Should the Mets have signed Bronson Arroyo instead of Bartolo Colon?

Over this past offseason, the Mets addressed the hole atop of their pitching rotation. The hole was left there after ace Matt Harvey needed Tommy John Surgery that would keep him out for all of 2014.

Many names were rumored for the Mets. Bronson Arroyo, Bartolo Colon, Ervin Santana, Johan Santana, Erik Bedard, and others were pieces Sandy Alderson could see fitting into the Met rotation.

On the second day of the winter meetings it was announced that the Mets had recent former Oakland A's starting pitcher Bartolo Colon, 41, to a 2 year $20 million dollar contract to replace Matt Harvey. What was questionable about the move was that the Mets gave $20 million dollars to a pitcher over the age of 40, despite Colon having gone 18-6 one year prior. Also, Colon would be signed through 2015, a year when the Mets expect their young pitching to be contributing at the major league level.

Bronson Arroyo signed later in the offseason with the Arizona Diamondbacks to a similar 2 year, $23 million dollar deal. Arroyo, 37, is four years younger than Bartolo and has had a more durable track record in the big leagues. Instead, the Mets did what they do best, and offered a man many feel will begin a fast decline, a multi-year deal.

Bartolo Colon is currently 3-5 with a 5.34 ERA for the Mets, while Bronson Arroyo is 4-3 with a 4.45 ERA for an Arizona team currently 10 games under .500. The question needs to be asked, were the Mets wise for choosing Colon instead of Arroyo?

Colon has been hit hard this season, thanks in part to hitters feeling comfortable against his fastball. While not lighting up the stat book, Arroyo has quietly pitched consistent baseball for the 14th straight season.