The thing is this is one of the smarter moves the team has made in awhile, the Omar administration would have just throw cash as him like Ollie P, Castillo or Bay. Let’s face it folks, the Mets are not going to be able to contend for awhile. The Phils still have Halladay et. al. The Braves, Nats and Fish all have young studs and well, we have a AAAA team. By time the Mets are ready to contend again, Jose Reyes will be long past his prime. Signing him would have just added another anchor around a team that needs flexibility going forward.

Even with all of this information, we are forgetting the most obvious thing, JOSE IS INJURY PRONE! The Mets definitely cannot afford to take a risk on someone who’s legs have been a problem for most of his career. Jose wanted six years, how productive are those legs going to be in the second part of this contract. For a guy who came back this year after an injury and forgot what a stolen base looked like and couldn’t hit a triple in a triples ballpark, the risk was too much. If we were talking about a power hitter at 34 versus a leadoff guy at 34 are too totally different things.

There is definitely blame to the Wilpon’s in this mess however, they gambled with the Mets money and lost. A team that was adding a $20 million piece an off-season is now reduced to cutting payroll left and right. If this was 5 years ago regardless of how competitive the team was they would have been able to sign Jose to a huge contract. Those days have past us and because of the Wilpon’s we will be reduced to Gee, Duda and Murphy as our best players instead of Beltran, Delgado and Reyes. The ownership is a complete joke in my opinion and things are only getting worse. You can’t blame Jose for running away from the joke that is the Mets.

Lastly, how can anyone be surprised? The Mets are bad, remember the jokes from a few years ago that people didn’t want to play for the Mets, do you think that idea has changed with a few more bad seasons? Are you surprised Jose chased money and moved to Miami. Jose showed his true colors on the last day of the season. Jose didn’t stay in for the fans or to help the team, he cared about his batting title. He doesn’t care about the Mets, he cares about Jose. This is the same guy that fought with Jerry Manuel in the first inning of Jerry’s career in front of everyone to see. Of course, he would chase the money, I am not shocked.

I think most Met fans I know have my same sentiment about Jose and that it is was smart to let him go. I would also go as far as saying that like the Phillies most Met fans are going to hate this guy when he is not in your uniform. Here’s to the Marlins being stuck with a bad contract in a few years!

Secondly, they have decided to change the fence distance and height. This is a great move, this field has all but killed the careers of David Wright and Jason Bay. Flat out, the designed the park for Jose Reyes to hit triples and ignored David Wright. Now that Reyes is going to leave them high and dry, there is a chance they may be able to resurrect David’s career and keep him happy enough to stay in Queens.

Simple things like the fence and dropping the black may not forge this team to first place but I think as simple as they are they do show signs of improvement. The Mets are listening and under this leadership are making smarter decisions. The Mets have seen that there original plan is not working and the Mets play at home this season forged this move. The field is definitely in batter’s head and something had to be done. Instead of wasting another season, the Mets can at least try to make Citi Field, the home we all have been waiting to make it. Hopefully, in the years to come the team will make us forget Shea and think of Citi as home sweet home.

I maybe thirty years old but I consider myself old school. If I had Doc Brown’s time machine, just like Marty McFly I grab some Air Mag’s and a book of sports results to bring to a Vegas casino but first I would love to go watch some baseball, catch Babe Ruth in the 20′s and Willie, Mickey and the Duke in 50′s.

Hearing the story as a kid of how Ted Williams played in a double header and brought his average from .3995 to .406 is legendary and it is a beautiful part of a wonderful game. What Jose Reyes did during his last game of the 2011 season is nothing less then cowardly. It to me is shortcut and I feel the same as if he was caught using performance enhancers. He cheated the game, he cheated himself and he cheated Ryan Braun.

In his last game for the Mets, Reyes got a bunt base hit and pulled himself out of the game to hold on to his lead. How about all the Met fans who only showed up to see Jose off and give him the respect that up until this point he deserved. No thought of anyone else here but himself, not the game, not the fans just Jose.

This is why I feel he is gone, Jose is not all about the team or doing things the right way. How many times has he not run hard, or how can we forget calling out Jerry Manuel in his first ever game managing. Jose is me first, team second and with that philosophy, he is going to run to the money. He can talk all he wants about the Mets and wanting to be here but he would pick playing for the Toledo Mud Hens if it paid more then in Queens.

