Glavine

[soupcan]

Sorry my bad.

I've got a splitting headache and it's interefering with all rational thought.

[Guest Iubitul]

Well, you probably caught a draft from showing up naked in the other thread...

[metsmarathon]

iramets wrote: 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.

i don't think that i've seen that anywhere. in fact, i'd be surprised if he got even close to mussina money ($11.5M x 2 years)

i fully expect glavine to sign for about $9M, maybe $10M, for one or two years. and in this market, that's not ace money. its #3 starter money.

obviously, if it comes down to signing tom glavine for $14M a year, or letting him walk, he walks. no question. but i hardly think that it'll come down to that.

[Guest iramets]

Frayed Knot wrote: ="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?

But you've got Hernandez already signed for 2007, and Pedro's going to get a bunch of starts, and I'm advocating signing Zito, if possible, and/or getting a first rank younger pitcher in a deal. Maine's earned a full shot already, I think Perez has too, and I'd give one to Bannister as well. If one of those falters, you've got Pelfrey, and if another falters you've got Humber. I believe that Glavine is expecting front-line starter money, not completely unreasonably given his w-l record last year, and will try to get at least two years on his next deal. That money could be better spent elsewhere.If we can sign him for middle (or back) of the rotation money, I'd go for that, but I don't believe that's what he's looking for.

[Frayed Knot]

Well, throwing Pedro, Zito & El Duque into the mix makes the scenario a whole lot different than the orignial statement of wanting to go with a rotation made up strictly of those 5 untested pitchers (Bannister, Humber, Pelfrey, Perez, Maine). No one is saying not to give any of all of them a shot, only that a rotation where the majority have [u:4a34e9cef7]less than 100 ML IPs combined[/u:4a34e9cef7] isn't a recipe for success.

And the problem w/saying that saving Glavine money for someone else is that someone else halfway decent is likely to cost in the range as Glavine. Lilly & Meche, for instance, are being talked about in the 4x$10 range. I'm open to alternatives, I just don't think that the simply swapping him for Mr. N. E. Body is automatically a net plus.

[nymr83]

iramets wrote: ="Frayed Knot"] iramets wrote: 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? But you've got Hernandez already signed for 2007, and Pedro's going to get a bunch of starts, and I'm advocating signing Zito, if possible, and/or getting a first rank younger pitcher in a deal. Maine's earned a full shot already, I think Perez has too, and I'd give one to Bannister as well. If one of those falters, you've got Pelfrey, and if another falters you've got Humber. I believe that Glavine is expecting front-line starter money, not completely unreasonably given his w-l record last year, and will try to get at least two years on his next deal. That money could be better spent elsewhere.If we can sign him for middle (or back) of the rotation money, I'd go for that, but I don't believe that's what he's looking for.

ok 1 at a time here...
so what if you'v got hernandez signed? he's not very good.
you can't count on Pedro getting "a bunch of starts" or on those starts being of his usual quality.
yeah, Maine has earned a shot.
Perez hasn't, one playoff game doesn't make you a #2 starter (as he would be with that circus of a rotation listed above) Perez should ideally be one of several candidates for 4/5.
Bannister was smoke and mirrors, like Perez he's a 5th starter candidate not a guy to be relied upon.
Pelfrey and Humber have shown nothing in the majors, they look like they still need time, to count on both of them along with these other guys is suicidal.

now look, if you sign Zito and Glavine the rotation suddenly looks good and deep, but neither is on board yet and right now the Mets rotation looks like it belongs in Norfolk (its gonna take some time for me to get used to saying New Orleans btw)

[Guest iramets]

I think I've been unclear. Let me try again. You've already got Hernandez and Pedro signed. A mistake to do that? Maybe, but it's done. You're planning to get, what, 40, 45 starts from those two pitchers? Pick a number that makes sense to you and go with it, but it's got to be close to 40-45, or else you're just throwing money around like it's nothing. Counting on Maine, Perez and Bannister to give you another 70-75 starts between them is reasonable. That leaves you with just 42 to 52 more starts, I want a good, top-rate starter to get most of those (and Pelfrey and Humber to get the rest, and to fill in when someone goes down with an injury). If your front-line starter is Zito, fine. If it's someone you can get in a trade for Milledge or whoever, fine. But if it's Glavine, I think the staff isn't good enough to win the division. If it's Zito AND Glavine, I think you're planning to do someone (probably Bannister and Perez) out of a real shot at a job, and you're wasting money besides.

