Barry Zito signs with Giants for seven years, $126 million

by Eric Simon on Dec 28, 2006 1:28 PM EST in Other Teams Comment 22 comments

According to multiple sources, Barry Zito has agreed to terms with the San Francisco Giants on a seven-year, $126 million deal, which breaks down to an average annual value of $18 million per season.

The Mets looked like the frontrunners for a while, what with their deep pockets, pitcher's ballpark, National League, pitching coach, etc. It turns out that the Giants were able to offer all of those things except the pitching coach, but made up for that fact by offering a couple of years and a couple of million dollars more than the Mets were rumored to be offering.

The Mets' inability to sign Zito is bittersweet. Bitter because they could really use a young, dependable, very good pitcher. Sweet because I would have been borderline-apoplectic if they had spent that much money on Barry Zito. The hope all along was that the Mets would nab the lefty with an offer that probably wouldn't be the highest on the table, but with Zito being represented by Scott Boras, that was probably too much to wish for.

With Zito now unavailable, the Mets will turn either to the depleted free agent crop (Tomo Ohka anyone?), the trade market (offering the Pelfreys, Humbers and Heilmans of the world) or just going with what they've got in hopes of keeping it together until Pedro gets healthy.

A question for you guys: Did the Mets screw the pooch here in possibly playing these negotiations too casually? Should they have just thrown whatever it took to get Zito to Shea? Did they play it correctly, and were smart to let Zito sign elsewhere when the terms got as high as they did?

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Mets will be OK with no Zito

Too many years, too much money. Zito would have been a good fit for the Mets, and I am sorry that they did not get him. BUT... that is far too much of a commitment. What if he didn't work out in New York? How would this impact the 2008 Mets? How about the 2013 Mets, who would still owe Zito 18 million dollars? Thus far this winter, the Mets have avoided mortgaging their future. I am glad to see this continue. Sometimes, the best moves are the ones that are not made.

Perhaps they can re-think using Heilman as a starter???

by elliot on Dec 28, 2006 2:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Alas Aaron

AFter the way the Mets have treated Heilman for two entire seasons, I very much doubt he will be given another shot at starting for this team.

It's a strange attitude, considering his renewed success as a starter at the end of the 2004 season and the embarassing lack of starting pitching depth the last two years.

But maybe the team has something on him to explain why they so desperately don't want to toss him in the mix, so desperate that they would rather take ludicrous risks on guys like Lima. Maybe he slept with Willie's daughter and was informed he would never be forgiven? Or he accidentally spilled a drink on Omar's wife during a barfight?

by manuka on Dec 31, 2006 12:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Omar

did the right thing. Too much money for too long a term to justify. Zito is not worth the money and seven years is too long for any pitcher. I say no trades-stick with the kids. It worked for the Tigers and it will work for the Mets. I'm more upset about losing Chad Bradford than not signing Zito.

end the madness.stop the war

by elifriedman on Dec 28, 2006 3:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

spot on right

Giving a 7 year deal to pitcher is absolute madness. And Zito isn't an 18 million per pitcher. Good for him he got that paid that well, and better for us that the Mets didn't do it.

its a ground ball...trickling... its a fair ball, its by Buckner, rounding third Knight, the Mets will win the ballgame, the Mets win

by DoctorK16 on Dec 28, 2006 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Too much, money too many years for a 1A or 2 starter.

Go with the kids. 2 of them got us to game 7 of the NLCS. I like Humber and Pelfrey. Let's see what they have got.

by millsy on Dec 28, 2006 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

100% agreed.

Signing Zito at that level of dollars and years is a fool's bargain. And none of the proposed trades has made that much sense yet. I'd give Omar some room to try to pull off a deal for a young, promising starter, but I'm also happy enough taking 2007 as a breaking-in year for the young and talented group we've already got. With a team that can hit the way this Mets team will hit, it won't hurt too much to give a lot of young starters an extended look. Whoever emerges can be supplemented with a deadline deal or with next year's free agents.

by anonymous on Dec 28, 2006 10:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I've never been that sold on Zito

He's good, but not break-the-bank good. And this contract is just nuts.

You were right when you said that, for Omar, the best of bad options was to not do very much at all with the free-agent market this winter.

"He even tried to pimp it," Floyd said. "He's got no pimp." Said Wright: "I don't even know what that means."

by Billy Everyteen on Dec 28, 2006 4:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Zito

There's nothing I like more than a guy with a below average fastball who can't throw strikes.

He'll be out of baseball before his contract expires.

by Shomov on Dec 28, 2006 5:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sour Grapes?

Zito's not Clemens-in-his-prime good, but he's still really good, especially considering the other "talent" out there. Given his history of durability and that he's only 28, I'll be very surprised if he's not pitching (and doing so effectively) in 7 years, when he'll be 35. Still, the Giants overpaid; I can't help thinking they could have gotten him for 5 years, $80-85 million.

As to the Mets, I say put Pelfrey or Humber in the rotation come April. If one flops, try the other, by which time Pedro may be ready or some quality pitchers may become available as the trade deadline approaches.

by madisonmetsfan on Dec 28, 2006 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Clemens-in-his-prime good

I don't think anyone has any illusions about that. Zito at 28 is more like Glavine at 40 good. Although Zito is much more durable, their numbers for last year are very similiar.

Zito's decline seems to be an area where nerds in front of computers and old men with cigars are in agreement. His peripherals have declined since 2002 and scouts have described his stuff as awful (I have even heard reports that his storied curveball has lost bite). Given the fact that he faces more hitters than almost any other pitcher on an annual basis, and that he has a lot of other things going on (good for him - there is more to life than baseball), I would be very surprised if he continues to be an above average pitcher as he advances in age.

by Shomov on Dec 29, 2006 10:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

zito's not worth it

he would have eaten up $ for other, potentially better free agent signings next year. i'd rather have the $ to throw at someone more like johan santana or chris carpenter.

at this point, i would have been satisfied if we had traded milledge for zito and beaten the cards and won the world series (& then lost zito to free agency).

but since we didn't, i could care even less about zito.

why not any combo of pelfrey-humber-heilman-perez-maine? if even 2 of them work out, the mets should be able to continually win the division. if 3 of them work out, we're looking at repeat world series appearances.

by jenkins on Dec 29, 2006 1:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

But we still have Lastings...

Milledge for Zito last season did NOT guarantee that the Mets bead the Card, much less win the WS. Zito would not have taken Trachsel's spot, and the guys that pitched in the spot that Zito would have had did OK. So, if that move had been made, we could have been looking at the same Mets as we are now - minus Milledge.

Don't underrate Milledge, either.

by elliot on Dec 29, 2006 6:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

smart move

No pitcher is worth a seven year deal unless they are 21 years old and throw 100 mph.

if agent Mulder is still available, they should do a low radar deal with him. Ultimately, he could prove to be a better option.

by Grouchoman on Dec 29, 2006 11:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

options

Mark Mulder, Jason Johnson, Keith Foulke, Shawn Estes, Mark Redman...and perhaps steady Eddie Guardado as a backup plan when our good ole boy crashes and burns in the ninth.

all low priced options that could fit

also, for the fun of it, we should sign Jose A. Reyes...as a backup catcher.... ; )

by Grouchoman on Dec 29, 2006 11:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nothing much more to add

I agree with pretty much everything said here so far. I'm glad Minaya held his ground and didn't dump $126 million on a #3 starter.

Next offseason, when Carlos Zambrano becomes a free agent and the Cubs can't afford him because they broke the bank to sign Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis, that's when Minaya should shell out the big bucks.

It's possible that Pelfrey or Humber will put up better numbers next season that Zito...for about $17.5 million less.

I declare jihad on Yadier Molina

by Greenpoint Ian on Dec 29, 2006 3:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Humber hurt?

ESPN's Kieth Law says:

The Mets' rotation right now is Tom Glavine-El Duque-John Maine-Oliver Perez, with the fifth spot open for competition among internal options such as Mike Pelfrey (still lacking an effective breaking pitch) or Philip Humber (sent home from the Arizona Fall League with more arm trouble).

Humber is hurt? I missed this...
This makes me more inclined to include him in a trade, if somebody else wants to oversee his rehab.

by babahr on Dec 29, 2006 7:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

he had a common setback

coming off Tommy John. He pitched a ton in 2007 so a little arm soreness wasn't unexpected. No big deal.

its a ground ball...trickling... its a fair ball, its by Buckner, rounding third Knight, the Mets will win the ballgame, the Mets win

by DoctorK16 on Dec 29, 2006 8:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I Hope Omar Doesn't Trade The Kids Away

The Giants had to make the move to gain credibility. It's a hard sell for baseball in the bay area. With Zito, Cain and Lowry they could have something to build around provided they can still afford anyone else.

It's possible that if Omar had been more aggressive going after Zito say a month ago maybe he could have come to an agreement that would have made both sides happy but with Boras you just never know. Once the Giants offered this ridiculous contract it was smart for Omar to bow out.

My concern is Omar trading our best young prospects away for a pitcher. Our farm system is not over flowing with grade A talent that we can afford to bundle the few that we have together no matter how tempting it may be. Also with other clubs knowing the position the Mets are in they will be asking for the moon.

I would like to stick with the kids and perhaps improve the offense (I know its good now) a little so there are no holes in the lineup to take the pressure off of the young starters.

by gategem on Dec 31, 2006 1:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

pitching

Something has to be done to upgrade the pitching--your best pitcher, Glavine, is 40, El Duque is possibly 45+, and your other pitchers are suspect, at best. The lineup is good enough to go all the way, the pitching is not. If you choose to wait on the young arms, there's a good chance it will be good when the hitting is no longer tops. The last required piece is often the most overpriced--that's capitalism!

by MELVYNNY on Jan 1, 2007 1:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

geez,

It's been quiet around here (which I attribute, naturally, to the overwhelming suspense of waiting for the announcement of the 47th-best Met of all time), but this just seems like pointless pot-stirring. Are you actually so terribly, terribly worried that if the Mets don't overspend in a trade for an "ace" pitcher, RIGHT NOW, then David Wright, Jose Reyes, and Carlos Beltran will wither from old age? It seems to me like the Mets' current "window of opportunity," based on young, elite hitting talent, runs until something like 2011. And if the organization continues to develop a star-level talent every three to five years, and signs mid-career stars to reasonable contracts while not mortgaging the future in response to midwinter fan panic-button-pushing, there's no reason it can't contend long past then.

by anonymous on Jan 1, 2007 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the last required piece

who determine what that is. I don't care how old Glavine and El-Duque(who is 42, his Cuban divorce acknowledges a Oct 65 birthday) are. They are effective and provide maximum value for what they are paid and we don't have a very long term committment to them. Our kids(Pelfrey,Humber, Maine, Perez) maybe the last required piece, and their cost is certain. Why deal them for someone who we are not sure is what is needed?

its a ground ball...trickling... its a fair ball, its by Buckner, rounding third Knight, the Mets will win the ballgame, the Mets win

by DoctorK16 on Jan 2, 2007 12:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Silver chimes in

From the Department of Things With Which I Completely Agree:

Memo to Omar: Just Don't Do It

Milledge is a keeper: for the next year or two at least, he won't bring anything back in trade that's better than he has the potential to become himself.

by anonymous on Jan 2, 2007 9:40 AM EST reply actions 0 recs