This is overly simplistic. As we said back on the 18th, the Mets are giving up the high-end potential of six below-market years for four players, a total of twenty-four below market years, for one single below-market year of Johan Santana and the special privilege of giving him the largest contract ever given to pitcher.
Of course, you can say that Santana is worth any number of prospects. After all, he is The Best Pitcher in Baseball, and an opportunity to acquire TBPiB doesn't come along every day. Thus, the Mets were smart to snatch him up, and even smarter not to trade their best prospect, Fernando Martinez.
But why, then, did the Yankees and Red Sox compete with each other not to acquire Santana? Why did they fall over each other trying to hit the other one with the winner's curse? Why, as Bob Klapisch reports, did they turn aside even the meager packages the Twins requested at the end, before turning to the Mets?
This was late Monday night, about 12 hours before the Mets would pounce upon their most dramatic trade in recent history. Twins' general manager Bill Smith, in a panic to move Johan Santana, called the Yankees and admitted surrender: Phil Hughes was no longer a prerequisite, he said. Instead, the Twins asked for Ian Kennedy, Melky Cabrera and a top prospect. Would the Yankees still be interested, Smith wondered?Why? Because Santana, despite being TBPiB for now, does not provide enough marginal value to either the Yankees or the Red Sox to justify trading top prospects for one year of the pitcher and the right to sign him to a massive contract.
The Yankees considered the idea, but only briefly and not seriously. Their passion for Santana started waning as far back as December, when Andy Pettitte announced he was returning to the Bronx. The Yankees' internal straw vote was unanimous: The Twins had waited too long. On Tuesday Yankees' GM Brian Cashman told Smith he was passing on the deal, prompting the Twins to call the Red Sox. Equally devastating news awaited. Both Jacoby Ellsbury and Jon Lester were unavailable.
The Red Sox, in lock step with the Yankees, had essentially backed out, too.
The Mets, though, as the story goes, could stand to gain a lot from Santana. Baseball Prospectus thinks "Santana’s WARP and VORP totals are essentially pure profit for the Mets, since some of the guys they were running out there last year were replacement level talents at best." But they never did have to use the Chan Ho Parks and Brian Lawrences of the world; they had Philip Humber and Mike Pelfrey, who while near-replacement in 2007, would stand to improve in 2008, especially with the previous major league experience the veteran-loving Mets denied them. In addition, with Pedro back for the full 2008, that replacement-level talent is no longer as necessary. Therefore, Santana is not replacing Jose Lima; he's replacing whoever of El Duque/Pelfrey/Humber would have occupied the fifth starter's spot.
Still, that's at least three wins, right? That would have been enough to push the Mets into the playoffs last year.
But other things would have put in the Mets in the playoffs last year, and none of them cost prospects or money. In fact, they would have saved the team some of both. These include: playing Lastings Milledge over Shawn Green the whole year, at least against left-handers; not exhuming the corpse of Jose Valentin and letting him play over far more deserving players just because he's old and friendly; staying away from Julio Franco; not treating Pedro Feliciano like a LOOGY; treating Scott Schoeneweis like the LOOGY he is; and starting young players with meaning to the organization instead of crappy old veterans in order to save face and look like you're trying.
In addition to all these things, if the Mets get a few inches here, a ball bouncing differently there, or a call going their way somewhere else, they make the playoffs. What the hell kind of faulty reasoning causes anyone to conclude that because they missed the playoffs by one game, they needed to make major changes? That's just stupid.
Of the deal, our friend epoc, even harsher than me about such things, wrote, "Is the actual increase [in chances of making the playoffs] meaningfully significant? I'd guess not. We easily had a 33% chance of winning the division before the trade. We probably have an 85% chance now, right? Something like that? Just assume our chances would be 1 in 8 if we got to the playoffs. Overall, that's about an increase in chances of winning the World Series from 4% to 10%. Is that significant enough to warrant the trade? Assume it also increases the chances for next year by the same amount. Does that justify it?"
