It’s been half a century since National League baseball returned to New York and it got me thinking. At the time, the Mets along with the Houston Colt 45’s, brought the total number of teams in existence to 24. Baseball has expanded several times since then and I wondered how we matched up against the more recent additions to our National Pastime. The results were a bit disheartening.

Granted, the Baseball landscape was far different in 1962 than it was in 93 when the Rockies and Marlins came into existence. Same can be said for the (Devil) Rays and D-backs in 98. Nowadays it’s much easier to build a winner than it was back in 62. Arizona proved that by winning 100 games in just their second season.

However, the Mets had a 30+ year head start on these 4 other clubs. Colorado, Florida, Tampa Bay and Arizona started with NOTHING! However, they have achieved more success in their short existence than our Mets have over that same time.

Interesting facts: Of these 5 franchises, the Mets have the 2^nd best record.  Only Arizona at 499 has a higher winning percentage. Through Friday’s loss to Houston, the Mets have compiled a record of 1555-1581  since Opening Day 1993, (.496.) The list is rounded out with the Marlins (.476), the Rockies (474) and the Rays (453.)

One may expect that the Mets should far surpass these other teams in total wins. After all, they started with nada. However, I will admit I was surprised that we even matched up this well in the win-loss column.

Here’s the disturbing part. Although the other 4 teams started with zilch and had to build from the bottom up and rely on discarded scraps, they have all surpassed the Mets in post-season success. Downright frustrating.

Now sure, first glance at this matrix shows we are holding our own. Respectable. Not great, not terrible. However, keep in mind that we’re an existing team whereas these other clubs had to build a winner from the ground up. Yes, we’ve had an adequate showing since 1993. But these other organizations have shown what it takes to BUILD a winner.

One must also keep in mind that while we stack up moderately against these other newcomers, we are the only ‘Big market Club.’ Our payroll has far exceeded that of the organizations listed. The only team with fewer trips to the post-season is the Marlins with 2. However, at least they have 2 championships to show for it. The same numbers of World Series’ we’ve won in half a century, the Marlins matched in 11 years.

And what will this chart look like in 5 years? The Rays and D-backs are young, hungry and will only get better. The Marlins are underachieving. And the Mets? Well, yea, we’re rebuilding.

Sadly I think our post-season appearance total of 3 will not change in the next few years. David Wright will be gone, Dickey most likely will also. Johan has broken down more than a 1972 Ford Pinto.

What can we do? Nothing really. We can vent, complain, throw things at the TV and go through the motions of a 162-game season. We’ll sit back while the Mets brain trust (and I use the word ‘brain’ lightly) keeps selling us the same ol’ line. And we can watch teams like Arizona and Tampa remain competitive while we….ahem…”rebuild.”

Too big to fail

You can almost apply that theory to Major League Baseball.  In the past decade, we saw the Montreal Expos go bankrupt and essentially relocate to Washington, D.C. after contraction was prohibited in the collective bargaining agreement set forth in 2002.

Prior to that arrangement, Bud Selig suggested that the Minnesota Twins (now a perennial playoff contender) was a contraction possibility.  I remember Jesse “The Governor” Ventura of Minnesota, taking Selig to task, when in all the talk about contraction, nowhere in those lines was thought of contracting the team Selig still had ties to (at the time), the Milwaukee Brewers who weren’t all that great at the time either.  But that’s neither here nor there.  The point is, no one really can argue that if there is talk of contraction, the smaller markets are the first to be considered.

Moving right along, MLB has its own quandary today, and it has to do with finances of two of its largest market and noteworthy franchises: the Los Angeles Dodgers and the New York Mets.  In both cases, one could argue that their failings and flailings start right at the top: with their respective ownership.

In L.A., Dodgers owner Frank McCourt has been going through a very public and messy divorce.  Judging by most reports out of the City of Angels, the team itself is being used as a pawn by both parties in the contested separation.   McCourt’s soon-to-be-ex-wife, Jamie, is looking to be half-owner of the Dodgers as a result, since it is presumed to be an “asset” of Mr. McCourt and therefore fair game in their divorce settlement.  As it appears, most of their settlement talks are centered around Ms. McCourt’s right to ownership of the franchise.

In the meantime, some under-the-radar financial transactions were ultimately brought to light regarding the finances of the team on the West Coast.  While he greenlighted a $70 million expenditure this offseason, McCourt tried to use the Dodgers’ cable rights as collateral in a deal with FOX worth $200 million, should they default on the loan.  This deal was promptly rejected by Selig, adding fuel to Jamie McCourt’s fire, countering that McCourt had endangered the team’s financial stability by brokering this type of deal, and that she was entitled to the information regarding these deals.

While McCourt preaches that is all right with the team and that he’ll still own the team and pass it along to his children some day, new manager Don Mattingly has to deal with this in the background, while the team picks up players that are supposed to compliment its young core including Matt Kemp, Andre Ethier and Clayton Kershaw.

Sound familiar?  It should.  Substitute “Massive Ponzi scheme investment, false profits, dwindling attendance, shoddy baseball operations and bloated player contracts that have another year before coming off the books” for “McCourt divorce”, and we have ourselves the New York Mets, ladies and gentlemen.

In light of recent liquidity issues being brought to the our attention with the Wilpons and specifically Sterling Equities borrowing $25 million from the MLB discretionary fund and submitting a bid for a loan syndicate to get even more cash flow, along with borrowing an additional $50 million at some earlier point and MLB saying they will not allow the Mets to use MLB as a lifeline for money anymore, it just adds to the masochism of following this team.

The Mets, well, we all know the story too well.  A collapse in 2007, a floundering in 2008, massive injuries in 2009 and 2010 to an aging and overpaid/underachieving staff has caused a domino effect with many things in the organization.  For one, ticket sales are so low, that they caused audible concern in many outlets at the end of last season and revamped their ticket office, cutting ties with Mets ticket VP veteran Bill Iannicello and bringing in new blood in the ticket office.

My theory is that when CitiField opened in 2009, ownership thought that not only would the team draw, even if they did go through their “slumps” interest would be achieved in the novelty of the new stadium.  That wore off quickly when the summer doldrums hit.  Towards the end of ’09, secondary market tickets were going for as low as $0.99!  Couple that with another underachieving year, the Mets were literally giving tickets away to later games in the season, just to fill the seats.

No sales from fans = no revenue generating.  I would be willing to bet that SNY is probably one of the few profitable items in the Sterling portfolio of companies.  Keep in mind, of course, that Sterling Enterprises is a real estate investment trust…that industry has also taken a hit to their interests, that’s a fact.

In the meantime, I wonder how long this madness can continue, for either the Dodgers or the Mets.  The Dodgers were competitive as far as two seasons ago and could very well say that their fall off the precipice had to do with a down year from their star Matt Kemp and perhaps an unproductive Manny Ramirez (he’s on the Tampa Bay Rays now, where players careers go to die…Tampa will be addressed later of course).  The McCourt drama is just backpage headlines, they could say.  Save the nixed loan deal from FOX, we really don’t hear about liquidity issues as there seems to be cash generated through some arm of the Dodgers.  Of course, I am not in LA…so that’s just being totally subjective.

It seems to me, as an outsider looking and as a diehard fan of one of those franchises, that the only people who suffer here are the fans.  The reality is that the Mets have not decreased payroll.  They, too, have a built-in excuse about the underperformance of high ticket free agents, injuries and wanting to go for low-risk/high-reward instead of the low-reward/high-risk route they had taken in the past seven years.  But the Mets did, technically, spend this offseason, but they were acting frugally.  Perhaps some fans thought it might have been a good thing to overpay Cliff Lee when Lee has a better chance of winning anywhere else BUT the Mets at this current moment.  Other may have wondered why they couldn’t have taken a shot at Carl Crawford.  I have no idea, but locked into Jason Bay for now kind of limited that idea.  There are tons and tons of unanswered questions, but the Mets can’t say they didn’t spend and have not spent in the past.  It’s where they are spending it, who they entrust with it and what has happened.

I couldn’t help but wonder though…Does MLB have its own “Too Big To Fail” policy regarding franchises?  I discussed in a podcast the other night this domino effect that specifically the Mets have had.  In the past, I was trying to be objective, not buy everything that was handed tome at face value and try to look at things analytically since I have analyzed financial information for a majority of my career.  I was trying not to look at things like a “fan.”

Then one of my blolleagues on this podcast said something that hit me: when the Mets release info, it’s typically when it’s worse than they are saying.  Whether dealing with injuries, managerial issues, even the stadium, it’s too little, too late.  It makes me wonder if when a large market team is scraping around for coins in the sofa cushions, it’s time to sell the team.  If the Sterling team is in as much debt as the news is speculating, it’s going to be impossible to find someone to assume those liabilities.  The same, to a lesser extent, in LA.  Frank McCourt is getting lines of credit left and right.  What happens if a judge declares his wife 50% owner?  Will he have to buy her out of her share?  Or will this court case drag on forever and ever, and their fans will have to take a back seat to get a decent product out there?

And if the Mets go bankrupt and are excused from paying the debt…how far will MLB go?  Who will they allow in as an owner?  I’m talking new blood and not these old fart billionaires who have made this an exclusive Boys Club for years.  MLB might need an overhaul overall, and with Selig’s contract up in 2012, there might not be a better time to impart this.

Similar to that tree in the woods, if the Mets and Dodgers fail in MLB, will anyone notice?  Probably not.  We won’t notice because the ownership club in MLB is strong enough to set it up that even those who are not the strongest (of teams) can and will survive.  If MLB has gone to these great lengths to keep these teams operational simply by either turning a blind eye or extending lifelines, then I am expecting more of the same until the very worst has happened.  And we don’t even know if it will come to that.

Keep in mind a few years ago, as I mentioned above, Selig wanted to contract the Twins and Expos.  Now there’s suggestion that the Tampa Bay Rays are up for contraction.  They went from one of the most exciting teams in baseball three years ago, to one that is barely finding an identity there on the Gulf coast.

Imagine that being a team in New York or Los Angeles.

Wouldn’t happen.  There is too much at stake in those markets.

Too big to fail?  Indeed.

Last week the Nationals signed outfielder Rick Ankiel for just $1.5 million.  He can earn another $1.25 million in performance bonuses.  Not a bad contract in a rebuilding year for a team. Of course, signing Ankiel is not going to win any championships that’s for sure, but it would have given us some depth in the outfield which the Mets do need as Ankiel does play all three outfield positions.  Of course, he also has trouble staying healthy, but you can say the same thing about Beltran and Pagan. Besides providing depth in the outfield, signing Ankiel could help the Mets make a trade.

The rumor for months have been that the Tampa Bay Rays will be looking to trade starting pitcher Matt Garza this off season.  Starting pitching is something the Mets really need right now.  The Rays outfield lost a great player in Carl Crawford when he signed with Boston. They’re going to need to fill that hole. If the Mets trade for Garza you have to believe that the Rays are going to want Pagan as part of the deal.  While Crawford is a better player than Pagan, he would certainly fit in rather nicely there and the price is right. I have been a Pagan fan for awhile, but realistically we’d have to part with something of value to complete a deal for Garza. I doubt the Rays are going to want Beltran with his big contract and his bad knees. They certainly are not going to want to trade for Jason Bay and that bad contract either. Pagan is the obvious choice.  Sad to say because I really do like Pagan, but if he nets the Mets Garza then he has to go to Tampa.

Unfortunately, Ankiel is gone the Mets outfield depth is still limited.  Duda is not ready to be an everyday outfielder, and his defense is still somewhat questionable. F-Mart cannot stay healthy and has not produced anyway when he was promoted to the majors suggesting even more time in the minors.

I understand this is a rebuilding year, but couldn’t they have made some attempt to sign a player like Ankiel for one year and under $2 million guaranteed?

It could have enabled the team to have more depth and give them more options in trying to acquire a starting pitcher via a trade.

I know that at times my comments and points of view were not exactly agreeable, and sometimes were downright pessimistic, but I know that much of that stems from how passionate I am about the Mets.  I’ve been a fan since the early ’70′s and have lived through many of the ups and downs, which we all know includes lots of downs.

But I’m proud to be a Mets fan and I know we have some of the best, if not the best, fans in baseball.  This has always been a lovable franchise, win or lose, and we’ve had the opportunity to watch many world class players wearing blue and orange, and of course two championships.  We’ve also witnessed some of the greatest moments in sports history following our Mets–in particular in that magical ballpark known as Shea Stadium.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t say how pissed off I was Monday night when I heard about Matt Garza’s no-hitter.  First no-no in Rays’ history, blah blah blah.  Really now?  No hitters have also become as common as complete games, but of course, our Mets still do not have one.  We’re fifty years in and still not a single no-no.  Somethings gotta give on that front soon.

With that, I thank you all for reading my work these past 15 months, and I wish Joe and all of you the best of luck.  And oh yeah, Let’s Go Mets!

Had the deal of went through here is how things would have panned out:

New York Mets Trade: Luis Castillo
Tampa Bay Rays Trade: Pat Burrell
Chicago Cubs Trade: Milton Bradley
Los Angeles Angels Trade: Gary Matthews Jr.

New York Mets Receive: Gary Matthews Jr.
Tampa Bay Rays Receive: Milton Bradley
Chicago Cubs Receive: Luis Castillo
Los Angeles Angels Receive (Presumably): Pat Burrell

However, as Stark points out the deal fell threw for an unknown reason. I’m merely speculating here, but when dealing with such large and huge contracts it probably came down to money.

Last season with the Angels, Matthews hit .250 with only four home runs and 50 RBIs in 316 at-bats. Those numbers are rather unimpressive to say the least and to be honest I think the Mets are better off holding onto Castillo.

80s’Joel writes: “the mets need to trade that choke artist David Wright for a a left fielder and move Dan Murphy to 3rd base he might not have the power of wright but he hits average and IN THE CLUTCH. We should trade wright while he still has some value. I would trade him for Longoria straight up and you could most likely get a prospect or two for him as well. The mets should do this while they still can.”

Let’s dissect this, shall we?

1. David Wright is a choke artist? On what planet? Wright is a .309 hitter through four-plus seasons, with a 30-homer, 113-RBI average per season. Or as Will P commented on the original post, Wright’s .300 batting average with runners in scoring position is SIXTY points higher than Longoria’s.

2. You want to move Daniel Murphy to third base and trade Wright? I love Murph but he has a grand total of 136 major league at-bats. And hey, what do you know? Murphy has the same lifetime batting average as Wright, .309.

3. You want to trade Wright for Longoria straight up? First of all, see #1. Then look at last year, Longoria’s ONLY season in the major leagues….he hit .272 with 27 homers and drove in 85 runs. Wright hit .302 with 33 homers and 124 batted in. Am I missing something?

4. The Rays would trade Longoria and “a prospect or two” for David Wright? I don’t think they would even make the trade straight up for fear that Wright was suddenly damaged goods. If I’m the Rays’ GM, that’s certainly how I would look at that.

Further, as another person commented, David Wright is the face of the Mets’ franchise and should be for the next fifteen years, just like Derek Jeter is for the Yankees. Maybe Longoria will blossom into a great player, but in my opinion, he has quite a ways to go and has to prove it for at least four years the way Wright has so far.

I’m quite sure you all agree, but this was just too much fun not to post about and poke holes in. What are your thoughts?