is there was something with Cohen MLB didn't like.
otherwise I have no explanation other than he got uncomfortable with the 5 years and tried to renegotiate.
Just my opinion.
I don't get the feeling MLB is covering for the Wilpons here. It was a sweet deal for them. They'd have no reason to monkey around with it based on those terms.
An owner that wants to spend. Look what the dodgers are doing with new owner.
Yeah but that owner is able to make money off their TV rights and from what I've heard SNY isn't included in any Mets sale. At least not for the next ten years or so.
is there was something with Cohen MLB didn't like.
otherwise I have no explanation other than he got uncomfortable with the 5 years and tried to renegotiate.
Just my opinion.
I don't get the feeling MLB is covering for the Wilpons here. It was a sweet deal for them. They'd have no reason to monkey around with it based on those terms.
Yeah, that crossed my mind. He had the insider trading thing, but Steinbrenner was a convicted felon, and was a great owner.
Something is weird about this. A billionaire with a ton of money, who is a lifelong Mets fan, originally agrees to buy them when the Wilpons stay on, but isn’t now? It doesn’t add up
MLB told the Wilpons we will protect you on the Cohen fiasco but will not again. There is no such thing as selling a team and remaining in control.
I tend to agree with this take. The quotes from Cohen's side seemed to make clear that he and the Wilpon's viewed the "control person" differently over the 5 years - and I think there's a reason that's not something any of us have ever heard of with a prior sale.
I doubt MLB had an issue with Cohen initially since he was already a part owner and surely had to go through some form of vetting just to get in at any level.
So if the Wilpons are completely removing that provision going forward, and they also aren't just accepting Cohen's modified understanding of the offer, it stands to reason there was something else going on here too - and that's not shocking since he was clearly willing to go beyond gray areas with his main career. So back to the original premise, I believe MLB probably wasn't happy with the Wilpon's putting a poison pill into the offer and similarly wasn't happy with however Cohen handled it.
This could end up being the best possible outcome if another strong owner, who has never been indicted by the sdny, comes along and the Wilponzi's are out immediately.
That theorized Cohen did some shady shit here and that he never really had an intention of owning the team, rather got involved to drive the price up. So now when it's sold for an even higher amount than it otherwise would have been his current 8% interest can either be bought off by the new owner for a significantly higher amount than it would have been or he can hold it as it will now more than double in value due to the new sale deal.
The speculation is this is why the owners and commish are pissed off at him and suggesting he'll never be allowed to buy a team. They realized what he did.
That theorized Cohen did some shady shit here and that he never really had an intention of owning the team, rather got involved to drive the price up. So now when it's sold for an even higher amount than it otherwise would have been his current 8% interest can either be bought off by the new owner for a significantly higher amount than it would have been or he can hold it as it will now more than double in value due to the new sale deal.
The speculation is this is why the owners and commish are pissed off at him and suggesting he'll never be allowed to buy a team. They realized what he did.
this was my assumption too based on a) Cohen's comments and b) MLB and the beats strong language about it not being on the Wilpons that the deal feel through. I don't buy that the league or the beats are simply Mets mouthpieces or protecting the Wilpons.
Sounds to me like two idiots that want to entice a buyer Â
an 8% stake in a team worth 2.6b is $208m.
at a 2b valuation that = $160m.
at a 3b valuation that = $240m.
Point being even if he drove up the price a half a billion dollars, it's a rounding error to a guy whose art collection is reportedly worth over $1b.
Not saying he didn't do something shady but I find it hard to believe this was a scheme to boost the value of his minority interest in the team. Lawyer fees and 6 months of his time are probably worth more to him than whatever he stands to gain.
and don't get saddled with some BS Wilponsi delayed control component that's an even better result than Cohen and waiting years to see the back of them. The sooner Fred and his cronies are gone the better. They presided over the sleaziest, most dysfunctional phase in Mets franchise history.
Martino came off extremely poorly during this debacle. He acknowledged the conflict of interest people were accusing him of but then proceeded to only defend the Wilpons and then quickly moved on to other topics. Either man up and do your job or sit this one out.
to mention, he pissed off Carlos Delgado essentially accusing him of being a cheater by using his notebook and comparing that to the Astros shit... he had to apologize. Not a good look for weasel Martino (Cespedes also used his voice criticizing him in his newest hype video).
I saw in one article is that by removing the clause that the Wilpon's want control for a certain amount of time the price could very well be higher. With the amount of debt still owed on the team and stadium I can't imagine someone or group paying hundreds of millions more than Cohen. I thought his line "I look forward to getting a higher bid" for his 8% ownership stake was great. Basically saying get more and I get paid and don't and I am still here. Whether MLB at this point will allow Cohen back in is another story but at the very least will want maximum $$$ which drives up the cost of other teams. If no one beats out Cohen are they truly going to force the Mets to sell for a lower price than what they had?
This is a dangerous game. MLB better know what they are doing. I just wonder who is a Mets fan that has that type of cash AND willing to spend it. Unless Michael Bloomberg wants to chuck down a ton of cash on the team (assuming his Presidential Bid fails) there are not many people with that amount of money and it is hard to imagine a public corporation laying down the money since they would have to answer to stockholders.
I wouldn't be shocked if Cohen gets back in the game.
I know nothing about what went on with the deal except what the public relations people are spinning so I take anything that’s sent with a grain of salt. That said, most seem to assume that if the buyer is not Cohen, it’ll be somebody ridiculously wealthy with deep pockets willing to spend more than the Wilpons. What I’m worried about is somebody putting together a deal who doesn’t have the big bucks and will need to sell off assets to pay for the deal and take on partners to finance the purchase. And, doesn’t have the money to spend large. I can’t stand the Wilpons but we could get something worse. I’m hoping Cohen is trying to drive the purchase price down and ends up,with the club.
RE: Cohen was poised to become the wealthiest owner in MLB Â
an 8% stake in a team worth 2.6b is $208m.
at a 2b valuation that = $160m.
at a 3b valuation that = $240m.
Point being even if he drove up the price a half a billion dollars, it's a rounding error to a guy whose art collection is reportedly worth over $1b.
Not saying he didn't do something shady but I find it hard to believe this was a scheme to boost the value of his minority interest in the team. Lawyer fees and 6 months of his time are probably worth more to him than whatever he stands to gain.
Spot on. I think Cohen did this because he wanted to own the Mets and nothing else.
didn't do something shady (or at best cold feet) how do you explain how the transaction fell apart?
The 5 year transition period was reported as such since the day the news broke.
Either you believe Cohen got buyers remorse and tried to change the terms, or you believe MLB, the beat writers, and Cohen are covering for the Wilpons.
didn't do something shady (or at best cold feet) how do you explain how the transaction fell apart?
The 5 year transition period was reported as such since the day the news broke.
