Interesting thing about the Alonzo negotiations, according to Will Sam and the Athletic, is that we heard about Boris coming to a three-year opt-out late in contract.

According to Will Sam to the Athletic, the Mets counter was three years straight up with no opt-outs, which is another thing I completely disagree with.

From the Mets standpoint.

From the Mets.

Right. If you're going to pine for Vlad Guerrero Jr., why do you need Pete Alonzo for three years

straight up?

Why don't you let him opt out if he wants to?

I think opt-outs, especially in this case, the case of a potentially declining player, like

if you're willing to give him three guaranteed years, why wouldn't you

include the opt-outs? Because let's say magically, next year he isn't declining, has a big year

and opts out, you can let him go. And it turns into a one-year contract. So I don't get why

the Mets wouldn't want to have an opt-out in that contract for Pete.

Pete has a great year? Fine, opt-out.

We won't bring it back. You can even do what the Yankees did it with Garrett Cole.

Sure, you want to opt out? Great. Good luck. Good luck with that.

And then maybe Pete's like, crap, I don't think there's a clear before Sean gives us a Cinco, I believe we are all bear witnessing to a public negotiation.

I do not believe the Mets have officially moved on from Pete.

I think they are applying pressure on Scott Boris and Alonzo to accept what they have offered.

And I won't believe Pete's a former met until he's a former met.

That's how I view it.

More on this later, I'll do a live Rico Bronia at about 9 o'clock tonight.

See, I never stop, Sean. I'm crazy.

...