The Mets and Madoff: “Bernie was part of the business plan for the Mets”

46 Comments

Fred Wilpon has insisted since 2008 that the Bernie Madoff mess had little impact on the Mets’ baseball operations.  Even since last week, when it was announced that he would have to sell part of the team due to the Madoff losses, the sense has been that they are exclusively personal losses and that since the team is the Wilpons’ largest asset it was logical that he turn to the team for his capital needs.

There’s an article in today’s New York Times, however, which tells a far different story: Bernie Madoff and his investments were deeply involved in the Mets, and the Mets operations were highly dependent on Bernie Madoff:

When the Mets negotiated their larger contracts with star players — complex deals with signing bonuses and performance incentives — they sometimes adopted the strategy of placing deferred money owed the players with Mr. Madoff’s investment firm. They would have to pay the player, but the owners of the club would be able to make money for themselves in the meantime. There never seemed to be much doubt about that, according to several people with knowledge of the arrangements.

“Bernie was part of the business plan for the Mets,” a former employee of the club said … interviews with current and former associates of Mr. Wilpon and Mr. Katz, as well as former employees of the club, former employees of Mr. Madoff and others, make it clear that the relationship was substantial and that the role Mr. Madoff played in the financial life of the ball club and the Wilpon and Katz families was pervasive.

The more damning part of the article, however, involves the way that the Wilpons would steer friends and even Mets employees to Madoff investments.  Indeed, former Mets GM Frank Cashen says that his deferred compensation package after leaving the Mets was invested with Madoff.  He was paid before the bottom fell out, but he says that Wilpon and Madoff worked “in unison” he says that Wilpon and his partner Saul Katz worked “in unison” to push Mets employees to invest in Madoff securities. That famous Bobby Bonilla deferred money deal was also invested with Madoff.  Madoff also reportedly got many of his investors via introductions from Fred Wilpon, who the bankruptcy trustee suing him alleged knew or should have known that Madoff was a scam artist.

If what the many sources of this article say is true, the Wilpons are more than the victims they’ve made themselves out to be.  They were an important part of Madoff’s operation, whether they themselves knew the nature of the operation or whether they simply placed stupid blind faith in their close friend.

And there is no question that, by virtue of placing team-related investments with Madoff, the financial prospects of the Mets — and not just the Wilpons — was deeply harmed as a result.

Oh good, it’s “Yasiel Puig is a showboat” season

Getty Images
6 Comments

With the Los Angeles Dodgers punching their ticket to the World Series, Yasiel Puig is now going to be the subject of commentary by people who tend not to care about Yasiel Puig until it’s useful for them to write outraged columns or go on talk radio rants about baseball deportment.

We got a brief teaser of this last night when, after scoring the Dodgers’ ninth run on a Logan Forsythe double, TBS analyst Ron Darling criticized Puig for his “shenanigans” and “rubbing it in.” Never mind that his third base coach was waving him home and that, if he didn’t run hard, he was just as likely to be criticized for dogging it. In other news, baseball teams don’t stop trying in the fourth inning of baseball games, nor should they.

That was just an appetizer, though. The first real course of the “Puig is a problem” feast we’re likely to be served over the next week and a half comes from Phil Mushnick of the New York Post, who wrote it even before the Dodgers won Game 5 last night:

If you were raised to love baseball and to recognize the smart, winning kind from everything less, the Dodgers’ Yasiel Puig is insufferable. As the sport is diminished by professionals who disregard the basic act of running to first base as a matter of style, Puig, an incurable home-plate poser, often makes turning doubles and triples into singles appear effortless . . . In the postseason, Puig continues to behave as if he’s in the Home Run Derby. He even seems to relish his high-risk flamboyant foolishness despite frequent backfires.

This may as well be a fill in the blanks column from 2013 or 2014, when “Puig is a flashy showboater who costs his team more than he gives it” columns were all the rage. It ignores the fact that Puig, commonly dinged for being lazy, worked his butt off in 2017, particularly on defense, to the point where he has a strong case for a Gold Glove this year. It also ignores his .455/.538/.727 line in the NLDS sweep of the Diamondbacks and his .389/.500/.611 line against the Cubs in the NLCS. In the regular season he set career highs for games, homers, RBI, stolen bases and almost set a career high for walks despite having seventy fewer plate appearances than he did back in 2013 when he walked 67 times. He’s not the MVP candidate some thought he might be, but he’s a fantastic player who has been a key part of the Dodgers winning their first pennant in 29 years.

But the dings on Puig from the likes of Mushnick have rarely been about production. They’ve simply been about style and the manner in which he’s carried himself. To the extent those issues were legitimate points of criticism — particularly his tardiness, his relationships with his teammates and his at times questionable dedication — they have primarily been in-house concerns for the Dodgers, not the casual fan like Mushnick. On that score the Dodgers have dealt with Puig and, by all accounts, Puig has responded pretty well. An occasional lapse to be sure, but nothing which makes him a greater burden than a benefit. I mean, if he was, would be be batting cleanup in a pennant-clinching game?

So if the beef with Puig is not really about baseball, what could Phil Mushnick’s issue with him possible be?

I, for one, have no idea whatsoever.