No, the Big Contracts Aren't the Problem

I was just listening to an interview by Jeff Wilpon in which he discussed the Mets' likely strategy for this off-season. His message was that the team is unlikely to look to build primarily through free agency, that they will probably shy away from massive contracts, that when they've gotten in trouble in the past it's been because of too many big contracts, and that they might try to emulate the model of the Red Sox from this past off-season, when Boston signed a large number of mid-level free agents to short but multi-year deals. This gave them depth, an awful lot of actually solid/good baseball players who could form a decent mix even if some of them got injured, which some of them have, and the Red Sox are leading their division. Of course, another AL division leader is the Detroit Tigers, who recently signed both Prince Fielder and Justin Verlander to $200 million deals, and the other leader is the Oakland Athletics, who never sign any free agents 'cause they don't have the money. So, you know. Perhaps the empirical verdict isn't so clear.

But I was struck by Wilpon's description of the Mets' own past. Is it true that they've gotten in trouble from their super-sized contracts in the past? I don't think so. Here's the thing: the Mets have given out three enormous free agent contracts in their history. All three were among the better signings in team history. It has been, in fact, those more mid-level contracts that haven't worked out, and that have created baggage for the team.