Assigning responsibility for the Mets bullpen roster move explained after losing Edwin Díaz is anything but straightforward. There isn’t a single decision or person that can be pointed to as the definitive reason the star closer is no longer in Queens. Instead, the situation reflects a layered mix of financial philosophy, negotiation strategy, and timing—one where several missteps combined to produce an outcome neither side truly wanted.
From the Mets’ perspective, Díaz was absolutely a priority. They valued him as one of the elite relievers in baseball and understood the impact he had on stabilizing the back end of their bullpen. However, valuing a player and agreeing to his financial terms are two very different things. The Mets wanted Díaz back, but only under conditions that fit their broader financial framework. That framework included a strong preference for deferring portions of the contract—money pushed into future years to maintain short-term flexibility. Díaz, on the other hand, wanted more immediate guarantees and less creative accounting. That gap proved impossible to close.
The fact that Díaz ultimately chose to sign with the Los Angeles Dodgers highlights just how imperfect the Mets’ offer truly was. When a player walks away despite clear mutual interest, it usually signals that the relationship was never as aligned as it appeared on the surface. Díaz didn’t leave solely because of geography or competitive outlook; he left because another organization was willing to meet his terms more directly and decisively.
MORE: mariners bullpen adjustment explained ‘stunning roster move’
That naturally raises questions about the Mets’ front office leadership. David Stearns, tasked with navigating these negotiations, bears a portion of the responsibility. In high-stakes free agency talks, especially with a cornerstone player, hesitation can be costly. Stearns appeared to play a long game—banking on Díaz eventually accepting deferred money in exchange for headline-grabbing totals. But elite players at premium positions often prioritize certainty over optics. By misreading Díaz’s priorities, the Mets allowed negotiations to drift rather than converge.
At the same time, “mets bullpen roster move explained” it would be unfair to place all the blame on the front office. Ownership plays a crucial role in shaping how aggressive—or conservative—a team can be at the negotiating table. Steve Cohen has built a reputation as one of the most financially powerful owners in professional sports. That reputation naturally raises expectations. When a player of Díaz’s caliber departs over contract structure rather than raw dollar amounts, it invites criticism that ownership could have done more to bridge the gap. Even marginal concessions—less deferral, stronger upfront guarantees—might have altered the outcome.
Still, financial resources alone don’t guarantee success. Every transaction in baseball is governed by cause and effect. Decisions made months or even years earlier often influence what is possible in the present. In this case, one of the less-discussed contributing factors is Stearns’ poorest free-agent signing with the Mets. That move, which tied up payroll without delivering commensurate value, restricted flexibility at a critical moment. While it may not have directly blocked a deal with Díaz, it certainly narrowed the margin for error.
MORE: 3 former NY Mets prospects had productive seasons in the big leagues
This is where the blame becomes shared rather than singular. Stearns didn’t maximize leverage in negotiations. Cohen didn’t push far enough beyond the organization’s preferred financial structure. Past roster decisions limited adaptability. None of these issues alone would have guaranteed Díaz’s exit, but together they created an environment where retaining him became increasingly unlikely.
It’s also important to recognize that Díaz had agency in the process. He evaluated offers, weighed his priorities, and chose the situation that best aligned with his goals. The Dodgers offered clarity, commitment, and terms that matched his expectations. From a player’s standpoint, that certainty is invaluable—especially for a closer whose role is defined by pressure and precision.
In the end, the Mets didn’t lose Díaz because they didn’t want him. They lost him because wanting a player isn’t enough in modern baseball. Execution matters. Flexibility matters. Understanding what truly motivates a player matters. The Díaz saga serves as a reminder that even well-resourced organizations can stumble when philosophy, timing, and communication fail to align.
MORE: Mariners Blockbuster Land Versatile Cardinals’ Gold Glover via Trade
Blame, then, is best viewed as collective rather than individual. The front office, ownership, and prior roster construction all played roles in shaping an outcome that still stings for Mets fans. Losing a franchise closer isn’t just about one contract—it’s about how every decision, big or small, echoes through the organization when it matters most.
Blame the $17 million the Mets are paying Frankie Montas in 2026 to sit at home for any financial decision we don’t like
There is a growing sense that this offseason represents a noticeable shift in how ownership is influencing roster decisions in Queens. In previous winters, Steve Cohen made his presence felt in unmistakable ways, often stepping in to push negotiations across the finish line or authorize spending that exceeded conventional limits. That energy feels muted this time around. Not long ago, Cohen was prepared to hand Pete Alonso a record-setting average annual value for a first baseman, a clear sign he was willing to reset the market for a homegrown star. He also deserves recognition for allowing the Mets to chase Juan Soto as aggressively as possible, backing an all-out pursuit that stretched to the outer limits of feasibility.
