It’s conceivable we’ll go with what we have, but we’re still looking. I wouldn’t say that we’re satisfied with what we have. But if we don’t find what we think is a meaningful upgrade, then it’s possible we’ll go with what we have. Yeah. – from Adam Rubin of ESPN-NY
I think Sandy Alderson has done a great job with the New York Mets since taking over, and has been leading the Mets back from the hole Omar Minaya put them in. The slow and steady way back to contention in the future was the right direction for this franchise.
The media’s job is to try to get answers from whomever they are talking to. The fans take those answers and the stories with them and make whatever determination they want.
The front office’s job is to answer the questions without giving away anything to their competitors that might be used against them in the future. That’s where “sources within the organization” help to fill in the middle ground.
I honestly think that Sandy likes giving answers, like you see above, where he gives you three different answers that can be taken any way you want it.
In one hand, he is saying to the media and us fans that the Mets are not done looking for an outfielder. But, in the same answer he also says, but we could also be done with looking as well depending on if something meaningful comes up.
It’s the textbook way you are taught when running a franchise of how to “talk but not say anything”. What I mean is that Sandy answers the question, but is as vague as possible when answering it.
This is a science that some organizations throughout sports try to master. The New England Patriots have perfected it since Bill Belichick took over as coach, for example.
Yes, he does go on to elaborate a little bit about the outfield market, but not much, only mentioning Scott Hairston by name. My point is that when you read stories, like the one from Adam Rubin, I can understand the frustration about Sandy not really committing to anything.
But that’s just the game Sandy has to play and I think its his favorite game.