Brodie Van Wagenen did a fascinating thing on Thursday afternoon.
During a conference call to explain why he and the Mets owners decided to fire a manager, he instead gave eloquent and convincing testimony as to why Steve Cohen must arrive as soon as possible due to the suffrage of the Mets exterminate ruthless likes of the seated director general.
At the conference call, many of us found it hard to believe what Van Wagenen – and to a lesser extent Jeff Wilpon – told us, which is why some of us asked the question in different ways. Because Van Wagenen seemed to have indicated early on that Carlos Beltran had first been asked by him and the Mets Politburo for details of his involvement in the Houston fiasco.
And … well, that couldn't be right. Right?
Already at the GM meetings in November, when the first real smoke surfaced around the astrological sign of the astro, shortly after Beltran was hired by the Mets, he was peppered with questions from reporters about his 2017 season in Houston. And there have been rumors about the Astros for years.
The Mets – Van Wagenen in particular – had been very careful to talk about how extensive and extensive their interview process had been. Round after round, layer after layer. We were certain that anyone who emerged from the reality show hardships of this process would be checked for an inch of their life.
Surely the Astros question came up in passing, right?
And yet Van Wagenen kept insisting that they hadn't spoken about it at all. This left only two options.
First, he lied, which, because one of the reasons why Beltran was in boiling hot water, seemed pretty absurd for the same reason. This wasn't exactly a call full of upcoming facts, so it would have been just as useful for Van Wagenen to say that he doesn't feel comfortable going into details and leaving it at that. But that's only possible if he actually asked about Houston.
He repeated that he hadn't asked about Houston.
And that means that despite all of the questionable baseball moves he made as a newcomer GM and for which he was rightly roasted, Van Wagenen was on the way to see how badly he is really equipped for this job. Basically, this was his strategy: if I close my eyes and wish everything away, everything will go away.
A Twitter follower named @Robderbs made an excellent comparison on Thursday afternoon. At the key moment of "All the President & # 39; s Men", Woodward and Bernstein refer to the damn great testimony of the jury from Hugh Sloan, a treasurer of the President's reelection committee. Sloan later insists publicly that he never gave this testimony and the story of the reporters is on the verge of breaking apart until he tells them:
He wanted to answer the questions about his boss, H. R. Haldeman. But nobody ever asked him about Haldeman.
That was essentially what happened here. When Van Wagenen himself spoke at the GM meetings on Beltran and the Astros scandal, he insisted: “I have no idea whether something has been done or not [happen], but at the moment I see no reason why this is a Mets situation. "It was Van Wagen's job to understand that this was only as long as it was impossible for Beltran to make a problem of it. We thought all the time that Beltran would have had serious problems if it had been found that he was his Lied to bosses the way he lied to a reporter.
Only the boss never asked the question.
The Mets tried to find a way to save this. Give them credit for not hurrying to see if they can avoid this "mets situation" once and for all. 1, they could have been better prepared for the commissioner's report, which fell on Monday and included a passive-aggressive inclusion of Beltran, the only player mentioned.
Sandy Alderson was not a perfect GM. But you can bet he wouldn't have played it that way. You can bet that he asked the tough questions and provided most of the information. We kept asking Brodie Van Wagenen different versions of the same question because it was impossible to believe that he hadn't done it all himself.
We have honored him too much. You can bet that Steve Cohen took notes wherever he was.