"We're going to pick up his option"

[Guest OlerudOwned]

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spflash074733129may07,0,1575246.column?coll=ny-mets-print

Newsweek wrote: Tom Glavine is coming back to pitch for the Mets next season, meaning he'll very likely earn his 300th victory in a Mets uniform. "We're going to pick up his option," one Mets decision-maker said Friday. One of the smartest moves the Mets made was their quiet, heretofore-ignored agreement with Glavine to restructure his contract in March 2005. That's when they changed his deferred payment schedule and, without notice or fanfare, added an $11-million 2007 option, a distinct bargain for the resurrected Cooperstown-bound pitcher with 279 career victories. Had the option not been added, Glavine, 40, would have had his own option to return to the Braves, something we know he's considered before, thanks to Braves GM John Schuerholz's revealing book, "Built to Win."

Having a 300 game winner would be nice.
Glavine suddenly acting his age won't.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

If he continues to pitch well, I have no problem with him returning for another year.

But $11 million is a lot of money for a 41-year-old pitcher.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

File under "Not knowing when to quit."

[Guest Rotblatt]

It's a risk, but depending on the rest of our rotation and who we've got in the minors, it's not a bad one.

It'll all depend on how Pelfry & Soler progress, who we sign in the off-season, and how Zambrano & Humber's recoveries go.

[DocTee]

Making a decision in May is stupid. Let's see how he finishes this contract year before talking about next.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Contextualizing again:

Signing Glavine to a four year deal was a mistake, even if he keeps up his excellent pitching all through 2006. He's 37-43 as a Met so far, if he goes 15-9 from here on out, which is a lot of games (he would be 19-11 on the year, and probably win a Cy Young) he would be exactly at .500 ( 52-52, or an average year of 13-13) which is not what they thought they were getting at 10+ mil per year for 4 years. This is a best case scenario, and they got screwed overall by the signing.

Now they've decided on the basis of a few recent starts that they want to send more money down that sinkhole? Maybe they should file under "C" for "clueless." "D" for "Dipshits"? "M" for "masochists"?

[Guest GYC]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Contextualizing again: Signing Glavine to a four year deal was a mistake, even if he keeps up his excellent pitching all through 2006. He's 37-43 as a Met so far, if he goes 15-9 from here on out, which is a lot of games (he would be 19-11 on the year, and probably win a Cy Young) he would be exactly at .500 ( 52-52, or an average year of 13-13) which is not what they thought they were getting at 10+ mil per year for 4 years. This is a best case scenario, and they got screwed overall by the signing. Now they've decided on the basis of a few recent starts that they want to send more money down that sinkhole? Maybe they should file under "C" for "clueless." "D" for "Dipshits"? "M" for "masochists"?

Here I was thinking that you were a huge supporter of the front office...

[nymr83]

how bout looking at whathe did rather than how much run support he got, since thats really all wins are.

[stevejrogers]

The real question is, why are we putting all this creedence in Jon Heyman's article?

This is the same guy who was convinced the last two Aprils that Roger Clemens was a sinch to be in Yankee Pinstripes because of a "handshake" agreement (which eventually became something actually written into the contract) between Roger and Drayton McLane that guarantee that if Roger requested he'd be traded back to New York, no questions asked.

And don't forget he's not a reporter, he's a columnist. His source could be anyone from Omar himself to some assistant to the assistant assistant GM. And it could just be absoulte hearsay and more like just a description of what may happen down the road

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Why not just assume that everything that appears in the papers to be an out-and-out lie, unless it's in praise of the Mets?

[Zvon]

If Glavine gets #300 as a Met, does that make it possible he goes into the Hall as a Met?

Cuz we did carry him for some lean yrs to get him back to form, and give him the opportunity.

[stevejrogers]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Why not just assume that everything that appears in the papers to be an out-and-out lie, unless it's in praise of the Mets?

I assume the same if it was in praise of the Mets

What is your take here? To discuss everything in a paper at face value even though there isn't any tangilble difference between what Jon Heyman says and if Greg at FAFIF, would say if he heard the same thing from someone in the front office?

Or even if I came on this board and said I heard the same thing.

