Worldwide Sports News

You can trace the trail of bread crumbs back to David Stearns making run-prevention his primary talking point in the aftermath of the Mets’ implosion last season. Actually, farther than that, considering Pete Alonso only played in Queens last season because he was treated like an outcast on the free agent market. 

No, unlike the Edwin Diaz departure a day earlier, there was no mistaking the Mets’ intentions regarding Alonso after he agreed to five-year, $150 million deal with the Baltimore Orioles on Wednesday. 

They didn’t even make an offer. 

Stearns clearly thinks the Mets are better off without his most prolific slugger, and now the burden of proof is on the team’s president of baseball operations to demonstrate why that is the case. 

It’s one thing to break up a core that has underachieved or failed when it mattered most in three of the last four seasons, and Stearns does deserve some credit for having the guts to do that. But it’s quite another to have a plan in place to replace that core and make the team better. 

From the outside looking in it’s hard to see how the Mets won’t miss Alonso’s power and productivity, at least in the short term over the next couple of years, which should be a priority for a team that is supposed to be trying to win a championship in that same window of opportunity. 

And while I thought it was vital that Alonso agreed to DH at least part-time, due to whatever yips caused him to make every throw he made an adventure, let’s be real: He was their best clutch hitter last season on a team that was wildly inconsistent with the bats, especially when it counted most. 

Offering protection for Juan Soto in the lineup was no small matter in itself. Who might that responsibility fall to next season? Right now there’s no obvious choice, and even signing Cody Bellinger wouldn’t necessarily be the answer. 

So how can the Mets be better without Alonso, especially after Scott Boras made it clear weeks ago that Alonso indeed was willing to be that part-time DH? 

That’s the question at the heart of what is currently The David Stearns Winter of Discontent, if you will.  He has to know most Mets fans are convinced he wants to operate with the small-market mentality that was a necessity for him as GM of the Milwaukee Brewers. 

And that can’t be a comfortable feeling, especially for a native New Yorker. So Stearns must be truly convinced he can make the right moves to put a winning team on the field next season, knowing he would have to take the slings and arrows that come with being committed to moving on from players like Alonso, Diaz, and Brandon Nimmo. 

Whether that proves to be the self-confidence of a smart baseball man or the misplaced confidence of a value-driven analyst is context of sorts for what now becomes the most fascinating of offseasons for the Mets. 

Whatever you think of Stearns at the moment, he still has to have a plan, right? Surely he wouldn’t subject himself to such unpopularity without one. He also has Steve Cohen’s billions and a highly-regarded farm system, which means he has the resources to be bold and creative. 

I know, I know, he has done nothing to indicate he’ll act in that matter, but he has also never been in this position while running the Mets, with essentially a blank slate in front of him. 

Is he truly consumed with finding exceptional value in every acquisition, as it seems to this point? Or can he pivot when needed to spending Cohen’s money for the best talent, even if it feels like an overpay?

From Day One, Cohen essentially has talked about making the Mets a Dodgers West of sorts. Is it possible Stearns is actually determined to build something of a Brewers East, winning with a scrappy, pitching-and-defense ballclub?

That philosophy worked in Milwaukee, at least to a point. The Brewers’ lack of success in the postseason for the last several years is more than the crapshoot nature of October: It’s also a reminder that it’s harder to win at that time of year without stars in the lineup and on the mound as well. 

Just last season the Dodgers dominated the Brewers like it was the varsity against the JV. 

All of this is a way of saying Stearns needs to re-discover and embrace his inner New York, if that’s possible. Run-prevention is a nice catch-phrase and there’s no disputing the Mets’ defense hurt them down the stretch last season, but I’d make the case the offensive failures were at least as costly, if not more so, in September, and, most notably, the lack of quality pitching was the biggest issue of all.

With that in mind, I believe this could still be the type of eventful offseason that at least gets Stearns back in the favor of Mets fans.

There are a lot of ways he could go now. Bellinger brings the type of all-around game that Stearns seems to prioritize, with his defense and base-running and solid hitting.

Alex Bregman would provide defense and a productive right-handed bat at third base, and he is hailed for his leadership as well, which may or may not be something Mets’ management feels the need to address. Brett Baty likely could slide over to first base if necessary, having proven to be versatile enough to play well at third and second.

Kyle Tucker could be the thumper the Mets need now, though his desire for a long-term contract seems to be exactly what Stearns wants to avoid.

You know the names on the pitching front as well: Michael King is uber-talented and available on a relatively short-term deal due to his injury history, if indeed Stearns wants no part of longer deals for Framber Valdez or Ranger Suarez.

I still don’t think the Detroit Tigers are trading Tarik Skubal, but he has the pieces to go get Freddy Peralta, Joe Ryan, or Eury Perez.

And if he signs Robert Suarez for the back of the bullpen, it’s possible the Mets won’t miss Diaz all that much.

Finally, as one scout told me on Wednesday, “I guarantee you Stearns has two or three guys in mind as trade targets that nobody sees coming yet. I think everybody in baseball is curious to see what he does from here.”

In short, there are still plenty of ways Stearns can change the narrative of this offseason in the coming weeks.

But he has a long way to go to earn the trust of the fans again.

As the hotel lobby at the Signia by Hilton Orlando filled at MLB’s winter meetings on Tuesday morning, an unexpected prize was falling into the Dodgers’ lap.