Maybe it does. The thing is, the Mets aren't, and didn't have to be, in a "win now" mode. They don't have a lot of old players who better do it now or depart a loser. They have a strong core in place such that they do not need to make these high variance moves. What happens if Santana pitches as awesomely as we expect, but the Mets still fail to make the playoffs? Does everyone get fired? What if Santana blows out his arm next year, or the year after that? What if he just gets worse?
Even if none of those things happen, Pedro Martinez and Oliver Perez will be free agents next year, and even if they aren't, the Mets will sign them to costly extensions. Two of the best options to replace them, before this trade? Philip Humber and Kevin Mulvey. After the trade? It's Mike Pelfrey or bust (free agency).
Not only does this deal cost the Mets in the dollars they will pay Santana, it will also cost them in the dollars they pay Martinez, Perez, or their replacements. It will also cost them in the money they pay Moises Alou's replacement, who could have been Carlos Gomez.
Meanwhile, Minnesota has four cost-controlled players who may or may not contribute significantly in the major leagues. But odds are, they will get more than one solitary cost-controlled year, and whatever they get, all together, will be worth more than the extra 3-5 wins Santana gives the Mets at about 1/2 value in 2008.
What bothers us is that you will hear, "This is great for the Mets! This is the kind of move the Mets should make! Not my Indians, mind you-- I mean, it's a terrible risk to give a six year, $150 million contract to a pitcher-- but for the Mets, sure!" Why, we ask, do the Mets have to be the team that is always looking only one or two years in the future? Can't our Mets get on board with the rest of the game, and start thinking long-term? Succeeding now and building for the future aren't mutually exclusive, as the Diamondbacks, Red Sox and Indians, among others, have shown us.
Does everyone just accept that in the New York media environment, such planning and foresight is impossible? That with the crushing impatience of the fans and the pressure of the newspapers, we just can't possibly give a 22-year old Lastings Milledge a year or two to blossom, so we have to constantly bring in stopgaps, forced to cheer loudly when that stopgap is under 30 and a year or two shy of free agency?
The Mets are playing a high-variance game. If something happens to Santana, they're screwed. If they don't make the playoffs next year, they're screwed. But with Santana, they have an excellent shot for at least the next two years. High risk, high reward.
Even with Santana, the Mets are not a lock to win their division, nor are they unquestionably the best team in the National League. They're certainly in the top five, with Arizona, Chicago, San Diego and Atlanta, but head-and-shoulders above the rest? No.
If you've made it this far without giving up in disgust at a Mets fan who can't even celebrate unequivocally the day after his team acquires The Best Pitcher in Baseball, know this: we're happy, we're excited, we're pleased. But we're also disappointed.
We'll celebrate along with everyone else. But we're also going to be thinking of how the Mets just threw away $24 million on an easily replaceable Luis Castillo, who will be de-optimizing the Mets' lineup all year long by hitting second while announcers and writers proclaim the opposite: that Castillo, who can take a pitch and go the other way and still has some speed, is a perfect fit in the two-hole.
We'll also be remembering Lastings Milledge, watching him play the Mets more than a dozen times, as he possibly outperforms Ryan Church, the older and more experienced outfielder he was traded for. While the Mets rack up wins from Johan and Pedro, we'll remember "Bend Ya Knees" long after everyone else has forgotten what soured the Mets on this outstanding player.
We'll also watch Brian Schneider, universally praised as "One of the Better Defensive Catchers in the League," OPS at around .650, while Ramon Castro, "too shaky to play every day," takes his powerful home run stroke to the bench, where his talent will be wasted putting gum bubbles on the hat of Jose Valentin, who will surely "earn" a spot on the roster.
And whether or not the Mets win the division, make the playoffs, or win the World Series, we'll still remember The Collapse; we won't forget it, it will not be rubbed out of our minds by the flashy acquisition of Johan Santana. We'll remember the suffering and the disappointment, and we'll remember why it happened.
Because Mr. Met is a man of deep feelings. He carries pain inside of himself, entrenched sorrow, and disappointment. That's who Mr. Met is, no matter how wide they make him smile.
We won't forget a thing. We will not be forced into optimism. And we will never give up hope that one day, the Mets will be an organization that develops young players and gives them starting jobs in the major leagues. As great as Santana is, his acquisition is a blow in that regard.
