Mets Monday Morning GM: 3 biggest concerns with the moves David Stearns has made

They're concerns we shouldn't expect to go away either.

Cincinnati Reds v New York Mets
Cincinnati Reds v New York Mets / Jim McIsaac/GettyImages
facebooktwitterreddit
Prev
3 of 3
Next

3) The Mets have gone short-term with every addition and there’s a problem with this thinking

The Mets aren’t signing free agents for more than a year. They’ve been reportedly disinterested in making any significant trade for a player who’ll be a free agent next offseason. They’ll spend money but not prospects to get better. The plan, as we believed from the start, really seems to be a restart again next offseason. The problem with this is building a team from closer to the ground just adds more work.

Why not pursue a relief pitcher they can sign for two years? Any further major additions either to the rotation or lineup can be a guy with more than a year on his contract. Otherwise he’s already going to be someone the Mets will need to replace next offseason.

It makes sense not to commit too long to anyone. Where’s the rationale in recreating all of the roster holes yet again for the 2024-2025 winter? Even if the free agent class next year is better, we cannot expect the Mets to land everyone they want.

The Mets have been cautious thus far and maybe a little too much. They’re in the camp of not even trading for a player on an expiring deal despite the possibility of an extension. This has limited their options greatly. At this point, outside of the perfect addition, there’s not much point in doing so.

Only major growth from their young players and prospects fix this and even there we have virtually an entire pitching staff to be unsure of. The goal for 2025 to be a year of winning seems a bit too impossible if they aren’t already adding guys they plan to have around.

manual