Centerfield

I think it’s a deal that only made sense for the Padres. For the team, it’s a three year commitment but only a one year guarantee. Meaning you’re only getting one good year, but up to three bad ones. When you factor in the QO it doesn’t make sense for a rental.

By the way, as much as I'm just ok with this move, if this means that we can stop hearing about trading Tong for a relief pitcher, I'm good with this.

He had a Ryan Helslian September, putting up a 9.64 ERA that month, coupled with pitch tipping issues. Like Helsley, Weaver is looking to bounce back. It's ok. The Yankee thing doesn't bother me as much. I just hope he's worked out whatever his September issue was.

San Diego also has had 5 consecutive banner years in attendance, ranking top 5 each year 2021-25, despite being in about the 20th largest market in MLB. Only the Dodgers (with a much larger stadium) had a higher attendance than the Padres this year. San Diego basically sold out the entire season in 2025 and weren’t far behind in 2024. By comparison, San Diego ranked between 14 and 21st overall in each of the 10 seasons from 2010 to 2019. Sure, the playoff results aren’t there, and it’s not easy to win the division when you’ve got the Dodgers around…but if I’m running the Padres, I’m in no hurry to tear things down. Right. Which is why I'm skeptical of any matchup in terms of trade. Unless you're trading Tatis or Merril, you're not unloading Boegarts or Machado. And since Machado is still effective, why not go for these next two years. The rebuild will be long and expensive, but flags fly forever.

I'm calling ********. Pete is already gone. Edwin is gone. We know that there aren't likely to be more departures. This is like calling a team meeting before your ace takes the mound. (reads about trade rumors involving Jonah Tong) Are you sure that door is fixed? It can't hurt to have someone take a second look.

It's important to remember that every team fills out their minor league teams with signings. And all of them are guys who, well, belong in the minor leagues. The reason you don't hear about other teams signing them is because we are not fans of other teams. As angry as I am at Stearns, and as much as I vehemently disagree with what he's doing, one thing he does well is fill in around the edges. Some of his fill-in guys have performed pretty well for us.

Will Sammon has been pretty spot on this winter. He said early that the Mets would not go more than 3 years on Alonso, and mentioned Jorge Polanco the night before the deal happened. In his article in the Times today, he said the Mets are looking to add a starter "in the front half of their rotation", according to league sources. Also from the article: So, not super helpful. I said it in another thread. At some point, the Mets are going to need someone who can adequately hit behind Juan Soto.

Looking at it from AJ Preller's standpoint, I would think you have a 1-2 year window since Machado is 33. After that, you're probably looking at a rebuild. Why not go for it these last two years, then just eat it for the next half decade. They spent a ton of money starting with signing Machado. All they have to show for it is one NLCS appearance. If you're not looking to add, then you should tear down now. Shop Tatis, Mason Miller and Jackson Merrill. Anyone interested in taking them has to take Bogaerts/Machado. You'll have to throw in money to move them, but at least you can start with a clean slate relatively soon.

Merrill regressed a bit last year but still put up a .774 OPS and played a strong centerfield. He's making $11M, this year, as part of a 9 year, $135M contract. His salary increases to $20M 4 years from now, and only takes him to 31 years old. I doubt they look to move him. As mentioned above, Pivetta is a strong candidate for regression. In addition to being a standout year, his FIP was 3.49, which suggests a bit of luck. No doubt he also benefited from moving from Fenway to Petco. If Pivetta does well, he'll opt out. The last two years of his contract are his decision. So it's a rental, where you only get to keep him if he's terrible or hurt. Ramon Laureano has been good for about a year and a half. He's put up a mid 800's OPS during that time and hit 24 HRs last year. But that's about the limit to his upside. And before that you have a long history of low .700s, mid .600s OPS. He'd also be a rental, as he's a free agent after this year. Pivetta and Laureano are not worth giving up anything worthwhile. They'll ask too much for Mason Miller. And likely Jackson Merrill is not available. So I don't see how we line up, except that SD has to shed payroll. The Tatis contract has an expiration date of about 3 years. Bogaerts is already underwater, Machado's will be a disaster starting next year, and Darvish is already useless, with three more years left. I thought that maybe the Mets could line up with SD by taking on some bad salary. But given Stearns unwillingness to sign long term deals to his own players, I don't see him agreeing to take on bad contracts from another team. Plus, except the Darvish contract, the other deals are so long, you can't justify taking them back. Mason Miller or not.

