WSFAN35 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Did anyone listen to Jon Garland on Boers and Bernstein this afternoon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxPhan7 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I heard the interview with Garland today and it was nothing earth shattering. The jist of it was that he did not work on anything new mechanically but he is more stable mentally vowing not to get rattled as easily. He also likes the sox new manufacturing attitude saying it will be easier to come back in games by getting men on base and then getting them home rather than hitting 4 home runs. He also said he has no problem being the 5th starter because it is only a number and it only really is the 5th starter the first time through the rotation. He thought the story about AJP kneeing the trainer in the balls was funny. And B&B asked him about his comments about the fans last year and he said they were never meant to be as bad as they were. He is a competiter and wants to win just as bad as everyone else and the fans need to understand that he "didn't mean to give up that homerun" and have a bad outing and they need to give him a little slack because he is facing professional hitters. The comments about the fans was the only part i thought was interesting and all he asked for was a little slack. We will see if that happens and actually came over as a nice guy is has a big mouth and doesnt really care what people think of him. It was an ok interview Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 This is a put up or shut up year for Garland. I'm tired of the "he's still young" excuses. He's been here since what, 2000? Time to either start producing consistently or HE GONE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 QUOTE(aboz56 @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 09:13 PM) This is a put up or shut up year for Garland. I'm tired of the "he's still young" excuses. He's been here since what, 2000? Time to either start producing consistently or HE GONE! It should be interesting with Jon next year, all the other 4 starters are locked up through 06 and he's arbitration eligible and with Bmac on the way I agree it's definitely put up or shut up time for him. I like Jon alot as the number 5 guy because he'll be one of the best 5th starters in baseball however if Brandon is ready I wouldn't be surprised to see Jon get non tendered to free up some cash but who knows, should be interesting........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 i say no way in hell we ditch garland... i mean at worse he is good for 12 wins right... while it isnt what we expect from him he is still a solid starter and you just dont ditch those guys... if we lose anyone or take them from the rotation next year its going to be one of the cubans more likely El Duque. But im really hoping this is the year Garland can get his era maybe low 4's and 15-16 wins... that would be sweet.. He did outpitch Santana once last year we won 2-1 off a Carlos Lee HR in the 1st inning... that alone is enough for me to keep him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 09:16 PM) It should be interesting with Jon next year, all the other 4 starters are locked up through 06 and he's arbitration eligible and with Bmac on the way I agree it's definitely put up or shut up time for him. I like Jon alot as the number 5 guy because he'll be one of the best 5th starters in baseball however if Brandon is ready I wouldn't be surprised to see Jon get non tendered to free up some cash but who knows, should be interesting........ Do other people besides me consider contreras our fifth starter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 09:22 PM) i say no way in hell we ditch garland... i mean at worse he is good for 12 wins right... while it isnt what we expect from him he is still a solid starter and you just dont ditch those guys... if we lose anyone or take them from the rotation next year its going to be one of the cubans more likely El Duque. But im really hoping this is the year Garland can get his era maybe low 4's and 15-16 wins... that would be sweet.. He did outpitch Santana once last year we won 2-1 off a Carlos Lee HR in the 1st inning... that alone is enough for me to keep him I'm not saying it's going to happen nor do I really expect it, but it is a possibility. Lets just say one of the pitchers goes down for a bit mid season, Bmac steps in and shows he can atleast pitch in the big leagues and Jon continues to win 12 ball games. They'd atleast have to look into the possibility of non tendering Jon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox91403 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 QUOTE(qwerty @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 09:23 PM) Do other people besides me consider contreras our fifth starter? YES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider17 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 QUOTE(qwerty @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 09:23 PM) Do other people besides me consider contreras our fifth starter? I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 09:22 PM) i say no way in hell we ditch garland... i mean at worse he is good for 12 wins right <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have you been paying attention the last 3 seasons? At best he's good for 12 wins. But hey! He's only 40 years from social security! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 03:33 AM) Have you been paying attention the last 3 seasons? At best he's good for 12 wins. But hey! He's only 40 years from social security! I'm sorry that he hasn't been a 20 game winner by the age of 25... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Garland vs. Contreras (Sox numbers assuming he qualified) (AL rank) OPS: Contreras .772 (21) Garland .786 (28) K/9: Contreras 8.2 (5) Garland 4.69 (35) K/BB: Contreras 1.62 (35) Garland 1.49 (37) G/F (remember, Garland is the "groundball" pitcher): Contreras 1.51 (11) Garland 1.27 (17) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Didn't mean to start an argument here, guys. Just saying it's something the sox might look into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSFAN35 Posted January 19, 2005 Author Share Posted January 19, 2005 Everyone keeps making excuses for Jon Garland, I'm sick of it. Sure, he's young, but he's already been in the league for a number of years. Usually you know what you got within their first three years in the bigs. He's got decent stuff(although his supposedly best pitch, the sinker, end up in the seats way too often) but not enough balls to go with it. You need balls to pitch in the MLB, and if he hasn't found a pair yet, chances are he never will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 09:46 PM) I'm sorry that he hasn't been a 20 game winner by the age of 25... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well f***, he's been the MLB since 2000, and last year was his first winning season?!?!?! What happened to all that potential he supposedly had? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 03:50 AM) Well f***, he's been the MLB since 2000, and last year was his first winning season?!?!?! What happened to all that potential he supposedly had? OK - so he's not the staff horse, the ace, the twenty game winner we all had hoped for. But he's still a solid starter. He gives us innings, and quality ones at that. He'll give at worst a five ERA, most likely closer to the 4.75 ERA. And, for the most part, he'll keep you in the games he pitches in. Maturity comes with age. I don't care if he's been in the league since 2000, he's still only 25. If every person was asked to be at the top of their game -- be it a major league pitcher or a doctor, hell, any job -- at the age of 25, I really doubt many would succeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molto Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 just because a guy hasn't reached his potential and the expectations placed on him doesn't mean he's bad. He's not getting paid more than he's worth and he isn't overrated like so many other players out there. yeah, let's dump him because he's not great, just good. unreal some of you guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 QUOTE(Molto @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 11:09 PM) just because a guy hasn't reached his potential and the expectations placed on him doesn't mean he's bad. He's not getting paid more than he's worth and he isn't overrated like so many other players out there. yeah, let's dump him because he's not great, just good. unreal some of you guys. So how long do we get to use the excuse that he is young? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 yeah im sure most of you are sick of the he is young statement but ... ITS TRUE.. Garland is young and at this stage of his career he still has 2 much potential to ditch he also has been healthy in his career which is another reason to keep him.... Maybe some of you just need to lower your expectations but id be plain out shocked to see him gone next year unless its in a trade package for a better pitcher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 QUOTE(Molto @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 10:09 PM) just because a guy hasn't reached his potential and the expectations placed on him doesn't mean he's bad. He's not getting paid more than he's worth and he isn't overrated like so many other players out there. yeah, let's dump him because he's not great, just good. unreal some of you guys. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not saying we should dump him (I only wanted him traded if it brought RJ or Vazquez in return,) but this "He's only X years old" excuse has been stale since the beginning of 2003. Garland does not deserve $3.4 million (a $1.1 million raise) for 2005, but after seeing some of the contracts pitchers are getting this offseasonit's ok for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 QUOTE(aboz56 @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 03:10 PM) So how long do we get to use the excuse that he is young? I think it's still valid probably only for this season though. If Garland was pitching in the NL for a team like the Padres, his ERA would probably go down by 1, and he would be one of the better young pitchers in the game. You just have to give young pitching time, Jake Peavy and Oliver Perez showed that last season. A lot of teams in the MLB would like to have Garland as their 5th starter right about now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSFAN35 Posted January 19, 2005 Author Share Posted January 19, 2005 QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 10:18 PM) I think it's still valid probably only for this season though. If Garland was pitching in the NL for a team like the Padres, his ERA would probably go down by 1, and he would be one of the better young pitchers in the game. You just have to give young pitching time, Jake Peavy and Oliver Perez showed that last season. A lot of teams in the MLB would like to have Garland as their 5th starter right about now. I agree with your point about his ERA going down if he pitched for the Padres in a pitcher's park like Petco and that any team would like to have a fifth starter like him, but comparing him to Peavy or Perez is just ridiculous. Peavy and Perez haven't been pitching in the MLB since 2000. Peavy's control and Perez's stuff blow anything Garland has out of the water. Garland's as good as he's ever gonna be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
striker Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 03:46 AM) I'm sorry that he hasn't been a 20 game winner by the age of 25... I know what you are saying. It would be interesting to let everyone know that Randy Johson only had 3 wins by the age of 25. Garland has 46. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlackSox8 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Jon Garland is a good pitcher when he's pitching in May...pitching at night...on turf...against Boston, Toronto, or Seattle...at home or at Fenway or the Skydome. At least those are what the stats say. He's very inconsistant...but when he's on he's as good as a number three if not a number two. That's the thing with Jon...each game you don't know what you are going to get...and hopefully it's the mentallity thing that can stop this inconsistancy...or else it will be the same old Jon....Losing to Tampa Bay 8-3 or beating the Yankees 2-1. He's capable of beating the best and also losing to the worst...Good luck to him in 2005...here's to the best of Jon Garlan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSFAN35 Posted January 19, 2005 Author Share Posted January 19, 2005 QUOTE(striker62704 @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 10:40 PM) I know what you are saying. It would be interesting to let everyone know that Randy Johson only had 3 wins by the age of 25. Garland has 46. That's a bulls*** stat because RJ had only four starts in one year by the age of 25 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.