Glavine

[soupcan]

Edgy DC wrote: ]Besides the fact that the guy just doesn't seem to want to be here. Why do you say that?

Maybe 'doesn't want to be here' is a bit harsh. How about 'indifferent to where he plays'?

Edgy DC wrote: ]This is hard for me to fathom. It's hard for me to conclude.

It's hard for me to understand why a guy who so badly wants that 300th win wouldn't want to pitch for a team that appears to give him a much better and easier shot at doing it.

Edgy DC wrote: ]We all know the guy is pitching simply to get 300 wins. And to make a boatload of money.

Agreed.

Edgy DC wrote: ]Don't you think, taking into account that he's rarely going to pitch past the 6th inning anyway, that he'd have a better and easier shot of picking those 11 wins up with a team that basically dominated the division last year with its offense? I do. How deeply do we want to look at that accusation of him as a short worker. It's getting strange now.

Your table shows him as averaging 6.19 innings per start.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Sure, but your implication seems to be that 6.19 is particularly bad. In fact, in 2006, it's pretty fly for an old guy.

[metsmarathon]

with 22 quality starts last year (6th in the NL, 1 behind cy young winner chris carpenter, as many as carlos zambrano, and two more than dontrelle willis), i don't think tom glavine was all too much of a drag on the team last year, nor do i thik that characterizing his performance as mediocre is all that fair. was it great? no. mindblowing? no. dominating? no. but it was still good, and certainly better than average or mediocre.

that said, bringing him back is a good move only depending on the money and the years, and what the rest of the rotation looks like. if we sign glavine, and fold up our tents and go home, then we're making a huge mistake. but then, we'd be making the same mistake if we just signed barry zito, and folded up our tents and went home.

[Frayed Knot]

Not just for an old guy but pretty much all around.
A quick-n-dirty search of NL ERA leaders (theoretically, at least, the best of the bunch) showed most averaging in the mid-6's for IP/start meaning that for the most part he's averaging an out, or sometimes two, less than the supposed cream of the crop. IOW, not much indicates that his replacement is going to give you much more.
Only Brandon Webb, btw, hit 7+

Look, if he leaves, he leaves, I'm not going to get all broken up over it. But I think they're going to be looking for a starter in addition to Glavine anyway, meaning that his departure would leave them searching for two. And in a staff decorated with question marks & injuries I fail to see the logic in celebrating the potential departure of the most consistent (and unijured) guy from last season ... especially when I think part of the reason childishly involves lingering issues of Brave cooties.

[Guest Edgy DC]

We saved ourselves last year with redundancy. Old guys came, young guys came, foreign imports came, flyers came, enigmas came, retreads came. You open the season with the old guys because they can't be warehoused. But the team wasn't married to them and moved one when it came time to move on.

John Maine, by Marty Noble's estimation (and I agree), opened the season at about 13th on the Mets starting pitching depth chart, and finished it by nearly saving our bacon. The trick is making several deft decisions and depending on none of them to come through.

[Guest iramets]

Edgy DC wrote: We saved ourselves last year with redundancy. .

Could we possibly learn the concept of 'quitting while you're ahead'? The Mets rolled the dice on old guys, and made it (or almost made it) before their arms gave out and the younger starters stepped in just fine. Why doubledown on the old guys to give you ANOTHER decent year (at top frickin dollar, mind you) instead of turning the reins over, where possible, to the younger guys. Now theyre committed to Pedro and Hernandez,--Save a few bucks on starting pitching, see what guys like Maine and Perez and Bannister can do, and spend that money on some other needs of which there are plenty.

[soupcan]

I suppose I'm just saying that I don't think he's irreplaceble and if he chooses to go then so be it and I'm not going to cry and wring my hands over it.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Agreed witch soup.

Every personnel decision is a roll of the dice. The Mets have plenty of young pitchers that may or may not be ready to step in. Turning the reins over to them is also a roll of the dice, with less redundancy behiind it. I'm certain that those that perform this season will see their roles increase.

What do you want the Mets to save their money for? What are the other needs, which are plenty? I think most people agree that starting pitching is their current need.

• Two young all stars are in the infield, plus one guy a season removed from being sixth in the league in MVP voting.


• One kind of young all-star (and MVP candidate) is in the outfield plus one guy who is old but threw up all-star years in 2004 and 2005 and slugged .571 when healthy this year.


• The catcher is an all-star.


• The bullpen was the class of the league last year. We've perhaps lost some righthanded depth but there's still plenty of time to rejigger there and to see what we have.

[Centerfield]

I'm with soup. I'd like to have him back, but if he goes, so be it.

But, if he signed with Atlanta and his salary forced them to dump Hudson, that would be very very good.

[Guest Rotblatt]

I don't think losing Glavine would be the end of the world, but I'd rather have him in 2007 than, say, Meche and maybe even Lilly.

At the very least, he's a dependable, above-average starter. A Barry Zito, if you will, but we'll get him for less money and we'll have to guarantee fewer years.

And I'm with Edgy that our top priority should be pitching, and to its credit, that's what our front office has done. They scrimped a little with LF, and went hard after Matsuzaka and the soon-to-be MFY scum. I expect they'll go strong after Zito, too.

Anyway, I would be okay if we went into 2007 with what we've currently got. Between Pelfrey, Humber, Bannister, Maine & Perez, we've got a few wild cards, and we'd always have Milledge in our back pocket if we needed to trade up for some pitching.

I'd prefer to bring back Glavine, or sign a Lilly or Zito to bring some stability to the rotation, but we're not in bad shape, IMO.

