Crede and Garland to Texas?

[Mr. Showtime]

I cannot believe this thread is still going.

[RockRaines]

What exactly does being an All-Star mean?

 

Nothing.

Oh sorry, I thought it meant you were good. Guess I misread that requirement.

[RockRaines]

Lets just take away half of the season of players we evaluate, to determine their true worth. Thats a correct way to measure players for sure.....

[jphat007]

totally, who want want the AL defensive leader at 3B on this team, and who needs a two time all star anyway?  God, he's even too old at 25 to even mention this possibility.  He has no power, and cant hit anyway!! God!!!!  I mean, if the sox ever start playing every game on the road, he would be worthless!! What a horrible idea!!!

 

LOL.

 

Yah, lets just ignore his .196 avg and 583 ops vs lefties.

 

Or the fact that he is LOWER than Crede and Michael freaking Cuddyer in OPS for 3b. 53rd in the AL in qualified OPS ranks.

 

Or the fact that he is pretty much the same as Crede on defense.

 

Why trade Jon Garland and Joe Crede for Joe Crede, when we already have Joe Crede.

 

Or we can just ignore the fact that he had a LOWER FREAKING ROAD OPS THAN SCOTT FREAKING PODSEDNIK in the last three years.

 

But other than that, he's cool. Do you think they'll let him have all of his ABs in the ballpark in Arlington? We can just have ghostrunners up here.

[RockRaines]

I can't BELIEVE people say they want Blalock here. I think this might be my favorite in regards to Blalock....

 

Guess who has the higher road OPS (three year splits -- basically their whole career) between Scott Podsednik and Hank Blalock by 38 points. Though I do a disservice to Scott because he IS a leadoff man after all.

 

That's right. You guessed it. None other than Scotty P.

 

Pods - .745

Blalock - .707

 

Disgusting.

This might be my favorite in regards to Blalock.

 

3 year home OPS ..942

Konerko 3 year home OPS .940

 

manipulating stats is fun huh?

[Kalapse]

Oh sorry, I thought it meant you were good.  Guess I misread that requirement.

No, no it doesn't.

[RockRaines]

No, no it doesn't.

Oh, thanks for that Gospel. I fgured 2 selections by the time a player was 24 was pretty good, especially when he isnt the only player on his team selected therefor going by default. But I guess your truth makes more sense.

[Kalapse]

Oh, thanks for that Gospel. I fgured 2 selections by the time a player was 24 was pretty good, especially when he isnt the only player on his team selected therefor going by default.  But I guess your truth makes more sense.

How can anyone put any value into All-Star selections when they continue to be a joke year after year. I stopped putting weight into the All-Star game in all sports a while ago. Until the Fans stop voting and until the players get thier heads out of their asses when voting (Nathan was an All-Star last year) I refuse to use All-Star selections as a measuring stick for who is a good player.

[RockRaines]

How can anyone put any value into All-Star selections when they continue to be a joke year after year. I stopped putting weight into the All-Star game in all sports a while ago. Until the Fans stop voting and until the players get thier heads out of their asses when voting (Nathan was an All-Star last year) I refuse to use All-Star selections as a measuring stick for who is a good player.

When it comes to older players and fan favorites, I agree. But when electing a 23 or 24 year old on a not very popular team, at a saturated position, I think it holds weight. If it really didnt mean anything than we would have been so concerned with Garland and Buherle making it, and having Mark getting the start.

[Kalapse]

When it comes to older players and fan favorites, I agree.  But when electing a 23 or 24 year old on a not very popular team, at a saturated position, I think it holds weight.  If it really didnt mean anything than we would have been so concerned with Garland and Buherle making it, and having Mark getting the start.

I wasn't concerned about them making it, that's just me thought. I didn't even think Mark should have started until Halladay got hurt then I was for Mark starting just because it would be something cool for him, personally.

 

Blalock was one of the most hyped prospects to come along in a long ass time, every player and coach was aware of him when he broke into the league and he tends to have decent 1st half of the seasons, which is what is voted on.

