No light at the end of Mets' tunnel

Updated: March 6, 2012, 4:38 PM ET
By Buster Olney

There will be a happy ending with the Los Angeles Dodgers. There will be new owners from the group of eight bidders that remain, as Bill Shaikin writes, and sometime early in the season, there will be a news conference in which the new owners will be introduced.

They will talk about their grand vision for the Dodgers' future. They will talk about being aggressive, about pursuing the best players, and the Dodgers will be in a unique position to do this. They have relatively little money owed in long-term contracts, and with their payroll slashed to a scant $90 million -- about half of that of other superpower teams -- they will soon operate with a new, whopper television contract in place.

They will be able to pursue Cole Hamels in free agency next fall, if he doesn't sign with the Philadelphia Phillies, or Matt Cain, if he doesn't sign with the San Francisco Giants. Maybe they'll save their tens of millions of dollars to go after Joey Votto when the Cincinnati Reds first baseman becomes a free agent in the fall of 2013. Even if they took a more conservative route, they would make the team better, because the financial impact on the team under Frank McCourt was draconian.

There is light at the end of the Dodgers' very dark chapter.

The new owners will be viewed as heroes, beloved and embraced. The new owners could never look quite as good, quite so much as the knights riding in to save the day, if not for the ugly situation that preceded them, from the embarrassing public fight to the cut of the payroll to the diminishment of the on-field product.

Which brings us to the New York Mets.

There is no end in sight to the ugliness for the team's franchise. There are no indications that a magical solution is around the corner for the ballclub, its fans or owners.