The New York Mets have gotten successively worse, as a baseball team, each season since they started playing in Citi Field back in 2009.
Related: Attendance has gone down in each of those seasons from the previous one, placing an increasing stress on the already strained finances of the team’s ownership group.
Standard and Poor’s expects the trend to continue in 2013.
Nearly a year after the settling of the suit against Fred Wilpon and his partners by the trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims, an independent observer has come to the conclusion that the team’s ability to finance its stadium debt is worse than it was a year ago, just a few months from the scheduled trial date. (A similar conclusion from the trustee led to a settlement of that suit in the first place.)
The ratings service announced late last month that it was lowering the rating on the bonds issued to finance Citi Field to BB, two levels below investment grade, while continuing to rate the outlook as negative. And a deeper look at the supporting reasoning yields a familiar set of conclusions: the ratings agency believes attendance will drop further, on-field play will get worse, and the ownership group’s ability to cover losses is worse than it was a year ago.
Repoz
Posted: January 02, 2013 at 04:59 PM |
38 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
business,
mets
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. KT's Pot Arb Posted: January 02, 2013 at 08:08 PM (#4337357)I don't understand this. Does anyone really think that the Mets are going to go out of business and not make good on the bonds? A baseball team is not a normal business that would just declare bankruptcy and leave it creditors to fight over the carrion; all that would do is force the Wilpons to sell to someone who can make good on the debt.
Dodgers and Rangers have gone into bankruptcy recently. Sure, the creditors got paid, but there's no guarantee that they have to be made whole in these situations. Things may look good for franchise values now, but what about five years on? The risk is the creditors end up having to operate a struggling team in a sport that is in a downward spiral*.
*) Let's blame commissioner Hank Steinbrenner.
Speaking of which, if the team drops payroll to David Wright + 24 guys making the minimum, or close to it, is there a floor for attendance the Mets are nonetheless very, very likely to not go below?
In other words, can the Wilpons reasonably expect to be able to turn enough of a profit, overall, to be able to eventually pay off their debts, even if it takes 20 or 30 years?
(Maybe the better question is simply, can the Wilpons turn a profit with a $40 million payroll?)
I don't understand this. Does anyone really think that the Mets are going to go out of business and not make good on the bonds? A baseball team is not a normal business that would just declare bankruptcy and leave it creditors to fight over the carrion; all that would do is force the Wilpons to sell to someone who can make good on the debt.
From what I can tell, all the bonds still trade above par. So, no, no one expects the bonds not to be good.
Lowest attendance of any major league team in 2012 = 1.560m Tampa
Lowest attendance, Mets, since 1982 = 1.713m
Mets 2012 payroll $94m.
Loss of revenue, if the Mets attendance drops to Tampa levels, and assuming $100*** net per ticket = $68,200,000.
Hmm--this is all just wildass guessing, but if it's anywhere close to the ball park, the Mets don't do well by dropping payroll as much as possible.
edit: "From what I can tell, all the bonds still trade above par. So, no, no one expects the bonds not to be good."
Isn't it more a case that the chances that the bonds won't be good are very, very small, and calculated into the ratings drop and the trading price?
***I have no idea whatsoever if this is correct.
I assuming they were issued at par, pre-Madoff, when the Met's were healthy.
The fact that they're still above par partially reflects an above market interest rate (rates have fallen a lot since then), but shows there's no serious fear of a default.
http://major-league-baseball-franchises.findthedata.org/q/3/2495/What-is-the-average-ticket-price-at-a-New-York-Mets-game
the average ticket price to a 2012 Mets home game was $27.24,
while,
According to ontheblack.com at
http://www.ontheblack.com/2012/08/08/dickeys-impact-on-2012-ticket-prices/
it was $71.79. Hmmm....
Okay--Megdal ball parks one ticket as being worth $100 to the Mets in revenue, and if that's constant, and attendance stays above 1,700,000 with a $40m payroll, that's a net plus for the Wilpons from the gate.
No idea how it might affect TV revenue, which is obviously meaningful, and might completely wreck the point of dropping payroll substantially.
edit: re #8, agreed.
.
Quick Googling suggests that the average Met ticket price is in the $25-30 range.
OK. I think $100 is high, even for gross revenue, and the Mets don't get near 100% of parking and concessions.
He obviously fell apart but I think that was kind of a fluke. I think he could put up a 3.25-3.50 ERA next year.
He could, the question of course is in how many innings. In thinking about it I keep revising down the number I expect.
That's more of a medical discussion, isn't it?
What was the diagnosis? I wasn't following the team very closely at the time. I'm concerned, though. After missing a season, a pitcher over 30 can only pitch 117 innings? He's so good he might have something like the last several years of Bret Saberhagen's career left, which someone once described as "still brilliant, but for ever decreasing moments in time". Santana had back inflammation, ankle problems at one point, and his pitching arm gets stapled to his shoulder before starts, of course.
Seems wrong, somehow, that Santana needs to tack on a whole lot of medicrity to get into the Hall of Fame. I think I'm turning into more of a peak voter as time goes by, as a result of facts like that. How do you see his chances?
As for the rest of the team, I'm assuming there's no chance D'Arnaud breaks camp with the big-league club, and I'm not counting on Johan. I don't think we're looking at any FA surprises, so...
Niese, Harvey, Wheeler (?), Gee, Hefner (?)
Tejada, Murphy, Davis, Wright, Duda, Nieuwenhuis, RFer (Baxter?), Buck
Is Hairston definitely going elsewhere?
I've lost track of the pen. So has the front office, probably. There's Parnell. Francisco is on the second year of a two year deal. It's too soon for this team to put Mejia in the bullpen. Rauch is gone...
re #13--$100 was Howard Megdal's number. If he's still around, maybe he can tell us where he got that figure from.
For the moment,
Santana 139-79 2026 IP 136 OPS+
Schilling 216-146 3261 IP 127 OPS+
1235 innings of 112 OPS+ with a 77-67 W-L record makes their regular season records equal, for whatever that's worth. Johan'll be going into his age 34 season in 2013. 3200 innings isn't a long career for a HOFer, but to get even to that number he'll have to pitch another 7 seasons of 168 innings a season. Given his injury history, that's unlikely. Too bad. I would have guessed he had some chance, but he's not going to be pitching until he's 40.
re 22: Cedeno had his career year at 29, with an OPS+ about 20 points higher than any other season, and that left him 1.6 bWAR below replacement level for his career. And he might be one of the Mets' better options. They actually sent Omar Qunitanilla and his career OPS+ of 50 out for 80 PAs.
9.4, 7.5, 6.9, 6.5, 5.3 - Cone
8.4, 7.3, 6.9, 6.9, 4.7 - Santana
9.0, 7.7, 6.1, 5.6, 5.3 - Appier
7.6, 7.3, 6.7, 6.6, 6.5 - Stieb
9.2, 7.7, 7.5, 6.8, 4.9 - Saberhagen
Strike credit matters a ton for Cone, whose best seasons were 94-95. I did a pure extrapolation to a 162-game season to get strike credit, you can regress his best two seasons a little if you prefer. Appier's third-best, Saberhagen's third-best, and Stieb's fourth-best seasons also involve some strike credit.
It's hard for me to see how Santana is a clearly better peak candidate than these dudes.
I expect him to pitch like it's 2004 through June and then for Sandy Alderson to trade him for Oscar Taveras. I'm only half kidding.
But he's also basically been hurt every year since he came to the Mets (had knee surgery right after the season in 2008), so it would seem realistic to expect something less than a full season.
Santana's 5 year peak was 1168 IP with a 157 ERA+.
Appier's best 5 year stretch was 995 IP with a 146 ERA+ (needs some strike credit, I guess.) Cone was 967 IP with a 142 ERA+. Stieb was 1284 IP with a 144 ERA+.
Santana seems to be a little above those guys, who all have their peaks in the 145 ERA+ range.
In his 5 year peak, Santana lead the league in ERA+ 3 times, (and was second once) WHIP 4 times, strikeouts 3 times (and was second the other 2 years), and IP twice (and was second twice).
His peak doesn't match up to the all time greats of recent past, guys like Pedro or Randy or Maddux, but I think it's better than the guys you mentioned. Not making any comment on his HOF chances though.
meh, less than 200 Pas, Cedeno actually had his career year at age 24 in the PCL
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/sports/2012/09/6536279/wilpons-mets-are-still-shrinking
Cone had 194 wins. Appier had 169. Stieb had 176. Sabes had 167. If Santana gets to 216 wins, he isn't going to need to do better than the peak of those guys, who averaged 177 wins for their careers. A guy with 177 wins needs a near historic peak to make the HOF. A guy with 216 wins doesn't.
In short, I don't think anyone looks at Dave Stieb's career and thinks the reason the BBWAA didn't put him in the Hall was his lack of enough of a peak. It's not his peak that's keeping him out and, if he gets to 216 wins, it shouldn't be his peak that keeps Santana out.
To go back to Schilling, he only got Cy votes in four seasons, over a span of 7 years. He was voted 4th, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd. No voter is going to look at that and decide it's better than Santana's Cy shares, which unlike Schilling's came in consecutive years, and went 7th, 1st, 3rd, 1st, 5th, 3rd.
We may be talking at cross-purposes. I was talking about the actual HOF and its voters, whereas you used pitching WAR, which I doubt most voters use, or are even aware of. I do think Santana's Cy shares peak, coming in consecutive seasons, is much more impressive to voters than one that's spread out. YMMV.
edit: Howard--thanks for the link. So Toobin puts add'l revenue at $125 per fan, Forbes puts it at $23 per fan. Interesting...
But in this case, I think the two points converge. Johan Santana has won 139 games. To win 220 or so, he needs 80 more wins. That requires at least either 5-6 more prime seasons or 3-4 prime seasons and 3-4 solid decline years. We're looking at a minimum of 1200 more innings, probably 1500+ innings. Basically, that's Santana tacking on nearly 75% of his current career, without quite the level of peak. If Santana achieves what "would" put him in, he will also almost certainly have achieved what "should" put him in, and he'll have significantly passed most of the Stieb group on career/prime value.
To contextualize the innings, we're looking at 3200 IP as the minimum reasonable total for a 220-win Santana, and more likely in the range of 3500+. Davids Cone and Stieb lead their group with a little under 2900 IP, and Saberhagen and Appier didn't clear 2600.
Tango's awesome DIPS spreadsheet has Stieb outperforming his teammates by .019 in BABIP, which is roughly equal (using simple linear weights) to 0.45 points of ERA. So, if Stieb had been merely average at hit prevention, he'd have had an ERA+ of 108 or so (compared to actual 122). A moderately above average pitcher, but nothing special.
Stieb goes on the list with Tom Seaver, Sid Fernandez, Andy Messersmith, and Fergie Jenkins of pitchers whose greatness (or goodness) was quite significantly a function of their ability to prevent hits.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main