2025-2026 offseason thread

Of course hindsight is always 20/20. But Riley was a top 10 MVP finisher in 3 consecutive years. Im not saying I agree with his extension. But I'm not sure anyone saw these injury laden down years the past two in what should have been a continuation of his prime.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Riley already have been a free agent at this point had he not signed the extension? Same with Murphy?

Same with Matt Olson, and I haven't seen his extension questioned in here, because it's worked out well.

So we may have had a lot more to spend this off season. But I have no idea who would have plugged those holes in trade or free agency.

I'm not defending AA but more so bringing up a counter argument for the sake of discussion
 
NYCBrave said:
Of course hindsight is always 20/20. But Riley was a top 10 MVP finisher in 3 consecutive years. Im not saying I agree with his extension. But I'm not sure anyone saw these injury laden down years the past two in what should have been a continuation of his prime.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Riley already have been a free agent at this point had he not signed the extension? Same with Murphy?

Same with Matt Olson, and I haven't seen his extension questioned in here, because it's worked out well.

So we may have had a lot more to spend this off season. But I have no idea who would have plugged those holes in trade or free agency.

I'm not defending AA but more so bringing up a counter argument for the sake of discussion
Click to expand...
People have definitely questioned the Olson extension. I think it’s been good. He would’ve been a FA after his monster 2023. He would have easily surpassed what he had left which was 6/$132m with a 7th year club option at $20m.
 
Also have to consider the fact that some guys may be getting written off too early. Riley was a really good hitter in 2024. Harris will be 25 the entire year. There’s a good bit of variability here. It could certainly click for a few years
 
Hudson2 said:
At least Striders is only for 3 more seasons but if he rebounds then it won't be that bad. Harris maxing out at 12 million isn't terrible either. Riley probably scares me more than any of them bc of the length of the deal and he's been injured the past couple of years. Murphy could still be traded even with the hip surgery bc he'll probably come back even better than he was. AA probably sees Murphy and Baldwin as a DH when they aren't catching and won't address the need for another bat outside of SS which is a bad idea.
Click to expand...
It’s essentially a platoon between the catchers and the utility guy, assuming a SS is signed. Everyone wants to rest guys with the DH spot. Having a utility guy eat up a lot of those at bats is what that looks like.
 
chop2chip said:
Of course. But what you’re then advocating for is the strategy of only do extensions that have good results and not extensions with bad results.

I didn’t love all of the extensions, specifically the risk/reward profile for the Strider extension. But most of the others were well lauded by non-biased folks (e.g. Zips liked the Harris, Riley and Murphy extensions).
Click to expand...

No, I’m advocating for only doing extensions that are extreme value for the team. The strider, Riley, Harris, Murphy and Olson extensions were not that much extra value to warrant all the risk the team assumed.
 
Super said:
Yes, I said even at 3/$45m, which Williams surpassed, I’d rather have Iglesias for one year.
Click to expand...
Which is insane. Devin Williams is a clear better option at this stage of their careers. He was arguably the best closer in the game coming into 2025.
 
Williams is a good get for the Mets. Hopefully he starts to decline since he's on the wrong side of 30 now but he's been nothing short of great since coming into the league.
 
CyYoung31 said:
If we’re not doing that when we have a clear need for high leverage arms in the bullpen, that doesn’t bode well for the payroll outlook.
Click to expand...
I mean, we don't know who did or did not offer him a deal. The Mets have been the only team reported. He could have also just wanted to be there or was offered a chance to close.
 
NYCBrave said:
Of course hindsight is always 20/20. But Riley was a top 10 MVP finisher in 3 consecutive years. Im not saying I agree with his extension. But I'm not sure anyone saw these injury laden down years the past two in what should have been a continuation of his prime.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Riley already have been a free agent at this point had he not signed the extension? Same with Murphy?

Same with Matt Olson, and I haven't seen his extension questioned in here, because it's worked out well.

So we may have had a lot more to spend this off season. But I have no idea who would have plugged those holes in trade or free agency.

I'm not defending AA but more so bringing up a counter argument for the sake of discussion
Click to expand...

According to fangraphs Riley now has 6.138 years of service time. So he actually would be hitting the FA market this offseason without the extension.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top