HAPPY BOBBY BONILLA DAY!!!

[eligrba4ever]

It''s the 10th annual Bobby Bonilla Day in New York City. After today there will be 15 more BB Days each worth $1.19 million to the now 57-year-old Mets outfielder. That's a lot of mileage from a $5.8 million buyout.

[Chuck]

This story never gets old.

Best contract ever!

[aznhockeyguy]

13 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

This story never gets old.

Best financial decision ever.

FYP.  The contract itself wasn't too terrible, but Bonilla and his agent accepting deferred money at 8% interest was a great decision.  Plus, he had to wait 10+ years before he received his first payment.  A lot of people would take an 8% guaranteed return every year. 

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/27078321/happy-bobby-bonilla-day-why-mets-pay-119m-every-july-1

[happybat4]

Apparently Bruce Sutter had a good setup as well. Instead of 4.8 million he got 1.3 million for 30 years. 

[Dtwncbad]

The mocking of the Mets on this is dumb.

Private equity investors can get 12-15% returns, so the Mets were definitely not stupid to defer at 8%.

The point is nobody can really have a valid opinion as to whether the Mets deferring a financial responsibility at 8% without knowing exactly what the expected return was for other investment opportunities OR knowing the cost of other debt that could be retired instead.

Basically the Mets borrowed from Bonilla at 8%.  Personally, where do I sign up?  I will gladly borrow millions of dollars at 8% and use some leverage to be very, very happy with the outcome.

[Dtwncbad]

14 minutes ago, RBM said:

Fred Wilpon was f*cked over by Bernie Madoff. 

Yes he was.

[Inside Pitch]

5 hours ago, RBM said:

Fred Wilpon was f*cked over by Bernie Madoff. 

That was his story initially.. then it became clear he was one of his boys, got sued, and had to pay back money to those who actually were effed over.   Even better... not satisfied with being a part of just one ponzi scheme he was a part of another with Sam Isreal...   He ended up having to pay back the people he bilked on that one too...   He's a doucher!

This is a pretty solid account of the Madoff/Wilpon/Katz relationship -- https://sportsarefromvenus.com/2019/09/19/the-history-of-bernie-madoffs-ties-to-the-new-york-mets/

 

[ScottT]

Oh, it's old.

If theres any date I want to cancel, it's this one. Followed by February 14th

[yk9001]

7 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

That was his story initially.. then it became clear he was one of his boys, got sued, and had to pay back money to those who actually were effed over.   Even better... not satisfied with being a part of just one ponzi scheme he was a part of another with Sam Isreal...   He ended up having to pay back the people he bilked on that one too...   He's a doucher!

This is a pretty solid account of the Madoff/Wilpon/Katz relationship -- https://sportsarefromvenus.com/2019/09/19/the-history-of-bernie-madoffs-ties-to-the-new-york-mets/

 

This article makes no sense on many levels (besides being full of typos).

Since Madoff and Wilpon’s financial success can largely be attributed to the relationship they had with each other, it’s fair to assume that if Wilpon lost access to Madoff’s business, then Wilpon’s business would have been negatively impacted from a financial perspective. What does that even mean? Author makes it sound like Madoff was the only path to financial success.  Shit, if you just put your money in an S&P 500 mutual fund, you'd have success beyond your wildest dreams.

 

 

The idea that Madoff impacted the finances behind free agent acquisitions was corroborated by The New York Times, which stated, “When the Mets negotiated their larger contracts with star players, they sometimes adopted the strategy of placing deferred money owed the players with Mr. Madoff’s investment firm. They would have to pay the player, but the owners of the club would be able to make money for themselves in the meantime.” 

This proves that expensive free agents were only acquired by the Mets because Wilpon could make money off the contract by deferring money with Madoff’s investment firm. Madoff had a direct impact on the amount of money the Mets had to sign players, which had a direct impact on the quality of the players signed, which had a direct impact on the quality of the overall roster. We can assume that if Wilpon did not have the option to defer expensive player’s contracts and make money by paying it off later, he would not have offered expensive contracts to players. 

