If Charles Dickens were around, he'd have me arrested for plagarism. That's not true, but he would insult me for how weak of an intro that was.
While that lacked my usual charm (I apologize), it is true though. Pending the completion of the Alex Rodriguez Contract equivalent for pitchers by the Mets/Johan and Seattle getting Erik Bedard, the change felt by these transactions will be reflected in more than just depth charts and season handbooks.
The effect will not be the same for Minnesota (technically Minneapolis, just so everyone realizes I know that Minnesota is a state, not a city) and Baltimore. However, the trades look so similiar on paper:
- Two #1 pitchers traded for 4 prospects each.
- Both pitchers felt they weren't given an extension offer that was worth enough money/when they wanted it.
- The majority of these prospects were the top prospects of each organization (Mets/Seattle).
So, why do I think Bedard-to-Seattle is a wrong move yet Santana-to-New York is the best trade (not acquisition, no one would argue getting a Bedard or a Santana isn't a great acquisition) of this offseason? Well, I think it is obvious but for the sake of blogs everywhere I'll lay it out for you here.
1. Santana and Bedard are not on the same level as Starting Pitchers
That is a pretty straight forward yet debatable sentence. I personally don't give Erik Bedard lights out ace status because of a year and a half of solid work. I didn't believe Josh Beckett was an ace just after a gusty World Series against the New York Yankees. He's getting there and is building his reputation, but it takes time. Bedard had a great season last year. He probably has accumulated a year and a half of time where it can be said that he was a dominant pitcher. Meanwhile, Johan Santana has been down right lethal since he's officially joined the Twins' rotation and is the greatest pitcher of this generation. Do you know the thing that Bedard and Santana do have in common? They are both 29 years old (soon to be that is; March 2008). In four years, Johan Santana has won 2 Cy Youngs and exceeded 235 strike-outs in each season. The best compliments given to Bedard is that he managed to win 13 on a very bad Orioles team. Ok, that is a bit harsh. The fact of the matter is that NO ONE is on Santana's level at the moment. Erik Bedard is a wonderful pitcher and has amazing stuff. I just think it is unfair to both Santana and Bedard to put them on the same level. Bedard's time line has been thrown off by a few injuries while Johan has become a stud. Bedard is in the midst of his explosion and I hope that he does take the next step towards the Santana-level. But frankly, when listing the top pitchers of the MLB, Bedard may not even be second or third behind Johan. But that is a different debate for a different day.
2. One year of team control vs. Two years of team control isn't a big enough difference to bridge the gap in talent
One of the major selling points on trading for Bedard over Santana back at the Winter Meetings was that trading for Santana was like paying the posting fee for a Japanese player since he only had one year left on his contract (at 13.75 million dollars). Anyone who traded for Santana would have to negotiate a huge contract negotiation, which would give them 6-8 years of Santana in their starting rotation. With Bedard, you could trade for him and not have to sign him immediately to a contract extension since he would be under team control for at least 2 seasons (salary control that is). I just have to ask, why is this a benefit? Any team that traded for either Santana or Bedard and failed to lock them up for multiple seasons would have made a bad trade. In the case of Santana, no trade will happen without an extension due to his No-Trade Clause. This is not the case with Bedard. Lets say that Angelos realizes that his team needs a one-to-two year reset and trades Bedard to Seattle. If Seattle sent that package of prospects over and didn't sign Bedard long term and Bedard walks in a few years, how can that trade be considered a success? The Mets are locking up Santana from 29 to 35/36 most likely. Without any major injuries, thats at least 4 years of this super human pitcher and another 2-3 years of just a 'regular' ace. A little over the top, I know, but that to me justifies mortgaging the future. You gave up years of the younger players for years of Johan. With Bedard, there is a chance that he will hate Seattle. He has no say in where he is traded (like a NTC or Limited NTC). If this deal goes down, and he decides,"I'm just going to play, win my arbitration hearing every year, and walk at age 33 and probably get a pretty great deal then from a better market or better location", how can you justify everything you sacrificed to get him there?
3. The Mets needed Johan Santana. The Mariners really like adding Erik Bedard.
A small disclaimer: Every team in MLB need starting pitcher. With so many teams in the MLB, the talent has become somewhat diluted in that there are 3rd/4th/5th starters that are considered solid options that might not have even played back in the days of a smaller league. So when I am differentiating between the Mets needing Santana and the Orioles adding Bedard, its already given that no team can have too much start pitching.
That being said, there are so many other needs for the Seattle Mariners that adding a starter might not have been #1 on the list of things to fix. The Seattle Mariners's rotation is not pretty to look at but it has it's current and future ace already in Felix Hernandez (I prefer King Felix) and signed Carlos Silva to a deal that he probably didn't deserve but that doesn't take away from the fact that Carlos Silva is a decent SP. It is not ready to face off against Beckett-Schilling-The Dice Man or CC/Carmona, but it isn't exactly horrendous either. One of the biggest problems the Mariners have is that they lack flexibility due to some poor signings. Richie Sexson was a mistake and hasn't really given much back for how much he was signed for. Beltre benefited from a perfectly timed career year and has had decent/good numbers since but nothing to match the numbers that he used to cash in a few years ago. They have somewhat of an offensive liability at SS and I don't think we can have a whole lot of confidence that Jose Lopez will be replicating his 2006 numbers or maybe even his 2007 numbers. Their DH is Jose Vidro (I dont think I need to really elaborate on that point...awesome as an Expo 2nd baseman, not so awesome as an American League DH). You get the idea. I will admit that I don't even know the Seattle Mariners as well as I know many other Major League teams yet I was able to rattle off at least 3 holes that should have been fixed before trading for Ace 1B. While Matt and I agree that OF prospects are especially hard to tell, Adam Jones is projected at #1 or #2 at all 3 OF spots on the depth chart of the Seattle Mariners. I feel that tells you the kind of impact the kid was expected to have and what his absence might mean to the team, especially if people start to get hurt throughout the season. Also, even if they get Bedard to sign a huge extension, doesn't that take away from their flexibility as an organization even more?
The Mets on the other hand are fresh off their historic collapse (awww, the New York clubs have something in common again) and managed to lose a proven innings eater (and former ace) in Tom Glavine. From the optimistic Mets's fan (Read as: Matt Dahl before Jan. 1st 2008), they weren't worried cause in 2008 there would be a full season of a healthy Pedro, John Maine after his break out season, and Ollie Perez has finally arrived and was here to be Pedro Jr. Realistically (Read as: Matt Dahl after Jan. 1st 2008), the Met's rotation is a collection of question marks. Similiar to Bedard's situation, John Maine is simply coming off a good season. That doesn't make him the next NY ace. I like Oliver Perez. I have since he debuted in Pittsburgh. You see flashes of greatness sometimes, but he is what he is: inconsistent. If he comes out in 2008 and is a true ace, then its an added bonus, but you can't bank your entire rotation and team on that. The Mets needed to send a message to their team, fans, and the city of New York that they were ready to fight for the NL East. Beyond the sentimental value of adding Santana, they really needed an anchor to their pitching staff. They didn't have the luxary of a King Felix. They have the old King and potentially some wonderful Princes, but Seattle had an ace (even if he isn't perfect yet) and the Mets really didnt. They needed to make this trade because they had a huge hole they needed to fill. Adding Bedard to Seattle will make Seattle a better team, I just wonder if those prospects/money could have fixed a few other places and made them even better.
I hope Seattle gets Bedard and he wins 20 games next season while winning the AL Cy Young. Meanwhile, Adam Jones becomes a nice fourth outfielder but nothing more in Baltimore. For all you supporters of the trade, I welcome you to hold your breath waiting for that to happen. I'd rather breath easy and criticize from afar and just hope I end up being right.
But that's just me.
Tune into Matt and Joe Radio Starting February 10th on BlogTalkRadio
No comments:
Post a Comment