[Guest sharpie]

Let's not forget that we may have a pretty good mid-season pickup in Pedro.

[Guest iramets]

Edgy DC wrote: What do you want the Mets to save their money for? What are the other needs, which are plenty? I think most people agree that starting pitching is their current need.

Okay, let's stipulate that starting pitching is need #1. But the back end of the rotation is where we're strong. Glavine is only at the front end because that's where we're weak. He's a good # 3 starter, and a very good #4. As staff ace, not so much. We've just had a four-year sample of his abilities: he's gone an average of 12-12 with an ERA just under 4 over the last four years. Is this what you're seeking from your staff ace? Do you expect Glavine to show signs of improvement over the past 4 years in his 40s? That's improbable. If you sign him at staff-ace prices, eventually you're going to get burned badly--if the Braves want to offer him a staff-ace salary, let them. I'd focus on signing Zito, or pulling off a trade. This is a chance to make the rotation younger--I'd go for it.

Maybe a trade for a rotation anchor weakens your offensive lineup--I'd use Glavine's salary to pay for whoever you're filling that hole with. Unless you're arguing that the Mets have an unlimited budget, I'm hoping to use the budget to get the best players. I don't think Glavine is the best player they can get for a superstar rotation anchor salary right now, and that's what he's seeking. Pass.

If you don't want to stipulate that the rotation is the #1 priority, then you'd argue that we need to shore up the bullpen and get help at 2B and in the corner OF positions. When your corner outfielders are batting 6 or 7 in the lineup, and aren't gifted fielders besides, you've got problems.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I don't think Glavine is getting top dollar, nor do I think of him as an ace and I think this conversation shouldn't be framed that way.

As far as we know, the Braves haven't offered him squat.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Anybody want to guess?

[Guest cooby]

what are we guessing? Did something happen?

[Guest Edgy DC]

Eh, nuttin.

ira just argues like Bret is all, uses similar terms and assumptions and takes a similar position.

[Guest heep]

It is almost December, and the Braves have not made him an offer...hmmmm

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I haven't seen anyone here advocating Glavine as the ace of the staff. I think he is a pretty good second or third guy in the rotation. Whether the Mets resign Glavine or not, they need to get more starting pitching in my opinion.

I also have far less confidence in Pedro's successful return next season. Between his toe problems, shoulder surgery, and other assorted injuries he experienced I think Pedro's days of dominance are far behind him. I'm doubtful he really has much more left in the tank for the future than does Glavine. I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't count on too much from Pedro next season.

[Guest cooby]

="Edgy DC"]Eh, nuttin. ira just argues like Bret is all, uses similar terms and assumptions and takes a similar position.

Oh, I get ya.

No ira makes much more sense than Bret, (not that that's hard) and has some people skills to boot.

[Frayed Knot]

="iramets"]I'd have been comfortable going into the 2007 season with a rotation of Maine and Perez and Bannister and Pelfrey and Humber

You do realize that this backs are absolutely ready for prime-time 'win now' offense with 5 unproven, or barely proven, hurlers with even worse in reserve don't you?

ALL spent time in the minors this year and several in various rehabs (injuries: they're not just for seniors anymore) and they totaled just 32 starts this season (approx the amount ONE pitcher should have) and only Perez had any coming into the year.

Specifically:
- Maine has part of one good season under his belt and can scarely be considered a sure thing
- Bannister was injured most of the season and has just 6 ML starts under his belt while giving up 1.5 baserunners/inning
- Humber has never started an ML game in his life (2 IP) is coming off major surgery and probably won't be ready for the full-time innings required of a year-long regular starter
- Pelfrey had 4 ML starts with mixed effectiveness (at which point he lost the spot) in what was his first year as a pro at any level
- and Perez blew hot & cold w/streaks of wildness while searching for the form that once made him exciting 3 sesons ago

I'm all for giving "the kids" shots too. But depending on a whole crop of them to man your staff is a helluva lot more risky than giving a 1-year deal to a future HoF pitcher who's never been injured and is coming off a good season. The White House press corps hot on the trail of a scandal has fewer questions than the above crew.

[smg58]

The Mets need to make a fair analysis not only of Pedro's chances, but also Pelfrey's readiniess at some point next year. They could throw the #5 spot up for grabs between Vargas/Bannister/Williams/Soler and hope one of them can hold the spot until either Pedro or Pelfrey can take it. Then it becomes a question of living with a 2-4 of Hernandez/Maine/Perez if you get the right #1.

So question #1 is, is the right ace out there at a non-ludicrous price?

If the answer to that is yes, then I think we can send Glavine on his way. If not, then I think you take Glavine back and deal for another pitcher who's at least as good.

[metirish]

] So question #1 is, is the right ace out there at a non-ludicrous price?

Only by trade I would think......Zito will get paid as a # starter but is he one?,depends on what team he goes too,Willis is what I want for xmas.

[metirish]

Breaking News on Glavine......

follow the link for news

[Guest cooby]

metirish, not to be a complainer, but this link doesn't work

[metirish]

cooby wrote: metirish, not to be a complainer, but this link doesn't work

yeah I know that....Cooby,I'm surprised with you...

[Guest Edgy DC]

And it seems so innocent, not like a setup at all.

[soupcan]

I don't get it.

[Guest cooby]

Well, the link saying something about a granny did kinda give me a clue

[metirish]

soupcan wrote: I don't get it.

Just taking the piss,Shanks yesteday on braves.scout.com had the headline.....Breaking News on Glavine.....you have to be a paid member to access it.....and there was no news in the article....

[Guest cooby]

soupcan wrote: I don't get it.

yay...I'm not all alone