Master Index of Archived Threads


Glavine's deal

Frayed Knot Dec 01 2006 08:28 PM

Just to create a sub-topic away from the ongoing arguments in the other thread: From the espn link: 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, when he will be 41. 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. Glavine has the right to decline the option if it becomes guaranteed. He also gets a full no-trade clause. A couple of ways to look at this if you're really humg up on how much he's being paid for all this: 1) it's $7.5mil for this coming season plus another $3mil eventually whether he pitches in '08 or not. That $3mil is essentially a payback of the money that Glavine gave back to the Mets in '06 to be returned as deferred payment. 2) If Glavine pitches well and triggers the option (either by choice or min IPs) as well as reaches all the incentives, it becomes a 2-year deal for as much as $20.5 Glavine was doing the phone-interview tour late this afternoon (on FAN radio & SNY TV and maybe others) which I caught part of; - said he had talked to Cox and his agent to Schurholz but no offer had been made and not sure if one would have been eventually - isn't committed yet to calling this his final year (obviously w/the option) but implied that if things go well this season (ie. gets #300 and team wins WS) it would make it easy to ride off into the sunset after '07. Of course he'd be potentially leaving some money on the table if he did. - it sounded as if he came to NY thinking it would be for the length of the deal and no more. Now he probably also thought he'd have #300 by this point so it would be easy to either retire or go back to Atlanta, but he added that he grew to like it here after not expecting to consider it beyond the orignial deal. Then added the usual stuff about really liking the team and Omar & Jeff W. ... yyybbb.

metirish Dec 01 2006 08:35 PM

There seems to be different reporting on the numbers in the contract,Newsday has it for $10.5 next season and a $6 million option if he reaches 160 innings pitched,and $1 million for every 10 innings reached after that to a max of $10 million....

Frayed Knot Dec 01 2006 09:03 PM

It's the same thing. Credit the $3mil buyout at the beginning and it's $10.5 for year 1 and then $6 with incentives up to $10 for year 2 Or, the way I put it, it's $7.5 for year 1, then $9 w/incentives up to $13 for the 2nd year. Or just a straight $10.5 for one year if the option isn't triggered. So, however you want to look at it, the Mets are paying him somewhere between $7.5 to $17.5mil more than they would have had they opted not to sign him at all because even kicking him to the curb would have cost them the $3mil they owed him for his '06 giveback.

metirish Dec 01 2006 09:36 PM

Thanks,makes sense...now Omar needs to trade for a #1 starter....

patona314 Dec 01 2006 10:09 PM

this is the only way i can explain tom glavine. our seats are behind homeplate. when he throws a pitch we hear puff instead of pop. we sit there and swear (from our seats) that we could cream this guy if someone would give us a bat. fact is that the man knows how to pitch to me, (much like piazza) he didn't become a met until august of 06.

metirish Dec 01 2006 10:55 PM

patona314 wrote: this is the only way i can explain tom glavine. our seats are behind homeplate. when he throws a pitch we hear puff instead of pop. we sit there and swear (from our seats) that we could cream this guy if someone would give us a bat. fact is that the man knows how to pitch to me, (much like piazza) he didn't become a met until august of 06. No idea what you mean by that...Glavine was an All-Star this season..and the Piazza reference I don't get one bit...

iramets Dec 02 2006 05:56 AM

Not as bad a deal as it could have been. Wouldna done it, but it could have been a straight two-year deal, which would have been awful.

patona314 Dec 02 2006 07:30 AM

metirish wrote: ="patona314"]this is the only way i can explain tom glavine. our seats are behind homeplate. when he throws a pitch we hear puff instead of pop. we sit there and swear (from our seats) that we could cream this guy if someone would give us a bat. fact is that the man knows how to pitch to me, (much like piazza) he didn't become a met until august of 06. No idea what you mean by that...Glavine was an All-Star this season..and the Piazza reference I don't get one bit... glavine = brave piazza = dodger both of them creamed the mets when they played somewhere else and i hated them for that. then boom, they're mets. it took me 3 years to warm up to the pizza boy (no matter how good he did) and a little under 4 years (august 06) for like mr. glavine. sorry if you don't like it that i bleed blue and orange metirish. to me , you're a met or you're not. it takes a long time for me to like the enemy and if you can't understand that... your problem.

TheOldMole Dec 02 2006 08:53 AM

I understand it, but I don't feel that way. My test of fire in this area came many, many years ago, when the most hated of all hated Giants, Sal Maglie, came to the Dodgers, and I realized in a sudden epiphany that all that fire and grim determination that had been brought against us, was now for us.

TheOldMole Dec 02 2006 08:54 AM

And I'm glad he's back. I don't really much care what the financial details of his contract are.

iramets Dec 02 2006 10:04 AM

patona314 wrote: [glavine = brave piazza = dodger Seems a little childish to me. I prefer to state it positively--I feel more attached to lifelong Mets. I like Mike Piazza. I'm crazy about Jose Reyes. I'm in awe of Ed Kranepool. Roger Clemens and Derek Jeter, though, can go to hell.

Iubitul Dec 02 2006 10:26 AM

iramets wrote: Roger Clemens and Derek Jeter, though, can go to hell. this is probably the one thing all of us can agree on.

TheOldMole Dec 02 2006 11:34 AM

No argument here. And Chipper Jones.

TheOldMole Dec 02 2006 11:35 AM

Larry, that is.

