Bo Go?

[Edgy MD]

Bob Nightengale, who is generally nobody's fool, recently wrote that MLB teams still expect Bo Bichette to opt out of his contract at the end of the season.

It's really little more than a filler story, but again, Nightengale doesn't tend to pull stuff out of his ass.  Bichette, took a VERY big average annual salary in exchange for shorter years than the Phils were offering him.  The headline suggests that this would be "bad news" for the Mets but editors write those, and I imagine not a lot of Met-fan folks are seeing the notion that way on June 14.

I imagine Bichette has a better rest of the year ahead of him than what is behind him.  Still, getting $40 million cut from the payroll by letting a guy with backup-shortstop batting numbers walk has to look like the least of the Mets problems right now.

[Centerfield]

I would guess Bichette opts out. He leaves a $5MM opt out bonus on the table if he doesn’t. He’ll also be a year older, and though still very young, he won’t be able to sign that long term deal for much longer. Plus if he has a second down year, that ship will have sailed. 
 

But the biggest reason I believe he’s gone is that they will be no hitter available this offseason. I think he will greatly benefit from a bad market. 

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

I think the team went into this signing knowing, if not expecting, this to be the case. Him opting out also doesn't prevent the Mets from signing him, maybe for a longer deal but with less money each year.

Or, they can put that $40 million toward Tarik Skubal. 

We don't know what the collective bargaining agreement will lead to, either. He could be taking a pretty big gamble by opting out. 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

It's a good thing for the Mets if Bichette opts out. I didn't like the contract at the time and I certainly don't like it now.

[metirish]

I really hope he does opt out and likely the moment he signed that was the plan, I feel no connection to him at all 

[Cowtipper]

He feels like a rental, so him opting out doesn't matter one way or the other. He doesn't feel like a Met, just another face. 

[Benjamin Grimm]

I agree with that, both for Bichette and Peralta. Of course, both may end up somehow being long-term Mets, but they both seemed like full-year rentals for the glory of 2026. 

Stearns appears to be a guy who likes to make substantial roster changes each season. That hasn't helped the Mets win, and it doesn't help with fan engagement. If this keeps up they may very well lose me.

[The Hot Corner]

It seems that the Mets went into this deal with the thought that it would be a 1 years rental.  Why else would you offer a $5 mil. bonus to opt out after year one?  If your truly wanted him to stay you would offer a $5 mil. bonus not to opt out.  I think this was a quick, emergency, safe facing move once the Mets (Stearns) missed on Kyle Tucker.

I liked landing Bichette, but I didn't like the terms the Mets gave to land him.  Smelled of desperation.

 

[Benjamin Grimm]

Wanting him to opt out would imply that they had a plan in mind for their 2027 third baseman. Maybe they do, but I'm not sure who that would have been. They hadn't traded Jett Williams yet, but they most likely had already decided that they were willing to do so. Maybe they were thinking Baty or Vientos? I'm dubious about that. But if not them, who else?

[Edgy MD]

Would some combination of Baty and Vientos and Mauricio and whoever be so much worse than Bichette?

They haven't been this year, despite having generally very little to show for themselves.

Baty plus Vientos plus Mauricio plus $40 million dollars over Bichette?  That's a choice I make very time.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Geez, I forgot all about Mauricio! I agree that I'd rather go with Baty/Vientos/Mauricio and save $40 million.

[ashie62]

Don't they almost all opt out?

I'd like to save the money to use on better options that may not include those on the rostee

[Cowtipper]

Who in their right mind would opt-in to this team?

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

18 minutes ago, Cowtipper said:

Who in their right mind would opt-in to this team?

I would, because the team you are seeing today is not what is going to be here next year. All the injuries and under performance will all be better -- plus an owner that you know is spending and trying to win. It's a good team that is playing like crap for a variety of reasons. That's much better than being on a team that isn't even trying. 

[Cowtipper]

It's always next year. Why do we always have to look forward to next year. What about this year. It's always next year. That's basically been the line since, what, 1987?

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

Did you miss 1999, 2000, 2006, 2015, 2016, 2022 and 2024? All great years that fell short but still great.