"We're going to pick up his option"

[Guest abogdan]

Aren't "was Glavine worth $40 million over the past four seasons" and "is Glavine worth $11 million next year" two different questions? I completely agree that the Mets have not received $40 million in value from Glavine, based largely on his worse than expected performance over the first two and a half years of the deal.

However, based on his performance since thie middle of last year, continuing into this year, bringing him back for one more year at $11 million next year sounds like a good deal. Assuming, of course, that Glavine can continue his success through the end of the year. If Glavine finishes this season with an ERA of 1.94 and a WHIP of 1.04, like he has now, I don't understand why you wouldn't exercise the option for next year.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

11 mil is what you pay for a top of the line starter. Glavine has demonstrated that he's easily capable of giving you a sub-.500, ERA above league average year. He's worth about 4 mil on the open market. Suckers will pay more than that.

IOW, I still expect the Mets to pay two or three times his actual market value, and to bid against themselves in doing so.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

="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?

No, one year of top-flight pitching doesn't compensate for three sucky years of mediocre (at best) pitching. He's a bum.

[Guest abogdan]

]Glavine has demonstrated that he's easily capable of giving you a sub-.500, ERA above league average year

And if he finishes this season with a winning record and a sub 2.00 ERA, he would have also shown that he is capable of putting up an ace starter year. $11 million for that level of production is a bargain, especially with no additional long-term commitment.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

I'll take that as a bet, and give you odds. Say 2-1 against? How much would you like to bet Glavine ends up the year with a 2+ ERA, less than 15 wins, and no Cy Young?

Or I'll bet you even odds that he ends up with a 3+ ERA, less than 15 wins, no Cy Young, AND a 10+ mil FA offer from the dopey Mets.

[Guest abogdan]

I don't think Glavine will finish the year with an ERA under 2. My point is, though, that if he does, picking up an $11 million option would be the only decision the Mets should make.

[duan]

does NOT get you a top of the line starter last winter

On the free agent market 8 - 12 million per year has been getting you

AJ Burnett
Kevin Millwood
Jarrod Washburn
Matt Morris
Jeff Weaver
Kenny Rogers

I'm not saying Glavine is a lock for any kind of dominance or anything but what he's been is an above average league starter throwing 200+ innings. Right now, on the open market they've been getting over 8-12 million and longer deals then a year.

I wasn't in favour of the four year deal, but the option @ 11 million is not a disaster by ANY stretch of the imagination.

[Willets Point]

Gotta go with Bret on this one. The Glavine signing was a poor deal for the Mets. He's only getting older now. Glavine's success of late has been nice but for me far from convincing that he's suddenly, magically regained his form from his Braves days. It would be nice for Glavine to leave the Mets on a high note (assuming his 2006 continues as well as it's been so far) rather than risk seein him revert to 2003-2005 Glavine in 2007.

[Guest old original jb]

It is true that the Mets didn't come out ahead on the Glavine signing up to this point. But to me, this seems like a case of fighting yesterday's battle.

If he has made changes that make him a better pitcher now--and there seems to be some evidence for that, then decisions about his future with the Mets should be made on that basis, and not in order to atone for bad past decisions.

I'm very interested in Glavine's track record only in so far as it tells about his potential future performance. After that, since I am not interested in judging the historical performance of the Mets' front office, I'm less interested.

[Guest Rotblatt]

Willets Point wrote: Gotta go with Bret on this one. The Glavine signing was a poor deal for the Mets. He's only getting older now. Glavine's success of late has been nice but for me far from convincing that he's suddenly, magically regained his form from his Braves days. It would be nice for Glavine to leave the Mets on a high note (assuming his 2006 continues as well as it's been so far) rather than risk seein him revert to 2003-2005 Glavine in 2007.

I agree that we drastically overpaid for Glavine, and I thought so at the time. Like Bret said, we should have spent our money elsewhere. Overall, we haven't gotten what we paid for.

That being said, however, I also agree with Duan. The fact that we signed Glavine to a bad contract 3 years ago is irrelevant here--what matters is how we expect him to perform next year.

Personally, I DO think his turnaround since the All-Star break last year is legit. I don't expect him to keep up at his current pace, but I think he'll probably continue to be a solid #2/#3 starter through next year. Figure 200+ innings, 3.50 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, 120 K.

Assuming he puts up comparable numbers over the rest of the year, I'd probably pick up his option. I think it would take more than $11M to sign a comparable guy in this offseason, and we're going to have an uphill battle in terms of our rotation unless Pelfry & Soler impress enough in September to win the #4/#5 jobs outright.

2007
Pedro
Heilman/Bannister/Maine/Pelfry/Soler
Heilman/Bannister/Maine/Pelfry/Soler
Heilman/Bannister/Maine/Pelfry/Soler
Heilman/Bannister/Maine/Pelfry/Soler

DL: Zambrano, Humber
Potential re-signees: Glavine, Trachsel

That's a whole lot of question marks, and the FA market for pitchers is a bit grim, IIRC.

[Guest Edgy DC]

A thumbs-up/thumbs-down thread on the original deal, with early appearances by RealityChuck and rpackrat.

[Elster88]

That's a great thread.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Nice find, Edgy. It's interesting to be able to read what we were saying nearly four years ago.


By the way, clicking on that link opened up three pop up windows!

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Reading through the 2002 thread that Edgy linked to, I count 9 members in favor of the Glavine signing and 3 members that didn't like it. Two members seemed to straddle the fence without ever clearly (at least to me) taking a side on the issue.

Others, including myself, were conspicuously absent in the thread. I believe that I was pretty supportive of his signing at the time.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I thought it was in Newsday, thought it looks like I'm wrong, but I read somewhere this morning that the Mets and Glavine have a handshake agreement that, if he wants to return to Atlanta in 2007, they won't exercise this option. Whoever it was who wrote the piece that I'm trying to quote added that nevertheless, Glavine is expected to return to the Mets next season.

[nymr83]

From rotoworld.com

]Glavine's 2006 salary was reduced from $10.5 million to $7.5 million under the terms of the deal. The new contract contains a 2007 player option at $5.5 million and a $12 million team option, both with a $3 million buyout. The player option would increase by $1 million each for 180, 190 and 200 innings this year, and the team option would increase by $2 million if he throws 180 innings this year. If either option is exercised, and Glavine's 2007 salary is less than $14 million, he could have performance bonuses that would raise his earnings that year to $14 million.

it sound to me like the Mets bent over backwards to get Glavine's potential 300th win to be in a Mets uniform.

[Frayed Knot]

Boiled down:
- Glavine is [u:3adb0d640a]giving up[/u:3adb0d640a] $3mil this year - but is guaranteed to get it back eventually in the form of a buyout if he's not picked up.
- If he does pitch here next year he'll make somewhere between $5.5 - $14 depending on a variety of factors -- but with a net cost to the team of $2.5 - $11 since they're saving the $3mil this year.

Doesn't sound too crazy or backwards-bending to me.