The Pete Alonso Conundrum

[Centerfield]

If Boras's demand is so outrageous (and I tend to believe the Mets more so than Boras), I don't get why the Mets haven't disclosed the details of the Boras/Alonso demand.

Right? This is why I think all of the info that's come out these last few weeks is straight from the Boras camp. If anything came from the Mets, they would have leaked the Boras demands that are outrageous (or at least, what they view as outrageous) and then all public sentiment would have swung back to the Mets.

Here's what I think happened. The Mets don't leak. They don't comment on ongoing negotiations other than giving the stock response they've decided was appropriate. "We love Pete. We made a fair offer. We haven't moved away from him. We hope he comes back to us." This is what he said at the MLB event on Wednesday, and this is the answer David Stearns gave when asked today.

But Cohen seemed agitated when he sat down for the panel and the crowd was chanting "we want Pete". Then, when asked, David Stearns gave the stock answer, and the crowd booed him. And I think Cohen got pissed. I think he looked at the crowd, and he thought "You know, maybe that Boras propaganda is working more than I thought". So he decided to go off script and counterpunch.

His answer was much more honest and confrontational and provided a lot more info than Stearns' answer, which preceded his answer by just seconds. He basically said yes, we want Pete back. But his offer sucks and it's unfair. And I'm not doing it. I love that he said this was his personal feeling, and didn't use the royal "we". I think this was intentional so that everyone who's been saying "Cohen is going to have to step in" got the message loud and clear. And I think he left no doubt that if Pete wants to come back, he's going to have to change the structure of the offer. He did say he would be flexible. And he did leave the door open, but it was clear he's not doing the deal on the terms presented to him.

Then he added the piece about the expenses. He said he's adding players to this very expensive team. And as time goes by, there may be no room to bring back Pete. It's the first time he's ever said anything along those lines. Stearns have obviously never said anything like this. And I think that was his message to Pete and Boras. The offer's not going to be there forever. So go ahead and look. But he's done being patient.

And then the crowd cheered. I wonder if Boras heart dropped when he heard that.

For the record, I don't believe Cohen when he says that there may not be room in the budget for Pete later on. But I think he had had enough, and decided it was time to send a message.

[batmagadanleadoff]

If Boras's demand is so outrageous (and I tend to believe the Mets more so than Boras), I don't get why the Mets haven't disclosed the details of the Boras/Alonso demand.

Right? This is why I think all of the info that's come out these last few weeks is straight from the Boras camp. If anything came from the Mets, they would have leaked the Boras demands that are outrageous (or at least, what they view as outrageous) and then all public sentiment would have swung back to the Mets.

Here's what I think happened. The Mets don't leak.

I think the Mets are being extremely courteous to Boras rather than that the Mets are supposedly discrete. Maybe they're thinking long term, being that Boras represents so many top players and the Mets intend to compete for future top-tier free agents. This is not the most logical answer. Boras isn't going to reject a Mets offer that tops all others just because of a past slight or disagreement. Besides, he's ethically obligated to pass along all offers to his client(s). But I cant figure out what the downside is to disclosing Boras's demand here. Maybe so as not to further embarrass Alonso, who's already had to swallow an enormous amount of humble pie this off-season. No team think he's as good or as valuable as he thought he was. And with Soto coming on board, it definitely won't be Alonso's team anymore, assuming that Lindor hadn't already taken over that role.

[Centerfield]

So after Cohen's adamant rejection of the structure of the Alonso deal, Boras fired back yesterday through Will Sammon.

Pete’s free-agent contract structure request are identical to the standards and practices of other clubs who have signed similarly situated qualifying-offer/all-star level players,” Boras said. “Nothing different. Just established fairness standards,"

Speculation is that the deal presented by Boras to the Mets is similar to that of Cody Bellinger. In addition to having opt-outs after every year, that contract provides that the club is responsible for buyouts if the player elects to leave.

