Mets Moves Coming At GM Meetings? | Straight Outta Flushing

What's up, everybody? Welcome back to another edition of Straight Outta Flushing. Dexter Henry with my guy, Tyler Ward, a.k.a. Wardy. Here with me in studio. What's going on, my guy? Dex, how we doing? How we feeling? Good, man. You know why? Why? The season's moving along. That's true. We are further away from the season that was 2026, one that I know you won't forget about. Oh, it's always a good day when you're further away from the 2026 season, right, Dex? Yes, yes, yes it is. But we are getting closer to more lockout talk, which doesn't make Mets fans happy. But we do have something to look forward to this week. And I don't know if you're excited about it, but that is the GM meetings as the GMs will all convene in Las Vegas. Fun place for people to be. Hopefully nobody gets into too much trouble, but they will all be there to talk baseball. Get an early start on free agency, trades, all those things that are going on. So a lot going on here with the GM's meetings. Are you excited? You get excited about a lot around the Mets, as always. But are you excited about this? Yeah, I mean, as someone who's typically known for getting very animated and really pumped up about everything regarding the club, it's a much more calmer approach as we enter this offseason, especially when we look at... The year the Mets just had, obviously, them being out for so long. And with the uncertainty with the pending lockout, not really knowing when baseball's even going to play in 2027, unfortunately. I'm in this unique limbo right now where I'm excited, but I also don't entirely know what to expect. This is not a typical offseason for the Mets or for Major League Baseball. So for that reason, too, I really say to myself, okay, this could be a very exciting next 48 to 72 hours or an absolutely hush-hush, there's nothing going on. And. I think I know where it's going to be going towards, but I'm excited to get in the conversation today because there's a lot to talk about in regards to it. Okay, so I'm intrigued about where this could be going because I'm like, who knows? It could be crazy. A lot of teams could want to get business done. Maybe the Mets get business done. Who knows? We want to see all of that. But I want to start off with your boy. Come on. You knew it was coming here. I'm starting to... Actually, I should have known this well and good on my commute here. I should have thought about this. Who could be my boy today, according to Dexter? Well, considering it's the GM meetings... Oh, of course. It's your boy, David Stearns. Absolutely. So, we've got to put things in perspective. We know the Mets are coming off a season that you love. 26-74 wins. Missed the playoffs for two straight years. We all know it. Mets fans, we all know this. Now your boy's heading to Las Vegas. It's GM meetings. I think it would be wise for me to say, for you to acknowledge, the Mets have some major holes to fill going into this offseason. How much pressure is David Stearns under here, in your eyes, to get something done significantly at these GM meetings? I think the pressure goes in direct hand with what is the atmosphere, like what is exactly happening with everyone else, right? For David, whether we like or not, he's clearly going to operate in a fashion where if things really start to pick up around the league, he's going to be in the thick of it. Whereas if things are quiet, David's probably going to be like, I'm going to stay quiet too, because there's a reason why no one's really pouncing yet. He has to play the market. But with the assumption that this market is going to be contrary to previous GM meetings It's actually pretty busy and there's a lot going on with there really likely being no winter meetings this year. I think that it's imperative that David has himself a successful next 72 hours and at minimum, really moving the needle when it comes to some of the player negotiations he has to set him up for the weeks to follow. But I would be almost, if not completely shocked if the Mets don't make at least one move of significance over the next three days. So I'm anticipating it, no doubt, but time will tell, obviously, with how quickly these markets shape up in a unique offseason. Okay, one move of significance. We're going to use the word successful. He needs for a successful GM meeting. We're going to come back to that because I find it interesting. You know, success can be defined in a bunch of different ways that we all can look at it and think about. I think that there's pressure on him because the pressure is different. This is not a normal GM's meeting, as you explained, because of the looming lockout, right? Because of all that, because he knows he has to do something. Now, here's the thing. You don't want him to do something that is rash, that is, ah, because I have to do something. I've got to make a move now, and it doesn't fit this team. And you look back later and say, ah, did he rush into this too much? I think it's going to be interesting. And you see that, but he's going to have pressure the whole offseason. I just think because this offseason could be very condensed in what happens between now and December 1st, which is when the CBA ends, the current CBA ends, it'll be very interesting. So I think the pressure was always there. Do I think there's more pressure for him in these next 48, 72 hours? Because the meetings are from November 10th to the 12th? Yeah, I do. Yeah, I agree with you. There's going to be some fans that are going to be disappointed if nothing happens. Oh, absolutely. I mean, there's fans that are always disappointed when things don't happen, right? Even in last year's GM meetings, if there's not a lot going on, people are like, oh, that's kind of lame. You're hoping that because the GMs are getting together and they're beginning the process of negotiations with players that they think it's like a certainty that those moves will be had. Even in winter meetings we've seen in some years, they've been very hush-hush. I'm trying to think a couple years ago when MLB was in Nashville. It was like... That year especially, there was very little going on, which was bizarre, if I'm not mistaken. So time will tell, but knowing that there is an adamancy for a level of clubs out there to make a move, if not multiple, happen before the new CBA kicks in, regardless on MLB's latest proposal saying that, oh, we'll wait until 2028 to start a floor and a cap. The union cares very little about because they know they're not going to agree to that, obviously, right now. With the exception of that... All the other things were going to basically stay the same for whatever this new agreement is going to be after the 2027 season. So especially when we look at, and I've been emphasizing this a lot, but it's going to hold true, how the Mets operate and how quick do they work here versus how do the Dodgers look in their level of aggressiveness and being a big spender to a team like, as I've famously been referencing throughout the Scoville sweepstakes, what's happening with the LA Angels. How much are they going to be involved this time around? When we think of some smaller market teams that, Just saw the Brewers win the World Series. Does that give them a fire at all to say, you know what? We're not too far removed from how they operate, but we're still probably a piece or two shy from getting where we want to be. Are we going to now go ahead and move forward, or are we going to be... We're going to take a step back because we don't know how the payout structure is going to look. We have a big divide right now in Major League Baseball when it comes to this, not only from fans to players to the owners, but also we have a divide just amongst the teams itself because there has been some more, to just throw this in there, Dex, more speculative reporting through industry sources over the past week. Guys like Buster Olney and others, ESPN, have relayed how there's around a dozen teams or so are reluctant, you know, to go ahead and make big splashes, if you will, make big moves before the lockout begins, given that uncertainty. So as we look at the uncertainty that comes with this lockout, and we are reminded how the Mets fared, obviously, four years ago, when they were facing a similar situation, what did they do? What did they go ahead and do then, Dex? So four years ago, they played it pretty safe from what I recall. Oh, wait, that's it? That's the Scherzer year, right? It's the Scherzer year. It's the Scherzer year, so I was thinking before that. If that was the Scherzer year, they signed Scherzer. um They trade for Justin Verlander. Yeah, what else did they do that off-season? So here's what they did. Verlander was a year later. A year later, sorry. Because we had one year with DeGrom. Oh, sorry. I tried to forget about '23. No, you're fine. So here's what happened. You have Scherzer. That was the big piece. you. But you also had the couple-hour span of the Marcanas and the Eduardo Escobars and the Sterling Martes of the world. Oh, yeah, Marte was a big signing there, too. I forgot about Canna. I like that Mets off-season. I remember, except I wasn't thrilled about the show. I don't know how you felt about that one. Scherzer I was excited about, but I was excited as someone who hated him for as long as they did when he was with the Nationals. So it was kind of like, you know, I've despised facing up against this guy for so long. I love the animosity he has on the mound. I want to see that in Queens. For when he was healthy in 2022, he was fantastic. He was good. But unfortunately, he crumbled in the playoffs that I attended that you were probably there for against the Padres. And, you know, the more we forget, the better on that front. But the reason why I bring this up, though, is because, again, around. Four years ago now was the last time that we faced a lockout at all similar to this. The stakes are greater now because MLB is very much, I want a floor and I want a cap. They haven't pushed this to the same degree publicly since the 90s when we didn't even have a World Series. So what's different about this one, though, for the Mets approach is you have a David Stearns who, in certain ways, He kind of needs to approach this like how Billy Eppler did because Billy Eppler was a man in a new position but didn't have it locked down long-term because he knew what was inevitably looming would be the David Stearns hire as soon as Stearns was officially a free agent. So that made it easier for Billy to buy in, for this big market owner to say, hey, we need to go out and make big splashes. We're going to win that window. Let's take advantage of the fact that this guy is just throwing money at me to go spend it, right? And Billy did that to his credit. When it comes to Stearns, with the exception of Soto, because he's an anomaly of a circumstance, the Mets have really taken little advantage of Cohen's ability to spend big in ways that they would like to. And how they've fallen short on some runs with the Dodgers especially. They weren't able to get right. Diaz, Tucker, we're not complaining about those things necessarily right now. The point stands, Stearns has consistently fallen short in hitting that mark in the free agent market. Will this approach now be different? Will there be that gap finally that Billy Eppler knew he needed to do to make sure Max Scherzer didn't go back to the Dodgers after being traded? But that's the question, right? Because of the current collective bargaining agreement expiring on December 1st that obviously can effectively put the offseason on hold, what you're actually asking here, and you're comparing it to 2022, is could the urgency of working in the Mets' favor? But to me... All that depends on David Stearns. Is he going to be more cautious, right? Or is he going to be about making those big moves kind of like Epler was in 2022? Because Emo has always been a little bit more cautious, particularly in Milwaukee. And I know you'll be like this with me, This ain't Milwaukee, right? But what do you think the urgency can actually help David Stearns here? Because that's when I hear you say all that, I'm like, well, will the urgency work in his favor? Or do you think it'll just be like, he'll be like... No, no, no. There's too much uncertainty here, so I'm going to be more cautious. Yeah, I mean, he's either going to break or he's going to step up to the moment finally. That's what I mean. This is a pressure situation for David that he hasn't had to the same degree, at least from what we know publicly, entering an offseason. This can very well be David's final year as president of the organization if he does not hit the mark big time this offseason in how he not only further built the coaching staff with Andy Green, but also, obviously, in building this roster. So when we think about the types of players that should be coming to Flushing Queens, How we were going about player evaluation prior, especially with guys from smaller markets, how much of that has worked versus not this far with Stearns. The bad has outweighed the good. Let's bear that in mind as we approach this offseason, right, and the aggressiveness that comes along with it. I'm excited, though, because I think one way or another, David knows that the pressure's on, and there's a pressure on across the league to make moves happen here before we get to that deadline. So one way or another, we're going to find out real fast, including Derek Falvey's influence here, as to just how aggressive this Mets team will be from the jump. I think he can't be cautious here. Not with the way this could be very condensed. In some ways, I love your comp to Epler in 2022. You got to strike, to me. Now, you have to strike smartly, and it's a gamble. With anything with free agency, with