Fred Wilpon finds his inner Col. Jessup, and we can't handle the truth

Think back to just over a month ago, when reaching .500 seemed as likely as Irving Picard being invited to throw out the first pitch at Citi Field.

The Mets were in freefall. Losers of five, six, then seven games in a row. Worst record in baseball. Left for dead by just about everyone in the media, locally or nationally, and by many fans as well.

Making mistakes. Looking awful. Not playing the game "the right way," as manager Terry Collins had promised.

Think about how you felt as a Mets fan. Was there any confidence? Any joy? Any optimism? In my case, there wasn't so much optimism as there was faint hope mixed with the knowledge that the season was far from over.

"But it's only April. There are five months of baseball left. Is that good or bad?"

I wrote that in a post after the Mets dropped a 4-3 decision on April 20 to the Astros, a loss that sunk their home record to a dismal 1-8. It was the final loss in a 2-12 stretch that marked the nadir of the Mets' young season.

It was also the night that Jeffrey Toobin of The New Yorker accompanied Fred Wilpon to a Mets game.

Toobin was working on a piece that would come out just over a month later, a 10,000-word exploration of Wilpon, Saul Katz, Sterling Enterprises, Bernie Madoff and the billion-dollar lawsuit filed by Picard.

The article portrays Wilpon and Katz positively in many ways. They are well-regarded personally and professionally. They are charitable. They are family men. They are self-made success stories who seem like regular guys who worked hard and earned everything that came to them, who went on to do something most baseball fans can only dream about: Own a major league team.

Certainly Wilpon knew who Toobin was and what kind of piece he was working on. Wilpon needed all the help he could get, and a piece that supported the contention that Wilpon and Katz — two "real estate guys" whose investing experience was not much more than trusting someone close to them — knew nothing about Madoff's Ponzi scheme in a magazine like The New Yorker was good press.

And granting Toobin access to the owner's box during a game must have seemed like a good opportunity to show Toobin that while he was the owner, he was at his core a fan, as die-hard as the folks wearing WRIGHT and REYES jerseys in the seats below.

Take what Wilpon said without attribution and it could pass as something almost any Mets fan could have uttered. Should Reyes get Crawford money? Not with his injury history. Is Wright a good kid, a great player, but not a superstar? With his rising strikeout totals and frequent slumps, you could make the argument. That Beltran was 70 percent of what he once was? Duh.

I know what you're thinking. He's the owner. He can't say that, even if it's true and he really believes it. Where are his PR people? What was he thinking?

Maybe he wasn't thinking. Maybe he was. Knowing Beltran wasn't coming back next year (and possibly leaving before that), he had no trouble lamenting the checked strike three against the Cardinals in 2006. (Wilpon seems bitter over Beltran's recent injury history, and possibly over his lengthy recovery last season and then poor performance once he finally came back. And that strikeout against Adam Wainwright clearly still stings, as it does for every Mets fan.) Maybe he wanted to downgrade Reyes and Wright because he wants to keep them but doesn't want the price to go up any higher.

But maybe, given the state of the Mets on April 20, Wilpon wanted to send a message. Like Colonel Jessup in "A Few Good Men," who in his heart wanted people to know he made a command decision and ordered the code red, Wilpon wanted people to know that he was pissed off at how the team was performing. And if that meant tweaking Reyes (who at the time was hitting one-something with runners in scoring position) or Wright (who was in yet another slump) or Beltran (who at the time hadn't shown he could play every day, which he soon would), then so be it.

Again, remember the timing. Do you think if Toobin came to the Mets game on May 19 — a 1-0 win over the Nationals, the team's second straight shutout win, a victory that moved the team to within a game of .500 — that Wilpon would have had anything bad to say about Reyes, who was leading the league in hits and lighting up Citi Field again? Or about Wright, who we now know was playing a month with a broken back? Or Beltran, who was showing remarkable health and consistency, which other teams would almost certainly be looking for? Do you really think he would say that Ike Davis is a great player on a shitty team?

No. Way.

But on April 20, with a writer from The New Yorker at his side, his Mets were playing like crap. So he let fly.

As for the reaction to the story, it was typical. No one quoted the line from Wilpon when he described Reyes as "a racehorse," which is a compliment. Instead, most headlines were along the lines of "Wilpon Rips Reyes." Really?

And then there was Adam Rubin of ESPN. My doctor has advised me not to read Rubin's Mets coverage because I take everything he says with so many grains of salt, I get hypertension. The guy has one of the biggest axes to grind with this organization, it is almost comical that he still covers the team. Could Rubin be a good reporter? Sure. Just go cover a team that you don't personally want (or need) to bury at every turn. Please.

Funny how of all the reactions to Toobin's story, the one I found I agreed with almost completely was by (gulp) Mike Francesa, who basically said that Mets fans want Wilpon to show that he cares, and then when he does, and says things that recall the days of George Steinbrenner, people get their knickers in a twist.

Wilpon, who posed for a photo for the magazine with Reyes, Wright, Bay and Collins, had no comment. It should be noted that The New Yorker had a fact checker run all the quotes by him and they all stayed in the story. Toobin himself said that Wilpon was a "stand-up guy."

Maybe this is just another lesson in accountability, a word we've heard a lot lately in reference to Collins and how it has helped the team manage to claw its way back to break-even despite so many injuries. Wilpon said what he said at a time when he felt the need to say it, and he's not denying it now.

If the players don't like it, that's fine. Prove him wrong. Play with a chip on your shoulder.

That's what a Brooklyn boy would do.

Mets win, Pelfrey pitches well, but the cranks are still cranky

This post should really be about Mike Pelfrey showing signs of life, pitching into the seventh inning for the second time in his last three starts to help the Mets avoid the sweep Thursday, 5-2. It should be about how Pelfrey may be starting to turn things around, and how we shouldn't have been too shocked that he started off slow, considering his personality, the extra pressure of having to be "the man" in Santana's absence, and the death of his friend and confidante, sports psychologist Harvey Dorfman.

It should be about the win. It should be about Beltran continuing to hit and also play almost every day. It should be about Jason Bay coming back and doubling immediately, about Jose Reyes tripling in two runs, or about K-Rod walking the tight wire again but still getting the save and still, despite all the baserunners, not allowing a run.

But it's not.

You know I've cut Francesa out of my life, and it wasn't as difficult as I thought it might be. Well, now Joe and Evan have been cut from the rotation.

I'm getting lunch and listening to the FAN prior to Thursday's game and a bumper comes on with Chris Capuano promoting the Mets Box Office Blitz. Evan follows by saying, "Be the fifth caller — and five is probably what Capuano's ERA is going to be at the end of the year..."

Are you shitting me?

This is on the day after Capuano pitched reasonably well in a 2-0 duel with Tim Lincecum, allowing two runs in 6 1/3. But no, the Mets are losers, let's just crap on them at every given opportunity.

Of course, misery loves company, and who is more miserable than Joe Benigno? A few minutes later, they're running through the Giants' lineup and noting how awful most of the batters are, and Joe chimes in with, "Well, Pelfrey's pitching tonight so they'll probably score 10 runs."

Evan mindessly agrees, and, like clockwork, Joe adds, "Oh, the pain."

Tune into Mac and Tierney at noon on ESPN 1050, folks.

Metsblog gets into the act as well. We don't need to see the wild card standings every day. And yes, Matt, since you're asking, May 6 is too early to worry about games behind. So cut the standings update back to maybe once a week, if that? Thanks.

And I understand why there is speculation about the Giants maybe trading for Reyes. It makes sense. Reyes is going to be a free agent, the Giants' offense sucks, they have no decent shortstop, they having pitching to spare, and they were in town for three games. You could see it coming a mile away.

But beyond that, can we have a chance to enjoy the season, and enjoy Reyes, before the stories speculating on his future become incessant? Can we at least wait until June? We're starting already on May 1? Come on.

I'm also getting tired of reading about how the Mets may not want to give "too many years and too much money" on a player "who relies on his legs."

First off, if you're going to sign a star player, you are definitely going to pay too much money and run the risk of giving too many years. It's just how it goes. If you're never going to do that, then you're never going to acquire a star player. Simple as that. And make no mistake, Reyes is a star player.

Regarding his legs, it seems to me that players who rely on their legs primarily are the ones who keep their legs the longest. One of them is coaching first, Mookie Wilson. What about Rickey Henderson? Kenny Lofton? These guys were athletes and runners first, like Reyes, and maintained that edge well into their 30s, and played into their 40s.

Will Reyes? Who knows? But to flatly state that it doesn't make sense to give a 28-year-old a multiyear deal because he runs well is ridiculous. He'll be 34 at the end of seven years, and seven likely the longest anyone would go on him. Sure, you could expect some kind of decline by then, but you'd likely have some pretty good prime years in between.

I think you can take to the bank that K-Rod will not finish 55 games this year, or he'll be traded. So that's $12 million off the books to go along with the $19 million for Beltran, and another $18 million for Ollie and Castillo. That's $49 million leaving.

The free agent list isn't terribly impressive and one would think with ownership issues and new management they are not going after the likes of Albert Pujols or anyone else too expensive anyway. But this is still a New York team charging New York prices competing in the New York market with the Yankees and in a division where the Phillies added Cliff Lee to Roy Halladay, Roy Oswalt and Cole Hamels.

They may cut payroll, but they can never go cheap. This ain't Oakland.

Reyes gets $11 million now. Considering the dearth of talent at shortstop, why not pay an extra $5 million or so a year to keep the guy who you already have, a player who when he plays, your team wins, who is beloved by the fans, who is the third-best shortstop in the game, who puts people in the seats at a time when you really need people in the seats?

It's almost mind-boggling. And then you get the people saying it doesn't make sense to trade Reyes unless you trade Wright, too, and bring back a ton of new players to start over.

Really? You think fans are staying away in droves now?

It's depressing, at a time of the year when none of us should be depressed. It's early May, for God's sake! But no, there's no time to just enjoy baseball, to see how this all plays out, to see whether Santana comes back, to enjoy guys like Reyes and Beltran finally playing every day, healthy.

The Dodgers are in town for three this weekend. Which of course means more stories of how these two franchises are on the rocks and doomed.

Sounds like fun.

The world according to Mike (sans the Mad Dog)

So it's the day after one of the most exciting Masters finishes ever, the day after the Yankees were shut out by the Red Sox on national television to finish 1-2 in Beantown, and the Monday after the Rangers became the second team that calls Madison Square Garden home to qualify for the postseason.

And what does Mike Francesa devote almost the entire first hour to on his Monday radio program? You guessed it. The team he loves to tweak, to slam, and to belittle, when he's not flat-out ignoring them. The Mets.

I really am trying to wean myself from his show, but old habits die hard. As I went out for lunch I tuned in long enough to be annoyed, before switching to Mac and Tierney on ESPN 1050, but then I couldn't help myself and switched back to Francesa, who was still talking about:

• how the Mets couldn't beat the Nationals in a rubber game
• how Nationals "who had no business stealing bases" were stealing
• Mets ticket sales
• how he "expected more from Pagan" than what he's seen so far

and so on.

Nothing about the Yankees dropping two to Boston.

Nothing about Jeter and his .206 average, or his shocking inability to hit the ball out of the infield.

Nothing about Texeira and his .182 average.

Or Gardner hitting .167, or Posada batting .138, or Swisher — oh, how he loves Swisher — hitting a robust .219.

Nothing either about the Masters, which was funny because Francesa likes to think he's a golf aficionado. He loves talking about the majors, loves having buddy Jim Nantz on his show, loves talking about his own golf game. (I would kill to see him swing a club, either in person or on video. Must be like watching a walrus taking a slap shot. If you have video of this, please share!)

This Masters had everything. Tiger's return, a crowded leaderboard, Australians trying for history, a meltdown of Greg Normaneque proportions — and Francesa chose to lead with the Mets, who are only 4-5 but may as well fold up the tent, in his opinion.

Remarkable, but not at all surprising. It may require electroshock, but I vow to get through this season and not listen to his show. Cold turkey. Because although he may be a great source of blog material, he just isn't worth my time. Or yours.