When you zoom out from the exits, non-tenders, and familiar names disappearing from the roster, it’s easy to conclude the Mets are acting haphazardly — tearing things apart without a clear replacement plan. For many fans, this offseason doesn’t feel slow. It feels chaotic.
That reaction is understandable. Core pieces are gone. The roster looks thinner in places. And the replacements haven’t arrived all at once.
But what looks like disorder is actually a highly controlled dismantling, paired with a disciplined exploration of alternatives. Under David Stearns, the Mets aren’t improvising. They’re removing fixed assumptions so better structures can be built in their place.
Wednesday’s run-prevention piece explained why last season failed. This piece explains how Stearns is addressing it — and why the process feels uncomfortable before it feels complete.
Why Polanco Matters: Stabilization Without Commitment
Jorge Polanco’s signing didn’t solve first base or DH. It stabilized the roster while preserving choice.
At age 32–33 during the 2026–27 window, on a two-year, high-AAV deal that’s easy to buy down or move, Polanco creates no long-term dead money, doesn’t block Clifford or Reimer, provides floor offense during transition, and converts cash into flexibility.
This is not a reckless addition. It’s a reversible one — exactly what you add when you’re deliberately exploring multiple paths.
The Real Fork: How the Mets Solve Center Field
Center field is the most revealing decision node because it determines how much stress the pitching staff absorbs, where Carson Benge plays, how Juan Soto is protected defensively, and how much long-term risk is accepted.
Three clear paths remain.
Path A: Short-Control, Defense-First Center Field
This includes Luis Robert or Lars Nootbaar-type profiles.
Elite defense. Short control horizon. No long-term payroll drag.
If Robert hits, you keep him. If not, it’s one-and-done. This path immediately improves run prevention, allows Benge to play every day, stabilizes pitching outcomes, and preserves maximum optionality.
Path B: Portfolio Bundles (Offense + Defense + Pitching)
Some moves replace players. Others rebalance the roster.
St. Louis can offer Contreras plus an outfielder like Nootbaar and bullpen help in a single transaction. San Diego can supply outfielders bundled with starting or relief pitching. In both cases, pitching is addressed inside the deal — not as a secondary move. This isn’t chaos. It’s bundled problem-solving.
Path C: The Controlled Exception
Cody Bellinger offers OF and 1B flexibility, defensive insurance, and two-way value — but introduces long-term decline risk. If chosen, it would be one intentional exception, not a philosophical shift.
Pitching Isn’t Parallel — It’s Embedded
Across all scenarios, expect one established starter and multiple leverage relievers on short-term deals. San Diego solves OF plus pitching. St. Louis solves 1B plus bullpen. Pitching is the connector, not a separate checklist.
The Trade Capital That Makes This Work
Stearns’ usable currency sits one tier below the core: Acuña, Vientos, Mauricio, Peterson, second-tier arms, and cash. Enough to rebalance the roster without touching the future.
The Bottom Line
What feels reckless to fans is actually the opposite. The Mets are intentionally removing rigid structures so better ones can be built — using short-horizon bets, redundancy, and cash to explore multiple solutions without committing to the wrong one.
This is not chaos. It’s controlled exposure.
And it’s exactly how a confident front office behaves when it trusts its process.
5 comments:
RVH - well constructed logic that I agree with wholeheartedly
The most impressive thing about Stearns to me is how he stays out of touch from the fan base. As a Manhattan resident, he has to get lots of crap every time he goes out to get a bagel and coffee, every time he needs to fill his car with gas, and when he goes out with his family to celebrate a birthday or anything. Not a word gets out.
“Some idiots” say something about Mets payroll and Steve Cohen immediately gets on X to reassure or notify the fan base that they need not worry. It’s incredible how people need to defend how much of their money gets spent.
The currency mentioned in the article is sufficient for the expiring deals mentioned: Pivetta, Laureano, Skubal, but after the deadline, rentals are a no-go for me. I don’t see why Vientos couldn’t get a shot at first base. The easiest fix is Luis Robert. He goes into CF, Taylor and McNeil share LF and let’s go play ball. But, Robert is still on the White Sox as they hold out hope someone will value him as much as they do. So, we keep dancing this off season waiting on a movement from them.
Well said, RVH (I have been saying that a lot lately.....glad you are on MM).
I see 1B, 2B (longer term), LF and CF as fairly wide open, with the Mets' long term plan designed to fill those spots from within (and we seem to actually have the prospects to do so, which is a nice change from the past). Hence, no need to block the positions with high priced, long term deals for FA's. It will require patience, which is another discussion, I suppose.
We also seem to have quite a bit of pitching coming down the pike, so I can see Stearns' logic of not committing to any long term deals, despite the howling from the media and some parts of the fan base (unless a truly special player, like a Soto, is available)
I see 2026 as a "pause" type year (competitive, possible wild card berth), where you figure out what you have in the pantry, before things start to take off in 2027.
Stearns is in a very interesting spot. He can see the future of this franchise - a pipeline of young, controllable, very likely high-end pitching filling a rotation - perhaps anchored by one FA/trade acquisition, or perhaps not - and a lineup that is half or more homegrown, leaving payroll available to pay a few select higher priced players/superstars, and/or to extend/re-sign the best of the guys they develop.
But that pipeline is really a year away from establishing itself, and he needs to put a competitive team on the field in ‘26 that also leaves space - this season and more so going forward into ‘27 and beyond - for the prospects that are closest and the ones just behind them.
That’s why he won’t (or will be extremely hesitant to) sign deals of more than 2/3 yrs right now. The fact that next year’s FA pitching class will be so much better than the current plays to this plan, though it will disappoint the majority of fans who just want him to sign or get the best that’s available now for the ‘26 season. But doing so would limit their flexibility in next year’s market - and for as many years as they would commit to said player - who would likely be a riskier contract than one they could sign next year for a guy they really do want to anchor their rotation as the plan comes into fruition.
Great comments everyone. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. For sure, they will spend enough to put a competitive team on the field on ‘26
Post a Comment