It sounds like the money was roughly equivalent, so he just chose LA over NY, which could have been for any number of reasons. Mets fans seem pretty apocalyptic over it, but Devon is a reasonable replacement at a cheaper price.
Looks like Pete Alonso is going to Baltimore. I now expect the Mets to go overpay for some big name out there.
Damn it, they’ll probably over-pay for Bellinger now. I was hoping the Yanks could re-sign him.
Is Baltimore going for Chris Davis 2, Unathletic Boogaloo?
I really don’t understand what Baltimore’s plan is. Don’t they need pitching? Why weren’t they in on Sonny Gray? I feel like their window (such as it was) is already closing and spending big money on a guy like Alonso doesn’t really move the needle. They needed to move prospects for pitching (or sign free agent pitchers) two years ago.
What am I missing?
Well, good for Alonso. He bet on himself and won. But what were the Mets thinking?
I don’t really think he’ll be another Chris Davis, and it’s only five years. Baltimore was hurting for power, so why not? If they start spending the AL East is going to be crazy competetive.
Big first basemen often don’t age well after 30, but Chris Davis was a extreme outlier.
I think the Mets thinking is pretty clear. They don’t think Alonso’s bat will age well, and if it doesn’t its a big problem. They would risk it for 3 years but there is too much downside risk going longer. 1b is also a relatively easy position to fill and there are plenty of other options available. The Mets also have a deep farm if they need to make trades. I’ve hear Contreras from the Cardinals rumored and that would make sense. A bit of a lesser bat, but much more defensive value and only a 2 year commitment.
I can see the Alonso decision both ways, honestly. Baltimore needed pop and had money. the Mets have tried to buy a championship and it didn’t work.
I think teams underestimate how important it is to a fan base to he a home grown player that spends their career on one team. It’s rare and now will always be rare but I think it’s important to have. The Mets have a history of not understanding that.
I think that dynamic has all but disappeared from baseball. With a couple of important exceptions.
Namely the cities with more than one team. LA/Anaheim, Chicago, and NYC. There, where the metro area has two teams, it can get pretty tribal which is your team. And IMO homegrown long duration loyal players help that.
Otherwise, why would any NYC resident care about the perennial loser Mets? I get the “lovable underdog” vibe. But IMO that’s a post hoc rationalization.
I think Boston fits the definition pretty well without a second team. Philly too.
I regularly play a trivia game called “Immaculate Grid,” on the Baseball Reference site. It’s a daily game, on a 3-by-3 grid, in which you have to select players who meet each of the two intersecting criteria for each square. The criteria are most commonly which teams the player played for, but they will also use statistical ones (300 career wins, 40+HR season, 6+ WAR season, played first base, etc.)
What strikes me as I play it is that it seems like almost everyone has played for the Dodgers or Angels at some point. It’s not really true, but it’s really easy to find a guy who played for those LA teams. Conversely, when the Royals are part of the daily game, it’s a lot more challenging for me, as it seems like so many of their best players only played there, or maybe played for one other team.
The popularity of the Mets is also geographic. Long Island (including Queens and Brooklyn) has a population of 8 million and leans Mets.
Pete Alonso was enormously popular among the fanbase. To a lesser extent, so were Diaz and Nimmo. Letting Alonso get away would be like the Yankees geting outbid for Judge in free agency. I don’t know if it’s just a retooling or a flat rebuild, but the locals are not happy.
Rich Hill and Octavio Dotel are your cheat codes for those categories.
Bartolo Colon is also a good pick for the “multiple team” categories. He, Rich Hill, and Edwin Jackson are usually my go-to players.
I DO sometimes get stumped on the “one team only” categories if it’s a team I generally don’t follow. Especially for teams like the ChiSox, who I have no interest in.
Honestly, I don’t think they do. I think Mets fans will show up to see a winning team without Alonso more than they will a losing team with him.
'Zactly.
There is a certain mindset that loves being fans of the “lovable losers”. Cubs anyone? At least until 10ish years ago.
That crowd will become sorta confused as their team becomes a perennial winner or contender rather than basement dweller. Some will wander off. But IMO the folks losing interest will be far outweighed by the folks gaining interest and becoming fans. Or becoming fans that attend in person and/or buy merch rather than just watch it on TV.
And, as noted above, I think the effect of gaining fans as you succeed will be relatively muted in the two-team cities. The folks who back whoever’s a winner already have a team they’re excited about. It’s the other one in that city.
There’s another factor.
Some metro regions have populations that are heavily transplants. Here in greater Miami the joke is that you’re issued your native’s ID card on your fifth anniversary of moving here. Other metro regions have very little influx other than from the local hinterlands. e.g. Made up example: Nearly everyone moving into metro Philly grew up within 100 miles of there.
The attitude of fans in those two cities will be hugely different as to the importance of team history or homegrown roots.
Mark Lieter Jr signed with Oakland/Sacramento/Las Vegas. It sounds like a punishment but I’m not sure which side is being punished.
This might be overstating things just a bit.
All will be forgiven if the Mets win in 2026. If they don’t, Mets fans wouldn’t give them a break had they lost with Alonso.
From their perspective I quite understand being a little dubious that the current core is the way to go.