Crede and Garland to Texas?

[heirdog]

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 certainly don't want to just dump Garland but I think our choices boil down to either:

 

1) Trade him now for a package we like

2) Keep him next year and let him walk and get the 1 or 2 supplemental draft picks

 

 

I don't think a mid-season trade is feasible for the following reasons:

 

1) If Garland is tearing it up, I don't see how we would be able to get rid of him in any shape or form while we look to repeat next year (unless of course, we get a lot of injuries and are out of it by the trade deadline...which is unlikely).

 

2) If Garland is even average, the only teams that will look for a "rent-a-player" for the remainder of the season are contenders and we could not trade him to a contender if we have world series aspirations in '06.

 

3) If Garland sucks it up next year, we would not be able to get any value or even get any takers for a player in his walk year. The best we could hope for was to have him continue to eat up innings or come out of the pen and may be get the draft pick at the end of the year.

 

 

The risk-benefit analysis suggests that we trade him now or get the draft picks. I think with BMac looking ready to go and the Vazquez deal, along with the fact that signing Garland looks remote, we get the best package for him now.

[3E8]

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.

I have to respectfully disagree with you. Here is my post concerning this matter from another Sox blog.

 

 

If Garland pitches the way he did last year, he will have more prospect-obtaining value at the trading deadline than he does right now. That's the only reason the Rays were able to get Kazmir for Zambrano. You think the Mets make that trade before the season starts even though it gives them a full year of Zambrano? No way. They needed another MLB-ready arm for a playoff push.

 

No team can accurately predict where they will be come the trading dealine next season. But there will undoubtedly be some teams with chances to make the postseason looking for another arm. They will want to make the postseason so bad (we know it's been deemed a crapshoot, you just gotta get there) that they will definitely overpay for Garland.

 

Holding on to Garland until the trading deadline will allow us to get the ultimate prospect package for him. It also gives us another half-season to let the minor league prospects do their thing so we can see which emerge as the best. However, McCarthy would then have to enter the starting rotation after the deadline coming off his role as a long reliever. Not too sure how this will work. He would probably have to start the year in AAA.

[beck72]

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.

 

I'm not debating which would net more players--offseason or midseason trades. There's room to argue for both. What I'm saying is KW can wait out trading Jon until he gets "fair value"--whatever he thinks that value is. If KW doesn't think he's getting what he should for Jon, he could go into 2006 w/ Jon on the sox.

[fathom]

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.

 

 

Bingo! KW has become very easy to read when it comes to what he's saying in the media, and what his intentions are. It's that reason that I think both of us agree that Willie and Borchard aren't going to be on the roster next year. I'll be very, very surprised if Garland is on the opening day roster for the Sox in 2006.

[heirdog]

As far as mid-season trades:

 

Would anyone trade Garland within our division to a contender (Cleve, Minn)? No way we strengthen our division rivals.

 

Would anyone trade Garland to an AL powerhouse (LAA, NYY, Bos)? No way we strengthen our future playoff opponents.

 

Would anyone trade Garland to the Cubs? No way KW does that.

 

Would anyone trade Garland to an NL powerhouse (St.L, Hou, Atl?)? No way we strengthen our WS opponent (for prospects that can't help us this year).

 

That really lowers the possibility of a trade as any team that makes a mid-season deal is a likely contender. I don't see any trade happening involving Garland mid-season.

[jphat007]

LOL. I can't believe what I'm reading. I don't understand. How the hell can anyone want Blalock. He is one of the WORST offensive players in the league away from that inflated ballpark.

 

What am I missing?

[SSH2005]

LOL. I can't believe what I'm reading. I don't understand. How the hell can anyone want Blalock. He is one of the WORST offensive players in the league away from that inflated ballpark.

 

What am I missing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's a better hitter than Crede and while his glove isn't as good as Crede's, it's still pretty damn good. He also has a modest 4-year, $20 million contract. And the Cell isn't an inflated ballpark? Who do you suggest we trade Garland for? Because he is going to be traded one way or the other.

