NEW YORK — Frustration is boiling over in Queens, where the early-season struggles of the New York Mets have sparked a wave of criticism aimed squarely at manager Carlos Mendoza and president of baseball operations David Stearns, as questions mount about leadership, accountability, and the direction of the franchise.

What began as a disappointing start has quickly evolved into a full-blown crisis narrative, with fans and analysts alike dissecting every decision — from lineup construction to pitching changes — in search of answers for a team that entered the season with far higher expectations.

At the heart of the debate lies a controversial theory gaining traction among segments of the fanbase: that Mendoza may not have full control over on-field decisions, and that Stearns’ influence could extend deeper into game management than publicly acknowledged.

While such claims remain speculative, they reflect a broader sense of unease about the organizational structure and whether traditional managerial authority has been overshadowed by front-office analytics in a way that disrupts clubhouse rhythm.

Critics argue that issues such as inconsistent defense, lack of plate discipline, questionable base running, and an overall absence of urgency are typically symptoms of managerial shortcomings, placing Mendoza under intense scrutiny despite his relatively recent appointment.

In Major League Baseball, the manager often serves as both strategist and emotional leader, responsible not only for tactical decisions but also for setting the tone, enforcing accountability, and maintaining focus during adversity.

When those elements appear lacking, as many observers believe is currently the case with the Mets, the spotlight naturally shifts to the dugout, where leadership is expected to steady the ship.

However, the situation becomes more complex when the front office is perceived to play an outsized role in day-to-day decisions, blurring the lines of responsibility and making it difficult to determine where accountability truly lies.

For Stearns, widely respected for his analytical approach and previous success in roster construction, the criticism represents a significant challenge, as it questions whether his methods translate effectively into in-game execution.

Some voices within the fanbase suggest that if alternative managerial candidates have already been approached and declined interest due to organizational constraints, it could signal deeper structural issues that go beyond any single individual.

That possibility raises uncomfortable questions about whether the Mets’ current system is deterring experienced leadership figures who prefer a more traditional level of autonomy in managing games.

Despite the mounting criticism, it is important to recognize that early-season struggles, while alarming, do not always dictate the trajectory of an entire campaign, particularly in a long MLB season where adjustments and turnarounds are possible.

Still, the optics of retaining the current structure without visible improvement risk sending a message — intentional or not — that underperformance carries limited consequences, a perception that can impact clubhouse morale.

For players, belief in leadership is critical, and any sense that management is disconnected or indifferent can erode confidence, particularly during difficult stretches when unity and resilience are most needed.

Ownership, led by Steve Cohen, now finds itself at a crossroads, balancing patience with the urgency demanded by a fanbase unwilling to accept mediocrity from a team built to contend.

Calls for change range from replacing Mendoza to redefining Stearns’ role in on-field decisions, with some advocating for a clearer separation between analytics-driven planning and in-game management.

Others caution against reactionary moves, emphasizing the importance of stability and the potential risks of making sweeping changes without a well-defined succession plan in place.

Indeed, firing key figures without a strategic vision for replacement can create further instability, compounding existing issues rather than resolving them.

Yet the emotional toll on fans is undeniable, especially for long-time supporters who did not expect to be contemplating the future of the season so early, with April barely in the rearview mirror.

Historically, even struggling teams maintain a sense of hope deep into the season, making the current atmosphere around the Mets particularly striking in its intensity and early onset.

As the season progresses, the organization’s response — whether through internal adjustments or more dramatic changes — will play a crucial role in shaping not only results on the field but also the narrative surrounding the franchise.

For now, the Mets remain under a microscope, with every game, decision, and outcome feeding into a broader conversation about leadership, accountability, and the path forward.

Whether this moment becomes a turning point or a sign of deeper dysfunction will depend on how quickly — and effectively — the team can address the concerns that have brought them to this point.