JG on the Score

[qwerty]

 

that was more than 8 last time I looked, but I did fail Algebra

 

and Contreras pitched a few good games, as did Jon, but Contreras was horrible for a while there, at least Jon was consistant..

 

 

Shh...

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 11:29 PM)

Of course Contreras only pitched with the Sox for a couple of months, unlike Garland who pitched for us for the whole season. And I'm sure Contreras' bad starts gave up more runs than Garland's, who only gave up more than 8 runs once all season long I think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm only judging Contreras from how he played with the Sox. So in 2004 both Garland and Contreras had 9 s***ty outings. How does that favor Garland? And if Garland didn't have a s***ty outing, he would go 6 IP, 4 ER, which isn't bad for a 5th starter, but isn't good for a guy who has been handed the #3 spot in the rotation for 3 consecutive years.

[qwerty]

I'm only judging Contreras from how he played with the Sox. So in 2004 both Garland and Contreras had 9 s***ty outings.  How does that favor Garland?  And if Garland din't have a s***ty outing, he would go 6 IP, 4 ER, which isn't bad for a 5th starter, but isn't good for a guy who has been handed the #3 spot in the rotation for 3 consecutive years. 

 

Six innings and four earned runs is bad for anyone.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 11:40 PM)

6 innings and four earned runs is bad for anyone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Even for the 5th starter on ANY team in the MLB? I know Garland is capable of putting up better numbers than those, but the Sox would've killed for someone who could go 6IP and give up only 4 ER back in 1996, 2003, or 2004.

[qwerty]

Even for the 5th starter on ANY team in the MLB?  I know Garland is capable of putting up better numbers than those, but the Sox would've killed for someone who could go 6IP and give up only 4 ER back in 1996, 2003, or 2004.

Six era? No thank you. It would have been an improvement from what we have been getting out of the fifth spot. But that still does nto make it o.k. or good.

[DBAHO]

Contreras in July - 3-2 5.82 ERA

August - 4-1 3.52 ERA

September - 0-3 9.21 ERA

 

Garland in July - 2-2 3.92 ERA

August - 2-3 6.14 ERA

September - 2-1 5.14 ERA

 

The thing is with Contreras, you don't know whether he'll pitch 9 shutout innings, or give up 8 or 9 runs per outing. At least with Garland, he's more consistent, even if its 4 or 5 runs in 6 or 7 innings.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 11:31 PM)

You are horrible. :headshake

 

He gave up ten runs against the phillies on june 9th.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now calm down. He said "only once all season long."

[qwerty]

Now calm down.  He said "only once all season long."

 

I was joking with him for one, and for two i misread it.

[santo=dorf]

The "very bad" outings for Garland:

4-27: 6 IP, 10 H, 5 ER, 2 BB, 4 K's (L)

5-23: 7 IP, 10 H, 6 ER, 2 BB, 3 K's (W)

6-09: 4 IP, 8 H, 10 ER, 4 BB, 1 K (L)

6-25: 5.1 IP, 6 H, 5 ER, 1 BB 3 K's (L)

8-05 7 IP, 7 H, 6 ER, 2 BB, 3 K's (L)

8-19 2.2 IP, 6 H, 7 R, 3 ER (It was Konerko's fault,) 2 BB, 1 K (L)

8-29 7 IP, 9 H, 6 ER, 1 BB, 3 K's (L)

9-16 7 IP, 9 H, 5 ER, 3 BB, 4 K's (L)

9-21 6 IP, 9 H, 6 ER, 1 BB, 3 K's (ND)

 

The only time Garland showed consistency was during the stretch of 7/15-8/05 where he went 7 IP on July 15th, gave up 4 runs (3 ER,) and the three other starts he went 6 IP, 4 ER.

 

He was also okay in May as he managed to get out some bad situations at times. In his first start of the season against the Yanks, he had 7 BB's in 8 innings, but only gave up 1 run. On May 5th, he won against the BJ's with 7 IP, but gave up 10 hits with 1 walk.

[Molto]

So how long do we get to use the excuse that he is young?

I never said we should keep him because he is young and will break out.

 

we should keep him because he's worth what he's getting and is a solid pitcher. is he young? yes. does he have potential? you bet, but that isn't the reason to keep. perhaps incentive, but not the sole reason.

[Gene Honda Civic]

Here's a fictional player -- (a hitter, because using Garlands numbers would be obvious)

 

Age 20 --  .256/.306/.397 -- September Call-up

Age 21 --  .289/.349/.448 -- Called up after ASB

Age 22 --  .267/.331/.427 -- Full season (500 ABs)

Age 23 --  .266/.325/.421 -- Full season (500 Abs)

Age 24 --  .270/.336/.433 -- Full season (550 ABs)

 

I don't think anyone here would want that player run off the team. especially when everyone is excited about the 28 yo coming of a .244/.313/.364 season, and our biggest offseason acquistion is a 30 yo coming off a .265/.329/.464 season.

