The Johan Santana Trade - Great for the Mets, Bad for the Game

As you've heard by now, the New York Mets just traded for the best pitcher in baseball. A pitcher so good that he elevates them from talented also-ran to National League favorite. A pitcher so dominating, he single-handedly overshadows The Great Collapse of 2007. A move so far-reaching that the Mets currently have better odds to win the 2008 World Series than the Yankees, according to the Nevada Sports Books. For Mets fans like myself, this deal seems too good to be true. This is the same franchise that has traded away the likes of Tom Seaver, Nolan Ryan, David Cone, and Scott Kazmir. The same franchise that has never had a pitcher throw a no-hitter, never had an MVP, and has only won 5 division titles in its 46 year history. But even though I should feel ecstatic about the changing fortunes of my team, something just doesn't feel right about this trade. No matter how much it benefits the Mets, this trade serves as the perfect example of the inherent problems with Major League Baseball.

It's been a rough offseason for The (former) National Pastime. Steroids continue to dominate the headlines, as 87 players were named in The Mitchell Report. Roger Clemens has seen his reputation tarnished, while Barry Bonds, the all-time home run leader, has no team to play for. To me, however, the biggest story has nothing to do with any performance-enhancing drug. The most important theme to emerge is the widening disparity between small and large market teams. Take a look at these transactions from the past three months:
1. The Florida Marlins (last year's payroll - $33.1 million) trade Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis to The Detroit Tigers (last year's payroll - $98.5 million) for a package of 6 prospects.
2. The Oakland A's (last year's payroll - $78.5 million) trade Nick Swisher to the Chicago White Sox (last year's payroll - $100.2 million) for Ryan Sweeney and two prospects.
3. The Minnesota Twins (last year's payroll - $71.9 million) trade Johan Santana to the New York Mets (last year's payroll - $120.9 million) for a package of 4 prospects.
Sensing a pattern? Does it make any sense that poorer teams seem to be trading off their best players in exchange for inexpensive prospects? Does it make sense that the Mets and Marlins play in the same division? Or that the Yankees, who had a record-breaking $218.3 million dollar payroll last year, play in the same division as the $31.8 million Devil Rays? These examples only point out part of the problem. Unbelievably, MLB's draft is also inequitable, as top prospects often make outrageous financial demands, and scare off the poorer teams from selecting them. Also, the money from revenue-sharing, which was instituted to actually help small-market teams compete in this landscape, is often going into the owners' pockets instead of into their teams, thus rendering this process ineffective. The divide continues to grow, and these examples suggest that it will continue.

All of this makes me conflicted as a fan of a large-market team. Next season, if the Mets win their division, there will be no cause for celebration, as they will have done what they were supposed to do. If they lose, it will be another embarrassment, as they will have once again failed to benefit from their edge in talent and payroll. And this Steinbrenner-esque, winning-is-required mentality makes me enjoy the game a bit less. I go into next year knowing that a Mets' championship might not be as fulfilling as one earned in a sport with actual rules. It's never fun to root for the bully, which is exactly what my team has become. There's no question that the Mets are now in position to win a lot of games next year. It's just sad that Major League Baseball has put small-market teams in position to lose a lot of fans.

Tags: Sports, Major League Baseball, New York Mets, Johan Santana, Minnesota Twins, revenue sharing

Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |