Who's gonna be the General Manager?

[Centerfield]

Vic Sage wrote: If you think a fiduciary obligation to a client, who divulged personal and confidential information to you, is a "technicality", then there is nothing left to say. You state that he's clearly going to violate that obligation and then say there's no conflict. I don't know what to do with that.

Multiple people have now explained it in multiple ways. It's a concept so simple that he shouldn't even need the explanation. In the end, it's clear he's going to believe what he wants to believe, no matter what evidence/facts/logic are presented to him. No matter how obvious. He doesn't see a conflict of interest, not because he doesn't understand it, but because he doesn't want to see it.

This has been his MO since he's joined the board. Each time I go down this route, I swear to myself not to engage in this stupid exercise, but here I am again.

Lack of critical thinking indeed.

[Centerfield]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Just because this happened before, doesn't make it right. You dont resolve conflicts of interest by putting the fiduciaries on the honor system and getting them to promise not to abuse their trusts. You eliminate the conflict. That means that the conflicted lawyer has to give up the case. The conflicted judge has to recuse herself. And the conflicted investor has to divest. And I agree with that criticism. But the Wilpons didn't set the rules. And if the Wilpons think (for whatever reason) that Van Wagenen is their best choice, they are acting properly within the current rules. They cannot be blamed for a set of rules that they did not institute. I'm not necessarily blaming the Wilpons. I think they made a sleazy move that wont hurt them but might benefit them if the Mets negotiate with BVW'S ex clients using confidential information gained by BVW acting as a former fiduciary. So good for the owners, I guess. If BVW truly won't involve himself in those specific negotiations, which I doubt and can't even see how that's possible, then I call more incompetence on the Wilpons.

It's a really strange situation they are in no?

Consider this.

Once you consider Van Wagenen as a candidate, you have to hire him. If you don't hire him, you have strained the relationship. Imagine sending Chaim Bloom to negotiate extensions for deGrom and Syndergaard. How is Brodie going to feel about negotiating these deals with the snot-nosed nerd that you hired over him?

But now you've hired Van Wagenen. No one on earth believes that he will truly sit out these negotiations. So you look sleazy. Everyone believes you are going to use inside information against Jake and Noah. Jake and Noah probably believe this. So I guess, you might as well do it.

Unless you do the right thing and really have BVW sit out. In which case everyone thinks your sleazy and used an advantage, when in fact you didn't even use the advantage. This also sucks.

The only way to sway public opinion is to grossly overpay for Jake and Noah. That's the only way Van Wagenen can say he sat out and have any credibility. But then the public will think "Wow, those Wilpons are such suckers. They got swindled by Van Wagenen, who is clearly working in the interests of his former clients."

It's a lose-lose-lose.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: He didn't divest, because he has confidential information and knowledge which can't be un-remembered. (which is a word I like better than forgotten in this context) He just should not have this job.

which may or may not even matter.

He's going to _act_ as if he divested. He's NOT going to act on his fiduciary obligation to do what's best for deGrom. (or you know, Drew Pomeranz) Hence, no conflict.

it's a technicality because it clearly doesn't matter does it? He IS the GM. He's got the job. It's done. We're past that. You can debate how serious a breach it is, but in the end, he's going to do what's best for the Mets with a singular purpose.


You're going on and on about damn semantics. I shouldn't have bothered. I don't see any realistic scenario where this hurts the Mets, it can only help, as sleezy as it is (and it's still light years better than employing Jose Reyes). I guess he could piss off deGrom or someone and totally erode all players confidence in him but as long as he pays guys more/as much as other teams are offering, none of that'll come to pass. Is he gonna low-ball Drew Pomeranz because he secretly knows he wants to be a Met, have that get out, and then no one will ever sign here? seems unlikely. Syndergaard is so far from free agency that this will likely be old news. Even deGrom has two years. But yes, do some smoothing for those guys to make sure they're not pissy about it, which they seem not to be. As it stands, the Mets hired someone they like.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: He didn't divest, because he has confidential information and knowledge which can't be un-remembered. (which is a word I like better than forgotten in this context) He just should not have this job. which may or may not even matter. He's going to _act_ as if he divested. He's NOT going to act on his fiduciary obligation to do what's best for deGrom. (or you know, Drew Pomeranz) Hence, no conflict. it's a technicality because it clearly doesn't matter does it? He IS the GM. He's got the job. It's done. We're past that. You can debate how serious a breach it is, but in the end, he's going to do what's best for the Mets with a singular purpose. You're going on and on about damn semantics. I shouldn't have bothered. I don't see any realistic scenario where this hurts the Mets, it can only help, as sleezy as it is (and it's still light years better than employing Jose Reyes). I guess he could piss off deGrom or someone and totally erode all players confidence in him but as long as he pays guys more/as much as other teams are offering, none of that'll come to pass. Is he gonna low-ball Drew Pomeranz because he secretly knows he wants to be a Met, have that get out, and then no one will ever sign here? seems unlikely. Syndergaard is so far from free agency that this will likely be old news. Even deGrom has two years. But yes, do some smoothing for those guys to make sure they're not pissy about it, which they seem not to be. As it stands, the Mets hired someone they like.

I cant respond to any of this because I truly have no idea what you're talking about. Then there are those days when I wonder if you're some mad genius and this all one big Andy Kaufman inspired put-on.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I cant respond to any of this because I truly have no idea what you're talking about..

yes, this is pretty obvious.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I cant respond to any of this because I truly have no idea what you're talking about.. yes, this is pretty obvious.

It is. But you seem to be proud of this when you really shouldn't.

[Ceetar]

I don't need your stamp of approval on my thoughts. I can't/won't dumb it down for you any further.

[Centerfield]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Then there are those days when I wonder if you're some mad genius and this all one big Andy Kaufman inspired put-on.

Me too. At times it seems too out there to be real. Like he's a caricature instead of a real person.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Centerfield wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Then there are those days when I wonder if you're some mad genius and this all one big Andy Kaufman inspired put-on. Me too. At times it seems too out there to be real. Like he's a caricature instead of a real person.

Yeah. Because as unlikely as that might be, the Andy Kaufman put-on scenario makes more sense than any of the stuff he's written on this topic.

[Guest d'Kong76]

How the Mets could jumpstart the Brodie Van Wagenen era with a few low-cost pickups and some good luck

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Centerfield wrote: 41Forever wrote: I think it makes sense for someone to surround himself with good people. Yeah, and if scouting and development are a weakness for Van Wagenen, then Omar's a good choice. I just don't want him anywhere near the decision process when it comes to making trades etc. I agree that making a change simply for the sake of making a change is not necessary. Not sure how smart or useful Ricco or Ricciardi are. Although wasn't Ricciardi once a GM of Toronto? I guess that experience might be helpful.

Sopunds like JP is headed to Oakland to succeed a guy in their FO headed to the Giants.

Ricciardi is said to have been the most sort of old-school of the new-school guys, he apparently was also a big whisperer to the press. My sense is he was the source of the stories of front-office fear and loathing that accompanied Omar's promotion and the Collins retainer. If so it turned out to be prescient as the Fred d'tat is complete in less than a year, we've replaced a legend of forward-thinking GMs with a player agent, whose "baseball braintrust" is now the guy who was a punching-bag in trades and a complete embarrassment as Mets GM, along with the guy who oversaw the destruction of the once-mighty Phillies.

I get cynical about this but my guess is Fred makes a show of how much better this admin is from the last by loosening the purse strings, maybe even enough to have some success, before Omar ruins it again with injudious spending and horrible trades.

[Edgy MD]

Fred certainly gave Omar 1.0 a chance to outshine the declining Phillips years by opening the purse circa 2005

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

that's exactly what he did. And Phillips too, to an extent.