I saw this post over at Mets Police about the CRG situation and how fans will root for this team this year.
It’s interesting how people sometimes forget that peoples positions, viewpoints, or situations change. The idea that the Mets hiring CRG could mean they might file for bankruptcy and one day have to sell is not mutually exclusive from the Mets statement that they didn’t hire CRG to file for bankruptcy.
The same was true of the original Mets statement that the Madoff situation would not affect the Mets. It’s easy to look back now and accuse them of lying, but the situation probably spiraled beyond what they expected, including the contining poor economy to the reach of the Picard lawsuit. You could say perhaps it was just short-sighted and that they should’ve known it was going to affect the team, but I’m not so sure that’s the case either. If the Mets had not gone into a downward spiral themselves and instead had won games, stayed healthy, and been competitive there is a chance they would’ve remained profitable.
If you want to read into every statement and play conspiracy theory that’s fine. Chances are there are stuff Fred Wilpon is glossing over and stuff he’s flat out ignoring. He could even be lying about certain things. We’re not obligated to know everything about the behind the scenes investments or have access to all financial statements of the team we root for or the owners of that team. No one’s doubting that the current financial situation around the Mets is bad, cost us Jose Reyes, and looks dire. Still, hiring CRG was actually a positive move. It’s not a “Hey look at the embarrassment this team is” move, it’s one aimed at getting the team righted.
CRG was _not_ hired by Sterling or the Wilpons, and the negative revenue situation does not go away with a new owner. In the same breath people are criticizing the Mets for spending wildly to get themselves into this mess, and criticizing the Wilpons for being too broke to spend wildly to try to get the team out of this mess. Some question who would want to be a minority investor in this team, but isn’t it also a valid question to ask who would want to buy a team that they’d have to put tens of millions of dollars into each year? Remember they lost 70 million last year. You can see value in the future of this team as both a minority or majority owner if you look.
You’re welcome to not spend money on the team if you want. The Wilpons won’t see a dime anyway, no matter what you spend, since the team is losing money. Winning solves the Mets problems, losing exacerbates it. Nothing you do will change that. If you can give up the enjoyment derived from going to see a game, that’s fine. Just remember you’re also withdrawing your support from Ike Davis. David Wright will notice when he hits a walk-off grand slam and there are only 12 people cheering. Do you think he’ll remember that when he becomes a free agent at the end of one of the next two seasons? Did Jose Reyes notice how empty it was in front of his supposedly loving fans in September while he was chasing Mets history?
Some people phrase it as “Choose the Mets, not the Wilpons”. To me that means enjoying Mets baseball whenever I can get it and not worrying about who the owner is. I derive no joy from who owns the Mets, or who runs the Mets. All I keep thinking is that if the Wilpons selling is so important to you, you’d almost have to be disappointed if the Mets went on a miracle run and went to the World Series, because the resultant cash flow could cement them as owners. So I’ll stick to hoping for that miracle run and let the financial stuff shake out where it may.