curious as to how the value “4 mil per win” is derived.

2.) The 3 years (it’s actually 2) age differential is actually trivial.

3.) I guess it is a philosophical difference. Here’s how I see it.

Anytime you add a pitcher, it’s an upgrade over the 5th starter, because he’s the Opportunity Cost (OC). Trading Maine for a pitcher makes our best (aside from Pedro) pitcher the OC.

So let’s say you add/trade for a low-cost no. 2 (Gomez and change for Garza would have been perfect). Your added pitching production is (we’ll call him Garza for simplicity) Garza – Humber, at a low price. If you do Santana for Maine, you get Santana – Maine at a very high price. You get more production (probably) at a much cheaper cost the second way. You can use the money (because we are budget constrained) for hitting or for more pitching in the future (maybe even Santana!) to further offset the loss of not having him.

Even if you are making it hard on yourself to beat the ace in a playoff series, you make it harder on their no. 2,3,and4 guys to beat Maine, Garza, and Ollie, in whatever order.

So I would say that the advantages of fortifying Maine and Ollie are greater than those of upgrading over them, when, in my view, there’s really not an overwhelming amount of room for upgrade.

And there is still a decent shot that either the Mets can get a better deal for Santana or he hits free agency. It depends on how much the Yankees are willing to overpay and how much the Twins want to press their luck. It would take a perfect storm; but it’s possible.

I’ll give ‘em Gomez and Pelfrey and change. Milledge and F-Mart for me are untouchable. If the Yanks are not willing to part with Joba or Cano, that’s as good as any other deal the Twins will see. Gomez>Melky.

I do not see rotation depth, I see five guys who–much of the time–struggle to get through the sixth inning and/or miss 3or 4 starts in a row. Again, I guess this is just a philosophical difference. I have no problem changing the identity of the staff if A. I can financially support it, and B. it leads to more wins. JM–>JS fits both those criteria.

From where are you assigning these costs? Where do you get “$12 mil worth of pitching”? And you keep referring to “losing three years of pitching”…? I don’t understand your accounting. Please clarify that.

You have a point, but wins have economic value as well.

Set a baseline differential of 3 wins between Maine and Santana (based on Maine’s stellar 1st half last year and Santana’s nearing the end of his prime, I would say it’s reasonable). That’s at most $12M worth of pitching. Paying the Santana premium however, would put the price tag at about $8M per win. Even in the free agent market, the value is generally about $4M/win. You also don’t add depth to the rotation. And you lose 3 years worth of wins for the life of the contract.

Players at the top of the food chain always cost a premium, while a guy like Maine, who remains under the radar despite his general excellence (his stats are skewed by his post all-star break swoon) you can get at value.

However, pulling off a Gomez for Garza-like deal, or any other deal that does not cost you Maine or Ollie and gets you at least 3 wins in return will cost nothing, and you add depth to the rotation, and you will probably get more than 3 cost controlled wins from it. (Of course, then the issue becomes how many wins Gomez would have been worth.)

I’m for signing Santana because it means we will get Santana’s full worth (i.e. that 4-5 of his wins aren’t dumped in opportunity cost). That would be netting wins at around the going free agent rate of $4M per and keeping your depth. This rotation’s character is one of a depth rotation, and it’s better to play to your strengths than it is to change your identity.

And if you trade Maine for Santana, that’s all you trade for him.

But again, you have a point.

I equate neither Maine nor Perez with “excellent pitcher”. Maybe they will eventually become excellent, but they are not. JM=pretty good, OP=hit or miss. And I still don’t know what you mean by “losing three years of pitching”. From what account is that theoretical loss drawn? Because Johan will be 29 and JM will be 27? I’ve said twice already I do this deal only if JS signs.

I wonder if you understand the value of wins. (not the counting stat for pitchers that I thought you were speaking of before, but of actual wins) You speak dismissively of “only” 3-4 wins. JS has been worth about 9 wins per over the last 4 years (last year being a “down” year of only about 6), and moving to the NL should offset any decline, at least over the life of this theoretical contract. Last year JM was worth about 3 wins. A difference in performance of 3 wins is huge. It’s the dif between Ted Lilly and Jake Peavy.

You’re missing my point.

My point is that you are basically paying $26M and giving up 3 years of pitching for 3-4 more wins. This is the difference between Maine/Ollie and Santana.

You of course trade Pelfrey and Maine for Santana,, because Santana could very well net you 8 more wins than Pelfrey. He will, however only net you 3 or so more wins than Maine/Ollie (assuming they continue to improve, which I think they will.)

So the effect is the same as trading Mike Pelfrey for a pitcher who is going to net you 3 more wins than Mike Pelfrey, except he is 3 years older and costs $26M more. Would you do that?

People overestimate the difference between the “best pitcher in the game” and an excellent pitcher. Santana>Maine, but not overwhelmingly. The real difference lies in the playoffs, where a great pitcher could net you two wins over a merely excellent pitcher. But if you’re no.3 (Perez) towers above any no.3 in the league (which he should), you neutralize the no.1 discrepancy.

If you pull off Gomez and change for Garza, either Garza or Perez could become a no.4, and you keep Milledge. Once you make some other additions like signing Tex, your team would have such dominating pitching depth and such dangerous hitting, that your supposed disadvantage in the no. 1 pitching slot is of little consequence.

Yes, winning games isthe whole point…so, ok, let’s say the Mets win 3 more games than they otherwise would have. Last season, for instance, that puts us in the post season. Is a shot at the World Series worth 26 million more a year? I think so.

I don’t know where you’re pulling your estimates from, but I think your logic is baffling. If you’re willing to spend the money on him in FA…I just don’t get it. Someone walks up to you and says “hey, I can turn three cheap years of John Maine into 4 expensive years of Johan Santana in his prime, plus a couple more years where he may or may not be quite that good” and you don’t do it.

Ok, different philosophies, I guess. I think you’re overthinking it. This would be like getting Tom Seaver back, though. (in fact, PECOTA has his top three comps as Sandy Koufax, Seaver, and Steve Carlton. But hey, Maine’s cheaper, so…)

He recently said that he will only approve a trade to a team that will give him the LT bucks,.

Odds are if the Dodgers or Yanks or Mets or whoever get him they’ll sign him. not a good bet for FA in 09

Well that’s the same as trading Maine/Ollie for Santana. You are essentially buying 3-4 wins for $26M, in addition to losing 3 years of pitching (the age difference between the two). I’m also assuming that Maine and Ollie improve slightly while Santana begins to decline.

I’m not arguing that wins are a great way of judging a pitcher’s value. I’m not even saying that Santana will get 3 more wins than Maine. I’m saying that upgrading from Maine to Santana will land the Mets no more than 3 to 4 wins overall and that, far from being a useless stat, is the entire point of any move you make…winning games.

Also, unless the Yankees get Santana in ’08, it’s a good bet that he’s going to free agency in ’09.