The Mets' pursuit of Derek Lowe has recently hit a snag, and -- according to this source -- that would be the fact that he's a much better pitcher than Carlos Silva. You see, Silva signed a four year-$48 million contract with the Mariners before last season. Now, Lowe's being offered three years and $36 million. Apparently Lowe finds his "distasteful" because he feels he is "far superior" to Silva. You can't really blame him, on the surface. Even before the disastrous 2008 season -- in which Silva was one of the worst pitchers in the league -- Lowe was the far superior pitcher. The Mariners, frankly, made an awful signing. Silva was coming off a season in which he was barely above average in ERA and sported a 1.31 WHIP. He doesn't strike guys out, and he gives up tons of hits (1,335 hits in under 1,100 career innings).
Lowe, on the other hand, has only had one below average season in his entire career, and he's coming off a stellar second half. You have to assume as he ages he won't deteriorate quite as quickly as others might, because he's a pitch-to-contact ground ball hurler. He can suvive on guile, a la Jamie Moyer.
Are Lowe's complaints valid, though? Can you really go find the most ridiculous contract at your position and hold teams hostage, claiming they must pay you that much? Again, the Mariners signing of Silva was downright absurd. Does this mean every pitcher who is better -- again, pretty much everyone in 2008 -- should be making more than $12 million a year? I get the stance by Lowe, because it's a personal feeling. It just doesn't seem too realistic, especially since the baseball economy isn't as strong this year as it was last (unless you are from the Bronx).




