The main narrative going into the off-season has been the Mets’ finances and whether or not the team will spend big money on free agents (FAs). In fact, this narrative has been in place for much of the time Sandy Alderson has been General Manager of the team. The 2013-2014 off-season was surely going to be the time that the team really dipped into their pockets to improve since so much bad money was coming off of the books. So why are we having conversations about why the Mets should not be spending money?
It’s understandable that the Mets and their fans are apprehensive about spending large sums of money and years on big name FAs. Thoughts of Johan Santana and Jason Bay are still dancing in their heads. The Mets have paid so much and gotten so little out of their “marquee” investments that the team has been handicapped in what they could do roster-wise for years. While most are quick to point out how expensive and crippling those large contracts were, no one seems to mention that they were just flat out bad decisions.
The Santana trade landed the Mets arguably the best pitcher in the game at the time for what turned out to be, Carlos Gomez notwithstanding, very little in terms of prospects. However, a stipulation of the trade was to work out a contract extension with Santana as part of the agreement. Trading for Santana was a fantastic decision (albeit a lucky break), but signing any pitcher approaching 30 years old to a six-year $137.5 million contract is a colossally bad decision. Of course hindsight is always 20/20, and pitchers like Santana were making a killing at the time, but it turned out to be a bad decision nonetheless.
Bay is another example of the Mets poor decision-making with regard to big contract investments. In the 2009-2010 off-season there were two big FA outfielders on the market: Jason Bay and Matt Holliday. Holliday was widely regarded as the better overall player and there were legitimate questions about how Bay’s game would translate to Citi Field. Of course we can’t forget that Bay cost the Mets roughly half of what the Cardinals (over)spent on Holliday, but then we’d have to acknowledge that Holliday has provide roughly 8x more value to the Cardinals than Bay has to the Mets since the signing of those contracts.
A lot has been said about the way that the 2013 Red Sox built their team and how the Mets should follow suit. There are certainly elements of that franchise’s team-building that the Mets should model themselves after. For one, and the Mets are doing this now, there should be a focus on ensuring their farm system is strong and consistently churning out talent to fill areas of need. No one seems to mention the massive contractual mistakes the Red Sox made just a few short years ago, though, and how they were incredibly lucky to have the Dodgers swoop in and save them.
That’s not to minimize the success they had in their 2013 strategy. They made some great signings that paid off. Now everyone wants their favorite team to follow the “mid-tier” FA path as well. Who says that always works out? The Mets’ signings of Luis Castillo and Oliver Perez, two “mid-tier” FAs, definitely did not work out well for the team. The point is that you can have a sound strategy, but if you execute it poorly you’re bound to fail anyway.
It’s obvious that the Mets need to spend money to improve the team. Alderson needs to spend it wisely, but wisdom in spending does not equate to penny pinching. Their past mistakes weren’t in investing big money in the first place; it was in their poor decision-making with regard to those big investments. One of the Mets main competitive advantages is that they are a large market team that should be able to maintain a higher payroll than their small market competitors. The team should not let past poor decisions make them hesitant to sign top of the line FAs, they should leverage them to make better decisions in the future. The team simply cannot afford to fear spending money when circumstances call for it.
I look at guys like Cliff Lee and Cole Hamels, CC Sabathia and Tim Hudson (not to mention Doc Halliday), and I don’t jump to the conclusion that signing a pitcher at the end of his age 29 season and say the next six years won’t be great.
Yes, you have risk. But the difference between signing those guys and signing the two aging star pitchers the Mets got (Pedro, Johann) … is that none of the six had real issues. The Mets signed a KNOWN issue both times.
You get what you deserve.
I agree. I’d also add post 29 Roger Clemens to that list. I don’t consider the Santana trade a bad decision. At the time while I was sad to see Gomez go I was very happy to land one of the top aces in baseball.
I actually say the trade for Santana was a “fantastic” decision. It was the contract that was questioned here.