Either you believe Cohen got buyers remorse and tried to change the terms, or you believe MLB, the beat writers, and Cohen are covering for the Wilpons.
If you believe reports the Wilpons wanted Cohen to remain a silent partner/piggy bank over the 5 years. He was under the impression he'd have decision making power. Fred also insisted that Jeff remain on after the 5 years in a decision making role at a salary of 4 million per season.
you honestly remember any recent sports sale where the old owner remained in charge for 5 years while another owner paid 2+ billion to sit there and just wait and then kept the old owner not only on the payroll but also in a "decision making" role? Even when the story broke the impression was Cohen would be taking over majority stake once he gained league approval and would be involved if not outright in charge immediately. Then after the 5 year period it would fully be his team. The newer reports suggest otherwise. That the Wilpons wanted the cash but not to step aside.
"Jeff Wilpon wanted to take Cohen’s initial investments as the majority owner to build the club’s funds, but still make the final decisions regarding the franchise over a five-year transitional period.
The source confirmed to amNewYork that New York Daily News’ Deesha Thosar‘s initial report from Wednesday was correct in that the Wilpons were looking to extend the length of that phase-out period and their hold of SNY — the source adding that the television demands “added fuel the fire.”"
"Jacob Resnick
@Jacob_Resnick
·
2h
It is ironic that the organization has talked about wanting to create a unified "Mets way" throughout the organization but would rather let this clubhouse sit dormant for 10 months than let their minor leaguers use it in the summer."
Have a right if first refusal. It’s a pretty common clause and it wouldn’t shock me if Cohen has that provision, possibly allowing him to get back into this.
Have a right if first refusal. It’s a pretty common clause and it wouldn’t shock me if Cohen has that provision, possibly allowing him to get back into this.
I would guess not only because Einhorn wanted a clause like that as a minority owner and when the Wilpon's realized he was angling to become a majority owner they scuttled that deal.
That interest for Mets at 3 billion is “scant” and that Katz family is pissed Cohen deal fell apart.
I know I am a broken record but I can’t help but think that Cohen eventually gets this assuming the bridge hasn’t been burned too drastically between wilpons and MLB. It just makes too much sense.
They should be. Saul apparently wants out. That and approaching the debt ceiling allowed by MLB are the driving forces behind the Wilponsis finally selling.
Now he finds out that a record deal for a MLB franchise sale was torpedoed by unrealistic demands of continued control by his 'partners'.
Jeff was allowed to blow this for the rest of the "family" is beyond me. Fred isn't without fault (insisting Jeff stay on, raise etc) but letting 2+ billion roll out the door because you're a selfish prick... impressive.
Old article but (relevant in regard to this tweet) in 2013
@business
valued
@Mets
at 2.1 billion.. with 1.2 billion coming from SNY.. so... if SNY is not included... the value of
@Mets
to a new buyer is highly depreciated
the reality is there are only 600 billionaires in the US and a lot of Â
them are worth less than the 2.6b Cohen offered and/or don't live near the team or have much interest in owning the Mets. All the waxing poetic on Mark Cuban, he's worth like $4b. You think he's spending more than half his net worth on the Mets?
It is a very, very, very, small group of people who can lead a purchase of this value. And an even smaller group who check the box of giving a shit about the Mets.
to see some reps at 1b? Seems like a waste of time with Alonso, Dom, Davis and Cano all on the roster. My guess... they hope to send Cespedes somewhere and save themselves from spending 11 million (his salary jumps to 11 if he's on the OD roster).
Old article but (relevant in regard to this tweet) in 2013
@business
valued
@Mets
at 2.1 billion.. with 1.2 billion coming from SNY.. so... if SNY is not included... the value of
@Mets
to a new buyer is highly depreciated
even if this has increased significantly since 2013 as I expect it has, this is why I felt like $2.6B for the Mets without SNY and with a 5 year transition seemed farcical.
I believe there was never intent for Cohen to buy the team.
and based upon that (which obviously is not always completely accurate), there are 330 US residents whose net worth is 2.6 billion or higher.
So this is an extremely shallow pond. Furthermore, unless SNY is included or the contract renegotiated to be market value, the Mets lose money. So if someone whose net worth is say 5 billion or less comes on we could actually be in a worse spot because they may not be willing to incur losses and the Wilpons may have refused to give up their stake in SNY.
To add, if you are a minority owner, meaning you pony up your minimum 60 million to be a member of the ownership group, you are going to be even less persuaded to buy a team that is going to be losing money and you are going to be on the hook for repeatedly investing 1-2 milllion to cover operating losses.
All of this is consistent with my belief that if they actually want to sell the team they go back to Cohen.
I will be up front is saying I have no idea what the current SNY Â
But if I am a potential buyer and paying top dollar without getting SNY, once I get control of the team (assuming it is right away), can't that person essentially eliminate or not renew the SNY contract? If the Wilpon's want to hold on to that so badly, can't the new owner work out a deal with MSG or essentially start another network to broadcast the Mets games?
I know SNY has the Nets and get some college basketball/football games from time to time, but without the Mets, the network would go bankrupt.
Again, I have no idea, but if keeping SNY is just another revenue stream for Sterling Properties, ultimately, the next buyer can cut that off.
I have said it numerous times, but if a sale was to go through, I want no ties to the Wilpons/Katz/Sterling Properties, etc...
when the deal fell apart it was report the Wilpons wanted to extend the SNY deal for more than the current "20 years" if that means that was the initial contract then the Mets are tied to SNY through 2026 at minimum. If that means 20 more years then obviously we are talking 2040. I have no insight on the SNY contract other than until the contract expires the Mets will air on SNY.
Puts up 55 million of the 57 million cost to build a new facility. But the little league field initially in the plans has to get scrapped from the budget? Not mention the clubhouse can’t be used by the minor leaguers? But hey atleast Brodie and Jeff have lockers!
Really shows you the type of of people the Wilpons are.
That makes sense and if I am a potential buyer and not having SNY a sort of the deal, that has to be considered. After 2026, the TV rights go out to bid.
That makes sense and if I am a potential buyer and not having SNY a sort of the deal, that has to be considered. After 2026, the TV rights go out to bid.
A buyer would probably be willing to wait until 2026 (after subtracting some cash off of the valuation) since they'd get a chance for a new TV deal (SNY is close to worthless without the Mets TV rights).
The problem is if the Wilpons extend the SNY deal (at some below market rate) to like 2040, then why would anyone pay anything close to a full valuation for the team when one of the most valuable assets (the tv rights) wouldn't be included?
potential buyer wants to sever ties with SNY as soon as possible. The Dodgers TV deal was worth nearly...9 billion with Spectrum for context. Cable rights are a HUGE value.
My exact thoughts as well. I remember the Dodger deal the the cable deal was a huge part.
If the Wilpon's are really concerned about that revenue stream that they get from holding on to SNY, I really see that as a hold up from any potential buyers.
