe investor from Long Island who made a quick buck then got out? His name isn’t mentioned b/c (shocker) no one knows who he is. Or the other investors. So to say Sterling is on the hook for $1bn (if it comes to that) is kind of a misnomer. They are part of a group that is being sued. That could as a group owe $1bn.
    • t agee January 31, 2011 at 6:25 pm

      What is it Coop. A fund started by Sterling and invested with Madoff that included lots of people and all the people in the fund are being sued collectively?

      I thought it was individuals or entity’s that had an account with Madoff that were being sued individually.
    • francis January 31, 2011 at 6:28 pm

      The financial papers report on the other people who profited from the ponzi scheme, most notably Jeffrey Picower, whose estate recently settled for $7.2 Billion ( with a B ).

      Jeffrey Picower died of an apparent drowning accident a few months after being sued by the Madoff trustee and a week before some sketchy transactions made to his Madoff account was brought into evidence.
      • The Coop February 1, 2011 at 9:24 am

        Ah, yes, I remember that Picower story when I was following the whole Madoff thing closely. I still remember the pics of Bernie’s wife sitting on the subway, something I’m sure she’d never done in her life before, and all those horror stories. Thanks for clearing that up – the stories make it sound like the Wilpons are the only people who profited from the Ponzi scheme and you and I (and others) both know others did too. Picower was an anomaly – he had to have known something, he profited in the billions. Whoa.
• martin January 31, 2011 at 6:18 pm

  i think the problem here is that people actually listen to francesa
• francis January 31, 2011 at 6:21 pm

  There is a very interesting article in the NY Times about ANOTHER Ponzi scheme the Wilpons were involved with prior to the Madoff collapse.

  It’s called, For Mets Owners, A Costly Precursor.
  • francis January 31, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    i guess i should read the posts before replying to them.

    shame on me.
    • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2011 at 6:32 pm

      LMAO
    • stick January 31, 2011 at 9:52 pm

      well francis, you would likely be the only one, but knock yourself out with that!
• Harry C January 31, 2011 at 6:44 pm

  Lets see one ponzi scheme and you could almost believe that maybe they were just ignorant suckers who just miraculously got lucky and gained 50 mil. Two ponzi schemes… Get real.. They are freakin crooks.
  • Pete January 31, 2011 at 9:24 pm

    They are freakin crooks, and liars. That is the only thing worth noting about those sorry sacks of shlt known as Wilpons. And it’s a total copout to say all teams are run the same way, because they aren’t. The Wilpons are in a downhill spiral that will see them forced into selling the team. Everyone else on here is completely missing the point.
• francis January 31, 2011 at 6:45 pm

  here’s a question:

  I’m investing with someone and I get great returns, and it could be that they may be doing some shady stuff to get high returns, but I don’t really know. I’m not sure, so I take out my principal just in case, and let my profits ride, am I guilty of anything ?
  • mets2012 January 31, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    You may not go to jail but I WILL TAKE ALL YOUR MONEY AND MORE.
    That is what Picard ‘s been doing and very successful.
  • Pete January 31, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    What if you keep on doing it? Are you guilty then? Let me answer for you because you will guess wrong. YES, you are still guilty. It’s what’s known as being responsible for your actions.
    • t agee January 31, 2011 at 9:42 pm

      You don’t know what they knew. Why would anyone jepordize their entire life to get an extra 10 or 20% return? Lots of people invested with this guy, to say you know one of them knew the crook was a crook is hilarious.

      You know as much as any other outsider. What you’ve read.

      If you know so much why don’t you explain how Madoff got away with it for so long because nobody else knows. Fill the FBI and SEC in on it so you can prevent it from happening to anyone else.

