There was universal shock on Tuesday after news broke that Edwin Diaz was leaving the Mets to sign a three-year deal with the Dodgers.
And that shock was not only felt by blindsided Mets fans, but by those in the industry who didn't see this coming and spent all afternoon trying to make sense of it in print and on video.
It was one thing that the Mets had lost Diaz, which was always a possibility, even though it felt remote. That they lost him on a three-year deal was bewildering. That they lost him on a three-year deal to the team they'll have to go through if they want to win a World Series was almost impossible to believe.
But here we are.
As far as what happened at the end of the process between the Mets and Diaz, that doesn't really matter. What matters is that they lost a negotiation for a player they wanted and needed, and also happened to be beloved by the fans.
With there being no indication that Diaz did not want to be a Met -- as alluring as the Dodgers are -- him leaving was truly puzzling.
The Mets needed to get it done, and didn't.
The loss of Diaz understandably dismayed and disoriented a fan base that was already reeling from the slow collapse that was the 2025 season -- one that resulted in an apology from owner Steve Cohen and candid self-reflection from president of baseball operations David Stearns.
With the backdrop of Diaz leaving amid a so-far-underwhelming offseason, I thought back to this quote that Stearns gave on Sept. 29 in his end-of-season news conference:
"I think on a number of levels there are areas where we can probably be a little more proactive," he said. "And I can be a little more proactive. I think some of these lessons we're still investigating and still fully understanding various aspects of our team. But there are clearly times in the season, times over the offseason, where I can be a little bit more proactive."
You can say the Mets were proactive earlier this offseason while signing Devin Williams to give themselves cover in the event Diaz left. Aside from that? Not so much.
The Mets were unable to close the deal with Diaz.
There are reports that they are hesitant to extend beyond three years for Pete Alonso.
They are reportedly not inclined to offer what it takes to land any of the top free agent pitchers on the market.
As far as trades -- and this could very well change in the coming days -- they have yet to display the willingness to deal what it takes to land a difference-maker.
When it comes to Diaz, you can throw fan sentiment out the window regarding how the Mets were calculating this. That's because doing what it took to bring him back should've been an obvious baseball move. His return thrilling the fans would've been a bonus.
With Diaz gone, the attention now turns to Alonso.
And it can be argued that Alonso is an even more obvious baseball decision than Diaz should've been.
That's because, in the case of Diaz, the Mets protected themselves by signing Williams. And they can further bolster the bullpen by signing a late-inning arm like Robert Suarez or Pete Fairbanks, or trading for someone like Trevor Megill.
If Alonso leaves, where are the Mets turning for the power needed to protect Juan Soto?
It won't be Kyle Schwarber, whom the Mets were seriously interested in before he re-signed with the Phillies on Tuesday on a five-year deal.
You can talk about free agent outfielder Cody Bellinger as something of a replacement for Alonso in the lineup, but you won't be taken seriously if you do. That's because he doesn't come close to providing the power that Alonso does. And his offensive production has varied wildly from year to year.
As the Mets weigh how to proceed with Alonso, it's worth noting that In addition to Diaz, the club has also moved on from Brandon Nimmo this offseason. Trading Nimmo was reasonable, given his regression offensively and defensively, and the fact that there were five years remaining on his contract.
Losing Diaz was not understandable, and using the same tactic with Alonso that they used with Diaz is something the Mets can't afford to do.
That's not to say that they should hand Alonso a blank check.
If some team offers him six or seven years, it will be well within New York's right to walk away. But if this comes down to moving off their reported uncomfortability with extending to a fourth year, they should budge. And going to five years for Alonso -- if that's what the market bears -- would not be a crazy thing to do if needed.
You cannot let fan sentiment dictate what you do, but it has to be a factor. And if keeping a player is smart baseball-wise, the Mets should go the extra mile when those players want to stay and are loved by the fans. They should also make an effort to show those players how wanted they are, perhaps at times letting that break through the cold business of negotiations.
