Glavine

[seawolf17]

Nymr83 wrote: Eaton gets hurt alot, thats still a deal i'd have signed though.

Hey, if someone wants to give me that kind of money for three years to do my job, I'd sign that too.

I look forward to Eaton racking up a 2-7, 6.48 kind of line against the Mets in the next three years. (Kindly ignore the three gems he pitched against us in '00, '01, and '04.)

[Guest iramets]

metsmarathon wrote: we'd be foolish to dismiss him.

You say "dismiss him" (Johnny Dickshot says "addition by subtraction") as if I was arguing that simply losing Glavine improves the team. It doesn't. Glavine's coming off a good year, and has been a durable pitcher for four seasons. But he's expensive, old, and fetches us two top draft picks.

Think "Aaron Heilman" when I say "top draft pick." Think "Scott Kazmir." Think "Phillip Humber." This is not nothing. It's very often high-quality pitching for a low price for a good number of years. This is the type of choice (forget about Glavine for a moment) that the Mets need to be making routinely. My point about starting the kids is not that I know they're all better pitchers in 2007 than Glavine is, it's that we've already got the rotation cluttered with old guys (Hernandez and Pedro) who we're committed to, we're trying to get Zito (and we should), and we've got enough young arms who proven they're ready for a full shot at a starting role to acquire another Heilman, Kazmir, Humber in exchange for Glavine. It's a risk, I understand, but we should be prepared to take some risks to improve the team.

Marathon, I think you're looking at Glavine's record both selectively and optimistically. You'll be very disappointed if he pitches like his record over a period of years and not just last year, but that is how you have to regard Glavine's record. He's just not a .700 pitcher anymore, last year aside. He's not even a .600 pitcher, IMO. You could argue that he's better than his .500 record over the past 4 years, but not enough better to make signing him make a whole lot of sense to me.

[soupcan]

Today's NYTimes


December 1, 2006

On Baseball

Glavine Reaches a Full Count

By MURRAY CHASS

Tom Glavine is on the verge of making his decision. “He’s going to make a decision, I would think, by tomorrow,” Gregg Clifton, Glavine’s agent, said yesterday, meaning that today is the day that Glavine should decide if he wants to remain with the Mets for a fifth season or go home to Atlanta, where his 290-victory career began two decades ago.

I am not in the habit of telling players what they should do. Where they play, how much they sign for is their prerogative; it’s their career. But I am going to depart from that practice and tell Glavine he should stay with the Mets.

Two reasons prompt me to offer that unsolicited advice, professional and personal; professional for Glavine, personal for me.

Circumstances can change by the start of next season. But as the Mets and the Braves are presently constituted — and that’s all Glavine can go on — he would probably have an easier time winning 10 games and reaching 300 career victories in New York than he would in Atlanta.

Given that he compiled a 33-41 record in his first three years with the mediocre Mets while the Braves were still good enough to win division championships, Glavine made a mistake leaving the Braves. He would probably already have 300 victories had he stayed in Atlanta. But he should not compound that mistake with another.

The personal reason? I like Tom Glavine and would like to have him around for the rest of his career. Glavine is one of the classiest players I have met and covered in the nearly half century that I have been writing about baseball. I have known him for more than a dozen years and value the time I have spent talking to him.

The Mets, however, need Glavine more than I do. Not that they can’t replace a 41-year-old pitcher, but right now he’s the only established starter they can count on for the start of next season. They think a lot of him, too, as an individual.

Newspaper and Internet articles this week have suggested that Glavine has already made his decision and that he wants to play for the Braves. But he has not informed the Mets of such a decision. And Omar Minaya, the Mets’ general manager, said he didn’t believe Glavine would keep information from the team he nearly went to the World Series with last season.

“Tommy Glavine isn’t the type of guy who plays those games,” Minaya said yesterday. “The Tommy Glavine I know wouldn’t do that.”

According to Clifton, Glavine hasn’t made up his mind. “It’s absolutely untrue,” Clifton said in a telephone interview, adding, “The Mets have been incredibly supportive and understanding of his decision-making process.

“I give Omar and the Wilpons credit for the way they’ve handled this,” he said in reference to Fred Wilpon, the Mets’ principal owner, and Jeff Wilpon, the team’s chief operating officer.

