A Few More Words on Wilpon with The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin

by Matthew Artus on May 25, 2011 3:00 PM EDT in Interviews

After allowing the initial shock to subside from Jeffrey Toobin's article in this week's edition of The New Yorker regarding the Wilpons and the collateral damage from the Madoff scandal, I found myself asking a lot of questions.

I wasn't necessarily asking questions like, "When will we trade Jose Reyes?" or "Did Fred Wilpon's comments hurt Carlos Beltran's trade value?" I found myself asking about Toobin's interest in the Wilpons and his approach.

So, I went to the source. Toobin, a lawyer that doubles as a legal analyst for CNN and regular contributor for The New Yorker, agreed to a brief email interview to address whether the Mets knew what was coming with his article, his thoughts on the merits of the Madoff trustees' lawsuit, and his personal reaction as a Mets fan to Fred Wilpon's player appraisals.

It won't talk anyone down from any ledges nor end the calls for a Wilpon banishment. Hopefully, it provides you with a bit more perspective on the situation as we sort through the fallout.

Matthew Artus: How has the reaction been to your article thus far? Have you received any reaction from the persons cited in your article?

Jeffrey Toobin: There certainly has been an intense reaction in the news media - traditional and web. I have not heard from any of the people mentioned.

MA: Did the Wilpons or the Mets have an opportunity to review the content before the article's publication this week?

JT: The article went through the customary fact-checking process. A fact-checker called and spoke to everyone quoted in the piece.

MA: What brought you to choose Bernie Madoff and the Wilpons as your subjects?

JT: It's a natural subject for The New Yorker - a major legal and financial crisis at one of the home baseball teams.

MA: You summarize Fred Wilpon's defense against the Madoff trustees lawsuit by saying he "must prove that he was a dupe rather than a crook." So, what would you conclude - dupe or crook?

JT: The evidence I saw pointed strongly toward dupe.

MA: Given the significant monies being sought in the lawsuit, you don't appear to give Irving Picard's case much weight. Does he have much of a case? What do you believe are Picard's motives in pursuing the case against the Wilpons?

JT: I don't have access to all the evidence, but the evidence I've seen favors Wilpon's position. I can't speculate about personal motives on Picard's point, but he obviously wants to obtain as much money as possible for Madoff's victims.

MA: A Sports Illustrated article this week cites Fred Wilpon as stating that the Mets could lose as much as $70 million this year. From your experience, what did you observe regarding the present state of the Wilpons' finances?

JT: The Mets are in a significant short-term bind. They are paying high salaries, including to several players who are no longer on the team, and attendance is declining. But the long-term prognosis for the team is good - as illustrated by the high value of the franchise.

MA: In your opinion, will Fred Wilpon be forced to sell the Mets?

JT: Not if he can resolve Picard's lawsuit on favorable terms.

MA: You disclosed your affinity for the Mets in your article. As a Mets fan, what was your reaction to Fred Wilpon's appraisals of his players and team as he made them?

JT: I thought Wilpon's assessments showed that he is a savvy and realistic evaluator of the talent on his team.

MA: Did Fred Wilpon's appraisals come as answers to your questions, or were they more like spontaneous utterances?

JT: It was part of a conversation that went on during the game.

------

Thanks beaucoup to Jeffrey Toobin for taking time from his busy schedule for this exchange. You can also listen to a great interview Toobin gave on the Brian Lehrer Show by visiting the WNYC website.

Tweet Comment 55 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Jeffrey Toobin is a brilliant writer and legal mind

He apparently knows very little about baseball. There are many, many ways to describe Fred Wilpon’s baseball acumen. (I’m partial to non-existent.) Savvy is not one of them.

by Bieser's Balk on May 25, 2011 3:08 PM EDT reply actions

Agreed wholeheartedly

Exceptional writer. Clueless as far as Mets fans go. I wonder how often he calls the FAN…

formerly known around these parts as nycbroncosfan, and now found at http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/

by Douglas A. Lee on May 25, 2011 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Agreed

Good writer. Very good writer. Not a superstar writer.
Shitty evaluator of baseball talent.

