Master Index of Archived Threads


Happy Johanniversary

Edgy MD Feb 02 2015 01:55 PM

Seven years ago, the Mets got Johan Santana for three pitchers and a speedy outfielder. Final Score in terms of Baseball-Reference WAR: Santana: 15.6 Phil Humber: -0.1 (before leaving Minnesota as a free agent) Kevin Mulvey: -0.6 Deolis Guerrera: 0.0 Carlos Gomez: 16.6 (through 2013, after which he finished his pre-free agency years) Total: Twins (and successive employers) 15.9, Mets 15.6 The Mets could still be framed as winners, considering it took four contracts and four roster spots to clear their total, but considering the investment monetarily, it's probably solid win for the Twins (or the Brewers, depending on how you look upon it).

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 02 2015 01:59 PM Re: Happy Johanniversary

If I could do it all over again, I wouldn't.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 02 2015 02:38 PM Re: Happy Johanniversary

I agree. It was a great deal, but it didn't work out.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2015 03:08 PM Re: Happy Johanniversary

I wasn't as ecstatically over the moon as others were over getting Johan, but I still thought it was a great deal. The Mets were closer than one player away from contention seven years ago and were able to land baseball's then best pitcher for superfluous players. I was sure the deal wouldn't work out long term. Johan had already won two Cy's, and deserved a third. How many more great seasons did he have in him? I doubted that he would continue pitching at that level for far longer. But I'd say that about any pitcher's mid-30's years. Warren Spahn woulda proved me wrong, but almost nobody else. Edgy: Why would you limit your WAR post to simply Mets v Twins? Who cares whether the Mets bested the Twins or vice versa in that trade? Is that the issue? Isn't that taking a narrow view?

Mets Guy in Michigan Feb 02 2015 03:26 PM Re: Happy Johanniversary

I'd make it again. We needed a stud ace. I think he already had some injuries before he came to us, so no one should be shocked. I'd love to see the ERA on the games where he had no-decisions. It seems like he was ALWAYS getting screwed by the bullpen. And the no-hitter was a glorious moment for the franchise. In the end, we gave up an future All-Star outfielder for an ace -- and $134 million.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2015 03:32 PM Re: Happy Johanniversary

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I'd make it again.... Knowing what you know now? Or now know?

Edgy MD Feb 02 2015 03:38 PM Re: Happy Johanniversary

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy: Why would you limit your WAR post to simply Mets v Twins? Who cares whether the Mets bested the Twins or vice versa in that trade? Is that the issue? Isn't that taking a narrow view? I didn't. I limited the WAR count to the end of the term of control the player had when the deal occurred. What I care about is whether the Santana trade-and-sign worked out for the Mets. It's debatable, but I'd say no.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 02 2015 03:46 PM Re: Happy Johanniversary

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I limited the WAR count to the end of the term of control the player had when the deal occurred. What I care about is whether the Santana trade-and-sign worked out for the Mets. It's debatable, but I'd say no. Me too. Like you, I'd take a Mets-centric view of the trade. And so it wouldn't matter how many seasons Gomez, for example, spent with the Twins. If in the end, Gomez puts up Hall of Fame numbers, that should be a factor in assessing the trade from the Mets POV. No?

Edgy MD Feb 02 2015 03:58 PM Re: Happy Johanniversary

Sure, but they didn't trade the entirety Gomez's career. They traded his next five seasons. Now in there is the added bonus that the Twins (and then the Brewers) had exclusive right to extend him beyond that contract (which the Brews ultimately did). So, philosophically, I wouldn't say you're wrong to count that. That's just not how I framed it. But right now, the only difference we're talking about is Gomez's 2014 — the one season of the one guy who made it to his free agency-eligible years. That's another 4.4 WAR.

Ceetar Feb 02 2015 04:36 PM Re: Happy Johanniversary

I'd absolutely do it again. It took an epic choke job to keep the Met out in 2007 and they added one of the two best pitchers in the game? That's gold. You replay 2008 again 100 times the Mets probably make it 950 of them. I don't know how 2009 turns out if the Mets make the playoffs in 2008, but I have to think better. I take my shot, or shots, with Johan.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 02 2015 05:13 PM Re: Happy Johanniversary

I rewind this deal because as it turned out the Mets couldn't afford it; could have spent the money better; and obviously cut every corner on developing talent, drafting, having an outfield, hiring a competent front-office in order to pay for it.

Edgy MD Feb 02 2015 07:10 PM Re: Happy Johanniversary

Me too. It's not so much the difference in WAR between the two packages. Yeah, the package the Mets sent away is worth more, even though that's all Gomez and you've got to wait five seasons before he explodes. Who knows what happens between 2008 and then. It's not so much the needing four roster slots to earn it. I mean, maybe the Mets bury Humber or trade him off or release him without letting him stink up the rotation. It's definitely the zillion dollars he got paid to himself. Even considering the weak free agent crop that offseason --- mostly guys under clouds (A-Rod, Bonds, Andruw) and big namers drawing their last check (Glavine, Maddux). There had to have been better uses for the munny (including saving it for the rainy day that was coming). But if you've got to blow you're nut then and there, there are less risk-intensive ways, maybe. The Diamondbacks put together a lesser package for Dan Haren. SWEET! The Tigers put together a package that offseason for Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis. Traded for Miggy and turned around and signed him for less than Johan. NICE! That wasn't the only stumble of the day. That same offseason included the awarding of the Luis Castillo contract and the trade of Milledge for Church and Schneider (which is historically defensible if the Mets turn around and release the Schneid the next day). Just so many chips went down on the table in Omar's last gasps 2008 and 2009, and the the team is still paying.

