Git R Dun & stop Stolling, Mets! </fonzie>

Or </fozzie>, if you prefer. Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!

Aww, crap.

Between Ollie, Maine, Pedro, and El Duque, the Mets have 3 starting pitchers who have had at least one good, full season in the majors, and Omar's farting around with a guy like Lieber, who'll be 38 and managed a WHIP of 1.449 in all of 78IP in 2007?

Aww, crap.

I was breathing the wrong way or something as I read this in the paper, and my reaction actually caused me to start choking as I rode to work on the N train this morning.

THAT's the kind of reaction you want your fans to have, Wilpon. Woohoo.

Is Lieber really all that bad a choice to compete for a spot with the Humber/Pelfrey group? Obviously if Willie can't be trusted to use the kids if they're a superior option that's a problem--and I'll leave it to Met fans to debate that point--but this seems like a lot of moaning and groaning over a pretty minor move.

After the Milledge deal, if Omar signed A-Rod to a 25-year $25 million deal, fans would moan.

As a contingency plan, there are worse options . . . . depending on the terms, of course.

...but this seems like a lot of moaning and groaning over a pretty minor move.

That's the point, or at least it is to me as a Mets fan--it's a minor move when a major move is essential and, as far as starting pitching goes, has been essential since at least as far back as the end of the 2005 season.

Lieber's not a terrible choice to compete with Humber and Pelfry, but on the Mets that's really the fourth starter's spot--it should be the sixth starter's spot that you sign a guy like Lieber for.

No, dammit, no.

Another sign that next year is lost.

The biggest concern about Lieber should be that the Phillies obviously want nothing to do with him. The Phils are also sorting through the scrap heap looking for a pitcher to take a flier on (see Chad Durbin signing) and who else would be a better fit than Lieber? I didn't hear any comments from the Phils this offseason that they were negotiating with him, only that he wasn't coming back.

Wow, why so down?

Lieber, if healthy, is probably better than Pelfrey or Humber right now. Lieber should be relatively cheap, and he's consistently been averageish to slightly above average.

Between Ollie, Maine, Pedro, and El Duque

Ollie was good for 175 IP last year and probably about the same this year with a slightly higher ERA (given the number of UER he gave up last year), but still carries considerable uncertainty. Maine should be a solid #2-3ish type. Pedro could be very, very good, and I'd never bet against him, but he's a 36 year old coming off a shoulder injury, so there's certainly some risk. El Duque should be very good for the 2/3 of the season he's available, but he's also 42 - he has to drop off sometime, right?

Point is, and I realize this is belaboring the obvious a bit, the Mets need decent SP innings. Of six guys they currently have lined up (I know, ZiPs loves Mulvey, so maybe it's seven guys - whatever), only one of them looks like a sure thing for 190 innings. If Lieber can give them 15-20 league average starts one a 1 year deal in the $5-6M range, that's something the Mets should be all over.

Plus, it's not like this is going to prevent the Mets from making a major move on a front line starter, if such a deal is still out there for them.

Any team that signs Lieber should put a weight clause in his contract.... Also, he pouted at the beginning of the 2007 season, when he was placed in the bullpen, as a long reliever, but an early injury to a starter, put him in the rotation. His pattern for many starts last year, was 5 very good innings, spoiled by one bad inning, which would arise unpredictably, somewhere during his 6 inning start....This reader in Philadelphia, thinks he would be a fine pick-up for the Metropolitans.

I'd absolutely have no issue with a Jon Lieber signing. 4.41 FIPS the last three years and lower than that last season. Everyone wants a frontline starter but adding a guy like Lieber doesn't prevent that from happening. Heck, considering the fact that the Mets would likely have to give up much of their young starting pitching in a deal for a frontline starter, you'd likely need Lieber-types for depth anyway. I'd much rather have him than Silva or Lohse for the money they got or are going to get.

If Lieber can give them 15-20 league average starts one a 1 year deal in the $5-6M range, that's something the Mets should be all over.

Guess I'm figuring it's a pretty big "if", and one the Mets shouldn't be farting around with. Given that Ollie and Maine shouldn't be counted on for anything in the neighborhood of 210 IP, what the Mets need, and should have locked in before this (and certainly can afford), is a much more certain source of at least league-average innings. Not having another average starter cost them the division crown in 2007. I just can't believe what the Mets need is an iffy half starter for $5-6m.

when a major move is essential

Do you think a major move is essential because of the composition of the team? Or is it more of an arms-race thing?

Pedro-Maine-Perez-Duque as a group are easily above average, but with significant health risks. The 5th spot is "the kids." Acquiring an ace would be awesome, but right now what the Mets clearly need is someone that can step in with non-Lima innings if required. Lieber might be that guy.

It's the composition of the club, Fish

Pedro-Maine-Perez-Duque as a group are easily above average, but with significant health risks.

I agree completely.

The 5th spot is "the kids."

Here's where I disagree. Even if we can figure on something like 90 starts from Pedro-Maine-Perez-Duque, Pelfrey and Humber and Mulvey are the de facto fourth and fifth starters. Exactly none of them have demonstrated competence at the major league level, or anything approaching promise of same for 2008 with their minor league records. Adding an uncertain Jon Lieber to that mix is very probably, at best, only going to improve matters slightly. The Mets need a real fourth starter, and will still need one after signing Lieber.

Even if we can figure on something like 90 starts from Pedro-Maine-Perez-Duque, Pelfrey and Humber and Mulvey are the de facto fourth and fifth starters.

Look, if the Mets get only 90 starts from that quartet, a "fourth starter" -- which is to say, a 95 ERA+ guy who fills innings competently -- isn't going to really make a difference for a team trying to fill the gap between 90 starts and 162. Only a top-shelf starter is going to do that -- he'll get them to 120 starts, and then the kids plus a Lieber or whomever can take the rest. They might get extremely lucky and one of the kids will break through to his future (and that future will be really good), but that isn't something the Mets will proactively DO; it'll just happen.

So the reality is this. The Mets need to get substantially more than 90 starts out of their best four starters. The possibly available pitchers (Bedard, Santana) who would be good enough to make a difference if the Mets get less than 100 starts from their four best starters very likely cost too much to acquire in terms of young talent -- they'd be selling off too much of their future for an uncertain shot at 2008.

Maine and Perez need to give the Mets 60 starts, and Pedro and El Duque need to give them 50 more. 90 just isn't going to cut it.

they'd be selling off too much of their future for an uncertain shot at 2008.

Leaving aside whether or not it is wise to trade basically every good prospect in the system for Santana or Bedard, the Mets would have to be clear favorites to win the NL East in 2008 with either of those two at the top of the rotation. The Mets finished one game behind in 2007 and that was with only a handful of Pedro starts and no true ace. If the rotation is..:

Santana/Bedard
Pedro
Maine
Ollie
Duque
Lieber/other veteran dreck filling in for the assumed Duque injury/Pedro extra rest

..then the Mets are winning the division.

So far, the Mets have shown interest in FGarcia, KLohse and JLieber. My guess is the Phillies are hoping the Mets sign all three of them. Veteran quantity never killed anyone.

Lieber isn't veteran dreck. This would be a good signing. And why can't Pedro be pencilled in for 30 starts? He's fixed now and fully rehabbed. There's no medical reason to suspect he's any more susceptible to injury now than pre-shoulder injury -- when he was a solid bet for 200 innings. El Duque is a 20-start guy, I agree. Basically, the Mets have to cover 40 starts either primarily with the kids or a veteran like Lieber or Lohse.

Leaving aside whether or not it is wise to trade basically every good prospect in the system for Santana or Bedard, the Mets would have to be clear favorites to win the NL East in 2008 with either of those two at the top of the rotation.

Let's say that's true. What percentage do you put on that "clear favorite" status, Dan? 50%, with the Phillies (30%) and Braves (20%) far back? Surely, the Mets wouldn't be better than odds-on with two reasonably strong teams in the division.

Say the Santana-led Mets would be 60% to make the post-season, given the wild card. I think that's generous. Then you have to win two play-off series, just to make the World Series. At best, that's a crapshoot, but let's say the Mets would be slight favorites in each of those series, just trying to be optimistic here. Maybe you'd still say the Mets have a 25% chance to make the World Series, having traded for Santana. I think that's crazy optimistic, but what the heck; it's the winter.

Call the World Series a 50/50 shot. So the Mets maybe -- maybe -- have a 12.5% chance to win the World Series in 2008 if they gut their entire farm system to acquire Johan Santana.

I'd call that an "uncertain shot at 2008."

It's not likely to happen but wouldn't it be quite fun to watch a staff with that could potentially average more than 8.00 k/9 in 2008? If they somehow get Santana or Bedard, they'd have:

A lefty who averaged more than a strikeout an inning in the AL in 2007. (Bedard or Santana)
Pedro, one of the greatest strikeout pitchers of any era, who struck out 24 in his last 18 innings coming of rotator cuff injury.
Maine, 8.48 k/9 in 2007.
Perez, 8.82 k/9 in 2007.
El Duque, 8.48 k/9 in 2006-2007, 7.80 in 2007.

they'd be selling off too much of their future for an uncertain shot at 2008.

If 2008 is not the year, when will the Mets really go for it? This team's window is closing fast. Though the team has young talent, some of the other quality players it bolsters are getting up there in age (Pedro, Wagner, Delgado, Alou, El Duque). Based on the moves made the front office this year, it's obvious that Omar is not looking at this year as the one where the team wins the World Series. The problem is that he's not targeting any other year either.

Personally, I'd trade anyone not named Guerra or Fernando in the farm for Santana right now. Johan makes this team a prime candidate in October this year and gives us an ace for the next 5-7 years.

Lieber isn't veteran dreck. This would be a good signing.

I agree.

And why can't Pedro be pencilled in for 30 starts? He's fixed now and fully rehabbed. There's no medical reason to suspect he's any more susceptible to injury now than pre-shoulder injury -- when he was a solid bet for 200 innings.


He's 36 and has had major shoulder surgery. He has topped 185 innings in a season 4 teams in the last 7 years. Pedro's a lot of things but he's not what I'd call a solid bet for 200 innings at this point in his career.

If 2008 is not the year, when will the Mets really go for it? This team's window is closing fast. Though the team has young talent, some of the other quality players it bolsters are getting up there in age (Pedro, Wagner, Delgado, Alou, El Duque).

Honestly, the Mets should have a core that is competitive as long as they have a star calibre player to go along with Reyes and Wright. With the resources and two young stars they have, there's no reason why the Mets shouldn't be serious pennant contenders every season.

Basically, the Mets have to cover 40 starts either primarily with the kids or a veteran like Lieber or Lohse.

I don't disagree much with this. Two things:

1) I'm not sure I fully agree about Pedro being "fixed now and fully rehabbed." Until he shows he can stand up to a regular rotation spot, there will be doubts. Remember, the Mets did not use him on normal rest when he came back last September -- only on five days rest. Will the repairs hold up to normal wear and tear? Not to mention the LONG season. Inquiring minds want to know . . . .

2) As between a one-year commitment to Lieber and four expensive years to Lohse, I have no doubts which way I'd go -- Lieber. But I must admit I am intrigued by the possibility that Lohse might be a perfect fit for Shea/Citifield and be worth it to eat solid innings at the bottom of the rotation for a few years.

Personally, I'd trade anyone not named Guerra or Fernando in the farm for Santana right now.

The Twins ain't dumb. They know who's got the high ceilings in the system. IF a deal could get done without including both Gomez and Fernando (which I doubt), then I would be shocked if they didn't demand Guerra as one of the pitchers in the package.

Look, if the Mets get only 90 starts from that quartet, a "fourth starter" -- which is to say, a 95 ERA+ guy who fills innings competently

Actually, a 95 ERA+ guy would be a really good fourth starter. In recent years, overall starter ERA+ is around 96, so what you call a fourth starter is actually a league average pitcher. A fourth starter normally has an ERA+ around 88-89. That's worth a game or two. Fifth starters are normally around 78 ERA+. Saying you need a top flight starter to help misses that having average (or even a little below average) guys fill out the back end of your rotation gives you an extra 3-4 wins over the course of a season. If you have a good front three starters, you can have a 90 win team with an average bullpen and offense.

but this seems like a lot of moaning and groaning over a pretty minor move.

Isn't the general malaise based on the fact that the Mets changed direction midstream?

What I mean to say is, does anyone looking at the Mets as the prohibitive favorites in the National League? With Lastings Milledge the blatantly obvious choice for right field next year, a rotation with enough holes to finally find out what they had in Humber, Mulvey and Pelfrey, a farm system in free-fall, and an absurdly weak free agent class, plenty of fans seemed relatively satisfied with going into next season as a competitive team building towards something.

Of course, the collapse skewed everything, but that's why I thought Randolph should have been fired. He'd have been the designated scapegoat, deflecting criticism from Omar, and relieving some of the pressure to make a splash, since they could've made their "splash" with whomever they chose to manage next season (Joe Torre?).

Instead, we see a sudden shift in "the plan." If you need a reliable innings eater, why let Tom Glavine go? Isn't he exactly what the Mets need right now, regardless of how terrible his last start was? Why cut ties with Paul Lo Duca? Mind you, I dislike both of these players, and love the fact that they're playing for anyone else, but if you're truly committed to winning in 2008, aren't these the type of players the Mets should have kept? Reliable performers requiring little more than rather affordable one-year deals?

But no, the Mets began their off-season making moves that gave their fans the impression that they were going to give the kids a chance, prepping for a big push in 2009 with the plethora of talent available next offseason... and then, as if out of the blue, the Mets decided that they couldn't afford to wait. When you trade Milledge for "established veterans," you're saying you're a win-now team, except, without actually making any sort of meaningful improvements over the 2007 team. So now the fans are expecting a big move, something that'll make the Mets the team to beat, because, well, they sure as hell ain't that right now.

It hasn't been all that long since the Kazmir deal, and though the players have changed, the circumstances are too familiar for anyone to feel all that positive about anything.

Say the Santana-led Mets would be 60% to make the post-season, given the wild card.

If the Mets land Santana, and they don't suffer any significant injuries to key players, they are making the playoffs.

Then you have to win two play-off series, just to make the World Series. At best, that's a crapshoot, but let's say the Mets would be slight favorites in each of those series, just trying to be optimistic here. Maybe you'd still say the Mets have a 25% chance to make the World Series, having traded for Santana. I think that's crazy optimistic, but what the heck; it's the winter. Call the World Series a 50/50 shot. So the Mets maybe -- maybe -- have a 12.5% chance to win the World Series in 2008 if they gut their entire farm system to acquire Johan Santana.

Their chances would be a lot lower if they don't - not only in 2008, but in 2009, 2010....

Look, if the Mets get only 90 starts from that quartet, a "fourth starter" -- which is to say, a 95 ERA+ guy who fills innings competently -- isn't going to really make a difference for a team trying to fill the gap between 90 starts and 162. Only a top-shelf starter is going to do that -- ...

This seems contradictory to me, in that a 95+ ERA guy who gives the Mets 32-33 starts goes a long way to giving the Mets the adequate starts they desperately need. How does that not make a difference?