Clifton said he had had two or three conversations with John Schuerholz, the Braves’ general manager. “Our talks have been cordial,” Clifton said, adding that contrary to some reports, the Braves have not made Glavine an offer.

“John has said he’s not in a position to make an offer,” Clifton said.

Glavine, of course, would have a problem if he decided he wanted to return to the Braves and they were unable or unwilling to offer him a fair contract. Schuerholz has not acknowledged that he is interested in getting Glavine back, only that he is looking to upgrade the Braves’ pitching. And it’s possible that if Glavine wanted to play for them and the Braves wanted him back, they would first have to make a trade to clear payroll.

If Glavine lived in, say, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and not Atlanta, his decision would be easy: stay with the Mets. But it’s the chance to be home for half the season that makes for a difficult choice.

Glavine’s family situation compounds his professional problem. He and his wife, Christine, each have a child from a previous marriage, for whom they have shared custody, and they have two children from their marriage. Amber, 11, is Tom’s daughter; Jonathan, 12, is Christine’s son; and Peyton, 7, and Mason, 6, are their sons.

Juggling the four children was difficult enough when Glavine was working in Atlanta. Playing in New York created more intricate planning and execution.

Yet when Glavine was talking last month about the uncertainty of his plans, he related an interesting story.

“When we talk about Dad not playing baseball anymore,” he said, “the first thing they ask is are we going to sell our house in Connecticut, and when I say yes, they get mad at me because they loved it.”

Then he added: “I know they still love it up here and enjoy it. But sometimes they struggle with me not being here.”

Glavine also talked about the fact that his children were older than they were when he first played for the Mets in 2003, and that their after-school and summer activities, like Little League baseball, are curtailed by their trips to New York.

The longer Glavine takes making his decision the more likely, some people think, he will come down on the side of staying home. Others think the opposite, feeling that the longer he takes, the more he realizes how much he has enjoyed playing in New York and how well he has been treated by the Mets.

Glavine even appreciates how the Mets haven’t pressured him into making a decision sooner than he wanted. The Mets have talked to Clifton, but they haven’t talked with Glavine or made him an offer in an attempt to lure him with money.

At the same time, Glavine doesn’t want to delay his decision indefinitely and make it difficult for the Mets to go forward with their off-season pitching plans. That’s why his decision is imminent, if not today, by the end of the weekend, before the winter meetings start, as he promised.

[Frayed Knot]

]and we've got enough young arms who proven they're ready for a full shot at a starting role to acquire another Heilman, Kazmir, Humber in exchange for Glavine.

1) We get draft picks for Glavine only if we offer - and he subsequently declines - arbitration. I suspect (although don't know) that there may be an existing agreement where they won't offer arb (not an uncommon side deal). IOW, losing him does not equal automatic top picks.

2) Even if we do recieve picks and he winds up signing w/Atlanta, the picks are more likely to be in the mid-30s to mid-50s range overall*. Still nice picks to have but a far cry from the Kazmir, Pelfrey, Humber, Heilman territory which were all top 20 picks (15th, 9th, 3rd & 18th I believe) and very unlikely to produce the same caliber of player.



* (Braves finished in the bottom half of all teams meaning that their 1st round pick is protected from being lost. We'd instead get their 2nd round pick -- or maybe 3rd if they sign someone else; see the 'Bradford' thread for more explanation -- in addition to the 'sandwich' pick.)

[metsmarathon]

you miss my point about the record. i tend to ignore wins and losses by a pitcher - they tell me little about how good he really was or wasn't, instead telling me more about how good his team was and how much run support he got. and these are hardly things i think we should be basing personnel decisions on.

you make a good point with the draft picks. they are a valuable commodity, and are important to the future of the team.

i think there's a fair amount of confusion in this thread. namely, i have no idea what you want our offseason pitching acquisitions to look like.

do you feel that the team would be better served by adding one or two veteran pitchers to what we've already got on the books?

instead of framing this argument around tom glavine specifically, i'm actually more interested in the generality for a moment. i think i'm correct in saying that we both want the mets to sign barry zito (or consolation prize jason schmidt, to a shorter commitment). where my confusion comes in is whether you think the team needs to bring in another pitcher to the mix - be that pitcher ted lilly, vicente padilla, jeff suppan, tom glavine, whoever - or do you think that if we get zito, then our rotation is set.

see, i think that we need another pitcher after the top line guy. i don't expect to get more that one full starter between pedro and el duque.

that leaves us three holes in the rotation. maybe maine fills one of them - but he's no given, and i don't that he's all that highly thought of in the baseball world. i think that we have enough question marks for two spots in the rotation, and do not want to go into 2007 thinking that i'm going to need pelfrey or humber to step up big time. because, really, rookie pitchers don't often do all that well, no matter what their upside.

i think we'll be lucky if two of the young guys can contribute meaningfully and positively to the 2007 mets.

as for 2008, i expect we'll get a full season between pedro and el duque again, with pedro hopefully getting the lion's share this time. so that still leaves us with plenty of room for the young guys then, too.

