Comments on: Read: Today, In the NL East

By: beltran the warrior

beltran the warrior — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 23:38:07 +0000

umm, he’s on the dl. if you don’t pay attention, you’re the one who’s lost.

By: beltran the warrior

beltran the warrior — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 23:36:51 +0000

there was no change of heart with gerrit cole. he wanted to go to school all along. that was a decision made by him and his parents.

By: Free Aaron Heilman II

Free Aaron Heilman II — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:43:40 +0000

Yes, and both Ollie and Maine could have followed up their initial outings with clunkers. So there’s no guarantee that they would have won without Glavine who gave a dominant performance in the NLDS. And who would have pitched in Glavine’s place?

By: bkfitz

bkfitz — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:31:41 +0000

“Maybe they make the postseason without Glavine in 2006, but they don’t get past the first round.”

Glavine won 1 game for us in the NLDS. We could have won that round without him. It’s not as if he started 2 games and won both.

By: BigPelf4prez

BigPelf4prez — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:50:04 +0000

Any1 who thinks Glavine did not duck the Mets for Tuesday here is lost. I hate tom galvine

By: NYP-BOS-NYP

NYP-BOS-NYP — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:47:58 +0000

You guys are wasting your breath, I’m sorry to say.

New York, like probably most other towns, is a “what have you done for me lately?” kind of place. It doesn’t matter that Tom Glavine gave us a lot of successful outings during his tenure with the Mets; he will always be blamed for that one painful loss, which, as all sensible people know, negates his entire career, and warrants him getting run over by a truck as soon as possible.

And besides, there’s nothing more satisfying than a vendetta delivered.

By: Free Aaron Heilman II

Free Aaron Heilman II — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:27:45 +0000

Maybe they make the postseason without Glavine in 2006, but they don’t get past the first round.

Regardless, Glavine was an important cog to the Mets getting as far as they did in 2006. And overall for his Mets career he was mostly successful. The Mets would have been a much less successful club without Glavine during his time here.

By: Free Aaron Heilman II

Free Aaron Heilman II — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:21:54 +0000

I never said he was successful in 2007, though a good argument can be made that mostly he was.

My point is that overall for his Met career, he was successful. He led the Mets almost every year (except for 1 I believe) in quality starts.

It’s too bad that his big failure came in the last start after the entire team — but especially the bullpen — threw away their lead. He just ran out of gas. That doesn’t mean he didn’t try his best as an athlete and give it everything he had.

And to go by number of wins to determine success for a starter is ludicrous. Wins are a team stat, and a starter is heavily dependent on the offense and bullpen to rack them up. If anything, Santana this year should have taught you that lesson.

So, bottom line, Glavine’s career as a Met was mostly a success.

By: Hit The Weights Zeile

Hit The Weights Zeile — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:01:49 +0000

dont forget ken rosenthal dont know if he picked them to win the WS but he definitely had them taking the division.

By: mjg283

mjg283 — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:58:15 +0000

Any draft pick has the “right” to demand as much money as their market value allows. If a team can’t afford a guy who is going to demand $4.4 million, maybe they should look into drafting players that won’t demand such sums or are undervalued.