[ad_1]
Brodie Van Wagenen, General Manager of Mets, discussed the desperate situation of his team today with the media. Deesha Thosar of the New York Daily News and Mike Puma of the New York Post were among those who collected the best quotes. Christina De Nicola of MLB.com approached the issue from a slightly different angle, focusing on the forward-looking aspects of Van Wagenen's cat.
The Mets being practically buried in the standings, Van Wagenen faced the music of his pre-season bravado "come-us-seek" vis-à-vis the other contenders at the NL East. As he said today, "they came to get us".
This can give a satisfying conclusion to a memorable quote, even though it also conceals some of the real causes of the Mets' failures by suggesting that their rivals simply defeated it. Van Wagenen's claim that the club was the division's favorite was not simply a skeptical statement; apparently, this was also a determining factor in the team's decision making during its first off-season.
Van Wagenen accepted the blame for the way things went, although he did so in a curious way, deviating even as he absorbed guilt. "I would not blame players, coaches, scouts or anyone," he says, "but I can tell you that this team we built had a unified vision and that it did not work, so I also accept my responsibilities as such. "Similarly, he apparently seemed to downplay the role of building an entire list when he said he was not able to" do anything. " enough little things as a team ".
At the end of the day, the decision-makers in charge of building the alignment must accept their mistakes. There are quite often factors that help explain unexpected struggles, of course. But it's hard to argue that unplanned or unfortunate events have actually triggered the Queens disaster this season – Jed Lowrie aside, at least. (The veteran, often injured, has not played yet.It is said that he should now be injured in the calf, with no apparent purpose for return.)
The only major mistake, so far, has been Van Wagenen's signature – the exchange that brought the Edwin Diaz and highly compensated veteran Robinson Cano. This decision seemed very debatable at the time, although it would almost certainly offer short-term benefits. Instead, both players struggled forcefully, and rather unexpectedly, even as key business prospects thrived.
"You have to look where we are and where we are now," said Van Wagenen to the question of whether he had ever doubted the deal. He noted that Diaz and Cano still have the rest of the season to "change the story".
Again, this explanation seems to be missing the target. The real problem is not (simply) the struggles that ensue for these players. It is the series of conceptual failures that led to the transaction in the first place. First, the deal was tough on the Mets from a value perspective, given the huge amount of Cano contract absorbed by the team. Even from there, it was legitimately doubtful that the Mets have enough staff to justify this type of expense for players as clearly winners as now (close and aging second-tier players). Beyond all this, there may have been better ways to use the team's resources – a dedicated search of Manny Machado, increased supply to Yasmani Grandaletc. – even in a scenario in which the team lobbied for restraint.
The interest here is not to blame. Van Wagenen had a clearly difficult task as an agent turned GM, who was trying (with limited resources) to modify a list that had experienced difficulties in the previous season. This was the strategic direction of the property – even though the new Director-General mentioned it in his interviews. And it was not ridiculous to try. It was simply that there were obvious risks to the business, especially the way it was followed, and many of the negative scenarios came to fruition – none other than the one that was presented, in which the Mets still face a need to pursue some of the rebuilding or reloading while wearing a series of player assets that portends near-term conflicts.
It was a delicate place. it's now, so much so. Van Wagenen will have to adapt quickly. So where are the Mets going from here?
In particular, Van Wagenen has slowed down expectations regarding expectations. In mid-June, Van Wagenen said the Mets were "exactly where we wanted to be." Now, about a month later? "In the second half of the year, I think our expectations for what we can be are small," he said bluntly. Rather than taking the lead, says the GM, the Mets will be seen as "outsiders" who "will try to prove that people are wrong this year and will certainly try to improve it next year." A leader who said before the season, during his latest conquest of the stove: "This action, rather than our inaction, should show fans that we are saying what we are doing and doing what we say."
Without pretending to an immediate argument, the Mets can make the most of the list they've compiled. "We have to deal, to a certain extent, with our reality as to where we rank," said Van Wagenen. Players of rental – Zack Wheeler, Todd Frazier, Jason Vargas (who still has an option) – clearly seems to be on the block. But the question remains whether the Mets will also "face the reality" in terms of their broader organizational position, which Van Wagenen can not answer alone.
Van Wagenen says the Mets will be "open-minded, … thoughtful and measured" by the deadline, although this characterization obviously does not offer much specific guidance. It was clear that he did not "plan to be in a state of total reconstruction after the dismantling". He also stated that he[s]"The best veterans of the team with future contract control" to be on our list "after the trading deadline – although he has not ruled out starter contracts Jacob deGrom and Noah Syndergaard. The reception desk has been bombarded with phone calls recently, adds Van Wagenen. It will certainly be interesting to see if any of these discussions give rise to creative scenarios in which it is logical that the Mets move some of their best-known players.
If we find a definitive statement about the Mets' short-term approach in Van Wagenen's words today, it probably lies in this passage:
"The reason we put a few chips on the table this year is because we felt like we had a core of launchers from which we could build. … At the present time, at mid-term, we have the feeling that we have a core for the future, maybe even a different core. … We have a core with which we can compete, and we will look at our movements with both victories now or certainly in 2020 [perspectives] and looking beyond that. "
You can probably read this as meaning just about anything you want, but it certainly suggests that Van Wagenen envisions a vision of the future. Perhaps this suggests that club throwers are now ready to be moved … or that they are part of a "different core". If there is a core, one might think that a big effort for 2020 would still make sense … yet Van Wagenen was careful to note that the team needs to "look beyond that" at one point given.
Whatever the precise basic concept – it probably involves Michael Conforto, Pete Alonso, and Jeff McNeil at a minimum – there will be a path that is terribly difficult to navigate. Whether they are pursuing an immediate feud or rebuilding one way or another, the Mets are facing a difficult financial situation by 2020, when they owe about 115 millions of dollars to players (not to mention David Wright) before even recording the increases to Syndergaard, Diaz, Conforto, Steven Matz, Seth Lugo, Brandon Nimmoand some others. For a team that has not yet managed to spend $ 160 million in payroll to open a season, it will be difficult to add enough to cause a turnaround. And with so much already in the books, not a small part of it (Cano, Lowrie, Jeurys Familia, Yoenis Cespedes) largely irremovable, it will also be difficult to engage in a dedicated reconstruction effort.
[ad_2]
Source link