Setting money aside, there are basically see three ways to get top-tier talent: a. draft and develop; b. sign as free agent (which costs draft picks); or c. trade (which costs prospects). The Mets have had several notable failures in category 'b" and that is likely where the issue of "spending money poorly" comes from. Those failures are the most frustrating. Failures in category "c" are much more tolerable, in my opinion. Additionally, while past results are no guarantee of future performance, I like the Mets' chances in category "c" a lot more. Examples that come to mind: the Roberto Alomar trade was a bust, but nobody the Mets traded away ever amounted to anything. The Carlos Delgado trade: nothing doing with those prospects; all it cost the Mets was money. I like the Mets' chances to compete for playoff spots in 2015 and 2016 with one or two big supplements to the core team they've developed. I'm fully prepared to trade away a Syndergaard or similar prospect to acquire Tulowitzki's contract. So what if the Mets get only 2-3 good years from Tulowitzki and then have sunk costs at the end of the contract? That's where the financial advantage to playing in New York comes in. Ownership should be able to eat that cost, especially if the acquisition pays off in playoff appearance(s). Losing one (or even two) prospects but no draft picks sounds like a fine way of improving the team at this point.