Without satellite radio I'm forced to skip between the two sports radio stations in New York, and unfortunately one of them is 1050 ESPN Radio. I have nothing against the station as I'm a fan of Colin Cowherd and Mike and Mike, as far as national shows go, but locally, nearly unlistenable.
There are two guys in particular who take the "nearly" out of the equation, and they are Brandon Tierney and Jody "Mac" Mcdonald. They're horrendous. But that's not why I'm writing.
Yesterday they were discussing Johan Santana's
pitiful performance against the Phillies on Sunday night.
Experts wonder whether Santana has "lost it", and whether or not he's still a "top tier" pitcher. It was suggested by Tierney he "might be in the Top 15" in baseball, but clearly not the Top 8. He may be right, I don't know.
The two men then wondered whether the Yankees' Phil Hughes is currently better than Santana, since he's currently outperforming him. It's a ridiculous question, but they continued with the reasoning. He has better stats, he's younger, and has more upside. All this might be true, but you're comparing apples to oranges.
Let me just say this right now: there's no fucking way I take Hughes over Johan Fucking Santana right now, I don't care what their stats look like, or that Santana isn't the same after surgery. Don't care. Santana in a big spot versus Hughes in a big spot? Hughes on top of the Mets rotation versus Santana? Please. Stop it.
There's another argument they were making that the Yankees, namely General Manager Brian Cashman was "smart" for not signing Santana, and then gettign CC Sabathia down the road, since Sabathia is also performing better. ESPN's Michael Kay also suggested Sabathia was better because he's younger, when he said, "Santana is 31 years old, and Sabathia is gonna be, uhhh...he just doesn't have the wear..."
Almost.
In wrapping this all up in a tight little box for the baseball nerds of the world I'll sum up the entire argument.
The Yankees weren't geniuses for not signing Santana because Santana was every bit as awesome as Sabathia LAST year. If Santana had been with them they'd STILL have won the World Series. If he had been with them in 2008, like he was the Mets, maybe they make it then too! The Yankees biggest problem in 2008 was a lack of pitching. Just because they signed Sabathia and Kevin Brown a year later means nothing. It's a different, and quite frankly, a stupid argument against Santana. The Yankees ever-filled wallet always buys what it wants. It's not "genius" in any way. I could run the effing Yankees, and probably manage them too. I know as much about baseball Xs and Os as I do about growing weed, which ain't a lot.
As for the Mets, they're just unlucky. They signed Santana in 2008 because they believed their big seasons were going to be 2008 and 2009, following two pretty good seasons, one where pitcher Tom Glavie completely ass-raped them at the end of the year. Santana should have been the catalyst to get this team over the top, but he wasn't because the last 2 seasons the Mets were struck by injuries, many of them occurring from injuries sustained as they tripped and landed on their own faces.
But when speaking specifically about Santana, he was signed to a 6-year deal, but everyone had to realize the BEST two years of that deal were going to be the first 2, and then as time went on he would slow down, as most pitchers do. 2 years ago a guy like Carlos Zambrano of the Cubs was unstoppable. Now he's in the bullpen. That's pitching in baseball. Because the Mets screwed up so bad in Santana's first 2 they essentially lost their value on him. Now he's merely a good pitcher, a top of the rotation guy, but quite possibly not the ace you signed. To blame him for deteriorating is ridiculous.
The Mets need OTHER pitchers to step up and help Santana because previously no one did, and he was awesome. Unfortunately, you missed the awesome. Now you're paying the rest of his 6 year deal for "very good."
To expect anything more is to have unrealistic expectations.