For a former sports agent like Brodie Van Wagenen, one would think he’d be more concerned with the optics of his team.
When the public first learned of Yoenis Cespedes’ absence from Truist Park in Atlanta on Sunday, people — understandably — began to worry. Anxiety was already heightened well before this because of the coronavirus pandemic, and the manner in which Cespedes’ no-show was described called into question the slugger’s safety.
“As of game time, Yoenis Céspedes has not reported to the ballpark today,” Van Wagenen said in the statement that arrived into reporters’ email inboxes during the first inning of the Mets’ 4-0 shutout loss to the Braves on Sunday. “He did not reach out to management with any explanation for his absence. Our attempts to contact him have been unsuccessful.”
It was obvious, then, that reporters would make the information on Cespedes’ disappearance public — through Twitter feeds, news headlines, blogs, you name it. After just a few minutes of the team’s released statement, speculation on Cespedes’ whereabouts intensified.
Is Cespedes missing? Has local law enforcement been contacted? Did the Mets just release that statement to shame him for not showing up to work? These are questions the Mets, and more principally their public relations department, should have expected — especially since, according to multiple sources, more than one person within the organization was aware Saturday night of Cespedes’ decision to opt out of the season.
Instead, it was evident the Mets released that initial statement to get ahead of Cespedes’ no-show, according to multiple people familiar with the situation.
Rather than getting ahead, the Mets PR department stayed behind, a dollar short and a couple of hours late. Exactly 54 minutes after Van Wagenen’s initial statement, a team spokesperson texted the Mets beat and national reporters: “At this time, we have no reason to believe Yoenis’ safety is at risk.”
What changed? Between the 54 minutes of Van Wagenen’s first statement and the spokesperson’s second one — the latter being designed to give the public “peace of mind,” according to Van Wagenen — what did the Mets learn about Cespedes’ well-being?
Well, after the Mets alarmed the public about Cespedes’ no-show, they sent security to his hotel. Cespedes wasn’t there and neither were his belongings. That gave the team reason to believe the slugger was safe. Moments later, the team spokesperson released that second statement.
So why did the Mets tell the public about his no-show before checking to see if he was in his hotel? Van Wagenen said he sent the initial statement in an effort to be transparent with the public; to provide updates in real time.
But interestingly, Van Wagenen went against his own “transparent” policy and waited to announce Cespedes’ decision to opt out until after the game, even though he himself learned of the decision during the game. So why did Van Wagenen wait until after the game, if he claimed he was adamant on providing updates in real time? And if the Mets are so transparent, why was only one player — a rookie pitcher — made available to react to the Cespedes news?
If the Mets truly believed in transparency, they would allow their own players to speak on the subject of New York’s back pages on the day of that news cycle.
More so: Van Wagenen announced Cespedes opted out of the season due to “COVID-related reasons.” At least one person, a friend to Cespedes, reportedly told the Post that, “Due to the recent outbreaks of having a family member with a pre-existing condition, Yoenis felt the decision to opt out was best for him and his family.”
But a person within the Mets’ PR department told the Daily News that Cespedes’ decision to opt out has nothing to do with the virus. Since Cespedes bounced from his hotel room and the public did not get to hear the player’s side of the story, a person within the organization suggesting that his opt-out did not derive from “COVID-related reasons” not only goes against what the GM is putting out, but is completely insensitive and irresponsible to the player.
According to multiple sources, it’s possible that management did not learn of Cespedes’ decision to opt out until after Sunday’s game already began. But why the Mets were in such a rush to release information that caused serious public concern over their star slugger remains unanswered.
These are the Mets, after all. This team is happiest when even the most minute and inconsequential details are kept in private. As a recent example, just look at their organizational policy on how to handle news of players that test positive for COVID-19. Even if the player gives the team permission to announce he has tested positive, the Mets said they would not discuss a player’s whereabouts if he was not present at the stadium. Once Jared Hughes and Brad Brach, the only two known Mets players who have so far tested positive, returned from the injured list, they both announced their tests results.
Sunday’s Cespedes fiasco was a situation the Mets, and their PR department, could have easily handled to their benefit. There is only one Mets reporter on the road trip to Atlanta who is not in some way paid by team ownership. Unless that one reporter noticed Cespedes was not in the dugout, even without clubhouse access, by the first inning — which he didn’t — there was no reason to publicly announce Cespedes’ absence until the Mets knew more information.
The entire disaster smelled of player shaming. And because the public has not heard Cespedes’ side of the story, however wrong he was in blowing off simple communication with the team that pays him for a living — which, to be clear, was immature and deserving of the team’s resentment — the Mets front office got away with one thing: revenge.
But the manner in which the organization, particularly its PR department, handled Sunday’s chaos was plain to see. The team got one back by swooping to the player’s level. It’s too bad Cespedes all but ended his Mets career, because they deserve each other.
