[Rain Man]

I just ran the numbers, and it turns out that it's really easy to see the logic.

If investment returns are 8 percent per year from 2000 through 2035, and assuming that the Mets and Bonilla both get that same return, then it's exactly breakeven, down to the dollar.

So the Mets were betting that they could get greater than an 8 percent return over 35 years. For a large organization, that's probably a good bet. If they got less than 8 percent, then it was a bad deal for them. For his part, Bonilla gets a guaranteed 8 percent return, which is a great deal for him.

The Mets are the ones who took the risk here, but if they could beat that 8 percent return then they win. Of course, Madoff becomes a factor here so that would imply that they did not beat an 8 percent return.

But overall, it's a deal that seems ridiculous, but I can see why the Mets would do it. I think Bonilla got a better deal because he got a good return with no risk, though.