Bellinger's deal contained a provision that if he opted out after 2024, the club owed him an additional $2.5M. If Bellinger opts out after 2025, the player is owed an additional $5M.

It's not hard to see why Cohen would have an issue with that kind of structure. It's mind-boggling to have to pay a buyout when the player elects to leave. And not surprisingly, the Cubs found themselves having to unload that contract this winter.

Again, this is just speculation, but if that's true, I can see the Mets holding firm and refusing to accept that. On the other hand, if Boras removes that "pay to leave" feature, I can see public pressure swinging back to Pete's side to give in more on the AAV.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm still optimistic. I think Cohen's visible frustration yesterday shows how much he wants Pete back. And I think Boras' immediate response suggests that Cohen's words had the intended effect. I think they're still each other's best option.

[Edgy MD]

However rich you are, it's operating against your own interests to give a player an incentive to exit a contract.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I wasn't sure what Cohen mean by "asymetrical" . I thought Cohen meant that Alonso's demand to other teams (like the Blue Jays, I guess) was different, less expensive than the demand made to the Mets. But now it seems that the gripe is that Alonso's demand differs from the demand(s) of other player(s).

I don't see what's wrong with that and if that's the case, I don't side with Cohen and the Mets. Each player is unique and presents his own unique sui generis case.

[metsmarathon]

So after Cohen's adamant rejection of the structure of the Alonso deal, Boras fired back yesterday through Will Sammon.

Pete’s free-agent contract structure request are identical to the standards and practices of other clubs who have signed similarly situated qualifying-offer/all-star level players,” Boras said. “Nothing different. Just established fairness standards,"

Speculation is that the deal presented by Boras to the Mets is similar to that of Cody Bellinger. In addition to having opt-outs after every year, that contract provides that the club is responsible for buyouts if the player elects to leave.

Bellinger's deal contained a provision that if he opted out after 2024, the club owed him an additional $2.5M. If Bellinger opts out after 2025, the player is owed an additional $5M.

It's not hard to see why Cohen would have an issue with that kind of structure. It's mind-boggling to have to pay a buyout when the player elects to leave. And not surprisingly, the Cubs found themselves having to unload that contract this winter.

Again, this is just speculation, but if that's true, I can see the Mets holding firm and refusing to accept that. On the other hand, if Boras removes that "pay to leave" feature, I can see public pressure swinging back to Pete's side to give in more on the AAV.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm still optimistic. I think Cohen's visible frustration yesterday shows how much he wants Pete back. And I think Boras' immediate response suggests that Cohen's words had the intended effect. I think they're still each other's best option.

Jeez. If that’s the structure then yeah, I can see why it would not be to the teams best interest.

I mean I can kinda talk myself into it, from boras’ side. Like, hey, if he had a good enough year that he’s going to want to retry free agency you probably got more value out of the one year… but still, it’s pretty icky.

[Buck4Prez]

still just money. it's just some variation in pay structure. it's just a give-take on opt-outs, buy-outs, bonuses-deferrals. Just accounting. It's not "asymmetrical" whatever that's supposed to mean. Not like he's demanding to be paid in compound interest based on percentage payouts of an investment in off-shore wind farms or something.

But then, we're talking about the guy who threw a hissy fit and quit twitter because people were "buying stock wrong" a few years back, so who knows.

[ashie62]

I'm guessing asymmetrical refers to the schedule of opt outs and a potential disruption to the roster down the road

Paying a buyout when a player elects of his own volition to leave? Laughable

Lamar Jackson of the Ravens took a ton of crap for being his own agent but he got paid very close to others expected number

At the end of the day Boras works for Pete. Pete could take a look at Christian Walker's three year deal at roughly 3/70. Walker is older but they are very similar players

I still think Pete will be a Met. Maybe Manaea can twist his arm at their private workouts

LGM

[Edgy MD]

If you are responsible to pay money to get rid of a player, and you are responsible to pay money when a player gets rid of you, that's what I understand is meant by asymmetrical.

Whether parties enter into negotiations with equal power or not, neither party, if they are smart and clever, is going to cede more power than is ceded back at them.

If you are negotiating with a hostage-taker (to give a crude but important example) and he wants an escape route, he's not going to give up all the hostages for a motorcycle, because then he's got nothing left to work with, and the police have no incentive to let him escape.

If you are the police negotiator, you aren't going to give a motorcycle, a helicopter, a pilot, and clear route to the helipad for just one hostage, because then the gunman has no incentive to spare the other hostages. So as the offer gets hammered out, one hostage is given up for the motorcycle, one for the cleared route, one for the helicopter, one for the pilot, and if the maybe the guy gets to hold on to one hostage (the bank manager, presumably) until he has safely escaped.

Boras — at least in Cohen's view — wants Alonso to get the bank's money, the safe escape, and get to keep or kill all the hostages.

See also:

1. Gomez-Behr, J., "Symmetrical, Asymmetrical, and Irrelevant Negotiation Components." https://juanfer.blog/2022/06/22/symmetr ... omponents/ Downloaded from the Internet January 26, 2025.
2. Petsch, FR, & Landau, A. "Symmetry and Asymmetry in International Negotiations." International Negotiation. Kluwer Academic Publishers (Amsterdam), 2000.
3. Sen, A. "Symmetry in Bargaining and Efficient Contracts under Asymmetric Information." Studies in Microeconomics. Sage Journals. Volume 5 Issue 2, December 2017.

[The Hot Corner]

If a player thinks they can do better by exercising their opt-out clause, that is their prerogative, but I see no reason why the team should pay them for exercising that right. If the team has a buyout and wishes to exercise it because they feel the player is not performing to the level commensurate with his compensation, then that is different in my view.

I don't fault a player and their representative for asking for a player opt out with pay from the team, but I don't fault a team for refusing such a request.

[Fman99]

If you are responsible to pay money to get rid of a player, and you are responsible to pay money when a player gets rid of you, that's what I understand is meant by asymmetrical.

Whether parties enter into negotiations with equal power or not, neither party, if they are smart and clever, is going to cede more power than is ceded back at them.

If you are negotiating with a hostage-taker (to give a crude but important example) and he wants an escape route, he's not going to give up all the hostages for a motorcycle, because then he's got nothing left to work with, and the police have no incentive to let him escape.

If you are the police negotiator, you aren't going to give a motorcycle, a helicopter, a pilot, and clear route to the helipad for just one hostage, because then the gunman has no incentive to spare the other hostages. So as the offer gets hammered out, one hostage is given up for the motorcycle, one for the cleared route, one for the helicopter, one for the pilot, and if the maybe the guy gets to hold on to one hostage (the bank manager, presumably) until he has safely escaped.

Boras — at least in Cohen's view — wants Alonso to get the bank's money, the safe escape, and get to keep or kill all the hostages.

See also:

1. Gomez-Behr, J., "Symmetrical, Asymmetrical, and Irrelevant Negotiation Components." https://juanfer.blog/2022/06/22/symmetr ... omponents/ Downloaded from the Internet January 26, 2025.
2. Petsch, FR, & Landau, A. "Symmetry and Asymmetry in International Negotiations." International Negotiation. Kluwer Academic Publishers (Amsterdam), 2000.
3. Sen, A. "Symmetry in Bargaining and Efficient Contracts under Asymmetric Information." Studies in Microeconomics. Sage Journals. Volume 5 Issue 2, December 2017.

Well cited

[batmagadanleadoff]

Still not sure why Cohen is referring to these negotiations as "asymetrical". What does Cohen consider to be "asymetrical" about these negotiations? Unless Cohen specifically explains as much, I don't think it's that clear. Cohen has all the right in the world to reject Boras's demands, or to criticize Boras's demands and to not like them, but that does not make them asymetrical.

