Jump to content

Garland


HoosierSox

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.  I stand corrected there.  Soooo. 2001-2004.

 

Better?

 

:P

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!! :notworthy

 

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. :bringit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AMEN!!! :notworthy

 

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. :bringit

Ahem, I believe that has been my argument for the past 5 pages, no shout out???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...