What I was talking about yesterday

I’ve gotten a few emails in response to my post yesterday about Johan Santana, so I figured I should follow up here. Here’s the point people are contending with:

Sure, it’d be nice if the Mets could win some more games, but a strong finish for Santana could help convince everyone that landing a No. 1 starting pitcher doesn’t have to be the No. 1 priority this offseason.

I guess I was specifically referring to pending free-agent Cliff Lee, who seems destined to get a massive and lengthy contract somewhere.

I wrote that yesterday imagining the inevitable demonstrations and petitions and sit-ins clamoring for the team to shell out big bucks to a 32-year-old pitcher likely to be an albatross by the end of his deal, just because of some notion that the team needs an “ace to pair with Santana” now that Santana is no longer “an ace.”

Which is not to say the Mets can’t use starting pitching, of course. All teams need starting pitching, and seldom does a team have enough. The Mets — with Santana, R.A. Dickey, Jon Niese and Mike Pelfrey set to return — look to be in at least decent shape in the department, but could certainly stand to beef up. After all, it’s no safe bet that any of those guys will maintain the success they’ve had in 2010, and at least one will likely regress a bit.

My objection is with the idea that the Mets need an ace, just like it would be if someone told me they need a closer or they need a slugger or they need a table-setter. What the Mets will need is to maximize the resources they have at their disposal to put together the best baseball team possible.

If that means adding pitching to strengthen their rotation, then yes, by all means. But going into the offseason with blinders on searching for players who fit a certain specific label is about the worst approach imaginable.

There are many ways to construct winning teams. Having dominant starting pitching is one of them. It is far from the only one.

The best player on the free-agent market isn’t always the smartest acquisition. Winning the battle of offseason perception pales in comparison to winning actual baseball games.

Certainly there will be much, much more on this to follow.

8 thoughts on “What I was talking about yesterday

  1. I’d be satisfied if they signed Jorge Da le rosa on the cheap to be their fifth starter behind the four you mentioned, with Mejia in the minors waiting in the wings.

  2. Everytime I hear Cliff Lee mentioned in any Mets blog, I think of MetsBlog and the offseason of 06-07 and again in the 07-08 offseason.
    With a quick search I found a couple of posts from Cerrone connecting the Mets and Minaya with Cliff Lee during those Winter Meetings. This was after that bad season he had.

    Names from the Mets that were connected with Indians were Lastings Milledge and Mike Carp.

    Just interesting how it all comes around.

    • Lol imagine how different Omar’s legacy would be if he’d managed that AND the santana trade.

      Naw we’d have screwed it up somehow. Immediately swapping Lee for Ryan Church and Schneider or some nonsense.

    • Who’s to say that Cliff Lee would have gone on to be Cliff Lee on the Mets? I mean, its not like this organization is known for producing stars. They’re good at recognizing talent, but all too often that talent blooms elsewhere, whereas the talent from other organizations are brought in and quickly wilt in NYC.

  3. I agree it’s far from the only one and there are much more cost efficient ways to improve just as much. Given the recent history of our current front office I’d say our best case scenario for improvement is them splurging on Cliff Lee. More than likely I expect 3/36 to Orlando Hudson (aka Luis Castillo the sequel) and 3/32 to Ted Lilly

    • Hudson will be coming off successive one-year deals. What makes you think Omar would be dumb enough to ignore the established market for Hudson and to offer Hudson a three-year deal while bidding against only himself? Oh, wait, nevermind.

Leave a reply to Benny Blanco Cancel reply