That depends more upon the Wilpon’s overall financial situation. If the problems haven’t gone away because of the Madoff decision (which more or less stopped the problems from only getting worse) if David is having a good year, his value goes up, the Mets can say they are ready to move Murphy to third and either hand the job to Turner or bring up Flores – thus being able to trade David for some more top prospects as part of the “rebuilding” process. That’s what they did last year with KRod and Beltran. That’s what they did this winter by not signing Jose. That’s what they might do this summer with Wright – for up until the civil suit decision, Sandy was insisting Madoff had nothing to do with the Mets financial plight – and would quote us often that $70 million loss. Now he’s telling us it was the uncertainty of the Madoff verdict that froze up money that couldn’t be used before.

The only thing we can be certain of is that the Wilpons, be it just the Mets or Sterling Equities as a whole, have not been honest with the public so we can’t suddenly trust what we’re now hearing about a new leaf being turned. Especially because it would have taken years before the Wilpons would have had to actually start paying back a court decision going against them due to the appeal process. So, for the moment, there would have been no reason to borrow a total $65 million to meet operating costs, make drastic across the board organizational cuts and hire CRG to straighten out their financial mess simply due to the uncertainty of what just might happen. Yes, be more fiscal conservative with their spending, but needing two loans to pay off operating expenses? Too many other things had to be occurring for this to happen.

And if Sterling Equities was in better financial shape, that $70 million loss would have been there for appearance on paper to enable the parent company to take advantage of the corporate loopholes common to big business. The selling of television rights to SNY on top of their share of the money SNY brings in, plus the national television contract and merchandise marketing alone with have easily allowed Sterling to absorb any losses attributed to the Mets.

There’s lots of teams Sandy can point to in order to justify his moves!

It’s not that uncommon. The Dodgers got one with 84 wins, Cubs 85 and Cards 83 all obviously while playing almost half of their schedule against teams that won less or considerably less.

The whole format is really designed to give mediocre teams (usually smaller market) a better chance to at least remain alive deep into September if not get an occasional pennant.

Where it really becomes unfair is with an additional Wild Card team being added teams are competing against you while playing such an easier schedule.

What was really a joke was the 2005 San Diego Padres winning the division title with an 82-80 record while the Mets and Marlins, who were never serious contenders for post-season, were tied for third at 83-79.

Maybe having seen his mediocre team win a division his first year as CEO explains why Sandy’s spending so little on medicore players for the Mets.

BUT Chipper is on his way out, hanging up the cleats after the season. Wright would the right heir at 3rd for Atlanta IMO. He would mesh well with McCann, Freeman, Uggla and Heyward.

It really is a joke that a team like Detroit skates to a division while being just .500 vs non divisional opponents while Boston (90 wins) or even Toronto (81) could have easily beaten up on KC, Clev, Minn, and the ChiSox themselves and both of those teams did play better than .500 vs out of divisional opponents.

Toronto especially got killed by being in such a tough group as they were 6 games under in the division and 6 games over vs everyone else.

Sure you can say they had their chance and didn’t take care of business but was it the same chance every other team has? Is it random where some years some teams will be up and others down? To some extent but not really with Boston and NY and TB while not having the margin of error of the Yankees and Red Sox has even managed to retool on the fky and continue winning.

Overall how much of a difference between Toronto’s 81 wins and the Tigers 95 is there really when Detroit has such a huge difference in strength of schedule? 14 games? Not even close. I’d say more like 5, and Boston? I’d say they were a better team over the entire season and had they played Clev, Minn, ChiSox and KC 18 times each they win 105 games.

Bud Selig says that 10 teams is fairer than 8 but how is it fair when teams play different schedules?

The current format clearly favors the mediocre team in a weak division over the good team in a strong one. I’m quite sure this is parity by schedule and it’s not something I see MLB doing away with.

When I read your comment I interpreted it as something that was going to be done in 2013. Are they going to a balanced schedule in 2013? Done deal?

I certainly hope so because while some teams who wouldn’t have had a prayer have either “been in it” or won a Wild Card and even Division winners get swept in the post season from the AL Central in particular. Stronger teams miss out by one of two games because of imbalances in the schedule and that’s provides an inferior post season.

At least in the old two division format all teams were playing the same number of games against the same opponents as everyone else and the won loss records reflected that such as 1973 for instance but here the won loss records actually bury the issue as a team like Detroit can beat up on KC, Minn, ChiSox and Clev (combined 50-22) and skate to a title while being merely .500 vs everyone else.

I really don’t see MLB going to a balanced schedule unless they ditch the divisions because the very reason it was instituted was to artificially prevent a sub .500 team from qualifying as would have happened in 1994 in the AL West if not for the strike.

Yup, why I think having as close to a balanced schedule is vital to make the wild card really legitimate.

As far as actual winners, during the mid sixties the American League was considered vastly inferior to that of the senior circuit and the talk was always how much better even the Mets would have done being in the other league, let alone better teams like Pittsburgh and San Francisco which lost out to the Dodgers the final weekends of 1965 and 1966. In contrast, the Twins and Orioles both ran away with their pennants those two seasons.

Then when divisional play came into it, teams like the Royals and Twins in the mid eighties had poorer records than many of the AL eastern division teams but by virtue of being in the west, they went on to the playoffs, even with a balanced schedule.

At least with a balanced schedule even teams like the Tigers might have the advantage of winning the division, there being such weak competition, however, for the better clubs, the unbalanced schedule favors a weak team in a weak division instead of a better team in a good division.

Bud Selig has been helping the Wilpons so much, perhaps he can do something to give teams like the Mets who are in tougher divisions a handicap. Let’s say a certain amount of aded victories when applied to the wildcard race?

I was only trying to determine if a balanced schedule would be feasible so the Mets wouldn’t have such an unfair advantage in the wildcard race being in the east.

Joe

You’re right about that – cannot have just one team off but two on an particular day since this presents an odd number of games (seven) that can be played on any one day.

Guess that means MLB has blown it with fairness as far as the wild card is concerned.

Now someone’s going to win that division regardless but if a team like KC could get to 90 wins by predominatly beating up on Minn and the ChiSox the 36 times they play them.

That;s a huge advantage in the Wild Card hunt against a team like Toronto or Boston having so many against NYY TB and themselves.

Is it true that there will be a more balanced schedule next year?

The Mets NYY series isn’t occurring every year?

I actually think that once they went 15 each, they should have gone all the way and ditched the leagues and just gone with 2 divisions. That is effectively what they have done now.

That’s why I mentioned the unbalanced schedule beginning next year when the Astros move to the junior circuit and there are then fifteen teams in each league.

The breakdown would be:

13 games against 4 division opponents: 52
11 games agsint 10 non-division opponents: 110
___

Total games: 162

Of course, for us in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago that eliminates the popular inter-league series which many will miss. For other teams in close proximity, (i.e., Baltimore/Washington, San Francisco/Oakland, etc.) I do not know if the rivaly is so big that fans will feel any real loss. But eliminating inter-league play will also make the world series seem more unique.

One could also wonder if Jose would have run away with the batting title not having to face the Phillie pitching staff more than the juiced up Braun and perhaps twice facing C.C. Sabathia as well.

Think of the possibilities. In this case, I would welcome the sabremetric analysis putting everyone on an equal playing field to determine to get at least a recreated understanding of who might have possibly hit what. Is there such an analysis out there?

and could never happen unless Chipper was out for the year.