 

For as long as we have say the NBA All-Star game with Yao being the leading vote getter and Amare Stoudamire the starting PF, I really can't put much emphasis on All-Star appearances.

[RockRaines]

I wasn't concerned about them making it, that's just me thought. I didn't even think Mark should have started until Halladay got hurt then I was for Mark starting just because it would be something cool for him, personally.

 

Blalock was one of the most hyped prospects to come along in a long ass time, every player and coach was aware of him when he broke into the league and he tends to have decent 1st half of the seasons, which is what is voted on.

 

For as long as we have say the NBA All-Star game with Yao being the leading vote getter and Amare Stoudamire the starting PF, I really can't put much emphasis on All-Star appearances.

well there IS a reason that when considering a player for the hall of fame, the amount of all start selections is brought up. Especially when introducing a player. It carries weight.

 

Regardless, he is still a better player than Crede, home, away , offensively, defensively, he is a better player

[Kalapse]

well there IS a reason that when considering a player for the hall of fame, the amount of all start selections is brought up.  Especially when introducing a player.  It carries weight.

 

Regardless, he is still a better player than Crede, home, away , offensively, defensively, he is a better player

All-Star selections will always carry wheight in people's minds because the All-Star game means something to a lot of people. IMO, All-Star selections don't mean a whole hell of a lot but that's just because I disagree with a lot of the selections. Most people tend to agree with the selections.

 

He may be better than Crede but the trade rumors are not Crede for Blalock which would be a no doubter. The rumors are Garland and Crede for Blalock and Wilkerson/a spect (not Danks or Diamond). I'm not so sure that's a slam dunk.

[tonyho7476]

well there IS a reason that when considering a player for the hall of fame, the amount of all start selections is brought up.  Especially when introducing a player.  It carries weight.

 

Regardless, he is still a better player than Crede, home, away , offensively, defensively, he is a better player

 

i'm with you Rock...I would love Blalock, and if we could trade Crede, Garland, and then get Blalock and a prospect or 2, that would be awesome. Imagine our 3-6...Thome, Kong, Blalock, Dye...best in baseball...we win world series...give us the trophy now.

[Guest JimH]

80% of this site wanted Crede shipped out last year, now it's the reverse.

 

If the Sox get Blalock, he will suck, then he'll be great, then he'll suck, then he'll be great ... all in about 5 months' time.

[tonyho7476]

All-Star selections will always carry wheight in people's minds because the All-Star game means something to a lot of people. IMO, All-Star selections don't mean a whole hell of a lot but that's just because I disagree with a lot of the selections. Most people tend to agree with the selections.

 

He may be better than Crede but the trade rumors are not Crede for Blalock which would be a no doubter. The rumors are Garland and Crede for Blalock and Wilkerson/a spect (not Danks or Diamond). I'm not so sure that's a slam dunk.

 

I don't know...why not get rid of a guy who we aren't going to have after this year. We have 6 starters. Someone has to go. McCarthy is ready...and ready to be awesome. If we get Blalock, I'll be ecstatic.

[Kalapse]

I don't know...why not get rid of a guy who we aren't going to have after this year.  We have 6 starters.  Someone has to go.  McCarthy is ready...and ready to be awesome.  If we get Blalock, I'll be ecstatic.

Why not get fair value for Garland instead of just dumping him because "we have too many pitchers." If we're not getting a great deal for Garland we could use BMac out of the pen as the long man and go with an absolutely studly starting rotation. I'd rather hold onto Garland and either move him mid-season or take the draft picks than move him for a trade I don't feel we get the better of.

[tonyho7476]

Why not get fair value for Garland instead of just dumping him because "we have too many pitchers." If we're not getting a great deal for Garland we could use BMac out of the pen as the long man and go with an absolutely studly starting rotation. I'd rather hold onto Garland and either move him mid-season or take the draft picks than move him for a trade I don't feel we get the better of.

 

The problem is that he can walk after this year. so we won't get fair market value. If we walk away with Blalock, I'm happy.

