Why does everyone want to dump Jon Garland?

[Rowand44]

I've been a supporter of Jon Garland for a long time, as many Soxtalk veterans can attest to.  However, I have never believed Jon wanted to make it career in silver and black.  Why is Kenny probably going to trade Garland?  Let's look at AJ Burnett vs. Garland.  I may be slightly off on some of this as I'm going from memory.  Burnett is 29, Garland 26.  They've had the same number of big league seasons.  Garland has about 15 more career wins than Burnett.  Burnett got sent home by his team last season.  Burnett has had arm problems leading to DL time while Garland has pitched 200+ innings every year since he stepped in as a rotation fixture.

 

Who's more valuable, Garland or Burnett?

Burnett just signed a 5 year $55 million contract.  What would Garland command.  he can use all those points in his negotiations.  Is 7 years at $12 million per extravagant in comparison?  Garland can make a logical argument for it in my opinion.  Is JR going to sign him to a 7 year $84 million contract?  I seriously doubt it.

 

I think the reason KW is looking to trade Garland is pretty self evident.

Great Post yas, summed it up perfectly.

[YASNY]

Great Post yas, summed it up perfectly.

 

Thanks. I have my good days.

[DBAHO]

If you can get Tejada for Garland, Uribe, and prospect(s), you have to do it.  It looks like we will have Garland for only one season and Tejada >>> Uribe.

Stop stealing my ideas.

 

I know a lot of people rate Jon Garland very highly, but I still think it's very possible he could regress a little in 2006. He doesn't K batters like our other starters (which at the Cell isn't a good thing), and I just think everyone is expecting him to have another great season, which I think is a little unrealistic.

 

Still his value is at an all time high at the moment, and he could get even better, we'll have to wait and see.

[Rowand44]

and I just think everyone is expecting him to have another great season, which I think is a little unrealistic.

 

I don't see why at all. That being said I was completely opposed to trading him unless another starter was acquired, obviously one was and now I have no problem dealing him for the right package or player.

[YASNY]

Stop stealing my ideas. 

 

I know a lot of people rate Jon Garland very highly, but I still think it's very possible he could regress a little in 2006. He doesn't K batters like our other starters (which at the Cell isn't a good thing), and I just think everyone is expecting him to have another great season, which I think is a little unrealistic.

 

Still his value is at an all time high at the moment, and he could get even better, we'll have to wait and see.

 

Unless he signs with the Sox, his value with the Sox will never be higher. They'll get more for Garland during the offseason than at the trade deadline.

[DBAHO]

Unless he signs with the Sox, his value with the Sox will never be higher.  They'll get more for Garland during the offseason than at the trade deadline.

I don't disagree with that at all. I mean let's have a look at the Mark Mulder deal from last off-season.

 

Oakland got a good cheap reliever (Kiko Calero), a good young starter (Dan Haren) and a stud young prospect in Daric Barton.

 

KW could take this kind of path if he wanted, but I think we know that isn't going to happen.

 

He's probably going to make another major splash. A Miguel Tejada like splash.

[SSH2005]

I don't disagree with that at all. I mean let's have a look at the Mark Mulder deal from last off-season.

 

Oakland got a good cheap reliever (Kiko Calero), a good young starter (Dan Haren) and a stud young prospect in Daric Barton.

 

KW could take this kind of path if he wanted, but I think we know that isn't going to happen.

 

He's probably going to make another major splash. A Miguel Tejada like splash.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The difference between Mulder and Garland is that Mulder had a reasonable $7.25 million team option for 2006. The Cardinals knew they would have Mulder for at least two years. Whatever team we trade Garland to would only have him for one season before he hits free agency. That lowers Garland's trade value.

Edited December 15, 2005 by SSH2005

[YASNY]

The difference between Mulder and Garland is that Mulder had a reasonable $7.25 million team option for 2006.  The Cardinals knew they would have Mulder for at least two years.  Whatever team we trade Garland to would only have him for one season before he hits free agency.  That lowers Garland's trade value.

 

Following that same logic, a midseason deal would bring us even less.

[DBAHO]

The difference between Mulder and Garland is that Mulder had a reasonable $7.25 million team option for 2006.  The Cardinals knew they would have Mulder for at least two years.  Whatever team we trade Garland to would only have him for one season before he hits free agency.  That lowers Garland's trade value.

But the market for starting pitching you could argue has gotten even worse than last off-season. And if a team deals for Jon, that may really offer a big deal to get him locked up, even though it looks like he's headed to FA either way.

[VAfan]

he has stated that he would like to play on the West coast closer to home

 

Link???

 

I know Garland turned down the Sox initial offer. So did Konerko. That doesn't mean he can't be signed.

