Glavine?

by Toddius396 on Oct 23, 2007 12:46 AM EDT Comment 64 comments

According to Jeff Gordon I guess there is mutual interest b/w the Cards and Tom Glavine.

I have mixed feelings about this. Glavine will be pricey. On the other hand, he can still be a reliable 10 win guy. I personally like guys with better stuff - but it depends on who else they are going to add. In a perfect world they get a guy with a healthier strike out rate. I don't know if that guy is out there. He definitely brings some leadership.

On another note - I remember Albert saying something to the effect of Glavine not pitching well at all. Kind of a jerk comment. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

0 recs | Comment 64 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Albert also got in a fight

with Gary Bennett one time.

Re-acquire Edgar Renteria

by Mr Redbird on Oct 23, 2007 1:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

agreed...

I would be very happy that if at the end of this offseason, Tom Glavin was A card. I kind of like Mr. Redbirds saying at the bottom better though. Re-aquire Edgar renteria

2/3rd's of the earth is covered by water, the other third is coverd by Jim Edmonds....when he's healthy...

by cardsphan04 on Oct 23, 2007 1:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If it comes down

To a pitcher (and it's Glavine) or a shortstop (and it's Renteria) I'll take Glavine please.

"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Oct 23, 2007 2:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

Really? I'm not arguing with you -- I'm just surprised. Gauging the discussion on this site, I'd say that's the minority opinion.

by Ray Lankford on Oct 23, 2007 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

diary

Check out the popular vore results in yesterday's diary:

http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/story/2007/10/22/11540/614

by cdb on Oct 23, 2007 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well, sure

but glavine isn't a front-of-the-rotation guy.

Hello, playoff watching

by nycbirdo on Oct 23, 2007 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I was talking specifically about Renteria vs. Glavine -- it seems like everyone around here REALLY wants him back (myself included) but is kind of "meh" when it comes to Glavine. In the poll, I actually voted for a pitcher with front of the rotation stuff. I just don't consider Glavine to have that anymore -- maybe a decade ago, sure.

Why don't we quit debating it and just sign them both!

by Ray Lankford on Oct 23, 2007 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Renteria isn't going to hit .330 again.

And his defense isn't great, and this team needs to rebuild. I can't say I'm thrilled about a trade for him unless we are trading people already on the MLB roster.

Cardinal fan from Washington

by JI on Oct 24, 2007 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

Please don't get centimental on this guy. It seems some fans would bring back any Cardinal player who had a couple decent years in STL even if they know it is a bad move.

I don't see him hitting .330 again either, and he doesn't quite get to some balls he used to either.

I agree we can get by with our current SS or Ryan. We need starting pitching, as last season it was impossible to get on a win streak when our pitching was just awful.

by ICbirdfan on Oct 24, 2007 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Count me against

Renteria. I'd rather save the prospects we'd need to get him.

On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Oct 24, 2007 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's a tough call

We could use his bat, and he'd bridge the gap to martinez/kozma and free up Ryan to platoon at 2B. If we could get him for reyes + johnson, as has been proposed, I'd jump on it.

In retrospect, on the list of WJ's biggest blunders, waiting too long to exercise Renteria's 2004 option (which voided the $6.5M 2005 option) and then letting him walk over a measly couple $M ranks up there with missing out on Burnett (though i was against the deal at the time) and the Haren trade.

by SleepyCA on Oct 24, 2007 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

pitcher

I would personally rather have a decent starting pitcher than an upgrade at short stop. It is depressing knowing every fifth game is doomed to failure - even before the game starts.

by cdb on Oct 24, 2007 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't get me wrong

I'd love to improve at both positions. I'm just saying we need another pitcher much more than we need a shortstop.

"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Oct 23, 2007 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the pujols -- glavine thing

was the result of testosterone meeting superior pitching, accompanied by reporters dying for a story that writes itself. There is no reason to think that Glavine was in any way affected by it. Pujols is a better hitter than Glavine is a pitcher, and they will be very close to each other in Cooperstown because the difference just doesn't matter very much, because one is so much harder than the other and depends on 8 other guys also being good at it.

So yeah, give him $10m to play here for a year before he goes home.

by SleepyCA on Oct 23, 2007 3:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Glavine contract

Glavine did decline his 13 million option with the Mets. Why on earth would he sign for one year 10 million with the cards?

All my friends became Cardinal fans and grew up happy and liberal. I became a Cub fan and grew up embittered and conservative." -- George Will

by wannabeGedman on Oct 25, 2007 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

One year at $10M

doesn't sound bad considering Joel F Piniero is getiing $6M or so.

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Oct 23, 2007 7:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

there seems to be rampant inflation here

Joel is getting 5 million next year, which everyone knows. His signing bonus is already payed for and part of the 2007 expenditures. You can get a good utility player in 2008 for that 1 million that is being gobbled up by VEB inflation.

by nycardfan on Oct 23, 2007 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

Pineiro is getting $5.5 million. Split the diff and you can no longer get a "good" utility player.

by spants on Oct 23, 2007 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's getting 5 million in 2008

He's already received 500,000 as a signing bonus--that's been paid as part of 2007 expenditures. 2008 salaries should be the comparison because they constitute the 2008 budget.

by nycardfan on Oct 23, 2007 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

where was it announced

that the signing bonus wouldn't be annualized and counted during 2008 and 2009? Because I haven't read that anywhere. . .

by azruavatar on Oct 23, 2007 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Deferred payments like that normally are reported

in the details of a contract (or at least that's what I'm used to seeing when bonuses are dispersed through installments or a future lump sum).

As an example, I pulled out of a hat a pitcher's name who I knew recently re-signed and looked at his announced contract: From the Washington Post: "Bronson Arroyo and the Reds agreed Thursday to a $25 million, two-year contract extension through 2010. His extension calls for a $2.5 million signing bonus, payable in 2008, and salaries of...."

The P-D and other news organizations (including the W. Post) announced that Pineiro will receive 5 million dollars in 2008 and 7.5 million dollars in 2009. Because they did not stipulate a payment structure for the signing bonus, I assumed it was being paid in 2007. Maybe the Cards are not as disclosive about the details of contracts as other clubs (wouldn't that be a shock?) so I certainly could be wrong in my assumptions. But if I am, the bonus could just as well be pro-rated over two years.

by nycardfan on Oct 23, 2007 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not disagreeing

abut the salaries but when the Cardinals calculate payroll each year, they don't always do it the way that may seem most intuitive. I thought they included those signing bonuses in the annualized salary rate and thus the total payroll each year. I could be mistaken but that is what I remember because the front office typically claims a payroll 4-5M higher than what the raw salaries were and I think that's attributed to incentives and bonuses.

by azruavatar on Oct 23, 2007 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe the Cards do handle their contracts

differently from other teams and structure all bonuses in a pro-rated way. That would explain no report on how a bonus is to be paid. I have some distant memory, though, about Rolen's contract having specific installments, but maybe that's because it was so big. And that's a very distant memory so I could be wrong. The other thing is that signing bonuses and performance bonuses may be handled differently. But you certainly might be right that Cards' contracts are structured similarly. I guess we'll have to wait and see....

by nycardfan on Oct 23, 2007 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

regardless of whether

the Cards put the $500,000 in the 2007 column or the 2008 column, it doesn't change the amount of money that will be paid to Pineiro, now or overall.

by chuckb on Oct 23, 2007 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Correct! it is all about "SUNK" costs. MLB contract are guaranteed so once you sign a player those are sunk costs. Reguardless of if you pay out his whole contract or someone else picks him up.

by ICbirdfan on Oct 23, 2007 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course he's paid the signing bonus

but it does make a difference when he's paid. If it's in 2007 and is not taken out of the 2008 and 2009 budgets, that makes a difference to the planning for those years. And if it is prorated over two years, why wouldn't we be able to get half of it back if we ended up making a good trade next year? Plus, we have more budget flexibility in 2009 than 2008, so having it defered over two years would be better than paying a lump sum in 2008. These bonuses are negotiated and structured in particular ways because they do make differences to both the club and to the player.

by nycardfan on Oct 23, 2007 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

2007?

maybe its my business background, but i have a really hard time believing the cards would attribute a bonus for services yet to be performed to year that is already over. they may pay the bonus in calendar year 2007 but for practical purposes fiscal 2007 is dead when the birds stop playing games. regardless of the actual timing of when the money leaves the bank account, its hard for me to believe dewitt and co. aren't including the bonus in some form when they discuss how much they are willing to spend for 2008 season.

by dmb60614 on Oct 23, 2007 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"bonus for services yet to be performed"

Because its a signing bonus and not a performance bonus, this doesn't make sense to me. The service is signing the contract.

But your second point does make business sense if the 2007 books close with the final game of the regular season. What is confusing, however, is that Pineiro was still under the Cardinals' 2007 control when he signed his contract (he could not negotiate with anyone except the Cards until after the World Series, at which time he would become a FA).

Are you sure the 2007 books close with the last game and not at the end of the world series? Or are you supposing this from other business experiences? I'm just curious because everything else in terms of new free agent contracts revolves around the world series date. Thanks for your business insight.

by nycardfan on Oct 23, 2007 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

supposing

for services to be performed--his contract clearly covers the 2008 and 2009 seasons. they aren't paying him a few extra bucks for what he did in 2007. signing a contract is not a service. he doesn't have to do anything to earn the signing bonus. that still doesnt change the fact that the services for which he has been hired (namely, put on a uniform in 2008 and 2009) have not been performed. the bonus is merely a prepayment for future services.

i dont know when their fiscal year ends. they may actually have december 31 fiscal year. i know that mlb uses oct 31. at one point i've seen documentation indicating the orioles had a june 30 fye. baseball teams keep separate books for different purposes. there are books for tax purposes, books for the ways that mlb calculates salaries and books for however they want to think of things if it is different from the other books. we aren't concerned with their books for tax purposes. we are only concerned with how they think of the budget.

when they discuss the budget it just doesnt make sense to count pineiro's bonus for 2007. pineiro signs in 2007 and you count his bonus towards 2007 while free agent x signs on january 1 and you count his bonus towards 2008? makes everything too unwieldy and doesnt provide a good match of contract expenses and contract fulfillment. i dont believe owners think of things that way. if you want an insight into how the owners are thinking you can look at how mlb tabulates salaries for luxury tax and other purposes. the bonus is applied to the guaranteed years of the contract. while i understand mlb prorates it (...thats so teams can't squeak under the luxury tax by deferring salary to a year in which the threshold may be higher) and the cardinals may not, that is besides the point. the point is that the actual date of payment is never considered. the owners were involved in forming that rule and i believe it reflects how they think of expenses and the budget.

by dmb60614 on Oct 23, 2007 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that was very interesting and helpful--thanks

by nycardfan on Oct 24, 2007 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps I can pick your brain about one last thing

If the bonus has already been paid, but will be recorded in the future, I'm assuming that it would be better for the club to prorate the $500,000 over the next two years. I'm assuming that would be better, first, for tax purposes and, second, because we will have more budget flexibility in 2009. From a business perspective, do you think it would be better for the club to pro-rate the recorded expenditure over a two year period or to claim it as a lump sum in next year's budget?

by nycardfan on Oct 24, 2007 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

budget

first let me elaborate a little more upon what i wrote last night, as i may not have said it in the most clear manner.

when teams discuss what their player spending budget will be, it is not with regard to any calendar or fiscal year, but to a baseball season. there is an attempt to match player expenses to the baseball season. that player spending budget can be recorded in any way a team wants because it is for "internal" purposes only (not for tax, not subject to GAAP or any outside regulation). if you were to pick up some stl cardinals lp financial statements they may not necessarily reflect the budget as it is discussed in the news as those financial statements were prepared for tax purposes and for a fiscal year that may not match the baseball season. if you look at mlb corporation prepared salary lists they may also be different because mlb calculates things according to a specific formula and with a specific purpose in mind. we can disregard those lists as we are only concerned with what dewitt is willing to spend to put on a team on the field in 2008 (...what i am referring to as the player spending budget).

as to your question...what makes sense for tax purposes is irrelevant for our purposes. i am not entirely sure how it is recorded for tax purposes. if the bonus has already been paid in a lump sump, then for player spending budget purposes it should be counted for the 2008 baseball season in its entirety. it is the most logical matching of expenses to the baseball season. pro-rating it in that situation is just a paper transaction that results in no actual benefit to the team. an actual benefit would be to actually pay it in two seasons or to defer payment entirely until the second season, so long as no interest/below market interest rates are paid on any deferrals. as long as you arent spending money you dont have and there are no interest payments, it makes financial sense to defer the payments as long as possible.

