My 2025-26 offseason

[An Old Friend]

Our projected payroll will be $60M less than the 2020-2024 average payroll. As of now, our best lineup is
Donovan
Herrera
Burleson (DH)
Contreras
Gorman
Arenado
Nootbaar
Winn
Scott

Long-term, we are probably good with a rotation of Donovan/Gorman at 2B, Donovan/Nootbaar at LF, Nootbaar/Walker at RF, and Herrera/Gorman at DH. I think the odd man out is Burleson and he probably has the best trade value he'll ever have. I'd rather Wetherholt start in AAA in 2026 also.

Pitching-wise, we have Gray Pallante Liberatore McGreevy Mathews and Roby as the penciled in starters for 2026.

I think at least one FA starter is imperative. There aren't any holes in our lineup, but there isn't a lot of upside either. I do like the idea of dealing Nootbaar and Burleson to add some outfield help. Keep Scott and Walker and hope the light switch flips on for them.

My guess is he’s in AAA by July 1st, so I think he’ll at least get 2-3 months in AAA this season. That to me gives me a good feeling he could be ready for Opening Day in St. Louis in 2026.

I agree, I think he’s the odds on shot to be the opening day 2B in 2026

[Quincy Varnish]

How do you sign Alonso? Isn’t he under contract through 2026?

Even so, easier than trading Arenado…

2026 is a player option he’s unlikely to exercise.

You’ve come at me quite a few times when I’ve described these contracts that way, so it’s interesting that you’re now explaining it the same way I have.

No. We have disagreed on the differences in terminology between “opt in”, player options and opt outs.

[PadsFS07]

I have no problem with him needing to go to AAA. I just think he’ll be here in early 2026. JMO, but I think he is more advanced than those others with pitch recognition and strike zone control with 16.4% BB rate and 13.5% K-rate) and no upswing. He’s older than the others in the minors (drafted at 21 and will be 23 in September). He’s much faster than any of them except maybe Walker, who is likely slightly a bit slower but not the accomplished base runner. He hits righties better (75% of pitching) but still has approx .780 OPS vs lefties.

I don't really have an issue either but I'd rather have the extra year of control and the 'mastering' of AAA that would allow him to hit the ground running in the majors. Probably would be fine either way.

[An Old Friend]

How do you sign Alonso? Isn’t he under contract through 2026?

Even so, easier than trading Arenado…

2026 is a player option he’s unlikely to exercise.

You’ve come at me quite a few times when I’ve described these contracts that way, so it’s interesting that you’re now explaining it the same way I have.

No. We have disagreed on the differences in terminology between “opt in”, player options and opt outs.

Right, and you’ve characterized his decision the same way I always have above… but disputed those semantics many times. Here’s how the deal was announced:

The New York Mets today announced the team has re-signed first baseman Pete Alonso to a two-year contract with a player opt out after the 2025 season.

[Quincy Varnish]

How do you sign Alonso? Isn’t he under contract through 2026?

Even so, easier than trading Arenado…

2026 is a player option he’s unlikely to exercise.

You’ve come at me quite a few times when I’ve described these contracts that way, so it’s interesting that you’re now explaining it the same way I have.

No. We have disagreed on the differences in terminology between “opt in”, player options and opt outs.

Right, and you’ve characterized his decision the same way I always have above… but disputed those semantics many times. Here’s how the deal was announced:

The New York Mets today announced the team has re-signed first baseman Pete Alonso to a two-year contract with a player opt out after the 2025 season.

I wasn’t sure if it was a 2-year deal w/ an opt out or a 1-year deal with a second year player option. BBRef refers to it as a player option… incorrectly.

They two scenarios above are not the same. One requires action to exit the contract, the other requires action to extend the contract. I know you want to ignore the distinction… that’s fine, but it’s wrong.