Edited December 19, 2005 by SSH2005

[jphat007]

He's a better hitter than Crede and while his glove isn't as good as Crede's, it's still pretty damn good.  He also has a modest 4-years, $20 million contract.  And the Cell isn't an inflated ballpark?

 

At worst Crede and Blalock are even, though, so you are giving up Jon Garland for Wilkerson and a prospect.

 

How bout no.

[SSH2005]

At worst Crede and Blalock are even, though, so you are giving up Jon Garland for Wilkerson and a prospect.

 

How bout no.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Defensively, Crede is better. Offensively, Blalock is better.

Edited December 19, 2005 by SSH2005

[beck72]

The risk-benefit analysis suggests that we trade him now or get the draft picks.  I think with BMac looking ready to go and the Vazquez deal, along with the fact that signing Garland looks remote, we get the best package for him now.

A team has to offer KW a "best package" deal first. KW shouldn't just settle for any players thrown his way. Esp. as he offers fair value in his trades [even overpaying in some deals].

 

KW knows that holding onto Jon for the entire 2006 yr would help the sox chances of repeating--even if it didn't help the sox long term. But the sox don't have to trade Jon if no deals are out there that help the sox. Billy Beane has done it in Oak. holding onto guys in their walk yrs.

[Guest JimH]

Personally I think Williams will get a win-win done.

 

He will trade Garland, get someone who can help the Sox in 2006 and also some minor league depth.

 

This may drag into Jan. now because baseball pretty much shuts down for two weeks as of Thursday.

[Balta1701]

A team has to offer KW a "best package" deal first. KW shouldn't just settle for any players thrown his way. Esp. as he offers fair value in his trades [even overpaying in some deals].

 

KW knows that holding onto Jon for the entire 2006 yr would help the sox chances of repeating--even if it didn't help the sox long term. But the sox don't have to trade Jon if no deals are out there that help the sox. Billy Beane has done it in Oak. holding onto guys in their walk yrs.

Yes Beane has held onto people (Tejada), but he's also traded people (Mulder and Hudson), and that Mulder trade will probably make them a very good team for several years too.

[jphat007]

Defensively, Crede is better.  Offensively, Blalock is better.

 

not much either way. Therefore they are even.

[SSH2005]

not much either way. Therefore they are even.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not if you look at their stats. Blalock's defensive stats are a lot closer to Crede's defensive stats than Crede's offensive stats are close to Blalock's offensive stats. Keep in mind, Crede also plays in a great hitter's park just like Blalock.

Edited December 19, 2005 by SSH2005

[Balta1701]

Not if you look at the stats.  Keep in mind, Crede also plays in a great hitter's park.

Doesn't Blalock also?

[SSH2005]

Doesn't Blalock also?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, my point was that they both do.

Edited December 19, 2005 by SSH2005

[jphat007]

Sorry, my point was that they both do.

But at least Crede is consistently medicore.

 

Blalock is one of the worst players in the league on the road and solid at home. But thats assuming that those numbers will translate here. Which you can't assume. It is a known quantity what he will do on the road. You can't expect him to keep up at the pace that he did at Arlington. He might, but it is not a gaurentee.

 

Creede is mediocre at home and away.

 

Though at the end of last year it was obvious he was taking stpes in the right direction. Blalock on the other hand just sucked all around.

 

Plus, Blalock is basically a platoon player. He is horrilbe against lefties. Under .200 and under .600 OPS last year. Just terrible. Imagine him against Santana, Liriano, Robertson, Lee, Sabathia. UGh. AWFUL.

Edited December 19, 2005 by jphat007

[nitetrain8601]

But at least Crede is consistently medicore.

 

Blalock is one of the worst players in the league on the road and solid at home. But thats assuming that those numbers will translate here. Which you can't assume. It is a known quantity what he will do on the road. You can't expect him to keep up at the pace that he did at Arlington. He might, but it is not a gaurentee.

 

Creede is mediocre at home and away.