trades, you don't know until the games are played, until the guys get on the field. But he can't sit back. He has to be aggressive. Right. Now, back in 2022, I love the Marte deal. I like the Canada deal. I did not love the Scherzer deal because of his age, and you're right, he worked out for a season, and then it did not. But if you can go get a guy. Whoever that is, and most people probably know we're talking about Scuba. I'm about to get to that in a second. You've got to go get him. You've got to be aggressive. I think the caution that we've seen from David Stearns, not now, not if they're not making the playoffs for two seasons. Right. That's a factor in this, too. That combined the condensed timeline that we're working with here from November to December 1st, it's just not going to work. You've got to go out and make a move. Now, Scuba. We discussed Scuba. But with the GM meetings here now, Dodgers said they're trying to keep him. Speaking of aggressive, cautious, how aggressively should the Mets pursue Scuba this week? Especially as Boris, Boris wants to play the market. His agent, agent for Tarek Scuba, you know he wants to play. He's absolutely the best pitcher on the market. How aggressive should they be trying to get him this week? And is this the kind of player you're looking at? Like, look, the Mets, you can't let this guy walk. You can't let him go someplace else. You have to bring him in. You got to reel in the big fish. Do they need to be aggressive this week? You might say they need to be aggressive throughout the whole month, but I'm just talking about this week. You're at the GM meetings, you sit down with Scott Boras, you get on the phone, and you're looking at him like, yo, you got to get this done. How do you look at it? Yeah, I mean, being aggressive and getting something done, two different things, but I agree with you on the being aggressive part, because whether or not that leads to Skubal signing within the next number of days, or if this doesn't go until all the way right before the lockout, you know, as my outfit for this Halloween, Ricky Bobby would famously say, if you're not first, you're last, and David Stearns needs to make sure that he's first in his pursuit. of Tarik Skubal here, okay? Because if he does decide to sit on his hands a bit and be rather complacent in approaching this like any other player, he will find himself in last because he will not be doing enough to separate himself from the rest of the pack. And that's the most important thing when we talk about Skubal and the Mets approach for him. You know, I've been beating this drum constantly on my platform. I said it here, you agree with it. It's the following. What do the Mets have to sell to Tarik Skubal? In ways that the Dodgers don't. It's essentially everything. It's from location as Skubal is an Arizona native and could have spring training each year right around the corner with his family instead of being in St. Lucie with the Mets. It's also track record, which the Mets literally have none of. The only thing the Mets have to flex is an unbelievably wealthy owner who has an adamancy to bring a championship back to Queens and is clearly putting forth a continued effort there. Hospitality's great. Mets are doing very good in their player development we've seen over the past couple years under Stearns and Green and Gross, which they deserve credit for. But it's apples and oranges when you look at what the Dodgers are and it's someone who just got a taste of L.A. right before the season ended, just like how Scherzer was years ago with Turner when he got dealt from D.C. to L.A. So, again, what about the Mets' pursuit of Scherzer is what made him a New York Met. It wasn't the track record. It wasn't the location. It was none of that. It was quite literally making Max Scherzer the highest paid pitcher in Major League Baseball history on the average annual value, and that will always trump all. So for the Mets here, it's not just about being first, but it's really about setting a gap to the next closest spender. And whether they can actually do that or not is to be determined, because maybe the Dodgers will be relentless and go as far as the Mets are. Or maybe the Angels are going to be absolutely scorched earth in ways that we just are like. All right, we're just going to go tit for tat. We're going to see basically who you want in the end. Either way, the Mets are in a position here where they have to do such a greater selling job than some other contending teams going after Scuba, and that can't be lost in their pursuit in ways that, without being a fly on the wall in those negotiations the past offseason or two, one does have to wonder how much Stearns maybe didn't emphasize that enough. In the process, because he was maybe a little too complacent on operating in his way and not the way he needs to, given the market he's in. And I like that you brought that up, because that makes me then think about the fact that we heard Steve Cohen say he wanted more voices. Right, you don't just say that for nothing. Right, and then, to his credit, we've seen more voices come in, right? So we've seen Derek Foley, you know, that he's on board, you know, with Andy Green. They're expected to have more influence here at the major league level, something we're expecting to see. The question for me, though, is, and I think particularly if something gets done this week or something doesn't get done this week, I think a lot of Mets fans are going to say, OK, well, will those changes actually push David Stearns to approach roster construction differently than we've seen the last couple of years? Or is this still going to be his show? And when I say those changes, I mean those guys coming in, their voices, their impact. Will that change anything for him? For me, I hope so. I hope it is a little more collaborative because it seems like it hasn't been that just because he hasn't had other voices to necessarily push him where somebody might say, hey, you might be hesitant on this, like you just talked about. You might be hesitant on going to get Tarek Skubal. You got to push for him. Because of what you just said, the Mets are the Mets. Sometimes you got to know who you are, okay? The Mets don't have the championship legacy to sell. They're not the Dodgers. They're not the Yankees. I know Mets fans don't want to hear it. You got to know who you are. They don't have that. So sometimes all you got to sell is we got Daddy Warbucks here. And he could give a lot of money and make you the highest paid pitcher. And come, we're trying to build something. We got Soto in here. We got you in here. We treat our players good. You got to go with that. You might have to be a little bit more aggressive with your approach for the money to get a free agent than you normally comfortably would be willing to go. Especially Stearns, who's had the stubbornness to want to do it for a guy