Mets ‘don’t intend to make a change’ away from Mendoza, says Stearns – MLB.com

The gap between the team’s current win-loss record and the perspective of the front office is evident. A 10-21 start represents one of the most difficult openings in the history of the club. For a franchise with the second-highest payroll in baseball, trailing only the Los Angeles Dodgers, the team is currently facing a significant struggle to meet expectations. Despite these results, the Mets have maintained their support for Carlos Mendoza while other teams in the league have made changes to their leadership.

A Descent Into Franchise History

To understand the gravity of the Mets’ current position, one must look at the record books. The 10-21 start is the third-worst in franchise history through 31 games. It is surpassed only by the 1981 team, which went 8-22-1, and the 1964 squad, which opened 9-22. These figures provide a historical context for the team’s current struggles as they navigate the early months of the season.

The current slide has been punctuated by a 12-game losing streak, a sequence of games that aligns with historically difficult periods for the club. According to reporting from Fox News, no team in Major League Baseball history has ever lost 12 consecutive games and successfully made the postseason. The Mets have further compounded this struggle by losing five of their last six games against the Washington Nationals and the Colorado Rockies.

In many professional sports environments, such a collapse leads teams to evaluate whether a change in leadership is necessary. Often, the decision to replace a manager is considered during a prolonged losing streak. However, David Stearns has explicitly rejected that narrative.

“We know our record is not what we want, and we know we are capable of more. We don’t view this as a manager problem, and we don’t intend to make a change.” David Stearns, president of baseball operations, New York Mets

Distinguishing Managerial Failure from Roster Collapse

The central tension in the Mets’ camp is whether a manager can be held accountable for a roster that is fundamentally underperforming. Stearns’ defense of Mendoza rests on the belief that the problems are systemic and physical rather than tactical. The Mets’ offense, for instance, ranks 29th in the league in runs, a figure that reflects a broader collapse in production.

Injuries have played a central role in this erosion. The absence of key players, including Juan Soto and Francisco Lindor, alongside Jorge Polanco, has stripped the lineup of its core stability. The statistical fallout is evident: as a unit, the Mets are hitting .227/.289/.342. This results in a wRC+ of 80, meaning the team is 20% below league average—the worst mark in the majors, according to MLB Trade Rumors.

The pitching staff offers little reprieve. While the team’s 4.17 earned run average places them 15th out of 30 teams, the individual performances of primary arms have been erratic. David Peterson, Sean Manaea, and Kodai Senga have all posted ERAs above 6.00 in samples of 20 innings or more. Even the bullpen, intended to be a source of strength, has faltered; Devin Williams holds an 8.00 ERA, while Luke Weaver sits at 6.00.

In this environment, the front office views the struggle as a shared burden. In the eyes of team decision-makers, blame is distributed across the organization, from the clubhouse to baseball operations. Stearns has remained consistent in his assessment, stating two weeks ago that I think Mendy’s doing a very good job.

The Contrasting Logic of the MLB Hot Seat

The Mets’ patience exists in a vacuum compared to the rest of the league. Last month, two other high-profile managers, Rob Thomson of the Phillies and Alex Cora of the Red Sox, were dismissed. The Red Sox replaced Cora with Chad Tracy, while the Phillies eventually named Don Mattingly as an interim manager after Cora declined the position.

This divergence in philosophy highlights a long-standing debate in baseball: the actual impact of a manager on the win-loss column. One school of thought argues that a manager’s tactical decisions—lineup construction and pitching changes—are the primary levers of success. The opposing view suggests that a manager is primarily a motivational leader and that results are driven almost entirely by player performance.

By sticking with Mendoza, the Mets are betting on the latter. They are signaling that replacing the man in the dugout will not fix a wRC+ of 80 or an 8.00 ERA from a lockdown reliever. It is a gamble on organizational stability over the perceived “spark” of a new voice.

The Timeline of Accountability

While Mendoza is not in imminent danger, his long-term security is tied to a specific contractual window. The 46-year-old manager is currently in the final guaranteed season of a three-year contract signed before the 2024 season. The Mets do hold a club option for 2027, but that decision will likely hinge on whether the team can recover from this start.

Owner Steve Cohen has set a clear benchmark: his table stakes goal is for the team to make the playoffs. The gap between a 10-21 start and a postseason berth is vast, and the pressure will only mount as the season progresses. While Cohen has given Stearns assurances that his own role is safe, the patience extended to Mendoza may have a ceiling.

The organization maintains belief in the roster they constructed and the process used to build it, even as the results have been absent. However, the available reporting indicates that the Mets could potentially change their mind regarding Mendoza much later in the season. For now, the mandate is to weather the storm.

The immediate test arrives with a nine-game West Coast trip opening in Anaheim. The Mets will look to climb out of the league basement starting with a matchup against the Los Angeles Angels. The focus now shifts to whether the return of injured stars can bridge the gap between the front office’s belief and the reality of the standings.