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:
Cubs signed 3B Alex Bregman. 5 years, $175M.
Miami Marlins traded RHP Edward Cabrera to Chicago Cubs for RF Owen Caissie, SS Cristian Hernandez and IF Edgardo De Leon.
Pittsburgh Pirates signed free agent 1B Ryan O'Hearn. 2 yrs, $29M.
New York Mets sent CF Ji Hwan Bae outright to Syracuse Mets.
Cleveland Guardians traded LHP Justin Bruihl to St. Louis Cardinals for cash.
Detroit Tigers traded RF Justyn-Henry Malloy to Tampa Bay Rays for cash
Los Angeles Angels signed free agent RHP Kirby Yates. 1 year, $5M.
Last week’s rumors:
Ketel Marte has been taken "off the market" by Arizona.
The Red Sox may be interested in Seattle 3B Eugenio Suarez now that they have lost Bregman.
Who is left out there?
Big name position players like Bellinger, Bichette, Realmuto, and Eugenio Suarez are still out there.
Old Mets favorites like Jose Iglesias, Wilmer Flores, Starling Marte, Mark Canha, and Michael Conforto are available.
This week’s questions:
1. The Mets outrighted Ji Hwan Bae to Syracuse. Does this mean that they are making room for a big acquisition?
2. The Cubs have picked up Edward Cabrera, who was sought after by several teams. Does this take them out of the running for Framber Valdez and Ranger Suarez?
3. The addition of Polanco is sort of scaring a lof us at first. Now that Ryan Clifford has cut his strikeout % to around 25%, do you see him having any chance of playing first in Queens this season?
4. Gotta ask you flat out about your thoughts of Kyle Tucker becoming the Mets left fielder. A do or a don't?
I have something to offer this morning. This is the reason Framber Valdez isn’t going to get anywhere.
ReplyDeleteLast night I found myself searching for anything interesting to read. As I live in Astros country and had read every Mets article on the internet, I decided to give Chandler Rome’s article in The Athletic where he answered fan questions. Glad I did..
As a question about Framber Valdez led me to one article and then to the article covering the cross up with the young catcher Salazar, I learned something that hasn’t become national news yet. Valdez doesn’t care what the PitchCom tells him, he will throw what he wants. But, he isn’t even willing to wear a PitchCom on his glove to let the catcher know what’s coming. Can you imagine if he does that to Alvarez?
But more troubling - if that’s possible - is that when he turned and looked away, it’s what his psychologist in the Dominican Republic told him to do when he is pissed. You see, Valdez has anger issues and is consistently showing anger when plays aren’t made behind him. The psychologist that he works with every winter told him to turn away from the problem (so his teammates done witness his immaturity?).
Now we know why the Astros aren’t even making an offer. They are glad to be rid of him. What manager wants to deal with an ego maniac in his down phase? Can this guy handle New York City? No way! Imagine the first time he gets lit up and someone yells at him that he sucks and should retire and he’s stealing money?
I’m making a prediction, this guy will be the last pitcher to sign and it will be for relative peanuts, in a very short deal - just in case.
Some excerpts from the article:
“Valdez already questioned his team’s defensive positioning once this season, prompting another closed-door conversation with Espada. The 31-year-old southpaw is also prone to visceral reactions toward plays that aren’t made behind him.”
““He called for a curveball, but I already had in mind that I was going to throw a sinker, so that’s what I threw,” Valdez said. “That’s what happened.”
Valdez fired a 92.8 mph sinker down the middle. Salazar could not get his glove up in time to protect himself and the baseball banged off his chest protector. After it did, Salazar stared toward his pitcher. It’s unclear why Valdez would consider throwing at his catcher, but perhaps the grand slam or miscommunication angered him.
As Salazar stared, Valdez turned his back and took a walk down the mound, which is one of the in-game tactics sports psychologists have taught Valdez to use to calm himself when chaos surrounds him.
“It was not intentional,” Valdez said. “I called for a sinker and that’s the pitch I wanted. There was a lot of noise and I thought that was what he wanted me to throw, but no it was not intentional.”
Valdez does not wear a PitchCom device on his glove to call his own games. Asked how he could “call” anything given that circumstance, Valdez replied: “It wasn’t necessarily that I called for it. That was just the pitch that I had in mind.”
“I called for that pitch. I threw it and we got crossed up,” Valdez said. “When we went back to the dugout, I excused myself with him and said sorry to him and I take full responsibility for that.”
Added Salazar: “Heat of the moment got to us. He apologized after. He’s great. There wasn’t anything bad about it. I just pressed the wrong button and I was expecting another pitch.”
This article in full is from September 3, 2025.
Very interesting about Valdez. I'm sure the Mets have read this, but I'm sending it to Steve anyway
DeleteThe cost would be much more than identified in the contract. Don't need discontent in the clubhouse any more.