Welcome, Santana. Don't disappoint us.
20 comments:
My gut tells me that I'm supposed to agree with you on this, but my head hasn't made it happen yet.
Let me ask you: if the Mets are rich enough, via the stadium revenue or the SNY revenue or whatever, to sign Pedro and Ollie to extensions and/or plug holes via free agency, then what's the inherent problem with that approach?
Maybe you just like seeing young talent develop. I do too, but we're a big budget team now, and maybe it's time we faced up to it.
I have the same feelings, believe me. Having Johan Santana is huge, especially with the new stadium. But I don't think The Collapse would have affected the team's TV and stadium revenues that much, and they wouldn't have had much trouble selling tickets or getting viewers with or without Santana. But having Santana does help.
Just because the Mets are a big market team, though, doesn't mean they can't have a strong farm system and a commitment to young players. The Red Sox have the second largest payroll in baseball, yet they haven't been so quick to trade prospects. They have Jacoby Ellsbury, Dustin Pedroia, Jon Lester, Clay Buchholtz, and Jonathan Papelbon already with the team, and a good number of youngsters to come.
That said, as Tim Marchman recently noted, the Mets under Minaya have brought in the very best of the available outside talent, like Beltran, Pedro, Delgado, and now Santana.
I feel pretty much the same way about the trade. It's exciting to have Santana, but it's a risky move. If the Mets had a significantly deeper farm system, I'd be 100% enthusiastic about the trade because they did pretty well from a value perspective. The problem is that they don't. There's almost nothing left.
The biggest myth in the world is that New York fans won't accept rebuilding/young teams. It's the New York MEDIA that can't accept rebuilding. They're the ones who need stars and personalities. The fans love teams that have young, home-grown players. We like effort. We like enthusiasm. What we HATE is overpaid, underachieving veteran teams. Look at the 3 most locally hated teams recently -- 90's Mets, post-94 Rangers, current Knicks. Lots of big names. Lots of splash. Lots of money. And they were despised by their own fan base.
I just don't understand how this isn't a great move. We robbed the Twins...and all this, of course, is said on the assumption that we can sign Santana in the next 48 hours.
The point is, we have Minnesota a pretty shitty offer (compared to the Sox and Yankees), and they had to take it because Santana wanted to be traded, to us in particular. Omar Minaya shrewdly held back both Fernando Martinez and Mike Pelfrey, used the surprising leverage we had given our lack of top notch prospects, and got it done.
What bothers me is that your entire point seems to be that the Mets should hold back from making a pretty lopsided deal for the best pitcher in baseball just because you'd like to see them develop young talent. In 2004, should we have just let Jeremy Griffiths do his thing, instead of signing Pedro? Should we have trotted Jeff Duncan out in center field instead of snagging Carlos Beltran? Mike Jacobs over Carlos Delgado?
You've got to pull a bunch of levers. Develop young talent when it's appropriate - Wright and Reyes come to mind - but recognize that if you're a big market team, you're robbing yourself if you don't take advantage of your ability to get older, more established players - or in this case, the best player in baseball. If the deal for Santana couldn't have been made (or if the Wilpons fuck it up somehow) I would still have/will still feel good about the Mets chances this year. Why? The guys we let go of have some talent, and the time would have been right to develop it. But the fact is, with the way things panned out, how the hell could we have passed up a chance to give up 4 solid - not great - prospects for the best pitcher in baseball, who, I might add, we can certainly afford to pay.
As for the Red Sox, you make an example of Theo Epstein (I would assume) for developing young talent. But the Sox are an example of exactly what I'm talking about. After the bitter disappointment of the 2003 season, the Sox made a win-now move and traded for Curt Schilling. He was considerably older than Johan Santana is now, but that was a necessary move for the Red Sox to make given the fact that it was staring them right in the face, just like the Johan deal was for us. The Sox broke an 86-year curse the following season, but they then balanced their win-now move with a renewed focus on the farm system. After making another key move to get Josh Beckett (if you were a Sox fan, would you have been nay-saying after they gave up Hanley Ramirez?), Boston balanced the other side of the pendulum by drafting/developing some of that young talent, and the COMBINATION of all these moves led to the second WS title this season.