I really do think we will be stuck with the Wilpon's in some fashion forever.
It would be great if a new buyer comes in, buys the team and says to Fred, hey, we will definitely look into extending that SNY deal at some point, but let's get this ownership deal done first. Then once the ink is dry, he or she gives a big middle finger to them and says SNY is done after 2026!
RE: I will be up front is saying I have no idea what the current SNY Â
But if I am a potential buyer and paying top dollar without getting SNY, once I get control of the team (assuming it is right away), can't that person essentially eliminate or not renew the SNY contract? If the Wilpon's want to hold on to that so badly, can't the new owner work out a deal with MSG or essentially start another network to broadcast the Mets games?
The Mets (and Sterling) own 65% of SNY, and it is a cash cow. Any Mets buyer is going to want SNY included.
would want SNY to bleed it dry or buy out the Mets contract. Local cable networks aren't worth as much as deals directly with the cable networks, see the Dodgers.
they should just borrow and cash LP's out... something tells me they don't have room to borrow more , or they would - $ is VERY cheap now... if the fans really get together and really pinch their cashflows they could force their hand
And likely driven by market dynamics. For starters that dodger deal has been a disaster as the dodgers were never picked up by most local cable providers, secondly yes, nesn, and sny are immensely profitable. We just don’t have clear visibility into that profit and since they control everything soup to nuts it’s much more difficult to extrapolate overhead and production costs. It is also a good way to hide revenue from profit sharing which is why I have always been curious why it’s allowed.
And likely driven by market dynamics. For starters that dodger deal has been a disaster as the dodgers were never picked up by most local cable providers, secondly yes, nesn, and sny are immensely profitable. We just don’t have clear visibility into that profit and since they control everything soup to nuts it’s much more difficult to extrapolate overhead and production costs. It is also a good way to hide revenue from profit sharing which is why I have always been curious why it’s allowed.
bhill,
t we "heard" Cohen didn't care about taking SNY but did care about the Wilpon's extending the agreement leads me to believe he felt he could "do better" on his own. Mike Ozanian from Forbes sees it the way I do (not that I'm some cable sports guru) (die horn is obviously an autocorrect for Einhorn)
Responding to another poster he said
"
ERD
@e_r_d4
Replying to
@MikeOzanian
Standalone networks (excl. YES) having a really tough go (sub decline, carriage problems, RF increases). Not sure new owner wants to take on an asset of this nature unless it was then sold to one of the current RSN operators or otherwise added to a larger portfolio of networks."
Mike Ozanian
@MikeOzanian
·
22h
Agree. Die horn and Cohen didn’t want SNY plus SNY not growing past 2 years. Figure maybe worth 5 times revenue
@fangraphs places only 1 Met in their top 120 prospects in baseball "Mets:
Ronny Mauricio: 35
Andres Gimenez: 103
Mark Vientos: 106".. @BaseballAmerica ranked @mets system 26th, down from 19th #Mets
@fangraphs places only 1 Met in their top 120 prospects in baseball "Mets:
Ronny Mauricio: 35
Andres Gimenez: 103
Mark Vientos: 106".. @BaseballAmerica ranked @mets system 26th, down from 19th #Mets
how is that one Met and then three are listed?
Mets pay a premium on prospsect rankings too? 3 for 1?
@fangraphs places only 1 Met in their top 120 prospects in baseball "Mets:
Ronny Mauricio: 35
Andres Gimenez: 103
Mark Vientos: 106".. @BaseballAmerica ranked @mets system 26th, down from 19th #Mets
how is that one Met and then three are listed?
Mets pay a premium on prospsect rankings too? 3 for 1?
Top 100 prospects that should read. Top 100 is generally what is considered a "top" prospect.
"The deal will include at least 1 top 100 prospect" is what you usually hear not "1 top 120 prospect" no?
@fangraphs places only 1 Met in their top 120 prospects in baseball "Mets:
Ronny Mauricio: 35
Andres Gimenez: 103
Mark Vientos: 106".. @BaseballAmerica ranked @mets system 26th, down from 19th #Mets
@fangraphs places only 1 Met in their top 120 prospects in baseball "Mets:
Ronny Mauricio: 35
Andres Gimenez: 103
Mark Vientos: 106".. @BaseballAmerica ranked @mets system 26th, down from 19th #Mets
Isn't that 3 Mets?
Explained above.
"It
DanMetroMan : 11:17 am : link : reply
was a simple copy and paste error. Most people consider "top 100". MLB.com, BA, BP does 101 for some reason but top 100 is the industry standard."
Not going to lose sleep over someone ranking two Mets prospects Â
plus the Mets have maybe 5 prospects I think are more interesting than Gimenez or Vientos. I am more interested in Szapucki, Alvarez, Allan, Baty, and Wolf.
Either way, I don't get hung up on prospect rankings and definitely won't sulk over not having more than 1 top 100 especially when two of them are 103 and 106.
a bust to me. Not exciting at all. Hope I'm wrong.
Much more interested and excited about Alvarez, Allan and Baty. A healthy Szapucki could get back on the radar too but I'll believe that when I see it.
best system is absolute shit given their lack of much to show for it. That's the point.
Why are you surprised? Did you see the trades our GM made?
The good news is that PECOTA has the Mets as slight favorites in the NL east next year. At least we have a good MLB team to watch next year since the farm system looks a bit underwhelming.
haven't seen Szapucki or Wolf on any reputable top 100 lists or even honorable mentions. MLB.com didn't mention either in their list of players who just missed either. (Allan was)
thinks Gimenez has league average upside but hard to see where that would be with the Mets with McNeil, Cano, Rosario and Mauricio the top prospect in the system. They think Vientos is a 1b.
refused to give an update on Lowrie. What the fuck happened to this guy and why are they still paying him? I truly don't understand why it's so secretive.
I love your updates and truly respect your posts but sometimes (without context) I don't know what you are referring to? Lowrie is hurt? Didn't he finish last season healthy?
I love your updates and truly respect your posts but sometimes (without context) I don't know what you are referring to? Lowrie is hurt? Didn't he finish last season healthy?
Apparently he was NOT healthy but got AB's anyway.
refused to give an update on Lowrie. What the fuck happened to this guy and why are they still paying him? I truly don't understand why it's so secretive.
What option do they have but to pay him? He has a contract and didn’t pull a Cespedes, so what can they do?
he had a few AB's in September yet this is from 2 months ago
" "We've continued to try to diagnose what Jed's issues were that kept them out this season. We'll continue to do that with the plan for him being 100 percent ready to go for spring training."
"It's not going to be a normal offseason considering what he went through last year."
What the hell does that mean? If he was healthy enough to play what does the second quote mean?
refused to give an update on Lowrie. What the fuck happened to this guy and why are they still paying him? I truly don't understand why it's so secretive.