[ClassicO]

I have no problem with him needing to go to AAA. I just think he’ll be here in early 2026. JMO, but I think he is more advanced than those others with pitch recognition and strike zone control with 16.4% BB rate and 13.5% K-rate) and no upswing. He’s older than the others in the minors (drafted at 21 and will be 23 in September). He’s much faster than any of them except maybe Walker, who is likely slightly a bit slower but not the accomplished base runner. He hits righties better (75% of pitching) but still has approx .780 OPS vs lefties.

I don't really have an issue either but I'd rather have the extra year of control and the 'mastering' of AAA that would allow him to hit the ground running in the majors. Probably would be fine either way.

I said he’d be there in 2026, so he wouldn’t lose a year of control as I doubt they’ll mess with his service time, especially with his chance at ROY which would help the team.

[An Old Friend]

How do you sign Alonso? Isn’t he under contract through 2026?

Even so, easier than trading Arenado…

2026 is a player option he’s unlikely to exercise.

You’ve come at me quite a few times when I’ve described these contracts that way, so it’s interesting that you’re now explaining it the same way I have.

No. We have disagreed on the differences in terminology between “opt in”, player options and opt outs.

Right, and you’ve characterized his decision the same way I always have above… but disputed those semantics many times. Here’s how the deal was announced:

The New York Mets today announced the team has re-signed first baseman Pete Alonso to a two-year contract with a player opt out after the 2025 season.

I wasn’t sure if it was a 2-year deal w/ an opt out or a 1-year deal with a second year player option. BBRef refers to it as a player option… incorrectly.

They two scenarios above are not the same. One requires action to exit the contract, the other requires action to extend the contract. I know you want to ignore the distinction… that’s fine, but it’s wrong.

At some point, you’ll realize it’s the same thing. It’s the player’s option in either scenario. Alonso committed for one year and has the option to make it 2. You said it just like I’ve always said it… but they always get reported as opt-outs.

[An Old Friend]

How do you sign Alonso? Isn’t he under contract through 2026?

Even so, easier than trading Arenado…

2026 is a player option he’s unlikely to exercise.

You’ve come at me quite a few times when I’ve described these contracts that way, so it’s interesting that you’re now explaining it the same way I have.

No. We have disagreed on the differences in terminology between “opt in”, player options and opt outs.

Right, and you’ve characterized his decision the same way I always have above… but disputed those semantics many times. Here’s how the deal was announced:

The New York Mets today announced the team has re-signed first baseman Pete Alonso to a two-year contract with a player opt out after the 2025 season.

I wasn’t sure if it was a 2-year deal w/ an opt out or a 1-year deal with a second year player option. BBRef refers to it as a player option… incorrectly.

They two scenarios above are not the same. One requires action to exit the contract, the other requires action to extend the contract. I know you want to ignore the distinction… that’s fine, but it’s wrong.

It’s essentially a one-year $30 million deal with Alonso’s option to return to the Mets in 2026 for $24 million or hit the market again.

Guess Verducci has it wrong, too, huh?

[Quincy Varnish]

How do you sign Alonso? Isn’t he under contract through 2026?

Even so, easier than trading Arenado…

2026 is a player option he’s unlikely to exercise.

You’ve come at me quite a few times when I’ve described these contracts that way, so it’s interesting that you’re now explaining it the same way I have.

No. We have disagreed on the differences in terminology between “opt in”, player options and opt outs.

Right, and you’ve characterized his decision the same way I always have above… but disputed those semantics many times. Here’s how the deal was announced:

The New York Mets today announced the team has re-signed first baseman Pete Alonso to a two-year contract with a player opt out after the 2025 season.

I wasn’t sure if it was a 2-year deal w/ an opt out or a 1-year deal with a second year player option. BBRef refers to it as a player option… incorrectly.

They two scenarios above are not the same. One requires action to exit the contract, the other requires action to extend the contract. I know you want to ignore the distinction… that’s fine, but it’s wrong.

At some point, you’ll realize it’s the same thing. It’s the player’s option in either scenario. Alonso committed for one year and has the option to make it 2. You said it just like I’ve always said it… but they always get reported as opt-outs.

