So my buddy JR aka Reeves posed a very interesting question to me: did the Mets make the right move when they acquired Johan Santana a few seasons ago.

Some background first...Johan Santana was actually an Astro first. No, Ed Wade didn't trade him for an aging veteran set up man.  It was under another GMs watch and he was left unprotected in the 1999 Rule 5 draft.  To be fair, in 4 minor league seasons in rookie ball, low A, A, and AAA, Santana had an ERA of 4.78 and a WHIP of 1.38.  Not exactly stud numbers.  The funny thing is that not only did Houston squander the chance for an ace for years to come, but he was actually selected second by the Marlins, right behind Sean Camp and then traded to the Twins ALONG WITH half a million dollars.

Here was the deal: The Mets got ace Johan Santana.  The Twins got Carlos Gomez, Phil Humber, Deolis Guerra, and Kevin Mulvey.  The casual baseball fan realizes the Twins got fleeced in the deal as these guys were prospects over 2 years ago and the best any of them have turned into is Carlos Gomez who is a 4th outfielder with the BREWERS who hit .236 this year. 

Now, Santana did sign for a big money deal, 6 years, $137.5 million so its not like the Mets had a cheap ace but the fact of the matter is I remember both myself and guest contributor Cheslow railing on the Yankees and Red Sox for not going out and getting Johan.  Phil Hughes (breakout pitcher this year) and Jon Lester (ace for 3 seasons now) were the center pieces of such deals.  Looks like those teams made the right call.

Santana now is an injury risking, failing to finish a season for the second straight year and still has 3 years left on his deal.  However, despite my argument that Mets 100% made the correct deal, it looks like they are a few years away from contending.  Santana will most likely never even pitch in a postseason for them.  Advantage: Mets...but they still suck so in the long run, it doesn't matter.

More Scheller: