John Delcos on his blog for the Journal News, makes a very good case for passing on Johan Santana, assuming the Mets had a realistic chance at obtaining him.
Delcos cites several reasons why a smaller deal for Dan Haren or Erik Bedard makes more sense. He lists Santana’s average season last year and the need to eventually replace Pedro Martinez, Orlando Hernandez, Carlos Delgado and Moises Alou in the next year as reasons why giving up affordable prospects who could fill roles could be a bad decision.
Delcos also reminds you that a pitcher will only help you win every 5 days, while a position player has multiple chances everyday to help you win.
First off, I have to give props to John, who does a great job on his Journal News blog. Its a great resource for keeping a pulse on the team from someone who has insider access to the team. John tells it like it is and is usually pretty good at reading the tea leaves.
I, along with a lot of other fans get caught up in all this excitement surrounding a pitcher of Santana’s stature being available, and sometimes lose sight of the big picture. John makes a great point that while Santana is an amazing pitcher, he’s only going to help the team every five days. Sure that could be the difference between the post season or going home, which we saw very clearly this past September. One game could mean all the difference. However, a position player is going to contribute just about every day.
Going after Dan Haren might allow you to use one less prospect, and Erik Bedard might cost you even less. You then have one or more less positions to fill and fill them at a tremendous discount, allow you to spend more money to plug more holes.
This of course assumes you could get a Haren or a Bedard, which remains to be seen. The Mets are also facing stiff competition just to get Santana, so they’re going to be looking at many other options. John makes a good case for the alternatives.