in his age group right now. For Yamamoto, it was a beautiful exception, given him he was entering his age 25 season at the time or whatever, whereas with Schubel, entering his age 30 season next year. You're buying into the second half of his career that's likely going to be injury-riddled, just like any other pitcher as they get older, as someone who's already dealt with ailments. But the way he throws, it's inevitable that he's obviously going to deal with things as time goes on. So for the Mets here, does the reward outweigh the risk? And for David Stearns, who famously missed the mark terribly this past offseason in evaluating those exact things, I think he would be the first to tell you that Scoble's reward Does outweigh the risk when you have three consecutive years of being a five to north of seven WAR per FanGraphs player and all of baseball, you know, having that type of immediate impact and your rotation would be monumental. And from not only the talent he brings on the field with him and Soto collectively. Adding 10, if not 12-plus wins to the Mets each year, which from two players is massive. But as long as it doesn't hinder the Mets from making other proper moves, this isn't even something that should be debated, in my opinion, among Mets fans, quite frankly. I, I, I, I. As a matter of fact, I will go out as far as to say that if there's any Mets fan out there that's opposing the Schubel, if you are given a certainty that... Acquiring him will not hinder the Mets from still operating in a big market fashion each year. No, I don't really know what else to say to you. I completely understand the argument. And this was like a Wilponsian approach where it's like they're going to make one big splash and then they literally will do nothing for the next decade. But no, this is just the latest offseason where there's a top talent out there that fits the Mets window for trying to win. Well, that's the thing. That's what it comes down to. It's the window. And are you trying to win? What was the last time they made playoffs back-to-back years, Dex? Oh, yeah, a decade ago. What was the last time that they actually got beyond the first round in back-to-back years? What? 2006? No, not even, because 2007 and 2008, they didn't make the playoffs. Oh, my God, that's true. This is before I was alive then. This is before I was alive, Dex. This is older than that teddy bear that you brought in. Yeah, you're talking 2014. No, sorry, excuse me. 2000 and 2001. You see how low the bar is for this organization to have any type of stability with being just a good team? Not even a great team, Dex. A good team. Okay? So in order to become a good team, you've got to add good players, especially when you have a good surrounding cast. And the Mets, for their rotation, they're in a great position with that right now. With McLean. With Thornton. With Scott. That's part of the sell. Of course. It has to be part of the sell. And the eventual tons. These are all things to help buy in, but again, as fantastic as McLean is and as good as Thornton and Scott may continue to be, one thing is certain is that you don't have that type of Schwell in your rotation the way that Schwell does. I think McLean will get there. The guy had an amazing year, as is for the Mets, but there's going to be natural ups and downs that come with a young starter like him in this market. And for Schwell, if he can handle this market, think about just the... The fantastic way he's going to have an influence on not only these young guys, but on future player pursuits. Because think about all the young players that are influenced by Schwell being here. Imagine how it would be with Skubal being here, especially if he wins at least one Cy Young in the Mets uniform. I love that point. The reason I love that point is I love that you bring up the fact about Soto's impact. And I've been talking about this as we got close to the offseason, now in the offseason. This Mets rotation needs somebody that can anchor at the top, that comes into the high level, not just has the talent and can throw the ball, Wardy, but can also show other guys how to do it. That stuff matters. That's the thing we don't talk about with Juan Soto. Juan Soto's an amazing talent at the plate. We know his eye. We know everything that he can do. But he shows a level of professionalism in the way he approaches the game every day. That stuff matters when you're clubhouse. That stuff matters when you're building your team, right? So if you get Tarik Skubal in the door, Now Nolan McLean, who we think is dope and is immensely talented, he's now seeing what it takes to be an ace. So that as Tarik Skubal is going on the downside of his career, he might be able to take over there. And you're like, oh, they're really good. Having that kind of leadership matters. I'm so glad you brought up leadership because you have to have that in here. It's not just the talent. It's about how guys approach the game every day. And seeing that level. This matters in all lines of work. You need to see professionals be professionals. You need to see people at the top of their craft do what they're doing to show you how it's done. And so I think that if that can happen for the Mets, that's also part of why you got to go all in. That's why you have to try to blow out the competition out the water. Now, some people may say, as you were kind of alluding to, well, Dax and Wardy, I don't want the Mets to look desperate. You're the Mets! You're going to be a little desperate. Beggars can't be choosers, Dex. Come on. You're going to be a little desperate. Of course we're a little desperate. You don't want to be wild with your desperation out in these free agent streets. That's not what you want. In your free agent streets. Right. But what you want to do is you want to try to set the mark and show that you're serious. Right. You and I, we had this analogy early in the season. You brought up to me, you're like, hey. This is like when you're dating, they're courting somebody. I forgot what exactly we're talking about. And you're like, yo, maybe it wasn't you. Might even actually Andrew Claudio who was on the episode. Either way, it's a great match. It's a great match. But the point was, you've got to show something, right? You've got to show something to land the person you're trying to be with. You can't just come like, you know what? I might do this. That's not going to work here. Right. You're trying to get Scoville. You're trying to get married here. You need to be assertive. You need to make it clear exactly what your intentions are from the get-go. There's no games to be played. Okay, there's a little back and forth on the phone for a little bit to make a question, make them guess. Maybe you're leaving the message open. No, you do none of that. You do not leave Terry Scoville's message unopened. Okay, you go ahead and say how much you want. All right, are you going to