Mets’ Sale To Steve Cohen Is Biggest in MLB History

After a deal with Steve Cohen to purchase the New York Mets was nixed last year due to issues of continued team control, the Wilpons looked for other suitors only to end up back with the hedge fund billionaire. According to Sportico, the deal values the Mets at $2.42 billion. Cohen will assume 95% ownership of the team, increasing his stake from 8%; the Wilpon family will retain control of the remaining 5%. The transaction will not include the Mets’ regional sports network SNY, a cash cow currently controlled by the Wilpons’ Sterling Equity with a 65% share.

The sale is the largest in MLB history, and given the franchise’s $391 million value at the time of the Wilpons’ purchase in 2002, it’s also the most profitable in terms of total dollar amount. Here are MLB franchise purchase price valuations since 1988 in chronological order:

And here’s profitability compared to the previous valuation:

In terms of annual profits based on the valuation of the franchise when it was bought and sold, the Mets’ deal is a little closer to the middle at around 9%. There’s an argument that being only a little bit above average isn’t great, though being above-average on a debt-laden team in the middle of a pandemic looks to be a pretty positive outcome. Here’s where the Mets’ sale stacks up in terms of its annual increase in value after inflation:

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed. We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member. 1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other. 2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off. 3. Dark mode and Classic mode! 4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them. 5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects. 6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.) 7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only. 8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO. 9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members. 10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features! We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it. In case you didn't read all that, here's the short version. Membership includes:
✓Ad-free browsing
✓Unlimited FanGraphs & RotoGraphs articles
✓Historical & platoon projections
✓Leaderboard & player-page stat heatmaps
✓One-click data exports
✓Customizable player-page dashboards
✓Dark & Classic site modes
✓Weekly Members-only mailbag
✓FanGraphs Walk-Off, your year in review
✓Optional homepage photo removal
✓Gift articles to non-Members
✓Full postseason coverage

Before we get to Cohen, let’s take a look back at the Wilpons and how we got here.

From Initial Investment to Full Control

Fred Wilpon reportedly originally bought 5% of the Mets in 1980 when Doubleday & Co. purchased the team for $21.1 million. Six years later, Nelson Doubleday and Wilpon joined forces to purchase the club at a value of around $80 million. It wasn’t until 16 years after that that Wilpon and his family gained full control of the club, though the purchase was not without controversy. The sale price valuing the club at $391 million was set by an appraiser and initially contested by Doubleday. He argued against the price due to a number of factors ranging from:

Wilpon being “in cahoots” with baseball to force him to accept less-than-market value for his 50 percent of the Mets to baseball “manufacturing phantom operating losses” as part of its labor strategy.

Doubleday relented on his claims after the Wilpons agreed to quadruple the money owed at the time of sale from $28 million to $100 million. In the end, the Wilpons paid just $135 million to purchase the other half of the club from Doubleday due to team debt that was subtracted from the purchase. For about $1 million in 1980, $40 million in 1986, and $135 million in 2002, the Wilpon family gained full control of the Mets.

The Madoff Disaster and Selloff

After the Wilpons gained complete control of the team in 2002, the club was relatively stable for a few years, seeing a run of four straight winning seasons from 2005 to 2008, including a 2006 season where the club was a game away from the World Series. The Mets maintained a top-five payroll and in 2006, they formed the SNY network, with the Wilpons owning 65% of the network and Time Warner Cable and Comcast owning the rest. The Mets agreed to a long-term deal with SNY that would end up vastly underpaying the club as local tv deals would skyrocket in the coming years. With the Wilpons owning 65% of the network and any profits to the network shielded from revenue sharing, that underpayment wasn’t really a negative for the Mets’ owners.

Then, about half a billion dollars the Wilpons thought they had invested with Bernie Madoff vanished. The fallout saw them slash payroll, take out nearly $1 billion in debt against the team and SNY, fight claims that they needed to return previous Madoff profits, eventually receive $65 million in loans from MLB and Bank of America, and prepare to sell a minority interest in the team. After attempting to find investors to buy large stakes of the team, they eventually opted to sell 12 stakes of 4% each for a total of $240 million. Considering inflation, that total wasn’t even an increase from the $391 million valuation from 2002, though it was about an 8% annual increase after inflation from the purchase in 1986. It was also about $100 million more than the Wilpons paid in 2002 to gain full control of the team.

Of the $240 million, $65 million was used to pay down debts to MLB and Bank of America. Some went to a Madoff-related settlement; though the initial 2012 settlement involved a $161 million payout to the Madoff trust (trustee Irving Picard had initially sought as much as $1 billion), the Wilpon family ended up paying considerably less. The settlement was later reduced by around $100 million; the Wilpon family made a $16 million payment in 2016 and annual payments of a little over $10 million beginning in 2017 and ending this year. Lastly, around $110 million of the $240 million sale went to pay down a $430 million debt against the team, a fraction of the total $880 million in loans taken out against the club and SNY. The Wilpons refinanced the loans multiple times, including a $700 million refinancing back in 2015. These loan paybacks, combined with the roughly $40 million per year payments on Citi Field, meant the team was making debt payments matching a small-market team’s payroll.

Status of Ownership Ahead of Sale

Those 12 shares of 4%, based on a $2.42 billion purchase price, are now worth around $97 million each. That’s about a 23% annual rate of return after inflation, and a really good return on that investment. So who benefits? Two of those shares went to Steve Cohen, who will retain them, though one of those might have been purchased later. Two were purchased by Wilpon family members. Four were purchased by SNY, owned by the Wilpons, Charter, and Comcast. (It’s also possible that those purchases were contingent on a five year contract extension through 2030 between the Mets and SNY at terms favorable to SNY.) In any event, three of the four SNY shares were repurchased by the Wilpons from Comcast and Charter for $60 million each a year ago, with the Wilpons presumably retaining the fourth share. One year later, that $180 million investment by the Wilpons is worth $290.4 million. While the other four shares weren’t immediately disclosed, among the investors were Anthony Scaramucci, James McCann of 1-800-Flowers, and Bill Maher.

With 52% of the team remaining after the 2012 selloff, it would appear 8% actually remained with the family, plus another 4% in the form of one of SNY’s share. With 64% of the club already in the family in some way, shape, or form, the added 12% from last year’s purchase meant the Wilpons owned roughly 76% of the club. With 8% owned by Cohen, there’s another 16% with other investors who are not fully disclosed, and may or may not be related to the Wilpon family. With Cohen buying all but 5% of the club, all the other investors appear to be cashing out after they nearly quintupled their investment in just eight years.

The Mets’ Situation with Cohen as Owner

Earlier this year it was reported that the Wilpons had about $350 million in debt associated with the team as well as $450 million associated with SNY. The debt on the Mets will likely lower the amount of cash Cohen needs to come up with in order to complete the transaction, and though Cohen’s net worth, which reportedly approaches $15 billion, means he doesn’t have to take on any more financing to purchase the Mets, he probably could if he needed to.

As the owner of the Mets, Cohen will still need to make debt payments on the team’s loans, as well as the payments for Citi Field. He’ll take over a club with considerable uncertainty regarding 2021 revenue, and he’ll be saddled with a vastly under-market local TV deal for the next decade. That television deal will continue to enrich the Wilpons, as the network provides well over $100 million in profits annually and a majority of that money goes to the soon-to-be-former Mets’ owners. The Wilpons will also be in charge of developing Willets Point, the formerly industrial land around the Mets’ stadium where prior development had stalled. Cohen will also receive a piece of that development, per the Wall Street Journal.

Regarding payroll, the Mets have little in the form of long-term obligations with only Robinson Canó and Jacob deGrom’s contracts running past this season; they combine for $60 million per year through 2023. Even accounting for considerable raises in arbitration for the vast majority of the team, the Mets would need to spend about $50 million in 2021 payroll money to rise to this year’s projected payroll pre-pandemic. Cohen could make a splash in free agency without even raising payroll, which was set to be in the top 10 for the first time since the Madoff scandal. Considering the debt currently facing the Mets, combined with the below-market local TV deal without any ownership stake in SNY, whether to spend is going to be a decision based more on Cohen’s desire to win than cash flows going to the club.

Regarding ownership approval, Andy Martino lists three potential issues with Cohen:

Cohen and the fund he once ran, SAC Capital Advisors, was investigated and fined for insider trading (Cohen himself was never charged). His current fund, Point72 Asset Management, has been accused of fostering a toxic work culture and one of unequal pay for women employees. Also, Cohen’s previous bid for the Mets last year ended up ruffling some feathers around the league.

Martino notes that there were similar issues with Jim Crane when he bought the Astros, but that the large price tag is ultimately likely to win out. That the alternative to Cohen is an Alex Rodriguez-led bid could also be at play in the minds of owners, as could the prospect of putting the Mets on the market for a third time in less than a year. The purchase is a big one for the Wilpons and MLB. It is a big one for Cohen. How big it will be for the fans remains to be seen, but the spending picture for the club should be rosier than it has been in a decade.





Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.

49 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
David Klein
6 years ago

Hopefully Cohen gets approved and quickly fires the grossly incompetent Brodie Van Wagenen, who decimated the farm system especially the pitching depth and is one for ten in trades and like one for ten in free agents signings. The sad thing is the Mets have the same record as the rebuilding Mariners. The day Cohen is hopefully approved will be the first good day of this wretched year., it will be about time that we sit at at the grown ups table. Cohen needs to hire a analytics person maybe someone from the Rays and have a robust analytics staff since the Mets now have like a three person analytics staff. The Mets have a very good core of young position players, but the rotation behind deGrom and Lugo is not in very bad shape and who knows what Syndergaard gives you when he returns next July. I hope Cohen eventually buys Sny and gets rid of whoever allows Sal Licata who has hotter takes than dopes like Kellerman, Smith and Bayless on the air.

mookie28Member since 2016
6 years ago
Reply to  David Klein

The JD Davis trade is probably the only one that you can even think about putting in the win column.

Signings – maybe Justin Wilson ? I have to admit I kind of liked the Ramos signing at the time and he hit last season but he’s been terrible this season.

Cohen not getting SNY as part of the purchase is giving me some agita because there is almost no way to operate without a loss at this point with the debt due on the stadium and other parts of the club. Although shouldn’t the debt due on SNY stay with the Wilpons if they still own the network?

dukewinslowMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  mookie28

800 mil in the network and supposedly more than that on the development around the stadium, which is DEAD.

Nicholas Menapace
6 years ago
Reply to  dukewinslow

honesty i expect that development money went to Wilpon businesses and friends. The Yankees were supposed to donate to local schools and ended up giving most it to private schools on long island.

David Klein
6 years ago
Reply to  mookie28

Yeah Justin Wilson was the one good free agent signing , while the Davis trade looks good though Davis really can’t play defense and if the dh is in play next season too Alonso should be the dh. I liked the Ramos signing too but between his defensive struggles last year and his offensive struggles this year it didn’t work out.

mookie28Member since 2016
6 years ago
Reply to  David Klein

I hope I’m dead wrong but I think we’ve seen the best season Alonso will ever have and the need to get him ABs will diminish.

sogoodlooking
6 years ago
Reply to  mookie28

@mookie28 There’s sound reason to think you’re wrong in this case. Alonso was a monster at all six levels in the minors. In all of low A, A, high A, AA, AAA, and the AFL, he was an incredible hitter. Even when his BABIP was disastrous his first month after moving to AAA he still led his league in HR and RBI. It’s startling that he has been this bad even in just 200 PA.

In addition Alonso has had a BABIP of just .190 since August 12, but w 10 HR and a line that looks good if normalize his luck on balls in play: .212/.288/.492 with a BABIP of .190 is perfectly good, even for a subpar fielder.

SirCharlesKMember since 2025
6 years ago
Reply to  David Klein

The team likely has to choose between Smith and Davis next year and Smith is making a very good case for why it should be him

sogoodlooking
6 years ago
Reply to  SirCharlesK

Smith and Davis are only worth putting in the lineup if they platoon, and if their defensive shortcomings can be mitigated against by the dh or late-inning defensive replacements.

While they remain cheap there’s no reason the Mets need to choose between them. In fact, they’re the kind of players winning teams keep on the bench or platoon. Neither has a reliable history. At their best, neither is more than minimally acceptable as a starter. Neither defends well enough to start. Neither hits well enough against both rhp and lhp to warrant a commitment to start.

mookie28Member since 2016
6 years ago
Reply to  sogoodlooking

Smith is the best fielding 1B on the roster by far and his fielding tool was highly rated as a prospect all along the way. If you mean out in the OF for sure, but he’s good at 1B. The DH dilemma should be between Alonso and Davis but there is no way to know DH is a sure thing. And Alonso is having a poor season, there’s no 2 ways about it.

I came back to this article because of reports that SNY could be part of the Cohen sale now and it really needs to be.

metsindc
6 years ago
Reply to  mookie28

I think time will show that he changed the mlb draft game. He placed a very interesting/compelling bets on upside talent at the expense of org depth two straight years. I think we’ll have a slightly rosier view of him when those drafts bare fruit.

Connor Grey
6 years ago
Reply to  metsindc

If BVW gets fired this offseason, his drafts would have to work out incredibly well for me to have considered his two seasons as GM a success. With that being said, I loved the drafts. Those, the J.D. Davis trade, the Justin Wilson signing, and I guess deGrom’s extension are the only things I can point to confidently and say that they still look good.

sogoodlooking
6 years ago
Reply to  metsindc

All “slightly rosier” means is that Van Wagenen will end up being considered ‘one of the worst’ rather than ‘almost certainly the worst’ GM in the game over his 2 years helming and sabotaging the Mets. He’ll never be considered for a GM job again, and will go down in legend as “Jeff’s golfing buddy” who unaccountably wandered into the job as the Mets GM as the Wilpons’ ownership of the team collapsed.

ihatehatazMember since 2018
6 years ago
Reply to  David Klein

Jeff Wilpon is head of baseball ops for the team. Any and all complaints about GMs should be directed at him since he was ultimately calling the shots. I don’t think BVW has done a particularly good job, but when they get a new president in there I don’t think they have to fire BVW immediately if Cohen prefers some continuity. The GM does was the president tells them to do, for the most part.

tomerafan
6 years ago
Reply to  David Klein

I don’t think anyone knows how good a GM BVW is until he operates under an owner that actually lets him make baseball moves. It will be fascinating to see whether or not he gets that chance.

deGrom’s extension right before his value exploded has saved the Mets a TON of money. If they invest that in the team this offseason under new ownership, we owe BVW a huge thank-you.

If Diaz pitches for the next couple years the way he has for the last 5-6 weeks, the Cano/Diaz trade won’t be as bad as it is perceived. It was still a mistake to trade Kelenic for a closer, but swapping Jay Bruce’s contract for Cano’s was going to come at a cost, and Bruce had no place to play on the field. But man… for as bad as the Mets need a true CF, it really hurts to not have Kelenic. (Yes, I saw what Diaz did last night, but pitching three straight days was folly and at the time he got up to warm up, it was a tie ballgame in a must-win game to stay alive.)

BVW should get a ton of credit for draft strategy and draft implementation. If only Pete Crow-Armstrong were ready to take over CF… BVW’s biggest miss in my opinion was not going after Starling Marte this deadline when the ultimate cost to acquire him was so dang low. Marte could’ve been a great CF bridge on a contract that is about the right length of time.

BVW made a lot of bullpen moves… some work, and some don’t and bullpens are fickle. But I appreciate the fact that he went out and looked for MLB arms, rather than shuttling AAAA bullpen guys up and down. Prior leadership would have counted on the Paul Sewald’s of the world. More than that, though, this unique 2020 year – in small bullpen sample sizes – we don’t know how good the Mets bullpen could be in a normal season. The Betances signing is panned, but what would he do over the course of 80 innings of a real season as he shook off the rust of 2019? How much of Familia’s struggles are sample size luck, when the slider has looked as good as it has coming out of his hand? So hard to say…but BVW at least tried to build a major league ‘pen.

sogoodlooking
6 years ago
Reply to  David Klein

“The Mets have a very good core of young position players…”

—They don’t, though. JD Davis is a dh. If he has to play the field he’s barely worth a spot. Amed Rosario has had just the one good year of four. Dom Smith is barely above replacement level with all of 700 PAs over 4 seasons and no position in the field you actually want him to play. Aside from those three and Alonso, everyone else remotely a starting position player is 28 or older. If you haven’t been paying attention, the Mets are a surprisingly old team, with little in the minors.

They need a rich owner like Cohen. Let’s hope he’s in the mood to spend.

martyvan90Member since 2017
6 years ago
Reply to  David Klein

Up votes on the KSB analysis alone.

dukewinslowMember since 2020
6 years ago

Man the Wilpons were really desperate. Keeping SNY is good for them but a lot of that debt is very bad debt. I’m amazed they weren’t able to discharge more of it in this deal. 2.6 bill is a lot of money but the wilpons have over 1.5 billion in outside liabilities.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  dukewinslow

Maybe you can point me to the right part that explains how much of the debt stays with the Mets, and how much goes with the Wilpons out the door? I feel like this was in the article but I am looking over it again and I can’t find it. I do agree that the treatment of debt is probably the most important part of this deal.

Charles
6 years ago

Amazing to me that despite the headline number of a $2 billion profit, 6.2x increase, this isn’t that much better than investing in an S&P 500 index fund over the same approximate time frame. An investment in the S&P 500 starting 17 years ago on 9/17/02 would have increased 5.3x in total return. This ignores annual profits/losses, of course.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  Charles

To be fair, if you put $300 million in an S&P 500 index some very weird things might start happening in the market. Plus you wouldn’t get to own a baseball team, which seems like it would be nice.

Shalesh
6 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Why would “weird things start happening in the market”? $300M is nothing for an SP500 that was worth $5.3T in 2002. Stay in your lane, coronabro.

tomerafan
6 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Would owning a baseball team actually be nice? I wouldn’t take a 9% investment return to have my name in the papers every single day, people yelling things at me everywhere I go, entire websites devoted to hating me (and some wishing that I die), harassment of my children and grandchildren (which happens to pro sports owners), etc. I’m sure there are plenty of other folks who would say “Sure! Sign me up!” – but not me.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  tomerafan

I don’t know. You don’t have to be Ken Kendrick or Tom Ricketts, who seem to go out of their way to be punching bags. Hal Steinbrenner has largely disappeared since his initial years of ownership. How many people know who owns the Rangers? I don’t think it’s that hard to disappear, especially if you own it as part of a complicated ownership structure like the Dodgers.

Smiling PolitelyMember since 2018
6 years ago
Reply to  Charles

leave it to the Wilpons to reduce the world’s best investment to a merely great one

drummie
6 years ago
Reply to  Charles

Also ignores the ability to create the sport network and how they were able to funnel money through the different entities for debt reasons. None of which happens if you just invest in the S&P.

docgooden85Member since 2018
6 years ago

Cohen is a criminal. He should fit right into the club.

tomerafan
6 years ago

In terms of annual profits based on the valuation of the franchise when it was bought and sold, the Mets’ deal is a little closer to the middle at around 9%.

This assumes that the owners did not put any additional cash into the franchise during that time period. If the owners put additional cash in, you have to add that cash to the purchase price to calculate some form of “profits” on the exit transaction. I don’t know whether the Mets did or didn’t, and the snarky will say that – since it is the Mets – that isn’t possible. However, multiple analyses of NFL franchise transaction “profits” have ignored actual capital calls and additional cash investments into the franchises by the ownership group, meaning that it is at least a possibility.

With the Wilpons owning 65% of the network and any profits to the network shielded from revenue sharing, that underpayment wasn’t really a negative for the Mets’ owners.

Umm… no. Like, absolutely not. There’s so many wacky statements in this whole paragraph from a business perspective that I could FJM it if I had the time. But, no. But suffice it to say, I believe that business owners across industries, not just pro sports ownership, would take a lot of issue with a lot of the assertions in this paragraph as violating the basic common sense of owning a business. I am a sample size of one, to be sure, but I believe it to be true. (Then again, I’ve been accused of being either a Bot, or an MLB plant, or both, so take it for what it’s worth. At least I do know who Fangraph is.)

Even accounting for considerable raises in arbitration for the vast majority of the team, the Mets would need to spend about $50 million in 2021 payroll money to rise to this year’s projected payroll pre-pandemic. Cohen could make a splash in free agency without even raising payroll, which was set to be in the top 10 for the first time since the Madoff scandal.

The number of arb-eligible players is indeed significant, as you noted (“the vast majority of the team.”). I suspect Michael Conforto will get another sizeable raise. So will Edwin Diaz. So will Brandon Nimmo. I think Amed Rosario hits arbitration for the first time. I think Dom Smith, Jeff McNeil and JD Davis might each have another year, but a lot of this young core is going from rookie contracts to arbitration between this offseason and next.

In addition, the Mets need to make decisions on long-term contracts for a handful of players, primarily Conforto, but also whether they lock up guys like McNeil and Smith.

I do hope they make a splash in free agency or in the trade market… they need to replace three starting pitchers (Stroman, Porcello, and Wacha), figure out who Matz really is, and decide what to do with Syndergaard. On the other hand, the Mets have a surplus of super-talented, out of position hitters. Like, a silly amount of excess bats. Watching this team hit is so much fun, watching them run the bases is a nightmare, and watching them pitch is like the zombie apocalypse.

The Mets need a true CF, and a true 3B… but with Conforto locked down in right, what do you do with Nimmo, Jeff McNeil, JD Davis, Dom Smith, and Pete Alonso? On a given day, one of the first three plays LF, and one of the last two plays 1B. (Smith is the better hitter and defender, by far.) If the DH returns, one of the five can DH. But then you have two other starting bats without a home. McNeil has the greatest long-term value of the five in that he takes over 2B as Cano declines… but this is a team with an excess of LF/1B-only bats and glaring needs in CF, 3B and SP plus a need to find a C.

If this were fantasy baseball, the Mets would commit to Smith at 1B, trade Alonso to the AL, get McNeil in the lineup every day and all around the diamond, and play Nimmo in LF on days when McNeil is elsewhere. That just leaves JD Davis to figure out. But this won’t happen in real life because they won’t trade Alonso, and the lineup is too lefty-stacked (Conforto, Smith, McNeil, Nimmo, Cano and Gimenez) to play that way. For a dang good roster of bats at the plate, there’s still a lot of actual roster construction work to be done.

Shalesh
6 years ago
Reply to  tomerafan

Thanks for this rundown. The season’s been so short that we haven’t gotten the usual “Checking in on [Team X}” articles. Wow, I didn’t realize that Dom Smith (1.7 fwar) has been curb-stomping Pete Alonso (0 fwar). I think we need an “What’s wrong with Pete Alonso?” article. Maybe it’s the unusual season and he’ll rebound next year and he’ll start looking again like Fangraphs #20 on the Trade Value list.

Diaz has rebounded nicely to 0.8 fwar. I still don’t think Kelenic (an FV50 at the time of the trade who has improved to an FV55+) was too high a price for 4 years of a top-3 closer in the game. Diaz wasn’t good last year and the Mets aren’t close enough to playoff contention to make an elite reliever worthwhile, so I can see the frustration with this trade.

Seems like they didn’t match up with the DBacks for Marte since JD Davis is probably an overpay and teams seem to be hoarding their prospects in this Covid season.

Trading Alonso, Nimmo, Smith, or Davis for pitching seems to be the right move in the off-season. That might then free up roster spots for a CF (George Springer?) in free agency, though the trade route might be a cheaper way to go.

tomerafan
6 years ago
Reply to  Shalesh

Dom Smith has been a revelation at the plate. Amazing AB’s, and a doubles machine. He’s also been an upgrade defensively over Alonso, which is all-the-more critical when you’re putting JD Davis and Jeff McNeil at 3B with very errant throws. Mets lost 2-3 games where Alonso couldn’t pick bad throws consistently. Blame the throws on the 3B, but it’s still hard to watch when you have Dom on the roster.

Kelenic will always be a too-high price for two reasons. You can get one for way less than the Mets paid, or you can develop one from your own ‘pen. But the Mets had Lugo, who could have and should have been the closer to begin with. The Mets didn’t need Diaz given Lugo’s development in 2018.

But the second reason is the Cano contract. Robbie has been really, really good at the plate this year. And he’s not seemed to grumble an ounce when being removed for a defensive replacement late-in-games. The Mets still owe him $24M a year for 3 more years. Taking on that contract should have reduced the Diaz price further than it did, especially when Diaz was a bit of a luxury. (Lugo, whom I love as a reliever, is not a starting pitcher, no matter how much he wants to be.)

Mets fans would have much rather kept Kelenic, let Lugo close, use some of that Cano money to sign some proven 7th and 8th inning arms, and eat the end of the Bruce deal. Or, push the Diaz price down further than Kelenic given the money owed to Cano ($120M at the time).

But the best news of the Diaz/Kelenic trade is the one that Brodie doesn’t get enough credit for. The Mariners wanted Jeff McNeil before agreeing to Kelenic. Thank goodness, Brodie knew what he had in the Squirrel. Sometimes, the best moves are the ones you don’t make.

mookie28Member since 2016
6 years ago
Reply to  tomerafan

There is so much in this comment that I have tried to explain to people over and over — Cano and Diaz were fine players to acquire if you really wanted them, it was the cost that made no sense. Cano’s contract made him a significantly underwater asset, the prospect cost going back should have been minimal, not a top 25 at the time and now top 10 MLB prospect. I could go on and on, but I won’t.

David Klein
6 years ago
Reply to  tomerafan

If he knew he wouldn’t trade for someone playing McNeil’s natural position

Jimmy DuganMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  tomerafan

*****************
“With the Wilpons owning 65% of the network and any profits to the network shielded from revenue sharing, that underpayment wasn’t really a negative for the Mets’ owners.

Umm… no. Like, absolutely not. There’s so many wacky statements in this whole paragraph from a business perspective that I could FJM it if I had the time. But, no. But suffice it to say, I believe that business owners across industries, not just pro sports ownership, would take a lot of issue with a lot of the assertions in this paragraph as violating the basic common sense of owning a business. I am a sample size of one, to be sure, but I believe it to be true. ”
*******************

I have the time!, But the paragraph as written by Craig is completely correct, so I’ll do yours instead…

*Overly dramatic throat clear*…

“No, you’re wrong. I don’t have time to explain why you’re wrong. I probably don’t need to, it’s so completely obvious that you’re wrong. You may have lots of experience here, you may have researched this artic… comment and provided evidence that you researched it, you may have run it past an editor, you may have gotten feedback from the audience, but you’re wrong. Again, so wrong that I don’t have time to explain why. I have time to write 20 paragraphs over 3 comments telling you that you’re wrong, but not the time to tell you why, again, ITS SO OBVIOUS.

There is no way that intentionally having an RSN underpay the team for broadcast rights when the two entities have the same ownership is a sought after business strategy! Other business people who do business things would be shocked, SHOCKED! at this accusation. There are definitely no other teams that would ever do this. The Yankees and Red Sox definitely don’t do this. The Astros definitely didn’t try, and then screw it up, and then get mad that they couldn’t try again. Business people would NEVER move money around in order to avoid liabilities or expenses! THATS JUST NOT HOW BUSINESS WORKS!

Again, despite the multiple paragraphs of nonsense above, which might lead one to the conclusion that I have more than enough free time to waste on this silly endeavor, I do not. I actually have very important business things to do and business decisions to make. Business decisions for which I rely on common sense. My common sense is businessey, is what I’m saying. So, in the interest of returning to my very important businessey common sensical job, I will summarize…

I’m just a sample size of one
(No, you’re not. You’re a person with an opinion. Opinions aren’t statistics, and yours isn’t equally weighted with Craigs’. It might be, if you put in the work to MAKE AN ARGUMENT, as opposed to just saying, “no, you’re wrong. You’re so wrong you’re wronger than wrong, You’re almost wrong enough to be right again, but you got that wrong too”

To be sure
(Again, no, not to be sure, you are not a dataset, you are a person)

But I believe it to be true.
(Well… you got me there… really no response except, can you please start a youtube channel of just you doing business things with business people? I’d watch…. I have the time.)

tomerafan
6 years ago
Reply to  Jimmy Dugan

There is no way that intentionally having an RSN underpay the team for broadcast rights when the two entities have the same ownership is a sought after business strategy!

You’ve created a strawman. It absolutely can and does happen when the RSN and the team have the same ownership. But that’s not the case at hand. The other piece of the RSN (non-Wilpon) and the other piece of the Mets (non-Wilpon) are owned by different investors, with different interests.

To oversimplify an example, if Baseball Team Zygote is owned 80% by EvilWilpon and 20% by Other Limited Partners… and if RSN is owned 65% by EvilWilpon and 35% by Broadcast Corps… then there are other parties to the deal that are negatively disadvantaged, in a very real way, if the deal isn’t for value. Too many folks focus on the fact that EvilWilpon owns 80% of one organization and 65% of the other (truly, I’m making directional numbers up here, insert actual facts as needed) and says “Eh, they’d be fine with hiding some money from revenue sharing.” But you know who’s not fine, depending on whether the price is overstated or understated? The 20% LP’s in the team or the 35% owners of the RSN.

Said differently…the same ball-busting renowned investor Steve Cohen that is being heralded as the savior… do you think he’d have been silent as an LP if the team has undercharged the RSN as a shell game (not because the value has changed over time) and therefore shortchanged the value of his LP interest, his cash flow, etc? The only kind of individual who could think that way is an individual who has never had to deal with other LP’s as co-investors in a deal.

Jimmy DuganMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  tomerafan

I didn’t create a strawman. There was no argument to reframe. I “FJMed it”. But now that you have presented an actual argument, as opposed to the missive that you would destroy Craigs argument if only you had the time, I will drop the fire joe morgan style snark and actually address what you’re saying here.

