Matt Cerrone just linked to something I said last night on Twitter and I figured I should reiterate it here. It was this:
Amazing how many Mets fans see Santana’s injury as evidence for giving a big long-term deal to Cliff Lee and not the other way around.
I imagine Cliff Lee’s back issues have scared off at least a few of the legions planning on storming Citi Field and rallying outside SNY’s studios this offseason, but there will still likely be a vocal contingent dead set on making sure the Mets hear its pleas for the best free-agent pitcher available.
Lee, after all, looks to be the only man on the open market proven to be a True Number One. A Bona Fide Ace.
But again, those are labels. And though they’re labels used to describe great pitchers, and great pitchers help teams win and Cliff Lee is most certainly a great pitcher primed to help some team win, he’s also a 32-year-old pitcher likely to command a massive and lengthy deal.
And the lesson, I think, from Santana’s injury is that even the pitchers that seem invincible — the guys that can go out and pitch brilliantly on one knee in must-win games on the second-to-last day of the season and who bellow about their manhood when their managers come to pull them from games — are liable to break down eventually. It’s the nature of pitching.
So while it may be tempting to say, “aw, injuries happen, just because Santana got injured doesn’t mean Lee will; the Mets could really use an ace and Lee is the only ace that’s a free agent and thus the Mets should sign Lee,” because all those things are true, that doesn’t mean they add up to smart business. Running a baseball team wisely requires smart investments, and you just can’t be handing out big-time money to aging pitchers for multiple years when you’re already in financial straits.
That means, of course, that the Mets will — barring trade — have to plow into 2011 without the Frontline Starter of lore, but that is, frankly, the bed that they made. It is suboptimal, for sure, but there is no rule I know of in the Major League books that says you can’t win without heading into a season with a starter deemed a certain ace.
Tedquarters 
“He’s bona fide!”
Great reference.
Most aces require 5-7 year deals at huge prices. Many if not most don;t pan out and earn their money. Santana,Zito.Oswalt,Hudson,Mulder,Beckett,Burnett,Lackey,Pedro,Glavine,Lowe,Zambrano,Weaver,Johnson,Webb all come to mind.
Exactly. Because by the time they become eligible for free agency, they’re already at the age when pitchers begin to break down.
That’s really true of all big name FA’s, pitchers or not, though pitchers obviously come with more bigger risks. For a team that’s going to be contending for 2-3 years and an ace will put them over the top the cost makes sense still, but that seems fairly unlikely for this team the next 2-3 years with or without a Cliff Lee.
Could we use an ace? Sure. We could also use a manger, a bench (especially a 4th outfielder), reliable bullpen arms, a 2nd basemen, Carlos Beltran, Jose Reyes, and David Wright circa 2006-2008 and probably another reliable starter on top of an ace. (Among other things) We should probably focus on getting those things before spending whatever they have to spend, which I imagine won’t be much, all on a 32 year old pitcher.