take it and run like Yamamoto did and match with the Dodgers? Let us know. We would appreciate it. The point is, you've got to make him think. You've got to make a decision. Now, can you do that this week? Maybe. Should be able to. You should be able to. Depends how aggressive you're going to be. Right. I want to get back to your boy Stearns real quick for a second. Oh, of course. Me and David go way back. He knows. I'm loving this conversation, right? Yeah. I think this part matters, too, when we talk about Stearns. You and I have talked about this. I don't know if we've talked on here or off here, but, you know, you look at Stearns, you see, like, okay, the Brewers just won the World Series. Several players. Several players that David Stearns had influence in. Helped bring him to the organization, right? Exactly, yeah. You saw this happen. So I think there's a way you can look at that and what the Brewers' success and what they've had, right? And say, clearly he knows how to build a winner, a sustainable winner. I want to give credit to the Brewers on that. The Brewers have been building toward this. This has been sustainable. They've been a great team in the National League for multiple years. I think the big question, I'm sure it's your question for your boy, too. If you were sitting right here, you'd ask him this. You're like, yo, what's up? Why is this not translated? With the Mets, I've seen you build a sustainable winner in a smaller market. I know he left, he's not there anymore, but he was part of it, right? Why has the same approach not worked with the Mets? Especially considering you got an owner who I just called Daddy Warbucks here, who's got all the money. That's got to be the question. It's like, yo, you were able to make this cook over here. Why can't you make a cook here? And maybe we got to wonder, you always talk about market. Is David Stearns built for the pressure of New York? I think the simple answer to that is so far, no. It's not a personal slide against him whatsoever. It's just a matter of fact in evaluating how he has fared as president at this point. And talk about not hitting on your ROI. That's something that, sadly, Steve Cohen continues to invest in with the New York Mets. I mean, it's just been egregious. And when you ask the question, what about Stearns' approach with the Brewers, why is it not working now? And this is a thing that has so many layers as to what the answer is. But, you know, in simple terms, it's this. It was something that wasn't built overnight in the sense of Rome being the Brewers finally winning the championship, right? Think about how long it took them to get there. And think about how long that they stayed in a system and a way of thinking and developing talents consistently to finally get over the hump the way that they did, right? Because they didn't do this nearly as much on spending the free agent market. They did this mainly on fantastic player development and scouting over the years. So for the Mets here, David Stearns adopts this team that was not his team. So we need to remember that there was all these layers of from making it more of his club as years have went on with parting ways with veterans who had been here and building up this club and also just completely missing the mark on handling this market. To your point, he's used to having the mentality that he had in Milwaukee, and you would think that someone getting paid the millions of dollars they does each year, knowing as a Mets fan from Manhattan, you would think that he would have. I had had greater foresight on this and how to approach it. Sadly, that wasn't the reality that we found ourselves in. And that's why David right now looks like while he's under contract a couple of years, this will be the final year of David Stearns as president and the organization if the Mets do not have a successful 2027. That goes without saying. And there's a confidence there because while Steve Cohen obviously doesn't want there to be continued turmoil, he knows that this is a market that expects to win. And he came in here. Giving us that great expectation. And I will be shocked, genuinely, if Cohen approaches this the way that Steinbrenner has with Cashman and with Boone. Where if we just find ourselves good, that that's going to be fine to continue to run it back. I don't think that's going to happen if David Stearns has another failed offseason. The Mets find themselves not even in the playoff window whenever the 2027 season comes around. That's not happening. For sure. The big thing is, Even Steve Cohen had to look at that and say, I know. Right. And that is, with Cashman, from the Yankees, even though it's the Mets, but with the Yankees, he's won. You could say Aaron Boone has it, and that's fine, and the Yankees fans will tell you that. But, like, there's still that, there's a championship pedigree there. There is a getting to World Series there. This team hasn't done this, even under this ownership. This is true. So, I think, I'm with you on this. I think Steve Cohen knows this. I think we've talked ad nauseam about how big of a deal this is. How big of an off-season this is and big next season is for the Mets. It's a real big season for the organization, just overall. Not just David Stearns. It is a big season for the off-season and season for the organization. And to me, because of the condensed nature of what could happen with this lockout, this is a huge three days. This is a huge 72 hours. I get it, guys. Most GM meetings are not this big. It doesn't matter that much. But here, yeah, it matters. So with that being said, GM meetings wrap up on Thursday. And I'm sure we're going to talk after this. I know we will. What would you need to see here, both, in order to feel confident that David Stearns is moving the Mets in the right direction, even if they haven't made a major move? Because I'm sure there's a way you can still come out of the GM meetings, Morty, if they haven't made a major move, where you're still like, okay, I still feel kind of good about the way things are moving. What does that look like for you? Yeah, I mean, to answer that question, it really goes in hand a lot with what's happening around them. As I said, you know, if the Mets are in the spot where we go 72 hours from now, we're talking to Dex next episode about how the Mets sat on their hands and did nothing. But that's really because it actually ended up being a very quiet GM meetings contrary to what we initially were thinking. That's like, okay, heard you. Was it really busy? But were they players that the Mets really didn't need? That very well could be the case. You know, Mets fans, we will, of course, be quick to react and be pitchforks in one hand and firing another at Stearns for being like, why didn't you sign so-and-so just because a market starts moving, even if they are players that don't really make logical sense here. You know, and there's