nitetrain8601 Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 Wasn't Bartolo going to get a 4 year deal but he wanted 5??? Or was it that he wanted 4 and we wanted to give him 3?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 The Sox organization has to be very cautious when it comes to Garland and not make the same mistake that they did by resigning Rowand. Garland is only five starts into the season and we all know anything could happen in the remained of his 27 starts. Garland hasn't had a track record for doing fantastic at the big league level, and it is Garland's contract year after all. I'd shy away from throwing any money at Jon for the forseeable future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ May 2, 2005 -> 04:30 PM) The Sox organization has to be very cautious when it comes to Garland and not make the same mistake that they did by resigning Rowand. Garland is only five starts into the season and we all know anything could happen in the remained of his 27 starts. Garland hasn't had a track record for doing fantastic at the big league level, and it is Garland's contract year after all. I'd shy away from throwing any money at Jon for the forseeable future. They made a mistake with Aaron signing him to a pretty cheap deal just because he's off to a slow start like he always is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrzo2733 Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ May 2, 2005 -> 04:30 PM) The Sox organization has to be very cautious when it comes to Garland and not make the same mistake that they did by resigning Rowand. Garland is only five starts into the season and we all know anything could happen in the remained of his 27 starts. Garland hasn't had a track record for doing fantastic at the big league level, and it is Garland's contract year after all. I'd shy away from throwing any money at Jon for the forseeable future. Not so fast, they did not make a mistake on Aaron. He will hit, and even when he's not he's still a plus defender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 QUOTE(Wedge @ May 2, 2005 -> 01:26 PM) I agree. That'd be about the smartest $50 million we could spend. I'd rather have B-Mac and Gio eventually replacing Contreras and Duque than Garland. That way, we have guys that came up in the Sox system that should have more signability, due to club loyalty. Whether you have loved or hated Garland in the past, we've all sat back and taken our lumps waiting for him to mature. Trading your best Starting Pitcher when you're in a potential pennant race is just dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 QUOTE(Rowand44 @ May 2, 2005 -> 05:35 PM) They made a mistake with Aaron signing him to a pretty cheap deal just because he's off to a slow start like he always is? It was too quick to make that choice. He was awesome last year but he should have had to prove it again this year. It is not a guarantee he would have made more in arbitation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 The best thing about Garland is that as far as I can remember he has never had an injury and certainly does not have the nagging injuries that a guy like El Duque has had a history of. If Garland comes "back to earth" as predicted by just about everybody, it will most likely result from him losing some of his command/location or his seeming newfound ability to pitch out of jams. He has had a very healthy career (knock on wood) and health should not be an issue with him. There was a comparison the other day of Garland to Loiaza in terms of being two pitchers that started out a season like gang-busters. I think the two scenarios are fairly different in Garland's favor. If you recall, that season Loiaza added a new pitch (the cutter) which he could locate incredibly. Once the league caught on to this, his numbers began resemebling those he had established over his career. It seems that Garland is benefitting from two good game calling catchers and from some lessons he's learned by watching Buehrle pitch in terms of throwing strikes and working out of jams. My prediction is that he ends up winning 20 with an ERA around 2.50. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 QUOTE(qwerty @ May 2, 2005 -> 04:59 PM) It was too quick to make that choice. He was awesome last year but he should have had to prove it again this year. It is not a guarantee he would have made more in arbitation. Yeah, I wasn't in favor of giving him an extension, but it's not like they gave him a huge untradeable contract. I'm personally with you on him, but if you could resign a 25 year old pitcher who seems like he's putting it together for 6 mil a year when Kris Benson is getting way more than that, you resign him because even if he does bad, you could trade him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLAK Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 QUOTE(Wedge @ May 2, 2005 -> 06:07 PM) The best thing about Garland is that as far as I can remember he has never had an injury and certainly does not have the nagging injuries that a guy like El Duque has had a history of. If Garland comes "back to earth" as predicted by just about everybody, it will most likely result from him losing some of his command/location or his seeming newfound ability to pitch out of jams. He has had a very healthy career (knock on wood) and health should not be an issue with him. There was a comparison the other day of Garland to Loiaza in terms of being two pitchers that started out a season like gang-busters. I think the two scenarios are fairly different in Garland's favor. If you recall, that season Loiaza