The Warning Signs of Tom Glavine

by gondeee on Nov 13, 2007 1:40 PM EST Comment 29 comments

Today's the day free agents are free to negotiate with any team, and the often and long rumored rumblings that Tom Glavine will return to Atlanta can now officially start a full frenzied daily dribble onto our computer screens.

How much of a catch would Tom Glavine be for the Braves? According to Keith Law of Scouts Inc. and ESPN it wouldn't be much. Of the top-50 free agents this year, Law lists Glavine as the 50th - dead last:

Glavine may try to pitch one more year, but he'd be wise to remember the ignominious end of another lefty's career, that of Steve Carlton. Carlton didn't know when to walk away, and after a terrible 1987, Carlton tried to come back one more time and gave up 19 runs in nine-plus innings before he was released. Glavine's 2007 wasn't as bad as Carlton's last full season, but he posted one of the worst earned-run averages of his career, one of the worst groundball rates of his career and one of his worst strikeout rates of his career. Glavine's stuff is down. His fastball is 80-84 mph, his change at 74-75 with visible slowing of his arm, his slow-roller curve at 75-77 -- and none of it able to miss bats. Glavine has to pitch hitters away and avoid contact; if he's not getting something extra on the outside corner, he's doomed. He'll get an offer if he wants to pitch, but even in a big park in the National League, he's a 50-50 shot to get released or retire midyear. It's been a great run, Tom -- don't push it.

Law would certainly believe that the attraction of the Braves (and many Braves fans) to Glavine seems to be more nostalgic, and not an attraction rooted in good baseball sense. On one hand, Tom Glavine did throw just over 200 innings last year en route to a 13-and-8 record, but on the other hand he posted the second highest ERA of any season in the past 18 years. Interestingly, that other "off-year" came in Glavine's inaugural year in New York, and his 2007 season wasn't as bad as that 2003 season, when many people thought he was through after posting an ERA a run higher than his career average. Of course, several things conspired to make 2003 a bad year for Glavine; he was adjusting to a new city and a new team, he was adjusting to a new strike zone thanks to Shea Stadium being a Questec park (careful what you wish for Chipper), and he was handed his four worst defeats at the hands of his former team (the Braves got on base 44 times and scored 23 runs in 20 innings).

So can we say that 2007 was just another fluke year (or another adjustment year) like 2003? Of course, that may be the million dollar (or multi-million dollar) question. But even with all the detractors it is still worth noting that Glavine made 34 starts last year, he threw 200+ innings, and he won 13 games. Add to that his 21 years of major league experience and his reputation for being a "crafty lefty" pitcher and things may not be as dire with Glavine as Law makes them out to be.

Even with his decreased "stuff," Glavine still finds ways to be effective. He's going to have his blowout games where he doesn't have hardly any of his pitches working and he leaves before the fifth inning, but most of his starts will last around six innings and will leave the Braves with a chance to win the game. Take a look at Glavine's 2007 season when compared against the rest of the Braves' starters from last year (just for fun I also included Jurrjens):

Starting Pitcher	Pitcher W-L	Team W-L	Run Support
Tim Hudson	16-10	22-12	5.69
John Smoltz	14-8	18-14	4.62
Tom Glavine	13-8	18-16	4.97
Chuck James	11-10	17-13	4.90
Buddy Carlyle	8-7	11-11	5.71
Kyle Davies	4-8	7-10	4.66
Jair Jurrjens	3-1	6-1	5.47
Jo-Jo Reyes	2-2	3-8	5.25
Lance Cormier	2-6	3-7	4.16

I'm not sure he was any better than Chuck James (and James had a lower ERA). More accurately he was just as good as James. Glavine didn't even throw that many more innings per start than James did - both averaging between five and six innings each time they took the mound (though Glavine had four more starts which allowed him to reach that magical 200 inning mark).

So, in signing Tom Glavine, all we may be getting is an older, more experienced Chuck James. Is that worth several more millions a year in salary? Is that worth a spot in the rotation that could be used to develop and grow a Reyes or a Jurrjens? Is it worth it just to have Glavine end his career in a Braves uniform?

In the end I think we will sign Glavine, because if nothing else another Chuck James would likely help us win six or seven more games over the course of a year verses the guys we had at the back of the rotation last year - and six or seven more wins may put us in the postseason. I'm not sure that Glavine can be an effective postseason big game pitcher anymore, so we may think twice before including him in any potential postseason rotation verses the hard throwing youngsters who might be ready at the end of 2008. But what Glavine does well is what the Braves need (and what they need back) - he knows how to manage himself over the course of a season, how to weather its ups and downs, and how to end up with a winning record for himself and his team. (And much like the stop-gap solution we are searching for in center field, Glavine helps us bridge the gap to our next crop of young starting pitchers.)

Who knows how much Bobby Cox's constant nagging of the umpires will add to the width of the strike zone - that could be like the fountain of youth for number 47. Who knows how many more games he could win when he's slotted against other teams' number three or four starter verses their number one or two starter. Who knows if his 40-year old body will hold up or if his arm, with four-thousand three-hundred-plus innings, will be able to throw another 200. Know this, Glavine comes with just as many question marks as some people thinks he answers.

0 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Well put...

...certainly has made me think twice about the situation. However, as you pointed out, I think with him going against other #3 pitchers and pushing James down to #4...blah, blah, blah...we've all talked about this a million times. It will definetly improve the rotation.

BTW, Law is an absolute ass. Pretty sure he ranked Kyle Lohse as the #10 free agent. That's insane.

by Smoltzs Beard on Nov 13, 2007 2:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

What do you think

about TG's ability to tutor Chuck James, Jo Jo Reyes, and others young lefties?

Would you think he'll be willing to do that?

by themurph on Nov 13, 2007 2:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

or

our new lefty ace Erik Bedard? :)

by themurph on Nov 13, 2007 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well said...

...Tommy is absolutely another Chucky. That's why I want Wren to make another "Hudson" deal.

by kc on Nov 13, 2007 6:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sorry but

Tom Glavine was not Chuck James last season.

Chuck James finished the 6th inning 11 times in 30 starts.

Glavine finished the 6th inning 26 times in 34 starts.

Four times did Chuck not complete 4 innings. Twice more he didn't complete 5. Those numbers are 2 and 2 for Glavine.

That leaves 13 starts where Chuck completed 5 but couldn't get through 6. That number is 4 for Glavine.

It isn't just about those extra innings piling up at the end of the year. It means one fewer reliever. That's the difference between a routine (relatively) Yates to Moylan to Soriano, and having to see Villarreal come through the gates.

Chuck pitched as many as 7 innings just FOUR times. And the club went 2-2 in those games.

Glavine pitched 7 innings 11 times, 3 of those games he went 8 innings. His club went 7-4 in those outings.

Looking at Glavine, he had 7 of those games you mentioned, where he just had nothing and got shelled:

Here are those 7 games:

Jun 10 L - 9 er, 4.1 IP, Team L
Jun 16 L - 7 er, 4.0 IP, Team L
Jul 02 L - 6 er, 6.0 IP, Team L
Jul 19 N - 6 er, 2.0 IP, Team W
Aug 23 N - 6 er, 5.0 IP, Team L
Sep 25 L - 6 er, 5.0 IP, Team L
Sep 30 L - 7 er, 0.1 IP, Team L

47 ER, 26.2 IP 15.84 ERA

Pretty ugly.

But taking those numbers in to account, in his other 27 starts, he allowed 52 ER in 173.2 IP for a 2.61 ERA.

A loss is a loss, I don't care if you gave up 2 runs and lost, or gave up 9. It's still one loss in the standings. It will effect your rate stats, but it doesn't mean a lick to a team trying to win. They care if you put the team in a place to win.