Who has more leverage in these negotiations? Who has more clout, more bargaining power? Do the Mets need Alonso more than Alonso needs the Mets? How many other teams have stepped up to even match the Mets offer, let alone top it?

[duan]

He didn't refer to the negotiations as asymmetrical but the contract offer that Alonso's people came back with.
If you say their (mets) offer is 69 million over 3 years with no opt outs. (AAV of 23 million)
and Alsono's people came back with

35+28+28 (the rumoured value was 91 million from memory) with an opt out after each season and a 10 million buy out of a 28 million player option fourth year at the end
You could legitimately say
Player has got high AAV
Player has got guarantee of lots of money
Player has very little risk - if he has the 50 HR season that Boras' charts no doubt project - he can decide whether he thinks theres a 5*30 out there for him

I have no issue with them looking for it - but looking at the Teoscar Hernandez/Christian Walker/Jurickson Profar contracts it doesn't seem that there is a lot of people who want to give a good first basemen/slugger type on the slight decline that kind of money.

So Cohen is saying we think we offered a reasonable contract - looking at what other people are getting (and this is definitely true) and the other guys said we needed to pay 40% more and the deal should give them some additional benefits that are also very valuable - and they are not conceding anything that we are concerned about. They are not helping us get to a place where we can meet in the middle.

And you sort of go - unless we really want to pay this guy a lot more then other people are willing to for some specific reasons (eg going to be Mets HR leader if he stays, the fans like him, one club guy) we need to move on.

[batmagadanleadoff]

If Boras's demand is so outrageous (and I tend to believe the Mets more so than Boras), I don't get why the Mets haven't disclosed the details of the Boras/Alonso demand.

This answer might lie in Attachment 49 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Why Steve Cohen’s ‘brutally honest’ comments on Alonso negotiations were so unusual, plus more MLB notes

Many fans found it refreshing when New York Mets owner Steve Cohen gave what he described as a “brutally honest” assessment of the team’s contract talks with free-agent first baseman Pete Alonso.

Club owners and executives, however, are almost always less forthcoming than Cohen was when talking about negotiations with free agents. The reason: Attachment 49 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Whether Cohen violated Attachment 49 is a matter of interpretation. And even if he did, the Players Association likely would file a grievance only at the prompting of Alonso and/or his agent, Scott Boras — an unlikely outcome, considering such a stand likely would be counterproductive to negotiations.

Still, it would be a surprise if Cohen made it a regular practice to comment on free-agent discussions with as much transparency as he did Saturday at the Mets’ Amazin’ Day fan event. Some executives refuse to answer even basic questions from reporters about free agents in text messages, fearing their answers might become part of a grievance.

Attachment 49, which the players and owners agreed upon in response to past acts of collusion by the clubs, is designed to prevent club officials from attempting to influence the market through their public comments. In theory, it also applies to agents.

The attachment states the negotiating parties “may not disclose to the media the substance of contract discussions between a player and a club (including but not limited to the facts of offers, the substance of offers, or decisions not to make offers or to withdraw offers) until after terms on the contract have been confirmed by the Office of the Commissioner and the Players Association.”

The attachment continues, “Similarly, none of the (parties) may make comments to the media about the value of an unsigned free agent, or about possible or contemplated terms for an unsigned free agent, regardless of whether discussions have occurred.”

Cohen might argue he did not disclose “the substance of contract discussions” or the “possible or contemplated terms” for Alonso. He did not specifically mention the Mets’ last offer to Alonso – three years between $68 million and $70 million. His comments, however, certainly approached the line drawn by Attachment 49, and perhaps crossed it.

“We made a significant offer to Pete,” Cohen said. “I don’t like the structures that are being presented back to us. It’s highly asymmetric against us. And I feel strongly about it. I will never say no. There’s always the possibility. But the reality is, we’re moving forward. And as we continue to bring in players, the reality is it becomes harder to fit Pete into what is a very expensive group of players that we already have. That’s where we are. And I am being brutally honest.

“I don’t like the negotiations. I don’t like what’s been presented to us. Listen, maybe that changes. Certainly, I’ll always stay flexible. If it stays this way, I think we are going to have to get used to the fact that we have to go forward with the existing players we have.”

As noted by The Athletic’s Will Sammon, who was in attendance, the crowd applauded the answer. Prior to Cohen’s statement, the fans were chanting for the Mets to re-sign Alonso.

Pretty good entertainment for late January. Just don’t expect any other owner or front-office executive to follow suit. Cohen, who has owned the Mets since October 2020, still might not be well-versed in every detail of the CBA; few owners are. But most in the game know not to mess with Attachment 49.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/609054 ... es-skenes/

[Buck4Prez]

Attachment 49, which the players and owners agreed upon in response to past acts of collusion by the clubs, is designed to prevent club officials from attempting to influence the market through their public comments. In theory, it also applies to agents.

Which is why everything usually comes in "leaks". Heavily manipulated ones, that should never be taken at face value. And why owner's have executives that are versed in that language and the workings of baseball to do this stuff for them. No owner should be speaking about this stuff beyond "Seems like a fine baseball player, I'll let my POBO decide what to do"

[MFS62]

Today would be a good day to announce the signing, a slow sports news day.
Later

[Centerfield]

I’m kinda surprised there’s been no movement after the public statements on Saturday. I was expecting something to break today. I guess not.

Since like mid-December I’ve checked this board and Twitter hoping and expecting to see some movement on Alonso. I’m now thinking it’s not going to get resolved until Spring Training begins.

Ben Grimm called it in October.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The Angels have reportedly (supposedly?) (allegedly?) offered Alonso more money, more years and at a higher AAV than the Mets --- 4/$100M

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/spo ... 520201.cms

[Edgy MD]

As usual, The Times of India sweeping in there with the scoop.

[metirish]

That is the greatest headline and article ever written


Angels Shock the Baseball World with $100M Offer to Pete Alonso – Is This the Move That Changes Everything?

[Centerfield]

Per Jon Heyman, the Mets and Alonso have reengaged in discussions.

It’s in his latest article in the Post. I don’t see how leaking these discussions helps Boras. Except that maybe he felt embarrassed after Saturday and wants to make it seem like Cohen came back to them.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

looking through this thread, fun to see those clamoring for a 7 or 8 year deal all the way to panicked calls to trade him. Also proves nobody could foresee the second half. This is great tho.

What constitutes an audition

An audition is when you give someone a tryout at something.

LOL

[Edgy MD]

All I can say is, if I ran the team, we'd be 162-0 right now.

[kcmets]

Today would be a good day to announce the signing, a slow sports news day.

Sometime between 1:00-2:00 this afternoon works for me.

[Centerfield]

From they Heyman article (it's behind a paywall):

Truly, it’s hard to know what to make of the ongoing saga involving the National League’s top home run hitter since he came into the league and one of the most prolific in the history of the franchise. But from my drama-free distance, it feels like Alonso desperately hopes to return while the Mets could go either way.

So if you assume Heyman is getting everything from Boras, what could Boras possibly gain by leaking this? It certainly doesn't help him with his negotiations with the Mets to say Pete is desperate to go back. I don't think he's saying this to leverage the Blue Jays. Because why would the Blue Jays' up their offer if Pete only wants to be in NY.

I wonder if Boras is leaking this to protect Boras.

"Yes, I'm a great agent, and I could have gotten him a great deal, but Pete went around telling everyone and their mother that all he wanted to do was go back to the Mets. I did the best I could given I had no leverage."

In other words, maybe it's inevitable that Pete winds up back with the Mets on their own terms, and Boras is pre-emptively laying ground for his excuses.