Or if Chris Russo said he heard it from a "Little Birdie" on his radio program

Unless I, Heyman or Greg or Russo revealed exactly whom we heard the tidbit from I would take that tidbit with a grain of salt. Not sure if there is kernel of truth in it or not, if there is, then that would be the job of an investigative minded reporter, and that would be who I'd trust more than someone who either paid for their opinion (Russo/Heyman) or spouts their opinion (Me/Greg) and occasionally will have nuggets of information that may or may not be verified because the person spoting the nuggets doesn't reveal exactly who they got the nugget from

[Gwreck]

Zvon wrote: If Glavine gets #300 as a Met, does that make it possible he goes into the Hall as a Met? Cuz we did carry him for some lean yrs to get him back to form, and give him the opportunity.

240+ Wins, 3 Cy Youngs and a WS MVP with Atlanta.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

You may want to open up a different thread to discuss this in, but I think there's far more latitude granted to reporters and columnists using unsourced material to based pro-Mets speculation on than there is for using anti-Mets stuff.

Basically, you'd have about a third of the sportswriting if you demanded hard, multi-sourced, OTR material for every bit of Mets coverage, but you only object to it when it implies an anti-Mets stance. I think your rooting interest prevernts you from seeing this, so you think you're just objecting to unsourced material in principle, but actually the sports pages would dry up completely if you kept to the high standard you're calling for here.

[Frayed Knot]

I don't doubt Heyman's sources, but I do think it's reasonable to read "we're going to pick it up" as 'we intend to pick it up' seeing as how things are going quite nicely for Glavine now. Nowhere does it say that this is already a done deal and presumably they can still decline if things go south in a hurry. Unless there's an early season date on that option it doesn't sound like something they need to decide on now merely that they foresee doing so.

[Guest SI Metman]

If Glavine pitches like a 41 year old Roger Clemens, then we are set.

[Elster88]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Signing Glavine to a four year deal was a mistake, even if he keeps up his excellent pitching all through 2006. He's 37-43 as a Met so far, if he goes 15-9 from here on out, which is a lot of games (he would be 19-11 on the year, and probably win a Cy Young) he would be exactly at .500 ( 52-52, or an average year of 13-13) which is not what they thought they were getting at 10+ mil per year for 4 years. This is a best case scenario, and they got screwed overall by the signing.

If Glavine wins a Cy Young in the year that the Mets reach the World Series, he is worth every penny he was paid, even if he went 0-60 in the three years prior.

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Now they've decided on the basis of a few recent starts that they want to send more money down that sinkhole? Maybe they should file under "C" for "clueless." "D" for "Dipshits"? "M" for "masochists"?

By few recent starts, are you referring to the previous 21 in a row where he has gone at least 6 innings each time? I wouldn't pick up his option just yet either, but it's more than "a few recent starts".

[RealityChuck]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Contextualizing again: Signing Glavine to a four year deal was a mistake, even if he keeps up his excellent pitching all through 2006. He's 37-43 as a Met so far, if he goes 15-9 from here on out, which is a lot of games (he would be 19-11 on the year, and probably win a Cy Young) he would be exactly at .500 ( 52-52, or an average year of 13-13) which is not what they thought they were getting at 10+ mil per year for 4 years. This is a best case scenario, and they got screwed overall by the signing.

And, of course, won-lost record is the one statistic that clearly shows whether a pitcher is good or not. Nothing else matters, and if the pitcher is stuck behind a lousy offense, that's his fault.

Right?

But that's the wonderful thing about Sabermetrics: you can pick and choose whatever statistic you want and pretend you've proven something.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

And the three previous years represent what? A mere blip on the radar? A false sign of deterioration? What three years do you mean, Sal? What?

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

What's weird is that Glavine's been improving as he's been aging. That obviously can't continue indefinitely. But it any year of Glavine's contract was a mistake, it wasn't the fourth year, it was the first.

But since Glavine didn't cost the Mets a pennant by pitching poorly in 2003, I'm not going to gnash my teeth over that season.

Bottom line: I'm glad Glavine's here, now, in 2006.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

RealityChuck wrote: Right? But that's the wonderful thing about Sabermetrics: you can pick and choose whatever statistic you want and pretend you've proven something.

Wrong. You can choose ERA if you like. They picked up a third of a run (against league average) with Glavine. I want more than that for my 10 mil a year. The Mets got screwed, and you can spin it however you like. Huge mistake, signing this clown.

Elster, you're refuting me by claiming World Series the Mets haven't even been in the running for yet. Are you saying that if the Mets DON'T wiin the Series this year, you're agreeing that Glavine is washed up and a total waste of resources that should have been invested in young pitching? That's about as much front-running as I can bear--"Show me the results, and I'll tell you whether the investment in Glavine was dumb or smart."

[Guest Edgy DC]

Won-loss record is not a sabermetric.

[Elster88]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Elster, you're refuting me by claiming World Series the Mets haven't even been in the running for yet. Are you saying that if the Mets DON'T wiin the Series this year, you're agreeing that Glavine is washed up and a total waste of resources that should have been invested in young pitching?

Yeah, pretty much. I don't know if reaching the World Series would be the only criterion I would use, or if it's that black and white. A couple of good runs in the playoffs in '06 and '07 where he is a key factor would justify his salary to me. If he pitches at Cy Young level in '06 and '07, (or maybe even very good in those two years), and the Mets reach or come close to the playoffs, that would almost justify his salary too. It's very hard to draw a line in the sand and say, "This is what I need to say he earned his money."

Don't forget that the original remark I replied to was your contention that Glavine was a waste of money no matter what happens this year.

Bret Sabermetric wrote: That's about as much front-running as I can bear--"Show me the results, and I'll tell you whether the investment in Glavine was dumb or smart."

This is a very silly statement. And I'd like to use a different adjective than silly, but I'm watching my behavior these days

Anyway, how do you propose that we judge whether a guy was worth his salary? You don't use results? What do you use?

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Overall w/l record for starters?

But by almost any standard, the Mets haven't received 40+ mil in value from Glavine. Sneding more money down that swirling toilet would be the height of foolishness.

IOW, I fully expect the Mets to re-sign him.

[Elster88]

Let me phrase the question a little differently.

If the Mets reach the World Series this year, and Tom Glavine wins the Cy Young in that same year, was it a good signing? Not "Did he earn his 40 million clams?" Was it a good signing?

My answer is an unqualified yes.

[Elster88]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: That's about as much front-running as I can bear--"Show me the results, and I'll tell you whether the investment in Glavine was dumb or smart."

="Elster88"]Anyway, how do you propose that we judge whether a guy was worth his salary? You don't use results? What do you use?

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Overall w/l record for starters?

So you don't use results, you use overall w/l record for starters?

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

They could have signed Bozo the Clown to join the rotation (and yesterday it looked like they had), and if they'd made the Series, you'd be arguing that Bozo was a brilliant signing, but that doesn't make it so.

Bottom line is, did they get the same or equal value to other options they had in 2003? I'd argue that if they'd signed a younger, better, cheaper pitcher maybe they would have won in more than one season. The Mets' record under Glavine's contract makes this a tough argument to make, even counting future World's Championships and Cy Youngs. (Don't hold your breath for either, btw.)

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

The room here pretty much agreed that the Glavine signing was an over the top extravagance when it happened, though that was two administrations ago.

[Elster88]

="Bret Sabermetric"]They could have signed Bozo the Clown to join the rotation (and yesterday it looked like they had), and if they'd made the Series, you'd be arguing that Bozo was a brilliant signing, but that doesn't make it so.

You're removing the "Win the Cy Young Award" line from Bozo's resume. Kind of an important piece of what I was saying. Let's stick to what we were talking about, ok? I never said anything along the lines of "The signing is good as long as they make the Series". If that was true, I'd be could make the same argument about Victor Zambrano.

But I'm not making that argument, though it makes it a lot easier on you if you pretend that's what I'm saying.

What I was saying, for the third time, was that your contention (that the Tom Glavine signing was a waste no matter what happens this year, up to and including his winning the Cy Young Award) is very foolish. And I'm saying that the signing is a good one if they reach the world Series, and Bozo Glavine wins the Cy Young Award.

Are you going to just ignore my question? If the Mets reach the World Series this year, and Tom Glavine wins the Cy Young in that same year, was it a good signing? Not "Did he earn his 40 million clams?" Was it a good signing? How 'bout it? Can I get yes or no?

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Every time they fire an office boy, that wipes the slate clean, huh? Pretty efficient way to deal with criticism of the organiation, Johnny boy.