So yes, 7 times he went out and pitched like Mark Redman. But he pitched 27 games like a Cy Young candidate.

by jjschiller on Nov 13, 2007 10:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Wow...

Now THAT'S a brilliant breakdown; way to dig deep and find the truth beneath the numbers! The thing about stats is that they can be shaped to say anything you want them to say, but when put side by side, everyone can determine the truth. That said, I think the real concern is that Glavine will continue to slip, having more of those ugly games than ever before. It's also not accurate to say "a loss is a loss, I don't care by how much" because a close gap could be covered by the offense after a starter leaves. All in all, I think Glavine will make a fine addition to the 3-5 part of our rotation.

I would like to see another solid pitcher with less question marks targeted before the season (base the package on B. Jones and Lillibridge and you've got just about anyone's ear) but I don't think it's a must. You can never have to much pitching and, if we can afford him, why not bring Glavine back for a shot at redemption; what else would we spend it on?

Come check out my blog 52 Card Pick-up and let me know what you think!

by ejruiz on Nov 14, 2007 5:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Imagine....

making the trade you mentioned (BJones and Lilli, maybe even a pitcher) for a #3 or better quality starter and have Glavine 4th....we'd be looking really good! And I think we can afford to part with those 2 prospects and maybe even throw in a pitcher...

by secondbass on Nov 14, 2007 5:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know...

...if you understand. The market for pitching is 100% a sellers market. The best free agents (Silva, Lohse, etc.) are going to get 4 year $40 million deals. Teams are not going to be willing to trade even a #3 starter for two guys who project at best as average major leaguers and a pitcher(forget about Bedard, it would take a package surpassing Teixeira's and we simply don't have those prospects anymore).

Look at what the Braves demanded for second tier shortstop - an ML ready starter and a projectionable center fielder. Remember the Garland-Renteria rumor? Garland's cost would likely be an ML ready pitcher and at least two/three above average projectionable players. Your package doesn't even provide that.

The last bonafide starting pitcher traded was Randy Johnson last winter. He cost the Diamondbacks the following:

*Alberto Gonzalez (24) SS
.290/.356/.392 6 HR 5 SBs @ AAA
*Steven Jackson (25) SP
2.65 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, .239 BAA, 7.5 K/9 @ AA
*Ross Ohlendorf (24) SP
3.29 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, .272 BAA, 6.2 K/9 @ AA
*Luis Vizcaino (31) RP
3.58 ERA, 1.22 WHIP, .206 BAA, 9.9 K/9 for Arizona

Ohlendorf was the 10th best prospect, Gonzalez was 13th, Jackson was unranked, Vizcaino had five straight 65+ appearance seasons under his belt.

Randy Johnson was 43 when he was traded, Garland's 28. Obviously the package will be significantly bigger.

Look at the Gagne trade; he cost Boston Kason Gabbard (3.73 ERA through 7 games w/Boston in '07), David Murphy (.280/.347/.423 @ AAA), and Engel Beltre (BA rated him as having above average power, arm, and speed). That's for an oft-injured closer.

Then their's Brad Lidge; he cost Philly Michael Bourn (.277/.348/.378 with 18 for 19 in SBs), Geoff Geary (veteran reliever), and Mike Costanzo (.270/.368/.490 with 27 HRs @ AA). That's for Lidge, another guy who was injured and who's never regained his form after 2005.

Trust me, if a bonafide #3 (Garland or Blanton) is on the market, other teams can afford to pay more than what the Braves can. Renteria was our chance to bring home a #3, Wren went another direction. I'd give up any delusions right about now.

by 17843 on Nov 14, 2007 9:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I Think...

You grossly overrate a lot of the parts of those packages. Take the Lidge deal: Bourn is a glorified Loadenthal/Blanco, Geary has been barely adequate outside of 2006 and Costanzo is a pretty average prospect considering that he's likely going to be a 1B. Same for Gagne: Murphy has a weak minor league track record (making his success last season look like a fluke), Gabbard is barely solid and Engel has done nothing above the lowest level of rookie ball. Heck, let's do Randy's package as well: Gonzalez is your garden variety all-glove, no bat SS, Jackson's 2002 proved to be a fluke.. the other two are fine players, though Vizcaino is inconsistent and prone to wholely average years.

My point is this: you just prove that quantity over quality can get you fine players. We can offer a balance of both by offering Lillibridge/Escobar, B. Jones/Schafer/Gorkys, Devine/Medlen and Cole/Hanson for a solid starter. Honestly, the upper end of that package could be enough to net Haren...

Come check out my blog 52 Card Pick-up and let me know what you think!

by ejruiz on Nov 14, 2007 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not really

Bourn as a "glorified Loadenthal/Blanco".

I think we can both agree that a player who has actually proven they can hit ML pitching is superior to one who plays at AA or AAA, especially when said player has a season of ML ball under his belt at 24, while the other guys are 23 (@ AAA) and 25 (@ AA). Until Blanco proves himself in the MLs, as Bourn went a long way towards doing last year, you can't compare the two.

Geary as "barely adequate". I'd point you towards the 57 games, 67.3 IP, and 4.41 ERA. Those are valuable numbers from a middle reliever; obviously not star numbers, but enough. As for Costanzo, BA rated him as having "soft hands, a strong accurate arm, and good range". I'll assume you pulled the 1B remark out of your ass. Regardless, he hit last season and profiles as a power hitting, high strikeouts third baseman.

Etc. responding to the rest would be an exercise in tedium and they distract from my argument. Pitching already cost a lot for 43 year old starters, and two closers with injury issues. No Haren, Garland, Blanton has gone on the market recently; that's why their price will be so high. There will be literally 15 teams in on whoever it is, all driving up the price.

My points were the following:

The market is almost, if not totally, bare for starting pitching. A quality starter (Garland, Blanton, Lowry, etc.) will cost multiple top prospects, including a top level pitcher.
The Braves really don't have that much at the top levels of the system. Jones and Lillibridge are average players, Schafer is a future star, Reyes and Jurrjens have big question marks.
The way you group the above players is ridiculous. Brandon Jones is an ML ready average corner outfielder. BA compared him to Matt Lawton. Schafer and Gorkys are still very much projection cases and are much more toolsy; enough to make them top level defensive center fielders. They certainly don't compare.

Similarly, Medlen is a young pitcher who dominated A ball and the associated winter league, but is still two years away from the big leagues. Devine is ML ready.

Etc.

4. If there is a Haren, Garland, Lowry, Blanton on the market, other teams can put better packages together. Anything the Braves put together would basically empty the system again.

And I'd doubt very much that the A's would deal Haren for an Escobar, Schafer, Devine, Hanson package. They're good players, but they're going to want more pitching than a guy in High-A and a reliever, even if they are getting Escobar and Schafer.

by 17843 on Nov 15, 2007 5:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Costanzo, etc.

"Some scouts believe Costanzo, a second-round pick form Coastal Carolina in 2005, is a first baseman in waiting." ~ from Baseball America's breakdown of the trade itself.

That sort of comment is due to the fact that he's averaged 30 errors per season and a meak range factor of abround 2.5 at 3B over the bast two seasons. I did not pull anything out of my ass (never do, buddy) though I'm not sure where you got your info...

Geary's 4.41 ERA is, in my humble opinion, barely adequate when coupled with his horrendous K rates and mediocre WHIP. Bourn has 127 AB at the ML-level; how in the world is that proven?! More over, his barely .700 OPS in that span isn't something I'd expect Blanco or Loadenthal to have trouble duplicating, as they have similar minor league stats to those of Bourn.

"their collection of athletes with power bats, which already included outfielders Jordan Schafer and Brandon Jones." ~ From Baseball America's updated Braves Top 10 Prospects article.