      Some people know everything, but always after the fact.
      • francis January 31, 2011 at 10:07 pm

        of course i don’t know, but i find it hard to believe that madoff would have told the wilpons what he was doing and that they went along with it.

        i think it’s possible that they had their doubts and hedged their bets by always taking out the principal, thereby minimizing their exposure.

        it could also be that the first ponzi experience knocked some sense into them, causing them to take money out of the madoff account.

        they could also just be flat out crooks like some of you say.
      • francis January 31, 2011 at 10:12 pm

        i’m not suggesting they knew, but if it was a possibility, and if there were rumors and investigations, which there were, then taking out the principal and letting the profits ride would be a hedge against that. too bad we’ll never know.
      • Harry C January 31, 2011 at 10:51 pm

        Funny to hear you make fun of people for acting like they know everything agee when wwe have to read your endless boring posts which seem like you think you know everything about team in the wold and every single player in the world. If you know so much why aren’t you writing for a makjor org like ESPN instead of spewing your utterances here?
        • t agee January 31, 2011 at 11:22 pm

          I’m just practicing on you Harry before I go national.
      • The Coop February 1, 2011 at 9:18 am

        I think they have the whole ostrich with the head in the sand syndrome. Then again, many people invested with Madoff and lost (those in the trustee suit) and had no idea that they could get those kinds of returns. It does make you think, that’s for sure.
      • Donal February 1, 2011 at 10:02 am

        His son was the compliance officer. Thats how he got away with it.
• Nick January 31, 2011 at 8:08 pm

  well i suppose it answers a lot of questions. why we couldn’t get this guy or that guy… but it means that we have been crapped on since 2006 technically. they took our love of the mets and basically said its nothing special. when the news got out that they were selling some of the team, i jokingly said jerry seinfeld should get it because he loves this team. that is an owner we need, someone who generally loves this franchise and will do anything to have a championship back in flushing. my dad says that the mets will never win a championship when the wilpons are in charge, and it is becoming to be true, since they have no money, and do not believe in this team if they are just throwing our money around.
• Chris January 31, 2011 at 8:37 pm

  If the Mets win, this ends. Anyone really care about the Wilpons and their money if the Mets are winning? I don’t.
  • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    The winning cures all approach I see.
  • stick January 31, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    agreed 100%. people will flood citifield if the mets are running away with the division and going to the playoffs, even if it comes out the the wilpons funded the Unibomber and get taken out in handcuffs.

    and the pope could buy the team, and if they struggle to win 70, no one will show up, even if he attends every game.
    • Mr North Jersey January 31, 2011 at 9:02 pm

      I wont be buying flood insurance just yet though.
  • Donal January 31, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    Winning cures all. Fights with your manager, alienating team mates, coke binges, dog fighting, rape allegations, sexual harassment, spousal abuse, DUI, gun possession etc etc

    Win big, get out of jail free.
• XtreemIcon January 31, 2011 at 9:33 pm

  Congrats, Annie. Your blog leads the league in soapboxes. Give someone the internet, a keyboard and relative anonymity and all of a sudden they’re a morality judge.
• mets2012 January 31, 2011 at 9:38 pm

  This is much worse than K Rod’s fracas.
  Wilpons lectured on K Rod and tried to take his livelihood away.
  What crooks!!!
  I hope they go bankrupt first and go to jail.
  • Harry C January 31, 2011 at 10:53 pm

    I just hope they have to sell everything they own associated with the Mets. Where they reside, I don’t care about.
    • Annie Savoy February 1, 2011 at 2:04 pm

      Harry I agree with you. I’m a reasonable woman, but the Wilpons et.al have gone too far.
• Mets 76 January 31, 2011 at 10:56 pm

  I am very embarressed to root for a team with a lying and stupid ownership. If the Wilpon’s had just come out as soon as they knew the money lost and said we are sorry about losing money due to Madoff but stick with us we will try to do our best to put a winning product on the field, but since they danced around and lied I am so annoyed at them. We are definitely trading Reyes now. I really wish this team would be sold to someone else, someone passionate about turning things around. From the stupid dimensions of Citi Field, to the homage paid to Jackie Robinson with the rotunda (he was a great man and great for baseball but he was not a Met), to last but not least, the 5 jerseys and 3 hats, I am sick of it.
  • francis February 1, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    i’m with you.