This winter, however, the dynamic appears different. Rather than dictating the direction of the roster, Cohen seems content to let David Stearns operate within defined financial boundaries. The front office is being trusted to execute a vision, but only within parameters that suggest a more disciplined—or at least more controlled—approach from ownership.
That backdrop is essential when trying to understand why Edwin Díaz ultimately ended up choosing the Los Angeles Dodgers. Contrary to the simplest explanation, the decision did not come down to a modest gap in total dollars. The difference was not about three million here or there. It was about timing. Díaz wanted security in the present, not money deferred into the future. The Mets’ insistence on spreading out payments became a sticking point that proved insurmountable.
MORE: Diamondbacks’ latest addition turns up the heat on the Padres
What makes that outcome especially frustrating is where the money ended up instead. Frankie Montas, widely viewed as the least successful free-agent addition Stearns has made during his tenure running the New York Mets, is now occupying payroll space that could have been used to retain one of the most dominant closers in franchise history. Montas’ contract, particularly when paired with a player option for 2026, was risky from the moment it was signed. In hindsight, that risk has only grown more glaring.
While the money tied up in Montas may not single-handedly prevent the Mets from making future moves, it undeniably shapes how resources are allocated. When Cohen and Stearns sit down to review the books, the emphasis seems to fall less on which players are being paid and more on the total figures involved. From a pure accounting standpoint, Montas’ deal might not register as significant relative to Cohen’s immense wealth. But in baseball terms, it represents inefficient spending—money committed without sufficient return, now functioning as dead weight on the payroll.
That reality makes the organization’s rigidity in negotiations with Díaz even harder to swallow. The reluctance to adjust payment structure suggests the presence of constraints, whether imposed directly by ownership or enforced internally by the front office. Either way, the result was the same: a franchise cornerstone was allowed to walk because of financial mechanics rather than baseball value.
It is not as if the Mets have been inactive or unwilling to spend. The bullpen alone features three relievers earning between $11 million and $15 million annually, a substantial commitment by any standard. Devin Williams, Luke Weaver, and A.J. Minter form a capable trio, though each comes with his own set of questions and uncertainties. The investment is real, but it has not produced the kind of jaw-dropping splash that once defined Mets offseasons under Cohen’s ownership.
MORE: Red Sox Blockbuster Deal Land Slugger In Offseason Trade With Giants
None of the free-agent signings have truly stunned the fanbase. Williams was acquired at what looks like fair market value, with the only real debate centered on the length of the contract rather than the dollars themselves. The signing of Jorge Polanco raised more eyebrows, largely because of the structure. The Mets are effectively paying three years’ worth of money for two seasons of service, a choice that reflects preference rather than necessity. Polanco is a solid player, but the contract suggests a level of financial inefficiency that contrasts sharply with the caution shown elsewhere.
Throughout all of this, Cohen has been notably quiet. In past seasons, he was more visible—outspoken when things were going well and contrite when they were not. This silence has fueled speculation that Stearns may be operating under tighter scrutiny, perhaps as a consequence of missteps like the Montas signing. If that is the case, it raises an uncomfortable question: is the front office now being indirectly penalized for prior mistakes, even when those mistakes should not dictate future decisions?
That question becomes even more compelling when considering how Munetaka Murakami entered the picture. Murakami signed a deal remarkably similar in total value to Montas’—two years, $34 million—but without the player option that complicates the latter’s contract. That cleaner structure invites speculation. Had Montas’ deal ended after one year, freeing the Mets from future obligations, would the team have been more aggressive in pursuing Murakami? There is no definitive answer, but the comparison underscores how contract design can ripple through an entire offseason.
MORE: Phillies in trade for $20 million, 38-homer White Sox’s outfielder
Ultimately, the situation paints a picture of an organization caught between philosophies. The Mets are still spending, but not with the same abandon that once characterized the Cohen era. Financial discipline has replaced brute-force payroll dominance, and while that may be sustainable in the long run, it feels jarring in moments like the Díaz departure. Losing elite talent over payment timing, especially when recent spending suggests flexibility elsewhere, leaves fans searching for logic.
The truth is, the Mets remain in a transitional phase—not just on the field, but in how decisions are made. Whether these constraints are temporary or represent a permanent recalibration of ownership’s role remains to be seen. What is clear is that this offseason has exposed the delicate balance between ambition and restraint, and the cost of getting that balance wrong can be painfully high.
Be the first to comment