Mets Winter Meetings Recap

41 Comments + Add Comment

• alwayzamazin December 8, 2011 at 10:58 pm

  if it’s sandy, i think he would be more pron to say that the mets should be sold, the man stood and said they lost 70M last year. didn’t seem to care about fans or team. he had no ideas about how to turn it around.
  • jessep December 8, 2011 at 11:03 pm

    See I agree. He is getting an eye witness account of how bad things are. He’d be the best person to force a sale right now
    • srt December 9, 2011 at 9:09 am

      Agree. Between is business and nothing but business sense and no emotional ties to the Wilpons, I’m hoping he’s the next to take over and first order of business is just that.
  • Bayonne Mets Fan December 8, 2011 at 11:09 pm

    And Alderson was part of the reason for that 70 million dollar lost because of his half-hearted attempt to compete last offseason and basically a TERRIBLE job of evaluating talent and that LET to the Mets not being as strong as they could’ve. Don’t ignore that.
    • alwayzamazin December 8, 2011 at 11:35 pm

      bayonne: i can’t really agree because he had what? 10M to spend last year? if’s he’s around long enuf to make a big deal, then we can tear it apart. (at least pujols and cj went to the west coast)
    • jessep December 9, 2011 at 10:01 am

      Bayonne do you have evidence of this?

      Attendance dropped much less in 2011 from 2010 than 2009 to 2010. The biggest drop and abandonment from the fans which leads to losing money was from 2009 to 2010. Alderson wasn’t here yet.
• Clayton Collier December 8, 2011 at 11:00 pm

  Hope for Torre to become the commish!
  • Donal December 8, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    I thought Sleep Joe was being set up for the job as well. We’ll see in a year or so.
• Mr North Jersey December 8, 2011 at 11:02 pm

  Let me just give props to Gary Finkler on a great sketch.
• LA Mets Fan December 8, 2011 at 11:53 pm

  Yes, lets get Wilpon’s lap dog and make him commissioner so the Wilpons will remain in power for another 25 years. Great idea.
• Alex68 December 9, 2011 at 7:46 am

  Funny how the statement of losing $70 million came after the day of losing reyes to the marlins.. sounds like a great PR move to cover his ineptitude on pursuing reyes… also, how did the lose $70 million??? i am still waiitng for the wilpons or somebody to come and tell the fans HOW THEY LOST $70 million!!! just on the name right of the ballpark they get $25 million, so are they really saying they lost $95 million??? these people are a bunch of crooks, they should sell, this is getting beyond pathetic…
  ohh, and for whoever is thinking the mets got good by acquire 3 bullpen guys, go and figure how they are gonna generate enough offense to get the ball to these guys, i mean, ANDRES TORRES is the leadoff?? that should tell you all you need to know about this 2012 team.. not conceding my ass….
• Kay December 9, 2011 at 7:57 am

  Losing $70 million was not news when they said that the day after Reyes took the deal, everyone in the free world know what a mess the Wilpons have made of this club over the last few years. If this is news, than people are not paying attention, or have selective reading skills.

  I love how some think this place was a powerhouse and perfect little baseball club, then SA walks in and its in the tank all of a sudden. This is all not news, the Wilpons are the joke here.

  The naming rights is $25 million over a 10 or 20 year span.

  One more thing, Opening Day does not happen for months, no one knows, right now who the lead off hitter will be, or even the complete line up or pitching staff. Just like the previous 50 years, the off season does not end in mid December.

  You want this club to improve, lets talk about how we need new owners, I’m on board, but this constant SA is destroying the place is simply a naive notion.
  • Alex68 December 9, 2011 at 8:01 am

    Again, you wanna talk baseball, ok, i will give you your chance, tell me, why the news about losing those $70 was said after reyes signed with miami, and not before? also, tell me something, who else who you appoint to be the leadoff hitter? all indications seem is torrez, whether is him or not i know it won’t be a leadoff hitter as good or as dynamic as reyes… my point is not about torres, who imo is a bum, but is about who will be the leadoff hitter.. and how are we gonna generate runs with this lineup??
    • Des December 9, 2011 at 8:21 am

      Alex68 —

      I didn’t know you had expertise in accounting so that balance sheets and cash flows are second nature to you. lol.

      If I remember, the $70 million loss was talked about a lot in the past. If so, it’s just not news now.
      • Alex68 December 9, 2011 at 8:29 am

        Please des, tell me when was talked about??? and if i recall and remember it was last year that they were talking about $60 million lost.. so they lost $10 more and added to the total amount?!? you can correct me if i am wrong by posting a link, but imo sandy use that as an excuse to cover up his ineptitude as aGM in handlings the reyes negotiations..
        • trs86 December 9, 2011 at 8:35 am

          Alex, I have been wondering something in all of your tirades. Do you believe the Mets had enough money to give Reyes what he wanted? If you do then that means our debates are pointless and we would never agree on the outcome.

          I truly believe that even if the Mets WANTED Jose to stay they could not afford to give Jose that type of cash with their projected revenue. So how Sandy ultimately handled the negotiations, regardless of our differing opinions, is pointless. The Mets could not afford Reyes, it sucks but that’s life.
        • Gina December 9, 2011 at 8:36 am

          Alex brings up a fair point. Alderson bringing up the 70mil means Reyes was never an option and Sandy was BSing us all this time. He’s also been lying about the 110mil payroll too, otherwise he dont bring up the $70mil. I dont trust people who lie with a straight face.
          • trs86 December 9, 2011 at 8:45 am

            True, it is important to factor in that what the Mets were proposing and what the Marlins went overboard with are two different things. NO ONE in baseball other than the Marlins were even sniffing that type of money towards Reyes based on any report that has came out. Not the Brewers, Tigers, Angels, Mets, Braves, Phillies…. pretty much the Marlins came in and Jayson Werthed Jose Reyes.
            • Gina December 9, 2011 at 8:51 am

              I understand that, but did the Marlins really go that crazy? I read the Mets offer was for 5 years and $90 million. All the Marlins did was add a sixth year for $13 million. That is not that outlandish, unless the Mets offer was a lie too, which would then validate everything Jose Reyes said, right?
              • Alex68 December 9, 2011 at 8:53 am

                sandy alderson NEVER made an offer..
                • any December 9, 2011 at 10:03 am

                  the majority of “offers” to agents are GMs/agents discussing parameters. It serves the same purpose. Both sides know where the other one stands (or at minimum, the agent knows where the team is willing to be).

                  If the agent had discussions with 3-4-5 other teams too, it was likely the same situation. Team calls, says interested, tell them what they are looking to be at, and the agent decides if it is close enough to negotiate.

                  If Sandy told the agent that they had a max year/$ cap, that effectively is an offer, whether he put it on a piece of paper and faxed it to the office or not.
                  • jessep December 9, 2011 at 10:13 am

                    Exactly, saying he didn’t get an offer is just telling half the story for the sake of complaining. Getting told the limits a team has on an offer and for an agent to get back to them after they test the market IS an offer.

                    Clearly the $ and the years and massaging the ego was more important to Reyes than a no-trade clause. For Pujols, it was the opposite with regards to LAA versus MIA.

                    If Sandy Alderson said “under no circumstances can go over over 5 years” would you say he didn’t make an offer if when Reyes got a 6 yr deal they decided to take it? Sandy gave them his limits, Greenberg went out and go a deal further than their limits. End of story.

                    And by the way, how many different offers were reported? Wasn’t there reports that Miami up’d their offer? Why do you think that is? Could it be Greenberg used the Mets limits as a tool for Miami to up their offer to get the deal done? That’s what I’d do if I were Greenberg, wouldn’t you?
                  • trs86 December 9, 2011 at 10:33 am

                    Your second point is very good. IF there was no Mets offer, then either the Marlins bid crazily against themselves OR there was a basic Mets offer in place.
              • trs86 December 9, 2011 at 9:02 am

                Gina, yeah that was crazy. There was no other team even willing to get in the game, shouldn’t that tell you something? The Mets “offer” (before Alex comes back with his technicality again) was basically we understand your impact on the fanbase and will make a “competitive” offer but you know we can’t exceed that so if you are looking for the money… take the money.
        • Alex68 December 9, 2011 at 8:43 am

          Gina, again, he has been lying the whole time, he had no intention on bringing him back, but the way he handle things was just wrong, not only that, but look at the cards owner and GM after they lost pujols, they released a statement and everything, they TRIED their best to get him back, and i am not comparing reyes with pujols, but come on, at least for the fan base and tickets sake, show some emotions about losing the best player in the franchise, whatever happened to the franchise player acquisition??? please, you people need to stop this lovefest with this guy.. he’s done nothing but LOSE everywhere he’s been.. oakland, san diego and now with the mets… geez..
          • trs86 December 9, 2011 at 8:58 am

            Alex, while there may be some ready to praise every move as gold there were for Omar as well. I think most of us are still in the lets give the guy a full chance to judge mode instead. While you have your extremist that are pro, you are taking the extremist approach against.

            Saying something like
            “he’s done nothing but LOSE everywhere he’s been.. oakland, san diego and now with the mets… geez..”

            shows your bias and extremist approach. Of course he has done MUCH more than lose everywhere he’s been. Are we really going to discount the WS he won or the playoff berths during that span? To say those don’t count because they were so long ago would also discount the fact the losing seasons would not count because they are so long ago.

            Also looking at history, the two teams that he was in charge of? The Oakland A’s have historically been bad. All-Time Record 8344-8840 .486 The Pads? 3169-3671 .463.
          • any December 9, 2011 at 10:14 am

            actually, the Cards did exactly the same as the mets.

            They set a limit they could go to, and communicated it to the agent. The agent shopped, and once they got a bigger $$ deal, they took it.

            The Cards didn’t sign Pujols, so no, they did not “do everything”.

            So since the mets didn’t “want” reyes, because they did not sign him, that must mean the Cards did not ‘want” Pujols either, right?

            Or the mets, like the cards, wanted the player back but only up to a certain contract point.

            You ever buy a house? Same kind of deal. You can fall in love with a place, and put in a bid, but when the price gets pushed too high, you walk away.
    • trs86 December 9, 2011 at 8:30 am

      Alex, 70million is not just in revenue lost (which is still a lot) but also in interest on all these loans that they are hocked up to their ass in. The poor play on the field for the last few years and choke jobs in 2007-2008 lead to less attendance which lead to less money but for some reason until last year did not = less spending. Going out and signing a guy like Jason Bay which was not going to do a damn thing to make them more competitive even if he HAD been the old Bay. The pitching staff was too weak and we all knew it but they did not have the money to spend to fix it. So they dug themselves an even deeper hole. Good news is that if they are going to keep the team then revenue has to increase some how and they are taking steps towards that in their mind. Good news is also that if it does not work then we all get our wish and they sell the team.
    • Kay December 9, 2011 at 12:12 pm

      As I stated earlier, it has been well documented how much money the Wilpons and the NY Mets organization has lost LONG before the Reyes depature. However, Alex68 here it is.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903327904576526823783348728.html

      AUGUST 24, 2011 How the Mets Became Inferior

      The Mets’ finances are in worse shape now than they were then. Attendance at Citi Field has sagged. Principal owner Fred Wilpon said earlier this year the team could lose up to $70 million in 2011. And a $1 billion lawsuit filed against the Mets’ owners by the trustee representing victims of the Bernard Madoff fraud is a financial dark cloud hanging over them.

      http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2011/11/4062883/mets-shed-low-level-employees-wilpons-cast-about-high-level-help

      After all, Einhorn’s pact—which called for the hedge-fund manager to pay $200 million to receive a 33 percent stake in the team, with the right to increase that stake to majority ownership in five years for a token amount—was mostly about providing a means for Mets ownership to pay off short-term debts, such as a loan from Major League Baseball and the team’s estimated $70 million in 2011 losses

      I agree with you wholeheartedly as I originally stated, Wilpons MUST sell (did you miss that part?), I think they are crooked.

      I can’t answer today, December 9th, 2011 who will be the leadoff hitter for the team for the 2012, point being it is December 9th, the off season is actually JUST starting, not finishing. In 2004 Omar didn’t make his first big signing until December 14th, but yet because it’s Alderson, you think the team is set in concrete today for opening day?

      No, a formal, in writing offer, was not made, but to assume that there were no discussion is, as Ron Darling said disingenuous.
• metsfannj December 9, 2011 at 8:33 am

  http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110524&content_id=19489124&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

  Wow you must really hate Alderson. I remember this back in May when Fred Wilpon himself said the team was taking a loss.
  • trs86 December 9, 2011 at 8:36 am

    Thanks, I was just looking for that.
  • Alex68 December 9, 2011 at 8:47 am

    wait, so the mets back in may said they were gonna lose $70 million, and 6 months later that’s the exact number of $ they lost??? doesn’t that sound FISHY AS HELL TO YOU!@?!!?!!?!?!?!?!
    you don’t see the patern here?? they’re preparing for the lawsuit and are taking $ out of the franchise to pay it, and of course, they needed $70 million this year and that’s what they ended up losing… how interesting!!!
    • Donal December 9, 2011 at 9:10 am

      That is illegal. You can’t use business assets to pay personal debts. Even if they were trying to do that, I doubt they would be so blatant about it.

