By David Rubin

1.) With Spring Training mere days away, the LAST thing Mets fans want to read about today is anything linking the words "
Madoff" "
Mets" "
Wilpon's" and "
Minority Partners" together. That being said, quite frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner. There are layers and layers to this story, and many people know far more about it then they'd ever state "on the record." The fact that the Wilpons have been the majority owners of this franchise for the past 30+ years, while developing a new ballpark, television network, etc., while spending hundreds of millions on payroll is a testament to their fortitude, creativity and desire to win. It's also, however, a familiar refrain in today's economy, where businesses try to operate in a fashion similar to the way they've always operated before- except, today, that doesn't work anymore. The companies that have held their ground, and even prospered, are those who have taken advantage of market conditions by recognizing trends prior to their evolution, or have acted quickly to change their operating practices. The Wilpons have to be given credit for the successes they've had, and they have many; however, adaptability is NOT one of the traits they've exhibited when it comes to their ownership structure, and transparency hasn't been a strong-suit, either.
Moving forward, this is less alarming then it would appear upon first read. Bringing in a partner, even with a minority share, is a common practice in nearly every business, and that includes baseball. Remember, after all, that even the Steinbrenners have long been majority, but not SOLE partners in the Yankees. It's about time that the Wilpons acted in similar fashion, late to the game or not...

2.) Living in Los Angeles, I have many Dodger-fan friends. Of course, I received an email earlier today wherein one of these friends was happy to point out this new "financial wrinkle" for the Mets in way too happy a fashion. He said "now you know what it's like to have an owner like the Dodgers do in McCourt, and good luck to you, too!" Well, let's see- last I looked, although both teams have major financial challenges to come through right now, the ownership of the Mets is NOTHING like the ownership of the Dodgers.
Let me count the ways...
...the Mets owners have been in charge for over 30 years, the Dodgers for less than 7...
...the Mets own their own television network, SNY, a thriving business concern...the Dodgers are having to practically beg Fox Television to advance them money against future TV revenues, in essence taking them out of owning their own network for at least the foreseeable future...
...the Mets now play in a brand-new, state-of-the-art ballpark (love it or hate it), while the Dodgers still play in one of the 3 oldest ballparks in the game (although, quite frankly, their stadium doesn't need to be replaced as much as it needs to simply be renovated- a LOT) and while the prices for parking, food, etc. have gone sky-high in SoCal, quite frankly, the stadium is no longer the great place it's long been to take in a game from...
...and, finally, although often spent in the wrong direction, the Mets have invested FAR more in their payroll, often to the tune of $30-$50 million more per season- then the Dodgers have, a substantial amount when you consider the fact that the Dodgers have a much larger audience to draw from, even with the Angels always nipping on their heals.
The two teams are nothing alike, except for the fact that one team has the name that the other team's owner has tried to bring back and dreams about molding his team around, hence the look and feel of the "new" ballpark...(I'm trying hard NOT to be snarky!!) while the other owner wishes he had purchased the Red Sox instead...

3.) The person the Mets have retained to help them in their search to acquire a minority partner is one
Steve Greenberg- son of the legendary (and original) "Hammering Hank" - one
Hank Greenberg. Steve is the former Deputy Commissioner of baseball under Fay Vincent, and is currently an agent and all-around business mogul. He's long been on my list of people I'd love to one day meet, and his dad was the very first baseball player my grand-father ever followed. If you'd like to read more about Greenberg, the son, you can click
here - and to learn more about Hank, check out the book from the photo- or the movie of the same name - it's a great story!!

4.) Regarding the recent rankings of both the Mets Prospects in relation to the rest of baseball, as well as the various "Top 10's" that have come out, I'll have a lot to say about this either this weekend or early next week. However, since this is the "Financial Edition" I wanted to briefly make mention of one simple thing - if the new regime truly wants to emulate organizations like the Red Sox and Rays, they will need to prove it to us by simply doing one thing - going over-slot in this June's draft to grab top-tier talent with all of their lower draft picks, and possibly nab a player in the later rounds that no one expected to be available, either due to a commitment to another sport or to playing in college ball. Mack Ade from
Macks Mets has long preached the fact that the team didn't do a good job of exploring all of their draft options, particularly in not reaching out with both money and creativity in nabbing player's that other orgs, like the Sox, have done. This will be the best draft in quite a few years, according to most experts, and with some top early picks, the hope is that the Mets will use their many resources, not the least of which is the new brain-trust of Paul DePodesta and JP Riccardi, to provide the organization with a lot more top-tier talent. The movie Jerry Maguire made the line famous, but it's appropois all the same-
SHOW ME (US) THE MONEY!!!!!

5.) Last, and not least, I've read a number of articles/posts that have stated that the Mets should have refrained from signing Jason Bay last year, and would have been better served signing Carl Crawford to play left this off-season. There's only one major problem with this thought-process (besides the fact that Omar was desperate to make a move to keep his job and hind-sight being 20-20, Bay's signing would have looked a LOT better had he not both struggled early and had his season cut-short due to a concussion) - the assumption that Crawford would have even WANTED to play in New York!! As we saw with Cliff Lee, players making rarefied money can choose to go where they want to go, and for Crawford, the only destinations he really considered were Southern Cal and Boston as neither of his home-town Texas teams truly got involved in the bidding. Furthermore, in light of the Mets need to take on a minority partner, there's also no guarantee that, if they hadn't signed Bay, that they would have had enough $$ this off-season to even make a play for Crawford. Either way, ruing what we don't have is an exercise in futility; let's focus on what we have, what we will have, and ways to make the team better moving forward, NOT backward!!!