smg58 Feb 03 2015 05:33 PM Re: Happy Johanniversary

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I rewind this deal because as it turned out the Mets couldn't afford it; could have spent the money better; and obviously cut every corner on developing talent, drafting, having an outfield, hiring a competent front-office in order to pay for it. It was reported then that Minaya had extended the budget beyond what the Wilpons were comfortable with and he had to talk them into the deal. The assumption/gamble was that Johan would guarantee a run of playoff appearances that would make the cost much more affordable. (That, and of course the new stadium would be a cash cow. And that's before we even start with the Madoff mess.) It certainly seemed like a good idea at the time. Given Johan's injuries, it's impressive that the WAR count was even close. But it's also a cautionary tale about the "go for it" type of deals that some people are suggesting the Mets need to make, especially when an extension is thrown in and the players being discussed are nowhere near the same caliber as Santana.

Lefty Specialist Feb 03 2015 06:14 PM Re: Happy Johanniversary

I'm not sabermetrically inclined, so the relative WAR doesn't interest me. What interested me at the time was the fact that my team went out and got an ace. Not just a maybe ace, but the real deal. Now, it didn't work out in the end (long-term contracts rarely do), but I was in the stands on the second-to-last day of 2008, when Johan pitched a 3-hit shutout on a bad knee on a day when his team absolutely had to win. That's ace stuff. Gomez took forever to develop. He'd probably have been traded for something less valuable eventually. I do this deal every day and twice on Sunday. Yes, even knowing what I know now. I probably would have stocked up on some extra bullpen arms, too, because then Johan could have pitched in the playoffs.

Edgy MD Feb 03 2015 08:19 PM Re: Happy Johanniversary

Well, it doesn't take Sabermetrics to come to the conclusion that $23 million a year for a guy injured and unavailable one day in two is not the best way to spread your money around.

Ceetar Feb 03 2015 08:22 PM Re: Happy Johanniversary

Edgy MD wrote: Well, it doesn't take Sabermetrics to come to the conclusion that $23 million a year for a guy injured and unavailable one day in two is not the best way to spread your money around. in retrospect, sure, but I'd still take the gamble that he'd be available more than that. And it wasn't just Johan pushing the Mets budget on his own it was a confluence of a lot of things.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2015 04:47 AM Re: Happy Johanniversary

I agree that it was a gamble worth taking, but knowing how it turned out: no playoff appearances and two full seasons where Johan was paid a LOT of money to not pitch at all, it was a deal the Mets would have been better off passing on. The no-hitter was a great moment and a treasured memory, but it all adds up, in retrospect, to a bad deal for the Mets.

metsmarathon Feb 04 2015 10:55 AM Re: Happy Johanniversary

it was a great deal for the brewers, a dissapointment for the twins, and a bad deal for the mets. the twins got about 5 wins over 3 years out of the deal. using fangraphs WAR figures, they got about 3 wins out of gomez before trading him for jj hardy, who gave them about 2 wins. they spent a little over $6M for those 5 wins, which is a good value, as free agent wins cost about $4M/WAR. the brewers traded two years of jj hardy, who produces 6.5 wins at a cost of $11M, and got back 18.7 WAR from gomez to date, at a cost of $17M so far. the mets got (fangraphs numbers here are not as favorable to santana as bbref's) 12.5 wins from santana at a cost of $127M. if we look at the net value recieved, the mets got ~$54M worth of production but paid $127M for it, giving them a net value of - $73M. they traded away $87.8M worth of production, which cost $12.7M, a surplus value of $75M. the santana trade, in the long term, based on teh contracts involved for hte period of team control of the players involved, cost the mets almost $150M. one hundred and fifty freaking million dollars. jeezus, i did not expect it to look quite THAT bad! that was one hell of an expensive no hitter.... worth noting: if i use bbref's WAR numbers, which are more favorable for santana, as approximate the value at the above stated $4M/WAR, then the mets only lost hte trade by $122M of value. so there's that...

Edgy MD Feb 04 2015 11:05 AM Re: Happy Johanniversary

OK, folks don't expect Johan to miss that much time. (And lose that much effectiveness upon returning from injury.) But how much time should we expect him to miss? How much effectiveness did we expect him to lose. Because after Johan and Pedro and Wagner and Rodriguez, a team has to go into these contracts with pitchers expecting that a pitcher at X age is, on average, going to miss Y time and decline by Z amount. Eyes open! Don't be taken by surprise when what tends to happen happens! What is the baseline? Don't like 20% of all pitchers suffer a catastrophic injury (defined, perhaps, as two months or more missed) every season? A six- or seven-year contract a full freight with any pitcher is a game of Russian Roulette. Sooner or later, there's going to be a bullet in that chamber. POW! Interestingly, his Wikipedia page says nothing about the sexual assault allegations. How was that ultimately resolved?

Ceetar Feb 04 2015 11:07 AM Re: Happy Johanniversary

dropped I thought? or settled?

Edgy MD Feb 04 2015 11:11 AM Re: Happy Johanniversary

Last word I found was that it went to mediation. I assume that led to an undisclosed settlement with a gag order and blahblahblah, but I can't find an announcement to that effect.