Yeah. Five years to a 33 year old with no position is significantly more of a risk than 5 years to a 31 year old that can at least play 1B at a passable level. And to be clear, I’m not saying 5 years to Pete is a smart move either. I just think that if you’re going to take that chance on anyone, a franchise icon is where you do it. Also, I feel like Pete could have been locked up last year to a four year deal.

Mets are engaged in trade talks with the Padres, per multiple reports. Names being discussed are Nick Pivetta, Ramon Laureano, and Mason Miller. Padres are said to like the Mets young big leaguers and prospects, in particular Jonah Tong. My thoughts. Pivetta is a nice pitcher, but a regression candidate. We would be buying high. Similar thoughts about Laureano. Regression candidate. His ceiling is similar to Polanco, but could also just as easily post a .650 OPS. I don’t think we should give up top prospects for a reliever. Even one as good as Miller. The Padres deny it. But they have to be facing financial constraints. They have some of the worst contracts in the game. Darvish is in year 4 of his 6 year extension. He’s already toast. The Boegarts deal is a disaster. Machado is still productive and making $25M. But starting next year that salary jumps to $39M. He’ll be 34 and signed for seven more seasons! Even the Tatis contract is not good. He’s making $20M this year. Then jumps to $25M. Then when he turns 30, that number jumps to $36M. And maybe that’s worth it if he’s a .900+ OPS shortstop. But not really if he’s an .800ish corner OF, which is what he’s been since his PED suspension. They don’t need to move him now. But they have less than three seasons, and that’s assuming he keeps producing, and assuming no further suspensions. The Mets have leverage. How that translates into an actual deal, I have no clue. But if there’s a trade, it would be malpractice to lose it.

I have nothing against Contreras, depending on what we have to give up to get him. But at some point we have to get someone who can hit behind Juan Soto and he’s not it.

That’s where I am too. Offensively, it’s fine. So long as he’s batting 5th or lower. Defensively, hopefully this is our DH. Being a switch hitter, he kinda combines Winker and Marte. The defensive versatility allows Stearns to maybe move McNeil for a useful player, if he’s so inclined. He’s kinda like a better fielding Vientos. So I wonder if Mark is on the block. If he’s our everyday first baseman and batting third, then that’s no good.

So following the Polanco signing, it’s still up in the air which direction the Mets are going. Polanco is a nice bat when healthy, but not a star. I think the next offensive move will give insight on which way the Mets are going. If it’s another “perfectly fine” signing then I think it’s the Wild Card route. If they go middle of the order bat then we know they’re going for it.

Salary is 2/3 of what they offered Alonso. Contract term is also 2/3 what they were willing to give Alonso. He hit 26 HRs last year. Roughly 2/3 of Alonso’s 38.

$20M per year appears to be more than expected. MLB trade rumors had him at 3 years, $42M. Looks like Stearns went less years, more AAV.

If he’s healthy, the bat could be good enough to replace Nimmo. His defense doesn’t do much for the “run prevention” philosophy. Short term deal fits Stearns.

Just players. I get that Gil and Casey meant a lot to the organization. I don’t consider them icons and I don’t think their numbers should be retired.

Mets sign Jorge Polanco. 2 years. $40 million. Switch hitting utility IF/DH type. 32 years old.

Define it as you see fit. How many have we had? For me: Tom Seaver Darryl Strawberry Dwight Gooden David Wright Pete Alonso

Sure. Wild Card runs are fun. And as upset as I am about Pete, it would be silly for me not to acknowledge the success that Stearns had in Milwaukee. Making the playoffs 5 out of 6 years would be the best run in Mets history by far. I have no doubt he wants to bring that type of success here. But my concerns are: 1. Whether a "Stearns" team, can be successful in the NL East. Milwaukee does great in a weak NL Central. How would those teams fare against the NL East? If those Brewers teams played against Philly and Atlanta, they're not making the playoffs all those years. 2. Post Season Success. As good as the Brewers were in the regular season, they were garbage in the post-season. Stearns teams went 1-5 in playoff series. (.167) Stearns' analytic-driven Brewers remind me of the Moneyball A's. In fact, they have the exact same playoff win percentage: 2-10 (.167). By contrast, the Mets don't make the playoffs a lot. But when they do, they've beaten some pretty good teams to get there, and tend to fare better. Mets in playoff series since 2000: 7-6 (.538).