a lot of players in this free agent market that, transparently, I think the Mets are more than fine without. So I don't think that this is a year where we need to be kicking and screaming and crying because we're not kicking tires on everything under the sun. For me, what I'm hoping to see over the next 72 hours is that The Mets do make one move of significance, as I mentioned. But if they do not do that, then my hope is that we came out of it having a greater idea as to not only what the Mets are pursuing, but some more clarity as to the players that they're connected to. And also, in some other areas, it'd be cool if there's some reporting that leaves gray area, where we're hearing things about the Mets, but we really don't know, because there have been some moves in recent years under Stearns, for better or for worse, more so worse than better, sadly, of ones that you really didn't hear about much prior. You know, Bo, Bo happened like that. You know, and talk about at the inception of the show, Dex, you mentioned, you know, making moves for the sake of making moves. One could argue that that somewhat falls in that category of Bo Bichette because Steve Cohen said, we have to make a big splash here after missing out on Tucker, after, of course, letting Alonzo to walk. We have to get a bat that can be top three or top four in our order. So even if they didn't make... Since, from a defensive standpoint, which is what David Stearns was beating that drum so far, so long about, the Mets still went ahead and did it. They did. And they're not benefiting from a financial standpoint with it right now. I'm sure that they like Bo, but I'm sure they'll also be the first to tell you that they would have been more than fine with Bo if he opted out and did not opt in for $42 million for next season with a .700 OPS. You know what I mean? So, currently, if the Mets made that sign in this free agent class, we would say, Like we knew we need to overpay for a guy that's egregious, but is it going to stop the Mets from making other good moves? That's all I care about. And knowing he's not even on a long-term deal is why I'm not like hung up on it the way that some other fans are. Yeah. I think that's why I think a lot of it is because that's still a good deal. For the Mets in the short term, it was good for both sides. Sometimes it happens like that, which you probably like based on last year, as you said, with .700 OPS to possibly be paying Bo Bichette a little bit less. Sure. And will they be doing that this time around, too? Are they going to make another move that either from falling through on Scovell or, you know, just being a bit creative and opportunistic, if you will, in ways that we aren't currently seeing? And then you go ahead and see them make a big spot. You're like, oh, this is very random, but I'm down. That'd be fun. That'd be a lot of fun. Think about how you felt the week of the Bo Bichette signing because they signed him. And then they make the trade for Luis Robert Jr. And you're kind of like, okay, I see how this is going. Oh, yeah, it was definitely a pick-me-up after, like, literally falling out on Tucker and everything prior because I think Diaz and Tucker weren't far removed from one another. I think it was like four or five days apart. Yeah, so it was like we were having a week from hell between that and Alonso. And then I was like, okay, you know, you can work with this. I think for me to try to answer the question I asked you because I think you thought about it. fairly reasonably and not everybody's gonna be reasonable on this is if they come out of this and you're hearing that they've had meetings and conversations and are talking or one of my favorite words this season progressing towards a deal right which is where fans get a little excited and you're hearing with multiple players they've got their hands in a couple of things I feel like that's a job well done at the GM meetings. That's a saying if they don't get somebody, right? Like, I would still feel like that's good. I always tell you, it's lying season. You got to be careful about what's out there and who's putting that out there. But I think if you're hearing from reputable sources that this is what's going on, then I think you've come out of it feeling good. I'm really intrigued on Friday when we talk again how we're going to feel coming out of this because we could feel very differently. We could be on a super, super high. Super lower. We could be exactly right here right now and be like, all right, we're fine. It was quiet the whole time. Nothing changed really for anyone. Or, you know, like a couple teams made big moves, but the moves that they made were big for them, but not big as it would have been for the Mets. I like that you said that because I think sometimes people have to look at that when you're evaluating team moves. Just because something worked for somebody else doesn't mean that you missed out on the thing for you. I mean, it's also personally, too, in life, but for teams. Right. Let's say. The Cardinals do something. I'm just throwing them as an example. They make some moves. You're like, I like those moves. Cardinals are usually a good organization. They make some good moves. But that doesn't mean that would have been good for the Mets. Right. It doesn't mean that it's a failure by David Stearns because he didn't get that. I think we've got to let the process play out. And while we're talking about the GM meetings, the process is going to be more than these next three days. Do I think these next three days are big? Yes, because it can be big for what the Mets can establish. But it's not the end all be all here. Right. And I think that's a good way of putting it. If the lockout started in 72 hours, then yeah, it kind of is the end of the year. We don't really have much time to waste here. But that isn't the case. So with that being said, Dex, I think that's a beautiful way of kind of putting a wrap on it when we look at what's ahead for these GM meetings. But before we kind of let everyone know what is next year for Straight Out Flushing for our next episode, because I think we can just relay more of what we were just talking about. Go over the results and stuff like this. Is there any final words that you'd like to share? Yeah, I do. And I do have, this is a couple things I have for you. Sure. Very quickly. Let's say this. If you had the power, because this is a lot of power I'm about to give you right here. You guarantee that the Mets complete one move before a potential lockout. Just one significant move. What would it be? Significant? Significant move. All right. Yeah. Because that's the only thing that's going to get the fan base excited. They want a significant move, right? Okay. What would that move be? Why is it the most important thing you think the Mets have to do? I was on board when you were saying move, but significant changes of playing field a bit. Because I can't sit here and say, you know, when the Mets inevitably sign an infielder to a major league contract in the next two days, you know, but someone is not going to really move the needle too much or anything. I'm going to say to you, if that person is replacing Marcus Simon, I think some people will consider that a significant move. That's true. Yeah, that is fair. You know, but having said that, though, I think I could definitely see what were the Mets bringing in, again, someone that is not. A massive needle mover for either the infield or outfield that they acquire. I think the infield market is going to be interesting how that shapes up because the outfield might drag a bit even as we get post-lockout, depending on how things are going to configure. Because outfielders a lot of times, especially the fourth outfielder types, they might not need a sign really until right before the season starts. So significance, you know, the Mets are all in on the pitching right now. So I would look and say that the biggest move that we could see them making is obviously something in the pitching department. Thank My heart wants it to be a big signing of a starter, but my gut is telling me that the Mets acquire a reliever. you But I really don't know. A reliever move could be significant if it's a... frontline back into the bullpen Is Adrian Morajon good enough having for the New York Mets to say, you know what, we are going to cough up what it takes to acquire him, which is, of course, multiple draft picks in the stance, me. and they also give up, I believe, a million dollars in their signing bonus pool for the IFA, which is not great, but Morajon, because he has a qualifying offer attached, you'd have to do that. I mean, I think he's a unique exception of someone that you should do that for, especially at his age. He's only entering his age 27, 28 season, so you can still buy in on his prime years the next four or five years and get a really dominant lefty. And listen, I don't know if the Mets would do it. I'm sure they have a level of an appetite to do it, especially if they don't bring in Skubal. But there's a lot of speculation as to... Can Adrian Morejon be the next big arm to transition to a starter? He was a starter in his early years with the Padres in his early 20s. Didn't look all that great, but he was in his early 20s, and he hasn't touched in like five, six years now. I don't think I hate the idea of maybe giving that a second go around, especially for a guy who pitched, what, 80 innings last year, at least if not 90. So he's up there. He's very much at Michael King's first sample as a Yankee going from a reliever to a starter was around 90 innings or so, if not 100. Final year in the Bronx, and obviously he had the success that he did. Mets aren't foreign or unfamiliar with transitioning pitchers to such degree. So I'm curious, because I think either way he'd be a beautiful fit for their bullpen or someone that, if they do want to stretch as a starter profile, could have major upside if he actually is able to buy in the way that we got Clay Holmes to buy in. Yeah, I'm saying it wouldn't be Tarek Skubal, but I think that would be a major move. I think there's some, the reason I ask that question, I think there's room for significant moves. And you mentioned the infield, because I think for a lot of fans, anybody but Jorge Polanco, Marcus Simon is going to be significant for them. And so I understand that, too. And I think that could be good. Before we go, can we just do a quick game of deal or no deal? Oh, of course. Yes. Oh, I apologize. You mentioned this earlier, too. No, no, it's fine. We've been locked in. All right. We're just going to it's going to be real quick, people. We're just going to say. This name or thing that could happen, and we're going to say deal or no deal. Are you going to give me a contract with them or just the name? Just the name. Just what happens, and it's going to be like, will this happen by the time the GM meetings end? Oh, okay. Just to put it out there. Okay? All right. Mets sign Tarek Skubal. Deal or no deal by the end of the GM meetings? By the end of the GM meetings, no deal. They do not sign Tarek Skubal, but the asterisk is no one does. I'm agreeing with you on that. I don't think Tarek Skubal signs by the end of GM meetings. I'm going no deal on that one, too. I don't think anybody signs Tarek Skubal by the end of GM meetings because his agent is who his agent is. And if he does sign, then okay. Then we'll see what happens. I mean, I hope I'm wrong. Right. For the Mets fans out there. I hope I'm wrong. Not that he signs with somebody else. Mets acquire another veteran starter. Deal or no deal? Mets acquire another veteran starter by the end of GM meetings. Yes, that is not Tarek Skubal. That is not Tarek Skubal. You should be clear on that. As long as the market is playing up and it's busy, deal. Going deal. Going deal. All right, so deal on this. I am going to say... Because I don't know if that starter is going to be a free agent. I don't know if that starter is someone via trade. I said acquires, it could be either one. But I do think that there's a role that especially before the lockout, the Mets not only land a starter, but I think that they inevitably land someone that might be more their middle. Back-end profile, regardless of what happens with Tarek. So, if it's a hot market the next couple days, it's definitely possible. I think the pitching, I have a feeling the pitching market's not going to be as hot the next couple days. Maybe that's my assumption going into it. Okay, interesting. I think, I don't, I'm not sure. Well, at least for maybe somebody in the higher front end of pitching. Right. I'm not sure. And there's a drop-off between Skubal, and you're talking about Michael King and Clay Holmes. There's a drop-off there, but. I'm going to say no. Okay. Okay. Mets add a new first baseman. Deal or no deal? By the end of GM meetings. Oh, because I want it? Yes. Yes. Just because you want it. That and if we're following along with what's being reported, Ty Francis' market is moving really fast. I'm not saying he's going to land with the Mets because there's a great reality that he doesn't. But if that market's moving fast, that means the other dominoes in that market will be falling suit not long after. And it's not a deep market. And the trade market regarding first baseman is a massive question mark. You know, could a guy like Vinnie Pasquantino be traded from the Royals? You know, that's a fun thought process amongst some others. So we will find these things out in due time. But I do think there will be a first baseman at least coming off the board in the next couple of days. Yeah, this is the one where I'm going to deal. I think that the Mets add a new first baseman here. I don't know if it's going to be the sexiest name that people want. But I do think they could be a Ty