It's very much what they needed last year, when a lot of things went right (El Duque held up for a respectable number of innings and was very good, both Perez and Maine pitched well and lasted the whole season, Glavine didn't implode for 161 games...). The staff is very similar this year, and it's what they'll need once again.

I wouldn't gut the farm system, either, for Santana or Bedard. It truly pains me to say it, but given the way Omar has assembled the pitching staff, if Kyle Lohse is worth 40/4 to anyone, it's to the Mets.

Sam,
When you wrote "uncertain shot at 2008" I assumed you meant making the post-season due to the unpredictability of short series. In my opinion, Omar's job is to make the post-season, once we're in, I'll take my chances. Kind of hard to attach a percentage to it but if the Mets were to add a Santana or Bedard I would say the Mets have a 75% chance of making the playoffs considering they missed by one game last year, are bringing back pretty much the same team plus Pedro now, no one else in the divsion improved that much and are adding the best pitcher in baseball.

Again, I am not saying it would be wise, I am saying that the Mets would be very, very likely to make the playoffs if they made teh Santana/Bedard trade. If they traded the whole system and didn't make the playoffs in 2008...that would be very, very, bad.

If you need a reliable innings eater, why let Tom Glavine go? Isn't he exactly what the Mets need right now, regardless of how terrible his last start was? Why cut ties with Paul Lo Duca? Mind you, I dislike both of these players, and love the fact that they're playing for anyone else, but if you're truly committed to winning in 2008, aren't these the type of players the Mets should have kept?

As for Glavine, their dealings with him have been of the "handshake between gentlemen" variety. He has not exercised player options, and the Mets have not exercised team options, and the understanding the last two years has been that if Glavine wanted to return to Atlanta the Mets would not stand in the way. They kept their word by not exercising the option they had. (And, I am pretty convinced, if the Mets HAD done so, he'd have retired anyway.)

As for LoDuca, I think that was a combined baseball and clubhouse decision. They (rightly) believe he is a bad player who is only getting worse, and that contrary to his rep with the MSM, he has been a counter-productive influence in the clubhouse. No loss whatsoever there.

The Milledge deal does seem counter-productive to everything because . . . well, it was. But a bad trade is a bad trade.

If the Mets land Santana, and they don't suffer any significant injuries to key players, they are making the playoffs.

Easy to say. Sorry, but the Mets are no better than 50/50 to win the NL East, even with Santana. IMHO, they are about legit co-favorites as it stands now, and would be the favorites after a Santana deal. But no way they'd be shoo-ins. The Phillies and Braves are legitimate contenders.

Their chances would be a lot lower if they don't - not only in 2008, but in 2009, 2010....

That's where we disagree. After 2008, if they make a bad Santana deal, they will have massive holes to fill, and a farm system bereft of talent to fill them. Their chances of winning anything will get progressively worse every year going forward.

The biggest concern about Lieber should be that the Phillies obviously want nothing to do with him. The Phils are also sorting through the scrap heap looking for a pitcher to take a flier on (see Chad Durbin signing) and who else would be a better fit than Lieber?

Lieber'd be a lot better fit in Shea than in CBP (and probably a better fit in front of the Met defense); he's hittable and homer prone, but has excellent control. I don't know that I'd want Lieber if Pelfrey and Humber are ready, but I don't think he's as bad an idea for the Mets as he'd be for most teams. You can't expect great things from him, obviously, but I suspect he'd be as good as the next #5 starter.

12.5% is pretty good. They should go for it.

Santana/Bedard should not be slashed. Bedard is worth much more than Santana in terms of trade value because you need to trade much less money the next few years to him for his services. It's very frustrating how little attention this point gets. Conversely, it's similarly frustrating how overstated Santana's trade value is. I don't blame the Twins for trying to capitalize on this. But 95 percent of the media might as well be on their payroll for pushing this Santana Propaganda. I would hope GMs like Omar aren't swayed.

Santana's also a lot better than Bedard.

Easy to say. Sorry, but the Mets are no better than 50/50 to win the NL East, even with Santana. IMHO, they are about legit co-favorites as it stands now, and would be the favorites after a Santana deal. But no way they'd be shoo-ins. The Phillies and Braves are legitimate contenders.

Seriously? I think the Mets with Santana would be overwhelming favorites to win the NL pennant.

Santana/Bedard should not be slashed.

Well, the point of slashing them had nothing to do with their trade value based on contracts or anything else other than to denote both as "ace pitchers" that the Mets would have to empty their farm system to acquire to make them overwhelming favorites to win the division in 2008.

Seriously? I think the Mets with Santana would be overwhelming favorites to win the NL pennant.

Hmm - I'd split the difference. Overwhelming to win the NL East? Absolutely - over a long season, I'd take the Mets to have the best record in the NL in a heartbeat. In the playoffs? Well, then you're faced with short series against two other good teams. Favorites? Sure. Overwhelming? No one short of a '98 Yankees caliber team is an overwhelming favorite in the playoffs, given the uncertainty of short series and level of competition.

Seriously? I think the Mets with Santana would be overwhelming favorites to win the NL pennant.

Wow. This is a team that won 88 games last year, with a Pythag of 86-76. Adding even a pitcher of Johan Santana's quality isn't going to make them an "overwhelming" favorite to win anything. They will be counting on production from three particularly injury-prone and/or old players in Alou, Castillo, and Delgado. They have a manager who has proven himself unable to handle a bullpen, and they will have a bullpen that needs to be handled.

Don't get me wrong; the Mets have a lot of strengths, too. But overwhelming favorites? Not a chance. The Phillies are legitimately GOOD. And they are going to be BETTER than they were last year, not worse. Dismiss them if you like, but it's a fool's mistake.

Santana is better. Not that much better. Bedard was arguably better last year. And, Dan, you're also implying they are worth the same package of prospects. Bedard is worth two top, A-level prospects. Santana is worth one and change. While any team could afford Bedard the next two years, only a handful could afford Santana, who said he will demand a long-term deal in order to waive his no-trade clause. Bedard has no such clause.

And, Dan, you're also implying they are worth the same package of prospects. Bedard is worth two top, A-level prospects. Santana is worth one and change

I wasn't implying anything. I was responding to Sam's post that the Mets acquiring either Santana or Bedard would still leave 2008 uncertain. That is the debate, not who would you give up, whether it is smart, or anything else. The issue is if the Mets have a Santana or Bedard how likely are they to make the playoffs in 2008.

Santana is a hell of a lot better, with a much better track record. Santana is going to the Hall of Fame with multiple Cy Young awards. Bedard isn't.

I don't think you make deals like what it's rumored to cost for Santana unless you improve your playoff chances from slight to good. If they're already good and you're buying great, it's much less attractive. You become the joyless Yankees, chasing championships as if you own them already. The fans can only be relieved, never truly happy.

Santana is a hell of a lot better, with a much better track record. Santana is going to the Hall of Fame with multiple Cy Young awards. Bedard isn't.

He was a hell of a lot better. He probably isn't anymore. And he's going to the HOF mostly for what he's done in another uniform. He's basically a free agent. Is Santana likely to pitch for his next team better than he has for the Twins? Nope. But you're certain to pay him, what, four times as much money as the Twins have to date? Before he even tries on your cap at the press conference? I'm not racing to make that deal.

He was a hell of a lot better. He probably isn't anymore.

Based on what? A single-year blip where he gave up a few more homers?

Santana is far more likely to win Cy Young awards over the next 10 years than Bedard, Hughes, Bucholz or basically any pitcher in baseball. And the "rumored" cost for Santana is a fraction of his likely value.

He was a hell of a lot better. He probably isn't anymore. And he's going to the HOF mostly for what he's done in another uniform.

