25
2013
Refinancing SNY Loan Will Prepare Mets For Expected Declining Revenues
An article by 
Michael Breit was a guest on YES Network’s The State of Sports where they discussed the state of the Mets finances, the refinancing, revenue and cash flow.
The Mets took advantage of better interest rates which was the main factor in refinancing $700 million dollars in debt.
With the refinance the Mets cashed out a significant sum for things like capital improvements, paying down other debts, and future spending for the team that would allow for type of contracts they just gave David Wright.
Breit say this was the right move for the Mets owners and they did it at a time where they took advantage of optimal rates that allowed them to cut monthly and quarterly debt payments and free up a large sum of cash for other uses and concerns.
The refinancing also positioned the Mets for combating future cash flow problems due to sagging attendance that will certainly lead to decreased revenue streams in 2013.
Breit estimates that the Mets need to reach a 2.3 million in attendance just to break even, and so now with this new influx of cash, the risk of a shortfall will not hurt them in the pocket moving forward as they look to rebuild the team and the brand.
Another reason for the timing of the refinance is because the value of the SNY Network is peaking and at an all-time high. Mets owners hold a 65% share of SNY and it’s speculated that it could now be nearing $2 billion dollars in value. This enabled the Mets to leverage that value to address other problems and was the strategically correct thing to do.
The one thing you can call a negative where SNY is concerned, is that nobody could have predicted that major broadcast providers like Fox would be offering massive regional sports contracts like the ones we recently saw with the Dodgers and Angels.
Sports franchises owning their own networks became trendy and seemed like the way to go 5-10 years ago. But now, teams in major markets rake in about double the broadcast rights revenue that SNY generates for the Mets. In my opinion it puts the Mets at a competitive disadvantage both now and in the future. The Yankees don’t (and won’t) have that problem as they are the gold standard in the industry.
There were a few folks out there last month, who reported that the Mets would pay dearly for leveraging SNY the way that they have. But Briet says there’s no big concern about that. If the Mets were leveraging SNY at anything close to an excessive level, their partners, Time Warner and Comcast, would have never allowed that to happen — and that both media giants have a big say in how much debt is leveraged against SNY. The Mets did well to partner with both of them when they did.
Anyway, I thought some of you would be interested in my thoughts on this and also in what Michael Briet had to say on the matter. Too bad you don’t get such perspective from SNY themselves and wouldn’t it be great if they had their own “Business of Sports” type programming instead of… I don’t know, Beer Money? Of course that would raise a totally different set of problems for them, like having to find a host who knew their ass from their elbow. But, hey… they keep increasing in value, so what the heck do I know.
You can watch the entire interview online at Yes Network.com.
About the Author: Joe DeCaro
I'm a lifelong Mets fan who loves writing and talking about the Amazins' 24/7. From the Miracle in 1969 to the magic of 1986, and even the near misses in '73 and '00, I've experienced it all - the highs and the lows. I started Mets Merized Online in 2005 to feed my addiction. Follow me on Twitter @metsmerized.
48 Comments + Add Comment
NL East Standings
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braves | 24 | 18 | .571 | - |
| Nationals | 23 | 20 | .535 | 1.5 |
| Phillies | 20 | 23 | .465 | 4.5 |
| Mets | 16 | 24 | .400 | 7.0 |
| Marlins | 11 | 32 | .256 | 13.5 |
Last updated: 05/18/2013
Recent Comments
- Hawk: on Mets vs Cubs: Davis Not In Lineup As Gee Looks For A Win In Rubber Match: What is wrong with Tejada? I...
- taskmaster4450: on Mets vs Cubs: Davis Not In Lineup As Gee Looks For A Win In Rubber Match: The Knicks could have used a couple...
- Jimmy Pernil: on Mets GM Tells Ike Davis He Has Until End Of Month To Turn Slump Around: The world has never seen a religion...
- Dan Powers: on Mets vs Cubs: Davis Not In Lineup As Gee Looks For A Win In Rubber Match: Out at third! Nice relay. Bad running...
- Sam: on Is Collins The Blame For Team’s Poor Performance, Or Is He Just The Patsy?: The Mets need a no-nonsense kinda guy...
MMO Mets Chat
Need Tickets To The Mets Game?
Check Out These Great MLB Links!
Photographs From Gordon Donovan
5360 Fans Follow Us On Twitter!
1269 Fans Like Us On Facebook!
2341 Fans Read Our Feed!
1702 Fans Subscribe via Daily Email!
Nice job breaking down the talking points.
I found the video interesting as well in how they went about giving their take on the Mets debt.
My question is…
If FOX can afford to pay the Dodgers 150 mill a year in TV rights, how much does SNY earn by broadcasting the Mets? NY is the bigger market and even if the Mets don’t get nearly as much for their telecast, SNY should still be raking in those profits. That can only help the Mets who’s owners also own SNY. Either way, the cash goes to the Wilpons or their businesses. At this point, any profit the Wilpons earn is good news to the Mets fan.
They also receive about 25 million a year in naming rights that the Dodgers don’t get. When you consider all the various revenue streams, it is shocking the Mets are constantly in the negative. I can’t help but wonder what their attendance would be if the still had Beltran and Reyes on the team with the rest of their current roster.