DeleteIf the Mets signed Kyle Tucker, their lineup would absolutely rock. If they don’t, Bellinger isn’t as good and Roberts would be a marginal upgrade, but with upside. Tucker is the real key to this off-season and an innings eater pitcher that doesn’t have to be an ace.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Tucker on a 5 year deal with an opt out for him & an option to extend for the team. $33-36M AAV. Or shorter 4 years (same opt out/team option) at higher AAV. Get it done. Eventually he or Soto go to 1B if needed.
Delete1. The Mets outrighted Ji Hwan Bae to Syracuse. Does this mean that they are making room for a big acquisition?
ReplyDeleteMACK - could be... or their plan is to give him 2026 to get his game in order, setting up an assignment in Queens during the second year of his contract.
2. The Cubs have picked up Edward Cabrera, who was sought after by several teams. Does this take them out of the running for Framber Valdez and Ranger Suarez?
MACK - The Cubbies have been on a little spending spree lately. My guess big bucks being thrown around might be drying up in Chi-Town
3. The addition of Polanco is sort of scaring a lot of us at first. Now that Ryan Clifford has cut his strikeout % to around 25%, do you see him having any chance of playing first in Queens this season?
MACK - I do, but not before the break. First base is Polanco's to win or lose.
4. Gotta ask you flat out about your thoughts of Kyle Tucker becoming the Mets left fielder. A do or a don't?
MACK - I love Tucker as a right fielder, which the Mets don't need. I also love him asa short term left fielder... two years tops, but that's not gonna happen... unless no one comes forward to give him the 234 years he wants and he kicks the can down the road and signs for one. Then, I want him badly.
I think a five year deal has to be the least you can give. There’s still room for Benge and Ewing. I’m dreaming already:
DeleteSimien, Soto, Lindor, Tucker, Polanco, Alvarez, Vientos, Baty, Taylor… WOW!!
That's a wow? You definitely have lowered your bar.
DeleteGus is gushing over the defense. Polanco has to be fielding grounders daily, but if his fielding is an issue, he will be fielding many questions.
DeleteSoto has made fielding a primary focus this off season.
Polanco had 26 HR’s last year, hitting in the hardest ballpark to homer in, in the majors! Alonso had 34 at Citifield. Yes, WOW from me.
Delete1. After reading the article about Valdez, I wouldn't touch this asshole with a 10 foot pole. He's lucky to get a minor league contract. Imagine giving up a draft pick for this loser.
ReplyDelete2. Tucker 3 year high AAV contract max, with opt outs.
3. Feel the same about Polanco. His job to lose. If he can't hack 1B he is our DH.
His proctologist is also shunning Valdez.
DeleteWould 3 years, $50 million per do it for Kyle? Also, if you combined the best of both Kyle Tucker and Reese Kaplan in one person, you’d have Kyle Reese, the man who helped save the world against the Terminator.
There was so much talk all over the internet yesterday about the Mets meeting with Tucker. Everyone was going crazy thinking we were about to offer a crazy contract. They were saying that Cohen gave him an ultimatum. Hopefully this is bullshit.
ReplyDeleteStick with the plan David. If I were Stearns, in that scenario, I would tell Cohen stuff it and run the team yourself. I'd go home and collect my remaining 40M on a beach.
If you sign Tucker for LF, is Benge good enough in CF defensively to be there for the next 5 years? Or is Benge a CF more like Conforto/Cespedes/McNeil? If his CF defense is not good enough, and is blocked in both corners for the next 5 years, does he become trade bait for an ace?
ReplyDeleteWho is our long term CF among the prospects, Benge/Jett/Ewing/Morabito?
Can Jett fill a utility role this year? Play some 2B, backup SS, some CF. Maybe take over 2B for Semien next year or year after.
Ewing targets much better in center.
DeleteJett is out of starter positions
Jett must hit his way into the big leagues. So…he must improve.
DeleteHow? I think back to Ken Singleton. He hit an insane .388/.513/.703 in 48 AAA games decades back, forcing the Mets to call him up.
Jett meanwhile has had a miserable, injury-impacted 2024 when he hit under .220, including Arizona. Last year, Jett was just .261/.363/.465 in AA and AAA. Compare to Singleton. No comparison.
Remember Eric Campbell? In 2014 and 2015, he hit .360 in about 300 total PAs in AAA, with a .465 OBP. 100 points higher than Jett in 2025 in both categories.
Eric sadly found major league hitting to be exponentially more difficult.
One more year in the minors for Jett, concentrating on 2B and CF..
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I can't see Semien last more than one year. Especially if he hits .230 again. If Jett outperforms expectations this year then bring him up in July and have him share time at both positions.
Tom, have you been getting into Mack's stash this morning with that Tucker offer...lol
The Mets will sign someone big. Semien will play exceptional 2B defense & hit ok to solid - & hang near the bottom of the order. Either Senga or Manaea will rebound (hopefully both) or go to long relief & the kids will pitch. Lots of them to get reps, provide young, fresh arms & Polanco will do ok at 1B. (Remember te 2003 A’s with Hattenberg). All three infield starters can throw well. Polanco can catch & he should be able to throw well when needed.
ReplyDeleteI do expect Senga to bounce back and I expect McLean will keep heading in the same direction towards ROY. Past that, Holmes will hold down a spot as will Peterson.
