CORRECTION Mets Sale Baseball

New York Times: the Wilpons were warned that Madoff wasn’t a sound investment


We may have actual legal documents from the case against the Wilpons as early as today, with both sides giving up all pretense of the conciliatory posture that occasioned the documents being sealed in the first place. The gloves are off and the bankruptcy trustee of the Madoff estate and the Wilpons are going at each other full-bore.

And the best thing about it for all of us is that each side has its own media operation: the New York Times is clearly getting passed information and spin from either the trustee himself or from someone sympathetic to his cause. The Daily News, in contrast, is clearly getting passed information and spin from either the Wilpons, their lawyers or from someone sympathetic to their cause. Unless you have a vested interest in the Mets or the Madoff debacle — and condolences to any of you who do — this is all great fun.

Today it’s the New York Times’ turn. Stung, it would seem, by being called lying extortionists by the Wilpons, Team Trustee provides the Times with some information that, if true, undercuts the Wilpons’ assertions that they were just as duped as anyone else by Bernie Madoff.

This comes in the form of a description of a lawsuit filed against the Wilpons last year by the widow of one of their former employees who lost a ton in their Madoff-invested 401K. In it she alleges that  multiple third parties — in one case the investment bank Merrill Lynch — made clear their concerns to Wilpon and his partner Saul Katz about investing with Madoff, yet they continued to invest with Madoff anyway, putting over 90% of the company’s 401K funs in Madoff securities.  The suit also alleges that Madoff had his own money invested with Wilpon’s company, thereby creating a conflict of interest on the part of the Wilpons when it came to deciding where the 401K money should go and how to invest it.

None of which is to say that the Wilpons were actively involved or even technically complicit in Madoff’s fraud. It’s merely to say that, unlike the other duped investors like Wayne Gretzky or Stephen Spielberg or whoever, the Wilpons were under totally different duties, subject to greater information and more closely-related to Madoff than anyone else who has been dragged into this case so far.  That’s what makes them different. That’s also what has them in the mess they’re in now.

I’m sure that the Daily News will counter this somehow. I’m sure a certain commenter who has been showing up in all the Wilpon threads will either echo those talking points or even have them before the Daily News does (uncanny, that!). Which is cool. All is fair in litigation and war. And, to be honest, I like the little back and forth we’ve been having in the comments section. Keeps everyone active and thinking.

But if the counter punch does come, it had better get a tad more refined. Because the more these allegations stack up — from disparate sources, not just the trustee — the less plausible the “Wilpon was totally blindsided by Madoff” line becomes.

And I’m not buying for a second that the Wilpons are in better shape now that settlement talks have broken down, which some are arguing. That’s simply ludicrous.  That is, unless you believe that having allegations splashed all over The Paper of Record that you screwed a widow out of her $300K retirement fund due to your negligence and conflict of interest to be a good thing. And unless you like your legal fees to shoot through the roof and your potential exposure to go from large-but-finite to “who the hell knows?”

Video: Javier Baez hits go-ahead three-run bomb in NLDS Game 4

Javier Baez
AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast
Leave a comment

Cardinals starter John Lackey had a clean first inning in Game 4 of the NLDS on Tuesday afternoon at Wrigley Field, but Anthony Rizzo opened the bottom of the second a shift-beating single to the left side of the infield and then Starlin Castro reached on a fielder’s choice grounder to short. Kyle Schwarber came through with a single and Jason Hammel followed a Miguel Montero strikeout with a two-out, run-scoring liner up the middle.

Enter young shortstop prospect Javier Baez, who’s filling in for the injured Addison Russell in Game 4 as the Cubs try to advance to the NLCS …

Opposite field. Wind-aided, sure, but it probably didn’t need the wind anyway. What a shot.

Chicago leads the visiting Cardinals 4-2 as the sixth inning gets underway at Wrigley.

Juan Uribe not close to being available for the Mets

Juan Uribe
Leave a comment

Mets infielder Juan Uribe has been sidelined since late September with a chest injury and it sounds like he won’t be available for the NLCS if New York advances.

Mets manager Terry Collins told Adam Rubin of ESPN New York that Uribe has yet to resume baseball activities and continues to experience discomfort.

Uribe was a useful late-July pickup for the Mets and hit .253 with 14 homers and a .737 OPS in 119 total games for three different teams this season, but his postseason role would be pretty limited even if he were healthy.

Rob Manfred wants a new, unnecessary rule to protect middle infielders


Commissioner Rob Manfred is at the Cards-Cubs game this afternoon and the sporting press just spoke with him about the fallout from the Chase Utley/Ruben Tejada play from the other night. Not surprising.

Also not surprising? Manfred’s desire to implement a new rule in an effort to prevent such a play from happening again. Or, at the very least, to allow for clear-cut punishment for someone who breaks it:

Which is ridiculous, as we already have Rule 6.05(m) on the books. That rule — which is as clear as Crystal Pepsi — says a baserunner is out when . . .

(m)A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play:

Rule 6.05(m) Comment: The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in leaving the baseline for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play, rather than trying to reach the base. Obviously this is an umpire’s judgment play.

That rule totally and completely covers the Utley-Tejada situation. The umpires were wrong for not enforcing it both then and in the past, but that’s the rule, just as good as any other rule in that book and in no way in need of replacement.

Why not just enforce that rule? What rule would “better protect” infielders than that one? What would do so in a more straightforward a manner? What could baseball possibly add to it which would make plays at second base less confusing rather than more so?

I suspect what Manfred is interested in here is some means to change this from a judgment call to a clear-cut rule. It was that impulse that led to the implementation of clocks for pitchers and batters and innings breaks rather than giving umpires the discretion to enforce existing pace-of-play rules. It was that impulse which led to a tripartite (or is it quadpartite?) means of determining whether a catcher impermissibly blocks the plate or a runner barrels him over rather than simply enforce existing base-blocking rules.

But taking rules out of the subjective realm and into the objective is difficult or downright impossible in many cases, both in law and in baseball. It’s almost totally impossible when intent is an element of the thing, as it is here. It’s likewise the case that, were there a clear and easy bright line to be established in service of a judgment-free rule on this matter, someone may have stumbled upon it once in the past, oh, 150 years. And maybe even tried to implement it. They haven’t, of course. Probably because there was no need, what with Rule 6.05(m) sitting up there all nice and tidy and an army of judgment-armed umpires standing ready to enforce it should they be asked to.

Unfortunately, Major League Baseball has decided that eschewing set rules in favor of new ones is better. Rules about the time batters and pitchers should take. Rules about blocking bases. Rules about how long someone should be suspended for a first time drug offense. Late Selig and Manfred-era Major League Baseball has decided, it seems, that anything 150 years of baseball can do, it can do better. Or at least newer and without the input of people in the judgment-passing business like umpires and arbitrators and the like.

Why can’t baseball send a memo to the umpires and the players over the winter saying the following:

Listen up:

That rule about running into fielders that you all have already agreed to abide by in your respective Collective Bargaining Agreements? We’re serious about it now and WILL be enforcing it. If you break it, players, you’re going to be in trouble. If you refuse to enforce it, umpires, you’re going to be in trouble. Understood? Good.


Bobby M.

If players complain, they complain. They don’t have a say about established rules. If, on the other hand, your process of making new rules is easier than your process of simply enforcing rules you already have, your system is messed up and we should be having a whole other conversation.