Examining the Mets’ roster construction sequencing

The general concept of sequencing relates to a connected series of events with the specifics being underpinned by the context to which it is being applied. In baseball it can be applied in multiple ways, including deliberate pitch sequencing strategies as well as the impact that sequential hitting (deliberate or not) can have on the outcome of a particular inning or even game. As David Stearns and the Mets demonstrated this offseason, it can be applied to roster construction as well.

The massive overhaul the Mets made to their major league team left virtually no corner of the roster untouched, from the rotation to the infield to the final spots on the bench. The exit of Pete Alonso and the acquisitions of Marcus Semien, Jorge Polanco, and Bo Bichette no doubt shifted the composition of the infield in major ways, but the order of these transactions (or non-transactions) certainly impacted the team’s successive moves as well. Perhaps no position group was subject to more potential permutations based on how the offseason played out than the outfield, however.

The apple of the Mets’ eye this offseason was clearly outfielder Kyle Tucker, particularly after they managed to trade Brandon Nimmo to open up several paths for roster reconstruction. The time between the departures of Nimmo, Alonso, and Edwin Diaz and when Tucker finally made his decision to sign with the Dodgers was not ideal, and it painted a click-bait peddler’s dream in which the team was portrayed as flailing and not having a plan. We know this to be untrue even if Tucker was yet another number one target that slipped through their grasp.

Still, the final composition of this 2026 Mets team was obviously not Plan A even if jettisoning the old core was a part of that plan. If Tucker is signed they likely do not sign Bichette, which would keep Brett Baty as the presumed starting third baseman. The team was surprisingly candid all offseason that top prospect Carson Benge will get every opportunity to win a spot out of Spring Training whether it be in center field or (what we now know to be) right field. The subsequent trade for Luis Robert, Jr. to play center field, then, almost certainly doesn’t happen.

Tucker did not sign with the Mets, spurring a flurry of activity that included the signing of Bichette and the trade for Robert almost immediately after, pushing Benge (and subsequently-signed fallback options) to right field and Baty into what has been described as a super-utility role where he’s likely to see a lot of time all over the field.

The Mets benefit greatly from being able to spend the kind of money that enables extreme pivots like Tucker to Bichette and Robert, but it’s more than simply what some tried to characterize as panic moves driven by poor press and losing out on yet another high-profile free-agent to the Dodgers. I’d argue it’s even more impressive than simple pivoting considering they clearly had the parameters lined up for Bichette and Robert well before Tucker made his decision, and previous reporting indicates that they had various other coals in the fire with additional potential paths to take with trade partners.

The current version of the Mets with Bichette at third base, Robert in center, Benge in right, and Baty as a super-sub arguably has a higher ceiling than the variation with Tucker in right, Benge in center, and Baty at third. The Tucker-less Mets seemingly have a lower floor, though, with all that could go wrong with the roster as currently constructed highlighted by New York sports media on an almost daily basis. Can Bichette actually play third? What version of Robert will the team get? How will Polanco fair at first base and will he remain healthy? How will they get Baty the play time he’s earned? These are all important questions, most of which are probably the reasons why what played out was not the team’s Plan A heading into free-agency.

The catalyst and critical trigger for the Mets’ offseason was somehow convincing Nimmo to waive his no-trade clause. Once that was secured, it enabled the team to plan out various scenarios in which the feasibility of some moves depended on the successful execution of others. The offseason did not progress as they had originally planned it even if flexibility was assumed to be baked in as a logical necessity, but that doesn’t mean that the team is worse for it. Just how well this turns out remains to be seen, but the team under Steve Cohen and Stearns is nothing if not decisive and ready to execute any number of contingency plans depending on how the market plays out any given offseason.