[Guest heep]

I got a feeling:

Tommy signs a 1 year deal for 10 million, option for 2 with the M E T S
this weekend.

Don't ask why

[Theoldmole]

Sounds right to me.

[Frayed Knot]

The Glavine camp is apparently saying decision by Monday.

[Willets Point]

Glavine has a camp? He's not demanding that his contract include a tent is he?

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I think he gets a Boy Scout too. Oh, wait, that's A-rod.

Later

[seawolf17]

Willets Point wrote: Glavine has a camp? He's not demanding that his contract include a tent is he?

He has a camp; he doesn't need a tent, he has one. What he wants is more cooking gear and a big jug of fresh water.

[Guest Edgy DC]

The friends I made at Camp Glavine...

[HahnSolo]

Nothing could beat the weekly Questec bonfire...

[Frayed Knot]

"This one time in Glavine camp ... "

[Willets Point]

Quotes from Kamp Glavine:

"Oh! They drove a dumptruck full of money up to my house. I'm not made of stone! But I'm going to make it up to you kids. I'm going to take you to the happiest place on Earth...Tijuana!"

[TransMonk]

Evidentally, ESPN News is reporting he will be back in NY for $11 mil in 2007 with an option for 2008.

Neither ESPN.com nor any other website is reporting it.

On edit: SI.com confirms, but for $10.5mil. Newsday says the Mets will have a telephone news conference at 4:50.

[Guest iramets]

metsmarathon wrote: you miss my point about the record. i tend to ignore wins and losses by a pitcher - they tell me little about how good he really was or wasn't, instead telling me more about how good his team was and how much run support he got. and these are hardly things i think we should be basing personnel decisions on. you make a good point with the draft picks. they are a valuable commodity, and are important to the future of the team. i think there's a fair amount of confusion in this thread. namely, i have no idea what you want our offseason pitching acquisitions to look like. .

first paragraph-- w-l is meaningless, I agree in short spans, even up to a season, but when you've 4 years, or an entire career to look at, stuff like run support, quality of team generally, usually balances out at least partway. Over a career, W-L is a pretty good standard, for example, in HOF discussions. I think the data that he's gone 48-48 n a Met uniform is meaningful. I also think that if he'd gone 58-38, his supporters would be citing it as valid.

second paragraph--I didn't realize the stuff Frayed Knot mentioned about the picks being less valuable if the team giving them up was really bad. I thought the Braves' bad year made them MORE valuable to have.

third paragraph--I want the Mets' rotation to have fewer grey hairs in 2007. Zito or someone close to Zito in age and quality--get him, by hook or crook or free agency or trade. Give Maine a full shot at a rotation spot. Give Perez and Bannister shots as well.

Finally let me explain another thing I have against giving questec marks like Glavine expensive contracts. That not only obligates you to play him, it also obligates you to keep playing him no matter how badly he sucks. If Maine sucks, you'll jerk him from the rotation after ten bad starts. Glavine gets --well, I don;t know how many starts, but at 10 mil, it takes a lot of bad starts to get him out of the rotation, probably more than a season's worth.. That's why I'm pretty sure Pedro will get at least 15 starts--I've heard no rational arguments that his injury will keep him on the DL much past June, and once he returns (barring further injury) there's no level of suckiness that he can pitch at that will cause him to be removed from the rotation. If Pedro has a single qualilty start in his first 10, a record of 1-6 and an ERA over 5, Willie will keep handing him the ball. Same with Glavine. A lesser starter will get demoted, and the season possibly rescued, but with a 10+ mil contract, we'll keep riding a pitcher straight down the toilet.

[metirish]

SNY is saying Glav is singed.....

signed even...

[Guest iramets]

and so are my eyebrows.

[nymr83]

good. now get me zito.

[Guest iramets]

I'll get you a whole plate of ziti. You want parmeggiano on that?

I'll also get Brian Bannister the giant sized cannister of Vaseline, cuz it looks like he's going to need it.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

]A lesser starter will get demoted, and the season possibly rescued,

By whom? A lesser starter than him?

]but with a 10+ mil contract, we'll keep riding a pitcher straight down the toilet.

Cuz you say we will?

Depth is a good thing.

[Guest iramets]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: ]A lesser starter will get demoted, and the season possibly rescued, By whom? A lesser starter than him? ]but with a 10+ mil contract, we'll keep riding a pitcher straight down the toilet. Cuz you say we will? Depth is a good thing.

A "lesser" starter is a starter paid significantly less than 10 mil. But you probably knew that already.

Name me the last starter getting paid a fortune (more than 10 mil) who got jerked from the rotation, please, on any club. Randy Johnson? Nope, the Yankees would have rode him down the swirling water. Mike Hampton? Nope, stayed in the rotation until he hurt himself. It just doesn't ahpppen. Once a club has sunk its budget and its hopes in a guy, there's no white flag, the whole season just becomes a disaster.

Being free to bench bad players and promote good ones is also a good thing.

[Guest patona314]

Zito/Boras was in texas this week visiting the rangers.

two thing came to mind... a-rod and chan ho park. both owned by boras. the rangers have lost 4/5 players to free agency already, which means the rangers have some extra cash. Hicks is going to throw a ton of $$$ at zito/boras.

not a good sign for our beloved mets.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

I'm glad Glavine is back. I think his march to 300 will be wonderful for all of us. Will this be the biggest milestone reached by a Mets player (while actually on the Mets, as opposed to Seaver's 300th?)

While Pedro's 200th, Carter's 300 bomb, Delgado's 400th blast all were fun, it's not the same as a 300 win/500 homer/3,000 hit kind of thing.

As for Zito, you gotta figure the Texas trip is just to drive the price up, knowing that Hicks will throw big money around.

SI did a great story years back about the details of the A-Rod signing, how Boras played these guys for fools when they were essentially bidding against themselves.

Boras doesn't leave money on the table, but hopefully the ARod signing -- and his dissatisfaction there after a couple years -- will show Zito that while it's fun to cash those checks, it's not everything.

[stevejrogers]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I'm glad Glavine is back. I think his march to 300 will be wonderful for all of us. Will this be the biggest milestone reached by a Mets player (while actually on the Mets, as opposed to Seaver's 300th?) While Pedro's 200th, Carter's 300 bomb, Delgado's 400th blast all were fun, it's not the same as a 300 win/500 homer/3,000 hit kind of thing.

Funny, that sounds like a "Yankee Thing" to do. I thought we weren't the Yankees.

It'd be nice to stick on the media guide cover, but really, who gives a rump what uniform the players wears with the exception of if he wears it with the team he is mostly associated with.

[stevejrogers]

And yes I know I did that whole countdown thread, but still, should that really be THAT big of a deal for fans?

[Guest OlerudOwned]

Since when has Glavine sucked? That's the only thing that's puzzling me. He seemed good laast year.

[stevejrogers]

ESPN is reporting it as well, 1 year 10.5 mil

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2682818

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

] A "lesser" starter is a starter paid significantly less than 10 mil. But you probably knew that already.

Considering the argument was framed as bad news for Bannister, I kinda assumed that's the caliber of player you were discussing. Look, I'm far from Glavine's biggest fan here, I could care less about the payroll, and think the Mets could certrainly make it without him. I only jumped in when it looked like there were arguments being made that being without him would be a huge boon to the club. I just don't see that.

I also think that were they not paying Glavine 10 mills a year it wouldn't be Bannister who'd benefit but Gil Meche or Padilla or Batista or another guy who'd provide something you can pencil in (@$7M or $8M for 3 or 4 years, btw) since I believe the Mets are going to give it their best shot from the get-go rather than gambling on 3 or 4 youngsters with less to back them up.

After a shaky '03 Glavine's been pretty strong (his ERA well above league average), so I guess we'll have to confront the questions of what happenens when he collapses when he collapses. I will say I don't think the Yankees' experiences with Johnson (committed to another year and with nothing in the cupboard to replace him) makes much of a case. Kaz Matsui was paid pretty well by the Mets last year.