Mets: Who really is responsible for Carlos Beltran’s ouster?

Carlos Beltran didn’t last long as New York Mets manager. Who is most responsible for his ouster?

Carlos Beltran lasted 72 days as the New York Mets new manager, and yet unlike his seven-year playing career with the Amazin’s, he never got the chance to pilot the team that he said he would only manage.

In light of the fallout of the Houston Astros cheating scandal, otherwise known as Astrogate, four senior level officials on three major league teams lost their jobs. The Astros, the main perpetrators of the scandal fired General Manager Jeff Luhnow and manager A.J, Hinch, rather than have them face a season-long suspension. The Boston Red Sox mutually agreed with manager Alex Cora to have him step down. Cora was implicated as the ringleader in Astrogate, though controversy arose when the Red Sox were also accused of stealing signs during the 2018 season.

Then there’s the Mets. Yes, 72 days after announcing Beltran would manage the team, they decided to part ways with him. Reports have varied on how it came about, from Beltran’s alleged niece (since disproven) commenting on a now-deleted Twitter post saying that Beltran had decided it was in both his and the team’s best interest to step away, that COO Jeff Wilpon and General Manager Brodie Van Wagenen had both pressured Beltran to step down for fear of the “distraction”, or that Beltran had been fired, but the point is that the Mets, who had nothing to do with Astrogate in the first place, were punished by proxy.

To say that this isn’t fair to the Mets organization that they had to be caught up in this scandal is an understatement. In fact, the fact that the Mets had to be dragged into this is an absolute travesty in and of itself. However, blame needs to be assigned for this mess.

Before we begin, let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way. Yes, obviously it would have been better if a. the Astros had never cheated in the first place and, depending on who you supported in the managerial search, b. the Mets paid Joe Girardi what he wanted, but obviously those matters came to pass and are no longer relevant in this piece.

MLB and Rob Manfred

There’s a famous scene in the hit TV series Breaking Bad, where Mike Ehrmantraut (played by Jonathan Banks) tells Walter White (Bryan Cranston) a story about how he regretted not preventing a domestic abuser from killing his wife, despite Ehrmantraut arresting him multiple times, then threatening him one final time. Now obviously Breaking Bad isn’t the best depiction of how justice is served, but the point is straightforward, half measures are ineffective means of getting a job done, even if they appear to do the job.

Rob Manfred’s report on Astrogate was a half measure. By placing the blame squarely on the coaching staff under the incredibly vague and nebulous “encouraging the environment of cheating” and publicly outing Beltran as a co-conspirator without punishing him, Manfred indirectly put the onus on disciplining Beltran on the Mets, instead of handling it himself, like a commissioner should do.

Whether or not Manfred intended to push the responsibility of dealing with Beltran on the Mets, his actions were irresponsible, reckless, and unfair to an organization that had nothing to do with the scandal in the first place

Never mind that Beltran was no longer under the MLBPA’s protection, never mind that Manfred stated Beltran wouldn’t be disciplined, by publicly outing him, and only him as the only player on the report without punishing him, he essentially was saying to the Mets organization that they were now responsible for the Astros mess by association.

There’s a major hole in regards to the whole “no players would be disciplined” part of the punishment, because, at the time of its release, Beltran was one of three players on the 2017 championship team that were no longer playing. Brian McCann and Evan Gattis both had retired, and yet neither was listed on the report. Why was Beltran the only player listed on the report when there were more that were no longer playing?

The speculation is that Manfred was too afraid to go toe to toe with the MLB Players Association. With relations strained enough as it is and a lockout impending, obviously Manfred felt it was in his best interest to appease the union by not implicating any players despite evidence showing players cheating, see: Jose Altuve, Josh Reddick, and Alex Bregman allegedly wearing haptic bandages.

In outing Beltran without punishing him, Manfred essentially took the path of least resistance, making Beltran a scapegoat with the expectation that the court of public opinion would turn on Beltran. Basically, Manfred said to the public, “See, the players did do it, even though we can’t punish them we can point out they were involved in this!” In pushing the “promoting an environment” angle, Manfred could say that MLB at least did something to discourage cheating.

Ultimately, it was poorly handled. In naming Beltran, Manfred not only threw him under the bus but he had to have been aware he was putting the Mets in a bad position. He had to have known the heat would be taken off him if his punishment was viewed as too lenient, which depending on who you talk too, it’s either appropriate, or the Astros were let off easy. The collateral damage in getting the Mets involved in something that they weren’t a part of especially shows how feckless Manfred is as a commissioner.

Manfred’s best course of action would have been to actually punish the players or suspend or fine Beltran. In suspending the players, sure, the MLBPA would be geared up for a long and costly legal battle, and Tony Clark could use that as a means to not come to the negotiating table to hash out the post-2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement, but Manfred would be effectively punishing those responsible for implementing and using the system. In suspending Beltran, Manfred would have saved the Mets the trouble of having to make a difficult decision with the league actually taking charge.

However, in Manfred’s book, the path of least resistance is the best path. He did something to send a message, never mind the collateral damage, never mind that more and more players are coming forward with accusations and turning this offseason into a perfect storm of mistrust. As long as people saw he at least made an effort to curb electronic sign stealing, he could say that he did the right thing, no matter the cost.

Carlos Beltran and The Media

Part of the blame for this lands on Beltran, but the media is just as responsible for crafting the narrative that led to Beltran’s firing. When the scandal broke, the media predictably asked Beltran about his role in the scandal, to which he lied.

For someone who played in New York for more than seven years and saw the rise of social media, Beltran’s decision to lie was incredibly dumb and shortsighted. Even if he was in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation where he would constantly be second-guessed because of his association with the Astros, Beltran could have easily said “No comment”.

By lying, Beltran invited the media to create an even bigger controversy. One where the Mets knowingly hired a liar and a cheat to run their team, one where the ethics of baseball were second to winning. Never mind that the team was a month and a half away from spring training, the prominent story would be how morally and competitively compromised the Mets were with Beltran as manager.

If there’s one thing to be said about the New York media, it’s that if they smell blood, they will attack. Beltran was the easy target in Astrogate because he was there and however big his role was, he had to know that he would inevitably be questioned.

Still, for the media to act as it did, with pearl-clutching and questions about integrity when the Mickey Callaway incident happened months earlier, one has to wonder how much of an angle they were going for with an Astrogate story

Even if it had amounted to nothing and Beltran had not been canned to save face, would the media have left the story alone? Or would they still pursue a narrative that because Beltran was part of a team accused of cheating, he was no longer trustworthy? Regardless of whether or not that narrative would have been produced, Beltran’s stupidity only served to stoke the flames and led to a major blow-up.