It isn’t the same thing.

[Quincy Varnish]

How do you sign Alonso? Isn’t he under contract through 2026?

Even so, easier than trading Arenado…

2026 is a player option he’s unlikely to exercise.

You’ve come at me quite a few times when I’ve described these contracts that way, so it’s interesting that you’re now explaining it the same way I have.

No. We have disagreed on the differences in terminology between “opt in”, player options and opt outs.

Right, and you’ve characterized his decision the same way I always have above… but disputed those semantics many times. Here’s how the deal was announced:

The New York Mets today announced the team has re-signed first baseman Pete Alonso to a two-year contract with a player opt out after the 2025 season.

I wasn’t sure if it was a 2-year deal w/ an opt out or a 1-year deal with a second year player option. BBRef refers to it as a player option… incorrectly.

They two scenarios above are not the same. One requires action to exit the contract, the other requires action to extend the contract. I know you want to ignore the distinction… that’s fine, but it’s wrong.

It’s essentially a one-year $30 million deal with Alonso’s option to return to the Mets in 2026 for $24 million or hit the market again.

Guess Verducci has it wrong, too, huh?

Note he used the word “essentially” - meaning it is NOT the same thing, but he is explaining it in a more accessible way.

[An Old Friend]

How do you sign Alonso? Isn’t he under contract through 2026?

Even so, easier than trading Arenado…

2026 is a player option he’s unlikely to exercise.

You’ve come at me quite a few times when I’ve described these contracts that way, so it’s interesting that you’re now explaining it the same way I have.

No. We have disagreed on the differences in terminology between “opt in”, player options and opt outs.

Right, and you’ve characterized his decision the same way I always have above… but disputed those semantics many times. Here’s how the deal was announced:

The New York Mets today announced the team has re-signed first baseman Pete Alonso to a two-year contract with a player opt out after the 2025 season.

I wasn’t sure if it was a 2-year deal w/ an opt out or a 1-year deal with a second year player option. BBRef refers to it as a player option… incorrectly.

They two scenarios above are not the same. One requires action to exit the contract, the other requires action to extend the contract. I know you want to ignore the distinction… that’s fine, but it’s wrong.

It’s essentially a one-year $30 million deal with Alonso’s option to return to the Mets in 2026 for $24 million or hit the market again.

Guess Verducci has it wrong, too, huh?

Note he used the word “essentially” - meaning it is NOT the same thing, but he is explaining it in a more accessible way.

The same thing you’ve criticized me for.

They’re the same. I don’t know why you fight it

[Quincy Varnish]

How do you sign Alonso? Isn’t he under contract through 2026?

Even so, easier than trading Arenado…

2026 is a player option he’s unlikely to exercise.

You’ve come at me quite a few times when I’ve described these contracts that way, so it’s interesting that you’re now explaining it the same way I have.

No. We have disagreed on the differences in terminology between “opt in”, player options and opt outs.

Right, and you’ve characterized his decision the same way I always have above… but disputed those semantics many times. Here’s how the deal was announced:

The New York Mets today announced the team has re-signed first baseman Pete Alonso to a two-year contract with a player opt out after the 2025 season.

I wasn’t sure if it was a 2-year deal w/ an opt out or a 1-year deal with a second year player option. BBRef refers to it as a player option… incorrectly.

They two scenarios above are not the same. One requires action to exit the contract, the other requires action to extend the contract. I know you want to ignore the distinction… that’s fine, but it’s wrong.

It’s essentially a one-year $30 million deal with Alonso’s option to return to the Mets in 2026 for $24 million or hit the market again.

Guess Verducci has it wrong, too, huh?

Note he used the word “essentially” - meaning it is NOT the same thing, but he is explaining it in a more accessible way.

The same thing you’ve criticized me for.

They’re the same. I don’t know why you fight it

Because fundamentally they are not the same. This is like arguing with a music theory student who insists B flat and C sharp are the same note.

