As this is written, this lifelong Mets’ fan sits frustrated by the breakdown between the Mets and hometown slugger Pete Alonso. As a student of negotiations, I could not but help but try to extract some useful lessons from this apparent impasse. This article begins with my initial impressions and predictions, and concludes with a “post mortem” as to the resolution the parties ultimately achieved.
By every indication, on the bottom line, the Mets want Alonso back, and Alonso, like David Wright, wants to be a lifetime Met. So why no deal? In this author’s opinion, it goes beyond money, and this negotiation has been badly bungled by both sides. So, what are some lessons for the lawyer/litigator/negotiator? A few thoughts follow:
Confidentiality. First, I am reminded of the value of confidentiality, a hallmark of the mediation process. The playing out of any negotiation in a public forum is, in my opinion, nothing short of a formula for a divisive disaster. While this is not a realistic expectation in a multilateral sports’ negotiation, I can only imagine the dramatic shift were these negotiations private, denying each side the opportunity to “critique” the other in the wake of the latest rejected offer.
A failure in Holistic Representation: As in most negotiations, one party is seeking money, and the other party will have to pay it. Money is the paramount consideration. Nonetheless, money is seldom the only valuable consideration. Time and closure have their value.
Alonso is known to have declined an offer from the Mets of $158 Million over seven years (That is $22.57 Million per year) under his prior representation. He declined this offer, discharged that agent, and switched to his current agent, Scott Boras. Hiring Mr. Boros sends a signal, intended or not, that the player will go for the jugular. Pete Alonso and his agent bet on him having a career year in 2024, and it didn’t happen. Pete’s stock went down, and reports are that the Mets are offering similar annual money over a three-year contract.
One can reasonably speculate that the pressure of being in a “walk year” affected Pete’s performance in 2024, causing him to lose bargaining power. While no one could predict how Pete would respond to this pressure, Pete and his agent gambled and lost. While declaring that Pete was set up to fail would be an exaggeration, it would not be an exaggeration to say that he set himself up for the consequences of failure. And this is the risk that one takes when focusing only on the dollars. The cliché of the bird in the hand comes to mind. The seven-year deal must be looking pretty good now, and it is clearly off the table.
Translating some of this to our day-to-day law practices, for the Plaintiff [in a personal injury case for example], what are some non-monetary factors to be weighed into settlement? Many plaintiffs have a genuine interest in future preventative measures. They might include the referenced closure and the mental health benefits that accompany it. How about the time value of money? A smaller sum now may be worth more than a much-deferred larger sum. Turning further to the issue of mental health, what will be the impact of depositions and trial and having to recite and relive a serious accident, again and again? The better Plaintiff’s lawyers, while certainly not throwing in the towel on compensation, do not lose sight of this bigger picture.
For the corporate defendant, closure too has its value. What is the impact of ongoing litigation on company efficiency? Do you want to take people away from their jobs to assist in litigation management? How about avoidance of trial and its attendant publicity in favor of a confidential negotiated settlement? In a commercial case, is there a business relationship that can be preserved and sustained by a more temperate approach to negotiation? These are but a few of the factors beyond a money-centric settlement that form a part of a holistic approach to settlement and negotiation. And yes, both sides in the Mets/Alonso debacle seem to have minimized them.
Yes, it is Personal: With hundreds of mediations under my belt, one clear theme has emerged: these are personal and emotional affairs. It seems that both sides in the Alonso/Mets negotiations have failed to consider fully the needs of the other, and the importance that neither side loses face. Having just opened the vault for $765 Million for a fifteen-year deal for superstar Juan Soto, one cannot help but perceive a bit of penny-pitching when it comes to a much more modest deal for Alonso, a hometown hero.
On the other side, Alonso, having turned down a big offer, seems to have gambled and lost. It may have blurred with time but, in declining his seven-year deal and hiring Boras, Alonso ceded some moral high ground to the Mets. He might be better served with an ounce of humility and taking ownership of his own situation. This is unlikely given his representation.
Just days ago, Mets owner Steve Cohen made some remarks about the state of negotiations, including that the Mets might have to move on. The Alonso/Boras camp was quick to respond with its own version of who was reasonable. Stunningly absent from these statements was even a hint of optimism or an “olive branch.” Imagine the impact had both sides simply expressed something along the line of, “we want to come to an agreement so that Pete remains a Met.” No, this would not have been a weakness; it could in fact have been just the morale boost needed to move a deal forward. Sadly, and excuse the pun, both sides are playing hardball, and ineffectively at that.
Is there Unity within the Sides? This is pure speculation, but I cannot help but wonder if there is unity in both camps, or if expectations are distorted. It seems a safe assumption that in declining the seven-year deal and signing with Boras, the expectation was that Pete would get a better deal than the one he declined. That hope is hopeless, and Boras finds himself in the sticky situation in which a prior representative turned down a lucrative offer, only to have to clean up that mess in the extant market. Of course, he is probably not blameless in this expectations game.
Our Reputations Precede Us: Having had the pleasure of building a cadre of repeat mediation clients, it is always encouraging when I know a lawyer is reasonable, knows what a case is worth, and is aware of the “softer” skillset needed in mediation. Contrarily, I also know which lawyers will be challenges and tend to skew case values unrealistically in their direction.
The signal of declining a generous offer and hiring Scott Boras sent an unmistakable message that the gloves were off, and it was all about the money. And it has played out much as one would have predicted.
Know the Value of Your Case: As alluded to above, one or both sides are “off” in their evaluation. It is not uncommon to encounter a lawyer who believes they bring such an outstanding skillset to a negotiation, so as to justify a premium payment, or discount. They believe, in effect, that they create their own market. One adopts such a self-serving self-evaluation at one’s peril.
From the Alonso camp, it seems more a monetary miscalculation. For the Mets, they appear to have underestimated the value of Alonso to Mets fans (like me) and failed to consider the optics of taking a money-is-no-object approach with Soto (another Boras client) and seemingly going a bit stingy with Alonso.
In Closing. So, we will see how this plays out. Certainly, the mediation model of confidentiality has much to recommend it. The Mets have the resources, and Pete Alonso will retire a rich man under even the stingiest of deals.
It seems that, in the big picture, both sides seem to have resorted to a zero-sum game, as if they can only “win” at the expense of the other. From my seat, both sides are missing the fact that this could well be a win-win in the making. Do the two camps have the flexibility and common sense to get a deal done and put egos in check? I suspect we’ll know soon.
Stay tuned….
And the postmortem…
Two days after writing this article, the Mets and Alonso reached a deal paying $54 Million over two years. The first year has an opt-out option, so the Mets are assured only of one more year with Pete. Despite being well received, and, of course, I am glad he’s coming back too, I think the deal is awful, holistically.
If Alonso’s goal is to play his life as a Met, the two-year duration falls far short of this goal. He is twenty-nine years old.
If the pressure of having to perform during a “walk year” negatively impacted Alonso’s performance at the plate, he has two years of that, functionally, under the structure of the current contract.
Mets owner Steve Cohen reported that Agent, Boras did not say a word in the final in-person negotiation. While Boras publicly presented this as his decision to allow Pete to speak, one cannot help but wonder if Boras’s prolonged failure to close the deal eventually marginalized him. Imagine yourself, as counsel, being locked out of your client’s negotiation.
What was the mental toll on Alonso for being a hold out so late into the season? We cannot know.
The deal rejected by Boras’s predecessor was $158 Million over seven years ($22.57 Million per year). His two-year deal pays $27 Million/year for two years. The accumulated salary and job security of the five-year deal proposed and rejected a year ago looks pretty good, including a raise from $14.4 Million in 2023 to $22.57 Million, had his prior agent taken the deal.
And in 2026, we [and Pete] get to do this all over again!
I am reminded of a narrative from The Wonder Years (© ABC Television 1988-1983) that described Kevin’s parents going shopping for tile. The gist of it was that Mom would pick something she liked: Dad would pick something he liked. Then they would compromise…on something no one in the world could like.
Let’s Go Mets!