Who's got three picks in the first round-and-a-half of this year's draft? This was far from a short-sighted trade. It would be one thing if the Mets had traded this package for Joe Blanton.
Stop hating on a great move.
*change "older, more-established" to "top-notch talent." That's the point I'm trying to make.
JP, well though out and well written as always. My only question for you (because you are infinitely more educated as to this area) is - with the Mets financial resources being what they are is there really a cost problem with this move - 24 years of cost-controlled players or not?
I agree fully with wanting to see the team I grew up loving develop players and bring them to the major leagues. I've emerged from my hollow lonely shell of self-delusion and now agree with you that the Milledge trade was horrendous. But in a situation where you are giving up a B+, two B, and a B- prospects (according to Sickels) is it really that horrible?
If I was a Yankee fan and the deal went through for Hughes, Cabrera, and two prospects (Horne and whoever else) I could see this side of the argument much clearer.
But in essence, the Mets gave up nothing NEAR the magnitude of what the Yankees or Red Sox were willing to give up in December. There is no Hughes/Ellsbury in this deal. There is, arguably, no Lester/Cabrera either.
And, again, while I agree that making 4 prospect for 1 deals on a regular basis will cause the team to suffer, I am as positive as I can be that this is one of those rare situations where no matter which way you look at it - 4 for 1 will never look bad.
Well...a visit to Birmingham and Dr. James Andrews would make it look bad but who wants to be a jinx?
I forgot...+1 for the "Bend Ya Knees" reference.
Anyone who doesn't think there will be a weekly Lastings update with that title at KOYIC is horribly mistaken.
I think this is a good trade, but it would be a much better one if we had an outfield. As it is now, we have multiple ticking time bombs, Alou with his age, and Church with his past comments about non-Christians (did they not check up on this stuff?!) So while trotting out what could easily be the best rotation in baseball, there are still 3 holes (4 if you include 2B, but Castillo could be hurt, forcing the use of someone like Gotay) to be filled... Still, that is one killer rotation.
I don't think it's a terrible move at all. Far from it. I am just addressing some concerns that I am not hearing anywhere else, and raising the question of when the Mets are going to not need to make such trades.
I am biased toward younger players developed within the organization. But the 24 years thing is an extreme high end possibility. I am guessing that from the four players the Twins will get like 4-8 below market years from the four players. It's certainly possible that the they will provide more value than one of Santana.
But I don't know how to quantify what the value of getting to sign Santana now is.
I expect I'll make another post on this subject.
bringing up the pedro signing is incredibly apt. as with the santana trade, we gave up too much for the best pitcher in baseball at the time. i remember thinking "we gave him way too much money and too many years. he's probably not going to be worth it. still, there's a not insignificant chance that he helps us win a world series in the next two years, so it's okay." same exact thing here. we gave up too much and santana almost certainly will not be worth 6/120 or whatever he's going to get in addition to the four players we lost. still, he gives us a not insignificant chance to win the world series in the next couple of years. but i think if you're going to cite pedro, you should learn from it, too. pedro brought us zero world series, and three years later we have to overpay for the best pitcher in baseball again. if we don't wise up, the same thing's going to keep happening over and over again. yeah, we might win a world series. but the odds are against it. if your preference is for mortgaging the future for marginal increases in the chances that we win a world series in the next few years, that's fine, but this isn't a great deal just because it enacts your preference, and it's just as reasonable to prefer, as john does, that the mets enact strategies for sustainable success.
i also think it's kind of ridiculous to compare jeff duncan v. carlos beltran to mike pelfrey v. johan santana, especially when you consider that it's more like 17 years of pelfrey/humber/mulvey v. santana. also, we would have won the division and lost the nlcs just as well with jacobs as with delgado in 2006. and delgado was a black hole of suck last year. let's not assume that a big name equals good and then base arguments on those assumptions. will you still be happy after we lose in the nlcs this year and santana hurts his elbow and is a husk of himself in '09? if santana has one good year and then tanks, will you bring up this trade as a disingenuous, rhetorical example of why we shouldn't be skeptical when we're trying to trade four good prospects for peavy in '11 and john warns us against it?