[Kalapse]

The problem is that he can walk after this year.  so we won't get fair market value.  If we walk away with Blalock, I'm happy.

Why can't we get fair value? For some reason I don't think the 1 year rental tag will hamper Garland's value all that much. It just seems like the market on pitchers is so f***ed that someone will end up giving us a good package for Garland.

[SSH2005]

The problem is that he can walk after this year.  so we won't get fair market value.  If we walk away with Blalock, I'm happy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the way I feel. I'd rather have a proven player under contract for awhile or good prospects than one year of Garland and draft picks.

[tonyho7476]

Why can't we get fair value? For some reason I don't think the 1 year rental tag will hamper Garland's value all that much. It just seems like the market on pitchers is so f***ed that someone will end up giving us a good package for Garland.

 

If they can get more, then get more. What do I know? I'm no GM. I'm just saying I'd love Blalock...or Tejada...

[Guest JimH]

The indications from White Sox management are pretty straightforward, they've all but come out and said it - if Garland doesn't agree to an extension they'll trade him.

 

So it's not a matter of "why don't we just keep him", it's a matter of what will they get in return when he's traded.

 

That is, if they are done with contract talks, which I believe they are. Otherwise, the Vazquez deal doesn't happen IMO.

[SSH2005]

The indications from White Sox management are pretty straightforward, they've all but come out and said it - if Garland doesn't agree to an extension they'll trade him.

 

So it's not a matter of "why don't we just keep him", it's a matter of what will they get in return when he's traded.

 

That is, if they are done with contract talks, which I believe they are.  Otherwise, the Vazquez deal doesn't happen IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It makes sense. Garland and his agent would have to be idiots to accept a modest 3-year deal from the Sox when they can wait a season and get a 5 or 6 year deal at $10+ million per year. Not a tough choice to make.

[beck72]

Why not get fair value for Garland instead of just dumping him because "we have too many pitchers." If we're not getting a great deal for Garland we could use BMac out of the pen as the long man and go with an absolutely studly starting rotation. I'd rather hold onto Garland and either move him mid-season or take the draft picks than move him for a trade I don't feel we get the better of.

I think that's what KW will wait for. He has no reason to trade Garland to start the yr [the sox payroll won't be too overbudget with the addition of Vazquez, thanks to subtracting Viz and Duque]. I'm sure he's sifting through the offers and won't settle for less than what Jon is worth.

 

One other thing to think about--the same teams wanting Jon now probably will be the same ones who'll want him at the trade deadline. About the only difference might be if one of those teams has an injury and are desperate for a quality SP.

[YASNY]

All-Star selections will always carry wheight in people's minds because the All-Star game means something to a lot of people. IMO, All-Star selections don't mean a whole hell of a lot but that's just because I disagree with a lot of the selections. Most people tend to agree with the selections.

 

He may be better than Crede but the trade rumors are not Crede for Blalock which would be a no doubter. The rumors are Garland and Crede for Blalock and Wilkerson/a spect (not Danks or Diamond). I'm not so sure that's a slam dunk.

 

Why not get fair value for Garland instead of just dumping him because "we have too many pitchers." If we're not getting a great deal for Garland we could use BMac out of the pen as the long man and go with an absolutely studly starting rotation. I'd rather hold onto Garland and either move him mid-season or take the draft picks than move him for a trade I don't feel we get the better of.

 

Not so sure that's a slam dunk, seems to indicate to me that it is very close to fair market value.

[SSH2005]

I think that's what KW will wait for. He has no reason to trade Garland to start the yr [the sox payroll won't be too overbudget with the addition of Vazquez, thanks to subtracting Viz and Duque]. I'm sure he's sifting through the offers and won't settle for less than what Jon is worth.

 

One other thing to think about--the same teams wanting Jon now probably will be the same ones who'll want him at the trade deadline. About the only difference might be if one of those teams has an injury and are desperate for a quality SP.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree. Teams would value a full season of Garland more than a half season of him. He has more value now than at the deadline, especially with the currently insane market for free agent pitchers. Garland will be traded before the season starts.