Jump to content

  • Current Donation Goals

    • Monthly Donations
      Raised $390 of $700 target

Braves sign Tom Glavine to a 1 year deal.

pimp

By pimp
in Other Sports Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

bfwolf Newbie

bfwolf

Posted
Posted

Bad signing IMHO. People think Tom Glavine is going to come here and be the Tom Glavine of 7 or 8 years ago. The man is 41 years old, and posted a very pedestrian ERA last year. He's likely even worse this year as he's another year older. Calling him a solid #3 guy is a huge stretch...he's a #4 or #5 guy. We're paying $8MM a year for that? He's worth $4MM/year tops. I know we're desperate for starting pitching, but this is not the solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Admin
chillzatl Newbie

chillzatl

Posted
  • Admin
Posted

honestly I think you're the only one that thinks everyone else thinks he's the Glavine of 7-8 years ago. Everyone knows he's not. He's a #3 starter, which is what we needed. Did we pay more than his stats might be worth? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know that a younger pitcher who can keep his era around 4.00 wouldn't cost as much or close. Besides, it wouldn't be unheard of for him to come back and have a better season than he did last year for the Mets. Not exponentially better, but better. Until we see younger, better pitchers flying off the shelf for less, it's not a bad signing at all..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shock Newbie

shock

Posted
Posted

While I dont think Glavine is a number 3 starter, I think he will have a very productive year early on. Being back with bobby, terry, smoltzy, chipper, etc along with our new young guys (francouer, kj, mccann) will "light a fire" under him. He will love throwing to McCann.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gsuteke Rookie

gsuteke

Posted
Posted

Quote:

Bad signing IMHO. People think Tom Glavine is going to come here and be the Tom Glavine of 7 or 8 years ago. The man is 41 years old, and posted a very pedestrian ERA last year. He's likely even worse this year as he's another year older. Calling him a solid #3 guy is a huge stretch...he's a #4 or #5 guy. We're paying $8MM a year for that? He's worth $4MM/year tops. I know we're desperate for starting pitching, but this is not the solution.

check your contracts. career journeymen get 4 million a year. the glaving of 7 or 8 years ago would command 15 to 16 million per in today's market.

8 million is reasonable in the current marketplace. in fact I'm sure Glavine could have gotten a little more elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfwolf Newbie

bfwolf

Posted
Posted

His ERA last year was 4.45. You can either take the approach that this was just a bad year like he had in 2003 and that he is better represented by his ERA from 2004-2006 (3.60, 3.54, 3.82) or you can take the approach that this guy is 41 years old and at that age pitchers inevitably decline. If I was a betting man, I'd put the over/under for his ERA next year at about 4.5. That's a sight better than the numbers we got from Carlyle (5.21), Davies (5.76), and Reyes (6.22), but I am dubious that we couldn't get someone better for $8MM. I am told that we got a hometown discount, but I'm wondering if the whole market is overvaluing this guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
frosgrim Explorer

frosgrim

Posted
Posted

The market for mid-rotation pitchers is going to ridiculous this year because there is NO pitching on the market. The best guy is Silva and he's a 4 + ERA guy that eats innings. He'll get a 5 year 50-60 million contract from the Yankees or one of the other big money clubs. After Silva there is NOTHING. Glavine was the second best pitcher on the market this season.

If Glav can give us 200+ innings, then he's worth the money as that resets the rotation and keeps the bullpen strong. Huddy, Smoltz, Glavine. That is around 600 innings or 35 percent of the innings that need to be worked in a season (assuming around 1700 innings in a season). Point is, if your top 3 starters eat up a third of all innings possible, you are going to have a much fresher bullpen at the end of the year for a playoff run.

I for one, am very happy Glavine is back. He's always been one of my all-time favorite Braves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TroyMcClure Newbie

TroyMcClure

Posted
Posted

Quote:

honestly I think you're the only one that thinks everyone else thinks he's the Glavine of 7-8 years ago. Everyone knows he's not. He's a #3 starter, which is what we needed. Did we pay more than his stats might be worth? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know that a younger pitcher who can keep his era around 4.00 wouldn't cost as much or close. Besides, it wouldn't be unheard of for him to come back and have a better season than he did last year for the Mets. Not exponentially better, but better. Until we see younger, better pitchers flying off the shelf for less, it's not a bad signing at all..

I agree completely. We have been a Tom Glavine short for two years. Glavine will chew up innings. He will undoubtedly rub off on our other pitchers in a good way. There is really no downside. I don't see how anybody who is a Braves fan and has a basic understanding of the organization could not support it. The man is a Braves leged. He's available. He can still pitch and the price is not bad. I've forgiven Tommy. This is the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
AHF Grand Master

AHF

Posted
  • Moderators
Posted

Quote:

Quote:

honestly I think you're the only one that thinks everyone else thinks he's the Glavine of 7-8 years ago. Everyone knows he's not. He's a #3 starter, which is what we needed. Did we pay more than his stats might be worth? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know that a younger pitcher who can keep his era around 4.00 wouldn't cost as much or close. Besides, it wouldn't be unheard of for him to come back and have a better season than he did last year for the Mets. Not exponentially better, but better. Until we see younger, better pitchers flying off the shelf for less, it's not a bad signing at all..