      Unless you see yourself as the Sherlock Holmes of finance.
      • any December 9, 2011 at 10:20 am

        it is not just personal wilpon money in play. The Team (and sterling mets, not sure how to distinguish the 2) also had money with him, so that might have to be covered also.
    • trs86 December 9, 2011 at 9:23 am

      What money out of the franchise? THERE IS NO MONEY. The team is losing money based on poor decisions by the owners and previous regime. They had a high payroll based on attendance and merchandising revenue that came crashing down after the 2007-2008 seasons and tried to buy their way out of it with even more poor decisions. Then because of the lawsuit the owners did not have any money to bail out the team and thus the team had to borrow money (not the Wilpons, they borrowed their own) and now they are suffering from the lack of attendance revenue along with the interest on those loans. The only way to get out of that hole is to either spend 200M and force attendance way up (basically all in and hope the hell it works, which the problem is where the hell do you get the 200M) OR cut payroll and rebuild hoping to put a much better product on the field and revenue will gradually increase to match spending.

      I just don’t see how you can’t see this. You are a bright kid.
• Metfan Lou December 9, 2011 at 8:47 am

  Any hope of a franchise rejuvenation was lost when the Einhorn deal fell through. Yes he would have been a minority owner, but an owner with deep pockets, a love for the Mets (did you see that picture of him with his wife and kids at Citi Field-like a kid in a candy store). We may have still lost Reyes but behind the scenes he could have been using his considerable assets to the Wilpons with “an offer they couldn’t refuse.” When he walked (and I really don’t care whose fault it was, when dealing with that kind of money all kinds of complex things are involved) it set the Mets franchise back at least five years. Stsrt digging boys!
• Alex in CT December 9, 2011 at 9:16 am

  The pictures you chose for this post were awesome, but one question, who is the guy fishing for the Mets supposed to be Fred or Sandy?
• srt December 9, 2011 at 9:21 am

  Don’t care when the word got out the Mets were dead broke. Bottom line is they are. That’s solely on the Wilpons and no one but the Wilpons. Don’t care who the GM was in ’11 that wasn’t changing.

  There’s a reason they tried to keep quiet that MLB loan. They knew they needed good ’11 revenues, just like they need ’12 to turn a profit. I’d just like to know what fantasy land the Wilpons are living in b/c ’12 is likely to be a greater loss than ’11.

  I believe the Wilpons cut a deal with Selig to try and hold onto this team. One that included SA as GM. There’s no other explanation on why a guy who had been there/done that as GM and moved on to a cushy job at MLB would come back here to run a franchise so deeply in trouble.

  SA won’t be here long. Either he’ll be gone in a year when the Wilpons have to sell the team, or he’ll be gone in a year when Selig leaves office.
  • trs86 December 9, 2011 at 9:28 am

    I agree ultimately the Wilpons are to blame because it happen on their watch but the poor financial decisions off the field really only limited their ability to bail out an under-performing team. Regardless of Madoff this team was going to lose money and have to slash payroll. They went all in in terms of payroll and expected revenue and came up craps, now they are paying the price for that. Most teams go through this type of problem at some point. Most large market teams don’t go through it to this extent because their owners are able to bail them out temporarily OR they are able to quietly borrow some money against the team and make sound decisions and rebound. The Mets did not and can not do that. So times will be lean for a little while and there will not be any big money spent until the revenue projections match the cost. In the mean time the best we can do is enjoy seeing the kids play baseball with something to prove every day.
• any December 9, 2011 at 10:27 am

  From the reports, it is entirely possilbe that the team overall is so upside down (over leveraged) that the Wilpons might not be able to sell. And if true, MLB sure as hell knows about it.

  All the propping up may not be due to some friendship between selig and Fred, but rather recognizing they don’t want another BK going down.

  All the loans/debt/financing schemes still have to get paid. If the team is worth say 1bill (what someone would pay for it free and clear), but the debt load is say 1.3bill, how the hell can they sell? Who is going to “eat” that 300mill?

  Not sure that the government is interested in not getting paid back. So what happens if S.M just pulls a McCourt and files for BK? You think there is a mess now, wait until that happens.

  so maybe in the ST trying to just keep things afloat is the less of the evils.

  anyone, as soon as theMadoff suits are settled/resolved, the rest of the dominos will have to fall quickly.
  • srt December 9, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    Both you and trs make some very good points.

    Bottom line is I don’t really get how some keep shooting the messenger.