Squeezed to Song and Bendtner and Song and Nasri oh lovely lovely lovely!
-Peter Drury, the one time his commentating has ever been acceptable.

by Aidan Gibson on May 25, 2011 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 8 recs

Okay, that one deserves a green screen.

by Curtis3331 on May 25, 2011 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't think the analyses

coming from a fan, say, are that far off, even if they’re not aritight. Is Beltran what he once was? Of course not — he can’t move. But was it a bad contract? No. Is David Wright a “superstar”? Well what the heck does “superstar” mean? Hard to refute when you’re using a term like that. Is he as productive as Derek Jeter? Sure. Is he Albert Pujols? No. Is he “very, very good”? Well, yeah. the way most people would read the whole statement, I think he’s saying Wright can’t be the centerpiece of the lineup of a championship team. Debatable, but not the way his 2009 and ’10 went.

Lastly, is Jose Reyes going to get Carl Crawford money given his hamstring history? Maybe, maybe not. He certainly didn’t say Carl Crawford was worth the money in the first place (I think.) It’s a predicition about market value more than a criticism of Reyes.

So, while I can take issue with what he said, and it certainly does NOT indicate a special “savvy”, it was something many, many Met fans might have said, especially that night. I think what stung people was the realization that Fred probably isn’t interested in resigning Reyes. In truth, I think he will if Sandy makes the argument and decides it’s a good deal.

Of course, as a disclaimer, I think what he said was absolutely moronic because he’s the owner and was talking to the press.

by tmu on May 25, 2011 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs

Yeah, I have plenty of smart friends who would have said similar things.

It’s a pretty tiny group that really pays close attention to the proper measurement of achievement.

by SuperT on May 25, 2011 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions

I think if we're condemning people for failing to use, the proper, evidence-based measure of the term "superstar"

we’re probably going too far. The issue is totally and completely that he was the owner, and owners shouldn’t shit on their players in the press, which is monumentally dumb. Apart from the issue of whether Beltran has earned his money (admittedly, that’s a big one, and kind of frightening coming from a guy who has to sign off on contracts), the people saying Fred wasn’t too far off are probably right.

by tmu on May 25, 2011 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions

There you go with your strawmanning.

Sure, in Wright’s case, the issue is that he didn’t bite his damn tongue. Although, the standard in the press right now seems to be if you’re not Pujols, you’re not a superstar. Not an entirely defensible standard, I think we can agree.

But Reyes – aside from what he said being nasty, as Reyes has never made demands of any sort in public (and if he has in private, well, that’s what agents are paid to do) – in the capitalist marketplace, a guy who’s older than him and less valuable got that money, so there you go. Value is determined by the marketplace. And the popular storyline about Reyes is injury, but there’s a really good argument to be made that he wouldn’t have missed half the games he missed if the organization hadn’t so terribly mismanaged his injuries. (Hey, let’s bat him from the other side! Yeah, that’ll work!)

So – yes, the narrative becomes that, and you wouldn’t expect the average Joe, even one who excels in his own field, to pay close attention to the counter-argument. But this is why popular storylines are so often so fallible. If I know you, you’re all over that kind of thing in other areas.

by SuperT on May 25, 2011 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions

just saying

right now jose bautista is the biggest superstar in baseball

I LIKE IKE!

by astromets on May 25, 2011 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Calling a player a superstar

or not comes down to semantics, given that there is no standard as to who qualifies as one. But the argument could be sanely made that Wright has been one for a period of his career and may still be one. It may be an optimistic point of view but you would expect the owner to err on the side of optimism publicly when talking about his players. Its just good business. That has been my problem with all of this. I don’t care if Wilpon privately thinks that Wright sucks or Reyes doesn’t deserve Crawford money- but it is not good business strategy to voice those opinions publicly. Even if these comments have no effect on the team over the long term they make me question the competency of Wilpon as an owner. Publicly discussing the worth of a pending free agent seems very foolish to me

by MatthewM11 on May 25, 2011 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Yeah, I think that's fair

by Bieser's Balk on May 25, 2011 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Is David Wright a superstar now, after the past two seasons and his start to the season this year, probably not.

But during his tenure as a Met, how many players in the league have out performed him?

