Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Monday, November 19, 2007

Braves - Signed Glavine

Atlanta Braves - Signed P Tom Glavine to a 1-year, $8 million contract

Good signing by the Braves.  They don’t need a good starter, they need a #4 guy to sop up some innings so that guys like Jo-Jo Reyes and Mark Redman don’t.  Glavine will fill that role and as there aren’t any good younger pitchers in the market that you could get for that contract (or, in fact, any contract), there’s nothing wrong with letting Glavine finish his career as a Brave.  Because of some really bad injury problems some years back, I thought John Smoltz would be the first of the Big 3 to go, but it looks like he might just outlast Glavine and Maddux after all, and still has an outside shot at 250 wins, which should get him into the Hall.

2008 ZiPS Projection - Tom Glavine
——————————————————————————————-
        W   L   G GS   IP   H   ER HR BB SO   ERA
——————————————————————————————-
Projection 11 11 32 32 192 216   98 21 63 100 4.59
——————————————————————————————-
Opt. (15%) 15   8 34 34 214 221   87 17 56 123 3.66
Pes. (15%)  7 11 26 26 155 189   95 22 61 75 5.52
———————————————————————————————
Top Comps: Tommy John, Jamie Moyer

Dan Szymborski Posted: November 19, 2007 at 06:27 AM | 79 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. aleskel Posted: November 19, 2007 at 04:27 PM (#2619909)
Top Comps: Tommy John, Jamie Moyer

shocking! just shocking, I tells ya!
   2. Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine Posted: November 19, 2007 at 04:34 PM (#2619922)
I'll take something closer to the pessimistic. He's been a great pitcher for a long time, but I think he's done.
   3. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: November 19, 2007 at 04:35 PM (#2619923)
Did Glavine take a $5M pay cut? I thought he turned down a $13M option from the Mets.
   4. Loren F. Posted: November 19, 2007 at 04:43 PM (#2619932)
I'd guess that the Braves would be satisfied with 192 IP of an ERA+ of 92-95. And Glavine is probably worth a little more than that in intangibles, what with the homecoming angle, and his 'farewell tour'.
   5. bunyon Posted: November 19, 2007 at 05:09 PM (#2619957)
Well, I didn't think the Braves would sign him. But I thought Glavine would want a good deal more money than this. For $8mill, this is fine.
   6. DL from MN Posted: November 19, 2007 at 05:14 PM (#2619963)
Good deal for the Braves. Where is the TO posting for the disaster that is the Luis Castillo deal?

Castillo has already lost a couple steps in his speed based game from his All-Star seasons in Florida to his average performance in Minnesota. Now he's 32, though watching him walk you'd think he was 50. His range in the field has declined, though he still has sure hands and an accurate arm. His bat is entirely based on a speed based game though - he's going to age poorly and they're going to need to replace him in 2 years, tops.
   7. Cris E Posted: November 19, 2007 at 05:23 PM (#2619973)
Did Glavine take a $5M pay cut? I thought he turned down a $13M option from the Mets.

Think of this as an $11m deal for Tom, as he already took a $3m buyout from the Mets. He knows what he wants at this point.
   8. Cris E Posted: November 19, 2007 at 05:26 PM (#2619975)
<s>Vidro</s> Castillo will be fine, up until the time he isn't and then he can DH for Seattle. (OK, OK, sorry, that was mean.)

That contract is too long but NYM can afford the dollars so it's probably fine as long as they get him off the field when the wheels come off.
   9. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 19, 2007 at 05:26 PM (#2619978)
I'll take something closer to the pessimistic. He's been a great pitcher for a long time, but I think he's done.

Hasn't that been said for 3 years? Maybe this time its correct.

As pointed out elsewhere, its the first round pick they lose that hurts.
   10. Kyle S Posted: November 19, 2007 at 05:36 PM (#2619984)
I think it's been said for about 10 years, BLB. Who knows when he'll finally fall apart for good. Here's hoping it's not this year. Hell, if Jamie Moyer can survive in CBP, why not Tommy in the Ted?

It does hurt to lose a first round pick though. Insert my rant about the stupidity of draft pick compensation from the other thread.

As frustrating at times as the mean projection line would likely be to watch, I wish I could bank it now. That's exactly what the Braves need at the back of their rotation.

Finally, Dan, I think Smoltz is in the Hall if he gets hit by a bus today. Hopefully he can tack on another good season or two and make his case truly airtight.
   11. Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine Posted: November 19, 2007 at 05:36 PM (#2619986)
I'll take something closer to the pessimistic. He's been a great pitcher for a long time, but I think he's done.

Hasn't that been said for 3 years? Maybe this time its correct.


I don't know. I didn't say it. I'm saying it now, though. Everyone is free to point their finger at me and laugh if I'm wrong.
   12. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 19, 2007 at 11:34 PM (#2620559)
Hasn't that been said for 3 years?

Far longer than that. It was said pretty much every year of his Mets career. It was said before he signed with the Mets, the "proof" being his poor second half performance and abysmal playoff performance in 2002. It was said as far back as 1998 when he re-upped with Atlanta, the argument being that he was a nibbler and he might be a bad bet to excel throughout the life of that deal. Hell, it was even said in the early 90s when he was predicted to "go Mulholland" any (and every) year.

I know, because other than the "go Mullholland" comments, made by Baseball Prospectus I believe, I was the guy saying it. $8 mil to sop up the crap at the end of the rotation is a lot better than $11/5 for <strike>Darren Driefort</strike> Kyle Lohse. And when Mike Hampton comes back the rotation will be SET!

