Garland

[kapkomet]

Wow, you dont get it.  If we could, that would be an ideal situation, if Jon would be the 5th starter.  Unfortunatley we have to come to terms that if we want to fill our gaps with a top of the line starter and some good infielders, which we are going to need dearly.  Then we dont have the cash to pay that much to someone who is going to be a 5th starter, especially when his record isnt that great anyway.  If we want our 1-5 starters to be the best since the early 90's then we are going to have to cut some cost where we can, and that is going to be trimming the salary of our 5th starter.  As much as it would look great with Jon in that spot considering his experience and his potential, his salary makes that a big stretch.  And we dont have to bring a kid up from the minors, this is why they did that this season by bringing up Diaz, Grilli, and pitching Neal a ton.  Because eventually they could have the experience to make a run at a lower cost 5th starter

 

Does that make more sense

 

Sure it does. But if we don't get this pitching staff shored up, all those other holes don't matter.

 

You can NEVER win more then 4 games in a row (point of this year).

[qwerty]

Wow, you dont get it.  If we could, that would be an ideal situation, if Jon would be the 5th starter.  Unfortunatley we have to come to terms that if we want to fill our gaps with a top of the line starter and some good infielders, which we are going to need dearly.  Then we dont have the cash to pay that much to someone who is going to be a 5th starter, especially when his record isnt that great anyway.  If we want our 1-5 starters to be the best since the early 90's then we are going to have to cut some cost where we can, and that is going to be trimming the salary of our 5th starter.  As much as it would look great with Jon in that spot considering his experience and his potential, his salary makes that a big stretch.  And we dont have to bring a kid up from the minors, this is why they did that this season by bringing up Diaz, Grilli, and pitching Neal a ton.  Because eventually they could have the experience to make a run at a lower cost 5th starter

 

Does that make more sense

There is something you don't understand but i don't know what.

[babybearhater]

Sure it does.  But if we don't get this pitching staff shored up, all those other holes don't matter.

 

You can NEVER win more then 4 games in a row (point of this year).

And one step towards shoring up this staff is signing a front liner starter. Which Jon's dropped salary or trade value could help with. He would be a decent 5th starter, but in all honesty, so could Cotts, or Grilli, or Diaz. They might not be proven as of yet, but this is a chance you have to take when trying to sign free agents and getting the most value out of your team. When you dont have alot of money to go around, having a 5th starter that may make more money than most of your infielders, that is not good money management.

[babybearhater]

There is something you don't understand but i don't know what.

Great, thanks for the info, come back when you figure it out

[santo=dorf]

I totally disagree with your list.

 

I'll give you Oakland, New York (A), and Chicago (N), and prolly even Atlanta, but as for the following:

 

Have you looked at these other teams?

 

Boston: Are you talking about Lowe who has 14 wins and an ERA over 5, with a lot less innings that Garland?

 

Florida: Other than Pavano, No one else has been Dependable.  Beckett has been awful, and Willis is below .500.  Burnett is good, but still hasn't fully recovered for this season.

 

Houston: I assume you are talking about one of the two guys that are out for the season, but when they were healthy they weren't that great.

 

St. Louis:  I think I could win 15 with that Offense and Defense on my side.

 

San Diego: I'd take Garland over Wells or Eaton (and they are pitching in a Pitchers Park)

 

The rest I think are big time stretches.

 

I need to get back to some work, but I really think Garland is a better option that many out there.  I will still stick to my 85%. 

I have heard many scouts compare Garland's stuff and attitude to that of Kevin Brown.  Brown was viewed as a punk kid in Texas, but once he matured and got his act together, he became the #1 pitcher in Baseball (then the injuries got to him).  I really like Garland and am still holding out hope that he will keep getting better.

Boston: Lowe is having a bad year, but he was pitching pretty well for some after the all-star break. He is also a groundball pitcher like Garland, but his GO/AO is closer to 3 while Judy's is around 1.25.

 

Florida: Beckett has been hurt, Dontrelle's splits on the road and home don't vary with the exception of the gopher ball. Wasn't Brad Penny the Marlins #3 coming into this year anyways?

 

Houston: Clemens was brought into the rotation as the #3 starter before this season. Do I even need to post his Cy Young numbers to Garland's? I didn't think so either.

 

St. Louis: Regardless of the offense, Chris Carpenter is having one hell of a season. 3.46 ERA, K/BB ratio of 4.00, and a WHIP of 1.14.

 

San Diego: You couldn't possibly be more wrong about Wells.

Wells' road stats:

W  L ERA  G GS CG SHO IP   H  R  ER HR HBP BB SO WHIP
9 1 3.07  13 13 0   0 82.0 81 30 28 13  1  7  43  1.07

 

See that? SEVEN walks for the entire year. Judy Garland had 7 walks in his first start of the season @NYY.

 

Take a look at the stats before you come out talking about how great Garland is compared to other #3's in the league.

[santo=dorf]

What bigger hole have the Sox had for years than their 5th starter?

Ownership.

[babybearhater]

There is something you don't understand but i don't know what.

And querty, you dont like Garland anyway, and you said yourself he isnt even good enough to be a 5th starter

 

"Once more 6 innings and 4 earned runs may keep you in the game but it is a digusting era. The point of a 3-4 starter is to win more game than they lose unlike garland. 6 innings and 4 earned runs is more like 6th starter territory. "

[babybearhater]

Ownership. 

And the Winner is Santo=Dorf

 

the most correct post yet

[qwerty]

And querty, you dont like Garland anyway, and you said yourself he isnt even good enough to be a 5th starter

 

"Once more 6 innings and 4 earned runs may keep you in the game but it is a digusting era. The point of a 3-4 starter is to win more game than they lose unlike garland. 6 innings and 4 earned runs is more like 6th starter territory. "

I did say that but he evens it out with his 7 inning and 2 earned runs or his 8 innings of 1 earned run. If we have a fifth starter that wins posts a 4.80-5 era and wins us 10-12 we will makes the playoffs. Which jason f***ing grilli will not do.

[babybearhater]

I did say that but he evens it out with his 7 inning and 2 earned runs or his 8 innings of 1 earned run. If we have a fifth starter that wins posts a 4.80-5 era and wins us 10-12 we will makes the playoffs. Which jason f***ing grilli will not do.

And we wont have enough players to make the playoffs if the 5th starter makes that much money. And therein lies the dilemma

[qwerty]

And we wont have enough players to make the playoffs if the 5th starter makes that much money.  And therein lies the dilemma

Do you not think a of either konerko or lee is possible? Seems like we could either get alot of talent for either one of them or we could dump alot of salary and still get some good talent in return.

[Steff]

Some of you guys really crack me up..

 

:banghead :banghead :banghead

 

[babybearhater]

Do you not think a of either konerko or lee is possible? Seems like we could either get alot of talent for either one of them or we could dump alot of salary and still get some good talent in return.

No offense, but I would rather drop Garland than trade either one of those guys

[qwerty]

No offense, but I would rather drop Garland than trade either one of those guys

If trade either one of them it can fill more hole than one. Trading garland will not get even close to doing that.

[babybearhater]

If trade either one of them it can fill more hole than one. Trading garland will not get even close to doing that.

Getting rid of his salary may increase the offer to a FA

[qwerty]

Getting rid of his salary may increase the offer to a FA

Do you think that there is no money at all to spend?

[babybearhater]

Do you think that there is no money at all to spend?

There isnt, this is the white sox we are talking about, im not sure if you got a north side flashback or something, but we have no money.

[southsider2k5]

There isnt, this is the white sox we are talking about, im not sure if you got a north side flashback or something, but we have no money.

Actually if we operate at a small premium over last year there is about $10ish million available.

 

Garcia&Contreras take up Maggs money roughly (about $14mil vs $15 mil)

 

After that we are losing $11 million in ridding ourselves of Koch and Valentins contracts. Granted we have some increases coming, but nothing nearly that much. If we get anykind of an increase in budget that will cover those increases (keep in mind even with stable attendance vs LY, tickets cost about 20% more vs last year, and there was an increase in parking and concessions. Plus there were less half price nights factored in)

 

The Sox should have AT least $6-7 million available even if the owners give KW the exact same budget as last year (highly unlikely IMO)

[babybearhater]

Actually if we operate at a small premium over last year there is about $10ish million available.

 

Garcia&Contreras take up Maggs money roughly (about $14mil vs $15 mil)

 

After that we are losing $11 million in ridding ourselves of Koch and Valentins contracts.  Granted we have some increases coming, but nothing nearly that much.  If we get anykind of an increase in budget that will cover those increases (keep in mind even with stable attendance vs LY, tickets cost about 20% more vs last year, and there was an increase in parking and concessions.  Plus there were less half price nights factored in)

 

The Sox should have AT least $6-7 million available even if the owners give KW the exact same budget as last year (highly unlikely IMO)

And if we factor inroughly 3 mill if we got ride of jon, then we could have some room to work with on the FA market. You forget that ridding ourselves of those contract are also ridding ourselves of starters

[southsider2k5]

And if we factor inroughly 3 mill if we got ride of jon, then we could have some room to work with on the FA market.  You forget that ridding ourselves of those contract are also ridding ourselves of starters

Koch has long since been replaced. Valentin is replaced by Uribe/Valdez. Done and done. We also have Everett, Borchard, Perez etc that are going to replace Maggs in RF.

 

Your way actually has more holes as you are trying to replace 2 starting pitchers (the big FA you are planning on signing, and then someone to replace Garland as well.

[babybearhater]

Koch has long since been replaced.  Valentin is replaced by Uribe/Valdez.  Done and done.  We also have Everett, Borchard, Perez etc that are going to replace Maggs in RF.

 

Your way actually has more holes as you are trying to replace 2 starting pitchers (the big FA you are planning on signing, and then someone to replace Garland as well.

Borchard, Everett, come on, not exactly Maggs material. And I have already said what will replace Garland as stated in my previous 100 posts on this subject. And that leaves 1 starting pitcher to be replaced, not 2. If you want to replace Maggs with another Bat, and sign possibly another infielder since nobody seems to think Uribe, Valdez, willie or crede can start, those are some Holes to fill. Especially for those who want to sign Koskie. So no, my way leave less holes

 

O'Doyle Rules

[southsider2k5]

Borchard, Everett, come on, not exactly Maggs material.  And I have already said what will replace Garland as stated in my previous 100 posts on this subject. And that leaves 1 starting pitcher to be replaced, not 2.  If you want to replace Maggs with another Bat, and sign possibly another infielder since nobody seems to think Uribe, Valdez, willie or crede can start, those are some Holes to fill.  Especially for those who want to sign Koskie.  So no, my way leave less holes

 

O'Doyle Rules

So you are telling me that extra $3 mil will get you a top flight starter, a replacement for Maggs AND people to play 3B, SS and 2B? There is no way. Be realistic. You can't advocate the trade of a $3 million player to raise funds because we are broke, but then talk about signing $20 million plus worth of players. (Top flight starter $10ish million, Maggs replacement at least $10 mil to replace those #'s, plus 3B, SS, 2B since I guess we have none of them)

 

 

Plus you still have the same blackhole at 5th starter that you have had this entire decade.

[babybearhater]

So you are telling me that extra $3 mil will get you a top flight starter, a replacement for Maggs AND people to play 3B, SS and 2B?  There is no way.  Be realistic.  You can't advocate the trade of a $3 million player to raise funds because we are broke, but then talk about signing $20 million plus worth of players.  (Top flight starter $10ish million, Maggs replacement at least $10 mil to replace those #'s, plus 3B, SS, 2B since I guess we have none of them)

 

 

Plus you still have the same blackhole at 5th starter that you have had this entire decade.

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

 

This means you are taking a rotation with two bad holes at the bottom. And replacing it with a much more solid 1-4 with possibly a better # 1 or #2 guy, and putting one of the younger less proven guys at the bottom. This would make the pitching alot more effective than in previous years, where we never had an ACE. And the bottom 2 or 3 slots were all question marks

[southsider2k5]

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

But you are advocating the adding of someone to replace Maggs and replacements for Uribe, Crede, Harris, and Valdez. Where does that money come from?

[babybearhater]

But you are advocating the adding of someone to replace Maggs and replacements for Uribe, Crede, Harris, and Valdez.  Where does that money come from?

I like Uribe and Harris, I was pointing out that other people dont. I think that you may be able to get some replacements in trade for Garland, and possibly crede. This would def free up some cash for either signing a top flight starter or some extra players in the infield. Either way that they find a way to use the cash, I dont care. I am just very very against paying our 5th starter the money that Garland will be owed. That seems like a waste of money to me, when we could fill his hole with someone already in our system and possibly get some value while people still think he has potential.