Thought this was an interesting article about the mets offseason (so far?).

I don't agree with everything in here, (I still think we should've re-signed Diaz over signing Williams) but one point this article consistently makes, that I agree with 100%, is their offseason revolved around "Liquidity and Optionality", essentially preserving the ability to change directions in the future

7 comments

  1. Diaz and Tucker wanted to play for LA. Diaz moved across the entire country for 1 million more a year. No one making 22 million a year moves 2500 miles for 23 million a year. He wanted to be out and get a ring. Don’t want him here if he doesn’t want to be here. Was he great when he was on? Yeah. Is he here next year? No

  2. I like most of our moves. The aggregate is probably stronger than the money we would’ve spent on Tucker. Think I would’ve preferred a rogers/keller over a weaver but I think the Mets would’ve too and it just didn’t come to fruition

  3. > The path of least resistance – retain your own free agents, sign a top pitcher – would have resulted in a meaningfully less flexible team, both in terms of their on-field options for 2026 and their long-term salary structure.

    Best line in this article

  4. My gripes are: a utility steroid guy trying first base for the first time. Devin Williams may have had his career ruined by Pete Alonso, and now he’s OUR closer. Hard to believe. I’m ok with the other moves. I really like Peralta, and the Robert Jr gamble is a good one.

  6. Terrific piece. Always enjoy Fangraphs – and this one really gets me hyped for the season through strong reasoning on the different ways these moves can pan out. Bring on Opening Day!

  7. Good article, thanks for sharing it. I think the hardest thing for fans is maintaining the “Coherence of Strategy”. A lot of the problem is you have to be unemotional, which is the polar (pun intended) opposite of being a fan.

Leave a Reply