by dmb60614 on Oct 24, 2007 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thanks for taking the time

to explain that so well. I really appreciate it.

by nycardfan on Oct 24, 2007 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pujols/Glavine

It seems to me that every time Glavine pitches, he throws soft stuff away. I think we lost the game Pujols was referring to because our guys kept rolling over the ball and grounding to short. Glavine has obviously been a great pitcher, but it looks like if guys would just take him the other way, he'd get absolutely crushed now.

by brafi on Oct 23, 2007 8:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Glavine

It's extremely difficult to hit a low and away pitch well. That's why the Braves have been teaching their guys to do it for 10+ years.

Also, it doesn't matter how hard a guy throws his FB if he can locate it and has a solid change-up, which Glavine does.

by thepainguy on Oct 23, 2007 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Over Simplifying

I know I am over-simplifying pitching. I was just as frustrated as Albert watching that game. Just seemed like the hitters had the wrong approach the whole night. Like I said in the earlier post, Galvine is a great pitcher with a tremendous track record - just sometimes hard to see why he doesn't get crushed now

by brafi on Oct 23, 2007 9:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It seems to me like our team

never hits Glavine well. So what's one game. As I recall, we have a very bad record against him.

by nycardfan on Oct 23, 2007 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Glavine's Career Versus Cards

20 wins,6 losses, 3.46 ERA, 3 lifetime shutouts, 153 strikeouts versus 79 walks and only 11 home runs allowed in 230 something innnings. Pretty Good.

A walk is a waste of three pitches-Bob Gibson

by orlando card on Oct 23, 2007 11:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

A bonus in signing him

is that we don't have to play against him.

by nycardfan on Oct 23, 2007 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My worry

Would be the price. He turned down a 13M player option with the Mets. I also don't think his control is as good as it used to be.

by Toddius396 on Oct 23, 2007 11:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

He turned down the Mets

because he wanted the freedom of being able to go wherever he wanted. He wanted to go back to Atlanta last season but they never made him an offer.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 23, 2007 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right

but I assume he would want something in the ballpark. If he's going to take 3M less, why not go be in Atlanta?

I do think there is some concern in Atlanta about being able to afford him. They have a lot of money tied up in Smoltz and Hudson, and a lot of dead money tied up in Mike Hampton.

by Toddius396 on Oct 23, 2007 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Word is

He'd give a pretty serious discount to Atlanta. I don't think 6 or 7m is out of the question. If they don't sign him, we might could get it done for under 10.

"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Oct 23, 2007 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was a $9 M base

it was only $13 M because reached incentives based in IP. Cardinals could give him the same contract.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 23, 2007 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

another reason...

the option with mets required that he make a decision within 5 days of the mets season ending. he said the reason/one of the reasons he declined was because he needed more time to decide whether or not he still wanted to play.

i am not too worried about the price. i think he will get around $10MM unless he really wants to finish up in atlanta. that is probably more than he is worth, but it would be for only one year. if it ends up being a mistake, its a mistake a franchise could live with. giving carlos silva 4/40 would be a much bigger blunder.

by dmb60614 on Oct 23, 2007 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Glavine also reportedly was not happy

pitching with the Mets. This is actually true for a number of older veterans, like Billy Wagner. Wagner has said in interviews that the environment of the club is not one veterans are comfortable with. Mets radio was reporting at the end of the year that they thought it was likely that Glavine would take a pay cut to move to another team.

by nycardfan on Oct 23, 2007 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

#4-#5 starter...

if going by VORP, Glavin is far from #4-#5 stuff like most people think. Per the data mining I did here, Vorp for a 2 starter is around 32 and #3 is 20, Glavin tossed a 28.1 which puts him almost in the top 50 for starters with at least 150 IP.

"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"

by rocKStark5 on Oct 23, 2007 2:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Glavine

I looked at WHIP and ERA.

WHIP= 1.41
ERA= 4.45

Those two stats put him at league average. Now would he help our staff yes, but he is no longer a pitcher who is much better than a few games over .500 at best. So if we got him he is not a #1 or #2 starter with a WHIP of 1.41 and ERA of 4.45.

Rich Hill had a 1.19 WHIP and a 3.92 ERA.

