On Monday, I looked at where the New York Mets’ payroll stands, with a player payroll around $146 million and a luxury tax payroll around $167 million at the moment. Today, let’s examine a few possible paths for the Mets this winter based on how much they’re willing to spend in free agency. In each scenario, I’m considering the Mets’ needs to be, in some order:
- Multiple starting pitchers, including one front-end starter
- A corner infielder
- A corner outfielder with the potential to DH
- Multiple relievers
What kind of team can the Mets build while getting under the luxury tax ($241 million)?
The Mets haven’t even been able to contemplate resetting the luxury-tax penalties since they first surpassed the initial threshold in 2022. They spent nearly $90 million in overage fees in 2023 and I estimate those fees to be slightly higher this season, potentially reaching $100 million.
So shouldn’t Stearns and Co. take the opportunity to reset the penalties when presented with the chance?
“They all matter,” he said of the luxury tax thresholds. “They all come with different penalties — financial, draft-pick compensation, potential international market spending capability. All of that is on my mind and will play a part in how aggressive we are in certain spaces.”
The Mets have about $70 million to operate under the initial luxury tax threshold this winter. That would leave room for one large expenditure that isn’t named Juan Soto, with others filled via a significant trade or two.
For instance, the Mets could bring back Pete Alonso and Jesse Winker to fill their offensive needs (estimated cost $38 million per season) and then swing trades for Garrett Crochet of the White Sox and Jeffrey Springs of the Rays, who will count around $14 million combined toward the tax in 2025. That would leave them with about $18 million to invest in another member of the rotation and/or better bullpen depth.
There are different ways of constructing similar rosters. The Mets could opt for Alex Bregman over Alonso as the big signing on the infield. They could go for Teoscar Hernández as a big outfield addition with a smaller move on the dirt. They could go all-in on Corbin Burnes or Max Fried and trade for smaller pieces for the offense. In general, though, to field a championship contender while staying below the first luxury-tax threshold, the Mets will need to part with meaningful prospect talent.
The argument for a $241 million payroll: If the Mets are going to reset the penalties during this current collective bargaining agreement, this is the time to do it. They’re welcoming younger players to the major-league roster like Francisco Alvarez and Mark Vientos, and they can fill a few of their needs with prospects — either the prospects themselves being promoted or in trades involving them — over the course of 2025. The Red Sox pursued this strategy heading into the 2017 season, opting to trade Yoan Moncada and Michael Kopech for Chris Sale, rather than spending in free agency. It allowed them to spend significantly more the next winter en route to the 2018 championship.
The argument against a $241 million payroll: There are two reasons to stay below the tax. The first is to save money, which the Mets shouldn’t worry too much about. The second is to preserve draft-order position, international spending money and draft-pick compensation for free agents, which they should care about, to an extent. However, if getting under the tax to preserve draft order position requires trading away a good prospect, it undermines the whole point. New York shouldn’t sell its contention window short just to save money.
What kind of team can the Mets build without sacrificing future draft position ($281 million)?
While there’s a second luxury tax threshold at $261 million, it’s the third one, at $281 million, where the penalties become more severe. Going over that number means the Mets would see their first July 2026 draft pick drop by 10 spots, again.
Here, with about $110 million to spend, Soto would be in play at about $50 million per season. With the $60 million left over, they could sign a pair of pitchers — say, Sean Manaea and Frankie Montas, or Luis Severino and Andrew Heaney — to slot in the middle of their rotation and still have enough to go after someone like Christian Walker for the lineup.
Without Soto, the Mets would have a lot of money to spread around: Think Alonso back at first base, Teoscar Hernández in the outfield, Max Fried and Sean Manaea in the rotation with some left over to address the bullpen.
While the Mets should be able to meet most of their needs in free agency with this payroll, they would still have the avenue of trades to bring in younger, less expensive talent like Crochet.
The argument for a $281 million payroll: The Mets could build a legitimate championship contender at this price without having to cut corners. It would be more or less in line with what their actual on-field payroll was this past season, if you take away the dead money they owed players on other rosters.
The argument against a $281 million payroll: Why stop there? Is saving 10 spots in the draft worth not going all-out in your team’s prime window of contention? Should that be the deciding factor on whether the Mets go aggressively after Soto or bring back Manaea?
What kind of team can the Mets build for the same total investment as 2024 ($360 million)?
Between player salary and luxury-tax penalties, the Mets spent approximately $360 million in 2024. To spend around that same total investment in 2025, they’d run a player payroll of around $294 million with about $314 million toward the tax and $55 million in tax penalties.
This would give them about $140 million to spend this winter.
You can start with Soto, even overpaying him up to $55 million per season to bring him aboard. You can bring back Alonso and Manaea. You can take on a contract from a rebuilding team like the Cardinals to get something of value: How much less is the trade cost for reliever Ryan Helsley if you take on Sonny Gray’s deal? You can basically take the legitimate championship contender you could build for $281 million and add one more big piece.
The argument for a $360 million total investment: The Mets were comfortable with this level of investment off the (very different) disappointments of 2022 and 2023. They are closer now to a championship contender than they were then, and there are pretty clear avenues to improving the team available for money in free agency. There’s no reason to stop swimming in the deep end now.
The argument against a $360 million total investment: How much better is the team you’re building for that additional cost? If it’s the difference in landing Soto, sure, go for it. If it’s the difference in adding Manaea over Severino, or Teoscar Hernández over Winker, it’s less clear that the non-financial penalties are worth it.
What does all this mean?
I find this exercise worthwhile each year because it foregrounds so much of what’s to come. It’s easy to say that the Mets should use this year to get under the initial tax threshold until you see what that means practically in team construction. It’s easy to say they should spend whatever until you run into diminishing returns.
But there are a few takeaways here:
- Unlike last year, the Mets should have room to add a star, if not two, while not sacrificing depth.
- The free-agent market is relatively shallow in those star options, especially for position players.
The trade market offers possibilities, especially in starting pitching, to keep the tax payroll lower.
(Top photo of Juan Soto: Adam Hunger / Getty Images)
