Stearns may well be backing away from the excessive generosity of his predecessors in the Cohen era. We all liked Nimmo and were happy to hold on to him, but eight years AND a full no-trade clause was nutty. Trading him while he could might have been a statement of sorts that he did not wish to bog the team down on long-term commitments, while working under the assumption that plenty of players will be happy to take Cohen's money if the core of a team that severely underplayed relative to its payroll feels stiffed. That doesn't mean I agree with it, but I can see the reasoning. As for Diaz, the possibility exists that with all other things being more or less equal, he wanted to go to the team that is more likely to give him the chance to close out a World Series. Now that's still a metaphorical middle finger, but the Dodgers have a hell of a lot more to show for their spending than the Mets do. And Stearns has to figure out what to do about it.