Great article John. Only thing as much as I agree with your analysis, there is something that Santana brings to the table that improves the entire team over brought up prospects. I totally agree I would rather have brought up prospects & disagree completely with the Milledge trade, but you honestly have to believe for the next 2 to 3 heck, even 4 years, we are absolutely legit contenders b/c of Santana. That's something that no farm prospect can do...we'll develop a Wright or Reyes in our farm system eventually, but you have to understand that Santana is 150% worth it. He heals our bullpen by going 7 innings, doesn't throw a lot of pitches, doesn't get injured often, can bat, is athletic, great clubhouse mentality to help out Pelfrey, Perez, Maine etc. Plus he's proven. Plus no offense, John, our prospects SUCK! They suck. We'll develop a Wright or Reyes, but historically we overhype, overdrool, pretend that Billy Beane dreams about that OF prospect we have, & dream that they will become a Hall of Famer.
It's not going to happen. I hope it works out well for the Twins in all honesty, but we all know the fatal flaws of our prospects, & maybe 2 or 3 of those prospects will become good one day, & none of the 4 combined will be worth what Santana will bring to us...it's not just the ERA, & Wins...he helps out your bullpen by pitching longer & keeping them ready which screwed us last year, & it also helps our offense who knows that their 4 runs a game will actually be worth a win, & that it's not their fault if they lose a game b/c they scored 7 runs when Santana is on the mound...it's a given that it will happen, but it enhances that. Plus, our Defense is very good as well...& John I 724979274% agree that Luis Castillo will break his knees after 6 months, & be a salary clogger for the rest of his time here. Totally agree...but John, I understand your concerns, but Santana was what we needed last year. He was the missing piece. No more Chan Ho Parks, no more getting wasted on Lima Time, no more Brian Lawrence. Santana will win, & lOs Mets will accept him.
& I knew the collapse was going to happen. I knew it. I hate to admit it, but I 100% knew it was going to happen. I'm too young to understand the heartbreak of those 88' teams etc. but it was painful.
I think you need to move on...please look at this move optimistically...I have no right to tell you so, but the World Series is the ultimate reward. If Santana is a piece to help us win, welcome aboard. Sure it's painful to lose the prospects, but there are something called intangibles...& santana has it.
Nice post BTW...love the negativity with all the positives flying around...sometimes a reality check is good in life.
e poc - do you really think the Mets overpaid?
Prospect wise - Humber and Mulvey projected as 3/4 hole guys. Guerra has the most upside as a pitcher and is at least 2 years away if he materizlizes as a ML player. Gomez was clearly not ready from what we saw last season and I wouldn't expect him to be ready until 2009 either.
Assuming 2 of the 4 pan out into what everyone expects them to be - worst case scenario would be Guerra as a good #2 and Gomez as a .280 hitter with a little pop and great speed/defense (although his defense looked suspect last season).
It's hard to argue that the Mets gave up too much prospect wise unless all 4 players develop into what they project as and sustain that level of performance for the remainder of their pre-arbitration and arbitration eligible years.
Money wise...understanding that Zito blew the market up last season - if there is a pitcher out there worth 6/120 isn't it Santana?
yes, i with every ounce of my bitter, bile-dripping heart believe that the mets overpaid. what they got in the transaction was a single year of santana at 12.25 million dollars, maybe half of what he's worth, and the rights to sign him to a below-market contract. so they got one year of extremely good value for the best pitcher in baseball and saved maybe, what, $30 million? if guerra completely flames out, humber is never above replacement level and mulvey only gives the twins three years of league average starts, but gomez hits 280/340/400 (nowhere near his ceiling) and steals 50 bases and plays a good cf for his six pre-f.a. years, we will still have given up more value than we got (which is, again, only one year of santana and a savings of like maybe $30 million on his contract).
we increased our chances of making the playoffs maybe twofold, our chances of winning the world series from maybe 4 to 10% at the best estimate. it's great that we have the best pitcher in baseball (for now); it's great that we're odds-on favorites to win the division this year; that's all awesome. but we absolutely gave up too much.