If BA doesn't have a problem lumping B. Jones in with the likes of Schafer, I don't either.

"the Braves still have plenty of promising lefthanded starters." ~ ibid

Again, BA seems to think highly of our young stud pitchers and Beane would be smart enough to do so himself.

If you honestly don't think that the high end of our affordable offers could get Haren, then that's your opinion and that's fine; but don't dare brush me off as though I'm crazy or don't know my stuff.

Come check out my blog 52 Card Pick-up and let me know what you think!

by ejruiz on Nov 15, 2007 6:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Uh

Calling Schafer and Jones both athletes with power bats falls a lot short of where you were going. They certainly aren't equal in any trade, Schafer just has more upside than Jones.

Ditto for the stocks of lefties the Braves have. Reyes (and I suppose we can even include James) are the only lefties above Low-A ball. The A's and anyone else are going to want someone a bit more developed, no matter how good they were at Danville or Rome.

My main disagreement is more that such a pitcher would be on the market. Even if they are, I doubt the Braves could beat out another club to acquire him. Others just have more high ceiling guys at the higher levels; most of the Braves' high ceiling talent is stuck in A-ball or Rookie ball.

And the Costanzo info is interesting. Thanks

by 17843 on Nov 15, 2007 7:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cool...

That is some nice evaluation. That Law dude needs to see and refute that!
I was pro Glavine anyway, but now I'm sold even more!

by secondbass on Nov 14, 2007 5:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Law

Law's argument was more age based than preformance based. It was certainly pessimistic, but one has to wonder how long Glavine can keep churning out 30+ start, 200+ IP seasons. Certainly worth it for a $8 million, 1 year contract.

by 17843 on Nov 14, 2007 9:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well played...

...good sir. Great stats.

by Smoltzs Beard on Nov 14, 2007 8:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

NIce breakdown...

Love seeing good science behind the numbers like that!

by Chin Music on Nov 14, 2007 9:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice

Good breakdown. Chuck was certainly given an early hook quite often last year. I guess what I come back to though is the Team W-L between Glavine and James, and that still reeks of sameness. But there is something to be said for eating a few more innings as Glavine did do.

by gondeee on Nov 14, 2007 9:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Chuck's young, Glav is old.

Yeah the team win-losses are similar. But without looking at box scores, I have to think, based on his number of quality starts, it was a case of the bullpen hurting Glavine, and Chuck hurting the bullpen.

Also, I don't know how much it really stacks out through a whole season, but Glavine was 1 or 2 for the Mets all year, and might have been facing up with 1's and 2's. Like I said, I don't know how well that lines up for a whole season, though. But it's all in the box scores, I suppose.

There's definitely a chance that Glavine slips though. But I'm just not sure that last year was a sign that that would happen.

Looking at his September:

Sep 02 W - 1 er, 8.0 IP, Team W, QS
Sep 08 W - 1 er, 7.0 IP, Team W, QS
Sep 14 N - 2 er, 7.2 IP, Team L, QS
Sep 20 N - 4 er, 5.0 IP, Team L,
Sep 25 L - 6 er, 5.0 IP, Team L,
Sep 30 L - 7 er, 0.1 IP, Team L,

Those last two starts were both in his 7 clinkers, and the one immediately before them wasn't far from fitting that category too.

But by the time he had taken the mound for that Sep 20 start, he'd already thrown 190 innings and was 13-6 with a 3.88 ERA.

So maybe he was out of gas? I don't know. Earlier in the season he threw back-to-back clinkers too, Jun 10 and Jun 16, and he recovered nicely. So maybe he it was a temporary loss of arm-slot.

Who knows.

I remembered Chuck getting a few early hooks too, but his season low pitches was 57, The next lowest was 73. It looks like he was always left in there to throw some pitches. He might have been coming out in the 4th and 5th, but he threw 11 starts with under 85 pitches. He also threw 95 pitches or more 14 times.

