The New York Mets just lost Edwin Díaz, and while the headlines will scream about a $3 million gap between offers, the real story runs deeper than a simple dollar figure. This was a breakdown in priorities, timing, and financial maneuvering-a perfect storm of misaligned decisions that ultimately sent one of the game's elite closers to Los Angeles.
Let’s start with the obvious: the Mets wanted Díaz back. No question.
But wanting a player and structuring a deal that actually lands him are two very different things. The Mets reportedly aimed to defer more money than Díaz was comfortable with.
The Dodgers, on the other hand, offered him the kind of immediate financial security he was looking for. In the end, that difference in approach-not necessarily the total money-was what tipped the scales.
This wasn’t just a miss in free agency. It was a ripple effect of previous decisions, most notably the $17 million the Mets are committed to paying Frankie Montas in 2026-a deal that has aged like milk.
Montas hasn’t delivered, and that contract now looms large when we talk about what the Mets could or couldn’t do financially this offseason. It's not that the Mets are broke-far from it-but when you’re already carrying dead money on the books, every new dollar gets scrutinized a little more closely.
David Stearns, now in his third offseason steering the Mets' front office, has had his share of hits and misses. But the Montas signing is starting to look like the kind of misfire that haunts offseasons like this one. Giving Montas a player option for 2026 added risk to an already questionable investment, and now it's fair to wonder how much that deal factored into the Mets' hesitancy with Díaz.
Owner Steve Cohen, known for his aggressive spending since taking over the club, appears to be taking a slightly different approach this winter. Last year, he was ready to hand Pete Alonso a record-setting AAV for a first baseman.
He greenlit a full-court press for Juan Soto. But this offseason?
Things feel more measured, more restrained. Whether that’s Cohen stepping back or Stearns being given more autonomy, the end result is the same: the Mets are operating within a tighter budget-or at least with a more strategic one.
That’s not to say the Mets are sitting on their hands. They’ve added three relievers-Devin Williams, Luke Weaver, and A.J.
Minter-all making between $11 and $15 million per year. That’s real money, and on paper, it’s a solid trio.
But it also raises a fair question: if you’re already investing heavily in the bullpen, why stop short on Díaz, the guy who’s arguably been the most dominant closer in franchise history?
The answer may lie in how the Mets are structuring deals. Take Jorge Polanco, for example.
The Mets paid him as if he’s a two-year piece, even though the contract spans three years. It’s a creative structure, but it also shows where the front office's priorities lie-short-term flexibility over long-term commitment.
That same philosophy may have played a role in how they approached Díaz’s contract, preferring to defer money rather than commit upfront.
And then there’s the silence. Cohen, usually vocal when things are going well or when he’s trying to reassure fans after a rough stretch, has been relatively quiet this offseason.
That could be by design. It could also be a sign that he’s letting Stearns take the wheel-and take the heat-for decisions like the Montas deal.
One last wrinkle worth noting: Munetaka Murakami signed a two-year, $34 million deal-the exact same total the Mets committed to Montas. No player option, just a clean two-year deal.
It’s impossible to know if the Mets would’ve been more aggressive on Murakami had they not been tied to Montas, but it’s hard not to connect the dots. When you’re carrying a $17 million hit for a pitcher who isn’t contributing, that’s money you can’t use elsewhere-whether it's for Díaz, Murakami, or anyone else.
At the end of the day, the Mets didn’t lose Díaz because they didn’t value him. They lost him because they tried to get too clever with the structure, because past mistakes are still on the books, and because, for the first time in a while, they’re acting like a team with limits.
Whether that’s a temporary shift or the new normal under Stearns remains to be seen. But for now, one thing’s clear: the Mets just let one of their best arms walk, and the reasons why are as much about yesterday’s decisions as they are about today’s.