added a new pitch (the cutter) which he could locate incredibly. Once the league caught on to this, his numbers began resemebling those he had established over his career. It seems that Garland is benefitting from two good game calling catchers and from some lessons he's learned by watching Buehrle pitch in terms of throwing strikes and working out of jams. My prediction is that he ends up winning 20 with an ERA around 2.50. There is a thin line between Jon the great, and Jon the Judy. He was on the verge the last couple seasons but would give up one or two big hits in key situations. Yesterday, he started the 5th giving up consecutive singles. Then he gets a deep fly to center (Higginson hitting .087) and liner to 2nd (Martinez .200) before he K's the 9 hitter (Smith .150). Not taking anything away from him, but if either of those balls fall in this would be a very different thread. Some of his nice start is luck, I hope it continues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 The best thing about Garland is that as far as I can remember he has never had an injury and certainly does not have the nagging injuries that a guy like El Duque has had a history of --Oops, everybody better knock on wood on that line. If this is the real Jon, I hope he gets a deal similar to Mark B's. We seem to have done a pretty good job of putting together a great rotation and paying them good money but not outlandish. If we win the division this year, I will give KW much credit for his master plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ May 2, 2005 -> 06:11 PM) Yeah, I wasn't in favor of giving him an extension, but it's not like they gave him a huge untradeable contract. I'm personally with you on him, but if you could resign a 25 year old pitcher who seems like he's putting it together for 6 mil a year when Kris Benson is getting way more than that, you resign him because even if he does bad, you could trade him. And as a middle of the pack team, you have to take some risks like that. If you wait to try to resign players, you will lose them if they get too good, and you won't want them if they aren't. The Indians of the mid 90s are the perfect model for this. They identified guys that they wanted to be a part of the core of their team, and signed them to multi-year deals ASAP. It was either take a risk, or risk losing them for nothing in FA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 I don't know how you can say that about Rowand. You're spending $2M on him this year & he's proven to be a team player to the extent that he'd be willing to go down to the ml's in any year he's struggling to work things out. Players who overcome adversity are worth more in my book. As for Jon, he's coming off a year in which he pitched 217 innings & he's now the leading candidate for the AL Cy Young. The most prestigious pitcher's award in MLB. If nothing else he is a proven innings eater which is worth at least $5M a yr because of his age & potential. Think of breaking down the $40/4 yr Cy Young deal as follows: $20M/4 yr - solid #3 $10M/4 yr - added cost for a solid #2 ($2.5M/yr) $10M/4 yr - added cost for a solid #1 ($2.5M/yr) Now consider the non-baseball related value. If Jon emerges as a solid #1-#2 for the Sox will he not be the Sox biggest marquee player? He will always be known as much for his baby-faced good looks & the infamous trade as he will for his talent. If Santana & Jon were to finish 1-2 in the Cy Young race who would sell more tickets as a member of the Sox? Jon. Santana just doesn't look as good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 (edited) If everything goes as planned, which it never does, I'd work on moving Contreras next year. I can't see anybody taking his contract, but there are stupid owners in baseball. That makes a place for BMac. Also, it frees up money to sign a FA 1st baseman or extend Crede. If we extend Crede, Fields moves to 1st or becomes trade bait. Then, you don't extend PK. He's expendable IMO. Maybe Fields and Anderson for Overbay. Or, Fields and Tracey or Liotta for Overbay. I'd keep Sweeney over Anderson. The only 3 untouchables are Sweeney, Bmac and Gio. Next, I'd use the money saved to ink Garland to a 4 year extension. After that, El Duque will leave. That makes room for Gio. It's all simple really. Edited May 3, 2005 by TaylorStSox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch and Judy Garland Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 I think you are depending too much on all of our prospects panning out and the attrition rate of such guys says that not all will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ May 3, 2005 -> 03:15 PM) I think you are depending too much on all of our prospects panning out and the attrition rate of such guys says that not all will Agreed. That's why I said, "if it all goes as planned." I'd also add Hernandez to the untouchable list. We always seem to lack depth at catcher, like everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 Sheesh -- 2.50 ERA, Cy Young award winner? GMAB -- he's off to a hot start, and he'll most likely do better this year than in past year's, but that's awefully high praise for a guy who's been average his whole career. I'm excepting better things out of Jon this year (as opposed to years past), but I highly doubt he's in the top ten in AL Cy Young votes, and I doubt he's within a run of a 2.50 ERA... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ May 3, 2005 -> 03:43 PM) Sheesh -- 2.50 ERA, Cy Young award winner? GMAB -- he's off to a hot start, and he'll most likely do better this year than in past year's, but that's awefully high praise for a guy who's been average his whole career. I'm excepting better things out of Jon this year (as opposed to years past), but I highly doubt he's in the top ten in AL Cy Young votes, and I doubt he's within a run of a 2.50 ERA... Being "average for a career" when you came up at 20 is high praise IMO. He's developing at the pace that should have been expected the whole time. He's always had number 1 stuff. He's had to learn how to pitch at the ML level. He's done well at that IMO. I don't think he'll win the Cy Young, but 19-8 3.81 ERA is definitely in his reach. He'll only get better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redandwhite Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 It's amazing that Jon could have been signed long term for around the 2-3 million he is making now, and after five great starts he will be making anywhere from 7-10 million dollars. This guy should have been signed long term, arguably the biggest mistake of this offseason. It's not like an inconsistent Garland of years past wasn't worth the 2-3 million dollars he'd be making if he never did turn it around... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 I agree with you there. If you could have signed Jon to say a an 18/5 deal this past off-season you should have. If you're asking why it comes down to wins, & winnable starts. Investing that kind of money for no less than 12-13 wins & about 20 winnable starts a year is a good decision. IMHO I think Ozzie's emotions got the better of Williams judgement in this case. I think Ozzie had high expectations for Jon last year & when he didn't measure up them he let that overshadow the positives about Jon. Williams should have looked at his growth consistency in innings pitched & locked him up for that reason alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 QUOTE(redandwhite @ May 3, 2005 -> 04:25 PM) It's amazing that Jon could have been signed long term for around the 2-3 million he is making now, and after five great starts he will be making anywhere from 7-10 million dollars. This guy should have been signed long term, arguably the biggest mistake of this offseason. It's not like an inconsistent Garland of years past wasn't worth the 2-3 million dollars he'd be making if he never did turn it around... This is hindsigth talking... Nobody. Nobody would have supported signing garland to a long-term deal before the season. Not only that but you seem to think that he would have settled for 2-3M. That's crazy. He's making 3.4M this year. That would have been a starting point for a long term contract. 3/12 would have been the starting point, and there's a possiblity he would have rejected anything over two, because that's when free agency would have started for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redandwhite Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ May 3, 2005 -> 10:05 PM) This is hindsigth talking... Nobody. Nobody would have supported signing garland to a long-term deal before the season. Not only that but you seem to think that he would have settled for 2-3M. That's crazy. He's making 3.4M this year. That would have been a starting point for a long term contract. 3/12 would have been the starting point, and there's a possiblity he would have rejected anything over two, because that's when free agency would have started for him. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This isn't hindsight talking at all. I supported signing Garland to a long-term deal before the season, and though I didnt express that here, I didn't express anything here for about four months. 2-3 million was just a figure coming off the top of my head. I should have made it more around the 3-4 million range, I apologize. As for your proposal of 3/12, I would have even bumped that up to the 3/13 or 3/14 range. The guy has been a serviceable pitcher in this league, he was 24 years old, the best was yet to come, and players just like him are signing for double or even triple that. He should have been signed just as they did Uribe, Rowand, Garcia, etc. He wasn't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winninguglyin83 Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 a month ago Garland was Judy. anybody who said he deserved a long-term deal would have been laughed off this board. He's had one good month and the crowd goes wild. It's a game of risk and reward. Sox will have to decide during the offseason if they intend to keep him. I figure if he starts next season as a free agent, he'll play it out until the end. You don't get many shots at the marketplace. But let's remember to think about the last three years as well as the last five starts. It's early folks. Very early. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redandwhite Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(winninguglyin83 @ May 3, 2005 -> 10:46 PM) anybody who said he deserved a long-term deal would have been laughed off this board. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> maybe thats why I was suspended for nothing... Edited May 3, 2005 by redandwhite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 No way he even would've accepted 3/14 with free agency coming up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Resigning an average pitcher to a long term deal is dumb, even if he is young. His numbers got worse, and he was proving more and more to be a headcase type. Just gotta hope they can get him resigned in the offseason or at some other point next year, because he does appear to have figured it out. 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.