There is value in exclusivity... how much -- not sure. But I am sure the Mets would be paying Santana lots more after 2008, when the Yankees have like 30 Billion dollars coming off the books with Pettitte and Moose unlikely to return.
And I don't want CC for 6y-150MM...
Emad
First of all, I just want to say how cool it is that Matt Matros comments on this blog - I remember his big WPT score back when I only dreamed of being a poker pro.
Peterson, I have to disagree with your assertion re: winning now - the NL doesn't have a dominant team, and the Mets have Wagner, Delgado, and Alou, and Castillo on the unhappy side of their career, Pedro and El Duque nearing the end, and a player like Beltran could begin his decline around now. I don't know the status of all their particular contracts, but once things turn sour with these players, I don't suspect the Mets' front-office is the kind that will let 15 million dollars rot on the bench or in the back of the bullpen.
I should also know more about getting a player's 'clock' going pre-arbitration, but I'm pretty sure Humber and Gomez's clocks would've kept going, making them less valuable in trade barring a serious unprojected burst of performance. Then you have to recognize that if the Mets were the only players in this deal, it's better than bidding up Sabathia and really inviting the sting of the Winner's Curse when there's at least 5 teams gunning for the giant left-hander.
Plus, he's the Best Pitcher In Baseball. His BPIB rating is off the charts. I think his Smiles/9 is fairly high too.
As always, you make a lot of good arguments, but there's one point I would make. It's true the Red Sox (& Indians & Diamondbacks) have a lot more young players contributing to their team than the Mets do, but I think this has less to do with organizational philosophy and more to do with the fact the Sox have a much deeper, talented farm system to begin with. The Red Sox have a deep enough system that they trade aways guys like Hanley Ramirez & Anibal Sanchez and still have plenty of blue-chip prospects ready to contribute. While I don't disagree you about Gotay & Milledge, I would say the bigger problem lies in drafting & scouting.
Also, the Red Sox have a much stronger starting rotation than the Mets did (before they got Santana), so there was less pressure on them to upgrade the rotation.
Just to add to my point about drafting: I would blame Omar for not offering abritration to departing free agents like Piazza, which would have given the Mets the opportunity to stock up on prospects through supplemental draft picks. Hopefully, they'll get a chance to replenish their farm system this year with their 3 early-round draft picks.
Great discussion all around. A lot of great points. I figured John would have analyzed this deal with caution. I am actually surprised that you are relatively happy with this trade.
I could not be happier. We the fans get treated to amazing pitching. We get to see a two time Cy young player still in his prime. That my friends is a treat. Most importantly we kept Pelfrey so if someone gets hurt he or Duque can step in. Furthermore, Pelfrey get to develop with very little pressure, which would not have been the case if the trade would not have happened.
-Coolpapabell
Defending the Pedro move:
Although, from a wins per dollar perspective, the Pedro deal might not be very good however, it should be noted that the Pedro signing was a great money making move. Pedro’s contract was paid off after the first year by tickets sales increases, advertising revenue increases and merchandise sales. Don’t forget that the “stats heads” felt that Matt Clement was the better free agent choice for the Mets.
I also think that the Mets steadfast refusal to include F-Mart and their reluctance to deal away Guerra speaks for their commitment to developing players. Apparently they weren’t including Guerra in the deal until the very last moment. A lot of people wanted to include F-mart, but Omar was willing to lose out on acquiring Johan than deal F-mart.
I think they will be alright going forward provided that Johan stays healthy. They filled the hardest position to fill in MLB, everything else is gravy. There will be bats available next year and the year after that. Yes the Milledge move would have made this team look a LOT better going forward, but lets rejoice, it gets easier from here
-coolpapabell
You guys can sit around and fret all you want about whether or not we would've gotten replacement level production from four middling prospects.
This Mets fan is going to sit back and enjoy watching one of the greatest pitchers of my generation pitch 5+ seasons in the prime of his career and hopefully lead the team to a WS title or 2.
And why is it that the trade this reminds me the most of is Seaver for Zachry, Flynn Norman and Henderson?
Post a Comment