Mets Won't Be Selling to David Einhorn Afterall

When I saw the news that the Mets will not be selling a minority share to David Einhorn I got that something stinks in Denmark feeling.

Einhorn thought he had a $200 million deal with Fred Wilpon and the Mets. He had entered into a agreement that had an exclusivity period but was non-binding. The Mets need cash because they were victimized by (though some say complicit with) Bernie Madoff. It should be noted that the Mets have a pretty cozy relationship with baseball commissioner Bud Selig. At around the same time the Mets were having financial difficulties - the Los Angeles Dodgers were also having a financial meltdown. Frank McCourt, the owner of the Dodgers, doesn't have the sort of cozy relationship with Bud Selig that Fred Wilpon enjoys.

The $200 million infusion from David Einhorn would have stabilized the Mets franchise. One wonders if the existence of this non-consummated deal allowed the Mets to borrow cash to get them over the rough spots (and one wonders if that cash could have come from MLB). The story I linked to say that Mets ownership has "provided additional capital to cover all 2011 losses." Really? Where did this cash magically come from? The Mets ownership clearly did not have the money back when they first entered into the deal with Einhorn.

With Einhorn's cash giving the Mets cover - the commissioner was free to force the hand of the Dodgers by basically having MLB take over the team. Now an offer for the Dodgers for $1.2 billion is leaked. And at the same time the Mets get money from nowhere and decide to unilaterally change the terms of the deal with Einhorn to a point where they know they won't be acceptable. The whole thing reeks.

I could be wrong about this but I still think the situation stinks of tangled webs being weaved out of the commissioners office.

Flotsam and Jetsam

Miscellaneous thoughts and observations.

Really happy about Bruins going to the Stanley Cup but I am a little bit worried that the rest of the sports world will start to hate Boston for our embarrassment of riches this past decade.... The Red Sox brought up outfielder Josh Reddick which makes me wonder if Reddick on display for trade potential? Maybe Mike Cameron is on the block? It would not be unlike the Red Sox to trade a veteran to a place where he could get more playing time... Hah hah - this has to be a metaphor of sorts regarding the state of Unions in the USA. The manufacturer of the union's "Scabby the Rat" balloon is non-union... Omar Vizquel is just 181 hits from 3,000 for his career. I really hope he gets there. Guy is a Hall of Famer... Josh Reddick is wearing number 16 for the Red Sox. That brings to mind another outfielder for the Sox who wore 16 - Rick Miller. It reminds me that Angels owner Gene Autry once told his GM to get him "that outfielder from the Red Sox." The GM thought he meant Rick Miller who was a free agent but Autry actually meant Dwight Evans... Take a few minutes to listen to a really thought provoking talk... Is this the definition of awful? Adam Dunn is ZERO for 33 vs LHP this season with 15 strikeouts... Just a reminder - Bob Dylan's 1st album sold just 5,000 copies. So not only is he a paragon of success - so he's also an inspiration for struggling artists... Deal of the century? According to this article - David Einhorn will get 33% of the Mets for $200 million but he also gets the option to up his stake to 60% for majority ownership of the team. To buy-out that option the Mets would have to give Einhorn back his $200 million but let him keep his 33% ownership stake. Wow - just wow!... Some of these are more than genius. I would seriously think about buying that convertible couch... What would I do for a Klondike Bar? I guess go to a store and pay a buck and a half. That's what I'd do for a Klondike Bar.