Make no mistake, Johan Santana to the Mets is a huge deal. Epic, in fact. But does it make the Mets New York's team? Not even close. The Yankees are still tops in New York, and one pitcher, no matter how great, cannot do anything to change that.
Historically, the comparisons scarcely need to be made. Then again, why not have some fun. World Series Titles: 26-2. Pennants: 39-4. Division Titles: 15-2. Need I go on? The Yankees are the most successful franchise in the history of professional sports. The Mets? Eh, not so much. Still, this isn't a historical debate -- it's an exercise in who will be the "it" team in New York in 2008.
Both teams finished the 2007 season in miserable fashion. The Yankees, certainly not helped by the plague of locusts in Cleveland, were bounced in the American League Division Series in four. The Mets, on the other hand, completed one of baseball's all-time biggest regular season collapses, meaning both teams are heading into 2008 anxious to right past wrongs.
Similarly, both teams have had rather eventful off-seasons. The Yankees spent much of the off-season dealing with negative press. They took a lot of heat for Joe Torre's exit as manager, the A-Rod saga, and the Mitchell Report. The Mets have fared slightly better. While the team was also trashed in the Mitchell Report, Santana has been the story of the Mets off-season.
What does Santana actually mean for the Mets? Does he make the team World Series favorites? Probably not. Would he have made the difference in securing a playoff berth last year? Probably. Santana certainly pushes the Mets to new heights, but not overwhelmingly so. And remember, even if he helps them reach the playoffs next season, he's not going to be able to pitch everyday. The rest of the team is still going to have to step up, something they seemed incapable of doing last September.
The Yankees did not improve measurably this off-season; they didn't have to. In the second half of the 2007 season, the Yankees were the best team in baseball. There's no reason to doubt that this trend won't continue. Hughes, Kennedy and Chamberlain, the Yankees' terrific trio of young pitchers, should continue to develop. Melky Cabrera and Robinson Cano are becoming some of the best players at their respective positions. Throw in several established all-stars, a couple blossoming bats in the minors, even Shelley "Slam" Duncan, and you're looking at the real team to beat in 2008.
But here's the simple truth: As long as the Yankees are marginally competitive, it doesn't matter how good the Mets are. The Yankees will always be first in New York. There are a couple reasons for this. Sure, the history certainly helps. The Yankees have simply been around longer, leaving the Mets to play catch-up their entire existence. More importantly, however, is the team's iconic status. The Yankees are a global brand on par with Nike or Coca Cola. The Mets, well, they might be on par with Purina Puppy Chow, but that's about it.
Ultimately, New York is identified, for better or for worse, by the Yankees. When the team is playing well, you can sense it in the pulse of the city. I can still recall how the team helped the city heal through their inspired play in October of 2001. The team and the city are seemingly intertwined. Both the city and the team struggled throughout the eighties and early-nineties before restoring lost greatness. You can call it coincidence, but the fact is that when the team is clicking on all cylinders, so goes New York. The Mets can have Santana, but the Yankees will always have New York.