So Bobby was leaving him in there to pitch, he just wasn't getting enough outs.

I read all about how he needs another pitch. Maybe he does. Maybe he just needs to make them swing and miss. I don't know anything about pitching, but if Chuck can get a few outs, and make half of those 5 inning starts go 6 instead, his season looks a lot more like Glavine's.

Chuck's young and Glav is old. Theoreticaly, Chuck is going to get better, and Glav is going to get worse.

So next year, yeah, Chuck could get better, and Tom could get worse. Their numbers might look the same at the end of next year, or Chuck could even be better.

I don't want to bring in Glavine at the expense of Chuck James. I'll just make that clear.

I just feel that if Chuck has to be traded in order for us to have a CF worth putting out there (Chone Figgins, Carl Crawford, Joe Dimaggio??) I think Glav will be as good or better than what Chuck gave us last year.

by jjschiller on Nov 14, 2007 11:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Chucky will not be traded...

...for a centerfielder. I believe he will only be traded to get us a better starting pitcher.

by kc on Nov 14, 2007 6:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Pretty early

to say that. I'd wait until we have a CF for next year before I said that.

by jjschiller on Nov 15, 2007 1:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Smart column, smart discussion

Good posts one and all, and an excellent issue to raise. The Braves have better scouting than most, and now can afford to sign better prospects than most. Giving up a #1 pick for Glavine could be a disaster IF our scouts are at the top of their game these days.

I would certainly wait to see if the Mets offer arbitration. If they do, why not let some other team sign him? Then if he has a weak first half we might be able to pick him up as a salary dump for a meaningless spare part, if Hampton gets hurt again. Glavine's only got one or two decent seasons left at most, so why trade away a draft pick who could be with us for many years, including some low priced early ones?

Yes, that risks having both Jurrgens and Reyes (or Morton) in our rotation, and maybe one of them goes 7-17, just like what's his name did in 1988. Frankly I'd rather see either of them in the rotation than Chuck James, a pure flyball pitcher whose future is limited by the parks under construction in the NL East. Glavine could be a nice add-on as an innings eater, but he shouldn't cost us our top draft pick.

As for sandwich picks for Andruw, I'm not sure. We haven't offered arbitration yet. Memories of Greg Maddux' accepted arbitration (and the resulting trade of Kevin Millwood) are still in our management's mind.

by JimK on Nov 15, 2007 11:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

So why trade away a draft pick...

...for one or two decent seasons of Glavine? It's simple...the team of 2008 is built to win NOW. In 2009 we could be without Tex, Cox, and Chipper on the wrong side of 30 (also a massive injury risk). Who knows when Smoltz will start tailing off...

by Smoltzs Beard on Nov 15, 2007 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

drafted between #18 and the sandwich picks

Re-establishing our dominant young starting pitching is more important than winning in 2008.

Here's what's been available in terms of starting pitchers in the area between #18 and the sandwich.

2004 - pick #23 - Phillip Hughes
2003 - pick #24 - Chad Billingsly
2002 - pick #24 - Joe Blanton (Hamels went #17; if we had given up our #1 that year it would have been Jeff Francoeur, picked #23
2001 - pick #30 - Noah Lowry,
2001 - pick #26 - Jeremy Bonderman
2000 - pick #29 - Adam Wainright (who later became a victim of short term thinking himself)
1998 - pick #20 - CC Sabathia

Not a bad staff. Too bad we don't have a couple of them.

by JimK on Nov 15, 2007 11:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Um,

I don't want to be a humungous asshole, but the sentence "Re-establishing our dominant young starting pitching is more important than winning in 2008" just made me blind with anger.

The point of playing major league baseball is to win major league baseball games.

NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WINNING IN 2008. The next game scheduled is in 2008. Therefor, THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT GAME TO WIN. Because it's the next chance you have.

