Master Index of Archived Threads


"We're going to pick up his option"

OlerudOwned May 07 2006 10:20 AM

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spflash074733129may07,0,1575246.column?coll=ny-mets-print Newsweek wrote: Tom Glavine is coming back to pitch for the Mets next season, meaning he'll very likely earn his 300th victory in a Mets uniform. "We're going to pick up his option," one Mets decision-maker said Friday. One of the smartest moves the Mets made was their quiet, heretofore-ignored agreement with Glavine to restructure his contract in March 2005. That's when they changed his deferred payment schedule and, without notice or fanfare, added an $11-million 2007 option, a distinct bargain for the resurrected Cooperstown-bound pitcher with 279 career victories. Had the option not been added, Glavine, 40, would have had his own option to return to the Braves, something we know he's considered before, thanks to Braves GM John Schuerholz's revealing book, "Built to Win." Having a 300 game winner would be nice. Glavine suddenly acting his age won't.

Yancy Street Gang May 07 2006 10:33 AM

If he continues to pitch well, I have no problem with him returning for another year. But $11 million is a lot of money for a 41-year-old pitcher.

Bret Sabermetric May 07 2006 10:57 AM

File under "Not knowing when to quit."

Rotblatt May 07 2006 11:36 AM

It's a risk, but depending on the rest of our rotation and who we've got in the minors, it's not a bad one. It'll all depend on how Pelfry & Soler progress, who we sign in the off-season, and how Zambrano & Humber's recoveries go.

DocTee May 07 2006 12:08 PM

Making a decision in May is stupid. Let's see how he finishes this contract year before talking about next.

Bret Sabermetric May 07 2006 12:14 PM

Contextualizing again: Signing Glavine to a four year deal was a mistake, even if he keeps up his excellent pitching all through 2006. He's 37-43 as a Met so far, if he goes 15-9 from here on out, which is a lot of games (he would be 19-11 on the year, and probably win a Cy Young) he would be exactly at .500 ( 52-52, or an average year of 13-13) which is not what they thought they were getting at 10+ mil per year for 4 years. This is a best case scenario, and they got screwed overall by the signing. Now they've decided on the basis of a few recent starts that they want to send more money down that sinkhole? Maybe they should file under "C" for "clueless." "D" for "Dipshits"? "M" for "masochists"?

GYC May 07 2006 12:19 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Contextualizing again: Signing Glavine to a four year deal was a mistake, even if he keeps up his excellent pitching all through 2006. He's 37-43 as a Met so far, if he goes 15-9 from here on out, which is a lot of games (he would be 19-11 on the year, and probably win a Cy Young) he would be exactly at .500 ( 52-52, or an average year of 13-13) which is not what they thought they were getting at 10+ mil per year for 4 years. This is a best case scenario, and they got screwed overall by the signing. Now they've decided on the basis of a few recent starts that they want to send more money down that sinkhole? Maybe they should file under "C" for "clueless." "D" for "Dipshits"? "M" for "masochists"? Here I was thinking that you were a huge supporter of the front office...

Nymr83 May 07 2006 12:28 PM

how bout looking at whathe did rather than how much run support he got, since thats really all wins are.

SteveJRogers May 07 2006 01:13 PM

The real question is, why are we putting all this creedence in Jon Heyman's article? This is the same guy who was convinced the last two Aprils that Roger Clemens was a sinch to be in Yankee Pinstripes because of a "handshake" agreement (which eventually became something actually written into the contract) between Roger and Drayton McLane that guarantee that if Roger requested he'd be traded back to New York, no questions asked. And don't forget he's not a reporter, he's a columnist. His source could be anyone from Omar himself to some assistant to the assistant assistant GM. And it could just be absoulte hearsay and more like just a description of what may happen down the road

Bret Sabermetric May 07 2006 01:27 PM

Why not just assume that everything that appears in the papers to be an out-and-out lie, unless it's in praise of the Mets?

Zvon May 07 2006 01:35 PM

If Glavine gets #300 as a Met, does that make it possible he goes into the Hall as a Met? Cuz we did carry him for some lean yrs to get him back to form, and give him the opportunity.

