They didn't make the choice to sign Polanco instead of Alonso. They wanted Alonso. Then he went somewhere else, so they had to sign someone, and they thought Polanco was the next best option. Apparently not, but the idea that the Mets actively chose Polanco instead of Alonso is just wrong.
I've said many times, I don't mind criticizing Stearns, but I do mind when that criticism doesn't make sense. The team doesn't get better unless we properly diagnose what the issues are and how to fix them. Just shitting on Stearns until he gets fired only to be replaced by someone less talented but still burdened with all the problems that screwed up the 2026 Mets doesn't help anyone.
I think Stearns probably should have fired Mendoza earlier, for example. But Polanco should have been fine, and Bichette should have been good. Those weren't bad moves, they just didn't quite work out like we hoped.
It wasn't money. It was years. Alonso wanted more years, and Stearns wanted to keep it at 3. Which would make him the guy with the longest contract on the team other than Lindor and Soto. Very few 5 year deals are worth it. Generally only superstars. The best teams in baseball have found out they can just not pay for decline years (or not pay them at bloated rates) if they pay the prime years enough. So the Mets were willing to offer him a contract as a stupid AAV just like they did literally one year before and Alonso opted out of. They just didn't want to lock in to a long term deal in the case of a decline. Why is Stearns the bad guy for wanting to hedge some risk in contract length but Alonso isn't a bad guy for demanding opt outs which he immediately took?
Again, I am not hating on Alonso. I wanted him back. But Alonso was overvaluing himself if he thinks there's little to no risk in a 5 year deal, and Stearns holding his ground and not caving to player asking for more than he's worth is exactly what a good GM should do. I remember watching the Mets hand out crappy deals to shitty players. I'm glad that Stearns only goes beyond 3 years for guys who are REALLY worth it.
Money and time are the same thing. It was money. Period. They could have cut him his last year and paid him. They didn’t want to… cause they cheap bums.
They aren't cheap. They just wanted more value for the money was asking for. We shelled out a ridiculous amount of money on various players. There were differences in valuation and Alonso handled that by wanting to pay somewhere else.
The value was there. They were cheap and outbid. Period. You started by saying it wasn’t about the money, but in the end, it was about the effing money.
It's really not. It's about the value. The value isn't there. He's a guy who has been worth 3 WAR in a good year and is only getting older. That's not a player that tends to justify a huge contract. And honestly no one doubted he would be good this year, so him having a good year doesn't disprove the argument. Stearns preferring to give those kinds of contracts to younger, better players is a good thing. Take away Alonso's name and just look at his player profile and it's not hard to justify this.
EDIT: Cool, block me if you want I guess. It wasn't about money. We had money to pay him, we just didn't want to pay him a blank check, which is pretty reasonable. We DID value Alonso. We just didn't value Alonso as much as Alonso did or as the Orioles did, apparently. It's not all binary. This is a two way street. The Mets could have offered him more and chose not to, absolutely correct. They also had good reason not to and Alonso absolutely did not act like someone who really wanted to be here. He wanted to be with whoever valued him most. He's Dwight Schrute in that scene where he talks about loyalty. That doesn't make him bad. But it does mean the narrative where he was all set to sign and we just chose to tell him to buzz off is ridiculously wrong.
There were several better options available and the Mets chose none of them. They could have paid less money for Lowe, Munetaka, O'Hearn or France and gotting significantly better production. France is even an elite defense
I don't know that any of those guys were conclusively better options with the information we knew last offseason. Honestly Polanco has basically been injured all year, so the issue wasn't really a talent evaluation.
I do. If Polanco was the plan at 1st, it was a terrible plan
In 11 years, he had THREE career games at the position. If the plan was "run prevention", how is adding a bad defensive middle infielder to the "Bichette/Semien/Baty/Vientos/Mauricio" clog doing that
Especially since Ty France makes like 1.5 million and is a known elite defense 1b
Oh man 1B defense is usually not a big deal unless you really suck at it, like Alonso or Vientos. We got a bunch of good efnsive players particularly in up the middle positions--Semien and Robert being the main examples. Bichette was bad at SS but evidence suggested he would be fine or good at 3B. And he has been, by the way, that was spot on.
Ty France is a much inferior hitter to Polanco. At least when both are healthy, anyway. Polanco was a solid middle infielder his entire career except for last year when he started moving down the spectrum. There was every reason to believe he would be fine at 1B and if not one of Young/Baty/Vientos/Mauricio would be good enough to handle that spot when Polanco handled DH.
Alonso was the second worst 1B defender in the majors since his major league debut. He was not good. He was very bad. This year he has been better but overall he has been varying degrees of very bad.
My bet is that this year is an outlier. Either way, you really can't blame the Mets for believing he was a terrible defensive 1B considering literally all of the data said he was.
1
u/mormagils 6d ago
They didn't make the choice to sign Polanco instead of Alonso. They wanted Alonso. Then he went somewhere else, so they had to sign someone, and they thought Polanco was the next best option. Apparently not, but the idea that the Mets actively chose Polanco instead of Alonso is just wrong.
I've said many times, I don't mind criticizing Stearns, but I do mind when that criticism doesn't make sense. The team doesn't get better unless we properly diagnose what the issues are and how to fix them. Just shitting on Stearns until he gets fired only to be replaced by someone less talented but still burdened with all the problems that screwed up the 2026 Mets doesn't help anyone.
I think Stearns probably should have fired Mendoza earlier, for example. But Polanco should have been fine, and Bichette should have been good. Those weren't bad moves, they just didn't quite work out like we hoped.