The Knight Thesis

[Edgy MD]

After the 1986 Mets conquered baseball, there was offseason drama as the team moved on from World Series MVP Ray Knight. It was certainly the right move on paper, as they had four options at third queued up behind him, but there was grumbling in the clubhouse that the organization did not respect what he meant to the team chemistry.

I thought at the time that the latter argument was bollox. The four options were all probably ready to be immediately better, and they had miles of baseball ahead of them. I remember a series of tense negotiations where Knight wanted the three years and the team offered one, Knight wanted three years and the team offered two, Knight wanted three years and the team offered two and an option, Knight wanted three years and the team offered two and a vesting option. Knight hung the chemistry and drama of 1986 over the team's head, and Frank Cashen wouldn't bite. Knight moved on in a huff, after a long cold winter, took less than the Mets were offering over two years from Baltimore, and faded quickly, finishing out the contract as an un-productive Tiger.

That is how I remember it. The story has changed a lot over the years, with Knight increasingly claiming the Mets made no good faith offer whatsoever. In the latter-day documentary, Knight claims that Cashen called him the day after the series telling him that he would not be getting an offer at all.

Maybe I have it all wrong. What I also remember, however is every few months over the next two years, when the Mets were going bad, someone on the team would tell the press that what they really need on the team and in the clubhouse was Ray Knight. Usually it was Wally Backman talking, or maybe Keith Hernandez, but what was keeping the team from cruising like they did in 1986 was Ray Knight — his current reign of unproductivity in the American League be damned.

As noted above, I thought it was bollux. But this is not a Ray Knight post. I re-open the Ray Knight case as a precedent in asking ... did the Mets really blow it in not re-signing Jose Iglesias following the 2024 season? As with Ray Knight, it was certainly the right move on paper. He was (highly) unlikely to repeat his productivity of the previous season, but unlike Knight, he was not asking for multiple years.

The 2024 season was dead in the water until they found their character with him at the center of it. But every team has to re-find and re-define themselves each year. Whether or not the absence of José Iglesias had anything to do with it, the 2025 team never found their character, as patiently as I waited for it.

Iglesias' bat never really woke up in 2025 for the Padres, which certainly reinforces the Met choice. It can certainly be argued that he would have had a better season had he been allowed to continue on with his new-found family, but it takes a lot of wishful thinking to get there. What is indisputable is that (1) his replacement, Nick Madrigal, provided zero value, being injured the whole season, and (2) the young infielders he was moved aside to make room for developed less robustly than hoped.

Maybe I am just older and more prone to a sentimental argument, but by the end of 2024, the marketing of the team was built around his stupid OMG! thing, and that sort of brand equity — brand authenticity — along with the internal cultural insinuation that keeps the work organized and everybody rowing in the same direction, is tossed aside at great expense, Igesias' Ordóñezesque 2025 numbers be damned.

Young infielders are coming. You do not want to block them, but if somebody has to fill the utility job on year by year contracts until they come and push him out of the way, why not have a guy with brand equity and internal inculturation? It is a question asked a year to late, but maybe it matters going forward, as the team tosses off other pieces.

Continuity matters. I mean, it doesn't matter as much as a lot of other stuff, but when the question is Jose Iglesias vs. Nick Madrigal, it kinda does.

[MFS62]

With the increasing volume of statistical measures we have to remember that ballplayers are human. Nobody can predict what impact an apparently "minor" change can have. I think it was Dick Stuart who had his uniforms tapered because, "I hit better when I know I look bitchin' out there".

So when you're dealing with the impact a dynamic presence like Iglesias was, you may be right. Letting him go may be the reason his own performance declined as well as spirit in the clubhouse, on the field, in and the stands for the Mets. It is one of those things you can't really prove, but can feel.

Later

[Benjamin Grimm]

I never bought into the Ray Knight thing either, especially since by 1987 the 1986 version of Ray Knight didn't exist anymore, and the 1984 and 1985 versions of him were nothing special either. He was lightning in a bottle in 1986, as Iglesias was in 2024. The Mets' problem in 2025 wasn't the absence of Jose Iglesias; they were totally kicking ass for the first two and a half months of the season. The pitching staff spiraled after Senga's injury and Jose Iglesias couldn't have done anything about that.

I really thought this thread was inspired by Nimmo, not Iglesias.

[Centerfield]

I think what derailed the Mets in both 1987 was the pitching more than losing an infielder. In 87 the pitching was still good, but you had to be great to make the playoffs.

Magical years are tough. It’s hard to recreate magic even if you run back the same exact team. In fact even if you replayed 86 and 2024, you get much different results.

As a fan, I put very little focus on clubhouse chemistry. Not because I don’t think it’s important, but because I have no idea how to measure it. I also tend to think, without evidence, that winning is a big part of a great clubhouse rather than the other way around.

[Edgy MD]

That all may be true. It may be truer than not.

But I also think that, even when the team was winning this season, they had not found their character, and that may or may not have undercut their resilience when adversity struck.

[Edgy MD]

For what it might be worth, I have been bouncing this thread around in my brain since the first half of the season.

[Frayed Knot]

So Puma in the (NY) Post has a headline right up this thread's alley. I'm not sure how the article reads as it's behind the pay-wall for certain NYP sports articles that they installed a year or so back. But, anyway, under an "Exclusive" panel in their SPORTS+ section, a headline reads:

Revealed: Francisco Lindor, Jeff McNeil battled again, and Mets shortstop's chilly rapport with Juan Soto helped doom '25 season

If accurate, both the Lindor/McNeil redux story and the Lindor/Soto tidbit are interesting and previously undisclosed (I don't remember either being even hinted at) on their own.

Whether either/or had anything to do with a dearth of 'chemistry' (often a catch-all cause for losing when all others have been exhausted) which in turn helped to "doom" the season is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

https://nypost.com/2025/11/28/sports/revealed-second-lindor-mcneil-battle-soto-relationship-underscore-mets-issues/

[smg58]

If Knight had stayed, we'd have wound up talking about how Davey waited too long to bench him in favor of Hojo.

A lot of guys just weren't as good the following year. Knight couldn't have stopped Gary and Keith (or himself) from getting older, or Gooden from peaking at 20. And Iglesias couldn't have stopped our pitching staff from collapsing in a bloody heap, or Stearns from making a bunch of deadline deals that did more harm than good.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, I try to make clear that I did not and do not buy The Knight Thesis.

I guess the point is that I am trying to reconcile my rejection of that thesis with my lamenting the Mets not re-signing Iglesias — rejecting that idea, in fact, even as he was still available during spring training, and did not come off the market until nine days after Nick Madrigal was knocked out for the season.

And I found myself lamenting even as Iggy had exactly the sort of season I expected Knight to have in 1987 if the Mets re-signed him.

[whippoorwill]

I was hoping this was about Matt Harvey

[Frayed Knot]

I thought it was about chess.

[whippoorwill]

I kept a journal in 1987 and reading through it recently I had commented that the Mets underwhelmed that year even though some players had some good years.

Surely that’s a clue that the teamwork wasn’t as good.

[Lefty Specialist]

Don't agree at all.

What doomed the Mets in 1987 wasn't a lack of Ray Knight. It was Doc Gooden being found in a crack den.

What doomed the Mets in 2025 wasn't a lack of Jose Iglesias. It was the slow, painful collapse of the pitching staff.

Neither of these things could have been fixed by having a 'good clubhouse guy'. In fact you could make the case that the Mets won in '86 because they DIDN'T rely on a good clubhouse guy. They were a bunch of *******s. *******s who won, but *******s nonetheless.

[Edgy MD]

I, in fairness, am not sure if I know that Iglesias is a good clubhouse guy.

I do know that he — along with his utterly mediocre autotuned hit record — became a centerpiece when a team adrift in 2024 found their character.

I put it along with the "can play in New York" thing. It is probably drivel, but occasionally there might be something in it.

I do think that good teams often find a common theme to unify around, even if they are composed of *******s, even if that theme is that they all hate the manager.

It is certainly possible that the team finds no such thing with or without Iglesias. I don't know. I probably still would have been interested in bringing him back on a one-year deal, especially after his replacement went down for what seemed like (and turned out to be) for the entire season.

It is maybe superstition, but whatever he brought did not seem to be the type of thing you throw out. And as a utility guy on a one-year deal, he would not have been blocking anybody.

And maybe, if they did bring him back, he gets released by June, and the New York Post ledes with OMGet LOST! or OMG?! LOL! I am certainly not married to this whim.

But is an abstract notion like Became a centerpiece of the character of a team really worth investing in? That, like any other asset, abstract or concrete, depends on the price. I thought (a) the price looked pretty reasonable, and ( the team, for my purposes, never seemed to have found their character in 2025.

He absolutely might have ended being just one more dead weight on a sinking ship. But maybe not.

[Fman99]

I do think that good teams often find a common theme to unify around, even if they are composed of *******s

 

I think this is it - in the locker room they're all gazing deep into each other's butts and recognizing that each of them does in fact possess an *******. And then they giggle about it because it's funny that you have a hole in your body that the poop falls out of. I mean, come on.

[whippoorwill]

Don't agree at all.

What doomed the Mets in 1987 wasn't a lack of Ray Knight. It was Doc Gooden being found in a crack den.

What doomed the Mets in 2025 wasn't a lack of Jose Iglesias. It was the slow, painful collapse of the pitching staff.

Neither of these things could have been fixed by having a 'good clubhouse guy'. In fact you could make the case that the Mets won in '86 because they DIDN'T rely on a good clubhouse guy. They were a bunch of *******s. *******s who won, but *******s nonetheless.

 

I agree, the mid 80s guys were a bunch of a holes.

That's hindsight, of course

[Edgy MD]

Hindsight.

Nice usage.

[Edgy MD]

Anthony DiComo reviews the 2025 Mets clubhouse.

A short summary:

• The 2025 Mets did not have a bad clubhouse.
• The 2024 Mets were a "generationally good group."


• Finding an identity matters.


• The 2025 team, unfortunately, failed to find theirs.


• Trying to carry over an identity from year to year is a fool's errand.


• There were more characters at the center of the team's identity in 2024 than we know of (Martinez, Ottavino, and Manaea are cited.)

 

For my part, I would just like to note that finding an identity (or finding a character, as I termed it above) is different from having a good clubhouse, though not unrelated.

[Edgy MD]

Disagreeing with Anthony DiComo to a degree is Paul Blackburn.

 

“The clubhouse in 2024 compared to last year was definitely different,” said former Mets pitcher Paul Blackburn, who signed with the Yankees this offseason, to the New York Post when asked about the Mets’ supposed clubhouse issues last season. “I wouldn’t say guys were in there throwing blows or anything like that, but it definitely had a different vibe. When I came over in 2024, J.D. Martinez and Jose Iglesias had a big impact on everyone in there and everyone vibed together. Those were the guys that helped the clubhouse mesh and last year, those guys weren’t there.”

 

https://nypost.com/2026/01/03/sports/paul-blackburn-tells-the-post-why-2025-mets-clubhouse-didnt-mesh/

[Edgy MD]

John Heyman pins down Carlos Mendoza on clubhouse issues. Gets some acknowledgment and ownership from Mendoza, if not the whole story.

 

[TWEET]

[/TWEET]