As the 2026 season approaches, the New York Mets look mostly prepared, yet lingering doubts remain after how badly the rotation unraveled late last year.
Eduardo Perez speaks to his ESPN colleagues. | Bob DeChiara-Imagn Images
Trading for Freddy Peralta addressed part of the problem, but it did not erase memories of blown leads, overworked relievers, and unreliable depth.
That context made the idea of adding another frontline starter feel logical, almost necessary, rather than an aggressive luxury move.
For a short window, Framber Valdez appeared to be the most natural remaining fit for the Mets’ pitching needs.
Houston Astros starting pitcher Framber Valdez (59) walks off the field. | Jerome Miron-Imagn Images
Veteran analyst Eduardo Perez openly made that case during a February appearance on MLB Network Radio.
Perez repeatedly pointed to the Mets as the team that could benefit most from Valdez’s reliability and innings-eating profile.
He described Valdez as a stabilizer, someone who changes bullpen usage simply by how deep he pitches into games.
Perez emphasized Valdez’s ground-ball dominance, noting how it reshapes defensive positioning and reduces stress during high-leverage innings.
Even as strikeout numbers dipped, Perez argued that Valdez’s real value lies in escaping trouble without imploding.
There was urgency in his tone, suggesting the Mets risked losing Valdez if they waited too long.
That warning became reality later the same evening.
Valdez signed a three-year, $115 million contract with the Detroit Tigers, including a player option after the second season.
With that move, the Mets instantly lost access to the most obvious remaining upgrade on the pitching market.
Technically, New York no longer needed Valdez after landing Peralta earlier in the offseason.
But value and necessity are not always the same, especially for a team scarred by second-half collapses.
Valdez represented durability, predictability, and a safety net the Mets rotation has lacked at critical moments.
Instead, the Mets are left with what they have, and questions about whether patience crossed into hesitation.
As spring training approaches, the silence around further pitching moves feels louder than any public explanation.
The roster may be good enough on paper, but paper did not protect the Mets last October.
Now the unanswered question lingers quietly: did the Mets do enough, or did they watch the right answer disappear?
Leave a Reply