Just saying that MR. Glavine is definitely in decline mode. Why do you want a guy in decline mode? He is not young, so it's not like we are trying to resurrect his career.

I like him but at this point in his career he can go to ATL and finish it out for all I care.

by ICbirdfan on Oct 23, 2007 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why do we want a guy in decline mode?

Because he's still leaps and bounds ahead of any combination of 7 different pitchers we try and use for one rotation spot. That's why.

by mynameistyler on Oct 23, 2007 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's declining

and was worth about $10 million last year according to MORP. The Hardball Times' Fair Market Value Calculator has him worth about $10.5 M last year. Last year was his worst of the last 4 -- there is a clear decline. I don't know what he'll receive, but if it's $13 M -- it's far too much.

He's probably worth $8.5 - $9 M for next year -- paying him $13 would be wholly irresponsible and, if that's what it takes to lure him away from Atlanta, we should pass.

by chuckb on Oct 23, 2007 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think

We'll be paying extra money to pry him away from the Braves. They're going to get first crack at him, if he doesn't wind up playing for them next year it's because he either retires or they don't want him. I also wouldn't want to pay $13m for him, but if the Braves don't sign him I think we could get him for more like 8.5-9. Declining, yes. But also likely to outperform every Cardinals pitcher not named Wainwright in 2008.

"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Oct 23, 2007 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

older

The Cardinals do not need to get any older. If Glavine was 33 I would say go ahead.

Yes he is a safer bet than others in the rotation based on past performance, but he just seems to be losing it. Shea does not seem like a hitters park and his stats show that he was in decline. I just see him more as a #3 or #4 starter and the Cardinals need to save $13 mill for an impact guy if we are looking to spend that $$ this year on a FA pitcher.

by ICbirdfan on Oct 23, 2007 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I posted on MLBTR, also...

and I would love a Tom Glavine signing. Like I said on MLBTR, I'm a huge fan of Tom Glavine and I have been my entire life. He started in the bigs the year I was born, so I've had plenty of time.

Look here, kiddos, even if we paid a full 13MM after incentives, who cares? The guy will toss 180+ innings and he's not Kip Wells. Need more convincing?

by mynameistyler on Oct 23, 2007 3:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Thank god its not Wells...

Yeah I can live with that. It would be great though to have some young guns he could help coach. He could give some hints to Wagonmaker, Thompson, or Reyes. That might be just as important as his throwing arm.

Welcome back Tony, adios Kip.

by warpig2003 on Oct 23, 2007 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reyes

I hope Reyes isn't around to give tips to. I am soooooo tired of this soap opera that has become Anthony Reyes. Personally, I think he will be a yo-yo man for the rest of his career. I understand that he doesn't prepare for games the way that he should, and he goes about the whole process of pitching rather lazily.

I'm a man, a manly, manly, man. Unknown

by Eckstreem on Oct 23, 2007 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you were born in the year he made his MLB debut

then how can you call us "kiddos"?

I keed, I keed :P

Re-acquire Edgar Renteria

by Mr Redbird on Oct 23, 2007 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i don't know Gordo's source...

... and he doesn't cite it, but i haven't heard any public mentions by Glavine or his agent about wanting to come to StL. if the statement is true, i would bet that it is merely an attempt to give Glavine a little bit of leverage in negotiations with the Braves.

it's true that Mazzone isn't with the Braves anymore, but Cox and Smoltz still are, and it's still a promising team. the only way i see him not pitching for the Braves is if they decide, for some reason, to not offer him a contract or to seriously low-ball him. if they offer him anything remotely approaching a fair contract, then i'd be shocked if he didn't take it. if they don't, then i'd be shocked if he doesn't retire. and if doesn't retire, i'd be shocked if he ends up in StL.

by kindred on Oct 23, 2007 9:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

He gave them the chance last off season

and they showed zero interest. I'm not sure what has changed since then, except more of the 90's core out the door.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Oct 24, 2007 2:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

true, but...