Jose is what is wrong with sports, cocky, obnoxious, and here for himself. Just wait and see, he is going to chase that money. I think he showed his true colors yesterday and all I can say is good riddance. This is not the type of player I want to build around because just like the last three years, this team has gone nowhere with players like Jose.

STATEMENT FROM FRED WILPON, CO-FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN, AND SAUL B. KATZ, CO-FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT OF STERLING EQUITIES, ON BEHALF OF THE STERLING EQUITIES PARTNERS AND THEIR FAMILIES

Dear Mets Fans:

Following days of leaks and press speculation, the Court – with the agreement of the Sterling partners – has released the complaint that was previously filed under seal.

The Trustee’s lawsuit is an outrageous “strong arm” effort to try to force a settlement by threatening to ruin our reputations and businesses which we have built for over 50 years. This is a flagrant abuse of the Trustee’s authority and we will not succumb to his pressure. The conclusions in the complaint are not supported by the facts. While they may make for good headlines, they are abusive, unfair and untrue. We categorically reject them. We should not be made victims twice over – the first time by Madoff, and again by the Trustee’s actions.

The plain truth is that not one of the Sterling partners ever knew or suspected that Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme. Because the Trustee has no evidence to support his claims even after a year-and-a-half review of over 700,000 pages of documents and many, many hours of depositions, he has created a claim that we “knew or should have known” that Madoff was a fraud. Why should we “have known” when the SEC and other government agencies that had oversight responsibilities did not know? In fact, the SEC reported that Madoff was above board and legitimate, even after it investigated him many times. Madoff was not a hedge fund, but an SEC regulated broker dealer and like millions of other Americans, we trusted the brokerage statements we received. The Trustee is suing not only for what he defines as “fictitious profits” but for monies that we deposited with Madoff over almost 25 years. That is outrageous, unfounded and inconsistent with the law. Let us be clear, the Trustee is attempting to seize money originally invested with Madoff, which was earned from the Sterling businesses.

The Trustee also alleges that we were blinded to Madoff’s crimes because our businesses “depended” on the returns. That is complete nonsense. We have good, sound businesses that were successful years before we invested with Madoff, including both real estate and the New York Mets. Those businesses never depended on returns from Madoff.

Our previous statements

All of the public statements we have issued to date have been accurate and true. We said when the fraud was first disclosed that the losses we suffered in the Madoff scheme would have no impact on the operations of the New York Mets and that was true. At the time, we could not have anticipated that a trustee would file a lawsuit seeking to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in addition to the substantial amounts that Madoff had stolen from us.

As we announced last Friday, we are now seeking one or more strategic partners in the New York Mets specifically because of the uncertainty created by the lawsuit filed by the Trustee in the Madoff bankruptcy.

We thought that Madoff was a friend for 25 years. That is why his betrayal was so painful. Each of the Sterling partners and their families invested with Madoff in good faith right up to the day his crime was exposed. We were as shocked as the rest of the world when the money in our accounts vanished along with the billions he swindled from thousands of other innocent people.

In summary, we are proud of what we have built and achieved as a family. We have worked very hard for our entire lives, always with character and integrity. We will not sit still while the Trustee or anyone else makes these outrageous and irresponsible allegations. People who know us know the truth about who we are and what our life’s work represents.

Again, we have done nothing wrong. We played by the rules. We abided by the court order not to discuss the lawsuit. Others did not. We are confident we will win in court.

Complete coverage at mets.com »

________________________________

STATEMENT BY ROBERT B. FISKE, JR., KAREN E. WAGNER, AND DAVID L. CAPLAN OF DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP ON BEHALF OF THE STERLING DEFENDANTS

Following days of leaks and press speculation, the Court, with the agreement of the Sterling partners, has released the complaint against our clients that was previously filed under seal. While the heated rhetoric in the complaint may generate headlines, it is not supported by the facts, the law, or the extensive discovery record developed by the Trustee before he formulated the complaint – numerous depositions and over 700,000 pages of documents provided by the Sterling partners over the last year and a half.

The bottom line is that the Sterling partners were innocent victims of the Madoff fraud, and the Trustee’s massive discovery effort did not uncover one shred of evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, the complaint further victimizes the Sterling partners by arguing that they “knew or should have known” that Madoff was a fraud and therefore are somehow liable for amounts beyond their very substantial losses. This suggestion is false.

With regard to the complaint:

The complaint appears to contend that, because the Sterling partners are wealthy and successful individuals, they should have known Madoff was not trading any securities and was engaging in a Ponzi scheme. Yet the Sterling partners had over $500 million in their Madoff accounts at the time of his failure – some put in only days before – and all of it lost. Anyone who knows Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz knows that they would not have dealt for one minute with someone they thought might be engaged in fraud. Moreover, as a matter of elementary common sense, no rational person who thinks his broker might be a fraud would leave such a substantial sum with him.

Contrary to what the Trustee asserts, the returns on the Sterling-related brokerage accounts were not “staggering,” “easy money,” or “too good to be true.” The $300 million of profit alleged in the complaint, even if accurate, would not be “staggering” or extraordinary when viewed in the context of the amount of principal invested over the past 25 years.

In addition, the $300 million claimed in the complaint reflects only those accounts that the Trustee has selected for inclusion because they were profitable. It ignores numerous accounts that, in the Trustee’s parlance, were “net losers,” which, according to our clients’ analysis, total approximately $160 million.

Madoff investments did not “fuel” our clients’ operating businesses. The Sterling partners’ wealth was generated by their hard-earned success in real estate, sports, media, and other businesses – not by investments with Madoff.

The complaint also ignores the fact that Madoff was viewed as a person of considerable stature in the financial community. He had been the chairman of the board of directors of NASDAQ, a member of the NASD board of governors, and a member of the board of what now is SIFMA – an eminent figure in the investment world. He also partnered with prominent financial institutions to create Primex, an electronic auction trading system that was approved by the SEC and adopted by NASDAQ. Moreover, the Sterling partners knew, and relied upon, the fact that the SEC – the federal agency charged with uncovering and prosecuting fraud – had investigated Madoff and taken no action against him.

For 25 years the Sterling partners saw nothing to indicate that Madoff was not trading securities as he was reporting he did. Moreover, the partners took legitimate comfort from the fact that numerous highly regarded and sophisticated lending institutions readily accepted their Madoff investments as security for multi-million dollar loans.

The Sterling partners’ dealings with their broker were entirely lawful. While the Trustee calls payments made to them “fictitious profit,” he ignores a large and consistent body of state and federal law that permits a customer of a registered broker dealer to rely on statements he receives from the broker – and which imposes no investigatory obligation upon a customer who in any event would have no way of confirming what the broker was doing. Payments made in connection with those statements are lawful. Our entire system of customer dealings with brokers is structured so that customers receive, and rely on, their account statements and confirmations. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply incorrect.

The complaint appears to argue that the partners should have known that Madoff was a fraud for three principal reasons:

First, they were friendly with Madoff and could have asked him if he was engaging in a fraud. Neither the law nor common sense supports such a proposition.

Second, in 2002 the partners diversified their securities investments by establishing a new company to be run by Peter Stamos. The Sterling partners were investors and had no role with respect to investment decisions. Nonetheless, we understand the complaint to contend that, because two of the partners were involved in the selection of Mr. Stamos and the establishment of the fund, they became expert in market trading, hedge fund due diligence, and broker dealer regulation, and, therefore, if people said things to them like “I don’t know how Madoff does it,” the Sterling partners should have realized that Madoff was doing no trading and running a Ponzi scheme. Thus, the theory of the complaint appears to be that comments of this type should have led the Sterling partners to reach a conclusion that the SEC, with the benefit of substantially more information, trained fraud investigators, and subpoena power, did not reach. Similarly, we understand the complaint to claim that, because Merrill Lynch, when it acquired part of the Stamos company in 2007, would not permit investment with managers employing “black box” or other similar strategies, the Sterling partners should have concluded that Madoff’s registered brokerage operation was fraudulent. In fact, many people invest with managers using such proprietary strategies, which are entirely lawful. That Merrill Lynch decided not to means nothing.

Third, the complaint suggests that, because Sterling Stamos had invested in the Bayou hedge fund, the Sterling partners should have realized that Madoff was a fraud. Again, the proposition is wide of the mark – the partners had no involvement with the Bayou investment, and Bayou was a completely different situation. Bayou was a hedge fund. Madoff’s brokerage entity, on the other hand, was a registered broker dealer, regulated by the SEC, that issued statements reflecting trading for customers.

The complaint is further undercut by another fundamental fact not mentioned by the Trustee: if the Sterling partners had thought Madoff might be engaged in a fraud – a conclusion they never reached – their recourse would have been to go to the SEC, the watchdog that licensed Madoff and that is there to protect customers. This would have been a futile exercise. As we know now, the fraud would not have been uncovered.

The complaint, in our opinion, is an unwarranted reach by the Trustee. The Sterling partners lost more than money in the Madoff fraud – they lost faith in someone they thought was a trusted friend. But their faith in the legal system remains strong, and we are confident they will prevail.

Our personal favorite goes to Mike Vacarro (@MikeVacc)

There are tons of different reports out there even before all this “limited partner” stuff came about today. I will simply work with the most popular figures as an attempt to demonstrate the most likely scenario. Again I have no idea how accurate any of this is, and in fact I assume it’s all wrong. This is just how I understand it as happening. Feel free to correct me via the comments.

Most sources have said the Wilpons initial investment was about $523 million dollars. This most likely wasn’t invested all at once and was probably added in year by year as they kept seeing unreal (literally) results.

A lot of reports keep siting as well that the Wilpons “profited about $48 million dollars” and that they “didn’t lose any money in the Madoff scandal” I guess technically this can be called true but you have to dig a little deeper to see just how deep the Wilpons most likely got cut.

Again I am using these figures as a basis of demonstration to help people wrap their heads around what might have happened.

So lets assume that Old Freddy Boy went to Bernie’s office and cut him a check for $523 million dollars.

Over the next 20 or so years (it’s been widely reported that Fred and Madoff knew each other for years) the Wilpons continued to cash out percentages that they saw as profits. So if Madoff told the Wilpons they saw a 10% return on their investment the Wilpons might cash out $50 mill and keep their principle in the Madoff fund.

Over the course of the 20 year time period the Mets are rumored to have “withdrawn” about $571 million (again no idea if true – just a nice round easy number so we work with it).

Then the day comes when Madoff is exposed and many many people are left in ruins, a catastrophe we wont full know until years and years from now.

The Wilpons and the Mets continue to state up and down that they did not lose money in the Madoff scandal and that the operations will not be harmed by it (today we find that to be a flat out lie).

A trustee is appointed on behalf of the Madoff victims to try to regain some of the ill-gotten-gains in hopes of getting some of their money back. Close to 200 lawsuits have been filed with a reported ceiling around 50 BILLION dollars. That’s no typo – billion. One woman was slapped with a $16 billion dollar suit. Wow.

The trustee has been very aggressive, and has been aggressive towards the Wilpons trying to regain some of the profits.
Many people have wondered how if the Mets only “profited” $48 million how this would really harm people of the Wilpons zip code. That’s where it gets murky.

The Wilpons initially invested around $523 million, and have since slowly withdrawn $571 million and it’s assumed they didn’t cash out all of it, leaving in at least their initial investment of around $500 million (other reports have said around $700 million)

This is where it gets painful for the Mets. Yes it’s true that the Wilpons technically didn’t lose any money in the scandal having recouped their initial “investment.” And yes it’s true the Wilpons technically “profited” that $48 million they “withdrew” over and above their initial investment. Problem is that the Mets thought that aside from the $571 they had withdrawn, that they have another $500+ million in the Bernie Bank.

At the very least this $500+ was used in their considerations for the new CitiField as well as other ventures. More likely it was used as an asset or collateral to secure different loans etc.

Well we all know that $500+ million in the Madoff account is gone.

So despite the fact that most feel the Wilpons have nothing to bitch about, in their eyes they have lost about $500+ million dollars that they thought they had. More importantly they instantaneously lost $500 million they were probably counting on and without it certain margins got REAL REAL tight.

Sure the Wilpons are loaded, and I agree that the Mets and SNY probably make a good chunk of cash, but when your talking about these heights, that might not be enough liquid.

Throw into the mix this trustee who shoots for the jugular with all his other suits and the Wilpons might be staring down the barrel of a very scary gun.

So to wrap it up:
$523 million – initial investment
$571 million – alleged profits made over the course of 20 years
$571 million – amount reportedly “withdrawn” over years by Wilpons
$48 million – amount Wilpons said to “profit” assuming you only look at the $571 they ended up with
$500-$700 million assumed to have still been in Bernie Madoff posession at the time of schemes collapse, thus lost to the Wilpons

So do the Wilpons want to sell the team entirely? No probably not. And they will proclaim up and down that there is no chance of that happening. Well just a year ago they steadfast refused that they would bring on partners and that they were financially fine. I think it’s largely out of their hands right now and it’ll all depend on what this trustee settles at.

Once again I want to say none of this is based on fact. I have done zero research myself on this. It’s just bringing together numbers and thoughts I have heard/read over and over since the scandal broke. I hope it helps wrap your head around what’s going on.

Of course people are going nuts over this either elated thinking the Wilpons will soon be gone, or crushed thinking the sky is falling and the Mets will start cutting payroll.

My initial reaction to this is that this can’t be good. An ownership group that has many times stated that the Mets are the status icon for the Wilpons family can not be happy about selling any piece of it.

It tells me two things for certain:
- The Wilpons are hurting. They took a bigger hit through the Maddoff fiasco and are now bracing for more in the suite by the trustee of the Maddoff victims.
- The Mets aren’t making enough money. No surprise when you consider the new stadium and all it’s financing plus the horrible stink around the Mets on the field and in the empty seats.

This could end up being good for the Mets franchise. It could bring in some deep pockets, but not only that, it will give the Wilpons someone to answer to. No longer could it be run as a family toy.

The worst case is that this drags out for a long time, ad because of their insistence on only a “limited partner” they don’t find good offers. Couple that with a big hit in the Maddoff case by the trustee, they could be forced to cut payroll rather then reinvest as we are all hoping once these bad contracts clear.

Best case is some super-billionaire comes along and gives them an offer they can refuse and the Wilpons ride off to the bank laughing and we are left with tons of resources and a man willing to play ball with the big boys. Happens all the time in European soccer. But I dot have much hope that this happens.

Bottom line is we have to watch this play out. The statements from the Wilpons are not credible at this point as they have denied this would ever happen since the Maddoff scandal surfaced. It’ll be interesting to see what kind of sharks circle witha New York franchise on the market.

(this is a quick reaction to the news, pardon the typos and bad grammar as I am typing this on my iPhone. I will be sure to follow this story as it evolves)

This should come as no surprise to most since Johan Santana wont be back until June from his surgery.

As per Adam Rubin:

An organization source said the deal will pay Pelfrey $3.925 million during the upcoming season. He can earn $50,000 extra in performance bonuses.

Seems to me the $50k incentive comes out to about $1 per hand lick.

Interesting note is that across town the Yankees have agreed with Joba Chamberlain for $1.4 million. My how the mighty have fallen. When you consider they also agreed with Boone Logan for $1.2 that’s telling you something. Man did they ever mess that kid up.

Here is a quote from the Padres coach Jim Malone (via MetsBlog.com):

The Mets are getting a good pitcher (in Chris Young), and a phenomenal person. … Chris exemplifies everything that a professional athlete should strive to become. … It seems like this fall, he got over the hump, and if he pitches back to form, he could be the steal of the 2010-11 off-season.

My feeling is this is exactly the type of moves the Mets should be making at this point. Low risk, low financial investment, potentially big rewards. Young was an All-Star in 2007 playing on a bad Padres team.

The best part is this is a one year deal. This will not effect the plans down the line for the front office. Worst case scenario he eats innings for the Mets in 2011, best case is we have to pay more money to resign him after a successful 2011 campaign.

Everything about this Mets is being done with 2012 in mind unfortunately. This deal should upgrade the rotation without hindering the club moving forward.