Edwin Díaz, the top reliever on this year’s free-agent market, was suddenly slipping away from the incumbent New York Mets, who reportedly made the fan favorite closer only a three-year offer that did little to entice him to re-sign with the team.

The Dodgers, meanwhile, were swooping in late to snatch away the hard-throwing right-hander, submitting a more lucrative three-year bid that would pay Díaz a relief-pitcher-record $23 million per season.

Just like that, the Dodgers had gone from a perfectly content, but unremarkably quiet winter, to one in which they’d once again flexed their financial muscles and stunned the baseball industry.

Read more:Shaikin: Dodgers signing of Edwin Díaz shows they aren't going to worry about a potential salary cap

“There were a lot of scenarios [that could have potentially played out this winter] where we didn't necessarily end up with a top-end reliever,” president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman said Tuesday night, while declining to comment on Díaz directly since the transaction wasn’t finalized. “But we just kind of prepared on a bunch of different fronts. And being aggressive, if something lined up, we've known all along [it is something we would do].”

The Díaz signing was an affirmation of the team’s operating procedure on the free-agent market. They always at least target top talent. They always at least stay around the proverbial blackboard, as Friedman calls it, in case a player’s market doesn’t develop as expected. And now, they are armed with the kind of endless resources that can make them a threat to scoop up any rebound.

As they leave Orlando this week and embark on the rest of this offseason, it serves as a reminder:

The Dodgers might not need to make another big move, in the same way they downplayed the need for any big acquisition coming into the winter.

But they’ll certainly be ready to pounce if another opportunity materializes.

"I would say we definitely can,” Friedman hinted when asked if another big move this offseason could be possible. “Whether that makes the most sense within the timing of our roster — there's so many factors that go into it, and any decision you make has a future cost. It’s just weighing that. So, yes, we can. How likely it is, is probably another question."

Start with the top overall available free agent, Kyle Tucker.

The Dodgers are not expected to entertain a long-term contract for the soon-to-be 29-year-old and four-time All-Star. If his bidding war, as projected, results in offers upwards of 8-10 years and $400 million, the club is unlikely to engage; given the glut of long-term contracts already on their books, and the crop of young outfield prospects expected to reach the majors in the next several seasons.

But what if Tucker’s market cools? What if, like Díaz, he is left to consider relatively shorter-term deals with higher annual salaries? Granted, that’s unlikely to happen, considering the wide interest Tucker is reportedly attracting, including from the Toronto Blue Jays and their suddenly big-spending front office. If it does, however, the Dodgers could once again become candidates for a blockbuster, still needing to fill out their outfield as they embark on a quest for a World Series three-peat.

Read more:Dodgers and Edwin Díaz agree to terms in blockbuster move to shore up bullpen

The same dynamic could be in play with other top free agents. The Dodgers have already shown interest in familiar face Cody Bellinger, who could bring both positional versatility and a more refined hitting approach than he had during his first stint with the club. Bo Bichette also presents the kind of balanced offensive profile the Dodgers are believed to seeking, as they try to shore up a lineup that too often was boom-or-bust last year.

Like Tucker, both players are unlikely to fit the Dodgers’ bigger-picture plans if their free agencies develop as expected (with Bellinger pegged for roughly five years and $150 million, and Bichette perhaps eight years and more than $200 million).

But thanks to the team’s flush financial outlook — and the fact that a salary cap could be coming next year, potentially incentivizing extra spending right now — all it could take is a slight cooling in either player’s market to make them more realistic targets for the two-time defending champions.

As long as there isn’t an overburdensome long-term risk, the Dodgers don’t seem afraid of lucrative shorter-term commitments to sustain their newly cemented dynasty.

“We have not only a really talented group of players, but an extremely driven group of players, who want to take care of their legacy and create a dynasty and be part of something really special,” Friedman said. “Because of that mindset, it makes it easier to invest. And do everything we can to help support that and be a part of helping bring that to fruition.”

The Dodgers could alternatively get aggressive on the trade market. Brandon Donovan and Lars Nootbaar of the St. Louis Cardinals are seen internally as fits. Steven Kwan of the Cleveland Guardians would be an even bigger-name addition, albeit is less likely to be dealt this winter.

Then there is the real white whale: Two-time Cy Young Award-winning pitcher Tarik Skubal of the Detroit Tigers.

For now, it’s uncertain at best that Skubal, who will be a free agent after next season and is unlikely to sign a contract extension with the Tigers (or any other team that trades for him) before then, gets moved this winter.

Read more:Dodgers downplay Teoscar Hernández rumors, continue assessing bullpen options

If he does, it figures to come at an extremely steep cost for a starting pitcher with one year remaining of team control.

If there’s any team that has the ammunition to pull it off, however, it’s the Dodgers, with their ample pitching depth and top-ranked farm system. Like with their free-agent pursuits, there is likely to be a limit for how much they’d part with. But if the Tigers seriously consider a trade, it would be no surprise to see the Dodgers be seriously involved.

There are less splashy routes for this offseason to go down, of course. If the Dodgers don’t make another marquee addition, they still feel confident with the roster core they have in place.

Then again, that’s the tone they were striking coming into these Winter Meetings, before swiping away Díaz in the surprise move of the week.

Thus, the baseball world has been put on alert again: The Dodgers won’t be reckless. They want to maintain longer-term flexibility. But if they see value in a top-talent target in the short-term, they won’t be afraid to once again spend big.

Sign up for more Dodgers news with Dodgers Dugout. Delivered at the start of each series.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.