Glavine

[Guest iramets]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: [Kaz Matsui was paid pretty well by the Mets last year.

Kaz Matsui? The Mets continued to play him for years--years!--after he demonstrated that he was an awful mistake in judgment on their part, but when they still owed him a huge salary. He's your poster boy for someone who was demoted despite being owed a huge salary?

The defense rests, your honor.

[Frayed Knot]

It shouldn't.
You can't, on the one hand, claim that teams don't drop players with big salaries and then dismiss it when an example comes by showing that they do.
Matsui was kept on for two+ years on account of various reasons; injuries, a hope that his ship would right itself (he showed glimpses of it the 1st year), a lack of suitable alternatives. Of course contract terms factor into decisions, but when Valentin took over the job last year (weeks after fans were calling for HIM to be dumped) the Mets quickly ate nearly $8mil on Kaz's final year rather than keep him in there after a better replacement was apparent. Similar to the way the team did with Cedeno (2 yrs & ~ $10mil), Ordonez ($6-ish) and Bonilla (also ~ $6) just to name 4 examples from one team over the last few years.

[Guest KC]

I think if Glavine or Pedro sucked for a good stretch for whatever reason
they'd solve the problem by finding a way out of the rotation themselves.
It won't be Rick's problem, or Willie's dilema, or Omar's ass, or Wilpon's
wallet making that decision.

To me, the whole drama turned out well enough. They didn't lock him up for
two years and if he provides them a decent #2 or #3 guy for 3/4's of a sea-
son ... nicely done.

[metirish]

If Glavine stays healthy then his player option will be easily reached,if he reaches 160 innings then the option kicks in for $6M and for every 10 innings after that he gets $1M to a max of ten Million.

[Guest KC]

So, I'm a little off. It still doesn't seem like that bad a deal to me and cer-
tainly not worthy of half the drama in this thread. There's no way Tom or
Petey pitch for any prolonged stretch in an embarassing fashion just to
collect a paycheck or because the Mets think they have to keep rolling them
out because of money.

[nymr83]

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

if he had won most or all of those 300 as a Met i'd make a deal out of it, sure. but considering that 240+ of those wins came for the arch-rival braves i don't really care care to celebrate his 300th.

="iramets"]Kaz Matsui? The Mets continued to play him for years--years!--after he demonstrated that he was an awful mistake in judgment on their part, but when they still owed him a huge salary. He's your poster boy for someone who was demoted despite being owed a huge salary? The defense rests, your honor.

I'm the biggest Matsui-hater on the board, they made a huge mistake in signing him... but given the talent on in the organization, continuing to play him was not an awful decision (it wasn't a particularly good one either, but there was nobody waiting who could have done much better.)

if the defense rests the judge should instruct the jury "please dont make us pay for another lunch before you find for the plaintiff"

[Guest iramets]

KC wrote: So, I'm a little off. It still doesn't seem like that bad a deal to me and cer- tainly not worthy of half the drama in this thread. There's no way Tom or Petey pitch for any prolonged stretch in an embarassing fashion just to collect a paycheck or because the Mets think they have to keep rolling them out because of money.

Why would they take themselves out of the rotation? Pride? Can you name me the last time a ballplayer volunteered to be demoted, despite the contrary views of management, because he felt he no longer deserved his playing time?

I didn't say that Johnny Dickshot couldn't possibly supply me with a ballplayer whose salary eventually got eaten. But Frayed Knot gave away his defense of Matsui when he admits that "Of course contract terms factor into decisions," That's all I'm saying. I don't think we disagree with the concept that Matsui got SOME extra time because of the Mets' investment in him. You say it's weeks or days maybe, I say it's months or years maybe, but the principle is the same: he played past the point he needed to ride the bench purely because of his contract. A club will always trot out the same face-saving excuses, of course, and Frayed Knot supplies those, too: Matsui was "injured", sometimes without the quotes, glimpses of promise (every ballplayer does something right sometimes, of course) a lack of suitable alternatives (which they never tried, so could we know that they were suitable or not?) But the bottom line is that Matsui played past the point where his quality of play deserved benching. You may argue that inserting the word "long" after the word "past" is unwarranted, but it works for me.

Same point with KC: you're not arguing, I hope, that Glavine or Pedro get the same exact amount of slack cut for them stinking up the joint that Maine or Perez would get. They get an extra start or two or three, don't they, based on their track record, their years of service, their veteran status? Call it what you will, for me it's basically about the money, and I say they get many more starts, an almost limitless number, as excuses are trotted out: Pedro might be injured, Glavine's tired, Pedro's game last month wasn't TOO shabby if you interpret it like this, Glavine's been throwing from the wrong side of the rubber and it's been hard getting that small point across to him, Pedro's elbow may be acting up again, etc. eventually the season ends, with management shaking their heads and publicly proclaiming "We're puzzled but we expect Pom (or Tedro) to come back strong next season" or however long their contract runs through. Money changes everything, even the truth.

Anyway, I think this discussion has been worth at least 30% of the drama it has caused. Now that Glavine's signed, I'll just express my hope that it works out, and my thanks that it's limited to a year unless he pitches 160 innings, and wish Brian Bannister the best of luck at Norfolk (or Cleveland or Hades) this season.

[Guest KC]

Im: >>>Why would they take themselves out of the rotation? Pride? Can you name me the last time a ballplayer volunteered to be demoted, despite the contrary views of management, because he felt he no longer deserved his playing time?<<<

Particularly in Pedro's case, yes, pride. He's already said that he won't re-
turn if not 100% and I'm sure if he was the weak link in a rotation that was
in the middle of a pennant race he'd find a way out. I don't know why I'm
lumping Glavine in with Pedro, but I can't see him taking a beating for too
long either. As for former players, I can't think of any HOF pitchers who
were on the their last legs (that were on good teams) that sucked and were
costing their team games and contention and retired ... doesn't mean this
won't come to pass for Martinez or Glavine.

[Guest iramets]

KC wrote: I'm sure if he was the weak link in a rotation that was in the middle of a pennant race he'd find a way out. I don't know why I'm lumping Glavine in with Pedro, but I can't see him taking a beating for too long either. As for former players, I can't think of any HOF pitchers who were on the their last legs (that were on good teams) that sucked and were costing their team games and contention and retired ... doesn't mean this won't come to pass for Martinez or Glavine.

Pride cuts the other way, more often than you suggest, forcing players into unrealistic positions based on their past achievements. "You think this is bad? Huh. I've come back from worse than this before..." If pride operated on Glavine as you suggest, wouldn't the guy have retired at several points in his Met career? The evening of July 24, 2003, four months into being a Met. He was sporting a 5.15 ERA and a 6-11 w-l record--wouldn't a proud warrior have assessed that performance as unworthy of his fine record, and quit?

Oh, he was RIGHT not to quit then? He DID come back from that hole he was in and pitch better? That's true, although it's hard to see how he could have pitched much worse, but if that four months of pitching didn't persuade him to salvage his pride, I wonder what level of poor pitching would have spoken to his pride. I submit "Ain't no such animal."

Willie Mays was on his last legs when he made his "Goodbye to America" speech. That's the last time I remember a player self-assessing when his team was willing to pay him to go on. Maybe Mike Schmidt showed some pride in retiring when he did. But mostly it's "The .195 average had nothing to do with it, but the nine hamstring pulls in two weeks just presented too high a barrier for me..."

[Guest KC]

Tad of a difference between having three and half years left on a contract
and being signed one year to an incentive laden deal this year wit the pro-
spect of retiring on the near horizon.

Proud warrior, you're funny.

[Guest silverdsl]

iramets wrote: ="KC"]So, I'm a little off. It still doesn't seem like that bad a deal to me and cer- tainly not worthy of half the drama in this thread. There's no way Tom or Petey pitch for any prolonged stretch in an embarassing fashion just to collect a paycheck or because the Mets think they have to keep rolling them out because of money. Why would they take themselves out of the rotation? Pride? Can you name me the last time a ballplayer volunteered to be demoted, despite the contrary views of management, because he felt he no longer deserved his playing time?

I can't help but think of David Cone when he was with the Yankees in his final year. He looked lost on the mound, looked like he was ready to cry at times when things went bad, and just flatout stunk. But he still went out there every start, even though it was obvious to all that he was no longer able to pitch well. These guys have a tremendous amount of hubris, and besides that pitching and the game of baseball is all they've known their entire lives. It's difficult to face not being able to perform like they once were on the mound or at the plate, and the reality that their careers might be nearing their end. Sometimes older pitchers like Randy Johnson did this season will talk about retiring if they can't pitch well, but I don't really think they're too serious about it. It's easy for us to evaluate a pitcher and their failings, much harder for that pitcher to look at themselves and what they're capable of realistically.

I always cringe when it comes to teams signing or re-signing older pitchers. No matter their accomplishments of the past, there's a risk of injury and decline, so I hate to see big money, multi-year deals handed out to older pitchers. However, I think the Mets did pretty good here with their deal with Glavine.

[Guest iramets]

I just think this whole "pride" thing is mostly silly and mostly fictional. Few athletes can sincerely get into a mindset where they no longer believe in their abilities--they've spent decades steeling themselves against getting down on themselves, and it's often a few years into retirement that they accept the reality of their diminished skill, which I wouldn't have any other way.