France. I do think somebody that fits that profile, that could be a bridge at that position. There's not a young guy that the Mets are enamored with coming up through the farm system. We've talked about that. Ryan Clifford, high strikeout rate, all that stuff there. I'm going deal on this. I feel like this is maybe one of the more likely deals for the Mets here at the winter meetings, depending on how those markets unfold. And a guy like a Ty France, I'm kind of banking on, you don't know the uncertainty. You're kind of in that middle tier-ish of free agents in terms of pay. Those guys like to get a deal done quick before it's locked out. Oh, for sure. And I think we're going to see an adamancy behind many players wanting to get a deal done before the lockout ends because not just the uncertainty, but it's more so an issue. And we'll get into this when we talk on my platform as well. But, you know, when you have a lockout that, say, stretches until at minimum. May or even June. That's a really tough thing for players themselves to get acclimated and to have the uncertainty of not even knowing where they're playing yet in a shortened season when they might have a lot on the line. Maybe they have to go again for another bridge contract to really try to hit the market again the way that they want. There's a lot more added pressure there. I think of Chris Bryant, especially, when I think about him signing with the Colorado Rockies. That was during that lockout offseason. There was an emphasis and a pressure he felt as a Scott Boras client, from my understanding, of someone who just felt like he had to pull the trigger on this, especially given the timing of everything. It's funny. He thought he was going to be a Met when he got texts early in that day. And ultimately, thankfully, that didn't happen. That would have been up there with the worst moves in Mets history, actually insane. And I was such a big Chris Bryant guy, too. We've been wrong. Just a few. Mets make a major trade. Mets make a major trade by the end of meetings. Oh, that'd be so fun. I would love for them to make a major trade by the end of meetings. And Stearns has been unique in early offseason trades. It isn't foreign to him. Um, I'm going to say yes, because I think that there's more logic behind that than actually some of the other things that you've asked me so far. I think if, I think if we're basing anything off of if Stearns is going to act similar and just the way that he approaches some off seasons, if not completely the opposite, um, he has made early trades in recent years for the Mets, not overly big moves each time, but he's made early moves. So this one is interesting to me because I'm kind of on the fence about it, but this could also tie into how they get the first baseman. Right, especially if, say, Ty France doesn't sign with them after maybe they pursue him heavily or something. Like, there's going to be a pivot. And that's where I'm leaning deal. Okay, I'm going to say deal here. Okay. Because I wonder if in some of the other things, whether it's we talk all the things I mentioned before, another veteran starter, Tyreek Scobell, meant to add a new first baseman. What if the pivot to get one of those things is with a deal? I feel like there's going to be a pathway, and I think Stearns is actually probably more likely and comfortable to explore that kind of pathway going through a deal. Now, how much will he be willing to give up for certain kind of players? That's going to be an interesting thing. But I do think it's a pathway that people maybe won't focus on or the market might bear that people are just so focused on the free agents at these times that want to sign. Can you get somebody that's cost-controlled that can help your team, particularly that you feel like you can have for a couple of years? That could be a major trade. So I'm going to go deal on this one too. Last one we got. Mets add an established high leverage reliever by the end of the GM meeting. Deal or no deal? Yeah, I mean, that was in my thought process going back to when I was talking about Mora Jones. So, yeah, I have to. Yeah, I'm going to see. Yeah, I'm going to deal on everything, unfortunately, because I know only one thing is probably going to happen. The only one you did was not Scobell. Yeah, the only thing I said not Scobell. I think it all is in hand with the market, guys. So if you're going to come back at this in three days and be like, ha, I already see you're wrong again. I'm like, yeah, if nothing else happened around, completely understand. But if there's a lot of traction happening around and Stearns wasn't one of those, then, yeah, throw a pie in my face all you want. That's fine. Uh, it's that... This market, see, this is interesting. I can be wrong. I can be, I'm going to say no deal on this. But I can still end up being right because it could be a trade that comes and you get that high leverage reliever. It's possible. So I don't, I think if they get a high leverage reliever, it's probably going to come that way through the trade. I'm not sure it'll come via signing. I'm going to say no deal on this, but. I'm going to go with, I think the Mets make a trade here and they also land the first baseman. Maybe two, both of those things happen. And the more I think about it too, there's a good reality that maybe they don't get an established reliever for a bit until closer to lockout because I'm thinking that Morajon needs to happen by, say, That time when that doesn't need to be the case. And that's why I lean to no deal. That's fair. I would probably flip it to no deal as well. That's fine. You got a flip-flopper. You're allowed to change your mind when you have a new information. Yeah, exactly. It's okay. It's fine. All right. We just played a quick game of deal or no deal. We will see how that all plays out. Mets GM meetings are here. Let us know in the comments what you think. Do you think the Mets make some moves? Will it be quiet? I know some of y'all will be mad if it is quiet. Me included. I want to see some moves. I'm bored. But I agree with what you said. You have to. Take note of everything that's happening at these meetings and not just jump to the conclusion quickly. So we'll see what happens. That's going to do it for this edition of Straight Outta Flushing. Enjoy the GM meetings. We will have, if there's any news that breaks, any updates, we're going to be on top of it here on Straight Outta Flushing. We will have a lot to talk about. That is my boy. See, I'm not going to just put, I'm not just going to put a. Stern's on you, man. Oh, thank goodness. That's my boy, Tyler Ward, a.k.a. Ward. Shout out to you, Dex. We appreciate you. No problem, man. See, I'm going to come back and give you some love. There we go. I got to do that. That's my guy, Tyler Ward, a.k.a. Wardy. I'm Dexter Henry. We'll catch you next time on another edition of Straight Outta Flushing. Peace.