But you can’t separate the two – the only reason Santana was available was because of his contract demands.
Rob, it seems to me the implication that the contract was an issue because of his age. In fact, the problem wasn’t his age … it was that he was injured. Plenty of pitchers continue to pitch well into their age 34,35 and 36 season. Santana (and Petey before him) had had terrible issues with their arms.
The answer here is to avoid signing damaged goods, not to avoid signing qualified players who have a track record of being available to play and then playing well. Hence, if there is a reasonable lesson to be learned from Pedro Martinez and Johann Santana, it’s to avoid the likes of Josh Johnson, or Roy Halliday, or position players like Granderson or Drew.
Pay for quality players; that much I will agree upon.
The Mets needed to show free agents that it was okay for them to sign with the Mets. Yes they over paid for Pedro but didn’t he deliver? He showed the other potential free agents that New York (not the Yankees) could be a cool place to live and play here. He pitched great at home and fans actually came to watch him pitch. I know I did. As for Santana my response is here already Jerry Grote.
Pete:
As for Johan Santana, all eulogizing aside, he provided the Mets with 15 WAR (bb-ref) over a contract where he was paid roughly $120MM … which amounts to somewhere in the area of $8MM a WAR. Both of the numbers are likely off a little bit, but let’s get honest here:
The Mets had to give away some talent, in order to pay a contract that turned out to be egregious (and every fan knew was egregious at the time).
And as to whether or not you sign Delgado/Beltran without Petey, lets start with the fact that he was going to the Yankees for less than the Mets – but they didn’t want to pay the luxury tax. And at the end of the day, Beltran came to Shea because of the money. The Mets outbid the Astros by $3MM a year.
Even that being said, it goes to my earlier argument. The reason why those contracts (Delgado/Beltran) were good and the Santana/Petey/Perez/Castillo signings were not? Health. The thread that connects all the bad signings aren’t concentrated around age. They are concentrated by poor health directly preceding a second generation contract.
The Santana signing looks bad in retrospect but in his first year he put up a 7.1 WAR and I think for the very little they gave up the Mets were very pleased with the results. His next season he posted a 3.3 WAR even with lost injury time. He then put a a 4.6 WAR in a season he made $20 M, again not a bad return. Then he got hurt to the tune of 2 1/2 seasons and the salary continued to rise. At the end of his 7.1 WAR season who was saying bad signing because they knew he was going to lose 2 1/2 years of the contract to injury? If you did, take me to Vegas with you! As for Gomez, he has his first “breakout” season 6 years after the trade. Would the Mets have been starting Gomez the first four years after the trade? I doubt it.
Bay was awful, but who could have predicted that drastic a decline. At the worst, he should have put up an annual OPS+ of 105 (which is a 25 % decline)which he only did once as a Met.
The free agents the Mets are looking at in 2014 are not the superstars of the game. They all have the potential to bust and without a crystal ball , who really knows.
Rob, it is not that I don’t agree with you in your theory, it is mine also. The Mets did spend poorly in most of their other FA signings. Alderson needs to use due diligence and not be suckered like Minaya in spending money for the sake of the splash. I think using Santana as an example was unfair. Let’s see what Met fans say when Harvey hits free agency. It may be similar to Santana.
Metsense, look at how the fans are treating Lagares after his first season. Also, the Twins gave up on Gomez also.
Metsense I agree. If Rob had mentioned the Perez or Castillo signings I would of agreed more with the content. Santana was not a bad signing even if it was for 6 years.
Did you read the whole thing, pete? I did mention Perez and Castillo.
Santana most certainly gave us some fantastic years (and memories). Unfortunately that doesn’t change the fact that we’ve been waiting 3 years for his contract (among others) to come off the books so the team can make some moves. That’s really what the spirit of the article was about. Trading for and signing Johan Santana: good. The contract they gave him: not so good. It wasn’t so much that you could predict exactly what would happen, but signing pitchers to such large and long contracts has proven to be a huge risk.