SteveJRogers May 07 2006 01:41 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Why not just assume that everything that appears in the papers to be an out-and-out lie, unless it's in praise of the Mets? I assume the same if it was in praise of the Mets What is your take here? To discuss everything in a paper at face value even though there isn't any tangilble difference between what Jon Heyman says and if Greg at FAFIF, would say if he heard the same thing from someone in the front office? Or even if I came on this board and said I heard the same thing. Or if Chris Russo said he heard it from a "Little Birdie" on his radio program Unless I, Heyman or Greg or Russo revealed exactly whom we heard the tidbit from I would take that tidbit with a grain of salt. Not sure if there is kernel of truth in it or not, if there is, then that would be the job of an investigative minded reporter, and that would be who I'd trust more than someone who either paid for their opinion (Russo/Heyman) or spouts their opinion (Me/Greg) and occasionally will have nuggets of information that may or may not be verified because the person spoting the nuggets doesn't reveal exactly who they got the nugget from

Gwreck May 07 2006 01:48 PM

Zvon wrote: If Glavine gets #300 as a Met, does that make it possible he goes into the Hall as a Met? Cuz we did carry him for some lean yrs to get him back to form, and give him the opportunity. 240+ Wins, 3 Cy Youngs and a WS MVP with Atlanta.

Bret Sabermetric May 07 2006 01:49 PM

You may want to open up a different thread to discuss this in, but I think there's far more latitude granted to reporters and columnists using unsourced material to based pro-Mets speculation on than there is for using anti-Mets stuff. Basically, you'd have about a third of the sportswriting if you demanded hard, multi-sourced, OTR material for every bit of Mets coverage, but you only object to it when it implies an anti-Mets stance. I think your rooting interest prevernts you from seeing this, so you think you're just objecting to unsourced material in principle, but actually the sports pages would dry up completely if you kept to the high standard you're calling for here.

Frayed Knot May 07 2006 10:01 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 07 2006 10:10 PM

I don't doubt Heyman's sources, but I do think it's reasonable to read "we're going to pick it up" as 'we intend to pick it up' seeing as how things are going quite nicely for Glavine now. Nowhere does it say that this is already a done deal and presumably they can still decline if things go south in a hurry. Unless there's an early season date on that option it doesn't sound like something they need to decide on now merely that they foresee doing so.

SI Metman May 07 2006 10:10 PM

If Glavine pitches like a 41 year old Roger Clemens, then we are set.

Elster88 May 08 2006 09:19 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Signing Glavine to a four year deal was a mistake, even if he keeps up his excellent pitching all through 2006. He's 37-43 as a Met so far, if he goes 15-9 from here on out, which is a lot of games (he would be 19-11 on the year, and probably win a Cy Young) he would be exactly at .500 ( 52-52, or an average year of 13-13) which is not what they thought they were getting at 10+ mil per year for 4 years. This is a best case scenario, and they got screwed overall by the signing. If Glavine wins a Cy Young in the year that the Mets reach the World Series, he is worth every penny he was paid, even if he went 0-60 in the three years prior. Bret Sabermetric wrote: Now they've decided on the basis of a few recent starts that they want to send more money down that sinkhole? Maybe they should file under "C" for "clueless." "D" for "Dipshits"? "M" for "masochists"? By few recent starts, are you referring to the previous 21 in a row where he has gone at least 6 innings each time? I wouldn't pick up his option just yet either, but it's more than "a few recent starts".

RealityChuck May 08 2006 09:25 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Contextualizing again: Signing Glavine to a four year deal was a mistake, even if he keeps up his excellent pitching all through 2006. He's 37-43 as a Met so far, if he goes 15-9 from here on out, which is a lot of games (he would be 19-11 on the year, and probably win a Cy Young) he would be exactly at .500 ( 52-52, or an average year of 13-13) which is not what they thought they were getting at 10+ mil per year for 4 years. This is a best case scenario, and they got screwed overall by the signing. And, of course, won-lost record is the one statistic that clearly shows whether a pitcher is good or not. Nothing else matters, and if the pitcher is stuck behind a lousy offense, that's his fault. Right? But that's the wonderful thing about Sabermetrics: you can pick and choose whatever statistic you want and pretend you've proven something.

Bret Sabermetric May 08 2006 09:26 AM

And the three previous years represent what? A mere blip on the radar? A false sign of deterioration? What three years do you mean, Sal? What?

Yancy Street Gang May 08 2006 09:30 AM

What's weird is that Glavine's been improving as he's been aging. That obviously can't continue indefinitely. But it any year of Glavine's contract was a mistake, it wasn't the fourth year, it was the first. But since Glavine didn't cost the Mets a pennant by pitching poorly in 2003, I'm not going to gnash my teeth over that season. Bottom line: I'm glad Glavine's here, now, in 2006.

Bret Sabermetric May 08 2006 09:34 AM

RealityChuck wrote: Right? But that's the wonderful thing about Sabermetrics: you can pick and choose whatever statistic you want and pretend you've proven something. Wrong. You can choose ERA if you like. They picked up a third of a run (against league average) with Glavine. I want more than that for my 10 mil a year. The Mets got screwed, and you can spin it however you like. Huge mistake, signing this clown. Elster, you're refuting me by claiming World Series the Mets haven't even been in the running for yet. Are you saying that if the Mets DON'T wiin the Series this year, you're agreeing that Glavine is washed up and a total waste of resources that should have been invested in young pitching? That's about as much front-running as I can bear--"Show me the results, and I'll tell you whether the investment in Glavine was dumb or smart."

Edgy DC May 08 2006 09:37 AM

Won-loss record is not a sabermetric.

Elster88 May 08 2006 09:41 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 08 2006 09:44 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Elster, you're refuting me by claiming World Series the Mets haven't even been in the running for yet. Are you saying that if the Mets DON'T wiin the Series this year, you're agreeing that Glavine is washed up and a total waste of resources that should have been invested in young pitching? Yeah, pretty much. I don't know if reaching the World Series would be the only criterion I would use, or if it's that black and white. A couple of good runs in the playoffs in '06 and '07 where he is a key factor would justify his salary to me. If he pitches at Cy Young level in '06 and '07, (or maybe even very good in those two years), and the Mets reach or come close to the playoffs, that would almost justify his salary too. It's very hard to draw a line in the sand and say, "This is what I need to say he earned his money." Don't forget that the original remark I replied to was your contention that Glavine was a waste of money no matter what happens this year. Bret Sabermetric wrote: That's about as much front-running as I can bear--"Show me the results, and I'll tell you whether the investment in Glavine was dumb or smart." This is a very silly statement. And I'd like to use a different adjective than silly, but I'm watching my behavior these days Anyway, how do you propose that we judge whether a guy was worth his salary? You don't use results? What do you use?

Bret Sabermetric May 08 2006 09:43 AM

Overall w/l record for starters? But by almost any standard, the Mets haven't received 40+ mil in value from Glavine. Sneding more money down that swirling toilet would be the height of foolishness. IOW, I fully expect the Mets to re-sign him.

Elster88 May 08 2006 09:47 AM

Let me phrase the question a little differently. 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? My answer is an unqualified yes.

Elster88 May 08 2006 09:56 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: That's about as much front-running as I can bear--"Show me the results, and I'll tell you whether the investment in Glavine was dumb or smart." ="Elster88"]Anyway, how do you propose that we judge whether a guy was worth his salary? You don't use results? What do you use? Bret Sabermetric wrote: Overall w/l record for starters? So you don't use results, you use overall w/l record for starters?

Bret Sabermetric May 08 2006 09:59 AM

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. Bottom line is, did they get the same or equal value to other options they had in 2003? I'd argue that if they'd signed a younger, better, cheaper pitcher maybe they would have won in more than one season. The Mets' record under Glavine's contract makes this a tough argument to make, even counting future World's Championships and Cy Youngs. (Don't hold your breath for either, btw.)

Johnny Dickshot May 08 2006 10:07 AM

The room here pretty much agreed that the Glavine signing was an over the top extravagance when it happened, though that was two administrations ago.

Elster88 May 08 2006 10:10 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 08 2006 10:11 AM

="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?

Bret Sabermetric May 08 2006 10:10 AM

Every time they fire an office boy, that wipes the slate clean, huh? Pretty efficient way to deal with criticism of the organiation, Johnny boy.

abogdan May 08 2006 10:13 AM

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.

Bret Sabermetric May 08 2006 10:48 AM

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.

Bret Sabermetric May 08 2006 10:50 AM

="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.

abogdan May 08 2006 10:51 AM

]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.

Bret Sabermetric May 08 2006 10:56 AM

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.

abogdan May 08 2006 11:11 AM

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 May 08 2006 11:14 AM 11 mill

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 May 08 2006 01:17 PM

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.

old original jb May 08 2006 01:39 PM

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.

Rotblatt May 08 2006 02:01 PM

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.

Edgy DC May 08 2006 02:22 PM

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

Elster88 May 08 2006 02:27 PM

That's a great thread.

Yancy Street Gang May 08 2006 02:29 PM

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!

Rockin' Doc May 08 2006 03:27 PM

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.

Yancy Street Gang May 08 2006 03:42 PM

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 May 08 2006 10:51 PM

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 May 08 2006 11:53 PM

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.