When gauging the free agent market, Sandy Alderson noted there aren’t many pitchers out there who aren’t much better than what they already have:

Alderson yesterday: "Does it really improve the team to give a reliever a 1-2 year deal if we don't believe he's better than what we have?"

— Mike Puma (@NYPost_Mets) January 8, 2016

There are dwindling options because the Mets didn’t act while there were high impact guys available. They waited and waited . . . .  At that point, the only thing you can hope for is high upside relievers. That’s what “The Final Boss” was. He was a huge upside reliever. He dominated the Korean Leagues. We don’t know if he’s a closer, a high leverage reliever, or just an adept bullpen arm.  

We do know he received a two year deal. He received a two year deal with an average annual value of around $3.7 million a year. That’s less than what the Mets are paying Jerry Blevins to be a LOOGY. What’s a better use of the money? A pitcher could be a dominant reliever or someone who can only get lefties out?  I like Blevins, and the Mets do need a LOOGY. However, is that more valuable than a late inning reliever who could spell Jeurys Familia on occasion. Blevins isn’t going to take any innings away from Familia. He’s not going to allow the Mets to save Familia from being overworked. 

However, that’s a false narrative. The Mets should be able to afford Blevins and The Final Boss. Sure, I think the bullpen is good as is, but the Mets didn’t at the beginning at the offseason. All of a sudden, it’s fine?  Is this more of the Mets inability to spend?  This isn’t alright. The Mets are just spinning. 

Whether or not the Mets are going to add another reliever isn’t the issue. They’ve missed out on yet another reliever. They’ve missed out on yet another high upside player. However, this time the player signed a cheap short-term deal. 

The Mets now aren’t even signing the players in their wheelhouse.