witesoxfan Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 Also, didn't it take Sheets awile to find his groove? He also has plus stuff. A very good fastball(usually around 93-96, being able to touch 97 and 98 when he's really firing), and a huge 12-6 breaking ball. You got those two things, along with a mediocre offspeed pitch, and you are set to be a good pitcher. Jon has a mediocre fastball(94-95 on a good day), a mediocre sinker, a mediocre offspeed pitch, and a mediocre breaking ball, along with mediocre location. Take that into account along with the fact that he lacks the focus and demeanor to be a big time pitcher, and you have yourself a mediocre pitcher. He is still young, but that does not mean as much as one would like to think. He is, afterall, in his 3rd full year of starting, and his 4th year in the bigs(along with a callup in 2000 that is). He has experience, and is practically a veteran. A general rule of thumb for judging a pitcher is not his age but rather by the first 400 innings he throws in the majors...IOW, usually the roughest parts of a pitcher's career are the first 2 seasons he starts, and then he's supposed to figure it out. That has not happened with Jon. If Garland and Rowand(along with prospects) for Johnson and maybe more(maybe not) came up, you gotta make the deal. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Rowand yes...Garland...HELL NO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Rowand yes...Garland...HELL NO. So, in a playoff game, Rowand and Garland are going to be more valubale to a win than Randy Johnson? I have seen absolutely nothing out of Garland this year that makes me think he'll be anything more than a #3 starter. And Cheat, your Win Shares argument is flawed because you're assuming that prospects are worth jack squat. I could trade away the entire White Sox farm system for a guy with a win share of 1 and still come out ahead. Instead...let's look at some metrics becayse you decided to throw around Win Shares: According to Support-Neutral W/L (basically assuming that a team scores the average amount of runs per game, what the starter's record will be) Randy Johnson is the best pitcher in baseball with a SNW (Support-Neutral Win) of 10. Garland has a SNW of 7.1. That's a three game difference in the first half alone. APW (Adjusted Pitcher Wins) confirms this again. APW is a method of determining how many wins a starter is worth. Johnson is worth 2.7 wins according to APW, Garland 0.3. So by adding Johnson and subtracting Garland, you're adding 2.4 wins. Now assume Schoeneweis starts in place of Garland with an APW of -0.1. 2.4 + -.01 = 2.3 wins and you still come out ahead. Are those 2-3 wins worth it? Wins are wins, you can't deny that and I'd take RJ any day of the week. And do you think Aaron Rowand by himself is worth 2-3 wins? Didn't think so. Once again, you're saying no to the best pitcher in baseball and hoping that Garland doesn't crap his pants in a playoff atmosphere AND turns out to be a #1 starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 You present a very convincing argument. Giggity, giggity, gig..i..ty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnB Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 I say NO. If RJ is going to improve this team, he is going to need a solid team around him and losing Rowand and garland, we're not too solid. Timo starting everday in center? And garland is a very underappreciated pitcher, yes he has his problems, but his absolutely solid. I give up ONE of those two guys and some prospects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 (edited) I am starting to look at Aaron Rowand just like Miguel Olivo. Both of them have been very underrated players. They don’t need all the media and buzz to show that they are good players both on the field and off. Aaron Rowand hit his what... 9th or 10th home run this afternoon? He’s a young guy and has been excellent in center field. If we ever do come to the conclusion that Rowand leaves the team because he was traded for another, I will be upset. Just as upset when Big Mo left. Edited July 18, 2004 by Yoda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chisoxfan14 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 NO NO NO AND NO!! WE DON'T NEED RANDY JOHNSON!!! WE HAVE WHO WE NEED...I ALREADY LOST MY MIGGY FOR FREDDY...I DON'T WANNA LOSE JON AND AARON FOR RANDY!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 That deal blows ass. LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 He also has plus stuff. A very good fastball(usually around 93-96, being able to touch 97 and 98 when he's really firing), and a huge 12-6 breaking ball. You got those two things, along with a mediocre offspeed pitch, and you are set to be a good pitcher. Jon has a mediocre fastball(94-95 on a good day), a mediocre sinker, a mediocre offspeed pitch, and a mediocre breaking ball, along with mediocre location. Take that into account along with the fact that he lacks the focus and demeanor to be a big time pitcher, and you have yourself a mediocre pitcher. He is still young, but that does not mean as much as one would like to think. He is, afterall, in his 3rd full year of starting, and his 4th year in the bigs(along with a callup in 2000 that is). He has experience, and is practically a veteran. A general rule of thumb for judging a pitcher is not his age but rather by the first 400 innings he throws in the majors...IOW, usually the roughest parts of a pitcher's career are the first 2 seasons he starts, and then he's supposed to figure it out. That has not happened with Jon. If Garland and Rowand(along with prospects) for Johnson and maybe more(maybe not) came up, you gotta make the deal. Period. I think some of your conclusions about Garland are a little off. Obviously numerous people felt he had some talent since he was a first round pick by another team who has some pretty good pitchers. I remember, he had a really big curve when he was drafted, but IIRC the Sox wanted him to stop throwing it because it wasn't effective in games and he couldn't control it. He threw some pretty good breaking balls in his last start, specifically to Crosby(not sure why he went to the high fastball, that's another post) He may only hit 93, but he has good movement on the fastball. That's often more important than the gun reading. Two prime examples: Billy Koch getting rocked when he was still hitting about 96 on the gun, and Shingo kicking ass when he is hitting 87. The Sheets comparison really isn't that far off. Both of them were highly regarded prospects that haven't done so hot in there first few years. Sheets didn't always throw this hard either. I read an article in SI that said he was usually at 91 last year, but added 5 MPH in the offseason. Maybe Garland won't take a massive step like Sheets, but he is starting to look good. As much as we b****, his ERA is better than a whole lot of pitchers, he's right around 60th in all of baseball, which would make him one of the better third starters. I'd rather not trade a guy who is going to be at worst a decent 4th starter for a while for a short term guy, no matter how good that player is. I'd also rather not depend on Shoney as our 5th starter. He started out well, but he has really sucked in his last few starts. He allowed at least 4 runs in each of his last five starts, and didn't go very deep. I'd rather not deal with the 5th starter issues again. I'd rather give up an extra prospect or two than deal Garland. By the way, since when is a 93 MPH fastball "mediocre"? The Sox have, what, 4 pitchers that can throw that hard? Hell, the Yankees probably have like 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 hell yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 NO NO NO AND NO!! WE DON'T NEED RANDY JOHNSON!!! WE HAVE WHO WE NEED...I ALREADY LOST MY MIGGY FOR FREDDY...I DON'T WANNA LOSE JON AND AARON FOR RANDY!!! Yeah - really, look at all the harm and bad Freddy has done with this team. I mean, look at today... rolleyeyes.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManSooLee Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 No way Garland and Rowand are to valuble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasywheels121 Posted July 18, 2004 Author Share Posted July 18, 2004 45 to 18....Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 I think some of your conclusions about Garland are a little off. Obviously numerous people felt he had some talent since he was a first round pick by another team who has some pretty good pitchers. I remember, he had a really big curve when he was drafted, but IIRC the Sox wanted him to stop throwing it because it wasn't effective in games and he couldn't control it. He threw some pretty good breaking balls in his last start, specifically to Crosby(not sure why he went to the high fastball, that's another post) He may only hit 93, but he has good movement on the fastball. That's often more important than the gun reading. Two prime examples: Billy Koch getting rocked when he was still hitting about 96 on the gun, and Shingo kicking ass when he is hitting 87. The Sheets comparison really isn't that far off. Both of them were highly regarded prospects that haven't done so hot in there first few years. Sheets didn't always throw this hard either. I read an article in SI that said he was usually at 91 last year, but added 5 MPH in the offseason. Maybe Garland won't take a massive step like Sheets, but he is starting to look good. As much as we b****, his ERA is better than a whole lot of pitchers, he's right around 60th in all of baseball, which would make him one of the better third starters. I'd rather not trade a guy who is going to be at worst a decent 4th starter for a while for a short term guy, no matter how good that player is. I'd also rather not depend on Shoney as our 5th starter. He started out well, but he has really sucked in his last few starts. He allowed at least 4 runs in each of his last five starts, and didn't go very deep. I'd rather not deal with the 5th starter issues again. I'd rather give up an extra prospect or two than deal Garland. By the way, since when is a 93 MPH fastball "mediocre"? The Sox have, what, 4 pitchers that can throw that hard? Hell, the Yankees probably have like 5. Apparently, Jon was never thought of that highly by the Cubs organization if he was traded for Matt Karchner, even if Karchner did have a decent half-season for us. These are good points though...not that it will change my mind. We have a chance to have the best 1-2-3 in the majors by losing a decent bat and a decent starter along with prospects, and people have a problem with that? I still don't get it. Maybe it's just me. To me, Jon Garland does not = Ben Sheets. Hell, Jon Garland doesn't even = Kip Wells(of last year, that is) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Apparently, Jon was never thought of that highly by the Cubs organization if he was traded for Matt Karchner, even if Karchner did have a decent half-season for us. These are good points though...not that it will change my mind. We have a chance to have the best 1-2-3 in the majors by losing a decent bat and a decent starter along with prospects, and people have a problem with that? I still don't get it. Maybe it's just me. To me, Jon Garland does not = Ben Sheets. Hell, Jon Garland doesn't even = Kip Wells(of last year, that is) I agree garland is nothing but a 4-5, not to exciting. Rowand on the other hand... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Apparently, Jon was never thought of that highly by the Cubs organization if he was traded for Matt Karchner, even if Karchner did have a decent half-season for us. These are good points though...not that it will change my mind. We have a chance to have the best 1-2-3 in the majors by losing a decent bat and a decent starter along with prospects, and people have a problem with that? I still don't get it. Maybe it's just me. To me, Jon Garland does not = Ben Sheets. Hell, Jon Garland doesn't even = Kip Wells(of last year, that is) Kip Wells doesn't equal Kip Wells of last year. Plus he's in the National League. I doubt he would do that well if he had to face real #9 hitters again. Who someone was traded for doesn't really mean anything. Teams make terrible deals all the time, especially when they are trying to win. I got nothing against trading for RJ, I just think giving up two everyday players is way too much. To quote Brando from a while ago "Why should they get everything they want?! He's a 40 year old starter with some injury risks, has lost some of his skills, and has a ridiculously large contract."(sorry if that is a little off Brando). I really think that taking guys off of your roster is counterproductive. We give ourselves a much better rotation, but then we create 5th starter problems again, and then we suddenly need a CF. The only guys on the current squad I would deal are Crede, Borchard, Timo, Gload, Harris, Shoney, and anyone in the pen not named Takatsu or Marte. I realize that these guys don't have a ton of value, but I think dealing anyone else would really hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshPR Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 I agree garland is nothing but a 4-5, not to exciting. Rowand on the other hand... Garland is a sinkerballer and it takes more time to develop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.