Oh shut up. And stop trying to hijack this into a damned Luis Castillo thread. The Mets signed a stupid contract for an over the hill second baseman. Robbie Alomar and Carlos Baerga say hi.
   13. Srul Itza Posted: November 19, 2007 at 11:49 PM (#2620572)
In another thread, it was pointed out that league average ERA+ for starters is 96 (because relievers have lower ERAs), which is what Glavine managed last year. The average for a #4 starter is around 89. Given his smarts, I think Tom can manage that or better, and be an asset to the Braves.

Nice to see him finish up in his home uniform. I am looking forward to his first start in Shea, just to see what kind of ovation he gets after 5 okay years, and then being booed off the mound in his last start.
   14. BTF's left-wing cheering section (formerly_dp) Posted: November 20, 2007 at 12:05 AM (#2620590)
Glavine was great and mediocre this year; he came up big a lot, but he struggled at times too. His last start in the final game of the season was one of the most depressing games ever. Two years ago I would've said Glavine will go to the Braves and have a Cy quality season, but their mojo seems to have faded.
   15. JPWF13 Posted: November 20, 2007 at 12:37 AM (#2620612)
every year for the past 3-4 years I've thought at the beginning of the year, this is it, he'll put up an ERA of 5.50. And every year he's had stretches where it's looked for all the world that the end was finally here, but he always made some adjustments or something and righted the ship.

Once again I think this is it, he's going to go Spahn 1964, John 1989, Carlton 1986...

The difference now is that I'll be praying he blows up.
There is no player in any sport I want to see fail miserable more than Tommy Glavine 2008.

Why? Because of the interview he gave on the FAN after the last game this year. the ONLY justification for his attitude and answers (basically he said, oh well, I would have preferred to win, but the loss was no big deal, shrug, no I don't feel bad, Except fro one year the seasons I've played have always ended up in a loss any way) was that he was shell shocked.
   16. Sam M. Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:12 AM (#2620627)
Hasn't that been said for 3 years?

Far longer than that.


Speaking of things that have been said for a long time and still haven't come to pass:

And when Mike Hampton comes back the rotation will be SET!

Chortle, chortle.

Wake me up when Hampton's ready to go, go. Until then . . . It's still Groundhog Day, and Bill Murray is still in Punxsutawney.

As for Glavine, there's just no way that the one year left on Tommy's career is going to be worth the value of the guy the Braves would have drafted at # 18. Normally, you are willing to give up a # 1 pick to sign a FA because you are getting multiple years of the FA's performance, and with a Type A FA that is more than you expect to get out of the # 1 pick, who may never reach the majors. But with Glavine it's one-and-done, baby. One year of a league-average pitcher is just NOT worth the expected value of a # 1 pick, and I think Glavine's actually apt to be a below-average pitcher. Granted, an upgrade over what they would have trotted out at # 4 in the rotation. So that's good enough to be worth $8M, I suppose, but not good enough to give up that pick.

This doesn't come down to Glavine's performance at all. This is a bottom-line deal in every way, shape, and form. If they get to the post-season because Glavine gives them reliable innings, it was worth it. If they don't, it was a squandered pick. Period. You can defend this only on a win-now basis, and if you defend it that way, you have to judge it that way afterwards.
   17. Win one for Agrippa (haplo53) Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:20 AM (#2620630)
is the signing official yet? I'm still expecting the braves to find some way to hang onto that pick.

at the very least, keeping that pick away from the mets gives the braves an extra reason to think about signing cordero to be their closer...
   18. Sam M. Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:27 AM (#2620638)
is the signing official yet? I'm still expecting the braves to find some way to hang onto that pick.

at the very least, keeping that pick away from the mets gives the braves an extra reason to think about signing cordero to be their closer


Well, that wouldn't make much sense. Then they'd lose their first AND second round picks. I mean, if they're going to sign a FA anyway, then fine. But to sign a guy they wouldn't otherwise sign just to knock the Mets' pick down to a # 2 -- and then lose their own # 2 in the process along with their # 1? Seems like bass-ackwards thinking to me.

And delaying the signing would only help them if it would induce the Mets not to offer arbitration, which wouldn't make any sense unless the Mets made a handshake agreement with Glavine not to do so. And if that's so, then I guess we'll find out about it soon enough, won't we? If there is no such agreement, then the Mets have nothing to lose by offering arb, since they know Glavine and the Braves have their deal in place and Glavine isn't going to accept arbitration.
   19. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:34 AM (#2620643)
Good memory, Sam:

From BP's 1998 player comments:

1998

Remains the Atlanta starter most likely to “go Mulholland.” Fair or not, much of Glavine’s success has come from exploiting umpires who call pitches six inches outside “strikes.” The day that pitch becomes a ball again, Glavine loses a big chunk of his value. Not only will he then have to get hitters out in a conventional fashion, but he’ll have to unlearn on the fly a way of pitching he’s grown accustomed to.
   20. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:42 AM (#2620653)
Wake me up when Hampton's ready to go, go. Until then...

Hampton starts in the Mexican league tomorrow. I'm just sayin, that's all.
   21. 1k5v3L Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:46 AM (#2620658)
Hampton starts in the Mexican league tomorrow.


The schools over there must be really excellent.
   22. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:49 AM (#2620660)
[T]here's just no way that the one year left on Tommy's career is going to be worth the value of the guy the Braves would have drafted at # 18.