Edgy DC Dec 02 2006 07:02 PM

I think that he couldn't understand the way the sentence was constructed, not the color of your blood. It seems like you're suggesting Piazza didn't become a Met until August of 2006, which is something of a head-scratcher.

attgig Dec 03 2006 04:21 PM

iramets wrote: Not as bad a deal as it could have been. Wouldna done it, but it could have been a straight two-year deal, which would have been awful. how could you not have? Have you seen the ridiculousness of the contracts out there this offseason?

Nymr83 Dec 03 2006 05:52 PM

ira thinks that Maine, Pelfrey, Humber, Bannister, and Perez is the '69 Mets rotation, he also thinks the earth is flat.

Elster88 Dec 03 2006 08:06 PM

Glavine = good for the Mets.

Rockin' Doc Dec 03 2006 08:35 PM

I think the Glavine contract is a reasonable deal for the Mets. I'm glad they have him on board for the coming season. Now the Mets need to acquire a true top of the rotation pitcher, whether as a free agent or in a trade.

iramets Dec 03 2006 09:04 PM

Nymr83 wrote: ira thinks that Maine, Pelfrey, Humber, Bannister, and Perez is the '69 Mets rotation, he also thinks the earth is flat. Thanks for your interpretation. What I actually think, though, is that Seaver had won exactly 0 games before he won the ROTY in '67, and Koosman had pitched briefly and poorly before he pitched better than Seaver had in '68, and no one had heard of Gary Gentry before his rookie year (well, his parents had), and this current team is a tad too conservative with young pitchers, which is why we went into the last post-season with most of our rotation on the DL. So the young guys came through, and we get a chance to get a little younger and we pass it up. Not the way I'd like to go. Now you may translate that into "Ira thinks that 2+2= orange."

Nymr83 Dec 04 2006 04:25 PM

there is no valid analogy between the current pitching staff and the '69 staff. now you want to analogize to '67? that '67 staff could have used a Tom Glavine signed to a 1 year deal. how can you possibly believe that the out of the options the Mets had pre-glavine signing (Maine, Perez, Pelfrey, Humber, Bannister, etc) that more than 3 of them will be successful in 2007 given their collective track records? signing Glavine (and hopefully getting one more good veteran) doesn't prevent the good young pitchers from getting their starts, it only prevents the Mets from being forced to start FIVE unproven guys at once when they can start THREE of them and still have the other 2 around if anyone falters. i'm glad you aren't running this team.

RealityChuck Dec 04 2006 04:33 PM

="iramets"] Nymr83 wrote: iWhat I actually think, though, is that Seaver had won exactly 0 games before he won the ROTY in '67, and Koosman had pitched briefly and poorly before he pitched better than Seaver had in '68, and no one had heard of Gary Gentry before his rookie year (well, his parents had) And, of course, Generation K worked out really well for the Mets, didn't it? Every year is different. Just because something worked out well 40 years ago doesn't mean you'll get the same result today. Nymr83 Dec 04 2006 04:39 PM you might want to edit your post, i see "nymr83 wrote:" and then a big block of text from ira, i'd hate to have his words associated with me. metsmarathon Dec 04 2006 04:56 PM the baby mets pitchers player age year level ERA IP Seaver 21 1966 AAA 3.13 210.0 Koosman 21 1965 A 4.71 107.0 AA 3.75 12.0 22 1966 A- 1.38 170.0 23 1967 AAA 2.43 178.0 Gentry 20 1967 AA 1.59 79.0 21 1968 AAA 2.91 198.0 Maine 21 2002 A- 1.74 10.1 A 1.36 33.0 22 2003 A 1.53 76.1 A+ 3.07 70.1 23 2004 AA 2.25 28.0 AAA 3.91 119.2 MLB 9.82 3.2 24 2005 AAA 4.56 128.1 MLB 6.30 40.0 A+ 0.00 5.0 25 2006 AAA 3.49 56.2 MLB 3.60 90.0 Perez 18 1999 Rk 5.08 28.1 19 2000 Rk 4.07 24.1 AAA 4.36 43.1 20 2001 A 3.46 101.1 A+ 2.72 53.0 21 2002 A+ 1.85 48.2 AA 1.17 23.0 MLB 3.50 90.0 22 2003 AAA 3.02 47.2 MLB 5.87 23.0 MLB 5.38 103.2 23 2004 MLB 2.98 196.0 24 2005 AAA 9.90 10.0 MLB 5.85 103.0 25 2006 AAA 8.63 32.0 AAA 6.05 19.1 MLB 6.38 36.2 MLB 6.63 76.0 Humber 22 2005 A 6.75 4.0 A+ 4.99 70.1 AA 6.75 4.0 23 2006 Rk 6.75 4 A+ 2.37 38 AA 2.88 34.1 MLB 0.00 2 Bannister 22 2003 A- 2.15 46 23 2004 A 4.06 44.1 A+ 4.24 110.1 AA 4.06 44.1 24 2005 A 2.56 109 AA 2.56 109 AAA 3.18 45.1 25 2006 A+ 1.50 12 AAA 3.86 30.1 MLB 4.26 38 Pelfrey 2006 A+ 1.64 22 AA 2.71 66.1 AAA 2.25 8 MLB 5.48 21.1 how the mets' baby pitchers compare to the baby mets of the late 60's. i've got the late 60's pitcher minor league stats in there first, and below that i've got the current bumper crop's stats to date. i think its a little incorrect to say that 21 year old minor leaguers throwing 200 innings of 2.91 ERA in AAA amounts to coming out of nowhere. nor 180 innings of 2.43 ERA from a 23 year old.