The team, of course, can just tell them "Grab some pine," but often the team has a stake in their coming back against the odds--the team, after all, staked all those millions on the athlete's enduring talent. They dont want to look like wasteful sprendthrifts and poor judges of talent, either.

Look at what you're saying here: Pedro with two years (?) remaining on his contract has too much pride to pitch poorly this season and next and would rather quit than play at non-Pedro levels, because of his pride, but Glavine shouldn't even be thinking about quitting when he has three years to go on his contract. Is it about pride or about the length of your contract? You should walk away from 20 million for the sake of pride, but for 30 million, you must keep struggling on? I need some kind of Pride Rulebook here.

[Frayed Knot]

You also need a wee bit of perspective here.
The example (and a theoretical one at that) that KC is talking about involves a scenario where Pedro might decide that he can't come back from a fairly serious injury & surgery. I agree that the odds against that are real long but that's still the length of a Piazza HR away from suggesting that Glavine c/should have done the same back when he was hitting a rough patch for part of a season 4 years back while trying to adjust to the new Questec/K-Zone. Kinda similar to the one where you were likening Seaver/Koos/Ryan to Humber/Pelfrey/Bannister and Hook/Craig to Pedro/Glavine.
Analogy by gross exaggeration doesn't always make the point stronger.

In any case, it turns out that Glavine is NOT going to be making the kind of "Ace" money that his detractors feared (might be half to 2/3 of what Zito/Schmidt get) nor is the deal the kind of lengthy one that makes teams reluctant to pull the plug if/when he bombs.

[Guest iramets]

Frayed Knot wrote: a scenario where Pedro might decide that he can't come back from a fairly serious injury & surgery. .

Yeah, if he goes all Dave Dravecky on your ass and is reduced to blowing on the ball to get it to the plate, he might retire, but otherwise he'll pitch (or go on the DL) until his contract runs out, and keep insisting he can do the job if they'll just keep giving him the ball.

The only way I see the Mets not renewing Glavine's contract is

1) if he pitches badly AND the Mets are eliminated from the WIld Card before he has his 160 IP (very improbable). Otherwise, they'll keep putting him out there no matter how badly he pitches, even if he's killing their season. If they gave Kaz two years as an ineffectual starter, they'll give Glavine at least a full season.

OR

2) If he goes something like 11-16, breaking 300 wins, with a high ERA and decides to retire, also improbable.

[metsmarathon]

iramets wrote: I think the data that he's gone 48-48 n a Met uniform is meaningful.

during the time he was in a mets uniform, the mets lost 13 more games than they won. that context makes glavine's record more meaningful, and means that if he were on a better team, he would have won more games.

]I also think that if he'd gone 58-38, his supporters would be citing it as valid.

if he had gome 58-38 for bad tems, then yes. if he had gone 58-38 on a team that won 100 games every year, then it wouldn't be terribly great shakes, now would it?

citing a pitcher's record absent the context of the team with which that record was achieved is meaningless, whether it supports my position on a pitcher or does not.

]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.

i want the mets rotation to allow fewer runs in 2007. please, that means barry zito. maine deserves a shot. perrez and bannister can battle it out. between them, i'm not sure we have a complete pitcher.

]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

serious injury, expensive player with another expensive year on his contract, player considered by some to be fragile, rotation hopefully won't need him to step in. the mets are a better team if they don't need to rush pedro back.

taking them one at a time...

pedro went down with a serious injury. one that usually takes about a full year to recover from, but optimism allows you to suggest that he could be back in june. reality is an entirely different thing than optimism. the reality is that hopefully he will be back to his old self in 2008. and hte best chance for that, and the mets know this, is if he does not rush back from injury and try to pitch while his body isn't ready. which leads me to my second point.

pedro is expensive, and has 2008 on his contract. if the mets rush him back, or allow him to rush back, in 2007, when his arm isnt ready, tehn they run a terrific risk of either having him unavailble for 2008, or simply ineffective. it is more worth their money to let him rest up and be ready to play 2008 healthy, than to try to hurry him into the rotation for 2007.

i'm not sure if pedro's fragile reputation, which mightn't be earned nor deserved, will really factor into the mets decisions or not, but it might factor into yours when you consider whether or not you think pedro will be healed in time for 2007.

the more holes, the more question marks we have in our rotation, the more antsy the mets are going to get about brining pedro back. without glavine and (hopefully) zito, the mets could see young pitcher after young pitcher falter and fail, and, seeing their season slip away between their fingers, could end up doing somethign stupid, like rush pedro.

and finally, if the mets have a solid enough rotation, with zito (again, hopefully), glavine, el duque, maine, and one of perez, bannister, etc flourishing in the 5th spot, we'll be likely having a commanding season, and won't NEED to rush pedro back into the rotation. maybe we can have him put in some innings in the pen to get his game back for late in the season, and have him in our back pockets as a late season/postseason secret weapon. or whatever metaphor makes better sense.

but you get my drift, i assume.

that the mets WILL rush pedro back is an assumption that i don't think has all too much merit. not if they don't need to. and his salary is only more of a reason not to rush him, than it is to bring him back too early.