1997: Rockies Mark Mangum RHP Kingwood, TX
1998: Angels Seth Etherton RHP USC
1999: Orioles Richard Stahl LHP Covington, GA
2000: Blue Jays Miguel Negron OF Caguas, PR
2001: Mets Aaron Heilman RHP Notre Dame
2002: White Sox Royce Ring LHP San Diego State
2003: Indians Bradley Snyder RF Ball State
2004: White Sox Joshua Fields 3B Okie State
2005: Padres Cesar Carrillo RHP Univ. of Miami
2006: Phillies Kyle Drabek RHP/SS The Woodlands TX
2007: Cardinals Peter Kozma SS Owasso HS
   23. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:49 AM (#2620662)
The schools over there must be really excellent.

Gold star!
   24. Mike A Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:52 AM (#2620664)
I've heard rumor there is a handshake deal in which the Mets have agreed not to offer arbitration to Tommy. Probably just that, rumor, but hey - false hope is better than no hope. ;)

Though it is a bit odd there has been nothing in the media (aside from Rotoworld) about the draft picks.
   25. 1k5v3L Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:56 AM (#2620670)
Of course, Omar told Glavine that he had to shake Moises Alou's hand... so the deal was off.
   26. Sam M. Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:57 AM (#2620674)
Hampton starts in the Mexican league tomorrow. I'm just sayin, that's all.

Yeah. And he even made it to spring training last year. Yawn.

And as for that list . . . the Braves draft pretty damn well, Sam. You can't just go down the list of other teams' picks in that partciular slot. If I were the Braves, I'm sorry -- I would never, ever give up a # 1 pick for a guy I know damn well is only going to pitch one year for me. I just wouldn't. But if I did, I certainly know exactly how that decision should be judged: did my team get to the post-season in that single season? If it doesn't, the decision failed. That's all I'm saying.
   27. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 20, 2007 at 01:59 AM (#2620679)
Braves since 2000:

Adam Wainwright, 2000, 29
Scott Thorman, 2000, 30
Macay McBride, 2001, 24
Josh Burrus, 2001, 29
Jeff Francoeur, 2002, 23
Joey Devine, 2005, 27
John C. Johnson, 2006, 24
Jason Heyword, 2007, 14

Mets since 2000:

Billy Traber, 2000, 16
Aaron Heilman, 2001, 18
Scott Kazmir, 2002, 15
Lastings Milledge, 2003, 12
Phillip Humber, 2004, 3
Michael Pelfrey, 2005, 9

The Mets have found talent in the teens before, but they've also found Billy Traber. If they end up getting another Aaron Heilman -- the player, not the hyped prospect, does it really make the difference in this deal? I'm not so sure it does.
   28. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 20, 2007 at 02:02 AM (#2620683)
And as for that list . . . the Braves draft pretty damn well, Sam.

Do you think a conversation something like this might have taken place already...?

Schuerholz/Wren: What about the draft pick? Is it worth losing for a year of Tommy?
Head of Scouting: Next year's not that good, boss man. We can skip 18 and go straight to 30 without much of a drop.
   29. Corn On Ty Cobb Posted: November 20, 2007 at 02:04 AM (#2620686)
This draft pick compensation is the most appalling thing in the world. I still can't get over it. The Braves lose a #1 pick by signing a soon to be 42 year old whom will likely be the fourth best starting pitcher on their staff. The cocksuckers that devised this plan need to die a slow, painful death.
   30. Sam M. Posted: November 20, 2007 at 02:04 AM (#2620688)
If they end up getting another Aaron Heilman -- the player, not the hyped prospect, does it really make the difference in this deal? I'm not so sure it does.

And if the Mets DO offer arb, and decide to stick it to the Braves by drafting a top-five talent who slips for signability reasons and then paying over slot -- the next Kazmir, in other words? And then -- please, God -- they don't trade him away, then that certainly would make the difference. Big time.

We won't know that part of it, of course, until we know if the Mets strike pay-dirt with the draft pick. But we won't need to. What we know is this: if you trade away a very valuable draft pick who would help with your long-term talent base for a player whom you KNOW to be a one-year player, and especially when you are giving that pick to your division rival, then you know at the end of that single season if it worked. You better win.
   31. 1k5v3L Posted: November 20, 2007 at 02:09 AM (#2620692)
It will be quite hilaripus around here if the Mets indeed agreed NOT to offer arbitration to Glavine should he sign with another team... Mets fans will march toward Shea like the second coming of the ents.
   32. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 20, 2007 at 02:13 AM (#2620698)
What we know is this: if you trade away a very valuable draft pick who would help with your long-term talent base for a player whom you KNOW to be a one-year player, and especially when you are giving that pick to your division rival, then you know at the end of that single season if it worked. You better win.

I'm not arguing with your logic so much as suggesting you're overvaluing a potential #18 draft pick. Yes, it's a first round pick. I'm not sure it's that big of a deal regardless. It could be Scott Kazmir. It could be Scott Thorman. I don't think you make your roster decisions for the present day on that "could be."
   33. Sam M. Posted: November 20, 2007 at 02:20 AM (#2620705)
I don't think you make your roster decisions for the present day on that "could be."

Well, I think you have to have a general philosophy about how much you value that first round draft pick. I think with free agents normally -- these are guys you are signing to three-to-six year contracts, so you don't worry too much about the pick you're giving up, because the odds are the kid may never reach the majors, and if he does what are the chances he'll end up being as valuable as 3-6 years of the contribution a Type A FA is likely to give you? Even then, of course, you have to think about where you are drafting, and how good the FA is, and where you are on the success cycle -- but it's still a set of factors you have to consider.

