Buffalo may boot the Mets

[Dexter Morgan]

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/36530/buffalo-may-boot-mets

Buffalo may boot Mets

November, 14, 2011

By Adam Rubin

The New York Mets, who were booted from Norfolk, Va., after the 2006 season, may be in for the same fate in Buffalo after the 2012 campaign.

The Mets' second two-year player-development agreement with Buffalo expires after the 2012 season. And dissatisfaction with the product the Mets are supplying has the Bisons leaning toward switching affiliations when the current agreement expires, according to industry sources.

The Mets were able to smooth things over with Buffalo and keep them as an affiliate after the original two-year agreement expired because of Terry Collins' hiring to oversee the minors in 2010 and his popularity in Buffalo. Collins managed the Bisons when they were affiliated with the Pirates.

When the Mets were booted from Norfolk, they ended up in New Orleans in the Pacific Coast League for two years -- which was undesirable for travel.

The Mets have produced records of 56-87, 76-68 and 61-82 in three seasons in Buffalo. And word is they're not throwing around a ton of money to minor league free agents this offseason.

[NJTank]

This team seriously needs new owners.

[WJMorris3]

This team seriously needs new owners.

Yeah, the Mets haven't been the same since Bernie Madoff with their money.

[pmoehrin]

This team seriously needs new owners.

Its going to be interesting to see how long Bud Selig lets this go on for before stepping in. So far I think he's given the Wilpons alot of slack. More then he's given Frank McCourt at this point.

Right now everyting about how the Mets have handled their financial situation screams cash cow. Losing big contracts and not replacing them. Cutting non-essential fron office personal. Not spending money on non prospect players for your upper level minor league teams. And its not like were talking about the Kansas City Royals here. This team plays in the largest US market in a brand new ballpark, that also owns its own RSN. They have no excuse as to why they should be unable to spend money.

I think the response especially if Jose Reyes leaves and they bring in another star to replace him is fans are just going to stop coming out to the ballpark. I think most Met fans have already had it, but now you can't event pretend anymore that the Wilpons financial issues are effecting the onfield product.

I also don't think the Mets are going to find a minority investor. The last offer the Mets made was $200 million for 49% control of the team. That is a bargain price but nobody wants it because nobody is willing to trust the Wilpons with that kind of money if they're not going to have any say in the day to day operations of the team or have the ability to buy the team if the Wilpons can no longer afford to run it.

[Mac the Knife]

This team seriously needs new owners.

Its going to be interesting to see how long Bud Selig lets this go on for before stepping in. So far I think he's given the Wilpons alot of slack. More then he's given Frank McCourt at this point.

I also don't think the Mets are going to find a minority investor. The last offer the Mets made was $200 million for 49% control of the team. That is a bargain price but nobody wants it because nobody is willing to trust the Wilpons with that kind of money if they're not going to have any say in the day to day operations of the team or have the ability to buy the team if the Wilpons can no longer afford to run it.

Selig can realistically only deal with one nightmare scenario at a time when it comes to ownership. McCourt was the priority. Now that he's (slowly) fading from the scene, I suspect MLB will focus on the Mets situation as soon as McCourt's officially out of the picture and a sigh of relief has been exhaled.

The Mets situation however is in some respects more tricky than even the Dodgers, at least where the other owners are concerned. A sale of the Dodgers (even in bankruptcy proceedings) and the Mets sets two significant "price benchmarks" when it comes to buying and selling teams. Had it gone through, the $200 for 49% deal for the Mets - ostensibly the 'flagship' franchise of the National League in terms of media markets, would have been disastrous in this respect.

MLB's owners need the Dodgers to sell for an amount in excess of the Red Sox - and then they need the Mets to sell for more than the Dodgers do. If that doesn't occur, neither MLB or its teams can secure the enormous credit facilities they think necessary in the near future, because they can't base loan amounts on higher presumed franchise values.

Edit to add one point: An abnormally large number of minor league affiliation agreements are coming to an end after the 2012 season (somewhere between half and three-fourths of MLB/AAA clubs). Buffalo could switch, but it could be part of a mass reshuffling of affiliations.

[NJTank]

I swear if the mets get stuck in New Orleans again I will scream. Having the AAA down there was a total nightmare.

[Breakwood]

Hey Buffalo, Toronto is looking for a closer AAA team.

[DCDuck]

The fact that the Marlins seem hellbent on making a big splash in free agency this offseason paired with the Nationals surging to third place surely haven't helped the Mets' image.

[NJTank]

Mets baseball its DYNAMIC.

[epper]

Hopefully the Jays can swoop in an grab them. Having their AAA team in Vegas is far from ideal.

One of the top 5 systems in baseball, too.

[Gothamite]

Its going to be interesting to see how long Bud Selig lets this go on for before stepping in. So far I think he's given the Wilpons alot of slack. More then he's given Frank McCourt at this point.

Selig can realistically only deal with one nightmare scenario at a time when it comes to ownership. McCourt was the priority. Now that he's (slowly) fading from the scene, I suspect MLB will focus on the Mets situation as soon as McCourt's officially out of the picture and a sigh of relief has been exhaled.

I hope you're right. I do wish Selig was a more active Commissioner sometimes.

You can't really compare the Dodgers' and Mets' situations, though. The Dodgers couldn't make their on-field payroll. McCourt was playing a financial shell game with the team to fund a lavish personal lifestyle that even Caligula would find excessive.

The Mets' situation is bad, but nowhere near that bad. Personally, I'd like it to be, because I have little more than contempt for the Wilpons at this point (up until yesterday, that is). I want their financial house to fall apart so they're forced to sell the Mets to someone who will give the fans what they deserve.

[NJTank]

Its going to be interesting to see how long Bud Selig lets this go on for before stepping in. So far I think he's given the Wilpons alot of slack. More then he's given Frank McCourt at this point.

Selig can realistically only deal with one nightmare scenario at a time when it comes to ownership. McCourt was the priority. Now that he's (slowly) fading from the scene, I suspect MLB will focus on the Mets situation as soon as McCourt's officially out of the picture and a sigh of relief has been exhaled.

I hope you're right. I do wish Selig was a more active Commissioner sometimes.

You can't really compare the Dodgers' and Mets' situations, though. The Dodgers couldn't make their on-field payroll. McCourt was playing a financial shell game with the team to fund a lavish personal lifestyle that even Caligula would find excessive.

The Mets' situation is bad, but nowhere near that bad. Personally, I'd like it to be, because I have little more than contempt for the Wilpons at this point (up until yesterday, that is). I want their financial house to fall apart so they're forced to sell the Mets to someone who will give the fans what they deserve.

I was hoping Finkle Einhorn could bail the Mets out, but the corrupty Wilpons blew the deal now its more misery. The only reason to go to any game is the 50th Anniversary fun and excitment.

[TBGKon]

Edit to add one point: An abnormally large number of minor league affiliation agreements are coming to an end after the 2012 season (somewhere between half and three-fourths of MLB/AAA clubs). Buffalo could switch, but it could be part of a mass reshuffling of affiliations.

There's really nothing abnormal about a large number of affiliation agreements. Teams sign 2 year deals that expire in even numbered years. It's typical to see extensions with current agreements during the final year of a contract, so for the ones that dont re-up this season, those will be the like free agents.

[RedSox44]

Edit to add one point: An abnormally large number of minor league affiliation agreements are coming to an end after the 2012 season (somewhere between half and three-fourths of MLB/AAA clubs). Buffalo could switch, but it could be part of a mass reshuffling of affiliations.

This could lead to some logo and uniform redesigns, which will be interesting to see.

[DaytonBlue]

I played reel-line-mint with AAA affiliates one time to try to get Toronto out of Vegas, but it seems that someone will be screwed in having an affiliate two or three time zones away. The Mets might want to be careful.

[pmoehrin]

I played reel-line-mint with AAA affiliates one time to try to get Toronto out of Vegas, but it seems that someone will be screwed in having an affiliate two or three time zones away. The Mets might want to be careful.

Vegas is definately the odd team in because every other MLB team out west already has a PCL team very close by.

The closest team to Vegas that doesen't have a nearby AAA affiliate is the Twins. So unless one of the MLB west teams is willing to give up their nearby AAA team and take up Vegas, somebody is always going to wind up getting screwed with the Vegas franchise, which leads me to wonder how much longer they're even going to have a AAA team.

[TBGKon]

I played reel-line-mint with AAA affiliates one time to try to get Toronto out of Vegas, but it seems that someone will be screwed in having an affiliate two or three time zones away. The Mets might want to be careful.

Vegas is definately the odd team in because every other MLB team out west already has a PCL team very close by.

The closest team to Vegas that doesen't have a nearby AAA affiliate is the Twins. So unless one of the MLB west teams is willing to give up their nearby AAA team and take up Vegas, somebody is always going to wind up getting screwed with the Vegas franchise, which leads me to wonder how much longer they're even going to have a AAA team.

Vegas has an outdated ballpark if I remember correctly, which leads to why it's last man standing when it comes to AAA affiliations.

If it were up to me, for all teams that have AAA contracts up in 2012, I would do the following (based on this site.):

Albuquerque = Dodgers Diamondbacks - close proximity, both in southwest US

Buffalo = Mets Blue Jays - geographic sense for both

Colorado Springs = Rockies Astros (Rox Dissatisfied with Sky Sox?) - someone's gotta go there.

Fresno = Giants Dodgers - Dodgers return AAA affiliate to Cali

Indianapolis = stays with Pirates

Iowa = stays with Cubbies

Las Vegas = Blue Jays Rockies- close to Denver, while getting out of Colorado Spgs.

Lehigh Valley = stays with Phillies

Memphis = stays with Cardinals

Nashville = Brewers Mets - this could also be a wild card, since ballpark negotiations stall alot, and Brew Crew might want out.

New Orleans = stays with Marlins

Oklahoma City = Astros Brewers

Pawtucket = stays with Red Sox

Reno = Diamondbacks Giants - new ballpark, close proximity to SanFran

Rochester = stays with Twins

Syracuse = stays with Nationals

[pmoehrin]

I played reel-line-mint with AAA affiliates one time to try to get Toronto out of Vegas, but it seems that someone will be screwed in having an affiliate two or three time zones away. The Mets might want to be careful.

Vegas is definately the odd team in because every other MLB team out west already has a PCL team very close by.

The closest team to Vegas that doesen't have a nearby AAA affiliate is the Twins. So unless one of the MLB west teams is willing to give up their nearby AAA team and take up Vegas, somebody is always going to wind up getting screwed with the Vegas franchise, which leads me to wonder how much longer they're even going to have a AAA team.

Vegas has an outdated ballpark if I remember correctly, which leads to why it's last man standing when it comes to AAA affiliations.

If it were up to me, for all teams that have AAA contracts up in 2012, I would do the following (based on this site.):

Albuquerque = Dodgers Diamondbacks - close proximity, both in southwest US

Buffalo = Mets Blue Jays - geographic sense for both

Colorado Springs = Rockies Astros (Rox Dissatisfied with Sky Sox?) - someone's gotta go there.

Fresno = Giants Dodgers - Dodgers return AAA affiliate to Cali

Indianapolis = stays with Pirates

Iowa = stays with Cubbies

Las Vegas = Blue Jays Rockies- close to Denver, while getting out of Colorado Spgs.

Lehigh Valley = stays with Phillies

Memphis = stays with Cardinals

Nashville = Brewers Mets - this could also be a wild card, since ballpark negotiations stall alot, and Brew Crew might want out.

New Orleans = stays with Marlins

Oklahoma City = Astros Brewers

Pawtucket = stays with Red Sox

Reno = Diamondbacks Giants - new ballpark, close proximity to SanFran

Rochester = stays with Twins

Syracuse = stays with Nationals

I don't see the Dogers or Rockies switching their AAA affiliate. The Dodgers loved played in Albuquerque and the only reason they ever left was because of the ballpark. Now that its been taken care, I don't see why they would ever leave.

I also can't see any team but a Rockies AAA team playing in Colorado Springs.

The team I think that will end up in Vegas will be Washington. Toronto and New York are both going to want that Syracuse spot. I think Toronto is going to take Buffalo if the Mets leave and the Mets will get bumped down to Syracuse.

The only chacnce the Nats have I think is if they try to take Indy from the Pirates, which they might be able to do if Bryce Harper will be playing a good portion in AAA next year, and that will leave Pittsburgh looking at Vegas.

I think what ultimately might wind up happening is the Vegas team is going to move to the International League and take up residency in some place like Lancaster or Richmond (depending on if its the Pirates or Nats getting them) and they're PCL spot will wind up being taken by either Indianapolis or Louisville. I just don't see Vegas lasting much longer, because whoever has that as a AAA team isn't going to be happy.

[BigMac12]

The biggest problem with Las Vegas is I don't think there's a good place for the 51's/Stars/whatever to move to. I'm not sure if there is a minor league ballpark that is AAA-worthy, but my knowledge of ballparks is somewhat shallow.

[pmoehrin]

The biggest problem with Las Vegas is I don't think there's a good place for the 51's/Stars/whatever to move to. I'm not sure if there is a minor league ballpark that is AAA-worthy, but my knowledge of ballparks is somewhat shallow.

It doesen't take nearly the amount of effort to build a AAA ballpark as it does an MLB stadium. There's also alot of AA stadiums out there that I'd say could be easily retrofitted to host a AAA team as either a short or long term solution. The Phillies for instance could easily flip flop their AA and AAA teams if they wanted to. You barely need to make any adjustments to FirstEnergy Stadium in Reading (at most $5 mil for a few more seats) and probably wouldn't need to make any changes to Coca-Cola Park.