I agree, there are other partners involved in these transactions, but given the fact that this shuttling of money does occur, the better question is to ask why, or how, this is possible. To explain, lets lay out a scenario…

You’re Bill Maher or Anthony Scaramucci. You’re pretty rich, but not RICH rich like the guys who actually own the team. You’re in it for some prestige, good tickets, bragging rights, an opportunity to rub elbows with actual rich people, and ohbytheway, a reliably high return on investment. Mets management comes to the board (which you probably don’t even have a seat on) and proposes X$/year for Mets broadcast rights. Lets even assume that you have an interest in the management of this business, and came prepared with your own valuation, which is higher (this definitely didn’t happen, but lets give the benefit of the doubt). You have 2 choices. Option 1, you say and do nothing, the deal goes through, you still stand to make a healthy return on your investment whenever you decide to sell, and you also get to continue getting the prestige of ownership. Option 2, you vote no (if you have a vote), and then threaten a lawsuit when the deal goes through anyway. You piss off the other owners who then activate the clause in the partnership agreement that allows them to force you to sell your stake, you also lose the lawsuit if you even bring it. You make a few percentage points of return, and lose your ownership stake, and the accompanying privileges. You also piss off your rich friends, who are in a position to do you favors.

Bottom line, an 8% LP in a baseball team isn’t actually an owner, its a really expensive season ticket.

For comparison, the Yankees own 26% of YES, the Wilpons own 65% of SportsNet NY. Lack of 100% ownership is no barrier to this kind of action, its about control. And because the partnership agreements are not public information, we’ll never actually have the full picture of why each party signs off on this, all we know is that they do.

The best question of all though… why did renowned ball busting investor Steve Cohen decide this valuation was worth it, despite not including the RSN or the Real Estate?

dukewinslowMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  Jimmy Dugan

Publicly available numbers put the real estate with an 800 million odd debt load AND the wilpons were looking for additional financing, if quietly. RSN has a ton of leverage too, but I don’t understand why Cohen didn’t try to get it, honestly.

tomerafan
6 years ago
Reply to  Jimmy Dugan

A half-turn different of Option 2 is happening right now, as minority LP’s in the Diamondbacks franchise have sued majority owner Ken Kendrick for a whole number of issues, one of which is reportedly a breach of fiduciary obligations to the LPs. I believe that’s part of the issue in the NFL with the Washington TFKATR.

If you check the cases on LP’s across industries alleging fiduciary breach, they often don’t sue while they own the business during the period of time than an alleged breach occurs. They sue when the exit. Which makes all the sense in the world for the reasons you mentioned… they may not want to engage in that fight while they are still co-owners, but they keep score on the side, and then when the time comes to sell their interest (or when a transaction FORCES a sale), they launch the grenades they’ve been holding.

If you think that LP’s are wiling to leave money on the table at an exit because they don’t want to “piss off [their] rich friends, who are in a position to do [them] favors,” then you and I have very different opinions on the motivations of LP’s to ensure they are monetized with a fair price. Friendships can be placed above business deals. Financial shenanigans, not so much.

Bottom line, an 8% LP in a baseball team isn’t actually an owner, its a really expensive season ticket.

I’m not sure if I know what you’re saying or if I’m interpreting it differently than you mean it…but even if that’s a true statement, the LP holding that “season ticket” isn’t going to be thrilled if the GP/control unit is personally enriching themselves and others at the expense of the LP’s best interests.

I don’t own a piece of an MLB team and don’t personally know anyone who does. But I have done work with two professional sports franchises, one in the “major” sport category, and have worked with a number of franchise LP’s. In my experience, being an LP in a franchise is a cash-flow-negative annual experience until the interest is ultimately sold. The team makes cash distributions for taxes that owners pay on the taxable income of their LP interest, but actual cash distributions outside of taxes are scarce. On the other hand, the LP’s are often called upon to make capital contributions – capital calls do indeed exist. Some LP’s invest for civic pride, some invest for fandom, some invest for vanity, and some for a combination of those and other factors… but in every instance I’ve seen, the LP also views it as an investment at the end of the day, not a hobby. We can debate what we wish it were, but in my experience, that’s what it is.

Jimmy DuganMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  Craig Edwards

Hey Craig! Great piece, thanks!

For the record, I don’t think we’re actually discussing this particular deal so much as the general idea that teams move money between the franchise and RSN through manipulation of rights valuations.

If we’re talking about this particular deal, my understanding is that one of the minority owners is selling a 1% stake, but everything else is coming from Sterling Equities and Sports Net NY.

Also, I’m sure there were different LPs when the rights deal was signed, so there is still the issue of “why did they allow it/not fight it”.

Doesn’t change the general point that everyone involved is making lots of money.

But seriously, thank you so much for the whole “business of baseball” series you’ve been doing. Its really great work.

Jimmy DuganMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  tomerafan

The D-Backs situation is the perfect example of an exception to the rule. LPs can choose option 2, but they REALLY have to want it.

To add another complicating factor, if the suit is about the market valuation of the broadcast rights, its going to lose. Derivative suits are incredibly difficult for the plaintiff anyway, but to layer onto that the fact that the only evidence of the actual FMV of a rights deal is comps, and there are, by definition, no comps to make here (there could only have ever been 1 specific seller to one specific buyer, so by definition, the right price was the price paid. And it’s the plaintiffs burden to provide evidence that proves otherwise.)

Then the final cherry is that the SoL on breach of fiduciary duty is ~4 years in most jurisdictions… waiting until you sell your stake to throw your grenades isn’t really an option most of the time. Couple this with the fact that a large lag time accompanied by a retributive suit right after ending the relationship could easily open you up to a counter suit for inappropriate claims and abuse of the legal system, and you just don’t want to go down that rabbit hole. Again, unless you REALLY have to.

There’s a difference between “not being thrilled” and trying to do something about it.

I don’t own any part of a Major League franchise, but I do know people (ok, a person) who does (fantastic seats, would recommend). I’ve also worked on multiple large M&As which required disentangling complicated ownership groups, and I’ve helped to establish a number of GPs, LLPs, LLCs, S-Corps, etc. If we’re comparing resume’s I’d say I also know what I’m talking about here, but I would prefer not to. Pay attention to the arguments. Appeal to authority bias is bad.

tomerafan
6 years ago
Reply to  Jimmy Dugan

I didn’t say, suggest, or imply that you didn’t know what you’re talking about; clearly your opinion is informed. As is mine. I offered my opinions and my experiences, which in no way invalidate or diminish yours. Apologies if something I wrote suggested otherwise.

It’s not productive for either of us to argue nuances of tort law on a baseball stats website, but you know enough about the statute to know that a) the SOL for fiduciary breach is four years from the time the plaintiff knew or should have known of the breach and b) the SOL for constructive fraud is substantially longer, and I think 10 years. But again, I’m not arguing the number of lawsuits over broadcast rights in MLB or other sports is high. I’m saying the threat of litigation keeps some of the shell games you’re suggesting in check when ownership is not identical. I’m stating that the threat of litigation is always present in GP/LP relationships and that the portrait of chummy rich season-ticket-co-holders isn’t my experience and suggesting that I don’t think it is actually common reality. The Diamondbacks situation IS the exception because an actual breach is alleged to have happened, not because LP’s generally don’t sue. If there were more breaches, there would be more lawsuits. And if there were mass amounts of shell games, there would certainly be breaches.

But I have no idea what “pay attention to the arguments” means, and I’m not sure where in this argument I appear to be suffering from authority bias. Certainly, we all have cognitive biases, but I have no idea what you’re referring to here. Experiential bias, maybe. I saw LP’s go to the mats over the cost of a locker room upgrade, and I’m definitely weighing that heavily in terms of whether or not other LP’s would care if they thought they were getting screwed on the broadcast portion of their team ownership.

Jimmy DuganMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  tomerafan

Sorry, I’ll pump the brakes a bit, because I’ve very much enjoyed this back and forth once I stopped the snark machine and actually engaged. You never said or implied that I dont know what I’m talking about. You’ve made cogent and respectful arguments (after the first one).

I just don’t think theres a need for us to tell each other how much we know about this “in real life”. We’re just two sets of anonymous chat boxes. So in general, I think refraining from listing our resumes and just focusing on the discussion at hand is best.

As I see it, we’re basically down to a pretty reasonable space. We both well agree that there are legal frameworks set up to theoretically stop this type of manipulation. You’re arguing that these frameworks are overwhelmingly effective, and virtually nullify these types of shenanigans. I’m arguing that they aren’t/don’t. My primary argument basically comes down to “because overwhelmingly, people don’t want to kill the goose”. Baseball isn’t “most industries”, its a cartel, almost entirely insulated from “normal” economic function.

Also, “waiting to throw your grenades” implies that you knew or should have known… I agree, probably not the place to really get into the weeds of tort law though.

I actually do have to go back to life now, so this will be my last post in this thread for now, but seriously, thanks. I’ve enjoyed the discourse.

“There is nothing in life quite so limited as being a limited partner of George Steinbrenner.” – John McMullen

tomerafan
6 years ago
Reply to  Jimmy Dugan

Ditto.

tomerafan
6 years ago
Reply to  Jimmy Dugan

Shoot, and as to your Cohen question… I wish I knew the full story of the business deal. He’s paying less for the team than he would have last year, but the team lost money – which some said was impossible, even in a pandemic – and 2021 revenues and profitability are uncertain, but on the other hand MLB has sold even more valuable future broadcast rights. An expansion of the postseason adds even more value; if anything, I have a sickening feeling that this purchase at this price means that an expanded postseason is not just Manfred dumble-bumble talk but is actually coming.

More interesting to me is the business context of buying a franchise with as bad (contentious) as I believe the next labor negotiation is going to be. It’s hard to value a business when the labor contract is as unsettled as we’ll have here.

Jimmy DuganMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  tomerafan

Its kinda like searching for black holes. You don’t look for a black hole, you look for the absence of something else that should be there.

You wanna understand the economics of baseball? Don’t look at the known sources of revenue, look at the disparity between the known sources of revenue and the public valuations, then try to figure out what’s missing.

Dammit, and this after JUST saying appeal to authority bias is bad. I’ll leave now.

Thomas Kessler
6 years ago

Does this mean Cohen is going to start paying the Bonilla contract until 2035?

stakhanovitamix
6 years ago
Reply to  Thomas Kessler

Has Liberty Media been cutting checks to Bruce Sutter?

JLanDC
6 years ago

Can anyone tell me if the team’s contract with SNY covers streaming?

Jimmy DuganMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  JLanDC

Streaming is covered by MLBAM in a national deal. The name of the service offering is MLB.tv