I agree completely. We have been a Tom Glavine short for two years. Glavine will chew up innings. He will undoubtedly rub off on our other pitchers in a good way. There is really no downside. I don't see how anybody who is a Braves fan and has a basic understanding of the organization could not support it. The man is a Braves leged. He's available. He can still pitch and the price is not bad. I've forgiven Tommy. This is the right thing to do.

I will second all that. I am glad to see Glavine back in Atlanta.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TroyMcClure Newbie

TroyMcClure

Posted
Posted

Quote:

He's one of my all-time favorite Braves, too. I just don't think it's realistic to expect a 4 ERA from him.

Also, isn't Chuck James our #3 starter at this point? He had a better year than Glavine.

If you are going to say that, then you have to address this:

Quote:

From ajc.com:

"Before getting shelled for 17 runs in 10 1/3 innings over his final two starts last season, Glavine had been 13-6 with a 3.88 ERA and 23 quality starts in 31 games, averaging nearly 6 1/3 innings per start."

Quote:

Also, isn't Chuck James our #3 starter at this point? He had a better year than Glavine.

I don't think you could find a manager in MLB that would start James ahead of Glavine. James is lucky to be in the majors. Really? Did you say that? There is no way Bobby doesn't put Tommy in at #3 to start the season. If we can get anything out of Hampton, James and Reyes, etc on the back end, we should improve upon this year's record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfwolf Newbie

bfwolf

Posted
Posted

Quote:

If you are going to say that, then you have to address this:

Quote:

From ajc.com:

"Before getting shelled for 17 runs in 10 1/3 innings over his final two starts last season, Glavine had been 13-6 with a 3.88 ERA and 23 quality starts in 31 games, averaging nearly 6 1/3 innings per start."

That's easily addressed. Every player in baseball is great if you throw out all the times he's played badly. Just because Glavine's 2 worst starts came in the last 2 games of the season does not mean you can discount them. The Mets were in a playoff race, the games were hugely meaningful, and he played awfully. That counts. His ERA for the year was 4.45. Not 3.88 or any other number. I would actually have been slightly more encouraged if it was his FIRST 2 starts that he got shelled in, since being shelled in his last 2 starts might have something to do with deterioration due to age. Hopefully that's not a glimpse into next year.

As for Chuck James, he has pitched quite decently as a Brave. 119 innings and a 3.78 ERA in 2006 and 161 innings with a 4.24 ERA last year. Combine that with the fact that he just turned 26 and is likely improving while Glavine is 41 and almost certainly getting worse, and I think it's more than likely that he'll have a better ERA than Glavine next year. Whether you or Bobby or anybody else recognizes him as the #3 starter doesn't matter to me--I think a reasonable person would recognize he's the 3rd best starter on this team right now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TroyMcClure Newbie

TroyMcClure

Posted
Posted

Sure, Glavine has had rough outings in pressure situations. That's baseball. Ever heard of Mariano Rivera? Roger Clemens got whipped in the playoffs by the Braves a few years back and pitched some of the best baseball in his life after that.

If you are trying to imply that Glavine could not throw a 3 or 4 hit shutout at the end of the season or in the playoffs, you are off your rocker. He just won't do it all the time. You sound like you've only been watching baseball for a few years and have no understanding of the two pitchers in question. Glavine has perfect mechanics and could pitch till he's 50. Chuck James might not even make the rotation. He struggles to command his pitches. His change is nice, but he can't locate it. Glavine could certainly help him in that area. If Hampton stays healthy(insert joke here) that's 4 spots in the rotation locked up. that leaves James battling for #5 with Reyes, Larue, Jergens and others.

Don't get me wrong, I like James, but he may have peaked.

Quote:

Whether you or Bobby or anybody else recognizes him as the #3 starter doesn't matter to me--I think a reasonable person would recognize he's the 3rd best starter on this team right now.

A little arrogant to presume you know as much or more than Bobby. He's just at worst the 3rd or 4th best manager to ever be in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfwolf Newbie

bfwolf

Posted
Posted

I have been watching baseball for over 20 years. Not sure what's up with the ad hominem attack, but it's not appreciated.

I'm not suggesting Glavine is incapable of pitching a great game. What I am suggesting is he is 41 years old, and thus his ERA next year is likely to be worse than this year.

Chuck James MAY have hit his peak, but we KNOW Glavine hit his peak many years ago and is in decline. And James is putting up better numbers than Glavine right now.

Bobby is notorious for favoring older veterans even when they don't deserve it.

I really like Tom Glavine and he pitched a lot of great games for the Braves, but he has reached the age where many great pitchers with great mechanics start a precipituous decline.

Given that Hampton is probably not going to play much, we absolutely needed to go out and get more starting pitching. I just feel like we've paid too much for what Glavine is likely to give us. I hope I'm wrong.

Long-term, the answer will not be in the FA market...we need to develop some excellent young pitching talent if we want to be competitive for years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...