This is nuts. First of all, Santana will be 29 next year. He's in the middle of his prime, so he's very likely to be the best pitcher in baseball over the next couple of years.

Secondly, while he spent parts of 8 years in the majors with the Twins, he's only been a full-time starter for 4 of those years. He has a total of 93 wins. If he eventually makes it to the HOF, it will be because he wins 120 games for his next team (17 or so for the next 7 years). Even if he leaves that team at the age of 36, he probably goes into the HOF with the cap of the team that trades for him in this offseason.

And the "rumored" cost for Santana is a fraction of his likely value.

Nonsense. The rumored cost for Santana is $20M a year for seven years. That is his market value. On top of that, the Mets are supposed to ALSO give up a bushel-basket of talent from a farm system that is bare of such talent. You have to look at the actual, FULL cost that a team is going to have to pay to get the return on that investment.

There would be two winners in the Santana deal that has been rumored: Johan Santana, and the Twins. Not the Mets.

This is nuts.

You're right. If Santana does go into the hall, he'll do it largely on what he does for his new team. I guess this means that Santana likely isn't going into the hall.

Nonsense. The rumored cost for Santana is $20M a year for seven years.

It's in Santana's interest to float semi-reasonable, arguably below-market deals in advance of a trade and then really hit the new time upside the head with reality when they're too adrenaline rushed from making the trade to care. IOW, Santana is likely to cost more than this. Perhaps significantly more.

It's in Santana's interest to float semi-reasonable, arguably below-market deals in advance of a trade and then really hit the new time upside the head with reality when they're too adrenaline rushed from making the trade to care. IOW, Santana is likely to cost more than this. Perhaps significantly more.

I don't think that $140M/7 yrs. is below market, and I don't think Santana is likely to cost more than that (except in the decimation of the Mets' farm system if Omar goes nuts in giving up talent). God knows, if Santana thinks it should be more than that then the Mets should just walk away from the 72 hour window instead of jumping and going "splat" on the pavement below.

I don't think that $140M/7 yrs. is below market

What happened to $25 million a year for six? I think that's what he'll cost. I think he's adding the $13 million he's getting this year on top and will ultimately say $163 million for seven.

That is his market value. On top of that, the Mets are supposed to ALSO give up a bushel-basket of talent from a farm system that is bare of such talent.

That means the cost to the Mets isn't very high. If they could somehow convince the Twins to take the farm for Santana, that's a good thing, considering the farm isn't much.

You're right. If Santana does go into the hall, he'll do it largely on what he does for his new team. I guess this means that Santana likely isn't going into the hall.

Santana is going into the Hall. He's going to win 300 games and strike out 4,000.

BTW, is $20 million or even $25 million a year supposed to be a lot of money? Specifically, is it supposed to be a prohibitive cost to the Mets? Because it's not.

So okay, say the Mets don't trade for Santana, what are you suggesting they do? Do nothing and miss the playoffs again? Wait for Santana to become a FA just to see him re-sign before hitting free agency a la Carlos Zambrano this year? If not this year, when should the Mets go for it?

Wait for Santana to become a FA just to see him re-sign before hitting free agency a la Carlos Zambrano this year?

Or sign with the Yankees. Or the Red Sox. Or the Angels or Dodgers. That's the problem with waiting for a single top-flight free agent. All of these teams can't rely on waiting for Santana to hit free agency. By trading your prospects you get the right to sign him to the free agent contract. That's the price. You can argue how much value that has, but it's not no value.

So okay, say the Mets don't trade for Santana, what are you suggesting they do? Do nothing and miss the playoffs again? Wait for Santana to become a FA just to see him re-sign before hitting free agency a la Carlos Zambrano this year? If not this year, when should the Mets go for it?

I'd start with "do nothing and have a pretty good chance of making the playoffs." The Milledge deal was a mistake but for 2008 alone it's probably a pretty small mistake.

The Mets were somewhat unlucky in the injury department last year. The bullpen is already better. The rotation is already better. I'm not a fan of Schneider but LoDuca was awful last year so he's got a pretty low bar.

There's no question that the 2008 Mets are at least "in the mix" for the NL East and/or the wild-card right now. I don't see the desperation others have. There isn't a narrow window here for most of the stars like Reyes, Wright, and Beltran.

By trading your prospects you get the right to sign him to the free agent contract. That's the price. You can argue how much value that has, but it's not no value.

The Mets should deal for Santana if it's a good deal or even slightly overpaying. If it's grossly overpaying, then they shouldn't make that deal.

There is some specific value that Santana is worth to the Mets. I don't know exactly what it is, but the overwhelming portion of that value is tied up in the ultimate contract he receives once extended. If that contract is precisely what he's worth, then the Mets didn't get anything by having the exclusive right to deal with him.

Assuming Santana is worth precisely $25M per over 7 years, and the Mets sign him to precisely that contract, they are no better off than if they did not sign him and spent that $25M elsewhere. If the assumption is that not trading for Santana means the Mets absolutely spend the money less intelligently, then that's a bad assumption.

I don't want Omar to deal because it prevents him from doing something stupid. I want him not to be stupid.

My first reaction was "No!", but then I looked him not, he's better than I thought. It'd be a good signing.

I'd still like them to get Colon on a cheap deal and hope he bounces back.

You need money or star prospects to get impact veterans, who are available every year. Often times, you need both. The supply of either is never limitless. You don't want to fall into the fallacy of the last move trap with Johan.

Also the notion that the other poster had that the Mets farm system isn't much is ridiculous. Almost every team has its share of top prospects. I know for a fact through talking to scouts that Guerra, Martinez and Gomez are viewed as gold-level guys by a wide array of teams. Do some teams have their doubts? Sure. That's the case with all prospects. Any one of these guys should be enough to get Santana given the contract situation. My educated guess is that at least 10 teams like each of these guys better than any of the prospects rumored to be going to the Twins from the Red Sox. There's a lot of quantity being thrown from the Red Sox end. We'll soon see if even that offer is legit.

Almost every team has its share of top prospects. I know for a fact through talking to scouts that Guerra, Martinez and Gomez are viewed as gold-level guys by a wide array of teams. Do some teams have their doubts? Sure. That's the case with all prospects. Any one of these guys should be enough to get Santana given the contract situation.

I don't talk to scouts. But if you think that Deolis Guerra, who has thrown less than two hundred innings of professional baseball, and none above single-A should be enough--all by himself!--to land Johan Santana (contract situation and all) well, that's just crazy talk.

Many teams think that Guerra could be a future No. 1 or No. 2 starter. He's reasonably a top 25 prospect. And thus he's enough to be the principal in a deal for a guy who's going to demand a free agent deal before you announce the trade at the press conference. You want to throw in a Mulvey or Humber, too -- fine (or some other B-level prospect of the Twins choosing, perhaps even two). But, yes, that's it. Note to the Twinkies: when you give a guy a no-trade clause that means you get a lot less when you trade him. Of course, the Twins can opt to buy their way out of that clause instead of sticking their trading partner with the bill. Oh, right -- they left their wallet at home.

Assuming Santana is worth precisely $25M per over 7 years, and the Mets sign him to precisely that contract, they are no better off than if they did not sign him and spent that $25M elsewhere. If the assumption is that not trading for Santana means the Mets absolutely spend the money less intelligently, then that's a bad assumption.

This is true in a pure win/$ evaluation, but that's more theoretical than practical. You can't add $5M to David Wright's salary and make him 1 win better. You have to find a place to spend the money. And while you're spreading out your risk, you're also spreading out your reward. And on top of that, you have to spend your extra $25M wisely each year for the next 7 years.

It's a difficult task, although, of course, that's the GM's job.