Long Term Greedy
As I read John Harper's piece about the Mets in today's Daily News (alternate title: "Spend, Baby, Spend"), it struck me that articles like this are exactly why New York teams feel they cannot stand pat during the offseason.
Actual title: "After dismal 2009, New York Mets must make splash with free agents Matt Holiday and John Lackey."
Certainly, there are a lot of people who feel this way. In a sense I'm one of them; if the Mets feel they can acquire a superlative player, I want them to do what's necessary to sign that player every time.
To Omar Minaya's credit, when it came to Carlos Beltran, Pedro Martinez, Billy Wagner, Francisco Rodriguez, and Johan Santana, he did that.
Last offseason there were two more superlative players available, C.C. Sabathia and Mark Teixeira. Either one of those guys would have helped the Mets immensely, but they made a run at neither of them. Beyond those two, in A.J. Burnett they let a proven version of Oliver Perez pass them by while they focused their efforts on... Oliver Perez.
The question the Mets need to ask themselves is whether Matt Holliday and John Lackey are really superlative type players, because chances are good they'll have to pay them as if they are.
What would that mean for the future? If the Mets signed both of those guys are they a playoff team? If they signed both of them would they be able to make a run at superlative type players next offseason, or would they have already committed as much as they could on superlative players?
I've voiced my skepticism on Holliday before, and for some reason every time I look at John Lackey I see Kevin Appier.
If the Mets conclude that signing both of these guys wouldn't make them a playoff team they shouldn't bother signing with it. The Yankees saw that signing Sabathia, Teixeira, and Burnett would make them formidable the next season and for years to come. Their moves had short-term benefits but they were also long-term greedy.
Would the moves Harper's advocating have a similar benefit for the Mets? It's possible, but when I see Holliday and Lackey I don't see Teixeria and Sabathia.
- A.F.O.M.G.
Actual title: "After dismal 2009, New York Mets must make splash with free agents Matt Holiday and John Lackey."
Certainly, there are a lot of people who feel this way. In a sense I'm one of them; if the Mets feel they can acquire a superlative player, I want them to do what's necessary to sign that player every time.
To Omar Minaya's credit, when it came to Carlos Beltran, Pedro Martinez, Billy Wagner, Francisco Rodriguez, and Johan Santana, he did that.
Last offseason there were two more superlative players available, C.C. Sabathia and Mark Teixeira. Either one of those guys would have helped the Mets immensely, but they made a run at neither of them. Beyond those two, in A.J. Burnett they let a proven version of Oliver Perez pass them by while they focused their efforts on... Oliver Perez.
The question the Mets need to ask themselves is whether Matt Holliday and John Lackey are really superlative type players, because chances are good they'll have to pay them as if they are.What would that mean for the future? If the Mets signed both of those guys are they a playoff team? If they signed both of them would they be able to make a run at superlative type players next offseason, or would they have already committed as much as they could on superlative players?
I've voiced my skepticism on Holliday before, and for some reason every time I look at John Lackey I see Kevin Appier.
If the Mets conclude that signing both of these guys wouldn't make them a playoff team they shouldn't bother signing with it. The Yankees saw that signing Sabathia, Teixeira, and Burnett would make them formidable the next season and for years to come. Their moves had short-term benefits but they were also long-term greedy.
Would the moves Harper's advocating have a similar benefit for the Mets? It's possible, but when I see Holliday and Lackey I don't see Teixeria and Sabathia.
- A.F.O.M.G.


0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home