You don't spend 90 million dollars on payroll and say 'Wait until next year.' That is completely asinine. If you rebuild, you rebuild. You don't have Chipper Jones, John Smoltz, Tim Hudson, and Mark Texeira on a club and say 'Forget about next year, and the year after, let's work for 3 years down the road.'

You don't do that.

You can focus on rebuilding when you don't have talent at the major league level.

There's such a thing as a 'window of opportunity.' You might think that the Braves have loads of minor league talent, but I've got news for you.. NONE OF THEM WILL BE CHIPPER JONES, OR JOHN SMOLTZ, OR TIM HUDSON, OR MARK TEXEIRA. They might be good minor leaguers. But there are probably 400 MAJOR LEAGUERS who aren't as good as those players.

You have those players NOW. In 2 or 3 years, you don't know who you will have or how good they will be. You know what you have now so now is when you try to win.

WITH THAT FACT ESTABLISHED:

Last year the Braves spent over $85 MILLION DOLLARS and didn't go to the playoffs. Pitching was the reason. NEXT YEAR the Braves are spending EVEN MORE MONEY. The pitching needs to be BETTER, so the team can WIN MORE MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL GAMES.

How do you make the pitching better? You bring in more, better pitchers.

Every player you acquire costs something. You don't want to sign a free agent and lose a draft pick? Then you make a trade and give up MORE THAN ONE PLAYER.

Maintaining your future competitive ability is a secondary concern. YOU ONLY WANT GOOD MINOR LEAGUE PLAYERS SO THEY CAN HELP WIN MAJOR LEAGUE GAMES SOME DAY. If you don't want to win the very NEXT game, then just when do you intend to try to win?

That list of pitchers is all well and good. Are they available to be drafted now, instead of signing Tom Glavine? No. They aren't. Therefor that list is completely irrelevant.

Who is going to be available for that 18th pick? How good will they be, and when? And who else will be on your club when that player is ready to help you win major league baseball games?

by jjschiller on Nov 15, 2007 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Alright...

...that's like 7 players out of hundreds of possibilities. A great deal of people selected in that span of picks probably never even made it to the majors.

Back in '96 the Yanks took Eric Milton with the 20th overall pick, I'm not too excited about possibly getting a guy with a career ERA over 5. In 2000 the Red Sox drafted Phil Dumatrait with the 22nd overall pick (moved to the Reds now the Pirates), you might remember him from last year when the Braves shelled him for 8 ER in 2 IP. His ERA by the end of the season? 15.

It's way too much of a crapshoot. I'd rather have Glavine helping us now, than a question mark who might help us 4 years down the road.

by Smoltzs Beard on Nov 15, 2007 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Amen

My sentiments exactly. We have to go for it in 2008, and losing 1 (singular) draft pick, regardless of what number pick it is, along with about 10 mil (when ownership already stated payroll is going to go up) is well worth the price.

Nice run-on sentence there, eh?

by VegasAces on Nov 16, 2007 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Solid post

If a little angry.

Has anyone stopped to consider what a similar pitcher would cost in the trade market? Multiple prospects, probably some of them who are semi-established players like Brandon Jones or Jo-Jo Reyes. Glavine costs us one draft pick; if we were trading for someone they'd cost us multiple minor leaguers. Just look at some archived news stories about Jose Contreras at last summer's deadline. They were talking about multiple prospects for a veteran starter.

Get a little perspective.

by 17843 on Nov 15, 2007 3:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

My post?

If so,

Yeah. I regret it already.

I'm sorry JimK, I shouldn't have been yelling.

by jjschiller on Nov 15, 2007 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Whatever

The post had a lot of good points. Either the Braves are in it to win it in 2008 or they're rebuilding and need to sell off the expensive veterans like Smoltz, Hudson, Tex, even Chipper and get some prospects and rebuild.

I'm getting tired of the idea we can run out journeyman and youngsters as bonafide starters and expect to make the playoffs. And that is supposed to be the goal, right? Playoffs and all?

by 17843 on Nov 16, 2007 10:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs