kapkomet Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 6-7 mill plus Garlands 3 million = 10 million for starter, have a much more solid 1-4 rotation with a 5th starter at under a mill, who can achieve the same mediocre record as Garland. I would rather have a weak 5th starter, like we do now, and have a very solid 1-4, than have an ok 1-3 a weak 4th starter (garland) and black hole fifth. Or if we sign a decent FA pitcher, we will have an ok1-4 with an overpaid 5th starter crrrrrracccccccccckkkkkkkkkkk... DUDE. We NEED A SOLID ROTATION, not 1 through 4. Look where that has gotten us the last four years. Yes, that includes 2000, when we got killed in the playoffs because #1 through 4 were overworked because of the lack of a fifth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babybearhater Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 crrrrrracccccccccckkkkkkkkkkk... DUDE. We NEED A SOLID ROTATION, not 1 through 4. Look where that has gotten us the last four years. Yes, that includes 2000, when we got killed in the playoffs because #1 through 4 were overworked because of the lack of a fifth. TIMBER!!!!!!!!!! And here goes that argument. Baldwin 6 IP 3 hits 1 earned run Parque 6 ip 6 hits 3 earned runs Sirotka 5.2 IP 7 hits 3 earned runs If this is an overworked starting staff, then a healthy one must be lights-out If you starters can give up 3 runs, that looks like a chance to win to me, not to mention Baldwin's 1 earned run. I remember watching that series and knowing that it wasnt our starters who blew it, our offense (1 HR) (16 hits) and the bullpen was what really suffered. BTW the first game went 10 innings we only score 4 runs. Second game we only scored 2 runs, and third, a miserable 1 run. I was there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 crrrrrracccccccccckkkkkkkkkkk... DUDE. We NEED A SOLID ROTATION, not 1 through 4. Look where that has gotten us the last four years. Yes, that includes 2000, when we got killed in the playoffs because #1 through 4 were overworked because of the lack of a fifth. Ehem... No offense Kap... But 2000 was 3 in and out for one reason and one reason alone.. the offense fell asleep. :sleep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babybearhater Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Ehem... No offense Kap... But 2000 was 3 in and out for one reason and one reason alone.. the offense fell asleep. :sleep You can still see footage of me in the outfield shaking my head when half the team went 0 for the series, man that hurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Yep. I stand corrected there. Soooo. 2001-2004. Better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Yep. I stand corrected there. Soooo. 2001-2004. Better? Yes. Don't let it happen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babybearhater Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Yep. I stand corrected there. Soooo. 2001-2004. Better? I disagree, I think the main problem with the 2001 sox was the main part of the rotation, not the 5th starter. Wright went 5-3 Kip Wells went 10-11 and Garland was 6-7, those are all typical 5th starter stats. Its 2002 when you get into trouble, because they didnt even have another top of the rotation guy to go along with Mark Buehrle. And last year, they were all pretty average except for Loaiza, but the 5th guy was non-existant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babybearhater Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 I disagree, I think the main problem with the 2001 sox was the main part of the rotation, not the 5th starter. Wright went 5-3 Kip Wells went 10-11 and Garland was 6-7, those are all typical 5th starter stats. Its 2002 when you get into trouble, because they didnt even have another top of the rotation guy to go along with Mark Buehrle. And last year, they were all pretty average except for Loaiza, but the 5th guy was non-existant. s*** I forgot this one, does anyone remember 1999's rotation?? SP James Baldwin 5.10 12 13 SP *Mike Sirotka 4.00 11 13 SP *Jim Parque 5.13 9 15 SP Jaime Navarro 6.09 8 13 SP John Snyder 6.68 9 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 s*** I forgot this one, does anyone remember 1999's rotation?? SP James Baldwin 5.10 12 13 SP *Mike Sirotka 4.00 11 13 SP *Jim Parque 5.13 9 15 SP Jaime Navarro 6.09 8 13 SP John Snyder 6.68 9 12 That rotation was solid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 1989 Brown's first full season. Era- 3.35 not exactly a garland type year. 1990 Era- 3.60 not exactly a garland type of year. 1991- Era of 4.40 getting closer to a garland type of year but not quite there. 1992- Era of 3.32 not exactly a garland type of year. 1993- Era of 3.59 not exactly a garland type of year. 1994 Era of 4.82 garland type of year. 1995- Era of 1.89 Pedro type of year. And the beat rolls. Don't know why you would compare brown to garland but they are nothing alike at all. I knew you'd throw those ERA's at me, and yes, it's a good point. However, the point I was trying to make here is ... well, I listed 3 of the top veteran aces in the major leagues and they all took 6 to 7 years and a mininum age of 29 years to learn how to become consistant winners in majors. I'm not saying Garland can be an ace starter, but he has the talent to be very good and once he gets the maturity these 3 had, he'll be a very solid starting pitcher. So, yes, I feel that paying Garland 3 or 4 million as a fifth starter is totally worth the gamble. And to add a bit more, I'm not sold that Jose Contreras can or will hold down the 4th starter slot, in which case haveing Garland still with us would be crucial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Have you looked at Kevin Brown's first few full seasons in the big leagues. He had 3 Garlandesque years, broke out in year 4 with 21 wins, then three more like JG. It wasn't until Brown's eighth full season that he learned how to become a consistant winner, at age 30. At the end of the 1996 season, at age 29, Curt Schilling's career record was 48-52 though he made his debut in 1988. Randy Johnson was 39-38 at the end of his 6th season, age 29. So here we got Garland at 45-51 at age 24. Hell yes Jon Garland is worth 3-4 million a year as a number 5 starter. It has taken a lot of damn good pitchers several years to learn how to become a consistant winner. Garland is that type of pitcher. If we go into next season with Garland expected to be our number 5 starter and he does have that elusive breakout year, where does that put us? In the playoffs. I'd rather have a pitcher in that slot that has a chance to break out than a guy the has peaked and is on his way downhill or than what we've seen at number the past two seasons. Honestly, I can't believe people want to give up on this guy. They are all different from garland because they had all pitched well enough to have winning records but were not fortunate enough to get the offense behind them. Garland on the other hand pitches well enough to have the record he does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliSoxFanViaSWside Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Call me sentimental but i like Garland .He is still very young . A pitcher has to learn to pitch I think one day he will be a consistent 15-18 game winner. If we trade him we will regret it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxWatcher Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 I'm sick and tired of the "he's still young" argument. Garland now has 5 major league seasons under his belt and has pitched 773 innings. Yes, he is young, but he has had 5 years to develop. AND HE'S NOT IMPROVING. If he were a young very talented pitcher, then I would have expected him to show at least SOME improvement over these 5 years. He hasn't shown any improvement in any way that can be measured statistically. In fact, in many ways he's gotten worse over the years. His ERA appeared to have leveled off at about the 4.50 point, but then ballooned up to 5 this year. His ERA has levelled off at about 1.40. His K/9 have dropped over the last 3 years (to under 5). His K/BB have levelled off just under 1.50. His OPS against has increased over the last 3 years (to just under .800). And, he's giving up more and more home runs every year. Isn't he supposed to be a ground ball pitcher? What's to like about this "kid"? His stats aren't particularly good and they haven't shown improvement over his major league career. What evidence is there that he'll suddenly be a different pitcher? He has good stuff, not great stuff. His command and control are usually poor. And he's a headcase. What am I missing? I've watched Garland be an unrelenting stiff for the Sox for 5 years, and I'd rather not see anymore of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 I'm sick and tired of the "he's still young" argument. Garland now has 5 major league seasons under his belt and has pitched 773 innings. Yes, he is young, but he has had 5 years to develop. AND HE'S NOT IMPROVING. If he were a young very talented pitcher, then I would have expected him to show at least SOME improvement over these 5 years. He hasn't shown any improvement in any way that can be measured statistically. In fact, in many ways he's gotten worse over the years. His ERA appeared to have leveled off at about the 4.50 point, but then ballooned up to 5 this year. His ERA has levelled off at about 1.40. His K/9 have dropped over the last 3 years (to under 5). His K/BB have levelled off just under 1.50. His OPS against has increased over the last 3 years (to just under .800). And, he's giving up more and more home runs every year. Isn't he supposed to be a ground ball pitcher? What's to like about this "kid"? His stats aren't particularly good and they haven't shown improvement over his major league career. What evidence is there that he'll suddenly be a different pitcher? He has good stuff, not great stuff. His command and control are usually poor. And he's a headcase. What am I missing? I've watched Garland be an unrelenting stiff for the Sox for 5 years, and I'd rather not see anymore of it. AMEN!!! You, Qwerty, and I seem to be the only ones whom are arguing that if his numbers are not changing, they are getting worse. Some of these guys keep arguing "Well, Jon is young." Folks, he is pitching in his 4th complete season in the #3 spot that has been given to him for the past three years. He has not earned that spot, and I don't think it is wise for us to pay him 3-4 million in the #5 spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babybearhater Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 AMEN!!! You, Qwerty, and I seem to be the only ones whom are arguing that if his numbers are not changing, they are getting worse. Some of these guys keep arguing "Well, Jon is young." Folks, he is pitching in his 4th complete season in the #3 spot that has been given to him for the past three years. He has not earned that spot, and I don't think it is wise for us to pay him 3-4 million in the #5 spot. Ahem, I believe that has been my argument for the past 5 pages, no shout out??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 I agree... When you watch Garland the stuff is obviously there pitch wise.... I just think he's got a little too much of the California laid back attitude. He may very well get traded and tear it up for another team, but the trade may just be the shock that he needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 We definitely need a fifth starter. You can't have a winning season when 20% of your games are automatic losses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 We definitely need a fifth starter. You can't have a winning season when 20% of your games are automatic losses. I was trying to say that elsewhere and got shot down... beware of illogical posts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Ahem, I believe that has been my argument for the past 5 pages, no shout out??? Sorry, I forgot to add you. What were you an Qwerty arguing over again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 We definitely need a fifth starter. You can't have a winning season when 20% of your games are automatic losses. You're forgetting that it's all about the: $$$ Can we afford to pay our #5 starter 3-4 million and sign a quality FA to be our #3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babybearhater Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Sorry, I forgot to add you. What were you an Qwerty arguing over again? just for the sake of arguing as usual, slow day at work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 I agree... When you watch Garland the stuff is obviously there pitch wise.... I just think he's got a little too much of the California laid back attitude. He may very well get traded and tear it up for another team, but the trade may just be the shock that he needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 LMAO Cheat. That's one way to get your point across. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 BTW Cheat this is waaaay off topic but where did you get that pic from that has the flamthrower at? I need that for another forum... --or post it in the pic section below... Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 You're forgetting that it's all about the: $$$ Can we afford to pay our #5 starter 3-4 million and sign a quality FA to be our #3? Yes I think we can. All round this team needs better pitching, with Frank and a fit Carl Everett in the lineup next season we still shouldn't have any problems scoring runs. Of course if we need to cut payroll we can always trade Lee or Konerko. 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.