Give me a maximum figure, please, that you would invest in Glavine for 2007 and 2008. I'd give him 11 million for the two years, and I think he'd walk away from that offer so fast you're probably better off making him no offer at all. He thinks he's a 15-7 pitcher, and I think he's a 12-12 pitcher.

[metsmarathon]

i'm planning to get 30 starts out of the combination of pedro and el duque, meaning that i'd expect to see about a full season out of el duque, and think very strongly that we should not plan on pedro pitching a meaningful inning in '07

maine, perez, and bannister get me another 60-70, with some help from humber and pelfrey.

that leaves room for two starters. not one.

i think he leaps headlong into $11M x 2 years. if he gets more, he gets it from a team that is not the new york mets.

and wether or not he's a 15-7 pitcher or a 12-12 pitcher depends a lot on the offense. i think he will allow fewer runs than we will score in support of him.

[Guest heep]

Bottom line is, we have 1 definite starter, and we to add at least one, if not both, Zito and Glavine. Both are very durable. I'll take 1, and be happy with that, but both would make us very deep.

Oh yea, Pelfrey, Humber, Bannister, Perez, Maine, Vargas, will see there share of starts...Its the nature of the position.

[nymr83]

i agree with marathon, any strategy that counts on Pedro in 2007 is a bad strategy. the money is gone already, act like he's not going to be back and be pleasantly suprised if he's able to make a positive contribution in the latter half of the season.

counting on Hernandez for 30 starts is a bit overboard too but thats not really the point, the point is what kind of quality do you expect out of those starts? expecting anything better than a whole lot of 5 inning 3 run appearences with a couple of 6 inning 1 run gamnes mixed in (an ERA around 4.50 or higher) is a pipe dream.

you say you're counting on Maine, Perez, and Bannister for 75 starts. well fine, i'll count of 25-30 starts out of Maine and i'll hope that we won't be disappointed int heir overall quality, but to count on 20-25 each from Perez and Bannister is a joke, unless you just want the innings without regard to how they are going to perform.

this team needs at least TWO starters right now, Zito/Schmidt alone elps but neither can solve the problem.

]Give me a maximum figure, please, that you would invest in Glavine for 2007 and 2008. I'd give him 11 million for the two years, and I think he'd walk away from that offer so fast you're probably better off making him no offer at all. He thinks he's a 15-7 pitcher, and I think he's a 12-12 pitcher.

records are in large part a result of run support so they really aren't indicative of his remaining talent. i think Tom Glavine is still a guy who will go out there 30 times and give you an ERA around 3.75-4.00, worth 10 million in this market. i really don't care how much money they give him for 2007, the Mets arent going to hurt themselves with a big 1 year deal, what would worry me is seeing him signed for 2 years with an easy to reach option that kicks in automatically for year 3, i havent heard anything about that.
Glavine of course isn't the complete solution to the Mets problems, but with whats out there he's a decent step in the right direction, provided that Mets management doesnt use his resigning as an excuse not to pursue another pitcher (Omar isn't that dumb even if some of his predecessors would have been.)

]Oh yea, Pelfrey, Humber, Bannister, Perez, Maine, Vargas, will see there share of starts...Its the nature of the position.

sure they will, but when you are startig your season by slotting 4 or 5 guys from that list into your rotation you are in VERY bad shape.

[Elster88]

Nymr83 wrote: ="iramets"] ="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? But you've got Hernandez already signed for 2007, and Pedro's going to get a bunch of starts, and I'm advocating signing Zito, if possible, and/or getting a first rank younger pitcher in a deal. Maine's earned a full shot already, I think Perez has too, and I'd give one to Bannister as well. If one of those falters, you've got Pelfrey, and if another falters you've got Humber. I believe that Glavine is expecting front-line starter money, not completely unreasonably given his w-l record last year, and will try to get at least two years on his next deal. That money could be better spent elsewhere.If we can sign him for middle (or back) of the rotation money, I'd go for that, but I don't believe that's what he's looking for. ok 1 at a time here... so what if you'v got hernandez signed? he's not very good. you can't count on Pedro getting "a bunch of starts" or on those starts being of his usual quality. yeah, Maine has earned a shot. Perez hasn't, one playoff game doesn't make you a #2 starter (as he would be with that circus of a rotation listed above) Perez should ideally be one of several candidates for 4/5. Bannister was smoke and mirrors, like Perez he's a 5th starter candidate not a guy to be relied upon. Pelfrey and Humber have shown nothing in the majors, they look like they still need time, to count on both of them along with these other guys is suicidal. now look, if you sign Zito and Glavine the rotation suddenly looks good and deep, but neither is on board yet and right now the Mets rotation looks like it belongs in Norfolk (its gonna take some time for me to get used to saying New Orleans btw)

Wow Nymr. Well done. (sc = zero)

[Guest iramets]

And what kind of nutty dingbats are going into a season with this fresh punk Seaver, and this Koosman kid, and this never-will-be Ryan, and this who's he? McAndrew, and this flakey McGraw--we'd be much smarter to stick with Al Jackson and Jay Hook and Roger Craig a few more years, because you know you're getting quality there. Besides we've signed the vets I just named to long-term deals, so the kids can just wait their damned turn. Or just go to Hell, whichever is easier.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I don;t know where to start.

[metsmarathon]

iramets wrote: And what kind of nutty dingbats are going into a season with this fresh punk Seaver, and this Koosman kid, and this never-will-be Ryan, and this who's he? McAndrew, and this flakey McGraw--we'd be much smarter to stick with Al Jackson and Jay Hook and Roger Craig a few more years, because you know you're getting quality there. Besides we've signed the vets I just named to long-term deals, so the kids can just wait their damned turn. Or just go to Hell, whichever is easier.

going into 1969, tom seaver had already posted two complete years wherein he threw 250+ and 270+ innings, at 122 and 137 ERA+ respectively.

which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he?

going into 1969, jerry koosman had just thrown 260+ innings with a 145 ERA+ the year before.

which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he?

going into 1969, nolan ryan had just thrown 134 innings to a 98 ERA+ the year before.

maybe that's you're john maine analogue?

is aaron heilman tug mcgraw, or maybe jim mcandrew?

that 1969 crop of fresh faces had a LOT more innings at a lot higher quality than the group of somewhat less fresh faces you'd seem to prefer going into next year.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

The implied comparison of Martinez, Hernandez and Glavine to Hook, Craig and Jackson is probably more overstated.

[Guest cooby]

soupcan wrote: Gammons was on WFAN this afternoon and he said that 'the word out of Atlanta is' that Glavine's preference is to pitch for the Braves but there's a question as to whether or not the Braves can come up with enough money to make it worth his while. Good riddance I say. I don't understand all the hullabaloo. He's an above average 41 year-old 5 inning pitcher. Yes it would force the Mets to overpay for Zito but so what? I look forward to the easy wins against Atlanta next year with Glavine on the mound.

I read this this morning and meant to ask---how is Gammons? I've been wondering, and apparently he's back to work? That's good news, if so.

[metirish]

cooby wrote: ="soupcan"]Gammons was on WFAN this afternoon and he said that 'the word out of Atlanta is' that Glavine's preference is to pitch for the Braves but there's a question as to whether or not the Braves can come up with enough money to make it worth his while. Good riddance I say. I don't understand all the hullabaloo. He's an above average 41 year-old 5 inning pitcher. Yes it would force the Mets to overpay for Zito but so what? I look forward to the easy wins against Atlanta next year with Glavine on the mound. I read this this morning and meant to ask---how is Gammons? I've been wondering, and apparently he's back to work? That's good news, if so.

Gammons is back to work,saw him on ESPN, sounded a little groggy but looked good.

[Guest patona314]

iramets wrote: And what kind of nutty dingbats are going into a season with this fresh punk Seaver, and this Koosman kid, and this never-will-be Ryan, and this who's he? McAndrew, and this flakey McGraw--we'd be much smarter to stick with Al Jackson and Jay Hook and Roger Craig a few more years, because you know you're getting quality there. Besides we've signed the vets I just named to long-term deals, so the kids can just wait their damned turn. Or just go to Hell, whichever is easier.

uh.... i sort of liked that statement alot. god i miss the kooz

[nymr83]

metsmarathon wrote: ="iramets"]And what kind of nutty dingbats are going into a season with this fresh punk Seaver, and this Koosman kid, and this never-will-be Ryan, and this who's he? McAndrew, and this flakey McGraw--we'd be much smarter to stick with Al Jackson and Jay Hook and Roger Craig a few more years, because you know you're getting quality there. Besides we've signed the vets I just named to long-term deals, so the kids can just wait their damned turn. Or just go to Hell, whichever is easier. going into 1969, tom seaver had already posted two complete years wherein he threw 250+ and 270+ innings, at 122 and 137 ERA+ respectively. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, jerry koosman had just thrown 260+ innings with a 145 ERA+ the year before. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, nolan ryan had just thrown 134 innings to a 98 ERA+ the year before. maybe that's you're john maine analogue? is aaron heilman tug mcgraw, or maybe jim mcandrew? that 1969 crop of fresh faces had a LOT more innings at a lot higher quality than the group of somewhat less fresh faces you'd seem to prefer going into next year.

well put marathon. any analogy of the current youth to seaver/koosman/ryan is wishful thinking... or the result of one too many bong hits... hey where'd spaceman's bong go anyway?

[Guest patona314]

Nymr83 wrote: ="metsmarathon"] ="iramets"]And what kind of nutty dingbats are going into a season with this fresh punk Seaver, and this Koosman kid, and this never-will-be Ryan, and this who's he? McAndrew, and this flakey McGraw--we'd be much smarter to stick with Al Jackson and Jay Hook and Roger Craig a few more years, because you know you're getting quality there. Besides we've signed the vets I just named to long-term deals, so the kids can just wait their damned turn. Or just go to Hell, whichever is easier. going into 1969, tom seaver had already posted two complete years wherein he threw 250+ and 270+ innings, at 122 and 137 ERA+ respectively. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, jerry koosman had just thrown 260+ innings with a 145 ERA+ the year before. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, nolan ryan had just thrown 134 innings to a 98 ERA+ the year before. maybe that's you're john maine analogue? is aaron heilman tug mcgraw, or maybe jim mcandrew? that 1969 crop of fresh faces had a LOT more innings at a lot higher quality than the group of somewhat less fresh faces you'd seem to prefer going into next year. well put marathon. any analogy of the current youth to seaver/koosman/ryan is wishful thinking... or the result of one too many bong hits... hey where'd spaceman's bong go anyway?

you make it sound like it could never happen again...it could. their is talent in this group of baby sp's we currently have. unfortunatley for us, we might have to grow through their growing pains with them. Humber in particular.

[Guest patona314]

patona314 wrote: ="Nymr83"] ="metsmarathon"] ="iramets"]And what kind of nutty dingbats are going into a season with this fresh punk Seaver, and this Koosman kid, and this never-will-be Ryan, and this who's he? McAndrew, and this flakey McGraw--we'd be much smarter to stick with Al Jackson and Jay Hook and Roger Craig a few more years, because you know you're getting quality there. Besides we've signed the vets I just named to long-term deals, so the kids can just wait their damned turn. Or just go to Hell, whichever is easier. going into 1969, tom seaver had already posted two complete years wherein he threw 250+ and 270+ innings, at 122 and 137 ERA+ respectively. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, jerry koosman had just thrown 260+ innings with a 145 ERA+ the year before. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, nolan ryan had just thrown 134 innings to a 98 ERA+ the year before. maybe that's you're john maine analogue? is aaron heilman tug mcgraw, or maybe jim mcandrew? that 1969 crop of fresh faces had a LOT more innings at a lot higher quality than the group of somewhat less fresh faces you'd seem to prefer going into next year. well put marathon. any analogy of the current youth to seaver/koosman/ryan is wishful thinking... or the result of one too many bong hits... hey where'd spaceman's bong go anyway? you make it sound like it could never happen again...it could. their is talent in this group of baby sp's we currently have. unfortunately for us, we might have to grow through their growing pains with them. Humber in particular.

[Guest patona314]

sorry, i tried to make a correction and double posted. my bad

[Guest cleonjones11]

patona314 wrote: patona314 wrote: ="Nymr83"] ="metsmarathon"] ="iramets"]And what kind of nutty dingbats are going into a season with this fresh punk Seaver, and this Koosman kid, and this never-will-be Ryan, and this who's he? McAndrew, and this flakey McGraw--we'd be much smarter to stick with Al Jackson and Jay Hook and Roger Craig a few more years, because you know you're getting quality there. Besides we've signed the vets I just named to long-term deals, so the kids can just wait their damned turn. Or just go to Hell, whichever is easier. going into 1969, tom seaver had already posted two complete years wherein he threw 250+ and 270+ innings, at 122 and 137 ERA+ respectively. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, jerry koosman had just thrown 260+ innings with a 145 ERA+ the year before. which of maine, bannister, perez, pelfrey, humber, or soler is he? going into 1969, nolan ryan had just thrown 134 innings to a 98 ERA+ the year before. maybe that's you're john maine analogue? is aaron heilman tug mcgraw, or maybe jim mcandrew? that 1969 crop of fresh faces had a LOT more innings at a lot higher quality than the group of somewhat less fresh faces you'd seem to prefer going into next year. well put marathon. any analogy of the current youth to seaver/koosman/ryan is wishful thinking... or the result of one too many bong hits... hey where'd spaceman's bong go anyway? you make it sound like it could never happen again...it could. their is talent in this group of baby sp's we currently have. unfortunately for us, we might have to grow through their growing pains with them. Humber in particular.

