Want to be like the Dodgers? Act like the Dodgers

The Mets indifferent and passive approach to Edwin Díaz cost them dearly, both on the field and reputation-wise. And it could cost them with other players too

AP Photo

I have spent the last 24 hours trying to wrap my head around this Edwin Díaz departure and what it all might mean for the Mets.

It hasn’t been easy to do.

There have been a lot of flares shot off about how this all went down, the Mets not getting a chance at a best and final offer, and opinions flaring, including my own. Mets President of Baseball Operations came on the air on two occasions and essentially said people need to trust what they are trying to do here, and that he’s excited about where this off-season is going, and all of the things you’d expect a general manager to say in public to those who are listening and care about the franchise.

In the end, I don’t really know what to believe, and I don’t think what may or may not have been said or happened really doesn’t matter.

It’s all about the action, or the inaction in the end.

If you are one to believe the Mets last offer was for three years and $66 million, as they would have you to believe when that got fed to the media on Tuesday morning, fine. I don’t think that’s unbelievable myself. Nor do I think it’s unbelievable that Díaz didn’t come back to the Mets asking for a best and final offer.

What is unbelievable is the approach they had which was conveyed through the media.

My first response, and the response I have maintained, is, are the Mets serious?

Last year, Steve Cohen, and/or David Stearns went full bore after Juan Soto. They were the aggressor for the best player available in free agency and one of the best players ever to become available in free agency. Not only were they overly aggressive, but that aggressiveness demonstrated how much they felt they needed him in their organization, how much they felt he filled an on-field baseball need, and how much they believed signing Soto would permanently alter the outside perception of the franchise with fans, media, and both internal and external players.

Now, I am not one to believe this approach can or should be taken with every player. There’s no reason to take such an approach with a player where the signability is an issue. It’s a waste of time in the end, a waste of resources, and can take away from a club’s ability to pursue other players who may be more signable.

But that wasn’t the case with Díaz.

By all accounts, whether it was what he was telling people in public and in private, he wanted to come back to the Mets. Opting out of his deal wasn’t a “I’m done with the Mets” thing. He’s entering his age 32 season and had two guaranteed years left on the contract. The opt-out was built into this deal three years ago. It was built in just in case he was still dominant in his role and had the ability to primarily guarantee him more years. Sure, he wanted to break the bank - that’s business. And he did - he got more AAV than he did before and set yet another record for relievers. As well he should - he is the best closer in baseball.

And to the Mets’ credit, they were prepared to allow him to break that record which he set with them three years before, assuming the three-year, $66 million offer was accurate (even with the reported deferrals).

But why would the Mets take an approach which would allow not just the Dodgers, but literally any team in the derby inclusive of the Blue Jays and Braves to outbid them for a player Stearns has lauded in public and stated he would love to have back?

Is taking what can only be seen as an indifferent and passive approach for their star free agent closer indicative of a team actually wanting that player back?

If you listened to Stearns last night on SNY - which was nothing short of damage control - you heard someone who basically thinks they can be better without Díaz in 2026 and in future seasons. Personally, I don’t see how the bullpen can be better without the best closer in baseball, no matter how good everyone else might be, because, well, there’s nobody better currently at his job.

Obviously, the Dodgers didn’t think they could be better without Díaz, and they just won the World Series for a second straight year.

Mr. Cohen has said over the years, more or less, he wants the Mets to emulate the Dodgers. I suppose that means in the won/loss column primarily, but also when it comes to organization building and reputation building. But emulating them also has a lot to do with player recruitment and pursuits, a whole hell of a lot of risk-taking when it comes to roster moves, and culture building as well.

I think Mr. Cohen emulated the Dodgers in their pursuits of Soto, Max Scherzer, and Justin Verlander. All of them said he sold them on a vision for the Mets both in the present and the future, they were treated like family, and that they’re working to create a family-centric environment both on and off the field. They’re also all great players, future Hall of Famers, and the Mets and Mr. Cohen specifically needed to work really hard to recruit them and convince them to join as their history speaks for itself and it’s hard to convince people to come - even with the best offer on the table - when players can just go to the Dodgers or Yankees and have a pretty good idea where they are going on an annual basis.

So, what happened to that? Why did the Mets take what can only be seen and concluded as an indifferent approach on Díaz? We are talking about three years - the Mets seemingly magic number - for the best closer in the sport here.

If you want to guess that Edwin Díaz wanted to leave the Mets, that he wanted to join the team nobody could beat, fine.

And, if you believe they left things with him at 3/66 and he snubbed them and went to the Dodgers, that’s fine too. For all intents and purposes, that’s probably fair given the information we have. But that’s still not a big market way to handle a negotiation for the best closer in the game, especially when they had to know the Dodgers - the two-time World Champion that nobody can beat right now - were in the mix, had the need, and have a reputation for pushing everything out of the way to fill that need. And that doesn’t even include the Braves, who reportedly are in this until the end too.

I am not really sure which outcome is worse, although my gut says losing him to the Dodgers, the team they want to emulate and the team they will probably have to beat to get to the World Series, is worse.

If you watched Mets Hot Stove on SNY on Tuesday night, you heard Devin Williams talk about being made to feel wanted by the Mets. I have written about this before, many, many times. It goes back to José Reyes’ first free agency when the Mets didn’t even make him an offer, and word on the street was he just didn’t feel wanted by the Mets.

It matters.

They let Díaz go over a matter of what is effectively one extra year on the original deal and $9 million more in extra average annual value spread over the next three years. If the Mets really wanted him, they could’ve had him, and they would’ve been the aggressor in these negotiations. It’s as if they just assumed Díaz would come back around, or they felt entitled to the point where they believed he should come back around.

That’s not how free agency works. Would the Dodgers have ever let that happen with Clayton Kershaw? No. The Phillies didn’t let that happen with Kyle Schwarber, who signed literally moments before Díaz did with the Dodgers.

Díaz did what I would’ve done, or what anyone would’ve done. He went to the place that made him feel the most wanted, the most needed, and to a team that is positioned to beat the Mets at every important juncture over the course of his contract. Sure, he took the most money, but in business, that is part of making a prospective employee feel wanted.

Look, maybe they’ll be right in the end. David Stearns might be able to build this bullpen right, he’ll be able to successfully dance around passively with three-year situations with every single free agent, he’ll be able to piece this broken rotation together and make it competent, Devin Williams might have a 2 ERA in 2026 and save 40 games, and all might be well in the world this time next year.

But, he keeps touting the resources at his disposal, and quite frankly, I am just not seeing him do that in the external markets right now. Sure, they’ve spent a ton of money on organization building, player development, technological advances, and all of that fun stuff nobody gets to see. That’s great. Welcome to 21st-century sports. Colleges and professional sports organizations have been doing this for far longer than the Mets have.

But what matters, even for their own reputation, is what happens on the field. And what happens on the field in most years for this club, regardless of the owner, regardless of the GM, regardless of the manager, and regardless of the roster, is not usually good.

In the end, these are the Steve Cohen Mets. They should’ve made Díaz want them, if they in fact wanted him as badly as they needed him. That is ultimately what matters.

That’s what the Dodgers did for him in the end.

I’d say the same for Pete Alonso too, but now I need proof they actually want him, want to build on what is in fact good about the team and organization and not play the “sign people at our price” game when it’s needed.

Want to be like the Dodgers? Act like the Dodgers.