 

That player is a mirror of JG's production vs. leage average. This fictional player would have a OPS+ of 100, matching JG's ERA+ of 101.

 

In theory if you have a team with 25 guys who all produce at league average, you're going to win 81 games. "Average" players aren't costing the team wins, they're not adding them, but they're not supposed to be the ones driving the bus. It's when you're counting on these type of players to have career year that your team is in trouble. (i.e. 2003/2004 with the career 98 ERA+ Esteban Loaiza)

 

Complaining about those average players when the team has obvious holes, with much below average players [Pods 94 OPS+(terrible for a LF), Dye's 103 OPS+(not good for an offensive position), WH's anemic 52 OPS+, Crede's underwhelming 89.] at other positions is just a waste of energy.

[aboz56]

I never said we should keep him because he is young and will break out.

 

we should keep him because he's worth what he's getting and is a solid pitcher. is he young? yes. does he have potential? you bet, but that isn't the reason to keep. perhaps incentive, but not the sole reason.

Good points on all counts, but like Andrew said, with McCarthy and others moving up, I think this is a make or break year for Garland, with the Sox.

[TLAK]

Do other people besides me consider contreras our fifth starter?

With the projected improvement in the bullpen I hear they want to reduce the number of innings from the starters, holding even MB down to about 200 (he threw 245 in '04). So they are aware of burning guys out, and everyone will get a shorter rope this year.

 

They also said they will try to get match ups, instead of just trotting the guys out there in a preset system. To me, this means holding El Duke back sometimes to save him for bigger games.

 

So, what ever order they open the season with I predict the innings will still shake out about like this, barring an big injury:

 

Buehrle

Garcia

Garland

Contreras

Hernandez

[YASNY]

I can't believe we are still arguing about a number 5 pitcher that's 25 years old with double digit wins and 200 innings pitched. If we had that kind of production from our number 5 slot in '03 and '04 we'd be two time defending AL Central champs.

 

And really, it doesn't matter whether JG or JC is in the 5 slot, the pecking order of the rotatiom will shake out over the course of the season. However, I'd bet on Garland over Contreras at this point.

 

I'm speaking figuratively ... I will not accept any bets, so don't even go there.

[witesoxfan]

I'm chiming in a little late with this topic...like usual

 

Anyways, all I want to say is that you can almost throw the 'young' argument out the window with Garland. He may only be 25 or 26, whatever he is now...and that is young, I'm not going to deny that.

 

But when someone thinks of a young pitcher struggling, they usually think of the first 400 innings or so for a pitcher...Jon has more then eclipsed that mark. He is not going to get much better then he is right now.

 

That being said, he is a more than capable 4th/5th starter, and should be good for double digit wins this year...probably around 12-14...and Contreras could be in that same win total too. Both ERA's will probably be around the 4.50 mark, give or take a tenth of a point.

[AnthraxFan93]

Do other people besides me consider contreras our fifth starter?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Never thought i would agree with you.. but it has happened..

[CWSGuy406]

I'm only judging Contreras from how he played with the Sox. So in 2004 both Garland and Contreras had 9 s***ty outings.  How does that favor Garland?  And if Garland didn't have a s***ty outing, he would go 6 IP, 4 ER, which isn't bad for a 5th starter, but isn't good for a guy who has been handed the #3 spot in the rotation for 3 consecutive years. 

 

And who's fault is that, Santo?

 

Is it Jon's fault that he's isn't quite ready to be a number three starter at this point in his career?

 

In most rotations, I want my number five starter to give me a lot of innings, and to keep me in most of the games he pitches in. I count two games where Jon really didn't give us a chance to win (vs. Philly, 10 R, vs. Detroit, 7 Runs), about five-six starts where he pitched poorly, but, the game still could have been won, as he was still able to give us 5-7 innings (5-6 runs), and the rest were starts in which he pitched pretty well for a fifth starter (4 R or less).

 

So, basically you're blaming Jon for not being capable of being a third starter at the age of 24...

 

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 03:47 PM)

So, basically you're blaming Jon for not being capable of being a third starter at the age of 24...

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Quit looking at his age and look at the number of years he has been in the bigs. Obviously some people in the White Sox organization (from 2002-2004) viewed Garland as highly as some of you here. He has been handed the #3 spot for 3 consecutive years, and hasn't improved, yet some of you still think he's going to win 20 games and should be ahead of Contreras and Hernandez. I used to be a fan of Garland's, but he has a crappy attitude, and has shown no signs of improvement. But shouldn't we congratulate him on his first winning season?