Wrong,,,he;s saying one or 2 of our kids might breakout

[Guest cleonjones11]

Glavine 300 wins as a Bravo.. HOF in Braves hat..he want to be in Alpharetta GA with wifey and kids

His Met days..mostly medicore.. are OVA

LIMA TIME!

[Frayed Knot]

Just when you think the conversation can't possibly get any dumber
... and then along comes Jones

[Guest iramets]

I guess you guys don't like arguments by exaggeration, huh? If I'd wanted to make a serious case, I would have picked Cardwell and Jack Fisher (who at least pitched on the 1967 Mets with Seaver) as my Glavine comparisons. The point was that we have no idea about the upside of the young guys, but we know what Glavine's extreme upside is, because he just showed it to us last year. Glavine's downside? Well, I remember Warren Spahn's last year in baseball. Not pretty. Season-wrecking Not Pretty.

I'm sure you guys realize what we'll get for Glavine if the Braves sign him--a pretty good number 1 pick in the draft and a sandwich pick. Plus his salary can be spent on other immediate needs. That's not too shabby, especially because I think the Braves' pick should be a rather high one.

Put another way: if I'd told you four years ago that Glavine would go 48-48 over his 4 year deal, what would your reaction have been if I told you you would then be willing to sign him up for another couple of years at the same rate? You'd have told me I was maligning your intelligence, wouldn't you? Now if I added that by NOT signing him we could get two good draft picks in exchange, because the 41 year old Glavine would have had his best statistical year of the 4 in 2006, you'd have thought it was a bargain to let him go--isn't that true?

How about this--if Glavine weren't a Met, if he'd spent the last four years putting up these numbers as a Brave, do you suppose you'd want to sign him at these rates? Don't you think you'd be MUCH more skeptical about signing a guy with a .500 record over the last 4 seasons and expecting him to be your rotation stopper? I do.

[Guest iramets]

The Phillies just signed Adam Eaton to a contract worth 24.5 mil for 3 years.

Eaton is 29 years old last week and has gone 18-9 over the last two years (I assumed he's missed starts for health reasons, but is fine now--LMK if that's wrong). IOW, he's got about the same w-l pct that Glavine had last year over the last two years, he's a lot younger, with a lot more upside, and signed for LESS money than Glavine-fans seem to want to sign Glavine for. I know, he's signed for more years but the years shouldn't count against a 29 year old. In fact, you're trying to lock in a 29 year old, because you don't figure that a guy's arm will burn out at that age. Unless I'm wrong, and Eaton's an injured player the Phillies are gambling on, the value of a Glavine is less than has been stated here. (What I mean by "injured player" is someone who ended the previous season on the DL, whose rehab is questionable, not just someone who's missed time to injury, which Eaton clearly has done.)

I don't have a link to the actual transaction, but I just read it on a pop-up summary of the news article.

HERE's the link:

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/16112423.htm

He came back strong after a finger injury in 2005 and early 2006 (7-4 with a lousy ERA though I dont know what Texas does to ERAs.) Note, too, the article points out that the Phillies lost the services of 3b coach Art Howe to Washington, so he's in hot demand around the NL east, I guess, but have no interest in Philly native Mike Piazza.

[nymr83]

Eaton gets hurt alot, thats still a deal i'd have signed though.

[MFS62]

Ira, you present a very strong case for not wanting Glavine back (especially atthe salary he would command).

No bad for a "rookie" on the board.

Later

[metsmarathon]

="iramets"]How about this--if Glavine weren't a Met, if he'd spent the last four years putting up these numbers as a Brave, do you suppose you'd want to sign him at these rates? Don't you think you'd be MUCH more skeptical about signing a guy with a .500 record over the last 4 seasons and expecting him to be your rotation stopper? I do.

gosh, a .500 record! well, if that ain't the be all and end all...

over the past three seasons, he's averaged a 3.65 ERA, and 207 innings. he played poorly in his first year, but was also on a shitty team, and a slightly less-shitty team the second year. therein lies the answer to his record.

the ERA is a far better indication of his abilities than the record.

and i don't expect him to be the "stopper"

i expect us to bring in a true stopper. and glavine. or somebody else - i'm not picky.

the way i look at it, it's not choosing between tom glavine and barry zito or maybe jason schmidt. it's choosing between tom glavine and ted lilly or vicente padilla. and at least there you have a conversation.

we need an ace pitcher a the top of the rotation. that pitcher is not tom glavine.

we ALSO need another pitcher a step down from there. and that pitcher could be tom glavine, and in my opinion, we'd be foolish to dismiss him.