Hint: Not many

by Evan_S on May 25, 2011 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions

As far as a player being a superstar is hard to explain but I know it when I see it.

by Putnan Prince on May 25, 2011 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Wilpon's comments about Wright, Reyes and Beltran

My initial reaction to Wilpon’s quotes about his players was that he got sloppy letting his emotions get the best of him while in the company of a journalist. It was poor game played at the nadir of Met’s season so far. I felt as if he kind of forgot that he was on the record, and that maybe those comments were three of many about his players. That Toobin cherry-picked the three most controversial statements made during the course of a game to include in his article. Obviously a good journalist will weed through all his material from an interview to find the most relevent and/or controversial quotes to strengthen his article. Not that I think that Toobin was out to damn Wilpon but “Wright is not a star” is going to be included over similar quotes about Murphy or Thole. After reading this interview with Toobin however I am less inclined to cut Wilpon slack after reading “A fact-checker called and spoke to everyone quoted in the piece.” Were those quotes about Reyes/Wright/Beltran read back to him before the piece went to print? If so I really have to wonder what Wilpon was thinking and what his motivations were for saying those things.

by MatthewM11 on May 25, 2011 3:22 PM EDT reply actions

Exactly

I had the exact same reaction, i had heard about the fact-checking aspect of it yesterday at some point. After I heard that he had a chance to retract these statements, any chance of downplaying how stupid he was went out the window.

by Dep on May 25, 2011 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Forgive my ignorance regarding the fact checking process

How does it work? Did he have the chance to say that the statements do not accurately reflect how he feels, and ask that they be taken out of the article? Or did the process simply provide him an opportunity to contest that he actually made the statements?

by Shomov on May 25, 2011 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions

I am wondering the same thing

Obviously if he had the opportunity to remove the quotes and didn’t that is pretty baffling. My sense is that Toobin wanted to give Wilpon a fair shake and the purpose of the article wasn’t to shit on Reyes, Wright and Beltran so I am inclined to believe that if Wilpon pressed the issue Toobin would have removed the inflammatory quotes. That is just my guess though.

by MatthewM11 on May 25, 2011 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions

a fact-checker's job is to call and confirm that you said what's on record.

You can’t say you changed your mind, you don’t want that in the article. Your only recourse is to say you didn’t say it, which I expect means it then gets kicked up to somebody more important, who determines what sort of evidence there is. Because it’s common convention nowadays, and the quotes were verbatim, I assume there’s a tape.

But he can’t consider the fact-checking process a second chance to re-think things. If he said it, the journalist can use it. He would have to successfully dispute the accuracy of what he said, in order to get it removed during fact-checking.

by SuperT on May 25, 2011 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Thanks for clarifying that

I had no idea how that worked.

by MatthewM11 on May 25, 2011 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Toobin and Bobby V were just on ESPN talking about this

Toobin comes across as a fanboy who was charmed by the access Wilpon gave him. It sounded how I imagine Steve Popper/David Lennon talk about Jeff Francoeur.

by Bieser's Balk on May 25, 2011 3:28 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs

It sounded how I imagine Steve Popper/David Lennon talk about Jeff Francoeur.

Recced!

Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps To our website Walk
around A look at Maybe you’ll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth You’ll find our price is more suitable for you.

by Coolpapabell on May 25, 2011 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions

.

The Mets are in a significant short-term bind. They are paying high salaries, including to several players who are no longer on the team, and attendance is declining. But the long-term prognosis for the team is good – as illustrated by the high value of the franchise.

One day, this team is going to kill me.

by fxcarden on May 25, 2011 3:49 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs

so you are saying

we need to root for Picard to get as much money as possible, so that Fred is forced to sell.

This may be the hardest but most important thing we have to do as a fanbase – we have to prove that Fred Wilpon is not a moron. The crook part should be obvious, he has been stealing money from Mets fans about 20/25 years he owned the team.

I LIKE IKE!

by astromets on May 25, 2011 3:49 PM EDT reply actions

The New York Picards are my new favorite team

______________________________________________________________
$100 to CARE per No-No and $1 per Superstar David Wright Homer. #blamewilponz!

by ScottfromPeekskill on May 25, 2011 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions

The nye Picards are my favorite squadron

In lobby for: Jaime Cevallos, Zack Lutz, orange unis and Rickroll as the 7th inning song.
The Unwritten Rules of AA

by Michkin on May 25, 2011 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions

So...

If attendance is declining, the Mets are in a cash crunch where they can’t afford their players and will have to greatly scale payroll back next year….

Then how is the value of the franchise still high?

