Hard to buy in with Stearns' logic after letting Pete and Diaz walk and then turning around and throwing $50mil at Tucker. Seems like a desperation move to me.
Apples and oranges. Getting Tucker for 3 years is actually pretty smart because it insures they'll have a big bat to protect Soto during his prime production years, since it's a pretty good bet Soto opts out after year 5. Pete knew this would be his last big contract, so he wanted the longest term he could get.
Mr. Van Buskirk: I need some educatin'. Is there anything in baseball similar to a sign-and-trade? I'm thinking of Peralta who is a FA after 2026. Is there anything to prevent the Mets from getting the Brewers to give permission to talk to him about agreeing to an extension and only then consummating a trade that parts with some blue chips prospects? I can't see the Mets parting with, say, Sproat and Williams and an additional lesser prospect in exchange for just a single year of Peralta. I never hear about this kind of thing in baseball. Why not?
Sign and trades are a thing in the NBA because you can go over the cap resign your own players, in the MLB there’s no need for it. When we traded for lindor we had definitely spoken to his people about terms before the contact was accepted.
In this case it’s pretty much the same thing, if an agent went back on the contract extension they’d probably get blacklisted in the MLB, he’s an under the table understanding
Ok, let's say that's true. What that doesn't explain is why I never see a word written along the lines of, "Peralta is a FA after 2026. It's rumored that the Mets have offered a package headlined by Sproat and Williams but the deal is pending talks on a long-term extension between the Mets and Peralta. Discussions between the Mets and Peralta's people are ongoing." To repeat, I never see it.
Because they make sure of the extension before they do the trade. You see it all the time a player gets traded and signs an extension like 3 days later where those contracts usually take weeks to get done.
If you agree the trade first the player gets a lot of leverage
I'd be happy to be wrong about it because I'd love to sign Peralta long-term. If you can give an example or two where it's obvious (new deal signed within days) that a deal on an extension was in place before a trade was consummated.
The Tucker news most assuredly came from his agent and screams “ hey, this is the Mets offer can anyone please beat this because we don’t want a three year contract”. We haven’t heard much until yesterday. The Jays have backed off I believe and while we don’t know if deferrals or opt outs are included that leaves the Dodgers as the only other team that could possibly still go the “fuck it route and spend even more”. The Mets have Tucker in a corner and he just has to blink. I’m sure other teams have less AAV’s for their deals with him now he just needs to decide what means more. Bergman just got 175 mil at 32/3 so Tucker will get another shot at another bag if the three with the Mets go as advertised and he stays healthy. Bellinger wants those years so I doubt he will be in queens. No matter what they offer.
I like Tucker a lot. But man, $50mm per looks very, very large to me for a guy with basically Danny Tartabull's career 162-game averages. Don't get me wrong, Tartabull was a dangerous hitter in his day and a really decent ballplayer. But that's stratospheric superstar money.
It also hurts to think about how close that is to where we needed to be to keep Pete and Sugar.
That being said, there's a solid consensus around "sign Tucker, trade for Peralta" because it's the obvious play, so if that's where it ends up, there's not much to say. It's Steve Cohen's money. He can spend it as he likes.
And the fact Stearns is acknowledging our ... let's say, restlessness ... while insisting he really does have a long-term plan is encouraging. I want the guy running our show to have the courage of his convictions.
I was disappointed they let Chris Devenski go. He did a good job for them. I wouldn't mind to them take a flier on Jonathan Loáisiga. He's coming off an injury, so he'll come cheap.
So this kid at $50M AAV replaces Polar Bear, Diaz and Nimmo? WTF?
Hard to buy in with Stearns' logic after letting Pete and Diaz walk and then turning around and throwing $50mil at Tucker. Seems like a desperation move to me.
Apples and oranges. Getting Tucker for 3 years is actually pretty smart because it insures they'll have a big bat to protect Soto during his prime production years, since it's a pretty good bet Soto opts out after year 5. Pete knew this would be his last big contract, so he wanted the longest term he could get.
Soto's opt-out can be negated by the team with a $4mm annual salary bump for the rest of the contract.
Agreed on the need for another reliever. Id be happy with Wilson or Coulombe.
Mr. Van Buskirk: I need some educatin'. Is there anything in baseball similar to a sign-and-trade? I'm thinking of Peralta who is a FA after 2026. Is there anything to prevent the Mets from getting the Brewers to give permission to talk to him about agreeing to an extension and only then consummating a trade that parts with some blue chips prospects? I can't see the Mets parting with, say, Sproat and Williams and an additional lesser prospect in exchange for just a single year of Peralta. I never hear about this kind of thing in baseball. Why not?
Sign and trades are a thing in the NBA because you can go over the cap resign your own players, in the MLB there’s no need for it. When we traded for lindor we had definitely spoken to his people about terms before the contact was accepted.
It's one thing to speak to a player's agent about terms and it's another thing to have a binding contract, no?
In this case it’s pretty much the same thing, if an agent went back on the contract extension they’d probably get blacklisted in the MLB, he’s an under the table understanding
Ok, let's say that's true. What that doesn't explain is why I never see a word written along the lines of, "Peralta is a FA after 2026. It's rumored that the Mets have offered a package headlined by Sproat and Williams but the deal is pending talks on a long-term extension between the Mets and Peralta. Discussions between the Mets and Peralta's people are ongoing." To repeat, I never see it.
Because they make sure of the extension before they do the trade. You see it all the time a player gets traded and signs an extension like 3 days later where those contracts usually take weeks to get done.
If you agree the trade first the player gets a lot of leverage
I'd be happy to be wrong about it because I'd love to sign Peralta long-term. If you can give an example or two where it's obvious (new deal signed within days) that a deal on an extension was in place before a trade was consummated.
Trade was accepted *
The Tucker news most assuredly came from his agent and screams “ hey, this is the Mets offer can anyone please beat this because we don’t want a three year contract”. We haven’t heard much until yesterday. The Jays have backed off I believe and while we don’t know if deferrals or opt outs are included that leaves the Dodgers as the only other team that could possibly still go the “fuck it route and spend even more”. The Mets have Tucker in a corner and he just has to blink. I’m sure other teams have less AAV’s for their deals with him now he just needs to decide what means more. Bergman just got 175 mil at 32/3 so Tucker will get another shot at another bag if the three with the Mets go as advertised and he stays healthy. Bellinger wants those years so I doubt he will be in queens. No matter what they offer.
"I’m also very convicted that what we are doing is the right thing for our franchise..." So Stearns is convicted. Hmm...
LOL.
Beat me to the punch. Let's hope he said "convinced". Btw, I'm sorry not to hear any Valdez or Suarez reports.
I like Tucker a lot. But man, $50mm per looks very, very large to me for a guy with basically Danny Tartabull's career 162-game averages. Don't get me wrong, Tartabull was a dangerous hitter in his day and a really decent ballplayer. But that's stratospheric superstar money.
It also hurts to think about how close that is to where we needed to be to keep Pete and Sugar.
That being said, there's a solid consensus around "sign Tucker, trade for Peralta" because it's the obvious play, so if that's where it ends up, there's not much to say. It's Steve Cohen's money. He can spend it as he likes.
And the fact Stearns is acknowledging our ... let's say, restlessness ... while insisting he really does have a long-term plan is encouraging. I want the guy running our show to have the courage of his convictions.
He just has to be right.
I was disappointed they let Chris Devenski go. He did a good job for them. I wouldn't mind to them take a flier on Jonathan Loáisiga. He's coming off an injury, so he'll come cheap.