As for Bay, it was quite clear that the signing was desperate and that the Mets would regret it at the time. For example:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/tim_marchman/01/08/hot.stove/
Also, hopefully the Mets lock up Harvey to a nice, first generation contract before it even comes to that 🙂
Rob, great rebuttal with SI article. Holliday/Bay once again shows it is better to put the money toward a superstar instead of a star player. At the time, Bay was offered 60 M by Boston but Omar bid against himself, unlike Sandy who would have got Bay at $54M 🙂 A. 2014 Granderson signing may turn out like a Bay signing but it is a risk the Mets MAY have to take.
Harvey probably will not sign an extension because of Boras and Matt wants to be the best at everything, including salary. Rob , I agree with not signing pitchers to long term contracts and that is why the Mets should hold onto their pitching prospects. I think Tampa Bay has a perfect model to follow. Remember, it is the name on the front of the uniform, not on the back.
Rob, I loved the line about the Dodgers bailing them out. One of the dumbest GM moves of all time in not jut taking the salaries but giving up decent prospects. Moronic, to me.
Rob your conjecture about the Santana signing is nonsense. Perhaps you should try to be a little bit impartial. You wrote in parenthesis that the deal was a lucky break. Give Minaya credit. At the time the Mets gave up nothing for signing the best pitcher in baseball. Santana was and still is a class act. A humble athlete who understood the responsibility that comes with signing such an enormous contract. Santana earned his contract when he took the mound against the Marlins when the Mets were in their season ending tailspin and had their backs to the wall and needed someone to step up. He put the team on his shoulders and showed the young players what it takes when the season is on the line this is the sacrifice I am willing to take for the team to get into the playoffs. He pitched a complete game giving up just 3 hits on 3 days rest with an injured knee that needed surgery. You don’t think his teammates knew he was hurt? Of course they knew. It wasn’t his fault Glavine laid an egg on the final game of the season.
Santana’s performance made Glavine’s inexcusable.
Hi, pete. Not sure how my comments about the Santana contract qualify as conjecture. I respect your opinion but I feel you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say here.
My comment about the “lucky break” had to do with the fact that the Yankees and Red Sox, who were initially pushing hard for Santana, dropped out of the race because they didn’t want to pay the price in terms of money and prospects. If either of them had, the Mets would not have been able to compete with their packages. Which also leads to the fact that the Mets gave up little in terms of prospects to get him (which I acknowledge in the article).
Finally, Santana turned out to be one of my favorite Mets of all time. I was at that game you mention. I’ll never forget it. This piece was not an attack on Santana, it was on the contract he was given. No more, no less.
I understand Rob what you’re saying. But did Santana earn his contract in your opinion?
I feel Santana, when healthy, was absolutely giving the Mets all they could have hoped for and more. The problem was he wasn’t healthy for a good chunk of it. In that respect, I think it’s hard to say that he “earned” his contract. I mean, he made $25 million in 2013 and didn’t throw a single pitch. When healthy, I think he earned what he was being paid. But looking at it across the life of the contract and how often that was, the Mets didn’t make out too well on it overall.
Seems like a Quality vs. Quantity type question.
Would you rather:
Have a player be worth $50 million in year 1, and -$5 million for 4 years thereafter
Or
Have a player be worth $6 million in each of the 5 years.
Of course, it’s never as extreme as the case i painted above, but overall the concept is if you would rather have a solid productive player for x years, or superstar for a few years with duds in the rest of the years.
And unforgettable for the wrong reasons.
Sorry Rob! You did indeed mention the 2 players.
My point is had Glavine not laid an egg and the Mets make the playoffs there’s a different perspective on the contract. That unfortunately was out of Santana’s hands. Even Halliday had health issues the last year of his contract. On a side note. It is frightening the amount of pitchers who have pitched for the Mets and have come down with major injuries to their shoulders. Tend to wonder about the medical staff.
Nut it’s the name on the back that people will pay to watch.
sorry should read But