The quotes are two made-up quotes trying to depict two different mindsets that David Stearns might be having this winter. I'm guessing the real David Stearns has a mindset closer to the first guy rather than the second guy. But you're right. We don't know anything and we have to see. The reason I'm pessimistic is that the two non-moves, and specifically, the mindset motivating the two non-moves, suggests an unwillingness to take the kind of risks a team has to make in order to construct a championship contender. I'm also looking at the players that remain available and having a hard time seeing a road map to a championship contender. But again, we don't have all the info, and we don't know who's available in trades. I also wouldn't be happy if we gut our farm system for short term help, but I see that as less of a risk with Stearns. I'd be happy to be wrong. And like everyone else here, I hope we go into Opening Day with a team that is realistically expected to challenge for the division, or be a division favorite, rather than a team that projects to a Wild Card.

Wait. So both you and FK feel that the team is not trying to just make the playoffs? I mean obviously once they're in, they're hoping to win it all. But as far as win total, you think they're all in? It's hard to fathom that considering how they're acting. "Let's try to win 85-88 games. If things break right, we win 90+ and win the division. But 87 wins should be enough to play in October. Then hopefully we go on a run." "**** the wild card. Let's win the ****ing division. 95 wins and we make Philly our bitches" I don't know. I feel like their thinking is a lot closer to the first quote than the second. I hope you guys are right.

And for the sake of argument, let's assume that Stearns' plan is to churn out a 95 team that will challenge the Phillies for the division. How can he get there? The team won 83 games in 2025. That team reached that win total with the support of early season contributions from Megill and Canning, standout seasons from Alonso and Diaz, and solid contribution from Nimmo. None of these players are back in 2026. So what is our starting point? 80-81 wins? Basically a .500 team. And I think that may be generous. Where is this team finding a minimum 15 wins? Cody Bellinger? He's the same age as Alonso. And he's a better defender, but offensively, he has a lower ceiling, a lower floor, and none of the consistency. If we're afraid of how Alonso will age, aren't we also taking a risk with an aging Bellinger? Kyle Tucker is 29. So he's more of a Stearns type player. But do you see Stearns giving the long term deal it will take to get him? You could make trades. But trading prospects doesn't follow the Stearns model for sustained success. I don't think Milwaukee has that protracted run if you're trading prospects for rentals and veterans. Michael King. The Japanese sluggers. Framber Valdez. Are these guys the answer? Would Stearns even be interested in any of them? Again. I'd love to be wrong. But I'm having trouble coming up with a realistic path to a team we can look at and say "Yeah, that team can challenge the Phillies and Dodgers".

I feel like I should start by saying I am incredibly angry at the Mets. More so than in my entire life. And likely a lot of this is reactionary, so take what I say with a grain of salt. And of course, none of us have any idea what the Mets are going to actually do. But that being said. What I speculated was: And let me start with this. I'd be thrilled to be wrong. But the reason I think this is the case is: 1. The owner responded to Jon Heyman via text. And although I may be reading too much into this, he said something along the lines of "I understand the fans' frustration, but it's early, and there's still plenty of time to turn this into a playoff team" (emphasis added). Playoff team is a lot different than championship contender, or World Series team. And in the past, the owner has talked big along those lines. I feel like this shift in tone is material. 2. The team I described above is more or less what David Stearns churned out in Milwaukee. He was hired in 2015. After taking a year to get going, his teams won 86 games, 96 games, 89 games, 95 games, 86 games, 92 games (not counting 2020). Minimum 86-89 wins, three division titles when things broke right. I concede three division titles is more than "once in a while". But I also contend that the NL Central is not the NL East. 3. His stated preference and his demonstrated practice of avoiding long term contracts to pitchers, and to any players over 30. I think it's hard to consistently win 95 games without making yourself a little bit uncomfortable. The Dodgers have all sorts of long term deals. Including the Freeman deal that we didn't do with Alonso. The Phillies have bad contracts. Nola. Castellanos. They endured the back end of the Realmuto deal. They just gave a five year renewal to a 33 year old Schwarber. San Diego has Bogaerts, a million years left on Machado. Yu Darvish. The Yankees, with Stanton, LeMahieu, Cole. 8 years to Max Fried. You can look at these contracts and find fault with all of them, but these teams win year after year. If you're not willing to spend like this, than (a) you better hope you're in a central division, and ( be willing to finish with 86-89 wins in half your seasons. Again. I'd be thrilled to be wrong.