 

Though at the end of last year it was obvious he was taking stpes in the right direction. Blalock on the other hand just sucked all around.

 

I stated this argument. Everyone wanted no part of the home/away splits or the Special batting stats. They were the same player offensively last year. Joe even had a higher OPS.

[southsideirish71]

But at least Crede is consistently medicore.

 

Blalock is one of the worst players in the league on the road and solid at home. But thats assuming that those numbers will translate here. Which you can't assume. It is a known quantity what he will do on the road. You can't expect him to keep up at the pace that he did at Arlington. He might, but it is not a gaurentee.

 

Creede is mediocre at home and away.

 

Though at the end of last year it was obvious he was taking stpes in the right direction. Blalock on the other hand just sucked all around.

 

He is consistent?

 

Crede goes into slumps for weeks if not for a month or so. He hits 280 for a month, then 125 for the next.

 

I keep forgetting that Arlington is such a hitters paridise and the Cell is a hitters hell.

[beck72]

Yes Beane has held onto people (Tejada), but he's also traded people (Mulder and Hudson), and that Mulder trade will probably make them a very good team for several years too.

 

My point is I don't think KW will deal Garland just to deal him. He has to get fair value for him, meaning high quality minor leaguers. If he could swing a Mulder type deal great, sign me up. If it's a Hudson type deal, maybe I'd stick with the draft picks.

 

But KW doesn't have to deal Garland before the yr or during. Esp. with few teams seemingly willing or able to offer top notch, higher minor league pitching prospects in exchange.

[sircaffey]

Creede is mediocre at home and away.

 

Crede hit .235 at home this year. We gotta keep that...

 

EDIT: Take a look at Joe's splits for the past 3 years. You will see he's either mediocre at home and bad on the road or vise versa. He is not consistant at home and on the road.

Edited December 19, 2005 by sircaffey

[sircaffey]

Plus, Blalock is basically a platoon player. He is horrilbe against lefties. Under .200 and under .600 OPS last year. Just terrible. Imagine him against Santana, Liriano, Robertson, Lee, Sabathia. UGh. AWFUL.

 

He also hit .282 with a .344 OBP in 195 ABs against lefties in 2004. Hanks never going to mash lefties, but he will find common ground.

[jphat007]

He is consistent?

 

Crede goes into slumps for weeks if not for a month or so.  He hits 280 for a month, then 125 for the next. 

 

I keep forgetting that Arlington is such a hitters paridise and the Cell is a hitters hell.

 

haha. I'm just going to save you the trouble and assume you didn't even read my post. You saw "consistent" and decided to type something.

 

I said he was "consistent" between home and away. Which he was. I didn't say he say he was consistent from month to month. Over the course of the entire season he was virtually the same at home on the road.

 

And further, I didn't say Cell was a bad park to hit in. I said you don't know what he'll do here. But you DO know what he'll do on the road because he's done it in his entire career.

 

But don't even bother to comprehend the post. Just spout off. Works much better.

[southsideirish71]

haha. I'm just going to save you the trouble and assume you didn't even read my post. You saw "consistent" and decided to type something.

 

I said he was "consistent" between home and away. Which he was. I didn't say he say he was consistent from month to month. Over the course of the entire season he was virtually the same at home on the road.

 

And further, I didn't say Cell was a bad park to hit in. I said you don't know what he'll do here. But you DO know what he'll do on the road because he's done it in his entire career.

 

But don't even bother to comprehend the post. Just spout off. Works much better.

 

Thanks Bob for the lesson.

 

You keep thinking that blalock is a platoon player and then lecture me about points on your post.

[jphat007]

He also hit .282 with a .344 OBP in 195 ABs against lefties in 2004.  Hanks never going to mash lefties, but he will find common ground.

 

In his career he is .227 with a .640 OPS against lefties, and thats even with his inflated home numbers.

 

He is a platoon player. You can't bat him against lefties. Now if he has come up in your system, and you are paying him nothing, he'd be okay to have, but you sure as hell don't go trade Jon Garland for him.