Mar 19, 2012, 11:33 AM EDT
We’ve heard scary numbers regarding the potential liability of the Mets owners in the Madoff mess. The trustee, Irving Picard, was using the B-word at times last year. Recently it was thought that their exposure could be $300 million or more. A couple of weeks ago they were ordered to pay $83 million as part of the case. And today, of course, they settled for $162 million.
But in reality, it’s a lot less than that leaving their pockets.
For starters, this is because that $162 million settlement actually includes the $83 million that they had already been ordered to pay. But the biggest thing working in their favor here is that the $162 million is to be paid out of money the Mets owners may recover in a settlement by virtue of them being victims of Madoff themselves. And they may very well recover a significant amount, as others, closer to Madoff, have put billions into a fund for that purpose.
Heyman reports that Wilpon and Katz may be out a mere $37 million net by the time this is all done. And that even then it will be payable over four years. Which is the price of a good starting second baseman.
Theoretically. I mean, it’s not like the Mets have one of those.
- Christian Vazquez to undergo Tommy John surgery 9
- 2015 Preview: Colorado Rockies 4
- 2015 Preview: Minnesota Twins 18
- 2015 Preview: Philadelphia Phillies 30
- 2015 Preview: Cincinnati Reds 47
- The average Major League Baseball salary this year will be more than $4 million — a record 22
- 2015 Preview: Tampa Bay Rays 21
- The Cubs assign Kris Bryant and Addison Russell to the minors, option Javier Baez as well 70
- Ex-Cardinals outfielder Curt Ford was assaulted in St. Louis and told to “go back to Ferguson” (122)
- David Ortiz: “Nobody in MLB history has been tested for PEDs more than me” (118)
- Rob Manfred says it would be hard to reinstate Pete Rose in a limited way (91)
- The MLBPA releases a statement on Kris Bryant, mentions possible litigation (90)
- Did David Ortiz admit to more than he realized with his Players’ Tribune editorial? (88)