Strap yourselves in ladies and gents, we're going down the rabbit hole.

As the trade deadline approached in 2023, the Mets made the clear decision to tear down and swap veteran contracts for prospects, in many cases absorbing a significant amount of the financial cost of those contracts in order to maximize the return in prospects. Not only was this a clear message that the Mets were done trying to compete in 2023 (a glance at their record made that message redundant), but their decision to trade their two front-rotation pitchers who were both under contract for 2024 also could be interpreted as a waving of the white flag for 2024 - especially since the Mets agreed to keep a significant portion of their 2024 payroll on the books in order for those guys to play for other teams.

However, I'd argue there's more than meets the eye to that decision and arguably the Mets have made the 2024 team better via "addition by subtraction". I'm not saying Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander are going to be bad pitchers in 2024. However, the Mets didn't absorb 100% of their cost and the front office has arguably reinvested the money that was saved into building a more balanced, higher-floor roster than we would've had if we'd held onto those two players on their original contracts.

1) What to expect from Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander in 2024:

Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander are Hall of Fame pitchers in all but formality. They are respectively in the inner circle of inner circles among people who have ever thrown a baseball for a living. Nothing that they do in 2024 or beyond will subtract from that. With that said, they are both very, very old as far as contemporary baseball players go, and age matters a lot when predicting what to expect from a player going forward. Pitchers around the age of 40 are an extremely volatile asset. From a strictly on-field perspective, Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander really aren't guys that you want to center a winning roster around in the year 2024 with a combined age of 80.

While Verlander's age 39 and age 40 seasons were respectively the best that baseball has seen from a pitcher in a while, the hard truth is that there hasn't been a single pitcher to put up >3 fWAR in a season in an age 41 or older season in the last decade, and only one guy (Bartolo Colon in 2014, 2015, 2016) has posted >2 fWAR in a season in the last decade at that age or older. The numbers are very much not in Verlander's favor that he'll be able to stay healthy and productive at 41 years old. The second best contemporary age 40 season behind Verlander's 3.3 fWAR was Adam Wainright, who had a 2.9 fWAR age 40 season. Waino was worth -0.4 fWAR in his age 41 season. Age decline isn't an "if" matter, it's a "when" matter. Statistically, the "when" arrives for >99.9% of MLB pitchers at or before the age of 41. Will Verlander be the 0.01%? Maybe, he's certainly among the best to ever throw a baseball. Do I want to be the team to actually be on the hook for his age 41 (and 42, if he throws 140 innings to make his player option kick in) season? Nopedy nope nope. That was a bad contract which we're lucky to have gotten out of even part of.

As far as Scherzer goes, it's hard to know what to expect out of him. He's missed significant time in recent years due to a variety of soft tissue and fatigue-related issues, and his arm has developed a bad habit of quitting late in the year. I think he's as likely to have a great age 39 season this year as he is to not make it to his age 40 season in 2025. The upside is clearly there, but guys approaching 40 who have been on a negative trajectory of health are fluorescently-red flags. At the very least, he's a guy who teams should not count on being healthy and productive by the time October rolls around at this point in his career unless serious efforts are made to limit his workload throughout the regular season.

2) How much money did the Mets save, and how did they use it?

The Mets freed up $45.0 million in payroll for 2024 by trading Verlander ($20.83m retained out of $43.33m) and Scherzer ($20.79m retained out of $43.33m). Most of that has already been reinvested via the addition of Bader, Severino, and Manaea who collectively added $37.5 million to the 2024 payroll as a near-direct cost offset.

Steamer currently projects a combined 4.2 fWAR for Verlander and Scherzer in 2024 ($10.7 million/WAR on the $45 million that the Mets' trade partners picked up), compared to 5.2 fWAR for Manaea, Severino, and Bader (projected $7.2 million/WAR). By this argument, the Mets are achieving a meaningfully better outcome on a similar budget - essentially a "better WAR-per-dollar" retool. In that sense, even despite retaining a significant portion of the 2024 payroll for Verlander and Scherzer, the Mets have arguably (at least by Steamer's reckoning) made the the on-field product better for 2024 simply by achieving some payroll relief and reinvesting that money towards better-value players. That's not even accounting for the prospects that they received in the trade...

3) Acuna, Gilbert, and Clifford as potential contributors in 2024:

The Mets brought back three high-end prospects in these two trades, almost certainly as a result of Steve Cohen's willingness to eat a massive amount of money on otherwise-bad contracts. According to MLB Pipeline's end of season rankings, they ranked #1 (Acuna), #2 (Gilbert), and #6 (Clifford) in the organization, significantly improving the organization's talent outlook for the next half decade. These prospects are noteworthy, not just in their talent level but in the fact that they're relatively advanced in their development. Acuna spent the full 2023 season in AA, Gilbert spent the majority of the season at that level, and Clifford advanced from A to A ball. While GilbertClifford seems like an unlikely factor in the 2024 season (and potentially not 2025 either), Acuna and CliffordGilbert would not be out of the realm of possibility to contribute to the major league team this year. By ensuring that the highest value players that we secured in the trade deadline spree were guys with 2024-25 ETAs, it further undermines the narrative that the Mets see 2024 as a punt year. Having guys that the organization can pull to be Michael Conforto-esque August/September additions provides the FO with optionality to lean into 2024 as a win-now year if the first half goes well.

4) If the 2024 Mets got "better" than the 75-win 2023 Mets, are they good now?

They're better, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're good either. I think the team as it stands has a 50th percentile outcome of 80 wins but with /- 10 win variance around that (with unlikely fringe scenarios beyond that). That means there's scenarios where we're playing October baseball via the wildcard, but they aren't particularly likely. However, I think there's an easy path to shifting that 50th percentile outcome up to 83-84 wins by improving the bullpen, which currently is the weakest area of the roster (and the most feasible to address). The offseason isn't over so I'll withhold judgement, but I do think it would be a missed opportunity for the Mets to pass on the opportunity to spend a marginal amount more to turn this team from a dark horse team into a true fringe competitor.

Getting Diaz back from injury is a massive addition over the 2023 roster and the reunion with Ottavino gives us a little more comfort around the middle of our pen, but I'd be anxious if we decided to call it at that. I know nobody has gotten rich betting against Stearns' ability to construct a bullpen and he's silently assembled an impressive number of "arms with upside" low cost moves this offseason, but I still see the pen as a clear unraveling point for the 2024 Mets if we don't do more.

On the position player side, I think Stearns is doing the right thing (pending any other moves) by ensuring there's enough breathing room on the roster for young players to get opportunities and for veterans to utilize the DH to stay fresh rather than cramming a limited-skillset dedicated DH onto the team out of a relatively underwhelming set of options in free agency. I won't lose sleep if we sign one of the remaining DHs out there, but I don't see it as a pressing need that the Mets need to address - and certainly not one to prioritize over finishing the bullpen.

The Mets starting rotation is high variance, but not moreso than the 2023 team and between Quintana being presumably healthy to start the year and subtracting Carrasco, the floor has gotten higher.

The fact that the Mets FO has added $37.5 million to the 2024 payroll in 1 year deals (technically two for Manaea, but will turn into a 1 year deal if he pitches well and inevitably opts out) is a clear sign that the FO doesn't see 2024 as a lost cause. They could've easily just rolled with in-org guys to fill those seats instead of spending an objectively large amount of money, literally more than half of the A's entire payroll last year, on three short-term FA deals to improve the 2024 roster. I do worry that, as things stand, we sit in the offseason at risk of a Wilpon-esque "quit in the last 10 meters of the race" scenario where one or two more low-to-mid impact moves would meaningfully shift the outlook for the team. However, I do think this team is a lot closer to being a fringe competitor than most (fans and outsiders) are giving it credit for.