Shea,
You nailed it. SNY is a cash cow, just like the other Networks. Fox is not paying the Dodgers $150 mil a year for charity, they expect to make money on that deal. SNY is no YES, but it makes a ton of money for its owners. Oh yeah, they are the Wilpons. And, all this belly aching about thier poverty is a bunch of baloney. It was when they had the Madoff lawsuit hanging over them, and before the did this refinance. Now, as the “conservative” values on this TV screen snapshot show, the owners are collective BILLIONNAIRES. Subtract the $700 mil debt from the value of the team plus 65% of SNY. Simple. Now they have cash flow, a line of credit, they are filthy rich, and only need to increase revenue flows from the team. Guess how that is done. Yes, by investing in WINS by procuring BETTER PLAYERS. There are still better players available that will not mortgage 2-14 or beyond. No excuses from the suits.
According to this article, 65 million a year: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/dodgers-send-shock-waves-through-local-tv-landscape/
Besides Mets games I don’t watch anything on SNY. I mostly watch MLB Network. I think most of the alternate programming on SNY is cheesy and amateur.
There isn’t a good reason to watch anything else on SNY. Its garbage.
But now, teams in major markets rake in about double the broadcast rights revenue that SNY generates for the Mets. In my opinion it puts the Mets at a competitive disadvantage both now and in the future.
Except that as Briet points out, it’s a tradeoff — the lower the rights fee SNY has to pay, the more profit SNY has, and that goes into the pockets of Wilpon/Katz.
Moreover, as many have been saying, at some point those hefty broadcast fees in some of the newer deals are going to be turning off subscribers in larger numbers (or the cable operators). Paying an extra $2-4 dollars a month because of the new Dodgers channel is not going to sit very well for those subscribers who are not Dodgers fans — and even for many who are!
Glad to see Ozanian left the analysis of the Mets finances to someone who knows what they are talking about!
I would think that if you gave the Mets the choice of $150M annually for 20 years, or their current situation, they would opt for the $150M or $3 Billion.
If the Mets were generating more than $150M annually they wouldn’t be sweating $700M dollars in loans and then what would Howard Megdal have to write about?.
Some believe the new Dodgers deal is a tipping point and that those prices are unsustainable in the long run. I was actually a little low in my estimate as to how much the Dodger deal will add to the cost of cable subscribers’ bills — the article says $5 per month! Look at the poll in the article too, it says that 74% don’t want to pay more to watch Dodgers games. This deal may blow up in Time Warner’s face.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-dodgers-tv-20130123,0,6585724.story
That’s a considerable increase to subscribers, wow.
Hi Metro,
You are right, there are many risks associated with the television networks and who knows if that will blow up in their faces too. The Angels are popular now but will they draw in enough ratings for the area FOX network to not suffer a loss in the long term. Amateur question on my part, but still I think a point to consider.
A thing about SNY – I know it is pulling in a lot of profit but understand that is going mostly to paying off the loans at this time. A team selling it’s television rights instead of investing into its own RSN does not have to contend with the initial tremendously expensive undertaking.
Joey — These high rates at some point become unsustainable. Not sure what that point is, but cable subscribers are balking more and more over the high fees, and many have simply cut the cord.
As for SNY, we really don’t know how much of their revenues goes into paying off the loans. These SNY loans have been in place since the beginning, and it doesn’t appear much of it has been paid off so far, so perhaps most of the profits do not go into loan repayment.
Ozanian is a Yankee shill plain and simple. Forbes should get rid of him because he’s biased.
I am pretty sure broadcast rights fees are included in revenue sharing. So the smaller the fee, the less the Mets will have to share with other teams. In that sense, the smaller fees may not be the disadvantage some think they are, because the Mets owners also own SNY.
You are correct…those fees count toward the local monies a team earns which are open to revenue sharing. The problem for SNY is that every three years a committee looks at the deals the RBS have negotiated with teams and there are three (Mets, Yankess, and Red Sox) with cross ownership. This committee is designed to ensure competitive contracts (because of the revenue sharing) and thus might for an upping of the amount paid. While a lower number does help the owners because it saves some revenue sharing money, it does not help the Mets cashflow since an increase would mean 2/3 remains with the team. So, if SNY paid in $90M instead of $60M that would be $20M more in positive cash flow. As it stands, the entire $30M, as an example, is profit on SNY books.
Yes, but as Breit correctly points out, the added SNY profit flows back to the Mets owners to put back into the team, if they see fit. So, in one way or the other, the money is there to support the team.
By the way, Peter Angelos and the Orioles own most of MASN. So there are more than 3 RSNs with cross-ownership.
“If they see fit.”
That is key. Typically, people in that financial class like each asset to stand on its own and operate in positive cash flow. I am sure the Wilpons are not keen on taking money from their other ventures, including SNY, and having it go to support the Mets. At some point, like all business owners, they want it operating in the black.
It’s common practice for the owners of RSNs to plow money back into the team, if needed. It’s believed the Yankees do it, and that this is how they can afford their huge payrolls despite having supposed losses on their team balance sheets (according to Forbes). . I believe the Wilpons do it too. And if you read that LA Times article I linked to, that seems to be the aim or the new Dodgers owners as well:
The Dodgers’ move to control their own channel is driven in part by a desire to pocket as much money as possible while still abiding by Major League Baseball’s revenue-sharing agreement — which requires that 34% of each team’s locally generated revenue, most of it from TV rights and ticket sales, be contributed to a pool for other teams.