What option do they have but to pay him? He has a contract and didn’t pull a Cespedes, so what can they do?
Why the secrecy? When have we heard of an injury with ZERO information that kept a player out this long with no real idea?
This is from.. July
"Mike Puma
@NYPost_Mets
·
Jul 12, 2019
Jed Lowrie had a recent setback in his rehab - strained right calf. He had been building up his left side, according to Brodie Van Wagenen."
It's now February and they are still trying to diagnose his issues? Not a normal off-season? From a calf strain in.. July?
and this was what they said about the injury that somehow kept him out from the first day of ST until when he strained his calf in June/July
"
Wayne Randazzo
@WayneRandazzo
·
Feb 21, 2019
Brodie Van Wagenen said on
@wcbs880
that Jed Lowrie’s MRI revealed no significant damage, and they’ll bring him along slowly. #Mets"
So no significant damage in Feb... not back by June/July, strained calf... July-August-Sept... allow him to have a few ab's... December.. "continue to try and diagnose his issues"... why wasn't his off-season normal if he played in Sept? Why is this such a mystery for a calf strain in July?
best system is absolute shit given their lack of much to show for it. That's the point.
it's pretty rare for a team to have a competitive major league team and a solid farm. Of course I'd like both, but given the choice I'd pick a competitive major league team 100 times out of 100.
problem is despite the talent the Mets major league team was not competitive.
best system is absolute shit given their lack of much to show for it. That's the point.
it's pretty rare for a team to have a competitive major league team and a solid farm. Of course I'd like both, but given the choice I'd pick a competitive major league team 100 times out of 100.
problem is despite the talent the Mets major league team was not competitive.
if they were I don't care if the farm is 30th.
PJ that's just not accurate
TB, Atlanta, LAD, Arizona, Twins are all top farm systems in baseball and won 85+ games last year... LAD arguably the best team in baseball on paper
I don't have access to BA's full list but here is Bleacher reports top 6 farms...
for being competitive. The Mets won over 85 games last year and I did not consider them competitive.
None of those teams you mentioned made it out of the division series.
PJ c'mon. The Dodgers won 106 games, the Twins 101, Braves 97, Rays 96. Those are top MLB teams in the sport and will likely be again.. with their top ranking farm systems in tow.
PECOTA has LAD as the best team in baseball with 103 wins, Twins 93, Rays 87. You can really say with a straight face these teams aren't "competitive" or top teams in the game? I find that very hard to believe.
for being competitive. The Mets won over 85 games last year and I did not consider them competitive.
None of those teams you mentioned made it out of the division series.
PJ c'mon. The Dodgers won 106 games, the Twins 101, Braves 97, Rays 96. Those are top MLB teams in the sport and will likely be again.. with their top ranking farm systems in tow.
PECOTA has LAD as the best team in baseball with 103 wins, Twins 93, Rays 87. You can really say with a straight face these teams aren't "competitive" or top teams in the game? I find that very hard to believe.
I'm saying it doesn't matter to me what rank random expert/site has for the farm system if the major league team is competitive.
I don't think many teams have both competitive major league teams and highly ranked farm systems, but it's ancillary to my point.
Tim Healey
@timbhealey
·
4m
Luis Rojas said he got to the facility today at 5:30 a.m. — five hours before the Mets’ workout. He said he had to get a workout in before actually starting his work day.
Anthony DiComo
@AnthonyDiComo
·
1m
On the first official day of Mets spring workouts, Luis Rojas arrived at the facility at 5:30 a.m. so he could get in a workout before beginning his day. (Perhaps trying to make good on Noah Syndergaard's proclamation that Rojas is the "most jacked manager in the league.")
We would probably be a top 10 team farm wise and our senior team would probably be in similar boat. We have 3/4 top 100 prospects traded by that bonehead.
We would probably be a top 10 team farm wise and our senior team would probably be in similar boat. We have 3/4 top 100 prospects traded by that bonehead.
Exactly. The way I look at it right now we have:
5 very good IF prospects (Mauricio, Gimenez, Vientos, Alvarez, Baty)
1 very good SP prospect (Allen)
3-6 interesting P prospects but who knows (Wolf, Peterson, Smith, Kilome, Szapucki, Santos)
and 0 OF prospects
Kelenic, SWR, and Kay would have given them 3 more very good prospects and an overall very strong top 9.
Kay would have been both our 9th best prospect right now and in the futures game last year, which would speak to an impressive system.
Fingers crossed Stroman wins his first Cy Young edging out Diaz' in a comeback player of the year season, but I'm not holding my breathe.
by the rankings the Mets top OF prospect has played a whopping 3 games stateside and he (Freddy Valdez) is ranked #18 in a poor system. Pretty tough to pull off being unable to draft/find OF's. Nimmo was drafted... in 2011, Conforto 2014. Forget "stars", where are the potential 4th OF types? Yeesh.
by the rankings the Mets top OF prospect has played a whopping 3 games stateside and he (Freddy Valdez) is ranked #18 in a poor system. Pretty tough to pull off being unable to draft/find OF's. Nimmo was drafted... in 2011, Conforto 2014. Forget "stars", where are the potential 4th OF types? Yeesh.
Need to hope all the IF'ers pan out to the point where maybe 1 of them shifts to the OF competently the way McNeil was able to. But yeah, the state of OF'ers in the system makes the Kelenic trade that much more insane.
there are rumors on the Mets Reddit sub that are very very hearsayish that Cohen maybe back negotiating since there seems to be little appetite out there for current asking price.
Also was doing some digging on the Dodgers situation v. mets. SNY apparently has a net profit (not gross) of 150 million according to one of the NY times articles that came out. Dodgers TV deal amounts to 280 million per year over 25 years. Now that timespan I am sure accounts for appreciation of the contract so I would suspect it is probably closer to 180-200 at this point. What is interesting about the Time Warner deal is that it called for the creation of a dodgers network that would be owned by the Dodgers with Time Warner but where Time warner took all of the risk (meaning that 280 average was guaranteed). This is relevant because apparently if you own your TV network, you only have to make FMV approximation of the deal available for revenue sharing due to the fact there is risk and fluctuation with TV stations. At the time other franchises were chirping that they didnt really own the network since they were not taking any risk on. In the dodgers case that risk was significant because most local cable providers did not pick up the station.
All of that is a fancy way of saying the SNY value (of which 65 is owned by Wilpons) is significant. 150 profit x going market rate of 7x for Ebita (in my industry that seems to be going rate) is over a billion dollar valuation.
or one of the sites available by googling it has all the franchises broken out into parts and estimated the value of the Mets franchise (no SNY, no ballpark which I don't even think the Mets own anyway) at under $1B and SNY at a little over $1B.
