The Wilpons: Not Just Visiting Misery on Mets Fans Anymore

It was the cloud that had hung drearily over the Mets since December 11, 2008.

Since the first details emerged of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, Fred Wilpon and the Mets have been part of the story virtually every step of the way.

The losses Wilpon had presumably suffered in connection with Madoff gave rise to any number of media frenzies.

First there was the idea, widely believed, that the Madoff losses limited the Mets' financial latitude last offseason, preventing them from aggressively pursuing top tier free agents like Mark Teixeira, AJ Burnett, or Derek Lowe.

More recently it was alleged that the Wilpons' losses were so severe that the family would be forced to sell the team, a news item that elicited generally positive reviews from Mets fans.

Heading into another offseason with little hope for organic talent development, the concern had arisen again that the Madoff'd Mets would be unable to play hardball in the bidding for free agents. Mets fans bemoaned their bad luck for months.

Until yesterday.

Yesterday we learned the Wilpons actually profited from their association with Madoff, earning $48 million.

There are two immediate reactions to this story. One is that the club has a moral obligation to return the $48 million that came out of the pocket of every mom, pop, retiree, Holocaust survivor, etc. who invested in the Madoff fraud.

Based on a 60 Minutes segment I saw some time ago, the team probably won't have any choice, but the sooner they give the money back the better. Even if the Wilpons are victims of Madoff, too (and they are from a time value of money perspective), they have no claim to the "earnings" which came to them courtesy of other defenseless people whose lives Bernie ruined.

The other reaction is that the team won't get a free pass this offseason for being passive players on the free agent market. And there's some good and some bad with that.

Certainly, as a fan, my underlying hope is that the Mets are profitable and financially flush, so the fact that they didn't lose $300 million to Madoff is a good thing.

But what does it mean for the team going forward?

I can see it now. These Madoff "winnings", or rather, the lack of Madoff losses, will be noted in almost every article about the Mets' pursuit of free agents this offseason, right alongside the team's disastrous finish in 2009.

The fans, the media, everyone's clamoring for the Mets to make a big splash this offseason. Now they've got the money to do it again. If they stand pat and don't make any big moves, they face months of second guessing and criticism if 2010 goes as poorly as 2009.

As for me, I want the Mets to make a big splash if it's the right big splash.

Carlos Beltran was the right big splash. Mark Teixeira would have been.

Is Matt Holliday, "blue collar superstar", that type of player? Ask yourself, is he really in that same league? He's a better fit for left field than Daniel Murphy, but is he worth the gagillions we'd have to pay him?

I'm not convinced. In fairness I haven't seen enough of him to judge fairly. But based on the numbers he looks like the biggest fish in a small free agent pond, the kind of guy who's good, not great.

Either way, if the Mets weren't under pressure to sign him before, they'll sure as hell be under pressure to sign him now.

After all, we know there's a need and now we know they've got the money.

All thanks to Bernie Madoff.

- A.F.O.M.G.