It seems like circuitous logic to me. The Mets are in good long-term shape because the value of the franchise is high. Why is the value of the franchise high? Because the Mets are in good long term shape.

by hunterfan on May 25, 2011 3:59 PM EDT reply actions

No, because they are one of two professional baseball franchises

in the commercial capital of the United States with a newish stadium (Fred’s prime achievement, regardless of the stupidity of “Mo’s Zone.”)

by tmu on May 25, 2011 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions

(Major League, that is)

unless the Staten Island Yankees and Brooklyn Cyclones are fielding volunteers.

by tmu on May 25, 2011 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions

If you combine the Mets with the ⅔ of SNY that Sterling owns, it is very profitable right now

If all of the Mets were to be sold, it is likely that the stake in SNY would be part of the sale.

__________________________________________________
"He who gets the best players usually wins" - Bobby Bowden

by Russ on May 25, 2011 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions

A lot of people say that

And maybe I’m too dim-witted to understand, but…

If just having a new stadium, and being in New York aren’t enough to turn a profit now, why is there some sort of guarantee that they do so in the future?

by hunterfan on May 25, 2011 4:07 PM EDT reply actions

Phase 1, build new stadium in New York

Phase 2, ?
Phase 3, Profit

TerryStopBunting#54
TerryStopBunting#54

by Ownbey4Mex on May 25, 2011 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions

.

Phase 2, don’t have a shitty team

I LIKE IKE!

by astromets on May 25, 2011 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs

Phase 2: Hire SM Sandy and give him 4 years to do whatever he wants with the same payroll.

In lobby for: Jaime Cevallos, Zack Lutz, orange unis and Rickroll as the 7th inning song.
The Unwritten Rules of AA

by Michkin on May 25, 2011 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions

ah the SM - the savvy manager

I LIKE IKE!

by astromets on May 25, 2011 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah right, if that's what you want to believe, that's fine too.

In lobby for: Jaime Cevallos, Zack Lutz, orange unis and Rickroll as the 7th inning song.
The Unwritten Rules of AA

by Michkin on May 25, 2011 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions

I think

in addition to tmu’s point about the stadium & real estate, Toobin might also be factoring in SNY when he considers the Mets value as high. If I’m not mistaken, the Mets draw decent ratings & SNY has the rights to the Big East & UConn sports, which is a huge plus. Also, I think Forbes ranked them 3rd even with the Madoff guillotine hanging over them. Along with the new owner that will provide financial flexibility & a GM that will more than likely have the team in a positive direction soon, I could understand why Toobin thinks they’re highly valuable. And truth be told, the on-the-field product isn’t as bad as Fred & others think.

What's that about?

by Brian. on May 25, 2011 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Any new owner has the option of bringing in his own front office

So the only way Wilpon idiocy damages the value of the franchise is by (1) the contracts (liabilities) already on the table (2) the talent pipeline, and (3) the reputation of the team in the fanbase.

Unless you’re the Clippers (and maybe even if you’re the Clippers) new ownership immediately improves (3). (1) and (3) are short term, and, with regard to (1), something the new stadium and massive number of potential fans mitigates.

by tmu on May 25, 2011 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Any baseball team can be shitty and not profit

but if you’re in NY, with the newish stadium, there’s a pretty solid guarantee that IF you can build a winning team, you will make good money. The physical plant and fanbase are virtually all that separate teams. There’s a “history” aspect, but this team ain’t the Texas Rangers. They do have a legacy, even if the recent years have seen a number of foibles.

by tmu on May 25, 2011 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions

There is no guarantee but

It’s like having close to 50% of the entire NY baseball fan base in potential demand. Even more if you can field a better team and draw bandwagon fans from the Yankees. That translates into guaranteed ticket sales, food and merchandise, and TV revenues from advertising Based on those fans eyeballs watching….All you need is some smart baseball people, a goal of winning, and some semblance of a functional operation on and off the field.
Add in an owner/players union model that favors big market teams who can spend more on players, drafts, trainers, doctors, etc and you can see the inherent value.

How the he’ll do you screw this up? That’s another story but it starts with poor strategic vision, poor line management and GM tunnel vision in my opinion….

by nynjmetsfan on May 25, 2011 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Also

I found it interesting that in the SI piece, Fred is saying they think F! will slot in for Beltran next year. Veddy Intedestink. I can’t say I expect similar RF production next year.

by tmu on May 25, 2011 4:40 PM EDT reply actions