What will your $20 million get you if you buy into the Mets?

19 Comments

As we know, the Wilpons are selling off minority stakes in the New York Mets. They want multiple investors to give them $20 million a pop for a non-controlling interest.

Now, anyone familiar with close corporations knows that having that kind of stake in such a business — especially a family business — is an exercise in powerlessness. You have no say in just about anything. The draw of such an investment is that you’ll either (a) get some good cash flow out of it; or (b) your stake will appreciate nicely. And neither of those two things seem likely any time soon with the Mets.

So why would you invest? Well, Richard Sandomir of the New York Times tells us today. Among your ownership perks:

… the $20 million would include one free trip with the team during the regular season (the Mets would pick the city); one free weekend’s stay at spring training; and a lot of potential lunch dates — with broadcasters and former players. A luncheon with the manager and general manager? Off-season only, the document says. Merchandise? Discounts, but not giveaways.

So if a midweek trip to Houston, an all-expenses paid stay at the Holiday Inn Express in Port St. Lucie, an in-season lunch with Wally Backman, an offseason lunch with Terry Collins and deep discounts on an R.A. Dickey bobblehead all sound enticing to you, by all means, give Fred Wilpon that extra $20 million you have laying around.

Red Sox owner: “spending money helps”

Getty Images
4 Comments

The other day Rob Manfred said, as he and other owners have said often in the past, that there is no correlation between payroll and winning. He said that defensively, in response to criticism of the slow free agent market of the past two offseasons.

As we have noted in the past, Manfred is not being honest about that. While, yes, in any given year there can be wild variation between payroll and win total — the Giants stunk last year, the A’s won 97 games — common sense dictates otherwise. What’s more, a recent study has shown that there is a pretty strong correlation between winning and payroll over time. Yes, you can fluke into a big season with a low payroll — Deadspin compared it to a cold snap occurring during a time of climate change — but if you want that “sustained success” teams claim they want, the best way to ensure it is to spend more money over time.

If you know anything about baseball labor history, though, you know well that the Commissioner and the owners will continue to mischaracterize the dynamics of the business as it suits them. Mostly because — present lefty sportswriters notwithstanding — very few people push back on their narratives. Fans tend to parrot ownership’s line on this stuff and, more often than not, baseball media acts as stenographer for ownership as opposed to critic. That gives owners a far greater ability to shape the narrative about all of this than most institutions.

Which makes this all the more awkward. From David Schoenfield of ESPN:

In apparent contradiction to his own commissioner, Boston Red Sox owner John Henry said Monday that, while there is not a perfect correlation between a bigger payroll and winning, “spending more money helps.”

Which is right. The correlation is not perfect — teams can spend a lot of money on a bad team if given the chance and a low payroll team like the Rays can bullpen their way to 90 wins — but you’re way more likely to win year-in, year-out if you’re spending than if you go cheap all the time and hope for a miracle season.

Which is not to say that Henry is some labor activist owner. He and his fellow front office officials have a long history of backing the league office on just about everything that matters and will no doubt do so with labor matters in the runup to the next CBA negotiation. The owners tend not to have a solidarity problem.

But Henry does seem to draw the line at peddling baloney, which is a shockingly necessary thing when the league and the union’s relationship turns acrimonious.