Reese Kaplan -- Watching a Polar Bear Heading Out of Town

Today I'm going to make a statement which leads to a major question and perhaps a little bit of the understanding for the New York Mets' inaction towards extending first baseman and premier slugger Pete Alonso.  It's been a long time since the Mets had a player who was a steady provider of 40+ home runs and 100+ RBI potential year after year.  

For his career Alonso has provided on average per 162 games a .251 batting average with 45 home runs and 118 RBIs.  Those run production numbers exceed what you received from Hall of Famer Mike Piazza though with a batting average 57 points to the inferior.  

Before the arrival of Piazza going way back in Mets history was pitcher-turned-hitter and known-to-be fairly dislikable all or nothing swinger, Dave Kingman.  During his offensive career there was no doubt about Kong's ability to drive the ball over the wall, but it was accompanied by a horrific volume of strikeouts, mediocre defense and a batting average for his entire career of just .236 while delivering 37 HRs and 101 RBIs per 162 games.  

His defense was so bad that for his entire career with 442 HRs he still only managed to tally a WAR of 17.3 which Alonso has tied in just five full seasons in the majors (plus the 2020 COVID shortened one).  

So the statement here is one about player value.  Pete Alonso is surely a better and more valuable player for the New York Mets than Dave Kingman was, but considering Mike Piazza's ending WAR of 59.5 he's not quite up to that level either.  For Mets fans who are accustomed to scratching out runs year after year, the power show Alonso provides is a refreshing and welcome change.  

Many folks suggest that last year's .217 batting average was indicative of who Pete Alonso really is and they expect to see more of the same.  Others quickly point out he was recovering from injury and likely rushed himself back due to the poor overall performance of the team who crashed and burned rather than contending for the postseason.  Still others seem to accuse his All Star Game Home Run Derby partcipation indicative of a change in his approach afterwards which negatively impacts his offensive game.

None of these three evaluations is compeletely right, but there's a grain of truth to each one.  Where it becomes fascinating, scary and current is the recent revelation that the Mets are not planning on pushing for a contract extension for Alonso and will indeed let him explore free agency as is his choice.  

Huh, what?

First of all, if you can provide big money contracts to since departed pitchers, Francisco Lindor, Brandon Nimmo and others, what's the stumbling block on Pete Alonso?  Granted, if he and his chosen agent Scott Boras have already decided they need to get a bidding war going before becoming serious with Steve Cohen about returning to the Mets, well there's very little David Stearns can do to stop that from happening.

However, if the risk he vanishes to find his future baseball fortunes elsewhere, then all the Mets would get in return would be a declined QO draft pick and nothing else.  That would seem like very little value in return for what they have provided to Pete Alonso and what Alonso has given to his current employer.  

That harsh truth suggests that perhaps the better move would be to trade him now when his value is somewhat depressed given his .217 average last season or trade him at the All Star break when another club seeking run production might somewhat overpay to get him for the balance of the year while understanding that they could then lose him for nothing at year's end.  

So the question now becomes do you hang your hope on whatever bridges David Stearns and Steve Cohen can build with Alonso on the slim chance he will return to the Mets, do you trade him now a year too soon to maximize the return you would get, or do you trade him in July in the hope you can fleece other teams by securing their top minor league prospects (plural) for a two month Alonso rental?  None of these solutions is ideal either, but doing nothing appears to be the worst possible choice among them.  

Have at it.