[An Old Friend]

How do you sign Alonso? Isn’t he under contract through 2026?

Even so, easier than trading Arenado…

2026 is a player option he’s unlikely to exercise.

You’ve come at me quite a few times when I’ve described these contracts that way, so it’s interesting that you’re now explaining it the same way I have.

No. We have disagreed on the differences in terminology between “opt in”, player options and opt outs.

Right, and you’ve characterized his decision the same way I always have above… but disputed those semantics many times. Here’s how the deal was announced:

The New York Mets today announced the team has re-signed first baseman Pete Alonso to a two-year contract with a player opt out after the 2025 season.

I wasn’t sure if it was a 2-year deal w/ an opt out or a 1-year deal with a second year player option. BBRef refers to it as a player option… incorrectly.

They two scenarios above are not the same. One requires action to exit the contract, the other requires action to extend the contract. I know you want to ignore the distinction… that’s fine, but it’s wrong.

It’s essentially a one-year $30 million deal with Alonso’s option to return to the Mets in 2026 for $24 million or hit the market again.

Guess Verducci has it wrong, too, huh?

Note he used the word “essentially” - meaning it is NOT the same thing, but he is explaining it in a more accessible way.

The same thing you’ve criticized me for.

They’re the same. I don’t know why you fight it

Because fundamentally they are not the same. This is like arguing with a music theory student who insists B flat and C sharp are the same note.

Ok…

So, in the “opt-out” scenario, Pete Alonso gets $30MM guaranteed for year 1 and $24MM in year 2 if he chooses to stay.

In the “player option” scenario, Pete Alonso gets $30MM guaranteed for year 1 and $24MM in year 2 if he chooses to stay.

What’s the difference? I’m genuinely curious as to why you think they’re different, and what is different about them.

[Quincy Varnish]

How do you sign Alonso? Isn’t he under contract through 2026?

Even so, easier than trading Arenado…

2026 is a player option he’s unlikely to exercise.

You’ve come at me quite a few times when I’ve described these contracts that way, so it’s interesting that you’re now explaining it the same way I have.

No. We have disagreed on the differences in terminology between “opt in”, player options and opt outs.

Right, and you’ve characterized his decision the same way I always have above… but disputed those semantics many times. Here’s how the deal was announced:

The New York Mets today announced the team has re-signed first baseman Pete Alonso to a two-year contract with a player opt out after the 2025 season.

I wasn’t sure if it was a 2-year deal w/ an opt out or a 1-year deal with a second year player option. BBRef refers to it as a player option… incorrectly.

They two scenarios above are not the same. One requires action to exit the contract, the other requires action to extend the contract. I know you want to ignore the distinction… that’s fine, but it’s wrong.

It’s essentially a one-year $30 million deal with Alonso’s option to return to the Mets in 2026 for $24 million or hit the market again.

Guess Verducci has it wrong, too, huh?

Note he used the word “essentially” - meaning it is NOT the same thing, but he is explaining it in a more accessible way.

The same thing you’ve criticized me for.

They’re the same. I don’t know why you fight it

Because fundamentally they are not the same. This is like arguing with a music theory student who insists B flat and C sharp are the same note.

Ok…

So, in the “opt-out” scenario, Pete Alonso gets $30MM guaranteed for year 1 and $24MM in year 2 if he chooses to stay.

In the “player option” scenario, Pete Alonso gets $30MM guaranteed for year 1 and $24MM in year 2 if he chooses to stay.

What’s the difference? I’m genuinely curious as to why you think they’re different, and what is different about them.

The language of the contracts is different, as are the total values.

NO action is required from Alonso for a second year if it’s a 2-year deal with an opt out clause.

If it is a 1-year deal with a 1-year player option, Alonso would have to exercise that option for a second year.

[An Old Friend]

How do you sign Alonso? Isn’t he under contract through 2026?

Even so, easier than trading Arenado…

2026 is a player option he’s unlikely to exercise.