... he was asking for a lot of money last off-season, which the team didn't really have. this year -- according to reports and speculation -- his price demands have dropped, and the Braves have some extra payroll with A. Jones leaving. if Glavine were to agree to a 6-7mn one-year deal, it'd be hard for the Braves to say no.

i'm not sure if Glavine would actually go for that. but that scenario seems much more likely than him coming to StL for less than 9-10mn.

by kindred on Oct 24, 2007 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not true at all

The Braves showed a ton of interest last offseason. They didn't have the payroll room, but they were trying so hard to trade Tim Hudson to make the salary room for Tom Glavine. When Glavine signed with the Mets, John Schuerholz was quoted as saying Glavine "was his top free agent target" and that he was "sorry" he failed to sign him.

This year, they have 20 million in payroll coming off the books in the form of Andruw Jones and Bob Wickman. They'll probably trade Renteria's salary to us or the Tigers this offseason too. The Braves also have a new owner, Liberty Media, that is raising the team's payroll. Bottom-line, the Braves can afford Glavine this offseason unlike last.

The MLBTradeRumors article even has a link to the Braves' beat blogger and Atlanta Journal-Constitution writer David O'Brien saying the Braves getting Glavine this offseason is "close to a sure thing".

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/braves/entries/2007/10/19/torre_down_cox.html#comm ents

I really think it's Braves or retirement for Glavine. Maybe I'm wrong. Just a gut-feeling.

by Deep Throat on Oct 24, 2007 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

getting older?

A lot of people seem to be missing the point when they say "we don't need to get older" and similar things.

I think Glavine would be a good fit for this team, and one of the big reasons why is that he won't require a long-term commitment.

The reason why people have advocated against signing someone like an Aaron Rowand this off-season is that:

It requires a long commitment and while he's in his prime now, he probably would be in decline by the end of the contract, like Edmonds/Rolen now.
It potentially blocks a player in our organization.

Glavine could be had for one year and doesn't block anyone. The only person who is anywhere near MLB ready in the minors is Hawksworth and I'm thinking he's unlikely to have a real shot at starting in the rotation with St. Louis, and even if he does, he's not competing for the last spot with Tom Glavine if we sign him.

It's not about the age of the player necessarily, if the player is still going to be upgrade, a short-term commitment, and is potentially better than most of our other options.

I would love to see us go after either Glavine or Jon Lieber to help out the rotation, as Lieber would be a similar type of signing.

by mtalken on Oct 24, 2007 1:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

"get older"

I made a post about "getting older"

I agree that Glavine.

is a one year commitment which is good.
obviously doesn't block anyone which is good.

He is older so I gues I stated the obvious calling him old. Here is my only concern with spending $13 million (I don't think he comes to STL at a bargain price. Only ATL will get a chance at that).

If the Cards are going to spend $13 million in one year they better get a difference maker. At this point of his career Tom is not a difference maker. His WHIP was 1.41 just the same as Anthony Reyes. Now Glavine is clearly better than Reyes and I bet he would probably win around 12 games with STL next season. Now that is not really a price I would pay for a 12 game winner. It's just a high price for a guy who is no longer a "impact pitcher". Tom Glavine is the type of guy who is a perfect #3 or #4 starter. He is the type of guy that would really help a team who has two very good starters for example Cleveland would be a great example of a team Glavine would help. CC and Carmona then Tom, he just rounds out the staff and adds stability. He is not going to be great but very solid. For $13 million one year STL could do better in my opinion. It is nothing against Tom it is more about our staff at this point. If Carp were healthy and was our opening day starter I would like a Carp, Wainer, Galvine rotation. I think it would be a good win in 08 move but things just are not alligned that way.

by ICbirdfan on Oct 24, 2007 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I posted this in another thread which fell off

Glavine is a bit of an enigma.

All the conventional stats AND his tools indicate he should not be anywhere as good as he has been.

He doesn't strike many out. He walks more than you would like. He doesn't have good stuff.

Somehow he just gets results that are not easy to explain. He has put up a lower BAIP than average for years. He has also maintained a high LOB %. Both semi-violate well regarded stats rules.

Basically he is the exception to the stat heads rule. We cannot explain him

by DriverZn on Oct 24, 2007 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clement

I think there are better free agents to spend money on, simply because they have more upside. With that rotation, you need to go for the homerun and hope you get another Carpenter. Therefore, why not sign someone with some potential strikeout power, ala matt clement. He can't cost much more than glavine will on the market, plus glavine is going back to the braves if they offer him a contract.

by maffew on Oct 24, 2007 2:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs