Now that the Mets have lost out on Yoshinobu Yamamoto, all eyes turn toward the team’s most difficult question of the off-season: Pete Alonso’s future with the Mets. In an article from last spring, it was suggested that the team should extend his contract and that it would cost north of $400M. Some scoffed at that notion, which given Shohei Ohtani’s $700M contract now seems like a bargain.
But there is a larger question to ponder. Does it make sense? Alonso is, unquestionably, the best home run hitter in baseball over the last five seasons. A three-time All-Star and MVP vote-getter, very few players in the history of the game can match his power numbers through their first five seasons. He plays with tremendous heart and he is a threat every time he comes to the plate to do something unbelievable. His fielding is much better than you would expect for such a big man. He is a special player.
However, let’s leave out of the equation the notion that he is a homegrown player. So was Wayne Garrett. Being a homegrown player doesn’t win ball games. If you’re talking about the last man on a bad team (Rusty Staub, circa 1983) then sentimentality is a factor. When you are trying to construct a perennial winning franchise, the cold-eyed evaluation of talent is all that matters.
Notwithstanding last spring’s article, I am having second thoughts about whether it makes sense to lock Alonso up and plant him at 1B (or DH) for the next 8-10 years. Here’s why: the Mets are terrible at handing out long-term/expensive contracts. They almost never work out. One could argue that in the history of the franchise it has never worked out the way fans wanted. Taking away the current long-term/expensive deals (Francisco Lindor‘s 10/$341, Brandon Nimmo‘s 8/$162, Starling Marte‘ 4/$78, and Edwin Diaz‘ 5/$102 there are at least four long-term/expensive deals the Mets have entered into that were absolute disasters. Jason Bay‘s 4/$66 leads this list. He was simply awful for the Mets. Yoenis Cespedes was great, but only before he inked the 4/$110 deal. Once he did he never played – remember the wild boar? Even Johan Santana‘s 6/$137.5 was a bust after his first season. Once he got hurt, he never regained his Cy Young form, outside one glorious Friday night in June of 2012. After the no-no, he was finished.
Intentionally not included here in this discussion is Mo Vaughn because it wasn’t the Mets who agreed to the contract – they merely adopted it when they traded for him. Other than one home run Vaughn hit three quarters of the way up the scoreboard in Shea Stadium, his career in New York was spent either striking out or on the IL.
Even David Wright disappointed once he signed his 8/$138 deal. He had a phenomenal 2012 but faded quickly after that. His stats were good in 2013, but he was on the IL for a good portion of the season. In 2014, he posted a .698 OPS. Spinal stenosis robbed him of most of 2015 and he barely played in 2016. It pains me to say that signing Wright to a long-term contract was a mistake, but it was.
Jacob deGrom could also be on the list of “not-worth-it” contracts, but he did us a favor by opting out. He signed a huge deal with the Texas Rangers, pitched five games, and went on the IL. Not worth it for the Rangers is a cautionary tale for the Mets.
The only three contracts that could arguably be said to have been worth it were Curtis Granderson‘s 4/$60, Carlos Beltran‘s 7/$119 and Mike Piazza‘s 9/$91. But one could point to the last year or two of each of these men’s careers with the Mets and say that their performance had declined so badly that they simply weren’t worth the long-term investment. Granderson struck out seemingly every time at bat in his last year. Beltran’s knees were so wobbly that few thought he had much left in the tank. However, he proved many people – myself included – wrong. Piazza struggled after 2003 with mystery injuries that kept him out of the lineup for long stretches. Few will ever forget what he brought to the team in his prime, but once his performance started to fade, he was a shell of his former self.
That brings us to Alonso. Are the Mets better off trying to cash in on his high value now and find a trade partner with young pitching? Or can they take the risk that in his years 35-39 he can provide enough power from the DH spot that he’s worth $40M+ for five seasons?
This team is going nowhere in 2024. It’s difficult t see how 2025 will be any better without a substantial influx of pitching. It would be difficult to see Alonso go, but think about what the Mets could have gotten for a 29-year-old Wright on the trade market. The Braves let Freddie Freeman go, and they never looked back. Maybe the Mets should follow suit and sell high on one of my favorite Mets of all time.
Hi Denis, and a Happy/blessed New Years to you.