 

Why not give Garland $10-11 million/year for the next 3 years. Since he won't crack $8 million this year in arbitration, by paying him a little more up front you can save some on the back end. I'm sure that's more than what the Sox offered, so who says he won't take it? After all, he's taking some risk if he just plays out the year because he's had only 1 great season. If he regresses anywhere close to his .500 record, or gets hurt, he's screwed. And at the end of a new 3-year deal, he's still 29 and able to command even more if he's continued to perform at 2005's level. (Think Kevin Brown.)

 

What really pains me is all the Sox fans who we're getting anything comparable in Javier Vasquez. Remember, if you plugged in Vasquez's 11-15 instead of Garland's 18-10, the Sox would have finished second in the AL Central once again. (Same would be true if Vasquez replaced Contreras.)

 

I mean, on the pitching staff, couldn't you say that Jon Garland and Jose Contreras were the keys to the White Sox winning the World Series for the first time in our lives???? Certainly they were the only starters to exceed expectations, weren't they? Yet more than half of the posts about Garland on this site seem to be from ungrateful bums who are ready to toss off Garland as if he were a mediocre, middle of the road pitcher like ..... Javier Vasquez (who Arizona couldn't wait to dump).

 

If you look at career curves, Vasquez's is on the way down at 30; Garland's is on the way up at 26. Why not bite the bullet of a few extra million when the difference between them could mean another World Series??

 

(I realize, by the way, that Garland controls his own fate here. Even if we offer him market, he may decide he's ready to move on. To that I would say the Sox need to offer him market first and do what they can to make him want to stay. If they are going to trade him, they need a very high impact player or players in return. We've already weakened our bullpen and traded our 5th starter insurance, and if we trade one of our current starters we'll have no insurance if any of them goes down. Plus, we know how a bad 5th starter can ruin a season.

 

I also wouldn't have been so concerned about this trade if we'd given up one of our other outfield prospects - any of our other outfield prospects - but not Chris Young. That kid is going to be a big star.)

[YASNY]

VAfan ... Compare Garland to AJ Burnett. Look at what Burnett got. Now Imagine what Garland can command. Garland may turn out to be great. But, he may turn out to be nothing more than a slightly above average pitcher. Do you want to commit 12, 13, 14 million a year for 7 years to him, based one one good year?

[Greg Hibbard]

Okay, let's say that the Sox get to the ALCS minimum with Garland in 2006 (You don't know if they will win, or win the World Series). You can either have Garland in 2006 and get nothing for him and watch him walk, or you get any two reasonable prospects you want right now. Which do you choose?

[YASNY]

Okay, let's say that the Sox get to the ALCS minimum with Garland in 2006 (You don't know if they will win, or win the World Series). You can either have Garland in 2006 and get nothing for him and watch him walk, or you get any two reasonable prospects you want right now. Which do you choose?

 

With a rotation of Buehrle, Contreras, Garcia, Vazquez and McCarthy I'll take my chances.

[lightthematch]

Buy Low, Sell HIgh.. And the fact that if AJ Burnett gets 55mil What you think Garland going to get in the FA market.. Get something for him while his stock is high.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

so loyalty goes where exactly?

[YASNY]

so loyalty goes where exactly?

 

Ask Jon Garland.

[Kalapse]

so loyalty goes where exactly?

If being loyal means he walks at the end of the season and we get a draft pick, I'm not big on loyalty. If Garland would like to stay loyal to the team that has stuck by his underachieving ass for the past 5 years and sign a long term deal, then yeah loyalty has a place here.

 

Of course it would make little sense from Garland's side to sign a deal worth under $10M a year for anything less than 5 years and it would make little sense for the Sox to invest $50M over 5 years on a player that has not proven that he can do what he did in the 1st half of '05 over a full season.

 

His value is high and we have 6 very good SP, if you deal Garland you can improve an already great team.

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Didn't he recently turn down a 3 year $24 million extension???

[VAfan]

Anyone still for dumping Jon Garland????

 

With our defense and AJ calling his pitches, Garland is going to be one hell of a pitcher for us.

[RockRaines]

Anyone still for dumping Jon Garland????

 

With our defense and AJ calling his pitches, Garland is going to be one hell of a pitcher for us.

He was the 2nd best pitcher in the AL last year. I dont want to dump him. His contract is below market value and gives us an easy out if last year was a fluke.

[tonyho7476]

Anyone still for dumping Jon Garland????

 

With our defense and AJ calling his pitches, Garland is going to be one hell of a pitcher for us.

 

Wow, you are really proud of yourself today. nice work.

[Gene Honda Civic]

monkeymasturbating.gif

[knightni]

monkeymasturbating.gif

Don't MAKE me look for a picture and get banned.

 

 

[Gene Honda Civic]

can somebody bump the thread where I argued with this douche that the payroll would be $95M and not the $85M Dave van Dyck was reporting.

[Felix]

Anyone still for dumping Jon Garland????

 

With our defense and AJ calling his pitches, Garland is going to be one hell of a pitcher for us.

You better get ready to eat a lot of crow if he sucks next year.

[hammerhead johnson]

Oh boy, let the e-beatdown commence. This is gonna be brutal.