If you’re a Mets fan, these were precisely the words you want to hear, from Jeff Wilpon about David Wright:
“Give it time. Let it play out. And we’ll hopefully have a good conclusion.”
Yup. As long as the Mets are resolute about not trading their third baseman this summer — and that wouldn’t make any sense right now, since they’re still in the playoff hunt — there isn’t any urgency to address Wright’s future, as Wilpon asserted yesterday before the Mets’ 10-6 loss to the Phillies at Citi Field.
Wright has a $16 million team option (against a $1 million buyout) for next year, and though he is off to a marvelous start in 2012, might as well collect more data about his performance.
As Wilpon — who described Wright as “special” — reiterated, “There’s no gun to anybody’s head. … At the right time, Sandy [Alderson, general manager] and I will discuss it, and it will move on.”
But the Wright case is about more than just retaining an All-Star, or even a team icon. His future serves as a referendum on the Wilpon/Saul Katz ownership, as it tries to move away from its turbulent past and toward a more stable model.
To be more specific, Wright presents his bosses with a golden opportunity to act like the smart, decisive owners they want to be.
That doesn’t necessarily mean dumping a truckload of money to retain Wright. Nor does it mean trading him this winter if he declines a team-friendly extension.
What it means is going into this venture with a plan — a flexible plan, with multiple strands. It means that the Mets must have faith in their process, which they can control, and understand that the conclusion ultimately is out of their control.
Here, let’s walk it through. Since Wright’s old Virginia pal Ryan Zimmerman signed a six-year, $100-million extension (from 2014-19) with Washington in spring training, what’s the proper price for Wright, who turns 30 in December, once the two sides exchange figures later this season? How about six years and $115 million, with a vesting option for a seventh year?
If Wright turns that down, then exercise his 2013 option, and sure, listen to what teams have in mind concerning a trade. If a blockbuster offer comes in — one that would improve the Mets in 2013 and beyond more than retaining Wright — pull the trigger.
Assuming that doesn’t happen, it would make sense to try again with a long-term offer to Wright in June or July of 2013, then listen once again to trade offers if he declines. And if he enters free agency, the Mets would have to compete for Wright’s services against other clubs, and they should bow out if the bidding gets too high.
Yes, there could be many decision points. It could be exhausting. And there will be two fronts to this. One will be the baseball issue of building a champion. The other will be the public-relations issue of convincing still skeptical Mets fans that the team knows what it’s doing.
Alderson, the second-year GM, faced his first real test last year in Jose Reyes’ free agency, and the results were mixed. He didn’t seriously entertain trade offers for the exciting shortstop last summer, then he watched over the winter as Reyes danced with and ultimately committed to the Marlins.
We can’t fully fault Alderson, however, as he clearly was impacted by Irving Picard, the trustee for Bernie Madoff victims who had a pending lawsuit against ownership. The Mets didn’t want to give up on last season with a Reyes trade, but they needed to cut payroll for 2012. Picard and Madoff are gone from the Mets’ radar now.
Wilpon made himself available yesterday to discuss a new initiative with Tuesday’s Children, an organization that helps families impacted by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Mets’ owners should be proud of their involvement with this. They never did more than in those horrible first days after 9/11.
In comparison, their baseball operations don’t seem as important. Yet they want to succeed in all areas, naturally. Wright gives them a chance to establish their legacy once more — not with the destination, but with the journey.
kdavidoff@nypost.com