It’s no secret where I stand on the question of an Alonso extension. A big fat no! Anything over five years would be a disaster. And while an under five year deal at even $40 million+, might make sense in today’s market; I would pass. Yes he’s “homegrown” and a fan favorite and a power threat, but he’s certainly not elite. Save the money and put Vientos there after the 2024 trade deadline. No matter what Pete does in 2024; and no matter how the Mets are doing by the trade deadline, he should be traded. In the short term, it’ll be a PR nightmare I’m sure.
I hope he has a monster year, and I hope that Stearns can get a haul of (at least) pitching prospects for him. *
*Unlike 2023, I’m actually more hopeful for 2024. They might surprise us and sneak into the playoffs. We’ll know for sure by the end of Spring Training.
I agree that the Mets should pass on a deal with Alonso that takes him past his age-34 season. They shouldn’t pay for his decline years.
But the contracts you mention didn’t work out because of injuries. Bay with the concussions, Cespedes with the hamstring, heel and ankle problems, Santana with elbow, shoulder and ankle injuries, Wright with his back problems and deGrom with his forearm, scapula and elbow injuries.
My worry isn’t that Alonso is going to get injured – although that’s a worry with every player, at least to some degree. Rather, my concern is that he’ll age like George Foster, who the Mets made the highest-paid player in the game with a five-year deal. In that span, Foster was healthy but produced just 5.0 fWAR for the Mets.
Yup, you can’t really anticipate injuries (Diaz!). And this is new ownership and management, so the past is the past.
For his “walk year”/age 29 season, I can see Alonso going to a mean of .860 OPS, especially if the Mets have someone decent batting behind him. He’s no Mo Vaughn, and keeps in shape. So I would sign him to a six or seven year contract. And he can DH when he gets older.
They should offer extension now when the Mets have some leverage. Alonso has averaged 3.6 fWAR and 1 fWAR has a value of $8.5 according to Fangraphs. His value is $30.4m per year. MLBTR projects $22m in arbitration. Locking him up to his completion of his 34 year season is reasonable. Taking in consideration his arbitration year and five more years they should offer him 6/$174m which comes out to $29m per year. If he takes that deal, fine. If he doesn’t then trade him immediately to get the most value.
In general, I don’t like long-term contracts especially when they go past the players age 34. Two to four years is more palatable. Alonso because of his age and star power makes him an exception.
I think that is a very reasonable take and I would go with that and probably not anything more. I doubt that Alonso would accept it though, in which case it would be time to explore a trade.
Happy New Year to all. Many good points above. Anecdotally, I would posit that 3 of 4 long term deals of 5+ years don’t work out in terms or WAR vs pay. Still, most all of the big boy teams play this game to procure elite talent. The Mets and not in a great spot overall in terms of controllable talent vs payroll/tax. I think this is the basis for their hesitation with Alonso. Sure, the team sees his value differently than the player, but that is not uncommon. Alonso knows he is primarily one dimensional, although that dimension is elite. The team knows he is popular with the fan base, and if he goes they better get something significant in return. Letting him hit the open market a la Judge would be too risky for my blood…I suggest a decision one way or the other by the trade deadline latest.
What I really like about this website is that the readers are die hard Met fans but also look at the reality and practical side of an Alonso long teem deal.
In simple terms, I would much rather save the money for Soto. And whoever can play first. No hard feelings Pete, but the opportunity minus the emotional attachment equals a big fat no.
The fan base will torture ownership if he walks and goes to say, Philadelphia, where he will prosper because of the dimensions of Citizens Bank Park. The only way letting him go works is if they sign someone to take his place who everyone agrees is better. Soto fits that description, but I’m not sure the Mets can sign him. If they do, it’ll be for 10 yrs at least. God help us if his numbers slide precipitously as he ages.
Devils advocate: say that in the beginning of the offseason they would have traded Alonso for the best deal ( like a pitching prospect and a SP#3). Then they signed Jaimer Candelario (1B/3B) for 3/$45m and Lordes Gurriel Jr (LF) for 3/$42m instead of extending Alonso for $29per year.
Would the Mets be a better team without Alonso? I think so.
Historically, I think most long-term contracts essentially spread the dollars between good years, not so good years, and damn this guys still on the roster years. If the Dodgers cash in a few titles over the next few years it will have paid for a lot of Ohtani payroll dollars. It’s a win now kind of game for most teams, so just sign Pete and expect five good years before he starts to slide, but even then if he was down to just a 30 HR he’d certainly be welcome to play some 1B and some DH. And yes, the dollars have gotten absurd.
Sign Bellinger. Trade Alonso. Sign Soto next year. Play Vientos at first.
The Manaea signing probably takes any other player of significance off the table. It’s clear that the team is going to tread water in 2024 and hope that 2-3 prospects pop in 2025. Then they clear a ton of payroll. Scherzer, Verlander, and probably Alonso won’t be on the payroll. If Marte rebounds, they’ll send him packing as well. I wouldn’t be surprised to see McNeil go either. Those moves clear $100-$140M or more for 2-3 impactful player signings. This strategy is dicey because it depends on young players being productive and having the right free agent players to build around them.
One more thing: I wouldn’t rely too heavily on Mark Vientos. He looks an awful lot like Wilmer Flores to me. A decent bat in a good lineup. Maybe a 7th place hitter. Not much of a glove – and the arm is erratic.
As economists say, all costs are opportunity costs. So the question is what are the opportunity costs of signing Alonso (or letting him go, or trading him)? That depends of course on how the money saved is spent and players received in a trade perform. The best way to gather information on the latter requires that you are open to trading Alonso. That’s one side of the calculus. Another is who else is available or how else would you spend the money. A third, is figuring out your next best option and its cost to replace Alonso at his position and the differential in performance if any and at what price. If you just look at the player, in this Alonso, in isolation, and not in terms of dynamic decision making, you shouldn’t be an executive and if you are, then, like the Wilpons and GMs prior to Stearns, you can say you have a plan, but you don’t really. At this point, the issue is not how we as fans think about what the Mets are up to, but how Stearns does. What’s the overall plan, what are the milestones by which progress is determined and so on. Would I trade Alonso? I’m a fan; it doesn’t matter. I am not accountable to anyone. I can express my opinion costlessly. I would say this: a plan for sustainable competitiveness with a high probability of successful performance in the playoffs is complicated and many of its parts are interactive with one another and always subject to unforeseeable events. What was clear about previous administrations of the team was that they were unaware of the all the moving parts, refused to make investments whose long term value they far too heavily discounted because of high upfront costs, etc. This group is entirely different in all those important respects. And a lot of what is involved is infrastructural and not easily visible to the fan base. It’s just the way it is. I am prepared to trust them, not because Cohen is rich and can spend more if he wants to, but because he is smart and understands the complexity of dynamic decision making in contexts like this, as does Stearns. The criticism that Stearns is bringing ‘analytics’ and ‘a small market mentality’ display a lack of understanding of the nature of the ‘problem’ they are solving for. As someone who works in game and decision theory there are features of the analytic fixation I have issues with and would be happy to share if they ever asked me (which I am not expecting anytime soon :-)) That said, I think they are going about this the right way overall and am comfortable with the process to the extent I can infer it from what I see them doing at this point. So the only answer I can comfortably give to the question, ‘should they trade Alonso,’ clearly is an unsatisfying ‘it depends.’ But one can say a bit more than that. What does it depend on: 1. The cost of signing him. 2. The next best alternative to him at his position they would pursue and that cost to them. 3. How they will distribute the savings, if any.4. How they will make up for differential in what he brings. 5. What net gains can then be achieved after 1-4 are taken care of, if any resources remain as uncommitted. 6. The probabilities associated with all of the above. 7. The costs associated with short term fan disappointment with the loss; 8 the difference between those costs and the mid and long term expected gains from securing 1-6. 9. The measure of the overall expected gains of holding onto Alonso and the opportunity costs discounted by the probability of their occurence as represented in the likelihood of successfully pursuing the alternative path (the opportunity costs of signing Alonso). I know this seems cold hearted and way too rationalistic. But that’s the point. Management has to think in these ways because fans don’t and also because when management thinks in this way and commits to doing so, the fans remain free to have at it as they want to while having the security blanket of knowing that the management is listening to them, and are thus have to be even more committed to acting in the rational way required of them. If you need a recent example. Steeler fans spent five weeks calling for the head of Mike Tomlin, who is coaching a team with a series of quarterbacks who could not hold down roster spots on most teams in the playoffs. Not a peep from management. They have and have always had a plan and know how to stay with it. My Jets can tell us they have a plan, but they don’t understand really what a plan is. Baltimore has a plan. There’s a chance the Giant’s are moving in that direction. The Jets: nothing that anyone who understands the concept of a plan would identify as one. The Mets. Until I have reason to think otherwise, have a plan; and one cannot ask the question of what to do about Alonso as if it were isolated decision. It is necessarily embedded in the plan and its executability