DeleteI am personally quite worried about first base. Polanco has a reputation as a good fielder, but there are a lot of subtle things to know about playing first that you can't pick up in just a few months. Clifford still needs to do more in AAA before he is ready.
ReplyDeleteI too have strong reservations here
DeleteHi Mack. Hope you’re feeling well.
ReplyDelete1. They could always have released him whenever they made their next deal. I don’t think that the timing had to do with another move coming, they may have just decided they don’t want the guy. But there is another move coming regardless.
2. Who knows what the Cubs will do.
3. Polanco was at least an adequate MI, and was working at 1B for months last season. I’m betting on him being an above average defensive 1B. And no, I don’t see Clifford being ready this season.
4. I’ve come to think that Stearns may really want Tucker - and isn’t just waiting around to see if his market collapses. Don’t be surprised if Stearns offers him a 3-yr deal that looks like $50/$50/$30, with an opt-out after year 2.
So…………… the Cardinals are sending $26,000,000 and Nolan Arenado to Arizona for a pitcher drafted last year in the eighth round. Wow…. That’s the best thw Cardinals could do…
ReplyDeleteAn albatross finds it hard to fly.
DeleteA terrific set of questions that have spurred really good conversations. Just glad I have found a few minutes to contribute -- have been hard to come by recently.
ReplyDeleteI had originally been opposed to signing Tucker for three reasons: 1. the expected length of the contract; 2. his apparent ceiling; 3. the total money it would cost and especially the opportunity costs of signing him -- i.e. where and how the money could otherwise be spent.
I have modified my resistance somewhat if the length of the contract is considerably reduced. The other two concerns have not been fully abated.
However, in the course of preparing my first posts to the site I identified a particular issue which we all talk about but have not named. I call it projectability: that is, the projectability of performance at various levels to performance at the next level. There is general projectability and specific skill projectability. While other attributes of organizational decision making have been improved: talent assessment and talent development (differentially among organizations, mind you) there has been much less progress in reducing uncertainty about projectability -- either general or skillset limited. Some particular skills are more projectable than others. I do believe that the Mets have taken steps, whether intentionally designed as such or not, that will positively impact projectability. I discuss these in my series and I also suggest a few additional steps that could be taken as well.
It turns out that lack of confidence in judgments about projectability is one of the key drivers in shifting from relying on prospects to playing in the much more potentially expensive free agent market.
Nothing is more crippling to decision making than uncertainty that you cannot insure against. But, and this is the important point, there will always be uncertainty, but uncertainty levels can be reduced, sometimes significantly. And if they are reduced, the costs of insuring against residual risk is also lower. So there are always three choices: one is to be a risk taker, accept the uncertainty and go ahead and take your chances on the lower priced prospect. The second is to enter the free agent market and take on a higher salary (which you should interpret as a price you are paying for your uncertainty). Or you can spend resources to reduce your uncertainty across the board (as well as on an individual basis) thus reducing your reliance on the first two options: the first of which has you taking the risk as a better (less expensive) bet than is the cost of paying for the player about whom you presumably have more information and whose performance is more projectable; the second of which has you paying the premium for projectability as a better bet than exposing yourself to the downside risk.
Frankly, I believe the third option is the correct one and thus I expect to see this Mets organization do what it can to increase projectability. But all projectability depends to some extent on existing performance. And I don't believe the Mets have as yet put in place the organizational changes that would allow them to feel more confident of their projections about likely prospect performance. And in my way of thinking, this, consciously or not, helps to explain their appearing to be frozen in time unable to fully dip into with conviction, the trade and free agent markets or to stand pat and make only marginal changes. And if I am right about the most vexing problem in the design of organizational decision making is uncertainty of projectability and uncertainty about both the ways or reducing that uncertainty and the extent to which it can be reduced, then what looks like stagnation is in fact quite rational hesitation.
ReplyDeleteAt some point, however, even a failure to decide has the impact of having made a decision: a conservative one. But a conservative outcome -- staying where you are -- is not a riskless one. Again, it is all about adopting an attitude towards risk and about the areas in which one should be risk taking, others in which it makes sense to be risk neutral and others in which it makes most sense to be risk averse.
I am happy laying out the issues and problems, and grateful at this point that I don't have to solve the problems or confront the issues directly!
Sorry for the sloppiness of my writing, which I would normally want to take pride in :-(. I discuss at length in my upcoming series, many of the issues I only mention here. I also trace the origins of how baseball ended up with where we are now: a mixed and diverse set of options for constructing rosters at the major league level. The origin story, as I see it and present it, is interesting in its own right; the place where we are now is the unintended result of a series of very intentional decisions made on the basis of (what seemed at the time and probably were from the chief actors' perspective) both principled and rational considerations having nothing to do with a view to roster construction but with distributing the revenue that baseball generated!
ReplyDeleteIt turns out of course, that the most lasting impact of those decisions has been on the strategies organizations adopt to construct their rosters, strategies that when implemented redistribute revenue that those responsible for having created could not have imagined.