IOW, they aim to keep the rights fees to the team as low as possible and instead get resources back through RSN profits free of revenue sharing.
I should have added that it appears that whatever review process their is for RSNs and rights fees, I have yet to hear of any RSN being told to increase their rights fees. AFAIK, the deal that SNY has with the Mets has never been changed.
True it hasnt but the new CBA only went in last year so I do not know when the first time they will take a look at things. Plus, how long do the contracts with the stations last…if it was signed for 10 years, it would not be up for renewal for a while.
Leveraged can be a good word. Over leveraged definitely is not. It reminds me of a one and one free throw. You have to have viewership which generates the opportunity for another shot at building the seed of attendance to reach toward the 2.3 M break-even point. The entertainment industry is NY is very competitive. I view Michael Bourn the same as Omar’s acquisition of Pedro. The winning might still be a couple years away but now that survive-ship of the owners are re-established credibility has to be established. The leverage is viewership interest will untimely translate into more attendance. Identification with our two young pitching studs and stud young catcher will create curiosity and some more viewership. Not to mention increased sponsorship prices received. If the team is somewhat competitive aka Michael Bourn who fills the speed and and the CF needs then his salary is really an investment that should be part of leveraging the Mets back to credibility.
” I view Michael Bourn the same as Omar’s acquisition of Pedro. ”
Thats funny…cuz I viewed David resigning the same as Omar’s acquisition of Pedro….
Just_Da_Damaja:
There is where I differ; You are the guy who correctly pointed out that under the fiasco of Steve Phillips and Jim Duquette, the Mets were a joke. Omar came in and thru the signing of an outside player in FA immediately established credibility.
SA came in and had to cope just last year may I remind you with the Picard law suit and his first year with the Madoff situation and cash flow over leveraged problems. He could not commit to extending Reyes. The Mets became a joke again and suffered a lack speed with Reyes and Pagan gone. CF has a big hole. Now that survivor-ship has been obtained by the Wilpons SA has to establish credibility. Michael Bourn is his investment to do so to stop the bleeding. SNY’s ratings will prosper and attendance might reach the break-even point.
DW not being extended and TRADED might have made us a better club but the image to the fan base would have been devastating in so many ways. Winning trumps all; look at the Cardinals without Pujols. But they did extend Holiday. Reyes and Wright gone would maybe be too much core going along with Beltran.
“Omar came in and thru the signing of an outside player in FA immediately established credibility.”
I think signing DW to a 8 year 138 mil contract at age 30…has many parallels to Pedro…
in the sense that it was mainly made with selling tickets in mind…
Pedro and DW are household names.
Real baseball fans barely know Bourne’s identity…
What you say about name recognition is true. However DW was already here or more correctly almost here. I believe Reyes was here. Pedro was not. Pedro came when DW and Reyes were just starting out. Similar to Harvey, Wheeler and TAD. Ike is also in the development stage but he most prove himself much faster as he is older. Niese is another core guy. Bourn may be a blend between Reyes and Pagan but he definitely fills a need because ultimately wins and losses do count. SNY is the drawing card to more attendance provided they show semblance of a competitive product. Being competitive in the final analysis establishes credibility. Once “the white Wonder bread ,oh I mean wonder boy is dealt the image of your company is toast. But acquiring a player who makes you immediately more competitive breaks the “joke” image. That is where Pedro and Bourn are similar.
“but he definitely fills a need because ultimately wins and losses do count.”
this makes total sense…
signing bourn would lead to more wins…more wins = more fannies in the seat…
but then again…we could’ve signed hairston for 3 mil ( or less than half what FF is making ) and took a flyer on Grady Sizemore…not given up a draft pick ( and the slot money )…and still would’ve been in a better position than where we are today.
Wins and Losses are the last thing on this management’s mind.
Just-Da_Damaja:
You were very upset with losing both Reyes, and Pagan. Lets leave Beltran out of this because we got Wheeler. Bourn fills the hole of both speed and. defense in CF. He is signed to fill their void. Look what Reyes would have cost even with his back loaded contract. You can’t seriously equate Hairston and Seizmore with Michael Bourn. Yes Bourn is not Reyes but he fills a need at a cheaper price. Hairston and Seizmore would not have established significantly more wins/ credibility. Hairston coming off a career year and Seizmore has been out of baseball. Very dangerous signings at the price they wanted. Please! That is Please do not be contrary because a total non-competitive 2013 will turn off all FA when we finally have cash to spend. Also, signing a Borus client in itself establishes creditability of being back in the steak aisle. He can only help with Harvey down the road to try and lock him up.
the funny thing with beltran…was that he wasnt the first domino to fall..it was K-Rod…losing K-Rod cost us quite a few games…had the mets been 4 games out instead of 7.5…perhaps the fanbase would’ve been a bit more upset….
and even still…the fact that we never even attempted to resign him…instead going with the slowest man on earth in RF…pretty much told me that wins/losses were not at the fore-front..
at the very least…switching Bay and Duda would’ve made a lil more sense…and not cost a dime..
I was upset at losing Reyes…
not so much Pagan…he was never going to work out here with TC
EXCELLENT POINT!
Beltran being traded was not the killer…Sure we might have fought back if we had kept him but probably NOT once K-Rod was gone and couldn’t get the saves…
You GOT something for Beltran and you had every opportunity to get him back not just back but at a DISCOUNT!
So the Beltran deal actually makes sense and could have made MORE sense if we had simply resigned him. Then there is no way to lose on that trade no matter what happens with Wheeler even if his arm falls off…
It was K-Rod that was the difference between winning 5-10 more games, The chance to finish above .500 which might have sold a few more tickets in 2012. The Option could have easily been dispatched by telling him you want to be a closer when you go FA then sell off the option and we will keep you as our closer…IF not go someplace else where you won’t be a closer even if you give the option away.
And we have had had problems finding a closer and Bullpen issues since….
Alot of Met fans did not like that 17M vested option plus the anger rmanagement issues. That option was not so easy to dismiss as the players union would have looked at any deal carefully ready to object.
Guys you live in the past. Yes the past was to protect the Wilpons as owners. You kept on saying when is the clock going to tick. I even advocated trading Wheeler for Upton just to get us back tothe preception of trying to compete in 2013. Micharl Bourn is just an investment to compete along with the three new studs as they develop along with the other cast of characters. You know them very well. You can’t be picky as that what Sandy was. Bourn gives some semblance of Reyes as a leadoff hitter with speed plus along with his CF defense, we cure alot of holes. I am actually advocating rebuilding incrementally. Now you guys want to stand pat and further enchance the image of the Alderson Mets as losers. Wake Up the clock is running Now. Sabotaging Alderson is fine as long as it doesn’t sabatoge the Mets our home team.
Hi Hotstreak,
I will admit to being a hypocrite on the KRod thing. By the end of 2010 I felt for sure we had seen the end of him and quite frankly, was able to live with it. Perhaps part of it was due to the fact that we had a very good bullpen anyway. And, at the home opener in 2011, I did something I never did before – booed a hometown player when KRod was introduced during the pre-game festivities.
But then, he began pitching great and I put aside my moral equation and was angry when he was sent packing.
The only way the union gets involved was if we decided to limit outings to keep him from the option vesting…
But buying out the Option would have garnered as much Union attention as it did when Mil bought it out!
So thats not a stumbling point in that option buyout at all…
We had something K-Rod wanted…a Closer position. He could have kept it if he agreed to sell off the option.
We didn’t really try to get rid of it…
As for Bourne I’m on board and have even said I don’t care about losing the 11th pick….
Is he the best option? Nope Stanton is…but we can’t get him without Sandy doing some work.
Work he SHOULD be doing right now to get a head start on the competiton once Bourne comes off the table for everyone.
And if Sandy can’t talk to the Marlins to find parameters while also talking to Bourne about a contract then he has no business running an MLB team!
Let´s assume for a moment that the ultimate goal of Sandy Alderson and even Mets ownership – besides keeping the franchise at all costs, of course – is to eventually field a winning team. And let´s also assume the goal for that isn´t to “win” by 2018 with an all homegrown team led by Brandon Nimmo, Ahmed Rosario, Noah Syndergaard and Michael Fulmer but rather to win by 2014 with a generally youngish team surrounded by a few key veterans.
I suggest to take a look at the current free agent class, the free agent class of next winter and the free agent class of the winter after that. Which of the eligible free agents would you rather have going forward than David Wright ? And which of the eligible free agents seems like a better bet to remain productive than Wright in the 2014 through 2018 time frame ?
Now, one can make a case for Robinson Cano of course. While I doubt the Mets stand much of a chance to win a bidding war against the Yankees, he´s pretty much the only free agent over this time span that is at a similar level to Wright. And as a middle infielder (at least for now), the odds that he ages well are a lot lower than for a 3bman like Wright.
Would you rather have had Josh Hamilton than Wright ? Same money, much bigger issues but fewer years ? Would you rather have Jacoby Ellsbury ? One great season, several decent ones and a bunch of injuries ? Would you rather have Shin Soo Choo ? It gets pretty thin out there rather quickly.
So, if the goal is to start winning again in 2014 or even 2015 and don´t want to just rely on your farm system providing talent via graduation or trade, you better keep David Wright around as a longterm core player. About as low a risk as there can be. Athletic top 3bmen generally age very well. And usually perform well into their mid 30s.
That Wright is a marketable homegrown player is a nice bi-product but certainly not the leading decision in this from a Baseball standpoint.
Does SNY broadcast any other sports other than Mets baseball?
There’s college basketball on there. Some of the Mets minor league games are too.
[...] more here: Refinancing SNY Loan Will Prepare Mets For Expected Declining … In Merolog at Refinancing you can always get latest updates about it from all over the [...]
I’m glad there are some of you that actually read my frequent posts on the Mets financial matters, because sometimes I think I’m writing about it just for my own benefit.
I am enjoying reading your insights and comments.
Thanks.
Joe D.:
By the way talks with acquiring Bourn proves you were right in saying “Not so fast that the Mets only have 5M to spend.”
It should also be pointed out that while the 150 Mil the Dodgers will get sounds like a lot they are not getting the Advertising money the Mets are getting out of the SNY deal.
It makes sense for the WIlpons to take less money out now while the network is still paying off it’s loans to startup the network. They make up for it with Advertising which the League doesn’t get a cut of….
Once the Network is debt free and making money that is all thiers, they can set a higher fee as the Partners will not have an issue with that since it’s not going to hurt the networks viability.
It will always be cheaper to buy the right than if some 3rd party Network did, But then again there is all those advertising dollars they get that they won’t get from a 3rd party.
Hi Joey:
I was locked out of replying directly to you. Metsie I am sorry for having to use this method to reply to Joey D. However it again applies to your response on K-rod.
With all the SNY equity if we can’t sign Michael Bourn to fill glaring needs to correct lack of speed especially at lead off spot and CF defense something is wrong. It is not longer save the ownership of the Mets. There is a shift in the business plan it is now to re-establish credibility. K-rod means nothing for us in 2013. 2013 is what counts not 2009, 2010 or 2011 2012 or 2014. It is very important for the Met’s to fill glaring weaknesses on an incremental basis. If 2014 or 2015 is our year to seriously contend for the division lets put those pieces in place now. We can’t wait for Nimmo. That is why a four year deal with a club option is the most we go with Bourn. The clock is running and if we don’t become competitive and fill needs then we never will. We will always be hoping to compete for the 2nd w/c and nothing more. Our pitching needs to strong up the middle. We got our catcher now we need a CF. Lets sign him and fast.
Yes the reply button will only work three comments deep into posts then you have to reply to the first reply above it to add more comments.
The issue isn’t that we CAN’T sign Bourne…It’s a choice not lack of one.
They do not like to spend….The lack of money is the excuse used but that excuse is gone and it’s clear they still don’t really want to spend.
Especially not anything over 2 years and 6 Mil per.
I personally think all this Bourne talk is just a smokescreen…A little Play Sandy and Co are acting out for our benefit in hopes of tricking a few fans into believing they are really here to build a winner (and get the to buy tickets) as opposed to building a cheap MLB team with kids.
And now that the kids are here and they have money to fill the holes it is sort of exposed.
This talk of Bourne is just more PR like the Wright signing meant to buy time and I would bet Sandy is holding his breath hoping someone scoops Bourne up soon so he can say “Well we Tried but the price wasn’t right and the Pick was too valuable”
K-Rod would have meant plenty to 2013….
If we had finished with a better record the last two years then they would HAVE more money because attendance would have at least stayed the same with the chance of even a modest increase. And with that money they would have more to spend in 2013 and 2014…
If K-Rod was retained and only Beltran left that year there would be much less proof they were simply dismantling the MLB team.
And that in itself might have kept some fans from staying at home.
Metsie, thanks for tip on the reply button:
We agree on Bourn will play an important role in filling needs of our team. Stanton will not be traded in the same division as the Marlins and my guess is a Texas destination for him..
As for Alderson stinging along the fan base and then saying we tried I quote Abraham Lincoln:
“You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you cant fool all of the people all the time. ”
Unless 2013 is competitive the Mets brand in every which way will suffer not only on the field but the credibility of the team to the point of becoming the equivalent of the NY Islanders. SNY will suffer in viewership and loss of interest. We have exciting kids as additions baseball is a results business unless it is a minor league team developing players. The Mets may be a de facto minor league team but the reality is they aare a team in the NL East in New York.
LOL Hotstreak…
He knows he is not fooling all the people, he’s hoping to fool just enough to pay the bills! LOL
Phillips was right NY won’t sit through a lengthy rebuild.
If we were the worst team in the league when Sandy got here he might have gotten the time it takes because then he couldn’t possibly make a move that made us worse or less competitive.
He would have had the top picks needed to rebuild and he could have then traded away whoever was good for more Kids knowing there was no way it could make us worse.
As it stands all of his kids (all two of them) are here….There are no more kids to wait for before you go get them help in FA. Which means if you believe he was here to rebuid from within then Mission Accomplished there…Too bad it will be wasted because you don’t have the help they need and won’t lift a finger to get it for them.
People talk about the sustainability of the Yankees building thier CORE….Well this is who was there arund that core when it took off running as an 18 Year playoff contending franchise:
Joe Girardi
Mariano Duncan
Wade Boggs
Paul O’Neil
Tim Raines
Darryl Strawberry
Kenny Rodgers
Dwight Gooden
Jimmy Key
David Cone
Timing is everything in the path to success….
And if you wait for step 1 (Find a Core) to be completed before you work on Step 2 (Fill around them to help them succeed) you will only waste the work done in step 1!
And thats what is going to happpen here and when the Core doesn’t win it all for us you know what they will say?
Well we didn’t win with them so we might as well trade them for kids and lose without them….
And THAT is where the vicious cycle perpetuates.
THAT is what has held Oakland back from a World Series since 1995!
Hi Hotstreak and Metsie,
To continue the Abe Lincoln path….
Again, others need to look at the behavior of this club, beginning with the day the Madoff swindle was revealed and all that has happened since and take more seriously the dreadful economic conditions facing the Wilpons survival as owners instead of looking at Sandy’s moves in terms of rotisserie league.
These are not part of a well-thought out five year plan that includes Sandy waiting until the right time to supplement the nucleus of his re-built team with free agents and trades – he hasn’t the money to do so. Ignoring the gravity of the situation will never allow one to consider what Sandy is doing might not have anything to do with a vision on re-building and is instead a planned, economic downsizing of major league proportion and nothing more.
And the best way to achieve that as far as the cost of player personnel is concerned – which is just one portion of the overall economic problem that needs to be addressed – is to stockpile as many prospects and minimum costing players as they can.
Forget about the disagreement with others about what Sandy inherited. Forget about KRod, Beltran, Reyes, Pagan and Dickey. Let us concede the argument that we were not going anywhere with these players, even if we added more to them. What about letting go of the productive “stop gap” players that Sandy acquired himself once they got a bit more expensive (but still relatively cheap) like Hairston, Rauch, Paulino etc. and replacing them on the 40 man roster with less expensive and less productive “stop gaps” the likes of Cogwil, Hicks, Powell and Burke?
There was no reason – baseball wise – to do so if the general manager is indeed concerned about fielding a “competitive” team of short-term commitments which would not interfere with his re-building vision to field a long-term contending one. Only a corporation on such unstable financial footing would be concerned with the relatively minuscule cost retaining these players in terms of corporate expenditures. With no Beltran, KRod, Reyes, Castillo and Perez contracts to deal with, retaining these semi-productive players he acquired would not be stifling any re-building plan or be so expensive as to not help Sandy carry out his assurances that he had no intention of “punting” away 2013, 2012 and 2011 while looking toward the future as well.
The Mets were negotiating with Hariston’s agent. He eventually signed with the Cubs for $3 million for each of two seasons while Cogwil only costs the Mets $480K. As far as baseball is concerned – and taking into account the state of the Mets outfield – who would one rather have, even with the acknowledgement it is doubtful Hairston would repeat his 2012 performance? BTW – if the decision was more about “playing time” it is doubtful that would have been the reason to reject a Met offer if it was competitive with that of Chicago.
Again, this is indeed business and not only is big money at stake but the economic survival of this team in terms of ownership. The market value has decreased so much due to the debt that if they sold it now, the Wilpons would be selling it for much less than it is really worth.
So, the economic factors were different, there would then be justification to claim that Sandy does not yet feel it is the right time to take the further steps required for re-building, i.e., supplementing an established nucleus of young hopefuls who are ready to sprout with key free agent signings and trades. To believe that now is simply ignoring the economic reality and being ridiculous. The nucleus is already mostly formulated. We have the infield, starting rotation and catching. We have nothing in the wings for the outfield and we cannot count on rookies to just come in and resolve our bullpen problems (part of the bullpen problem, yes, but not to the depth that it currently is) nor do we have adequate enough bench strength.
So though I have said there are too many holes to fix to consider the Mets anything but another below .500 team, there are ways that could have been changed in this, year three of Sandy’s five year vision. Instead of just creating more holes, why not now take the opportunity to resolve them since the nucleus is mostly here – why the wait if not for money?
The outfield problem on paper would have been resolved had we tried to retain Hairston to platoon with Duda in left with free agents entering in their prime from a selection including the like of Bourne, Upton, Ross and Gomes. Relievers Broxton, Burnett and Leauge are all under thirty and Soriano is just 32. Two of those, plus re-signing Rauch – which could also result in moving Francisco down to middle relief where he is more comfortable – on paper would then also strengthen the bullpen.
Why the wait? Because it has to do with money. And that is why the steps being taken by this organization are not part of a well thought out plan to keep us in contention for a period of many years. Add to a selection of those above to those we have now and Sandy would have re-built the club to which it would again be a serious post-season contender for many years. These were the similar steps taken by the Nationals, Giants and Reds a few years ago when they found their core of young players just about ready and that built them into the teams they are today.
If one wants to contend Sandy is waiting just one more year when the payroll drops by $25 million, then one has to ask what will he do in 2016 when with the players he now has under contract will bring that payroll back up by $20 million? Maybe with relievers he could sign decent ones for just two years but he can’t sign the big bats he says we need for just two years under those same terms. And if he could, we would then have the same outfield problem that we have now.
I would gladly eat my words two years from now if I am wrong – so bookmark this to remind me in 2015 to get the knife and fork out if this is not the case.
Of course this is all Sandy Alderson and his evil scion David Wright’s fault! Damn their confounded Moneyball ways!!!
IT’S PERPLEXING TO ME HOW SNY CAN BE VALUED SO HIGH WHILE THEY’RE CONTINUOUSLY BEAT IN THE LOCAL RATINGS BY COMPETITOR “YES” ESPECIALLY AS YES HAS A MUCH BROADER CHOICE OF SIGNIFICANT NYY SEASONS TO BE RETROSPECTIVE ON AS WELL AS A PLETHORA OF NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BASEBALL HERO NAMES ie RUTH,GEHRIG,MANTLE,MARISJACKSON,MATTINGLY,TORRE,STENGAL, McGRAW, ad infinitum…
WHILE SNY HAS @ BEST, 1962,1965,1969,1973, 1986,1999,2000 AS NOTEWORTHY SEASONS. WITH EVEN FEWER “PURE” MET ICONS TO HONOR AS EVEN THEIR YOUNG BRIGHTEST STARS WENT ON TO NOTCH CAREER ALTERING ACCOMPLISHMENTS WITH THE CROSSTOWN YANKS, GOODEN, CONE,STRAWBERRY. EVE THEIR GREATEST ICON OF AL TIME, SEAVER WAS ALLOWEEC TO DEBUT “IN THE BOOTH” HOUSED IN THE BRONX & NOT FLUSHING.
