Darryl Strawberry recently shared his thoughts on Pete Alonso's departure from the New York Mets, emphasizing legacy over money. While his perspective may seem a bit simplistic, there's truth in the idea that Alonso might question his choice if the Mets thrive while the Orioles lag behind.
Daniel Murphy, another former Met familiar with free agency, weighed in with a balanced view. Currently involved with the Mets' broadcast team, Murphy explained, “Both sides wanted to stay together, but Pete received a well-deserved offer from Baltimore that didn’t align with the Mets’ vision for their roster. There’s no blame here-it’s just part of the game.”
Murphy’s diplomatic take is unsurprising, reflecting his potential future in player representation. His experience mirrors Alonso’s in some ways, as both left the Mets for nearby rivals, Murphy to the Nationals and Alonso to the Orioles. Murphy’s departure proved costly for the Mets when he finished second in the MVP race his first year in Washington.
While Murphy and Alonso share some parallels, Murphy didn’t achieve the franchise icon status Alonso did. Alonso set multiple records and received a substantial offer from Baltimore, something Murphy didn’t experience.
From a fan’s perspective, understanding the business side can be challenging. While there might be some tension between Alonso and the Mets, it’s unlikely to affect future interactions at Citi Field. With Alonso now in the American League, fans will have fewer opportunities to see him play against the Mets.
Murphy’s neutral stance highlights the reality: both the Mets and Alonso had mutual interest, but the Orioles simply wanted him more. It’s a straightforward case of differing priorities.