AngelasDaddy0427 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 In my opinion he put himself together a very solid year. He's 24 years old and shouldn't have been expected to have been any more then a forth starter anyway. Still he managed to have a record of: 12 Wins, 11 Losses with an ERA of 4.89 and 217 IP Last time I checked consistant 12 game winners didn't grow on trees and I don't think 3 Mil is too much to pay for a guy who has every chance to get better next year. Even if he gives us the same thing then he's still not hurting us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Because mediocrity is tolerated, not congratulated. He made no noticable improvement over last season, even though it was all Manuel's fault. He's a fine #5 starter, but I'm not jumping up and down about him. Buehrle was a much lower draft choice, and is the same age, yet has done MUCH more than Garland at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xero Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 In my opinion he put himself together a very solid year. He's 24 years old and shouldn't have been expected to have been any more then a forth starter anyway. Still he managed to have a record of: 12 Wins, 11 Losses with an ERA of 4.89 and 217 IP Last time I checked consistant 12 game winners didn't grow on trees and I don't think 3 Mil is too much to pay for a guy who has every chance to get better next year. Even if he gives us the same thing then he's still not hurting us. No thanks, he still sucks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Because he regressed. For example, if you are teaching your baby how to walk, and he can walk, but he starts crawling everywhere again, are you going to be congratulate your baby? Jon had a worse season this year then he did the past 2 years. That is unacceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Buehrle was a much lower draft choice, and is the same age, yet has done MUCH more than Garland at this point. It's funny how those things work out. A first round pick equals mediocre at the show. But a guy who wasn't pick till way down in the draft has a better record, era, w/k ratio etc.. in his career and in the seasons they both played than the first rounder is simply called "a steal." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I dont see that GREAT of a difference here... ----- Mark Mulder - 17 wins 8 losses 4.43 ERA 225.2 IP 83 BB 140 K's Jon Garland - 12 wins 11 losses 4.89 ERA 217 IP 76 BB's 113 K's ----- Mark Mulder - 111 ER 223 Hits 12.7 Men on Base per 9 inning Jon Garland - 118 ER 223 Hits 12.6 Men on Base per 9 inning ----- This isnt even factoring in what JG could do not pitching in our hitter friendly park.. This season Garland has not been any worse than Mark Mulder.. some poeple need to quit b****ing that hes not winning 20 games and realize he is a young pitcher who is coming along.. Hes gonna be good, just chill out.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 BECAUSE HE IS A HEARTLESS PIECE OF s*** WHO DOESN'T DESERVE ANY CONGRATS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beast Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Garland is an underacheiver...this year I was expecting big things from him. Anyone with so much potential cannot disapoint when in a playoff hunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I dont see that GREAT of a difference here... ----- Mark Mulder - 17 wins 8 losses 4.43 ERA 225.2 IP 83 BB 140 K's Jon Garland - 12 wins 11 losses 4.89 ERA 217 IP 76 BB's 113 K's ----- Mark Mulder - 111 ER 223 Hits 12.7 Men on Base per 9 inning Jon Garland - 118 ER 223 Hits 12.6 Men on Base per 9 inning ----- This isnt even factoring in what JG could do not pitching in our hitter friendly park.. This season Garland has not been any worse than Mark Mulder.. some poeple need to quit b****ing that hes not winning 20 games and realize he is a young pitcher who is coming along.. Hes gonna be good, just chill out.. yeah but most of mulder's bad stats have been from just a horrible horrible september before that he was awesome the whole season...... but even though jon garlands numbers dont show it i think as a pitcher he has improved and next year he will get past that 12 win mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Hasn't Mulder been hurt too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 yeah but most of mulder's bad stats have been from just a horrible horrible september before that he was awesome the whole season...... but even though jon garlands numbers dont show it i think as a pitcher he has improved and next year he will get past that 12 win mark yeah but what im saying is it doesnt matter if Mulder was awesome and had a horrible september... final numbers are final numbers... People just hate on Garland wayy too much.. but I agree with you, Garland will get past 12 wins next year.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Hasn't Mulder been hurt too? I dont think so, he had 33 starts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 No thanks, he still sucks No, actually he doesn't. But then again, the way you backed up your statement, I mean - how can I argue with you? But Jeckle - Jonny doesn't deserve any praise. Like everyone else has said in the thread, he regressed this year. I'm happy with the innings he gave us, but overall, I was expecting better from Garland. I'll be happy to have him as our number five starter next year, but I want to see some improvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I dont think so, he had 33 starts Yeah that was Hudson who went on the DL. I get those two mixed up along with Jermaine Dye and Terrance Long. I thought Mulder got hurt, and almost missed the all-star game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 First off fans in Oakland are complaining about Mulder. Garland put together the kind of season that will keep him employed in the major leagues for a long time. If he finishes his career at 120-120, he'll have $30 mil in the bank. Just like the PGA is loaded with middle of the packers, MLB has them to and they make a lot of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I think we all see a great potential in John Garland and to me it's frustrating to see him be so stubborn at times. Ozzie and Coop have on a few occasisons said that he is only a few mental adjustments way from being a real winner. Specifically, that he needs to remain focused and tough and not allow the 1 big inning that seems to hurt him sometimes. Garland's reply is always basically that he is not going to change the way he does things. If I didn't think he had potentail, I wouldn't be as frustrated with him, but when he's so close to being a lot better and refuses to make adjustments, it's hard to be in his corner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I think we all see a great potential in John Garland and to me it's frustrating to see him be so stubborn at times. Ozzie and Coop have on a few occasisons said that he is only a few mental adjustments way from being a real winner. Specifically, that he needs to remain focused and tough and not allow the 1 big inning that seems to hurt him sometimes. Garland's reply is always basically that he is not going to change the way he does things. If I didn't think he had potentail, I wouldn't be as frustrated with him, but when he's so close to being a lot better and refuses to make adjustments, it's hard to be in his corner. A very accurate summary of how a lot of fans feel ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Good points by everybody. I still have hope for Jon, but he doesn't deserve to be congratulated for anything. .500 isn't going to cut it. He has one more year to emerge or he's a No. 5 starter forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Good points by everybody. I still have hope for Jon, but he doesn't deserve to be congratulated for anything. .500 isn't going to cut it. He has one more year to emerge or he's a No. 5 starter forever. lol 5th starter forever? thats pretty bold especially since what after next season he will be 25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 lol 5th starter forever? thats pretty bold especially since what after next season he will be 25 He has been around now for what four complete seasons if you combine his first two years together and he has shown no improvement. Enough said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted October 3, 2004 Author Share Posted October 3, 2004 Just remember that these are the same people who said that Mark Buherle would never be any better then a 4th or 5th starter. Hopefully he gets a chance to prove them wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Just remember that these are the same people who said that Mark Buherle would never be any better then a 4th or 5th starter. Hopefully he gets a chance to prove them wrong. Jon has had his chance in 2003 and 2004, where was he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I thought after next year he'd be 26. My bad if he'll only be 25. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I thought after next year he'd be 26. My bad if he'll only be 25. Either way greg, I think your right about Jon being a 5th starter for the rest of his career, I really thought he'd improve in 2003 and then this year, I'm not expecting him to make a big jump for next year, however he's still a solid pitcher to have on the roster as a 5th starter, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Just remember that these are the same people who said that Mark Buherle would never be any better then a 4th or 5th starter. Hopefully he gets a chance to prove them wrong. I don't remember hearing anybody ever say that. And what that has to do with this I'm unsure of. 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.