In regards to recent stories about possible disagreements in management about the future of Oliver Perez, Luis Castillo and second base, Newsday’s David Lennon said on his blog today:
“Nothing changes with the Mets. Even with an overhaul of the front office, and a new manager, the team already is displaying the same indecision and chain-of-command issues that plagued the Omar Minaya/Jerry Manuel regime.”
Seriously… how exactly is any one group supposed to reach an easy, definitive conclusion when the parts in question are Luis Hernandez, Luis Castillo, Daniel Murphy, Brad Emaus and Justin Turner? It’s not like there is a clear-cut, obvious move here. I can’t blame them for struggling to make a decision – not that a decision is necessary right now, considering there are still two weeks until Opening Day.
Nevertheless, what Lennon says might be true. I don’t know. The thing is, I am not sure it’s fair to frame this type of ‘indecision’ as ‘the same’ as what transpired before, nor is it fair to suggest it is exclusive to the Mets. I mean, other teams (hell, most teams) likely also deal with similar discussions in the front office, but since they have just one or two people reporting on the team, and a fan base that probably doesn’t care about the blow-by-blow, we end up never hearing about it. Meanwhile, the Mets can have up to 10 beat reporters asking constant questions at any one time, all working to scoop the other on ‘news’ that will eventually be formally announced by the team any way. Have the Mets been slow to reach conclusions in the past? Yes. Has it cost them in some way, shape or form? Probably. But, not every debate is a fight, and not every discussion is a soap opera. Sometimes, it’s just the boring process before reaching an impossbile conclusion. By the way, (and this is obvious), every decision is preceded by indecision, otherwise there would be no decision to make.
Lastly, why is it bad to disagree? When did that become a crime? I’d love to know which team of front office executives wake up every morning, all on the same page, without ever debating or discussing the issue. How is that even realistic? Also, what if they do all agree, but it’s the wrong choice? Then what? Is it better to smile and quickly agree on a bad plan, then disagree, but eventually get to the right plan?