The Mets’ party line was that Travis d’Arnaud was evaluated over two months, including spring training, and not in 25 disjointed plate appearances. That the willingness to designate the catcher for assignment Sunday demonstrated an emphasis on winning, not squeezing pennies since the franchise might have to eat $3.52 million.

That is one way to look at it.

Here is another: miscalculation at multiple points in handling d’Arnaud and panic four-plus weeks into the season.

An organization better at scapegoating than winning might follow this scenario: Get the attention of the clubhouse by axing a struggling veteran (see ya, d’Arnaud), if the unsatisfactory play persists demote a player perceived as too comfortable (watch your back, Robert Gsellman, if you cannot do better at keeping the team in games when behind or Amed Rosario if those backhand efforts don’t improve), a few more weeks and a coach goes (let’s just say pitching coach Dave Eiland can use the touted starters to pitch better) and finally, if nothing else works, fire the manager (are you renting or did you buy, Mickey Callaway?).

“I certainly hope none of those things will happen,” Brodie Van Wagenen said when I presented that theory a few hours before Sunday’s game.

The Mets had lost seven of 10, including the first two to the Brewers, performing poorly from the mound and defensively. They were not in five-alarm blaze territory, but it did present the first mini-crisis for Van Wagenen. The response was described by Michael Conforto as understandable, but also “a quick trigger.”

So if the Mets were 16-10 rather than 13-13, would Van Wagenen have acted similarly?

“If we were playing the way we are now and we were 16-10, I would still have a commitment to put the right guys in that clubhouse,” Van Wagenen said. “And I think Tomas Nido makes us better.”

He did Sunday. Promoted for defense, Nido contributed a pinch-hit, two-run double in the eighth inning to solidify a 5-2 Mets triumph. That raised the Mets to 14-13, just 1 1/2 games out of first. The three other NL East contenders also are quite flawed, so the division likely won’t get away from the Mets (four teams are separated by three games). And the Mets’ major defect has been their rotation, which is supposed to be their strength. If it is — if Jacob deGrom and Noah Syndergaard pitch to their pedigree — then the Mets have an internal way to upgrade.

And the decision to excise d’Arnaud for Nido was about assisting the pitching. For if d’Arnaud does not hit, his value is negligible. But it raises questions about why d’Arnaud was ever retained.

The Mets intended to get a No. 1 catcher in the offseason. With all the talk about losing out in the last week to the Brewers for Gio Gonzalez (who started Sunday and allowed the Mets two runs in five innings), remember the Mets bid four years at $60 million for Yasmani Grandal, who was seeking higher. So the Mets pivoted to Wilson Ramos for two years at $19 million. Grandal, unable to hit his desired figure, capitulated and signed with Milwaukee for one year at $18.25 million.

Grandal is a better defender than Ramos and is hitting .291 with a .901 OPS. Mets catchers are hitting .209 with one double and one homer, and had the majors’ worst collective Wins Above Replacement. Ramos is viewed as an offense-first catcher with, at best, average defensive skills. The need, therefore, was for a defense-first backup.

D’Arnaud was returning from Tommy John surgery, hadn’t played in a year and was never a strong defender. Yet, the Mets tendered him a contract, stuck with him during a struggling spring when they could have cut him and saved considerable dollars and then a month in when the predictable transpired — a guy used to playing regularly struggling in sporadic usage — the Mets designated d’Arnaud.

Van Wagenen told me: “No regrets whatsoever. … I wasn’t going to let a few dollars shortchange us or him the opportunity to show us what he could do.”

Unless the Mets can trade d’Arnaud in the next few days, those few dollars ($3.52 million) would be all or mostly paid by the Mets, and history has taught us not to believe ownership will act like that did not happen. Van Wagenen, though, said: “I have felt ownership’s support every step of the way since I was hired. This is a baseball move. Ownership is aware of it and continues to be supportive every day to do what we need to do to win games.”

Let’s give a new GM the benefit of the doubt, erasing a mistake with decisive action to stress winning. Now. But if the winning doesn’t follow, will there be more scapegoating?

.

READ MORE – CLICK HERE

www.Red360.com.ve

from Red360.com.ve http://bit.ly/2WcRdwq
via Red360.com.ve