    if i heard correctly, alderson said the payroll of 140-150MM / year is ‘significantly higher’ than where they want to be next year.

    this is the biggest market in the country. i don’t care that we share it with another team, the payroll should match the market.

    do you think that you’ll see significantly lower ticket or concession prices next year. hmm let me think.

    and it is all because of the wilpons inability to take their lumps, settle this case and move on.
    • Donal February 1, 2011 at 2:27 pm

      What if the talent doesn’t match the payroll? Are we supposed to pay more simply because we can? It’s one thing to say that other teams shouldn’t out bid us for guys we need, it is completely different to say that we have to spend top dollar all around.
• William Howard February 1, 2011 at 12:44 am

  If the Wilpons are victims of Madoff as they say, and not co-conspirators as Picard says, why are they trying to work out a settlement?

  If they are innocent why aren’t they allowing this to go to trial where they will be proven innocent and not have to pay the trustees anything?

  Why isn’t anyone asking the right questions?

  The fact that the Wilpons are interested in settling and even willing to pay a quarter-billion dollars, seems like an obvious admission of guilt.
  • Mr North Jersey February 1, 2011 at 10:39 am

    “If the Wilpons are victims of Madoff as they say, and not co-conspirators as Picard says, why are they trying to work out a settlement?”

    You do understand that the reason for the settlement is because regardless if they are victims or not the fact that they made a profit means they have to pay back that money no matter what right?

    “If they are innocent why aren’t they allowing this to go to trial where they will be proven innocent and not have to pay the trustees anything?”

    Again, guilt or innocence means nothing if they made a profit they have to pay it back. They would go to trial if they could not agree on what amount they have to pay back but right now they are not there yet.

    “Why isn’t anyone asking the right questions?”

    They are.

    “The fact that the Wilpons are interested in settling and even willing to pay a quarter-billion dollars, seems like an obvious admission of guilt.”

    If by guilt you mean guilty of trusting and being played by Madoff. They yes it is an admission of guilt. If your saying they were co-conspirators then no your wrong. As far as I know none of the people the Madoff trustees have settled with so far have not been charged with a crime for settling.
    • Metsie February 1, 2011 at 11:12 am

      MNJ your wasting your breath here….

      90% of america doesn’t even understand what a Ponzi Scheme is!
      If they did no one would get screwed by them!

      Bottom line is the Wilpons got more back than they put in.
      At best they will have to pay back the profit with interest. Comes to just around 200-300 Mil which just so happens to be the amount they are looking for by selling 25% minority stake!

      If the Wilpons were actually a PART and COMPLICIT in the scam the Wilpons wouldn’t be in a civil lawsuit right now they would be defendants in a criminal prosecution!

      There is a definite prejudice and hatred of the Wilpons among some Met fans who blame them for not going with their idea of every offseason should be fantasy baseball time and buy buy buy!

      But if the people who hate the Wilpons really want to cast the blame for the team not playing their game they need a mirror to ask the REAL culprit why they didn’t go to the park and support the franchise they want to spend millions on their own personal enjoyment!
      • XtreemIcon February 1, 2011 at 11:20 am

        Very good points. You’ve been on point lately. Now come to the OBP dark side and we’ll be BFFs.
        • Metsie February 1, 2011 at 11:45 am

          lol I value OBP…Just not as much as you do! All tools are useful provided you pick the right tool for the job!

          In this madoff thing the right tool is a mirror because lack of spending (IMO) has more to do with no one showing up than it does with the Wilpon’s financial issues!

          I wonder if the same people would think it was ok to have their neighbors label them a pariah and try and force them into selling their house because they refused to put a few million into improving that house so that the entire neighborhood could enjoy better property values without spending a penny of their own!

          Cause that is what I hear from the complainers.

          “YOU need to spend YOUR money so I can get a better product that I refuse to pay for!”

          Anyone who wants the Wilpons to sell the team can have their way…
          All it takes is making an offer!
          lol

          Maybe if they owned a team they might see the stupidity of spending millions and millions of dollars on third rate Free Agents JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE THERE!

          And then we could all bitch at them to even out the Karma!
          lol
          • XtreemIcon February 1, 2011 at 12:05 pm

            Metsie, I’m of the opinion that the Wilpons will never sell controlling interest. Sure, they can sell off 20% or so and get some cash, but they will never relinquish the reins. If the “moral” do-nothing fans are so fed up with the organization and refuse to support them, that’s their business, but if they think it’s going to lead to new ownership, they’re sadly mistaken. It will lead to the old ownership moving to a new location! How do the Nashville Mets sound?
            • Metsie February 1, 2011 at 1:07 pm

              Well I don’t think they will ever move the team. It would lose 3/4th of it’s value if it did.

              Now if no one showed up it could happen I suppose.
              But the Wilpons are far too invested in it to sell control of it anytime soon. Besides it provides Jr with a job he can’t really screw up or get fired from.

              And if people think not going is gonna solve it they are mistaken.

              Maybe people should look at it differently.
              If they want new ownership why not give someone a reason to want the team? Like the fact they wouldn’t have to risk their personal wealth just to get people to show up! There would be plenty of money to buy Yankee style then. And then there would be no issue of some side deal unrelated to the team went bad and now they have no money to subsidize what the fans themselves refused to subsidize!

              They say they would go see them if they went out and bought some good players to play here….BULL PELLETS!

              I wonder what happened to all those that said the same thing before we signed Pedro, Beltran, Wright, Reyes, Santana, and K-Rod to big time contracts? Where are all those promises now?
        • Chris February 1, 2011 at 2:35 pm

          X, maybe he’s been somewhat on point. except for when it comes to actual baseball. He is just far, far from the point when it comes to the game of baseball. He can’t even see the point from where he is.

          we’re talking about the guy that said…

          “Swinging outside the zone is basically where most hitters get their hits! I mean not every hit that is counted is a fat pitch over the plate. Those are usually home runs. The majority of ML hits are on pitches that are in a batter’s sweet spot which for most is low and outside where they can extend and drive the ball deep!”

          lolol. that still makes me laugh, out loud.
          • Metsie February 1, 2011 at 2:55 pm

            And you’re the one who thinks 30% is more than 70%

            Cause thats what your graphs showed!
            • Chris February 1, 2011 at 5:33 pm

              what??

              Metsie, are you high?

              maybe you need to study it again..
              http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/mapping-the-strike-zone/

              the box in the middle Metsie, that is the strike zone. The red area in the middle, Metsie, is where there is the most hits. The pink outside the strike zone, Metsie, is where there is the least. see that? on the side, it says red is >20%, pink is 0%.

              it even blatantly says “The results are not really surprising at all. As pitches get closer to the center of the strike zone, they become more hittable. I’m sure you already knew this (or at least suspected this), but now you can see it.”

              lol, nope, not Metsie.

              god you’re making me ME feel stupid just trying to argue this. are you missing a chromosome???
    • francis February 1, 2011 at 2:28 pm

      i think at least one of them has. his sister in law i think. and i think picower was going to be charged criminally as well.
• theonlymaskman February 2, 2011 at 11:15 pm

  The handwriting is on the wall. It is ineviable that Mubarak will leave Egypt and the Wilpons (including Katz) will sell their entire interest in the Mets. I have been a fan of the Mets since 1962 and it is embarrassing to be dragged into the Madoff affair because of the Wilpons. As far as I am concerned, they are an anathema and I wish we were free of them. This franchise will flounder until the day they are gone.