Mets on verge of potentially reckless deal. Here's a better Plan B

What distinguishes the newest generation of baseball executives from their peers is their devotion to risk management. This is largely how we've gotten to a place where the sport is getting younger, and the biggest contracts aren't quite as big as they used to be.

The Mets' proposed deal with the Mariners for infielder Robinson Cano and closer Edwin Diaz runs counter to those trends. Rather than veering around risk, they are steering into it.

If the deal is finished and it works out, and the Mets make the playoffs and perhaps the World Series, new general manager Brodie Van Wagenen should be hailed for his aggressiveness, his willingness to take chances. He would be a candidate for Executive of the Year in his first year as an executive, no small feat.

The market is filled with relievers, absolutely saturated. By the time teams complete their contract tenders today, there might be more than 60 relievers in the free-agent market, more than twice as many as last winter. Diaz is one of baseball's best pitchers: Last year, he struck out 124 of the 280 batters he faced, and it's because of that dominance that the Mets are reportedly willing to spend big, in money and prospects, to get someone capable of wiping out the last three or four outs of victories. They want the Lamborghini of relievers and it looks like they'll get him.

But at the moment, there are plenty of others available on the lot -- maybe not quite as good as Diaz, but pretty good.

And in recent years, teams have mostly clung to their best prospects, except in situations in which a trade was viewed as a finishing move for a World Series contender, like the Cubs surrendering Gleyber Torres for Aroldis Chapman in the midst of the 2016 season, or the Indians giving up Clint Frazier and Justus Sheffield for Andrew Miller that same year. Jarred Kelenic, the best prospect the Mets would give up in the Diaz deal, is regarded as a high-end athlete, with a refined approach at the plate. Some evaluators who've seen him think he'll be a good player at worst, and maybe more than that. He'll probably reach the big leagues sometime in 2020 -- but apparently not with the Mets.

A trade for Cano also threatens to naturally depreciate one of the Mets' other young players Jeff McNeil, who performed well last season. McNeil is suddenly left without a spot if the Mets keep him, and if they try to trade him to extract value, they'll be doing so at a time when there are a ton of second basemen available in the free-agent market.

With all of that in mind, here are some Plan B's that might be better for the Mets, based on what's available:

1. Sign one of the better free-agent closers, like Miller or Craig Kimbrel, and use the remaining dollars on catching. And in doing this, you avoid the risk of a Cano, and you keep Kelenic and the other prospects in the deal.

2. Wait for the prices to drop in the closer market and land one of the less expensive guys -- maybe a David Robertson, or Adam Ottavino, or Tyler Clippard. That leaves more money for other needs. In doing this, you avoid the risk of Cano, and you keep Kelenic and the other prospects.

3. Spend big on a catcher, like Yasmani Grandal, who is the best free agent at the position, and then take advantage of the great supply-and-demand situations with the relievers and sign two or three.

Those alternatives won't generate the headlines or initial ticket sales that a Robinson Cano does. None of the relievers would be as good as Diaz. But the Mets would also avoid the potential for the whopper gaffe -- the absorption of Cano just as he goes into full decline, or the trade of a 19-year-old who explodes into a star in four years.

There are other safer ways to go. Van Wagenen knows Cano well, and before he finishes a deal for the second baseman, he needs to ask himself a hard question: Am I assuming too much about this player because I'm familiar? The industry trends indicate, absolutely: Yes. It's a hell of a gamble that perhaps no one else in Van Wagenen's new risk-averse peer group would take.