IN A RELATED TOPIC OF CONSEQUENCE, THE MLB-TV NETWORK RECENTLY EVALUATED ALL 230 MLB FRANCHISES FROM INNAUGURATION TO CURRENT DAY AND ENUMERATED THOSE THEY RANKED AS THE TOP 5 FRANCHISES OGF ALL TIME. SUPRISINGLY IN ONE CASE, AT LEAST, NEITHER REMAINING NEW YORK RANCHISE MADE THE CUT (I THINK NY/SF GIANTS WERE INCLUDED ;BUT NOT CERTAIN)
THEY MENTIONED THE OBVIOUS MISSING FRTANCHISE, YANKEES BY STATING THEIR MEASURMENT SYSTEM DID NOT OVEREMPHASIZE CHAMPIONSHIPS; BUT CONSIDERED A WS TROPHY NO MORE WEIGHTY THAN A WINNING SEASON.
I PERSONALLY DISAGREE & I WAS DISAPPOINTED THE LIST WAS NOT FOLLOWED BY IT’S [PIOLAR OPOSITE LISTING THEIR 5 WORST FRANCHISES AS I AM CERTAIN THE FLUSHINGH FRANCHISE IS A CERTAINTY TO BE NESTLED IN THAT GROUP IF NOT THE FOUNDATIONAL FRANCHISE ON THE VERY BOTTOM OFF THE WORST. AS IMO, FROM PAYSON TO DOUBLEDAY TO WILPON TO STERLING ENTREPRISES THE CONSISTANT THREAD IS A SOLID LINKAGE OF "GOOD INTENTIONS" & AS WE ALL KNOW THAT'S THE PAVING STONES MARKING THE "HIGHWAY TO HELL"
BTW, TECHNICALLY THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP OF RECORD IS NOT FRED WILPON; BUT STERLING ENTERPRISES WHOM FRED "ON PAPER "SOLD" THE FRANCHISE TO TRANSFERRING TITLE THE SAME DAY AS HE OFFICIALLY EXERCISED HIS BUYOUT OPTION IN HIS PARNERSHIP WITH NELSON DOUBLEDAY.
FROM THE VERY OUTSET THE NEW YORK METS' OWNERSHIP PEDIGREE HAS SUFFERED AFFLICTIONS CREATED BY OUTSIDE BASEBALL COMPLICATIONS AS ORIGINAL MAJORITY OWNER, JOAN WHITNEY PAYSON PASSED AWAY ON OCT 5, 1975 BEQUEATHING THE FRANCHISE TO HER "BON-VIVANT" NE'R DO WELL HUSBAND, CHARLES SHIPMAN PAYSON, WHO HAD ZERO INTEREST IN BASEBALL CHOOSING TO DELEGATE HIS OWNERSHIP AUTHORITY TO HIS DAUGHTERS (EXCERPT FROM WIKIPEDIA...
Charles did not share his wife's enthusiasm for the Mets. He delegated his authority to his three daughters, with their youngest, Lorinda de Roulet, becoming team president. His daughters in turn left the baseball side to board chairman M. Donald Grant. However, when it became apparent that Grant had mismanaged the team, it was Payson himself who forced Grant out.
In 1980, he sold the franchise to Doubleday & Co..
"LIL" LORINDA IS MOST FAMOUS FOR WANTING TO CONFISCATE BALLS HIT INTO THE STANDS(BOTH HR & FOULS) AS NYM PROPERTY TO SAVE $$$ ON BASEBALLS USED DURING A SEASON, SHE ALSO WANTED A FULL ACCOUINTING FROM THE HP UMPIRE FOR EVERY BALL TAKEN OUT OF PLAY AS SHE WANTED TO USE THE BALLS NOT JUDGED AS "GAME WORTHY" KEPT IN THE DUGOUT FOR USE AS PRACTICE BALLS. OR SO IT WAS REPORTED BACK IN THOSE LATE DARK 70s BY DICK YOUNG & OTHERS COVERING THE TEAM,.
