Loading ...
Signing Glavine
Written by Colin on November 7, 2007 – 5:12 amSo Wren said today from Orlando what we’ve thought for a while – the Braves want Glavine back.
Glavine, who turned down a $13 million dollar option in New York, apparently wants to come back to Atlanta to the tune of something around $8 million. If it’s worth $5 million less to pitch in Atlanta, we should consider him. The man can still pitch a bit – he’s got some left…
Let’s take this into consideration, though. Our rotation is old. And signing Glavine won’t help it. Take a look at their ages:
Smoltz – 40
Hudson – 32
Hampton – 35 (and oft-injured)
Glavine – 41
In short, we don’t have the young pitching staff we used to. And I think it’s about time we take precautions to make sure they all don’t retire at once, leaving us like the Yankees and pitcher-less. And yes, Wren was correct when he said (as quoted from the AJC) that signing Tommy will make us a better team, but if we don’t look past the next year or two, we’re in trouble.
Glavine would help next year, but we need to add a young arm that will balance out the rotation beyond next year in order to have long-term stability.
The only question – who? Who fits the bill and is affordable, available, and good? I’ll try and post some thoughts on that soon.
Colin
Posted in Roster Moves, Speculation | 4 Comments »
By Jonathan on Nov 7, 2007 | Reply
I agree that bringing Glavine back would be a solid addition to the rotation, but I’m torn. On one hand, I was dismayed when he left for the Mets in the first place. I grew up a Braves fan for as long as I can remember and he was always one of my favorites (close behind Dale Murphy). So do I want him back in Atlanta? Yes and no.
Yes, because he’s always been a favorite and yes because I feel the next year or two will be better with him in the rotation. However no on account of looking towards the more distant future. We need one or two solid young guys in the rotation to build themselves up to take the places of Smoltz and Hudson in the aging rotation.
-J
By Colin on Nov 8, 2007 | Reply
I feel that Glavine would be an addition. With him on staff, the pitching staff is stronger than it was last year (not saying much, though). I am concerned that younger players are not going to get the outings they need to develop into better pitchers, long term.
I still can’t hold anything against Glavine for going with the Mets. If I were in his position, I would have gone with the money.
I just feel like Smoltz, Hudson, Hampton and Glavine provide too many injury possibilities from an aging staff. The Braves do not need to be where older pitchers come to retire – we have to have veterans, of course, but our focus has to be long-term.
By Jonathan on Feb 2, 2009 | Reply
I agree that bringing Glavine back would be a solid addition to the rotation, but I'm torn. On one hand, I was dismayed when he left for the Mets in the first place. I grew up a Braves fan for as long as I can remember and he was always one of my favorites (close behind Dale Murphy). So do I want him back in Atlanta? Yes and no.
Yes, because he's always been a favorite and yes because I feel the next year or two will be better with him in the rotation. However no on account of looking towards the more distant future. We need one or two solid young guys in the rotation to build themselves up to take the places of Smoltz and Hudson in the aging rotation.
-J
By Colin on Feb 2, 2009 | Reply
I feel that Glavine would be an addition. With him on staff, the pitching staff is stronger than it was last year (not saying much, though). I am concerned that younger players are not going to get the outings they need to develop into better pitchers, long term.
I still can't hold anything against Glavine for going with the Mets. If I were in his position, I would have gone with the money.
I just feel like Smoltz, Hudson, Hampton and Glavine provide too many injury possibilities from an aging staff. The Braves do not need to be where older pitchers come to retire – we have to have veterans, of course, but our focus has to be long-term.