The Mets didn't make out so well on the Santana trade...
I understand the Mets will always have money. But when they are locking up $70-75M in three players (Wright, Reyes, Santana) how high can the team go and still turn a profit? The Yankees are said to have lost money in recent seasons despite being far and away the best earners in baseball. The Red Sox, who have one of baseballs biggest markets with DiceK aboard even have a limit. So yes, the Mets can probably get up to $150-170M but that limits the profitability of the club, which, is the REAL name of the game for these owners.
That said, and returning to the $70-75M between 3 players, the team will still need to fill another 22 players on their roster. Given they have NO ONE in the minors, they will essentially be paying market cost. Which is about $3M a true win (a 95 win team made up of free agent players would cost $285M). Lets say the team only brings in 7 such players at about 3 wins apiece, thats $63M. Without even filling half their roster the team has spent $130M.
Again, the smart financial operation to go 'young'. The Sox are paying Manny a premium while Papi is making a pittance. Beckett is still relatively cheap. Crisp, Drew, Lowell, etc are not making premiums at their position-albeit they are for their abilities. Even DiceK, whose international revenues are said to take the place of most, if not all of his signing bonus is relatively inexpensive with that considered. Thus, while the team is spending, they also have a great deal of young 'cheap' talent.
The Yankees are proof of what trying to BUY a World Series does (last WS in 2000). Cashman has learned this and has stood pat in recent years that Cano, Hughes and Chamberlain are untouchable. He knows that if the club is going to have any success, the homegrown talent that carried the team in the mid 90s (Jeter, Pettitte and Rivera) would have to be duplicated two decades later.
In any event. I believe, this deal was good for the Mets. Although I believe that in 3-5 years we are going to be looking at this and seeing 2 league average pitchers whom the Mets will be spending $12-15M a year on (inflation considered), a stud pitcher posting Santana like numbers at a 20th of the cost and a top of the order near all star OFer. However, for the next 2 years or so, the Mets will be looking like they stole from the junior circuit and Santana's salary over that time (about $15M a year) will be an incredible bargain.
Oh and Mr Rosenthals, I know your job is to report rumors and speculation, but please do not claim that alleged offers were factual unless you are willing to put your reputation on the line for it. Also, who is to say that the Twins are better off without one bonafied 'sure thing'? Too much is unknown in baseball, having 4 players who are pretty solid bets outweighs 1 sure thing and 3 chumps.