 

Thank God Ozzie has figured out that Garland isn't the real deal.

 

Someone asked if Garland might thrive with less pressure on him.

 

 

Guillen practically laughed.

 

 

"No,'' he blurted out. "I just want better pitchers.''

 

 

Ozzie

[CWSGuy406]

Quit looking at his age and look at the number of years he has been in the bigs.  Obviously some people in the White Sox organization (from 2002-2004) viewed Garland as highly as some of you here.  He has been handed the #3 spot for 3 consecutive years, and hasn't improved, yet some of you still think he's going to win 20 games and should be ahead of Contreras and Hernandez.  I used to be a fan of Garland's, but he has a crappy attitude, and has shown no signs of improvement.  But shouldn't we congratulate him on his first winning season?

 

 

Again, I ask the question that you leave unanswered...

 

Who's fault is it for handing him the number three spot three consecutive years in a row -- a point that me and you both agree on, a spot in which Jon was/still is incapable of handling?

 

And, FWIW, I'm not one of the guys who thinks that Jon is going to be a 20 game winner. Sure, there's the hope, but I'm not banking on it -- I'll bank on 12-16 wins, 200 innings, and an ERA that can be as good as 4.30ish, or at worst 5.00.

 

I also think he deserves what he gets, and he's a pretty good bargain considering what some others got (if someone thinks that Kris Benson is what, five million dollars per year better than Jon Garland, I got news for ya...).

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 06:05 PM)

Again, I ask the question that you leave unanswered...

 

Who's fault is it for handing him the number three spot three consecutive years in a row -- a point that me and you both agree on, a spot in which Jon was/still is incapable of handling?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Williams and Manuel, but I only had a problem with Jon being in the #3 spot coming into the 2004 season. I felt him being in the #3 spot in 2003 wouldn't be that bad because of the 1-2 punch of Colon and Buehrle. I was still a fan of his until mid 2003, and coming into 2004 he should've been the #4 starter. Williams and Reinsdorf offered Bartolo the largest contract in White Sox history to him, but it wasn't good enough. The Sox didn't get a pitcher until the Freddy Garcia trade.

 

I'll bank on 12-16 wins, 200 innings, and an ERA that can be as good as 4.30ish, or at worst 5.00.

 

Where in the world do some of you get the idea that because Garland clocked in 12 wins in 3 consecutive seasons, 12 wins is minimum number of games one would expect Garland to win?

 

I'll say 10-14 wins, 180-205 IP, 4.40-5.00 ERA for 2005.

[GoodAsGould]

even if B-Mac is ready by next season i think Garland has a safe job with us... if anything i bet my money on that el Duque or Contreras would sooner end up in the bullpen than we non tender Garland.

[Gene Honda Civic]

even if B-Mac is ready by next season i think Garland has a safe job with us... if anything i bet my money on that el Duque or Contreras would sooner end up in the bullpen than we non tender Garland.

Niether Contreras nor Duque is eligible to be non-tendered next season. Duque has more than 6 years of service, and I think(someone with more baseball knowledge than me can correct me if I'm wrong here) Contreras signing a guaranteed major league deal straight from Cuba makes him ineligible. Both have guaranteed contracts in 2006. Garland does not -- Though if we want him back he is ours, and ours only.

[CWSGuy406]

I'll say 10-14 wins, 180-205 IP, 4.40-5.00 ERA for 2005.

 

 

OK - well, we're still basically on the same page. It's just that I have him pegged to (potentially) being able to win 16 (not a lock -- potentially), as well as having a little bit better potential ERA, but we're still in the same ballpark.

 

We agree though, that Garland is not the ace he was once supposed to be, but that he can be a pretty solid three/four. Yes?

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 08:49 PM)

OK - well, we're still basically on the same page.  It's just that I have him pegged to (potentially) being able to win 16 (not a lock -- potentially), as well as having a little bit better potential ERA, but we're still in the same ballpark.

 

We agree though, that Garland is not the ace he was once supposed to be, but that he can be a pretty solid three/four.  Yes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He can be a solid number 4, not a number 3. He has shown that the past 3 seasons.

[GoodAsGould]

Niether Contreras nor Duque is eligible to be non-tendered next season.  Duque has more than 6 years of service, and I think(someone with more baseball knowledge than me can correct me if I'm wrong here) Contreras signing a guaranteed major league deal straight from Cuba makes him ineligible.  Both have guaranteed contracts in 2006.  Garland does not -- Though if we want him back he is ours, and ours only.

 

 

i never said we would cut either of them i said they would sooner end up in the bullpen to make room for B-Mac than us non-tender Garland.