[Guest iramets]

I don't know if you were saying this or not, but a lot of Mets fans were saying that Pedro was indispensable to the team's chances. Now that he's hurt, I'm hearing a lot of "Oh, we don't really need Pedro in 2007, it would be nice to have him, of course, but this is no big deal."

When he started talking being back by June, was the coverage mostly "This is foolhardy and unlikely, because when X and Y and Z went down with the same injury they missed a year," or was it taken at face value? I don't remember him getting much flak on being back by June.

Also if he misses the whole year, it's pretty likely that he's simply finished, no? That was a hell of a lot of money to pay for two partial years.

[Zvon]

] Glavine's deal calls for a $7.5 million salary next year and contains a $9 million player option for 2008 that would become guaranteed if he pitches 160 innings next season. The price of the option would increase by $1 million for each additional 10 innings up to a maximum price of $13 million. If the option isn't exercised, he gets a $3 million buyout.

Glavines back.
Excellent.
Braves didnt even offer him a deal.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Reportedly, on being told of the return to the Mets, Glavine's son Peayton "jumped out of his seat with excitement."

[Vic Sage]

Does anybody else think that Ira's rhetorical style is reminiscent of a heretofore former forumite?

Doc, is that you?

[Guest Rotblatt]

Vic Sage wrote: Does anybody else think that Ira's rhetorical style is reminiscent of a heretofore former forumite?

Yes.

[metsmarathon]

nah. i don't buy it.

[metirish]

Vic Sage wrote: Does anybody else think that Ira's rhetorical style is reminiscent of a heretofore former forumite? Doc, is that you?

Who is Doc,don't we only have one Doc?...

[metsmarathon]

"doc", in this case, means "doc g", the mofo handle of he whom we might know better as "sal q"

and if you're new enough to not even know who sal is, then don't even worry about it.

its not sal tho. there's no caustic fucktardiness.

[metsmarathon]

iramets wrote: I don't know if you were saying this or not, but a lot of Mets fans were saying that Pedro was indispensable to the team's chances.

he was. or at least we thought he was. not having him for most of last season showed that we could win without him, or that by not having him didn't necessarily mean that we couldn't win.

]Now that he's hurt, I'm hearing a lot of "Oh, we don't really need Pedro in 2007, it would be nice to have him, of course, but this is no big deal."

'tis true. mostly because we know we won't have him well enough in advance of the start of the season that we can plan around his absence and build a rotation, hopefully, that treats any eventual appearance by pedro as a bonus, and not a necessity.

]When he started talking being back by June, was the coverage mostly "This is foolhardy and unlikely, because when X and Y and Z went down with the same injury they missed a year," or was it taken at face value?

i dunno what the coverage was. i assumed from the get go that we wouldn't see him in '07, and i hope the mets do too.

] I don't remember him getting much flak on being back by June.

nor should he for looking optimistically upon his hopes of recovery.

]Also if he misses the whole year, it's pretty likely that he's simply finished, no? That was a hell of a lot of money to pay for two partial years.

i don't think that's the case at all. if he misses the whole year, it really only means that he misses the year. i mean, if he misses the year because he comes back from the surgery and his arm never feels right, or doesn't heal right, or he's got neither strength nor endurance in his shoulder, then, yes, that bodes ill for the remainder of his career. but i don't think that missing a year, even at his age necessarily means anything about his chances of returning to any specific level of ability. maybe i'm wrong, but that's simply because i'm not going out and looking for either anecdotal or comprehensive eveidence either way.

[stevejrogers]

metsmarathon wrote: "doc", in this case, means "doc g", the mofo handle of he whom we might know better as "sal q" and if you're new enough to not even know who sal is, then don't even worry about it. its not sal tho. there's no caustic fucktardiness.

He did jump down my throat when I posted my Met HOF thingy much in the same way Bret took Val to the woodshed a year ago based on the nickname thread

Hmmmmm... =

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Not a chance. Move along.

[Guest KC]

I'd wager my last nickle that he's back.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

You're on for .05.

[nymr83]

can the admins confirm/deny something like that (assuming he was accessing the site from the same place?) the date he joined the forum is suspicious too.

[Guest KC]

Someone should start a Zito pool. When? How much? How long?
Don't look at the blue bar.