You’ve come at me quite a few times when I’ve described these contracts that way, so it’s interesting that you’re now explaining it the same way I have.

No. We have disagreed on the differences in terminology between “opt in”, player options and opt outs.

Right, and you’ve characterized his decision the same way I always have above… but disputed those semantics many times. Here’s how the deal was announced:

The New York Mets today announced the team has re-signed first baseman Pete Alonso to a two-year contract with a player opt out after the 2025 season.

I wasn’t sure if it was a 2-year deal w/ an opt out or a 1-year deal with a second year player option. BBRef refers to it as a player option… incorrectly.

They two scenarios above are not the same. One requires action to exit the contract, the other requires action to extend the contract. I know you want to ignore the distinction… that’s fine, but it’s wrong.

It’s essentially a one-year $30 million deal with Alonso’s option to return to the Mets in 2026 for $24 million or hit the market again.

Guess Verducci has it wrong, too, huh?

Note he used the word “essentially” - meaning it is NOT the same thing, but he is explaining it in a more accessible way.

The same thing you’ve criticized me for.

They’re the same. I don’t know why you fight it

Because fundamentally they are not the same. This is like arguing with a music theory student who insists B flat and C sharp are the same note.

Ok…

So, in the “opt-out” scenario, Pete Alonso gets $30MM guaranteed for year 1 and $24MM in year 2 if he chooses to stay.

In the “player option” scenario, Pete Alonso gets $30MM guaranteed for year 1 and $24MM in year 2 if he chooses to stay.

What’s the difference? I’m genuinely curious as to why you think they’re different, and what is different about them.

The language of the contracts is different, as are the total values.

NO action is required from Alonso for a second year if it’s a 2-year deal with an opt out clause.

If it is a 1-year deal with a 1-year player option, Alonso would have to exercise that option for a second year.

You’re being funny about this.

Alonso has a choice in either scenario and that same choice allows him to leave or stay. It’s the same choice.

[Quincy Varnish]

2026 is a player option he’s unlikely to exercise.

You’ve come at me quite a few times when I’ve described these contracts that way, so it’s interesting that you’re now explaining it the same way I have.

No. We have disagreed on the differences in terminology between “opt in”, player options and opt outs.

Right, and you’ve characterized his decision the same way I always have above… but disputed those semantics many times. Here’s how the deal was announced:

The New York Mets today announced the team has re-signed first baseman Pete Alonso to a two-year contract with a player opt out after the 2025 season.

I wasn’t sure if it was a 2-year deal w/ an opt out or a 1-year deal with a second year player option. BBRef refers to it as a player option… incorrectly.

They two scenarios above are not the same. One requires action to exit the contract, the other requires action to extend the contract. I know you want to ignore the distinction… that’s fine, but it’s wrong.

It’s essentially a one-year $30 million deal with Alonso’s option to return to the Mets in 2026 for $24 million or hit the market again.

Guess Verducci has it wrong, too, huh?

Note he used the word “essentially” - meaning it is NOT the same thing, but he is explaining it in a more accessible way.

The same thing you’ve criticized me for.

They’re the same. I don’t know why you fight it

Because fundamentally they are not the same. This is like arguing with a music theory student who insists B flat and C sharp are the same note.

Ok…

So, in the “opt-out” scenario, Pete Alonso gets $30MM guaranteed for year 1 and $24MM in year 2 if he chooses to stay.

In the “player option” scenario, Pete Alonso gets $30MM guaranteed for year 1 and $24MM in year 2 if he chooses to stay.

What’s the difference? I’m genuinely curious as to why you think they’re different, and what is different about them.

The language of the contracts is different, as are the total values.

NO action is required from Alonso for a second year if it’s a 2-year deal with an opt out clause.

If it is a 1-year deal with a 1-year player option, Alonso would have to exercise that option for a second year.

You’re being funny about this.

Alonso has a choice in either scenario and that same choice allows him to leave or stay. It’s the same choice.

Doesn’t matter. The contracts are not the same.