Which again is why after letting it sink in a little $2.6B from Cohen for just the Mets with no SNY and a 5-year period for the Wipons to loot the store seemed preposterous and leads me to think he was not sincere in his attempt to buy the team.
or one of the sites available by googling it has all the franchises broken out into parts and estimated the value of the Mets franchise (no SNY, no ballpark which I don't even think the Mets own anyway) at under $1B and SNY at a little over $1B.
Which again is why after letting it sink in a little $2.6B from Cohen for just the Mets with no SNY and a 5-year period for the Wipons to loot the store seemed preposterous and leads me to think he was not sincere in his attempt to buy the team.
But then how do the Wilpons look if they sell the Mets (again without SNY) for FAR less than 2.6 billion? Don't they come off looking like utter morons?
Per @kevinmdraper "more than a dozen" insiders the Wilpons do not want to give up control of @Mets. He also confirms @SNYtv is not part of the negotiations. It is not a given @mets are sold at all. The team was valued at 1.5 billion last year when the Wilpons bought back 12% of the team
or one of the sites available by googling it has all the franchises broken out into parts and estimated the value of the Mets franchise (no SNY, no ballpark which I don't even think the Mets own anyway) at under $1B and SNY at a little over $1B.
Which again is why after letting it sink in a little $2.6B from Cohen for just the Mets with no SNY and a 5-year period for the Wipons to loot the store seemed preposterous and leads me to think he was not sincere in his attempt to buy the team.
PJ,
The closest we can come to an actual valuation is the knowledge that the Wilpons paid X for 12% of the team last year (buying back shares) and at the time the value sans SNY was 1.5 billion so your number looks about right.
or one of the sites available by googling it has all the franchises broken out into parts and estimated the value of the Mets franchise (no SNY, no ballpark which I don't even think the Mets own anyway) at under $1B and SNY at a little over $1B.
Which again is why after letting it sink in a little $2.6B from Cohen for just the Mets with no SNY and a 5-year period for the Wipons to loot the store seemed preposterous and leads me to think he was not sincere in his attempt to buy the team.
But then how do the Wilpons look if they sell the Mets (again without SNY) for FAR less than 2.6 billion? Don't they come off looking like utter morons?
they look no worse. They always look bad.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I wouldn't be shocked if the whole thing was a charade and Cohen was in on it and it was orchestrated to try and flush a new buyer out of bushes with slightly better terms (no 5 year transition), but otherwise similar shitty terms to the original deal that Cohen was never going to agree with.
And every time I try and get the link the reddit app opens on my phone. It was from yesterday midday. If you google Mets Reddit go about 15 or so posts down.
And every time I try and get the link the reddit app opens on my phone. It was from yesterday midday. If you google Mets Reddit go about 15 or so posts down.
realize this topic is boring to most but on the SNY stuff, apparently revenue has really stalled out with 292, 294 and 295 the past 3 seasons (SNL Kagan projected 460 million in revenue in 2018). Similar stagnation for MSG (I'm not knocking the Mets) but it's something to consider.
- Brodie comes off very poorly here. He was upset with Wheeler saying he wasn't surprised the Mets didn't really pursue him
@NYPost_Mets
Brodie Van Wagenen said he was “surprised” and “disappointed” with Zack Wheeler’s comments yesterday, after the Mets “helped him parlay two good half-seasons over the last five into $118 million.”
Yet... when Wheeler signed with the Phillies
"the value for what we thought the investment (was) didn't line up. The projections that we had for Zack (Wheeler), both short-term and long-term, didn't quite match up to the market he was able to enjoy."
So YOU say you think they overpaid and he's not allowed to say what he said? lol good lord thin skin
“No chance A-Rod pulls that off, especially with Steve Cohen still out there playing safety on this thing,” said one banker familiar with Cohen and the deal. “This auction will not get close to $3 billion, and it will be lucky to get over $2 billion. Steve knows that, he’s talking to people and he’s waiting for the Wilpons to come back begging for $2.6 billion and no five-year window.”
Cohen declined to comment on the notion that he is still actively monitoring the situation, but one source close to the $13 billion financier made it clear that he would not be involved with the Mets auction and “refuses to be used as a stalking horse” in the process.
Neither Rodriguez nor his representative, Ron Berkowitz, could be reached for comment.
but the fact that they wrote that sources confirm Cohen is still involved is the bigger news IMO. Some of us thought that this might be a negotiation tactic on his part. It'll be interesting to look back a year from now and see how this all shakes out.
otherwise I have no explanation other than he got uncomfortable with the 5 years and tried to renegotiate.
Just my opinion.
I don't get the feeling MLB is covering for the Wilpons here. It was a sweet deal for them. They'd have no reason to monkey around with it based on those terms.
Yeah but that owner is able to make money off their TV rights and from what I've heard SNY isn't included in any Mets sale. At least not for the next ten years or so.
otherwise I have no explanation other than he got uncomfortable with the 5 years and tried to renegotiate.
Just my opinion.
I don't get the feeling MLB is covering for the Wilpons here. It was a sweet deal for them. They'd have no reason to monkey around with it based on those terms.
Yeah, that crossed my mind. He had the insider trading thing, but Steinbrenner was a convicted felon, and was a great owner.
Something is weird about this. A billionaire with a ton of money, who is a lifelong Mets fan, originally agrees to buy them when the Wilpons stay on, but isn’t now? It doesn’t add up
It doesn't make any sense.
I am guessing Cohen did this as some sort of publicity stunt, but I think he also knew it would force more scrutiny on the team and pressure a sale.
I think Cohen knew what he was doing, but never intended to follow through on this at those terms.
Just my opinion.
Brought this up a number of times.
Supposedly the asking price was Rosario plus two of our top prospects. Gotta say, Im pretty bummed we couldn't make that happen.
nothing, some speculated he could. But if you read his comments it almost sounds like this was his pre-determined outcome.
nothing, some speculated he could. But if you read his comments it almost sounds like this was his pre-determined outcome.
I tend to agree with this take. The quotes from Cohen's side seemed to make clear that he and the Wilpon's viewed the "control person" differently over the 5 years - and I think there's a reason that's not something any of us have ever heard of with a prior sale.
I doubt MLB had an issue with Cohen initially since he was already a part owner and surely had to go through some form of vetting just to get in at any level.
So if the Wilpons are completely removing that provision going forward, and they also aren't just accepting Cohen's modified understanding of the offer, it stands to reason there was something else going on here too - and that's not shocking since he was clearly willing to go beyond gray areas with his main career. So back to the original premise, I believe MLB probably wasn't happy with the Wilpon's putting a poison pill into the offer and similarly wasn't happy with however Cohen handled it.
This could end up being the best possible outcome if another strong owner, who has never been indicted by the sdny, comes along and the Wilponzi's are out immediately.
The speculation is this is why the owners and commish are pissed off at him and suggesting he'll never be allowed to buy a team. They realized what he did.
The speculation is this is why the owners and commish are pissed off at him and suggesting he'll never be allowed to buy a team. They realized what he did.
this was my assumption too based on a) Cohen's comments and b) MLB and the beats strong language about it not being on the Wilpons that the deal feel through. I don't buy that the league or the beats are simply Mets mouthpieces or protecting the Wilpons.
Cohen I mean
at a 2b valuation that = $160m.
at a 3b valuation that = $240m.
Point being even if he drove up the price a half a billion dollars, it's a rounding error to a guy whose art collection is reportedly worth over $1b.
Not saying he didn't do something shady but I find it hard to believe this was a scheme to boost the value of his minority interest in the team. Lawyer fees and 6 months of his time are probably worth more to him than whatever he stands to gain.
Could care less about all this nonsense until we have something final on paper.
Im ready to focus on 2020 and a talented Mets roster.
Rumors, speculation, posturing, negotiating... Yawn. Especially with the fickle Wilpons in the fold.
It was funny to go back in time and see names like Repole from Vitamin Water, Trump, Jerry Seinfeld, etc.
Detroit (1, 38, 63, 75)
Baltimore (2, 30, 39, 76)
Miami (3, 40, 62, 77)
Kansas City (4, 32, 41, 78)
Seattle (6, 43, 65, 80)
Pittsburgh (7, 31, 44, 81)
San Diego (8, 34, 45, 82)
Colorado (9, 35, 46, 83)
Cincinnati (12, 48, 66, 86)
San Francisco (13, 49, 68, 69, 87)
New York Mets (19, 53, 70, 93)
St. Louis (21, 55, 64, 71, 95)
Washington (22, 56, 72, 96)
Cleveland (23, 36, 57, 97)
Tampa Bay (24, 37, 58, 98)
This from a guy who once accused Mets fans of disliking Castillo because he was latino....
agree, and he tried to backtrack on it
The negative, Ganis said, is the exclusion of SNY, which will make it more difficult for any prospective owner to make money.
“If SNY is not included, the potential flip in losses to profitability is likely to be significantly deferred,” he said.
The negative, Ganis said, is the exclusion of SNY, which will make it more difficult for any prospective owner to make money.
“If SNY is not included, the potential flip in losses to profitability is likely to be significantly deferred,” he said.
Yes- it's likely a significant part of the price.
This is a dangerous game. MLB better know what they are doing. I just wonder who is a Mets fan that has that type of cash AND willing to spend it. Unless Michael Bloomberg wants to chuck down a ton of cash on the team (assuming his Presidential Bid fails) there are not many people with that amount of money and it is hard to imagine a public corporation laying down the money since they would have to answer to stockholders.
I wouldn't be shocked if Cohen gets back in the game.
at a 2b valuation that = $160m.
at a 3b valuation that = $240m.
Point being even if he drove up the price a half a billion dollars, it's a rounding error to a guy whose art collection is reportedly worth over $1b.
Not saying he didn't do something shady but I find it hard to believe this was a scheme to boost the value of his minority interest in the team. Lawyer fees and 6 months of his time are probably worth more to him than whatever he stands to gain.
Spot on. I think Cohen did this because he wanted to own the Mets and nothing else.
Link - ( New Window )
The 5 year transition period was reported as such since the day the news broke.
Either you believe Cohen got buyers remorse and tried to change the terms, or you believe MLB, the beat writers, and Cohen are covering for the Wilpons.
The 5 year transition period was reported as such since the day the news broke.
Either you believe Cohen got buyers remorse and tried to change the terms, or you believe MLB, the beat writers, and Cohen are covering for the Wilpons.
If you believe reports the Wilpons wanted Cohen to remain a silent partner/piggy bank over the 5 years. He was under the impression he'd have decision making power. Fred also insisted that Jeff remain on after the 5 years in a decision making role at a salary of 4 million per season.
The source confirmed to amNewYork that New York Daily News’ Deesha Thosar‘s initial report from Wednesday was correct in that the Wilpons were looking to extend the length of that phase-out period and their hold of SNY — the source adding that the television demands “added fuel the fire.”"
"Jacob Resnick
@Jacob_Resnick
·
2h
It is ironic that the organization has talked about wanting to create a unified "Mets way" throughout the organization but would rather let this clubhouse sit dormant for 10 months than let their minor leaguers use it in the summer."
I would guess not only because Einhorn wanted a clause like that as a minority owner and when the Wilpon's realized he was angling to become a majority owner they scuttled that deal.
I know I am a broken record but I can’t help but think that Cohen eventually gets this assuming the bridge hasn’t been burned too drastically between wilpons and MLB. It just makes too much sense.
Now he finds out that a record deal for a MLB franchise sale was torpedoed by unrealistic demands of continued control by his 'partners'.
Oh..that's right...they don't have the money to do this because all of their funds are tied up in real estate deals that they can't pay for.
If this was all a ruse to drive up the valuation for the team, they failed miserably.
Whatever they can F up, they F up. It never fails.
@business
valued
@Mets
at 2.1 billion.. with 1.2 billion coming from SNY.. so... if SNY is not included... the value of
@Mets
to a new buyer is highly depreciated
It is a very, very, very, small group of people who can lead a purchase of this value. And an even smaller group who check the box of giving a shit about the Mets.
@business
valued
@Mets
at 2.1 billion.. with 1.2 billion coming from SNY.. so... if SNY is not included... the value of
@Mets
to a new buyer is highly depreciated
even if this has increased significantly since 2013 as I expect it has, this is why I felt like $2.6B for the Mets without SNY and with a 5 year transition seemed farcical.
I believe there was never intent for Cohen to buy the team.
So this is an extremely shallow pond. Furthermore, unless SNY is included or the contract renegotiated to be market value, the Mets lose money. So if someone whose net worth is say 5 billion or less comes on we could actually be in a worse spot because they may not be willing to incur losses and the Wilpons may have refused to give up their stake in SNY.
To add, if you are a minority owner, meaning you pony up your minimum 60 million to be a member of the ownership group, you are going to be even less persuaded to buy a team that is going to be losing money and you are going to be on the hook for repeatedly investing 1-2 milllion to cover operating losses.
All of this is consistent with my belief that if they actually want to sell the team they go back to Cohen.
But if I am a potential buyer and paying top dollar without getting SNY, once I get control of the team (assuming it is right away), can't that person essentially eliminate or not renew the SNY contract? If the Wilpon's want to hold on to that so badly, can't the new owner work out a deal with MSG or essentially start another network to broadcast the Mets games?
I know SNY has the Nets and get some college basketball/football games from time to time, but without the Mets, the network would go bankrupt.
Again, I have no idea, but if keeping SNY is just another revenue stream for Sterling Properties, ultimately, the next buyer can cut that off.
I have said it numerous times, but if a sale was to go through, I want no ties to the Wilpons/Katz/Sterling Properties, etc...