This is a very unusual signing: it's a one-year contract, and not only that but it's a player virtually guaranteed to play just one more season. So it is straining to the breaking point the argument that a bird in the hand -- a Type A quality FA, current major leaguer -- is worth more than a kid just starting his professional career with no assurance at all he'll ever make it. To me, it is straining it past the breaking point, and I wouldn't do it. Because if I am overvaluing the draft pick, you may be overvaluing the likelihood that a single pitcher like Glavine can or will make the difference in the Braves' fortunes in 2008.

IF it's worth it -- and I don't think it is -- it can only be because the player involved is extremely likely in that single season to make the difference between winning and losing, and then when all is said and done, he better have made that difference.
   34. Corn On Ty Cobb Posted: November 20, 2007 at 02:28 AM (#2620713)
Do the Mets even have to offer arb? My understanding is that since Glavine signed (assuming he has) prior to December 1, the pick compensation is automatic.
   35. Sam M. Posted: November 20, 2007 at 02:38 AM (#2620719)
Do the Mets even have to offer arb? My understanding is that since Glavine signed (assuming he has) prior to December 1, the pick compensation is automatic.

Well, if the Mets and Glavine had some sort of agreement, then all the Braves & Glavine have to do is hold off on signing the contract until after that. The Mets hold to their end of the bargain, don't offer arb, and then the Braves go forward unencumbered. It all hinges on whether the Mets agreed to let Glavine go "free" so his options wouldn't be impaired on the FA market by the compensation burden.
   36. Neil Kinnock...Lord Palmerston! (Orinoco) Posted: November 20, 2007 at 02:51 AM (#2620727)
The cocksuckers that devised this plan need to die a slow, painful death.


The Nanny missed that?!

I don't have a point otherwise.
   37. Sam M. Posted: November 20, 2007 at 03:47 AM (#2620764)
Well, so much for the "hold off until Dec. 1" to sign the contract idea. According to this AJC article, Glavine signed the deal with the Braves today.
   38. Mike A Posted: November 20, 2007 at 03:53 AM (#2620770)
I have no idea why the Braves wouldn't wait. None.

Wren's tenure is not getting off to a sterling start. Too many eggs in the 2008 basket. You don't give the Mets picks like that for Glavine, no matter how likely they are to blow them.
   39. J. Cross Posted: November 20, 2007 at 03:58 AM (#2620778)
Perhaps Wrend doesn't feel like he has the same job securiy Schuerholtz had. Supposedly, (I read this somewhere) GM's act like they are workign with a 30% discount rate meaning that a win in 2009 is worth 30% less to them than a win in 2008. That's ridiculously high and I think a 7% discount rate is more standard/appropriate. The problems is that GM's know that they have to win now or be fired and those their interests are completely alligned with the best interests of the organization. This might be a good move for Wren's tenure and a bad move for the Braves organization.
   40. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 20, 2007 at 03:59 AM (#2620780)
I have no idea why the Braves wouldn't wait. None.

The only way the Mets weren't going to offer him arbitration is if they had a handshake agreement not to do so. Waiting would have absolutely no effect on the Mets decision.
   41. J. Cross Posted: November 20, 2007 at 03:59 AM (#2620783)
The problems is that GM's know that they have to win now or be fired and those their interests are completely alligned with the best interests of the organization.

should say:

"... and therefore their interests aren't complety alligned with the best interests of the organization."
   42. Fat Al Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:01 AM (#2620785)
I have no idea why the Braves wouldn't wait. None.

The only way the Mets weren't going to offer him arbitration is if they had a handshake agreement not to do so. Waiting would have absolutely no effect on the Mets decision.


I don't the Mets can now return the picks if he's signed. They get them automatically.

So if there was a deal that the Mets wouldn't offer, the Braves would have waited. Is there something I'm missing?
   43. 1k5v3L Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:04 AM (#2620789)
I'd imagine that even if a player signs before Dec. 1st, his previous team would still have to file the necessary paperwork to the Commissioner's office to offer him arbitration and thus receive the draft pick. Almost always, this is a formality. But is it possible the Mets have told Glavine they won't file the paperwork to offer him arbitration no matter when he signs with the Braves? That can be a part of his contract, for example, and we're not aware of that.
   44. Mike A Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:05 AM (#2620793)
Even if the chances were slim, I would have waited to see the Mets' decision. You never know. There have been instances were I felt for sure the Braves would offer arbitration (Sheffield, Drew), but didn't. That said,the Mets have more money than the Braves, so they'd probably offer.

Giving up a 1st rounder for an average 42-year old is stupid. The system is also insane, but that's for another discussion.
   45. J. Cross Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:07 AM (#2620795)
To support my claim, this from Nate Silver:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6706

"Now, overall, a great number of these problems—certainly #1 and #2, but also to some extent #4, #5, #6, and #8—stem from the fact that teams are exceptionally focused on the near-term. Vince Gennaro in Diamond Dollars suggests that the discount rate applied by baseball teams approaches 35 percent—you’ll trade 1.35 wins next season for one win today. Such a discount rate would be unconscionable in any other mature industry, but it should not be entirely surprising, given the principal-agent problems that baseball teams face. The median tenure of current major league managers is between two and three years, GMs between four and five years, and principal team owners last about seven years. Why should the Cubs care about giving too much money to Alfonso Soriano if neither Lou Piniella nor Jim Hendry (and certainly not the Tribune Corp.) is going to be around when that deal expires?"
   46. JPWF13 Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:19 AM (#2620811)
and principal team owners last about seven years.


really? That surprises me, but then I live in NY- ownership turnover probably averages (MLB+NFL+NBA+NHL)once per 20 years per team...
   47. Honkie Kong Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:22 AM (#2620815)
This is getting ridiculous and ridiculouser. You have a team, which is on the cusp of the playoffs, and have one glaring weakness. If you get a chance to rectify that with the best option on the FA market, why wouldn't you? The Braves may or may not content 4-5 yrs from now, but they are definitely contending next year. And this gives them the best chance next year.

Prospects are tending to get overvalued in this market. Every team seems to want to hang on to their prospects. Seems an ideal market to cash in with your prospects. Even the best looking prospects fail. Only about 50% of first rounders even make it to the big leagues. Any prospect can go Kyle Davies or Rick Ankiel on you. So bank the bird in hand, and worry about the future later. its not like the Braves' farm system is barren.
   48. Mike A Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:32 AM (#2620828)
If the picks were going to Kansas City, then you'd be a little less concerned. But to give two 1st round picks to the Mets...meh.

I understand the desire to win now. I understand the back end of the rotation was putrid last year. But is Glavine really that much better than other, cheaper options? Enough to give away the #18 pick?

Avery, Chipper, Kelly Johnson, Salty, Wainwright, M*****s, Meyer, Devine, Francoeur - all first rounders. There have been plenty of misses, sure, but that's a pretty nice list. Heck, Glavine himself was a high pick. Horner. Murphy.
   49. Honkie Kong Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:36 AM (#2620835)
There have been plenty of misses, sure, but that's a pretty nice list

Sure, then trust your drafting team. Not all the names you mentioned were first rounders. Plenty of supps and second rounders there. Motherfuquis and Meyer are out of place on that list.
   50. J. Cross Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:37 AM (#2620836)
From Cot's:

"A club may receive draft-pick compensation if it loses a free agent if:
the player signs with another club before December 2, or
the club offered arbitration to the free agent but failed to re-sign him."

Doesn't mention any paperwork or that the team needs to offer it in the Mets situation. It would look pretty strange if they didn't now.

If you get a chance to rectify that with the best option on the FA market, why wouldn't you?

Because the Braves had to pay him $8M and the compensation pick is worth about $9M (in present day value) which means that they're really paying him $17M for the year.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4368

Note: The Mets get the 18th and a supplemental which have a total value of about $12M
   51. Mike A Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:44 AM (#2620847)
Meyer did get the Braves Tim Hudson. Even if they don't pan out exactly as planned, high picks can be used in deals. And Marquis is a major league pitcher. Sort of.

Baseball-Reference considers supplemental picks 1st rounders. Really not here or there, they're high picks and that's the point. The Braves have a solid record with high picks.

I still hate giving up this pick for Glavine. But I will admit it will make the Braves fun to watch in 2008.
   52. Corn On Ty Cobb Posted: November 20, 2007 at 05:05 AM (#2620872)
Losing the draft picks is annoying, but I'm not losing any sleep over it. This was a sensible move that the Braves had to make. They fill a huge need by getting (hopefully) a league average innings eater. And the kicker is it's a one year contract, so that won't hamstring their ability to re-sign Teixeira next offseason.

I'd rather lose the picks if the other option was going into the season with a back end of James/Hampton/Jurrjens/Reyes/Carlyle etc etc. We've seen that movie before.
   53. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 20, 2007 at 05:23 AM (#2620892)
Because the Braves had to pay him $8M and the compensation pick is worth about $9M (in present day value) which means that they're really paying him $17M for the year.

Let me get this straight. The 18th pick in the 2008 draft is worth $9 million? Either you, or the people you're quoting, or quite possibly both, are totally ####### insane.
   54. Sam M. Posted: November 20, 2007 at 05:27 AM (#2620895)
You have a team, which is on the cusp of the playoffs, and have one glaring weakness. If you get a chance to rectify that with the best option on the FA market, why wouldn't you?

That's fine, I suppose. But it means -- as I've said a bunch of times -- that you have set the criteria on which this move must be judged: does it get you to the promised land? You are putting your eggs ONLY in the 2008 basket. Any other guy the Braves might have signed would have value going forward for additional seasons. Glavine is unique as solely a one-year investment. I simply don't think a guy you KNOW is going to give you only one season is worth giving up the potential of a player who might give you many years, or who might turn into a guy you can eventually trade (or package in a trade) for a Teixeira. Granted, w/ the draft pick, it's only potential. But in its own way, so too is what you are buying with Glavine: it's the "potential" he will get you over the hump into the post-season in the one year he will be back at the Ted. I think that potential isn't any greater, frankly, than the potential represented by the draft pick. And when you're giving it to the Mets? Hmmmmmmmm . . . .

Let's put it another way. From the Mets' POV, I am delighted to trade Tom Glavine away for a # 1 draft pick, knowing that at most, we'd have another year of Glavine's services anyway, in a season where I fully believe he would have been the Mets' fourth best starter, and we may (may) just be able to parlay his departure into someone who will be providing value to the Mets into the 2020s. Works for me.
   55. J. Cross Posted: November 20, 2007 at 05:39 AM (#2620900)
Let me get this straight. The 18th pick in the 2008 draft is worth $9 million? Either you, or the people you're quoting, or quite possibly both, are totally ####### insane.

That's right, all emprical evidence to the side, Sam H's got tells him is not right so it must not be. I wouldn't even both reading the quoted study if I were you. You know better.
   56. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 20, 2007 at 05:56 AM (#2620914)
That's right, all emprical evidence to the side, Sam H's got tells him is not right so it must not be. I wouldn't even both reading the quoted study if I were you. You know better.

I read it until it hit the pay-wall. I'm not paying money to read further. You want to cut and paste we can discuss, otherwise I'll file it away in the same bucket that I keep BPro's defensive statistics.
   57. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 20, 2007 at 05:59 AM (#2620916)
Any other guy the Braves might have signed would have value going forward for additional seasons. Glavine is unique as solely a one-year investment. I simply don't think a guy you KNOW is going to give you only one season is worth giving up the potential of a player who might give you many years, or who might turn into a guy you can eventually trade (or package in a trade) for a Teixeira.

Hmmm, speaking of Teixeira, let's do a little future math here. What would signing a guy who "would have value going forward for additional seasons" have done? Oh yeah. It would have cost money for additional seasons. So instead of having Hampton AND Glavine off the books in 2009, all wrapped up and ready to present to Tex as an extension, you'd have ONLY Hampton's money. But hey, an the 18 slot plus a supplemental is apparently worth $17 million so it's clearly crazy to let that go...
   58. Honkie Kong Posted: November 20, 2007 at 06:06 AM (#2620924)
From the Mets' POV, I am delighted to trade Tom Glavine away for a # 1 draft pick
Ahh you are confusing the issue here.
Its a good deal for the Mets, but the Braves can't worry if the Mets are getting a good deal if they can significantly improve themselves. In fact, I would be rather miffed at a GM who passes on a chance to significantly improve his club, just because it might improve one of his immediate opponents. Take care of your business and the rest will take care of itself.

You are putting your eggs ONLY in the 2008 basket. Any other guy the Braves might have signed would have value going forward for additional seasons.
Yes, they are, and they committed to it with the Texeira trade. They have a window now, and they are trying to take full advantage of it.

But in its own way, so too is what you are buying with Glavine: it's the "potential" he will get you over the hump into the post-season in the one year he will be back at the Ted. I think that potential isn't any greater, frankly, than the potential represented by the draft pick

The probability of putting up a decent season by Glavine ( as shown by the Mean above ) is much greater than a getting a good prospect in the draft, who will pan out, and the other prospects in the team panning out so that the Braves have a contender when that occurs! To pass on a chance to compete now without killing your future is very palatable.
   59. Sam M. Posted: November 20, 2007 at 06:39 AM (#2620946)
What would signing a guy who "would have value going forward for additional seasons" have done? Oh yeah. It would have cost money for additional seasons.

Who says? If you guys had a smart GM, maybe he could acquire a cheap young pitcher from an idiot GM who doesn't know what he's giving away for the likes of Xavier Nady or Kris Benson, and you plug in Ollie Perez or John Maine, and away you go. Doesn't cost you a draft choice; might even dump some payroll in the process.

The probability of putting up a decent season by Glavine ( as shown by the Mean above ) is much greater than a getting a good prospect in the draft,

Perhaps, but that's not the test. The test is whether that "decent season" gets you into the 2008 post-season. If it doesn't, it wasn't worth giving up the value of that # 1 pick, because it was just a nice season that left the Braves exactly where they would have been without it in the short term (on the outside, looking in), and one prospect short of where they would have been in the long term. The relevant probabilities are the likelihood adding Glavine gets you into the post-season in 2008 v. the likelihood of a major contribution down the line from the guy you would have drafted. I don't see the upside probability for right now from Glavine as any greater than the upside potential in the out-years from the draft pick.

The side issue, of course, is whether the Mets end up getting a big bonus from picking up that draft choice, which may make it hurt that much more if the Braves don't make it to October next season.
   60. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 20, 2007 at 06:57 AM (#2620954)
I read it until it hit the pay-wall. I'm not paying money to read further. You want to cut and paste we can discuss, otherwise I'll file it away in the same bucket that I keep BPro's defensive statistics.

I think it's one of those instances where the quote: "There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics" is applicable. For example, let's say that on average the pick gives the team making the selection 2-3 years of league average production. League average production is worth how much nowadays is worth millions.

I think it's the same argument that would say that Jorge Sosa was worth 3-5 million (I have no clue how to calculate this.) It might be true but an efficent team tries to get that type of production for cheaper.
   61. billyshears Posted: November 20, 2007 at 07:00 AM (#2620955)
I'd imagine that even if a player signs before Dec. 1st, his previous team would still have to file the necessary paperwork to the Commissioner's office to offer him arbitration and thus receive the draft pick. Almost always, this is a formality. But is it possible the Mets have told Glavine they won't file the paperwork to offer him arbitration no matter when he signs with the Braves? That can be a part of his contract, for example, and we're not aware of that.


I don't think the Mets have to do anything. Tom Glavine is no longer a free agent - he is the property of the Atlanta Braves. The Mets aren't in a position to offer him arbitration - they have absolutely no rights to him.

In any case, this signing is really on the extreme end of the draft pick compensation issue - the signing is only for one year, the player's performance is on the low end of what you would expect from a type A free agent (notwithstanding the weird ranking system), the player is likely declining and the team is giving up one of the highest picks that may be given up as compensation. Considering that the Mets and Mets fans were ambivalent about bringing Glavine back inthe first place, this was a great outcome for the Mets.
   62. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 20, 2007 at 07:04 AM (#2620957)
When is the edit function coming to the TO?

League average production is worth how much nowadays? It is worth millions.

When I talk about Sosa, I obviously mean his 2007 season.
   63. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: November 20, 2007 at 07:09 AM (#2620961)
So who are there any potential Kazmir's in this draft?
   64. J. Cross Posted: November 20, 2007 at 07:30 AM (#2620965)
I think it's one of those instances where the quote: "There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics" is applicable. For example, let's say that on average the pick gives the team making the selection 2-3 years of league average production. League average production is worth how much nowadays is worth millions.

Well, if you can get a draft picks league average production for 2-3 years for almost nothing or Glavine's league average production for 1 year at $8M you should take the league average production for cheap, right?

I agree that a good team should be able to get that production cheaper.

If Glavine were a star at this point in his career it would be different. The draft pick *could* be a star and is worth, on average, $9M above their signing bonus and salaries until they become a FA. the pick could be the next:

(pool = 10 year span 1993-2002, 5 picks 16-20 for 50 total picks)

Lance Berkman
Nick Swisher
Jason Jennings
Kip Wells
Cole Hamels
Brad Lidge
Roy Halladay
Aaron Heilman
James Loney
Alexis Rios
CC Sabathia
Adam Kennedy
Eric Milton
Terence Long
Torii Hunter

So, that's 15 times out of 50 you're getting something solid but, most important, are the Hamels, Lidge, Halladay, Sabathia, Rios, Berkman, Hunter and even Swisher picks. That's a 7/50 chance (from this sample) of getting a very valuable piece for your franchise who you can pay very little to for 6 years. Don't you pass on a year of league average Glavine just for a 1/7 chance of getting one of these guys? I would.
   65. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 20, 2007 at 07:39 AM (#2620970)
Don't you pass on a year of league average Glavine just for a 1/7 chance of getting one of these guys? I would.

Hey, I agree with you. I am just making conversation.
   66. Swedish Chef Posted: November 20, 2007 at 03:51 PM (#2621126)
Because the Braves had to pay him $8M and the compensation pick is worth about $9M (in present day value) which means that they're really paying him $17M for the year.


Is that net value?
   67. Kyle S Posted: November 20, 2007 at 03:52 PM (#2621129)
Let's look at guys drafted between 17 and 19 for the 1993 - 2003 period. 33 picks.

18 out of those 33 players have made the majors at some point (if only for a cup of coffee) and Brad Snyder will probably make 19. So there's a 43% chance that the player is a complete washout.

I would rank the major leaguers something like this (extrapolating the young guys a bit):

Roy Halladay
Cole Hamels
Alexis Rios
Brad Lidge
James Loney
Conor Jackson
Jay Powell
Aaron Heilman
Ramon Castro
Mike Fontenot
Royce Ring
David Murphy
RA Dickey
Sean Burnett
Seth Etherton
Tony Torcato
Mark Johnson
Ben Diggins

Brad Snyder hasn't made MLB yet, but he's probably around the David Murphy level.

The top end of that range is very high. But said another way, the chances of getting a player better than Jay Powell (a serviceable major league reliever) are 18%. The breakeven point for these guys (in other words, the point at which the team would be indifferent between having drafted them, spent the money to sign them, developed them, etc and having saved the money and energy) is probably somewhere around the Royce Ring/Mike Fontenot level. Say Fontenot is over it and Ring is below it. 70% of the time, the team that makes this pick would have been better off not picking at all.

Of course, I still wish the Braves would have kept it. Saying the expected value of the pick is worth 9 million bucks, though, is like saying the expected value of a $1 lottery ticket is 50 cents - in other words, what is more important than the size of the EV is its distribution. Perhaps the Braves handed the mets a lotto ticket worth $9M, but chances are the ticket will expire worthless.
   68. Dan Szymborski Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:00 PM (#2621142)
You'd also have to look at the probability of what pick the Braves would give up. If Glavine works out awesomely, then there's a chance that they're giving up a pick in the twenties and if he works out terribly and some other things don't work out, they lose a guy quite a bit lower.
   69. DL from MN Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:28 PM (#2621162)
"The Braves lose a #1 pick by signing a soon to be 42 year old whom will likely be the fourth best starting pitcher on their staff"

And the Twins get nothing in return for Carlos Silva...
   70. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:32 PM (#2621165)
Not only will he then have to get hitters out in a conventional fashion, but he’ll have to unlearn on the fly a way of pitching he’s grown accustomed to.
And the amazing thing about Glavine, is that he did exactly what BPro said he had to do. (They got one right here)
   71. Sam M. Posted: November 20, 2007 at 04:39 PM (#2621173)
Perhaps the Braves handed the mets a lotto ticket worth $9M, but chances are the ticket will expire worthless.

Do the same thing for the ticket the Braves bought, Kyle. The odds are the "Glavine ticket" will also "expire worthless" -- in a league with a deep and talented NL West and a strong couple of competitors in the division, and some real question marks for the Braves (CF, bench, Chipper's durability). What are the chances the Braves will win in 2008, and how much are those chances improved in by the acquisition of Glavine? Decent, but not all that great, really -- and only marginally improved by the move. The Mets, Phillies and Braves probably collectively share about a 90% chance of winning the division in 2008. God only knows their chances of each being the wild card at this point. But how much did this signing move the needle for the Braves?

The point is that if you really believe that the draft pick isn't worth the candle for THIS signing, then you must never believe the draft pick is worth the candle. Because as billyshears pointed out in # 61, this is just the extreme case where you are giving up the pick for as little return as you can possibly get. A Type A free agent barely worthy of the name, with declining performance, who gives only short-term value for your trouble. If this isn't the case when you'd say, "No, I'd rather have the draft pick," please explain to me when you'd EVER rather have it? I suppose only a team with no hope of contending should ever eschew a signing like this? Is that the answer?
   72. Kyle S Posted: November 20, 2007 at 05:30 PM (#2621252)
Sam, I'd rather have kept the draft pick. I'm just trying to justify why the Braves don't feel the same way. Sadly, they have shown shockingly little savvy with regard to the whole draft pick compensation issue. Viz, not offering Maddux arbitration before he signed with the Cubs, losing a first rounder to the Rangers for John Thomson (that pick turned into Eric Hurley, now an excellent prospect), now this. I honestly don't think they give it much thought, which doesn't make sense to me.
   73. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 20, 2007 at 06:56 PM (#2621418)
Sadly, they have shown shockingly little savvy with regard to the whole draft pick compensation issue. Viz, not offering Maddux arbitration before he signed with the Cubs, losing a first rounder to the Rangers for John Thomson (that pick turned into Eric Hurley, now an excellent prospect), now this. I honestly don't think they give it much thought, which doesn't make sense to me.

Um, I'm not sure you could be more wrong. They may not operate in a manner you believe to be optimal but they most certainly give it thought. They didn't offer Maddux arb when he signed with the Cubs _because he accepted the year before, hung an extra $14 mil on their payroll and forced them to trade Kevin Millwood for Johnny Estrada._ It had nothing to do with not understanding the value of a draft pick. It had everything to do with understanding the down side of having a veteran accept your pro forma arbitration offer.
   74. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: November 20, 2007 at 07:05 PM (#2621428)
So, do you guys think the Braves will offer Jones arbitration?
   75. Gaylord Perry the Platypus (oi!) Posted: November 20, 2007 at 07:58 PM (#2621488)
Not a chance, Russlan. He's only a Type B free agent, so the upside doesn't justify the risk.
   76. Kyle S Posted: November 20, 2007 at 08:13 PM (#2621513)
Sam, I've heard that story, and it just proves my point. Having Maddux accept arbitration was not a terrible thing at all. He cost $14 million for one year and pitched 218 innings of 108 ERA+ ball. That's not great value, but it's pretty good considering the limited commitment period. Being able to have Maddux continually accept year-to-year contracts would have been fine, as their would be zero chance of getting stuck with him long-term in a Mike Hampton situation.

The Millwood trade was abominable at the time. Perhaps Time Warner management was so foolish as to be totally inflexible with the Braves operating budget, but I have trouble believing that Schuerholtz HAD to do what he did when he did it. He panicked and got fleeced, acting like a company that sells its receivables for 50 cents on the dollar in order to make its next payroll.

Say Maddux had accepted arbitration and gotten another $14 million salary (I think he would have gotten less, but I'll accept it as a given). The Braves would not have needed to sign John Thomson. Maddux would have replaced his production, and they would have come out around even dollar wise (considering the life of Thomson's contract).

Of course, the budget wouldn't have been so tight in 2002 had Schuerholtz not foolishly acquired Mike Hampton.
   77. JPWF13 Posted: November 20, 2007 at 08:22 PM (#2621528)
but I have trouble believing that Schuerholtz HAD to do what he did when he did it. He panicked and got fleeced, acting like a company that sells its receivables for 50 cents on the dollar in order to make its next payroll.


Millwood then put up an ERA+ of 99 for Philly, re signed for one year, put up a 92, and filed for free agency.

Estrada played 3 full season for ATL, putting up an OPS of 113 in his best year, was traded for Villareal who put up an ERA+ of 123 in 92 ip followed by 100 in 72 ip.

Of course, the budget wouldn't have been so tight in 2002 had Schuerholtz not foolishly acquired Mike Hampton.


Hampton put up an ERA+ of 112 in 190 ip and then 101 in 172 ip - outpitching Millwood both years.

AND Atlanta was not paying Hampton's full salary.

I wish my team's GM's panic moves ill-advised pickups worked out as well as Schuerholtz's.
Hell he fleeced Beane at the same time Beane was fleecing Jocketty
   78. Kyle S Posted: November 20, 2007 at 08:27 PM (#2621534)
Unfortunately, JPWF, Hampton stayed with the team past those years :) Villareal was a below-average reliever this season, and despite his good ERA+ in 2006 had very poor situational numbers - he let in a lot of inherited runs. Estrada's one season was nice with the bat, but he was a very poor defensive catcher in terms of blocking the plate (although McCann is perhaps the worst I've ever seen at this), receiving throws from the outfield, and fielding bunts. He's also an awful baserunner.

I think Millwood would have pitched better in Atlanta than he did in Philly, but that's just speculation. At the very least, we could have held onto him for a draft pick worth $9 million :)
   79. Corn On Ty Cobb Posted: November 20, 2007 at 09:14 PM (#2621631)
But how much did this signing move the needle for the Braves?

Well, considering the fact that Glavine is essentially replacing Buddy Carlyle (82 ERA+) and Kyle Davies (74 ERA+) in the #4 slot, I would say it is a pretty significant signing. No, I don't think it makes them the overwhelming favorites or anything, but it does greatly improve their chances. I'd rather have Glavine for one year and lose a draft pick than give a multi-year contract to Silva or Lohse and watch Teixeira walk next offseason. That's how I look at it.

Sure, losing a #1 pick for an old, league average one year pitcher is annoying but I think it's calculated gamble far better than the alternatives. If Glavine blows up and the Braves miss the postseason in 2008 and the Mets hit on that pick, feel free to mock us with the power of 10,000 Kazmir-for-Zambranos for the rest of eternity.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harry Balsagne, anti-Centaur hate crime division
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.9902 seconds
70 querie(s) executed