Frankie Montas and the Mets, an Inevitable Match
Last offseason, the Mets got in early on the starting pitching market. They signed Luis Severino in late November, later pairing him with Sean Manaea atop their rotation. Both deals were modest and short term, essentially chances for the players to rebuild their résumés while pitching for a playoff contender. And that’s exactly what happened. So now, with Severino and Manaea in line for larger paydays, the circle of life restarts: The Mets have signed Frankie Montas to a two-year, $34 million deal with an opt out after the first year.
At surface level, Montas doesn’t seem like a blockbuster signing. He just posted a 4.84 ERA (and 4.71 FIP, this wasn’t some weird BABIP issue) in his first year back after missing most of 2023 due to a shoulder injury. He’s about to turn 32. His last excellent season was in 2021. The list of drawbacks is lengthy.
Ah, but “knowing which drawbacks to overlook” might be David Stearns’ superpower. Manaea was coming off of two straight abysmal seasons when he signed in New York, and Severino hadn’t been great since 2018. But both had the capability to excel – they already had in their careers, and not in a fluky way. The right surroundings, the right defense, a pinch of luck here and there: It wasn’t hard to see how those two deals could work out. Likewise, Montas might have been down in 2024, but I have no trouble talking myself into an improved 2025.
Montas has never been a pure bat-missing strikeout machine. When he was at his best in Oakland, he did everything just well enough for the total package to work. He struck out more batters than average, walked fewer than average, kept the ball in the ballpark, and went six or so innings a start. No one would mistake him for Cy Young, but doing a bunch of things well added up to an ERA in the mid-3s. That’s a clear playoff starter, exactly what the Mets need.
The version of Montas that Cincinnati got in 2024 was nothing like the Oakland one. As you might expect from someone coming off a completely lost season, his command was scattershot. His fastball lost its customary ride, thanks in part to a lower release point. He worked from behind too often and got into jams frequently. That’s not unheard of for good pitchers returning from long layoffs, but it was enough for the Reds to ship him off to Milwaukee at the trade deadline.
Luckily, Montas improved as the season wore on. Four-seamer isn’t working like it used to? No big deal. He increasingly turned to his sinker against right-handed batters. The new arm angle works well with a sinker/slider approach, and Montas also throws a sharp cutter that sits between the two and makes pitch recognition tougher.
Against lefties, Montas leaned on the pitch that helped him break out in the first place: a splitter that eats opposite-handed hitters alive. He’s never been particularly good at landing the splitter for a strike, but it’s the kind of pitch that generates either a whiff or a ball almost every time he throws it. Mix in some four-seamers and cutters, and you’ve got a three-pitch mix that gives you a shot at getting lefties out – at least in theory.
In reality, lefty batters are still a weakness for him. His splitter is nice and all, but it’s an out pitch, not a foundational offering. His four-seamer’s new, diminished shape isn’t scaring anyone. His cutter doesn’t work quite as well when it’s not blending with a bigger slider. Lefties crushed Montas last year; they launched 16 homers in 341 plate appearances, with grim peripheral statistics to boot.
Platoon splits are notoriously noisy in one-year samples, but this one doesn’t feel like a fluke. A lower release point and revamped pitch mix have changed Montas’s approach against righties for the better. The same changes to his game have made it tougher to get lefties out. But a few tweaks to his plan against opposite-handed batters could make the whole thing work out quite well.
That wipeout splitter? It’s more or less useless when Montas falls behind in the count. Some early strikes would alter the balance of power there significantly, and I expect that to be a focus for him this season. Another year’s distance from shoulder surgery should help on this front; plenty of pitchers look a little sloppy as they get their feet back under themselves, and Montas has demonstrated the ability to get ahead and stay ahead in years past.
That’s the nitty gritty of the signing. Now for the broad strokes. The Mets are going to be spending a ton of money this offseason one way or another. They have holes to fill and cash to spend now that nine figures worth of salary has come off their books after the 2024 season. Montas isn’t going to be the most prominent free agent they sign — Mets fans surely hope they’ll get Juan Soto, perhaps with a side of Corbin Burnes — but either way, he could end up being an important piece of next year’s team. New York probably wants to add two or three starters behind Kodai Senga this offseason; Montas is merely the first one to sign. The Mets still have space to get an ace and another innings eater, and with Montas in tow, the next innings eater they sign doesn’t necessarily have to be someone they’d want for their playoff rotation.
Montas got more than I projected for him, which brings me to my next takeaway: The market for starting pitchers is hot right now. So far, five of this offseason’s six multi-year free agent deals have gone to starters. Each of the five pitchers have beaten both the crowd’s and my projections. Maybe teams are getting more comfortable with the future state of rights payments. Maybe an improving economic picture has changed their spending outlook. Maybe they just like the crop of free agents this year more. But whatever the case, spending has been running hot, and this deal is just further confirmation.
I think that higher spending is likely to persist in two particular ways: starting pitchers and top-tier position players. Market forces continue to depress the compensation for mid-level hitters, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. The competition for those players is simply less intense; there are more substitutes available there than in any other corner of free agency. Starters who can give you 150 innings, on the other hand? There aren’t enough of them to go around, and if many teams are feeling better about their financial situation, the price of pitching will go up.
Finally, this deal feels like a great one for Montas himself. If he has a rough season, or if there’s some kind of economic downturn, either specifically within baseball or more broadly, a two-year deal is great. If he’s the next member of the Great Mets Rejuvenation Squad, spectacular! He can opt out and cash in. That kind of flexibility is worth more than an extra million or two in guarantees.
That’s the last thing that Montas has in common with the other pitchers we’ve seen sign contracts over the past month: The Mets made it worth his while to sign early. I think this is just good business on their part. Like I mentioned, they have a lengthy shopping list to get through this winter, and checking off the first item early is important, even if it means a marginal overpay. That’s how you end up with this deal for this guy, and with both the team and the player happy with the result.
Ben is a writer at FanGraphs. He can be found on Bluesky @benclemens.
The first thing that I thought when I saw the Montas and Boyd deals was something Ben mentioned in the article: The starter market is hot. Burnes is going to easily clear $200M and Fried might too, and Flaherty and Manaea are probably getting guarantees well over $100M. Not sure what the Severino or Pivetta markets look like but the Bassit deal a couple years back looks about right…but might be light.
Makes me wonder if teams like the Rays and Brewers might be trading starters. You would think after the disastrous run of injuries their pitching staffs sustained that they would be reluctant to deal starters but it may be too much for them to pass up. Teams like the Orioles aren’t likely to be in on free agents at these prices, and teams like the Braves and Astros might not be itching to give out huge deals right now.
Indeed. Market seemed ideal to trade a starter last off-season, and even more so this off-season. Paying attention, Dipoto?
Called it that Boyd would get a good deal. 2/29 is about what I would have expected. Not a longer pact at his age and injury history, but the talent and consistency when he’s healthy are there.
Clay Holmes is even drawing interest as a SP, which is not a sentence I thought I would read or type… ever?
Walker Buhler is the one I’m most interested in. I could see his offers being anywhere from 1 year $15 million to the $100 million range.
Buehler isn’t getting close to $100 million. Anything more than $50 million would be shocking to me
I think he’s probably hoping for a Montas like deal. Doubt he gets anything better than that. But he was pretty bad last year. One year, $11M is probably his floor (the Noah Syndergaard deal)
Mmh, that does make more sense. I thought his year was more like 2022, but you’re right after a glance. He’s not worth that much anymore. Maybe a deal with lots of incentives could happen, where he could get up to a $50 million dollar payout if he hits them. But I was wrong there.
Yeah, I think lots of us were shocked that Boyd didn’t make the list of top 50 free agents. Based on the contract he signed, he’s probably going to wind up between 30-40.
Peralta could bring the Brewers a nice haul with about a six WAR projection for only $16M the next two years, but have to imagine they’d need to be bowled over to deal him.
Civale is projected around 1.5 WAR and $8M his last year of Arby’s, don’t think he’d bring back much more than they gave up in the first place (a 20yo SS in A+) so probably best to hold and take the innings.
Tobias Myers is where it gets interesting. Someone want to offer value equivalent for five years of a pitcher that just put up 3.5 rWAR and looked unfazed dealing five scoreless IP of 2 H | 0 BB | 5 K in the playoffs? Let’s talk. But I don’t think anybody will do that.
If there are teams out there who still believe in ERA the Brewers would be super wise to trade Myers. Even teams who aren’t competing now like the Rockies and A’s would be interested in a guy like that. Not saying either team would even trade for him, but the dividing line on who would be interested in Myers would be due to team philosophy rather than contention.
Just off the back of the napkin, 3.5 wins is worth about $31M in “prospect capital”. He’s under control for 5 years, so that’s about $155M in total. As of 2017, the most anyone had made through arbitration as a starting pitcher was David Price, and while I don’t have the exact numbers on that, it was something like $50M. It is really hard to believe that Tobias Myers will match that, but teams also probably won’t view distant production as much as current production, so it provides a useful number in terms of surplus value ($105M).
Prospect capital is something like $25M for an FV50, $40M for an FV55, and $55M for an FV60. I think FV45+ is something like $10M, and FV45 is something like $5M. That would be a truly bonkers return. A lot of teams couldn’t even really get that high. For example, the Rockies wouldn’t get there if they traded their top five prospects (Dollander [who I’m grading as a 60], Condon, Yanqiel Fernandez, Jordy Vargas, and Brody Brecht). So that seems like a little much?
This, of course, all depends on whether a team views that 3.00 ERA as the “real” performance. If they care more about the peripherals or stuff then none of this matters, he wouldn’t get anything close to this and the Brewers would be better off holding him.
Hard to ignore that Manaea, Severino, and Montas all were QO eligible. Another way the Mets are subtly overpaying for draft picks?
Good point. When money is no object, that’s a savvy angle. Though in this case, I have doubts Montas will opt out next offseason or be worth a QO after 2026.
The Mets have shown a major aversion to signing players with QO compensation in the last few years. I seem to recall Cohen even said that they were avoiding them a few years back.
Obviously someone like Soto is an exception but it all makes sense to me based on other things we know about Cohen—like how he was willing to pay down a lot of money to move Verlander and Scherzer for better prospects. He seems quite intent on spending money so that they don’t have to spend prospect capital on major league players.
With his splits, if he continues to struggle against lefties do you see him eventually transitioning to the pen especially if they make it to the playoffs?
Alternatively, what could the Mets do to improve his effectiveness against lefties, given his lower release point and the splitter’s inconsistency as a foundational pitch?
Maybe introduce a more reliable secondary pitch like a changeup…
Changeups are exceptionally hard to master. Out of the “traditional” pitches, I would argue it’s the hardest. There’s just so much you have to do just right, and unlike a breaking ball, the grip doesn’t actually do that much of the work besides setting the basic foundation of the pitch. There’s a reason that most guys either have a great changeup or they barely use it; a bad changeup is just a batting practice fastball, but unlike other pitches that can devolve into a BPF, changeups do it constantly, especially if you don’t locate them just right. A changeup that is out of its sweet spot is a terrible pitch for most people.
The splitter itself works well, but the pitches around it don’t play off each other to lefties. I don’t think fooling around with a pitch that would blend into arguably one’s best weapon is a great idea.
On top of that, Montas used to run a changeup early in his career, and it was unquestionably his worst pitch by every possible metric. He’s just not suited for the pitch itself, which is probably where the change to a splitter came from in the first place.
Ultimately, Montas’ upside comes from his ability to induce opponents to chase. This past season was his worst in that department since 2018, and a lot of that is on his command, which backslid appallingly since his trade to NY, especially in terms of his fastballs, and even more so for his cutter, which he located on basically the wrong side of the plate and up relative to where he previously used it. He basically just has to get back to what he previously did well. Sinkers inside to RHB with the occasional one up-and-away to lefties, rather than trying to live in the middle. Cutter low-and-away to RHB, low-and-in to lefties. 4-seam up and away to lefties, up and in to RHB. Slider off the cutter. And splitters whenever he thinks the batter will be fooled.
The husk of Montas getting $34M guaranteed with an opt out makes the Nick Martinez qualifier offer decision by the reds look SO much better
I am definitely dumbfounded by what is going on in the starting pitcher market. In 2024 teams with virtually nothing that resembled solid starting rotations were wildly successful. The Dodgers did not have a starter throw enough innings to qualify yet won the World Series. The Guardians were much worse.4 of the 6 pitchers who made more than 10 starts actually produced negative bWAR and the Tigers went 33-14 after they abandoned all true starters except Skubal. What I perceive to be mediocre guys, and who are also loaded with question marks, are getting paid what number 2 and 3 starters should be receiving in this era when 150 innings is considered a work horse. Matthew Boyd glued his arm on for a few games and managed to get a 2 year deal for $29M. Frankie Montas, with all of 7.6 bWAR on his resume, is not my idea of someone worth $17M/year. I was hoping the Red Sox would bring back Nick Pivetta but if Boyd and Montas are getting paid like they are then Pivetta, who is actually healthy and has excellent hits/inning and k/inning numbers, must be worth $80M or more for 4 years. The fact that a larger percentage of payroll is going to pitchers who are throwing far fewer innings than ever strikes me as a flagrant misallocation of money. With every bizarre signing the idea of limiting starter payroll and pouring the money saved into a Guardian or Tiger type staff looks better and better.
My view is tainted by the horrific no-due-diligence Cashman trade for him to have a few terrible starts followed by essentially sitting out the balance of the season. But (and I know Cohen has it) that’s a tremendous amount of money to pay with penalties for a guy who hasn’t been good recently. Maybe that’s just the market, but…
it is the market and the market is insane. Questionable pitchers, and I am being generous to guys like Boyd and Montas, are getting paid like #2 and #3 starters. It appears that GM’s are trying to prove that the old pathway to success is still the way to go even as starters are providing less and less towards team success.
I think it has more to do with how valuable SPs that can give you quality are in the postseason. Boyd’s legitimately solid, his questions are pretty solely injury-related. Montas has the opposite problem, but prior to his stint in pinstripes, you could look at him and see a reliable starter, and he at least looked capable of delivering on that in his good starts last year.
Also a true #2 in today’s market would never settled for 2/29 like Boyd, and it’s unlikely they would settle for 3/34 like Montas. Even most #3s wouldn’t. Look at what guys like Eduardo Rodriguez and Jordan Montgomery got last season. 4/80 and 2/47.5, and both of those guys are #2 starters at best with Montgomery also having to take a very late signing that still undercut his value, and both of them also had injury concerns. This is what a #3/#4 is in today’s market.