elrockinMT Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 When it is said that Garland WILL test free agency next year and we should trade him for a prospect I get a bit angry. First of all we don't know if the Sox can't make him a good offer to stay, but on the other hand here is the organization that made him a pitcher. It made him a winner and one can assume from the way things are sounding that there is no loyalty from Garland to stay. The sad thing about this game is it all boils down to money and that it doesn't matter which side is bringing it up. I wish we had the simpler days of the game back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KWs OK for Me Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 11:20 PM) When it is said that Garland WILL test free agency next year and we should trade him for a prospect I get a bit angry. First of all we don't know if the Sox can't make him a good offer to stay, but on the other hand here is the organization that made him a pitcher. It made him a winner and one can assume from the way things are sounding that there is no loyalty from Garland to stay. The sad thing about this game is it all boils down to money and that it doesn't matter which side is bringing it up. I wish we had the simpler days of the game back. When players were owned by the team and basically indentured servants? Why the hell would you show loyalty to your team if its the difference between 3/30 or 6/70? Thats 40 MILLION more guaranteed money. Loyalty is nice and all, but for that much more guaranteed money I'd go play for the Cubs. I'm assuming on the 6/70 contract, but I figure at worst he'd get Burnett money (5/55 but probably more because of being able to eat innings, health, winning record, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank the Tank 35 Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 No matter if the Sox had enough money to sign him next offseason or not. The issue will boil down to years as well. He'll command at least a 5 year deal and, at his age, probably 6, maybe 7 for a desperate team. The Sox as an organization just don't offer deals like that to pitchers. Speaking of prospects, how about this scenario: Garland to Baltimore for Chris Ray, Jay Gibbons, and one of Penn/Maine/Loewen. Gibbons to Toronto for Speier and one of McGowan/League/Rosario. Doable? I might be pushing a little bit on the prospects, but KW shouldn't be in the position to settle right now. The O's top prospect is an OFer, so he could replace Gibbons. The acquisition of Garland would go a long way towards soothing Tejada's wishes. The Jays have been rebuffed all offseason in their attempts at a power hitting OF. Gibbons hit 26 homers last year in 488 ABs. A full season could produce 30+, and he's still only 28. It's not like we couldn't use Gibbons ourselves, so the Jays wouldn't have much leverage here. None of the O's prospects are front of the line, but could help later in the year. League could help immediately in the pen. McGowan was an ueber prospect before Tommy John surgery a couple years ago. Usually it takes over a year for the pitcher to fully recover, so now would be a good time to strike. Like I said, maybe I'm a little aggressive in my prospect choices, but I think both the O's and the Jays are in "win now" mode and these moves make them better now. We would fill out our bullpen with 2 young, quality arms (Speier is the other lefty we could use) who we'd have control over for a long time as well as a couple insurance starters or long relief guys who could fill in for an injured Hermanson. I think this is a pretty good way to stretch Garland's worth out to fill our needs if all else fails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdhargo Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(beck72 @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 08:58 PM) Izturis would be an expensive UTL man, making $3.1 mill this yr and $4.15 in '07. The sox seem set with Mack and Ozuna for the IF. Better to just stick with the dodgers prospects Yeah, some combination of Chad Billingsley, Greg Miller and Joel Guzman in return for Garland would look nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(kdhargo @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 12:58 PM) Yeah, some combination of Chad Billingsley, Greg Miller and Joel Guzman in return for Garland would look nice. Billingsley looks like an untouchable, much like BMac is for the sox. Another pitcher to go along with Miller, like Justin Orenduff would probably be what the sox could expect in return for Garland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 The Dodgers are maxing out their payroll now too. Not sure they'd be willing to take on Garland's big salary at this point but who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 12:04 PM) The Dodgers are maxing out their payroll now too. Not sure they'd be willing to take on Garland's big salary at this point but who knows. They first need to move Odalis Perez, than I think you'll see them make a move at a starter. Did they offer Weaver arbitration? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 03:54 PM) Did they offer Weaver arbitration? Yes they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSH2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Yes they did. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And Weaver declined it. RHP Jeff Weaver declined the Dodgers' offer of arbitration. Even though no one seems to be showing interest in Weaver, he's obviously still confident he'll get his money in the end. He's probably right. The Mariners would have been better off with Weaver, if only because he's so much more likely to stay healthy than Washburn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 02:18 PM) And Weaver declined it. Weaver is a good pitcher. He's better than Washburn imo. Although his numbers wouldn't show it. The Dodgers are definately going to need to find themselves another starter, so thats just a matter of time, but they may wait and move a starter or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Looks like Jeff Davanon is about to sign with the Dbacks. They lost out on Lofton and turned their attention to Davanon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KWs OK for Me Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 09:05 PM) Looks like Jeff Davanon is about to sign with the Dbacks. They lost out on Lofton and turned their attention to Davanon. Damn, he would have been a great 4th OFer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(KWs OK for Me @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 02:09 AM) Damn, he would have been a great 4th OFer Not really. He was pretty awful last season, and wasn't going to come cheap. With our payroll where it's at, we're going with an in-house option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 I'm certain they will bring in a non roster veteran at the very least to compete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 QUOTE(JimH @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 01:05 PM) Looks like Jeff Davanon is about to sign with the Dbacks. They lost out on Lofton and turned their attention to Davanon. For the money it looked like they were going to sign him for (although apparently his agent denied that), doesn't look like a good move for the D-Backs. Frankly and I know they need a CF, but wouldn't you rather have Green in CF and Quentin in RF, or have an open competition at spring training b/w Chris Young and Carlos Quentin for that 1 OF spot? Of course they could still try to trade Troy Glaus and get a CF back, so they can move Chad Tracy to 3rd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatScott82 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 What are the chances of Garland just playing out the year with us and having BMac as our spot starter/ reliever? I know KW says the budget for '06 is 90 million, but whats another 5 million? I say lets ride the year out with him. 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.