Really shows you the type of of people the Wilpons are.
A buyer would probably be willing to wait until 2026 (after subtracting some cash off of the valuation) since they'd get a chance for a new TV deal (SNY is close to worthless without the Mets TV rights).
The problem is if the Wilpons extend the SNY deal (at some below market rate) to like 2040, then why would anyone pay anything close to a full valuation for the team when one of the most valuable assets (the tv rights) wouldn't be included?
If the Wilpon's are really concerned about that revenue stream that they get from holding on to SNY, I really see that as a hold up from any potential buyers.
It would be great if a new buyer comes in, buys the team and says to Fred, hey, we will definitely look into extending that SNY deal at some point, but let's get this ownership deal done first. Then once the ink is dry, he or she gives a big middle finger to them and says SNY is done after 2026!
But if I am a potential buyer and paying top dollar without getting SNY, once I get control of the team (assuming it is right away), can't that person essentially eliminate or not renew the SNY contract? If the Wilpon's want to hold on to that so badly, can't the new owner work out a deal with MSG or essentially start another network to broadcast the Mets games?
The Mets (and Sterling) own 65% of SNY, and it is a cash cow. Any Mets buyer is going to want SNY included.
bhill,
t we "heard" Cohen didn't care about taking SNY but did care about the Wilpon's extending the agreement leads me to believe he felt he could "do better" on his own. Mike Ozanian from Forbes sees it the way I do (not that I'm some cable sports guru) (die horn is obviously an autocorrect for Einhorn)
Responding to another poster he said
"
ERD
@e_r_d4
Replying to
@MikeOzanian
Standalone networks (excl. YES) having a really tough go (sub decline, carriage problems, RF increases). Not sure new owner wants to take on an asset of this nature unless it was then sold to one of the current RSN operators or otherwise added to a larger portfolio of networks."
Mike Ozanian
@MikeOzanian
·
22h
Agree. Die horn and Cohen didn’t want SNY plus SNY not growing past 2 years. Figure maybe worth 5 times revenue
"I did not ask Carlos about it, I read the article the same time everyone else did"
- BVW
Ronny Mauricio: 35
Andres Gimenez: 103
Mark Vientos: 106".. @BaseballAmerica ranked @mets system 26th, down from 19th #Mets
Ronny Mauricio: 35
Andres Gimenez: 103
Mark Vientos: 106".. @BaseballAmerica ranked @mets system 26th, down from 19th #Mets
how is that one Met and then three are listed?
Mets pay a premium on prospsect rankings too? 3 for 1?
Quote:
@fangraphs places only 1 Met in their top 120 prospects in baseball "Mets:
Ronny Mauricio: 35
Andres Gimenez: 103
Mark Vientos: 106".. @BaseballAmerica ranked @mets system 26th, down from 19th #Mets
how is that one Met and then three are listed?
Mets pay a premium on prospsect rankings too? 3 for 1?
Top 100 prospects that should read. Top 100 is generally what is considered a "top" prospect.
"The deal will include at least 1 top 100 prospect" is what you usually hear not "1 top 120 prospect" no?
Ronny Mauricio: 35
Andres Gimenez: 103
Mark Vientos: 106".. @BaseballAmerica ranked @mets system 26th, down from 19th #Mets
Isn't that 3 Mets?
Quote:
@fangraphs places only 1 Met in their top 120 prospects in baseball "Mets:
Ronny Mauricio: 35
Andres Gimenez: 103
Mark Vientos: 106".. @BaseballAmerica ranked @mets system 26th, down from 19th #Mets
Isn't that 3 Mets?
Explained above.
"It
DanMetroMan : 11:17 am : link : reply
was a simple copy and paste error. Most people consider "top 100". MLB.com, BA, BP does 101 for some reason but top 100 is the industry standard."
plus the Mets have maybe 5 prospects I think are more interesting than Gimenez or Vientos. I am more interested in Szapucki, Alvarez, Allan, Baty, and Wolf.
Either way, I don't get hung up on prospect rankings and definitely won't sulk over not having more than 1 top 100 especially when two of them are 103 and 106.
Much more interested and excited about Alvarez, Allan and Baty. A healthy Szapucki could get back on the radar too but I'll believe that when I see it.
Why are you surprised? Did you see the trades our GM made?
The good news is that PECOTA has the Mets as slight favorites in the NL east next year. At least we have a good MLB team to watch next year since the farm system looks a bit underwhelming.
Apparently he was NOT healthy but got AB's anyway.
What option do they have but to pay him? He has a contract and didn’t pull a Cespedes, so what can they do?
" "We've continued to try to diagnose what Jed's issues were that kept them out this season. We'll continue to do that with the plan for him being 100 percent ready to go for spring training."
"It's not going to be a normal offseason considering what he went through last year."
What the hell does that mean? If he was healthy enough to play what does the second quote mean?
Quote:
refused to give an update on Lowrie. What the fuck happened to this guy and why are they still paying him? I truly don't understand why it's so secretive.
What option do they have but to pay him? He has a contract and didn’t pull a Cespedes, so what can they do?
Why the secrecy? When have we heard of an injury with ZERO information that kept a player out this long with no real idea?
This is from.. July
"Mike Puma
@NYPost_Mets
·
Jul 12, 2019
Jed Lowrie had a recent setback in his rehab - strained right calf. He had been building up his left side, according to Brodie Van Wagenen."
It's now February and they are still trying to diagnose his issues? Not a normal off-season? From a calf strain in.. July?
"
Wayne Randazzo
@WayneRandazzo
·
Feb 21, 2019
Brodie Van Wagenen said on
@wcbs880
that Jed Lowrie’s MRI revealed no significant damage, and they’ll bring him along slowly. #Mets"
So no significant damage in Feb... not back by June/July, strained calf... July-August-Sept... allow him to have a few ab's... December.. "continue to try and diagnose his issues"... why wasn't his off-season normal if he played in Sept? Why is this such a mystery for a calf strain in July?
Link - ( New Window )
it's pretty rare for a team to have a competitive major league team and a solid farm. Of course I'd like both, but given the choice I'd pick a competitive major league team 100 times out of 100.
problem is despite the talent the Mets major league team was not competitive.
if they were I don't care if the farm is 30th.
Quote:
best system is absolute shit given their lack of much to show for it. That's the point.
it's pretty rare for a team to have a competitive major league team and a solid farm. Of course I'd like both, but given the choice I'd pick a competitive major league team 100 times out of 100.
problem is despite the talent the Mets major league team was not competitive.
if they were I don't care if the farm is 30th.
PJ that's just not accurate
TB, Atlanta, LAD, Arizona, Twins are all top farm systems in baseball and won 85+ games last year... LAD arguably the best team in baseball on paper
I don't have access to BA's full list but here is Bleacher reports top 6 farms...
Rays, Padres, Braves, Mariners, Dodgers, Twins,
Link - ( New Window )
None of those teams you mentioned made it out of the division series.
if you don't then we also differ on the definition of rare.
None of those teams you mentioned made it out of the division series.
PJ c'mon. The Dodgers won 106 games, the Twins 101, Braves 97, Rays 96. Those are top MLB teams in the sport and will likely be again.. with their top ranking farm systems in tow.
PECOTA has LAD as the best team in baseball with 103 wins, Twins 93, Rays 87. You can really say with a straight face these teams aren't "competitive" or top teams in the game? I find that very hard to believe.
Quote:
for being competitive. The Mets won over 85 games last year and I did not consider them competitive.
None of those teams you mentioned made it out of the division series.
PJ c'mon. The Dodgers won 106 games, the Twins 101, Braves 97, Rays 96. Those are top MLB teams in the sport and will likely be again.. with their top ranking farm systems in tow.
PECOTA has LAD as the best team in baseball with 103 wins, Twins 93, Rays 87. You can really say with a straight face these teams aren't "competitive" or top teams in the game? I find that very hard to believe.
I'm saying it doesn't matter to me what rank random expert/site has for the farm system if the major league team is competitive.
I don't think many teams have both competitive major league teams and highly ranked farm systems, but it's ancillary to my point.
@timbhealey
·
4m
Luis Rojas said he got to the facility today at 5:30 a.m. — five hours before the Mets’ workout. He said he had to get a workout in before actually starting his work day.
Anthony DiComo
@AnthonyDiComo
·
1m
On the first official day of Mets spring workouts, Luis Rojas arrived at the facility at 5:30 a.m. so he could get in a workout before beginning his day. (Perhaps trying to make good on Noah Syndergaard's proclamation that Rojas is the "most jacked manager in the league.")
Exactly. The way I look at it right now we have:
5 very good IF prospects (Mauricio, Gimenez, Vientos, Alvarez, Baty)
1 very good SP prospect (Allen)
3-6 interesting P prospects but who knows (Wolf, Peterson, Smith, Kilome, Szapucki, Santos)
and 0 OF prospects
Kelenic, SWR, and Kay would have given them 3 more very good prospects and an overall very strong top 9.
Kay would have been both our 9th best prospect right now and in the futures game last year, which would speak to an impressive system.
Fingers crossed Stroman wins his first Cy Young edging out Diaz' in a comeback player of the year season, but I'm not holding my breathe.
@MBrownstein89
Amed Rosario through the years:
K%:
2017: 28.8
2018: 20.1
2019: 18.9
Hard Hit %:
2017: 25.0
2018: 32.1
2019: 39.1
Avg. exit velocity:
2017: 84.3
2018: 87.3
2019: 89.2
xwOBA:
2017: .245
2018: .290
2019: .320
Need to hope all the IF'ers pan out to the point where maybe 1 of them shifts to the OF competently the way McNeil was able to. But yeah, the state of OF'ers in the system makes the Kelenic trade that much more insane.
Also was doing some digging on the Dodgers situation v. mets. SNY apparently has a net profit (not gross) of 150 million according to one of the NY times articles that came out. Dodgers TV deal amounts to 280 million per year over 25 years. Now that timespan I am sure accounts for appreciation of the contract so I would suspect it is probably closer to 180-200 at this point. What is interesting about the Time Warner deal is that it called for the creation of a dodgers network that would be owned by the Dodgers with Time Warner but where Time warner took all of the risk (meaning that 280 average was guaranteed). This is relevant because apparently if you own your TV network, you only have to make FMV approximation of the deal available for revenue sharing due to the fact there is risk and fluctuation with TV stations. At the time other franchises were chirping that they didnt really own the network since they were not taking any risk on. In the dodgers case that risk was significant because most local cable providers did not pick up the station.
All of that is a fancy way of saying the SNY value (of which 65 is owned by Wilpons) is significant. 150 profit x going market rate of 7x for Ebita (in my industry that seems to be going rate) is over a billion dollar valuation.
Which again is why after letting it sink in a little $2.6B from Cohen for just the Mets with no SNY and a 5-year period for the Wipons to loot the store seemed preposterous and leads me to think he was not sincere in his attempt to buy the team.
Which again is why after letting it sink in a little $2.6B from Cohen for just the Mets with no SNY and a 5-year period for the Wipons to loot the store seemed preposterous and leads me to think he was not sincere in his attempt to buy the team.
But then how do the Wilpons look if they sell the Mets (again without SNY) for FAR less than 2.6 billion? Don't they come off looking like utter morons?
Which again is why after letting it sink in a little $2.6B from Cohen for just the Mets with no SNY and a 5-year period for the Wipons to loot the store seemed preposterous and leads me to think he was not sincere in his attempt to buy the team.
PJ,
The closest we can come to an actual valuation is the knowledge that the Wilpons paid X for 12% of the team last year (buying back shares) and at the time the value sans SNY was 1.5 billion so your number looks about right.
Quote:
or one of the sites available by googling it has all the franchises broken out into parts and estimated the value of the Mets franchise (no SNY, no ballpark which I don't even think the Mets own anyway) at under $1B and SNY at a little over $1B.
Which again is why after letting it sink in a little $2.6B from Cohen for just the Mets with no SNY and a 5-year period for the Wipons to loot the store seemed preposterous and leads me to think he was not sincere in his attempt to buy the team.
But then how do the Wilpons look if they sell the Mets (again without SNY) for FAR less than 2.6 billion? Don't they come off looking like utter morons?
they look no worse. They always look bad.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I wouldn't be shocked if the whole thing was a charade and Cohen was in on it and it was orchestrated to try and flush a new buyer out of bushes with slightly better terms (no 5 year transition), but otherwise similar shitty terms to the original deal that Cohen was never going to agree with.
nothing about this sounds plausible.
@athletelogos
·
43m
Happy Valentines Day #Mets fans. #LGM @nymvalentines
Was it this?
Link - ( New Window )
- Brodie comes off very poorly here. He was upset with Wheeler saying he wasn't surprised the Mets didn't really pursue him
@NYPost_Mets
Brodie Van Wagenen said he was “surprised” and “disappointed” with Zack Wheeler’s comments yesterday, after the Mets “helped him parlay two good half-seasons over the last five into $118 million.”
Yet... when Wheeler signed with the Phillies
"the value for what we thought the investment (was) didn't line up. The projections that we had for Zack (Wheeler), both short-term and long-term, didn't quite match up to the market he was able to enjoy."
So YOU say you think they overpaid and he's not allowed to say what he said? lol good lord thin skin
Cohen declined to comment on the notion that he is still actively monitoring the situation, but one source close to the $13 billion financier made it clear that he would not be involved with the Mets auction and “refuses to be used as a stalking horse” in the process.
Neither Rodriguez nor his representative, Ron Berkowitz, could be reached for comment.