Centerfield

I would argue (and I think Stearns would agree) that deals given to other players in the past have nothing to do with the type of deal Alonso should get. No matter what Boras may say. The only thing dictating Alonso’s deal is his market. And specifically, what any other team is willing to give him. And that’s why Stearns won’t budge unless another suitor comes along.

Of the other landing spots mentioned: 1. Giants: Alonso makes no sense for the Giants. They have 1B prospect Bryce Eldridge. He's their top prospect (#35 overall) and has the potential to be a masher. ETA is 2026. If the Giants are interested at all, I can't imagine they want anything other than a short term deal. 2. Angels: The Angels also have a top prospect at 1B. Nolan Schanuel is not as highly rated as Bryce Eldridge (#95, MLB Pipeline), but he's already made his debut. An article recently suggested that the Angels might consider a position change for Schanuel if they signed Alonso, but there's no one suggesting that this might be a possibility other than that one article's author. The author: Jon Heyman. 3. Mariners: Seattle certainly has a need for offense, and has a hole at 1B. But Seattle just doesn't really play in this end of the free agent market and are said to be looking to shed salary. I guess in theory these guys are a possibility, but the likelihood of Jerry DiPoto suddenly deciding to give an over 30 declining 1B a long term deal doesn't seem all that high. I was thinking that another factor working against Alonso might be the idea that other clubs believe that whatever they offer, the Mets will match anyway. So why even bother.

By the way, Carlos Baerga is now speculating that the Mets have interest in Anthony Santander. I wasn't really interested in Santander as a Soto alternative, but might be at least a conceptual fit as an Alonso alternative. In many ways, he's the same type of hitter as Pete. Low average, big power hitter. He gets on base less than Pete, but he's a switch hitter, and hit 44 last year. He's the same age as Pete (both entering their age 30 seasons). Like Pete, he's not great defensively, but has played some 1B in the past. How effectively, I have no idea. Newsday says the Mets made an offer to Teoscar Hernandez on a 2 year deal, so it looks like Stearns is not shy about bringing in another corner OF and mixing and matching at DH. Signing Santander could mean the Mets move Vientos to 1B, then try to mix in some of the younger players at 2B/3B. Alternatively, Santander could try playing 1B. I'm skeptical that this is anything more than a backup plan in the event Pete walks, or perhaps it's just leverage to bring down his price.

It's funny how much that HR in Milwaukee changes the perspective. If he doesn't hit that HR, I wonder if there would be this overwhelming support to bring him back. I like Pete. And I'd even be willing to overpay a bit to bring him back. I know that isn't necessarily the best baseball move, but as a fan, the people who wear the uniform mean something to me. And Pete is a loveable player and a terrific person. And I think there is value to a home grown guy who spends his whole career as a Met. 30/90 is fine. So is 4/100. Opt out after 1 in each of them. I wouldn't be upset if Stearns took it to 5/125. I just don't think he will.

Does anything typically happen during this week between Christmas and New Year's? I'm guessing baseball execs are sitting on a beach or next to a fire or something. The interesting thing about this lack of market is that I originally thought this next contract was an opportunity to lock up Pete for the rest of his career. It's becoming increasingly clear that this won't be the case, and that Pete is looking at going back to the market again, whether he takes an opt-out or not. I guess for him the best case scenario is for him to stay productive so he can get a Christian Walker type deal in a few years. If I were Stearns, I think I'd be inclined to offer Pete 4 years guaranteed. 4 years, $100M, opt-out after year 1. Those four years take him to his year 33 season, and even among big bodied RH hitters, 33 can still be a productive year. So maybe the best bet is to offer 3 years/90, or 4 years/100 and see which one Pete takes. Opt out after 1 in each of those deals.

I don’t think I have what it takes to be a GM. I would have blinked by now.

So Alonso won’t be signed by Christmas. Which probably means nothing will change until January. I’d love to see where the parties stand as of now. I’d guess the Alonso camp is now in “what deal can we take and save face” mode.

Nathaniel Lowe traded to Washington. Nats now out on Alonso.

Goldschmidt signed with the Yanks. Naylor traded to Arizona, and then Cleveland turns around and signs Carlos Santana. Basically all 1B options are just about gone now. (Other than Pete)

And somewhat related to this, I also wonder if his performance would not be improved with the occasional off day. Or at least DH for the day.

Pete's off year doesn't seem quite as bad if you look at OPS+ 2019: 147 2020: 122 2021: 133 2022: 146 2023: 123 2024: 123 Basically you can count on him to be in the 120s during his down years, 140s during his good years. By comparison, Bregman: 2022: 134 2023: 122 2024: 118 A case can be made that Bregman is declining worse than Pete. And for good measure, Christian Walker 2022: 126 2023: 120 2024: 116 Walker and Bregman give you better defense, but neither give you as much offense as Pete.

I think Pete's situation is kinda disconnected from Soto and more about his projections. I think Stearns has a number in mind and won't go beyond that. I don't know what his number is, but for me I'd be good with 5 years. $130-135M. If he gets an offer beyond that he's likely gone. I just hope he makes up his mind quickly before the Mets go with another option.

I don’t see any reason this couldn’t happen.

MLB Trade Rumors' prediction was fairly close to this. 5 years, $125M. And in their podcast, they felt that this was on the high side. If this is the case, I think the price works for the Mets, but maybe not the timing. As BG said earlier, Pete likely holds out, and by that time, the Mets have moved on.

Joel Sherman says that Pete turned down a 7 year, $158M extension from the Mets in 2023. If he had accepted that deal, deducting the $20,500,000 he made this year, it would leave 6 years, $138M ($23M/year). A 6 year deal would take Alonso into his year 35 season. Pete was allegedly looking for an 8-10 year deal, which I guess would now be a 7-9 year deal. Spotrac estimates his value at 6 years, $174 M ($29M/Year). I'm guessing this would be the upper limit of how high Stearns is willing to go, if it's even that high. I dunno. I don't feel great about this one. I think he's likely gone.

If Mark can play 3B he should stay there. Moving him to 1B takes away from his value. I’m not saying we have to resign Pete. Just that there’s no reason to leave defensive talent on the shelf.

I'm on board with standing ovations for Mets any time. Back to the contract. He'll be 30 in the first year of his deal. If it takes 7 years to lock him down, he might still be productive for 4-5 years of that deal. Goldschmidt, as you mentioned is now in his age 36 season. A better bet might be 3/4 years. And then you hope that he remains somewhat productive on the back end. Of course, that doesn't hold if you look at Ryan Howard and Albert Pujols. I think a few factors play in there. I think the shift played a big factor in Ryan Howard's decline. If you're making outs every time you pull the ball, it probably messes with your mechanics a bit. And with all sluggers during that era, I wonder if some of them were roided up in the early part of their careers, then put the needles away once testing got more stringent and the big contract was secured. No proof of that, of course, just wondering. As for Pete. To me, he doesn't seem like the player who would age well. But he'd almost certainly end up the career Mets leader in HRs, could be borderline HOF candidate, and would get his number retired. There's some value to that as well.

Obviously, I have no idea what actually happened, but I'm thinking that if Ohtani's lawyers let him issue a statement like this, then it must be that (a) Ohtani is telling the truth, or ( the lawyers reasonably believe he's telling the truth, or © at the very least no one will be able to prove that it's not the truth. It's one thing to cover your buddy's gambling debts not knowing it's a crime. It's another thing altogether to then accuse that guy of stealing.