Sound the Trumpets, Edwin Diaz Is Still A Met!

[bmfc1]

[TransMonk]

5 years seems long to me.

[kcmets]

Five years is long, but a big deal marked off the big list just by writing

a check and signing on the dotted line. No coupons needed nowadays!!

[Frayed Knot]

=TransMonk post_id=112463 time=1667771831 user_id=71]
5 years seems long to me.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Raise your hand if you figured he'd get 7 or 10.

[Frayed Knot]

Perhaps HE didn't want 7 - 10, sticking to 5 to leave himself at the best age to be for his next/last FA contract.

[nymr83]

Wow. You have to think that the closer wouldnt be getting that deal first out of the gate if the plan was anything other than "we won't let money get in the way of winning."



Welcome to the new Mets reality. I like it here.

[The Hot Corner]

Very good start to what should be a very busy off-season. Glad to see Diaz remaining with the Mets.

[kcmets]

[media=youtube]8BYSp2pzP0Y[/media]

[metsmarathon]

i am absolutely ok with this, and surprised it wasn't for more.



without looking too deeply into the closer salaries league-wide, i would have thought he could have gotten much more, although maybe not for as long. either way, i don't got no quibbles, and look forward to many more trumpetings.

[Fman99]

Love it

[metsmarathon]

i checked. chapman's was about a 17x6, so edwin got himself a record contract. i'm still ok with it. did a little happy dance when i first saw it come through.

[whippoorwill]

Yay but can he be traded if he goes back to sucking?

[TransMonk]

This means he's likely to become the longest tenured closer in Mets history.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The flip side.



Keith Law, writing for The Athletic, is down on the Diaz deal.

Díaz's season was incredible, but relievers who do this just don't repeat it. The three players who had lower FIPs than Díaz did all saw theirs go up by over a full run the next year. Eric Gagné never came close to that level of dominance again. Aroldis Chapman was still elite, just not as much as so in his peak season, for the next two years and then dropped to merely above-average. The third, Craig Kimbrel, did it one more time, five years later, and then headed over the cliff. The list of the best relief seasons of this century is full of good pitchers who had their best years and never matched it, as well as some flash-in-the-pan types. Almost nobody has held something close to this kind of performance for more than three consecutive years. Even those who got to three straight years did so before free agency. [***] That Rivera deal is the only four- or five-year contract given to a reliever who produced at least 10 WAR over the course of the deal. One out of 19, and it belongs to the greatest short reliever the game has ever seen. Do you feel lucky? I sure don't. [***] I suppose everyone wants to believe that this time will be different. I just don't think thumbing your nose at history is good business. The base rate for relievers is that they don't last — when viewed over four-year periods, they either get hurt, lose effectiveness or both. As much as I enjoy watching Díaz pitch, I don't see any reason to believe he's the exception to one of the clearest base rates we have in our sport. Relievers should be paid more at their peaks, but deals of four-plus years for free agent relievers are the riskiest investment we have.

https://theathletic.com/3769280/2022/11/06/keith-law-mets-edwin-diaz-deal/https://theathletic.com/3769280/2022/11/06/keith-law-mets-edwin-diaz-deal/

[Lefty Specialist]

It's Uncle Steve's money. Is Diaz worth 5/102? No, especially not the length. But he was absolutely the #1 priority to get signed this offseason.



Will he be worth it in 2027? Probably not, but that's a problem for then.

[roger_that]

The logic here, seems to me, is that if Diaz falls from his lofty perch as an ace reliever, he'll still be a decent middle reliever. Overpaid absurdly, true, but if he proves ineffective in his closer role, I have to believe that Buck, or his replacement, will feel zero pressure from above to keep putting him out there in the 9th.



This was the problem with the Wilpons. I feel that their agenda was "We paid a zillion dollars for this guy to be a star [whatever] so don't give up on him too fast," which really isn't a baseball decision.



They're not going to be sending a 5.00 ERA guy out there to close games, whatever it costs Cohen.

[Edgy MD]

I'm not sure how relievers are a worse bet to repeat success than starters.



He, of course, doesn't need to repeat his 2022 every season to be a leading asset for a winning team.

[kcmets]

It's a good move. Environmentally sound signing.



Shows they mean business.... bbbyyy,,,,



#lgm #ygb #ymdyf

[nymr83]

The flip side. Keith Law, writing for The Athletic, is down on the Diaz deal.

I read Keith earlier. The entire premise of his article rests on the idea that each player has a value above which a deal is "bad". This may be the case for the Pirates. It may even be the case for top spenders with limits like the Rangers.



But the analysis completely falls apart if your view of the underlying economics of the Mets is different: Steve Cohen has more money than most owners and doesn't mind throwing it around. The cost to the Mets in prospect capital, draft capital, and other talent is zero. The cost in "Cohen Bucks" is irrelevant.

[ashie62]

Nothing but good for The Mets and their fans

[metsmarathon]

fangraphs pegs diaz' 2022 season as having a value of $23M. his 2021 was worth $16M.



so if he falls somewhere between the two for the duration of the contract, he's worth it.



and more importantly, this massively solidifies our bullpen for next year. yeah, there's a fuckton of other spots to fill out there, but it looks a hell of a lot better with not needing to also replace HIM.

[smg58]

I think it's fair to point out the risks. He was worth this deal in only one of the four years he's pitched with the Mets so far. And the number of closers who have been elite for many years without an injury or major hiccup is small.



But if the question is "Do I want him back next year?", the answer is yes.

[Gwreck]

The flip side. Keith Law, writing for The Athletic, is down on the Diaz deal. I read Keith earlier. The entire premise of his article rests on the idea that each player has a value above which a deal is "bad". This may be the case for the Pirates. It may even be the case for top spenders with limits like the Rangers. But the analysis completely falls apart if your view of the underlying economics of the Mets is different: Steve Cohen has more money than most owners and doesn't mind throwing it around. The cost to the Mets in prospect capital, draft capital, and other talent is zero. The cost in "Cohen Bucks" is irrelevant.

The other key consideration to me is that the Mets don't have internal alternatives. Rebuilding a farm/player development system doesn't happen overnight. In 5 years, the farm might be developing great in-house relief options but it isn't right now, and retaining Diaz costs nothing but money.



If this Diaz deal somehow prevents the Mets from signing Nimmo, or deGrom, or Alonso to an extension, or whatever…then it might be a problem. But do we really think that's the case?

[Edgy MD]

So, when is this opt-out?

[Gwreck]

DiComo reported it is after the 2025 season.

[Lefty Specialist]

=Gwreck post_id=112500 time=1667828332 user_id=56]
The other key consideration to me is that the Mets don't have internal alternatives. Rebuilding a farm/player development system doesn't happen overnight. In 5 years, the farm might be developing great in-house relief options but it isn't right now, and retaining Diaz costs nothing but money.



If this Diaz deal somehow prevents the Mets from signing Nimmo, or deGrom, or Alonso to an extension, or whatever…then it might be a problem. But do we really think that's the case?

[roger_that]

I read that Diaz can opt out after season three, so 2025.

[Benjamin Grimm]

It's after the third year, 2025. The Mets hold an option for a sixth year at $20 million.

[duan]

I think it's a fair deal.

He probably could have got a higher AAV on a 2 year deal somewhere else but he likes it here, he's got a good thing going and the 5 years with no trade and opt out is hard to beat.

From the mets point of view he's worth it for the next 2-3 years and sure who knows WTF the world will look like at 2025