Which NY Team Made the Better Signing

[pokerplaya]

I agree. I would much rather have had this deal be a year or two less.

[kab21]

I'll say that the Santana signing was just the slightest bit better than the AROD signing. But it's close to a push. Both players were very very important for each team to get to increase their getting to and succeeding in the playoffs.

I'm not sure that Johan's contract is the more risky one just because he's a pitcher.

Risk of long-term contract - Pitchers are inherently more risky of course. But Arod will be about 42 at the end of the contract, Santana will be about 36. Arod's contract is also longer bringing more risk (compared to a shorter contract, not necessarily a pitcher contract). Alot can happen in 10 years. Arod's contract will also end up being worth close to 2x what Santana's contract is worth. Just on gauranteed money I think it's about 270M to 152M. These aren't the exact numbers or ages because I didn't feel like looking them up, but Arod will be gauranteed significantly more cash and be older when the contract is done.

But we are also leaving out that the Mets shipped 4 decent prospects to the Twins for the right to sign Santana. The Yankees only lost the 2 draft picks that would have been FA compensation. You might disagree that the Mets package was that good (it's not that great), but these are 4 legitimate prospects.

[KCollins1304]

That is an interesting point that I had not thought of. The Zito deal was really that bad, making the Santana deal seem like a steal in comparison.

Any deal looks good to Zitos. He was already in decline mode (K/9), before the deal. SF was crazy, in years and amount. I don't think history is on the side of long deals for pitchers.

Kevin Brown 7 years
Wayne Garland 10 years
Mike Hampton 8 years
Denny Neagle 5 years
Barry Zito 7 years
Mussina 6 years
Park 5 years
Dreifort 5 years

Some worked out

Pedro 6 years
Maddux 5 years
RJ 4 years

http://junkcharts.typepad.com/.shared/i ... tracts.png

While Mussina wasn't worth this total value of his contract, he did pretty much live up to his career stats prior to the deal and stayed healthy never going less than 25 starts in a season.

[Grounded Polo]

Any deal looks good to Zitos. He was already in decline mode (K/9), before the deal. SF was crazy, in years and amount. I don't think history is on the side of long deals for pitchers.

Kevin Brown 7 years
Wayne Garland 10 years
Mike Hampton 8 years
Denny Neagle 5 years
Barry Zito 7 years
Mussina 6 years
Park 5 years
Dreifort 5 years

Some worked out

Pedro 6 years
Maddux 5 years
RJ 4 years

http://junkcharts.typepad.com/.shared/i ... tracts.png

Mussina shouldn't be grouped with those other guys, he's pretty much always produced for the Yankees except last year and at least he remained a viable option long enough until the Yankees had young prospects ready to take his place.

Apart from Hampton, the other guys were pretty much no brainers for decline or had one good year and cashed in. No one else would have paid those guys such ridiculous contracts. Hampton's contract was absurd but at least he was at his peak and had strung together multiple nice seasons, the rest were Carlos Silva obvious to backfire. Signing starters in their mid 30's like Brown and Neagle to 5+ year contracts is just poor decision making, same with Garland for 10 years after producing as a starter for one year.

[moochman]

I have to agree with TeddyBallgame, the Yanks made a deal to stay the same while the Mets made a deal to get them over the top. Santana should keep the Mets in legitimate contention for WS throughout the length of his contract. ARod just had a stellar season that took the Yankees where?

As for injuries and pitchers, sure that is a big concern but I feel the years he will be healthy, Johan will produce well enough to lead the Mets deep into the playoffs. If ARod stays healthy one could argue that it will only lead to first round playoffs lack of performances that seems to be ARods destiny.

[Generals94]

I think you have to look beyond just the signing of each player. A-Rod cost a boat load of cash but no players or prospects. If the Yankees had signed Santana (& not A-Rod), they would have had to fill the following holes:

1) 3B: They just signed Morgan Ensberg or the rumor was Betemit would be used. Yup, that would have pleased Yankee fans and the terrible twosome that King George fathered.

2) CF: With Melky gone, could the Yankees possibly have gone another year with Damon's sub par defense? Would they have paid all that money to a player like Aaron Rowand? Would Damon even last the season if he did play CF?

3) SP: At one point, the Yankees were going to have to trade Ian Kennedy along with Hughes. The Yankees would have have to either bring up another raw prospect or sign one of the less then stellar FA pitchers available for way too much money.

In the end I agree with what many said: a tie. A-Rod will help fill the new stadium in 2009 as he starts creeping closer to 600, 700 & beyond. Santana gives the Mets pitching staff at least a fighting chance depending on the recovery of Pedro.

[SignGuy]

I think you have to look beyond just the signing of each player. A-Rod cost a boat load of cash but no players or prospects.

Bingo.

[Diggin4third]

This question will be debated well into the 2008 baseball season. From an Injury-risk stand point I would have to say like previously mentioned above, the signing of ARod was a better deal. But as the 2008 season progresses, we'll see exactly which player is earning his paycheck.

(Congrats to the Mets for signing their new stud)

[Grounded Polo]

I think you have to look beyond just the signing of each player. A-Rod cost a boat load of cash but no players or prospects. If the Yankees had signed Santana (& not A-Rod), they would have had to fill the following holes:

It's not like the Mets created any holes by signing Santana and getting rid of the guys they traded. Mulvey and Humber are middle/back end rotation starters, Gomez is only needed to fill in when Alou gets hurt and his speed should make him destined to leadoff but that spot won't open up on the Mets until 2020, and Guerra is years away. Credit must be given for knocking the Twins down from Reyes to Martinez to Carlos Gomez.

[Generals94]

I think you have to look beyond just the signing of each player. A-Rod cost a boat load of cash but no players or prospects. If the Yankees had signed Santana (& not A-Rod), they would have had to fill the following holes:

It's not like the Mets created any holes by signing Santana and getting rid of the guys they traded. Mulvey and Humber are middle/back end rotation starters, Gomez is only needed to fill in when Alou gets hurt and his speed should make him destined to leadoff but that spot won't open up on the Mets until 2020, and Guerra is years away. Credit must be given for knocking the Twins down from Reyes to Martinez to Carlos Gomez.

I agree the Mets did not hurt themselves, but the Yankees would have created several major holes if they signed Santana. I was trying to break down why signning Santana would have been problematic for the Yanks. I also agree that the Mets did a great job in acquiring him by giving up players that are ???? at best. However, I am just not sure I would have guaranteed that kind of $$$$ to a pitcher for that many years with that much wear/tear. In the end, it was a no brainer for the Yankees going after A-Rod. It would have cost them more $$$ trying to fill the holes at 3B, CF & SP if they signed Santana and let A-Rod go. Plus, average fans pay/show to watch HRs being hit, not lights out pitching performances.