We are in the “Hot Stove” season, where every conversation centers around the latest news in MLB trades and free agent acquisitions.
Often we will include a feature where our writers discuss what is happening, but this year we want more involvement from the readers.
We have combined two traditional features, “Hot Stove” and “Open Thread” into this year’s “Hot Thread” which will run every Tuesday at 6:00am EST.
Considering the recent market activity and knowing your team’s needs, what would your next move be? Hope we have sparked your interest! Tell us in the comments below.
Last week’s transactions:
Jeff McNeil traded to the A's for Cuban pitcher Yordan Rodriguez.
White Sox signed Japanese power-hitting 1B Munetaka Murakami to a two-year $34M contract.
Texas signed Alexis Diaz to a one year contract. The younger Diaz brother is still under team control and is arbitration eligible.
Detroit signed Kelly Jansen to a one-year contract.
The A's signed Mark Leiter to a one-year contract.
The Phillies acquired LHP Kyle Backhus from Arizona and swapped LHP Matt Strahm for RHP Jonathan Bowlan from Kansas City.
San Diego re-signed pitcher Michael King to a three-year contract.
Minnesota signed free agent 1B Josh Bell for one year at $7M.
Last week’s rumors:The Red Sox have acquired first baseman Willson Contreras from the Cardinals for RHP Hunter Dobbins.
Brendan Donovan and Ketel Marte have been linked to trade rumors on numerous sites.
The Mariners may be interested in re-signing Eugenio Suarez.
This week’s questions:
1. With many relief arms signing over the last week, who are the Mets going to target to strengthen their pen?
2. With first basemen starting to sign contracts over the last week, are the Mets going to stand pat and cobble together a solution with Polanco and McNeil or will they land a big name to play 1B?
3. Where do you rank the priority for the Mets to acquire a third baseman?
1. Stearns targets his own multiple player list knowing other teams do the same. He also keeps tabs on excess starters on the payroll plus select prospects like Dylan Ross
ReplyDelete2. Well, so much for a future McNeil cobble. My guess is the Mets will go with Polanco and Vientos for now
ReplyDelete3. One of two top priorities along side CF
ReplyDeleteSTILL WANT BREGMAN AND BELLINGER
Bellinger - in 2025 - Home: .302/.365/.544. Away: .241/.301/.414. That away will most likely play in Citi Field as opposed to the Yankee Stadium inflated numbers. Please, no thank you.
DeleteBregman: The choice between him and Baty is your prospective on 2026. I do not believe that Stearns is pushing all his chips in in 2026 but is looking more long term. Therefore, no thank you.
Mason Miller makes it right
ReplyDeleteI think they are pretty locked into Baty at 3B. Unless of course Bregman's market tanks and they sign him to a monster 3 years deal with opt outs. Same goes for Bellinger.
ReplyDeleteWould love Mason, would cost the farm. Did anyone sign Fairbanks?
I am surprised no one has signed Pete Fairbanks yet - he is a solid reliever that would make the Mets bullpen better. Also don't forget about Drew Smith and Max Kranick. They would be welcomed back.
ReplyDeleteFrom the world of bargaining theory (which, in all honesty, is often little more than the formalization of common sense -- though the formalization does have the advantage of making certain likely outcomes, if not quite provable, much more easily understood and predictible), here is the nature of the game that is going on at least between FA and teams interested in them. From the FA perspective, especially FA who have been under team control and have (let's be honest) had their salary artificially surpressed by collective bargaining outcomes (I have a shit load more to say about that at another point if anyone is interested), they are looking to be rewarded for past performance or to have that past performance calculated into their upcoming payday. In contrast, from the perspective of teams vying for their services, past performance has evidentiary value only and figures only in determining their likely performance over a given time horizon. It is their valuation of that performance discounted by the likelihood of it and their confidence in their assessment (which is the only point for them of past performance) that determines their initial offer. The perspectives are different: both employ past performance epistemically only (as evidence that impacts levels of confidence); the other looks at something for which they were very often inadequately compensated and which they are looking to be compensated for going forward. Crudely, one group wants to be paid going forward for part of what they were not paid for in the past, whereas the other group wants to pay only for what they expect performance to be in the future. It's a wonder agreement is ever reached, you might think. And if these were simply bilateral negotiations in the absence of external forces, some deals would likely not be struck at all. However both sides have 'reservation prices' -- the baseline of what side is willing to take and the baseline of what the other side is willing to offer. External forces, like competition for services and the relative strength or weakness of labor (players who are also available) move the parties away from initial positions and closer to their reservation prices. And then psychological and other factors -- including small deal sweeteners take over, not to mention an increase in scarcity on either side of the equation. And voila a deal is made. This alone should help anyone understand why lots of dealmaking takes time.
ReplyDeleteI know it won' t stop fans from complaining but some precise understanding of the structure, including initial price setting, the nature of the context in which bargaining takes place, and so on should encourage everyone to take a few deep breaths and relax. There almost certainly will be opportunity for complaint in the new year, let alone in the upcoming season. For we are blessed by not having to make decisions from the ex ante perspective and are infinitely free to voice our discontent from the ex post perspective.
mistake "one employs past performance.....)
ReplyDelete