AT THE TIME NELSON DOUBLEDAY PURCHASED THE TEAM FROM "GOOD TIME CHARLIE" PAYSON, HE'D BEFRIENDED A "LIL JEWISH" COMPANION, FRED WILPON, WHOM HE OFFERED AN OPORTUNITY TO OF ACQUIRING A 1% STAKE IN THE TEAM SINCE FRED HAD "TOUCHED NELSON'S EMPETHETIC HEART" WITH STORIES OF HOW BASEBALL(DODGER GAMES) WAS THE ONLY BOND FRED HAD WITH HIS FUNERAL DIRECTOR, FATHER AS MINORITY PARTNER NELSON TASKED FRED WITH THE SEARCH FOR A GENERAL MANAGER TO TAKE THEIR TEAM INTO A VASTLY NEW DIRECTION, CONTENTION, THUS FRED'S GREATEST MET CONTRIBUTION WAS IDENTIFYING & SECURING FRANK CASHEN AS THEIR NEW GENERAL MANAGER TO SET THE COURSE FOR THE WINNINGEST DECADE IN FRANCHISE HISTORY, "THE 1980s"[775-681 .532W%]
THE DECADE THAT STARTED WITH 3 SEASONS OF 94+ LOSSES ENDED WITH 3 SEASONS OF 87+ WINS
BY 1985, NELSON DOUBLEDAY WAS DISCOVERED TO HAVE IMPROPERLY USED MONEY EXTRACTED UNETHICALLY FROM DOUBLEDAY PUBLISHING WHERE HE SAT AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD; SAID BOARD OF DIRECTORS NEGOTIATED TO BYPASS LEGAL PROSECUTION FOR A TOTAL RETURN OF ALL MONIES IMPRIOPERLY INVESTED. NEEDING A VERY FAST CASH INFUSION PAVED THE WAY FOR FRED TO INCREASE HIS IMMEDIATE HOLDINGS FROM HIS ORIGINAL PALTRY 1% TO AN EQUAL VALUED 50% WITH NELSON RETAINING THE CONTROLLING SHARE BY MUTUAL CONSENT. WHICH REMAINED AN AFFABLE ARRAINGEMENT UNTIL 1998 WHEN NELSON CHOSE TO FLEX HIS DECISIVE VOTE TO OVERRIDE FRED’S OBJECTION TO ACQUIRING PIAZZA FROM FLORIDA.
MANY BELIEVE IT IS DOUBLEDAY’S DECISION TO SO PUBLICLY FLEX HIS POWER POSITION THAT WAS THE IMPETUS FOR THE FINAL DEGRADATION OF WHAT HAD APPEARED TO BE AN AFFABLE ARRAINGEMENT OF OWNERSHIP WHICH KICK-STARTED THE DECISION FOR FRED TO ACT ON HIS OPTION TO BUYOUT DOUBLEDAY’S HOLDINGS IN THE METS TO BECOME SOLE PROPRIETOR OF NEW YORK’S NATIONAL LEAGUE FRANCHISE, THE NY METS AN ENSUIING STRUGGLE FOLLOWED TO ASCERTAIN THE METHODOLOGY TO BE USED TO AFFIRM THE TRUE MARKET VALUE OF DOUBLEDAY’S MET HOLDINGS. WITH DOUBLEDAY EVENTUALLY PREVAILING, RAISING THE PRICE CONSIDERABLY FOR FRED’S OUT OF POCKET EXPENDITURE CAUSING FRED TO SEEK ASSISTANCE FROM HIS PARTNERS IN HIS REAL ESTATE COMPANY(STERLING EQUITIES) AS SUCH FRED NEEDED TO ACTUALY PURCHASE THE TEAM FROM NELSON FIRST WITH A TITLE TRANSFER, “ON PAPER FROM DOUBLEDAY,WILPON PARNERS TO FRED WILPON, ALONE FOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY LIKELY BEFORE INK FULLY DRIED TO EXECUTE ANOTHER TITLE TRANSFER FROM FRED WILPON, PROPRIETOR TO STERLING EQUITIES, PARTNERS(http://www.sterlingequities.com/about/leadership.php)
AT NO POINT IN TIME WAS THERE A CLEAR CUT OWNER WITH A BUSINESSLIKE PURPOSE DEDICATED TO PROVIDING WINNING BASEBALL TO THEIR FANBASE.
It’s becuse of the way the Cable channel economy works 62….
Most of the cost of running the network is paid by the subscriber fees the Network gets from Cable Operators for each person on thier system.
Time Warner has over 14 Million subscribers on thier system. If SNY gets a dime (I think they get much more YES was asking for $1 each) for every subscriber they get 1.4 Million just from Time Warner alone before a single commercial is even aired.That covers most of the Salary cost.
While commercial rates are based on Ratings there is a bottomline number it never goes beyond because the rates are not set by each network seperatly it is a market like any other. If NBC charges X amount for it’s lowest rated show then an even lower rated show might be cheaper but not by much. And the Mets have an advantage that most networks do not have…They also have stadium ads to bundle with the TV spots. You want the Stadium presence you have to buy some TV ads in the package as well.
This is why you never ever see a TV Network go bankrupt. It’ almost impossible to lose money once you have a carry contract with the cable providers. And even if your ratings are NIL you can change the programming at any time to solve that without having to spend too much money at all…Most TV programs you see on cable sell for 100K per episode A Season of shows cost you 1.3 Million minimum and more only if you buy more episodes or find a better product.
I use a recent example with the G4 Network, It was a Games channel, Bought out TechTV then changed to be a Geek Chic version of Spike, and now it is going to be geared toward MetroSexuals and called the Esquire Channel….
TruTV used to be CourtTV (I used to work there) and now the only time you see a courtroom on there is during the day when ratings are so low it doesn’t pay to buy programming for it. It’s cheap to stick a host at a desk and pay the 10 guys it takes to roll tape and switch the show…
And once all those debts to start SNY are paid thats when they will start buying programming that will get the ratings up.
METSIE, THANK U EVER SO MUCH FOR THE INSIGHTFUL EDUCATION. “I SEE”, SAID THE BLIND MAN AS HE PICKED UP HIS HAMMER & SAW!