Again, what?  Nothing is "proven" by this.The NY Mets are the largest media market in the country.  To assume that the "only" way they could sign FAs was to defer, and invest with Madoff, is asinine. The franchise itself is a money maker.  Or they could have picked any investment adivsor by putting names on a dartboard, and throwing a dart, and made money.

[yk9001]

12 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

The mocking of the Mets on this is dumb.

Private equity investors can get 12-15% returns, so the Mets were definitely not stupid to defer at 8%.

The point is nobody can really have a valid opinion as to whether the Mets deferring a financial responsibility at 8% without knowing exactly what the expected return was for other investment opportunities OR knowing the cost of other debt that could be retired instead.

Basically the Mets borrowed from Bonilla at 8%.  Personally, where do I sign up?  I will gladly borrow millions of dollars at 8% and use some leverage to be very, very happy with the outcome.

They are dumb because they chose to invest with the one of the crookedest guys in town.

It is always dumb to invest in ponzi schemes.  There were repeated and credible warnings from way back when. The Wilpons probably knew.  As Ace Rothstein said in Casino, Listen, if you didn't know you were being scammed you're too fuckin' dumb to keep this job, if you did know, you were in on it.

[Inside Pitch]

19 minutes ago, yk9001 said:

This article makes no sense on many levels (besides being full of typos).

Since Madoff and Wilpon’s financial success can largely be attributed to the relationship they had with each other, it’s fair to assume that if Wilpon lost access to Madoff’s business, then Wilpon’s business would have been negatively impacted from a financial perspective. What does that even mean? Author makes it sound like Madoff was the only path to financial success.  Shit, if you just put your money in an S&P 500 mutual fund, you'd have success beyond your wildest dreams.

 

 

The idea that Madoff impacted the finances behind free agent acquisitions was corroborated by The New York Times, which stated, “When the Mets negotiated their larger contracts with star players, they sometimes adopted the strategy of placing deferred money owed the players with Mr. Madoff’s investment firm. They would have to pay the player, but the owners of the club would be able to make money for themselves in the meantime.” 

This proves that expensive free agents were only acquired by the Mets because Wilpon could make money off the contract by deferring money with Madoff’s investment firm. Madoff had a direct impact on the amount of money the Mets had to sign players, which had a direct impact on the quality of the players signed, which had a direct impact on the quality of the overall roster. We can assume that if Wilpon did not have the option to defer expensive player’s contracts and make money by paying it off later, he would not have offered expensive contracts to players. 

Again, what?  Nothing is "proven" by this.The NY Mets are the largest media market in the country.  To assume that the "only" way they could sign FAs was to defer, and invest with Madoff, is asinine. The franchise itself is a money maker.  Or they could have picked any investment adivsor by putting names on a dartboard, and throwing a dart, and made money.

Meh,   you're free to look for other sources if you'd like.  There have been other similar accounts all pretty much circle around to the same sort of narrative, namely that the Wilpons knew what was up and weren't really victims.   When push comes to shove and the legalities were done the Wilpons we asked to pony up for their involvement with both Madoff and Israel.   

 

 

[eligrba]

14 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

The mocking of the Mets on this is dumb.

Private equity investors can get 12-15% returns, so the Mets were definitely not stupid to defer at 8%.

The point is nobody can really have a valid opinion as to whether the Mets deferring a financial responsibility at 8% without knowing exactly what the expected return was for other investment opportunities OR knowing the cost of other debt that could be retired instead.

Basically the Mets borrowed from Bonilla at 8%.  Personally, where do I sign up?  I will gladly borrow millions of dollars at 8% and use some leverage to be very, very happy with the outcome.

You would borrow that much money at 8%? 

[yk9001]

2 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

There have been other similar accounts all pretty much circle around to the same sort of narrative, namely that the Wilpons knew what was up and weren't really victims. 

I got lost in the clouds in that article.

If the narrative is the Wilpons knew what was up, then I am in agreement.

[Taylor]

9 hours ago, ScottT said:

Oh, it's old.

If theres any date I want to cancel, it's this one. Followed by February 14th

Stay tuned next week when ScottT cancels In-n-Out and puppies.

[ScottT]

1 hour ago, Theo Huxtable said:

Stay tuned next week when ScottT cancels In-n-Out and puppies.

More like Miguel's Jr and cats.

[Dtwncbad]

4 hours ago, yk9001 said:

They are dumb because they chose to invest with the one of the crookedest guys in town.

It is always dumb to invest in ponzi schemes.  There were repeated and credible warnings from way back when. The Wilpons probably knew.  As Ace Rothstein said in Casino, Listen, if you didn't know you were being scammed you're too fuckin' dumb to keep this job, if you did know, you were in on it.

I never made any comment about the Mets dealings with Madhoff. That guy was a crook. 

I only said it is silly to mock the Mets for the terms they did with Bonilla.  The actual financial math on that deal from the Mets side (and Bonilla’s side) is absolutely reasonable.

My input is basically it is mathematically ignorant or lazy to even recognize “Bobby Bonilla Day” because it suggests the Mets made a stupid reckless deal with Bonilla.  It’s a square deal math wise.

Thats all.

[Dtwncbad]

2 hours ago, eligrba said:

You would borrow that much money at 8%? 

Absolutely.  You can buy commercial properties right now that give you a 12% return plus property appreciation.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Dtwncbad

[eligrba]

2 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Absolutely.  You can buy commercial properties right now that give you a 12% return plus property appreciation.

I guess I do not understand finance.  Acquiring an asset like commercial property is not what the Mets did, they leveraged a liability.  I think your example involves using the 5.9 million liability to purchase a commercial property which will provide a return of 12.5% each year, in addition to the appreciation to be eventually used to pay for Bobby's contract.

Am I close?

Edited July 2, 2020 by eligrba

[Inside Pitch]

5 hours ago, yk9001 said:

I got lost in the clouds in that article.

If the narrative is the Wilpons knew what was up, then I am in agreement.

Yeah I re-read it and they tried to play a little too much Hardy Boys with their connections and the sort.   It would have just been easier for them to stick to the facts as they played out in court.   Nobody was ever made to pay restitution to victims without being guilty or considered complicit.  

[Lazorko Saves]

On 7/1/2020 at 5:22 PM, Dtwncbad said:

Private equity investors can get 12-15% returns, so the Mets were definitely not stupid to defer at 8%.

Yep.  It only looks foolish because in this case they got -100% return (or thereabouts, they did recover some small amount of capital) because they gave the money to Bernie Madoff.

We're not a big hedge fund (nor a Ponzi scheme) but we've been able to do 20% annualized the last three years for our clients in our S&P 500 value strategy.  It's not that hard to beat 8% over the long term if the capital amount is relatively small.  (It gets hard to beat the overall market when the dollar amount gets into the 100m+, or billions.  Just look at all the hedge funds that become victims of their own success once they get above 9 figures in AUM.)

Plus the 10 year deferral actually reduces down that 8% rate significantly as well.  The initial 10 years of no payments means a 0% rate for those years.

If Wilpon hadn't invested the money with Madoff, the stories would all be about how Wilpon got the better end of the deal.

[Dtwncbad]

On 7/2/2020 at 12:53 PM, eligrba said:

I guess I do not understand finance.  Acquiring an asset like commercial property is not what the Mets did, they leveraged a liability.  I think your example involves using the 5.9 million liability to purchase a commercial property which will provide a return of 12.5% each year, in addition to the appreciation to be eventually used to pay for Bobby's contract.

Am I close?

Yes

[tdawg87]

This is the most boring thread ever.

[Stradling]

53 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

This is the most boring thread ever.

Is it as boring as the exact same one from last year?

 

[Stradling]

Or two years ago:

 

[Stradling]

Three: