The lastest on Garland

[Rowand44]

God damn are athletes spoiled. No loyalty. People are out there making 20 grand a year trying to pay for a family of 5 while these 20 year old are out there making millions and crying for more. f*** Jon Garland. f*** Latrell Spreewell. f*** Joe Crede. God damn greedy bastards. All these athletes piss me off. Why don't they want to play in the olympics? Why dont they want to play in the World Championships? Because they don't get payed for it. Come back to the real world you greedy bastards. What some players make in 1 inning, my mom makes in 1 year. :headshake

Let me ask you something: If Garland was 38 years old, and was putting up an era around 5, he then asks the Sox to pay him 8 mill a year because he's been loyal to the organization. You would want the Sox to do what?

 

EDIT: And if you feel this way stop watching sports. Athletes make a lot of money and you've known that forever so just deal with it.

Edited December 22, 2005 by Rowand44

[Guest JimH]

Can we avoid trashing the loyalty of these guys though?  We have no clue what the contract offers were, and why they might not want to stay.  We could question the loyalty of all players, but I would much rather this thread stick to what type of relievers we could try and trade for Garland.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree, all this blame game stuff has gotten way old. I would much rather look at the possibilities out there of what they might get for him.

[SoxFan1]

Let me ask you something:  If Garland was 38 years old, and was putting up an era around 5, he then asks the Sox to pay him 8 mill a year because he's been loyal to the organization.  You would want the Sox to do what?

This is not the case. We cant assume that. But if this was the case, I tell him to stop joking around. He's already made enough money of my ass. I'm sure he can "survive" with what he's made already. See: Frank Thomas

[Rowand44]

This is not the case. We cant assume that. But if this was the case, I tell him to stop joking around. He's already made enough money of my ass. I'm sure he can "survive" with what he's made already. See: Frank Thomas

So in other words, players need to stay loyal to the organization but the organization doesn't need to stay loyal to the player. Ok..ya.

[bjm676]

I can't blame KW for trying to trade Garland now. If what his agent said is true, "no negotiations at all" well that's a pretty steep statement. Garland has a lot to prove this year, whether or not last year was a fluke or if he'll go back his mediocre self.

 

Let me be the first to say - Garland, let me help you pack. Don't let the glare of that shiny new ring hurt your eyes.

[SoxFan1]

So in other words, players need to stay loyal to the organization but the organization doesn't need to stay loyal to the player.  Ok..ya.

BS...the organization is the one paying the millions for his ass to play and have a nice lifestlye, not the other way around.

[SoxFan1]

So Garland should take whatever the Sox give him, because you say he has already made enough? Is that what your saying?

Uuum, would you be "insulted" at a 2 year, 6 million dollar deal after you have already made millions for 18 years???

[southsider2k5]

Thanks for the WS, Jon.  Now, see you in Hell.

 

Joe Crede's new nickname, if this is to be believed, can be Joe Greedy.

 

how about "One joke poster"?

[Chisoxfn]

We better get two damn good relievers. Cause if I read that right...a major league one, and one on the cusp I think of Brazoban and Broxton and I'd throw up at the idea of that.

 

Its not getting enough. We have something EVERYONE wants and we better not get talent for it. I'm sorry, we gave up Chris Young for Vazquez (there were financial reasons as well) but nothing tells me we shouldn't get a little more for Jon Garland.

[Rowand44]

BS...the organization is the one paying the millions for his ass to play and have a nice lifestlye, not the other way around.

Did Jon Garland not help this organization make millions last year? If we dont have Jon Garland last year are we winning the world series?? Anyway you look at this, it's a two way street. Your basis of argument here seems to be that you believe athletes are paid to much, well that's fine and dandy but that's the way it is so get used to it.

[Guest JimH]

I think they will try to get a righty and a lefty. Padres might be a possibility.

[Milkman delivers]

how about "One joke poster"?

 

Thanks, though I had already said I was kidding a few posts later.

[SoxFan1]

If the market says he could make alot more, than yes, I would be insulted.

Well then you are just as greedy. Same goes for Rowand44. I understand what you guys are saying but can't players just be humble for a minute? And I do agree, it is a 2-way street but it doesn't eliminate the fact that athletes are way overpaid.

[Balta1701]

So has anyone other than me noticed that this thread is actually called "The lastest on Garland." Can we expect this to therefore be the last Garland-related thread here?

[southsider2k5]

So has anyone other than me noticed that this thread is actually called "The lastest on Garland."  Can we expect this to therefore be the last Garland-related thread here?

 

Not.A.Chance

[Balta1701]

Well then you are just as greedy. Same goes for Rowand44. I understand what you guys are saying but can't players just be humble for a minute? And I do agree, it is a 2-way street but it doesn't eliminate the fact that athletes are way overpaid.

Overpaid? They possess a unique set of skills in incredibly high demand, and there are people willing to pay enormous sums of money to watch them perform. This is what market-economics do...when there are only a few dozen people in the entire world well-trained enough and capable of performing an important job in a multi-billion dollar a year industry...they wind up being paid a ton of money.

[Chisoxfn]

Well then you are just as greedy. Same goes for Rowand44. I understand what you guys are saying but can't players just be humble for a minute? And I do agree, it is a 2-way street but it doesn't eliminate the fact that athletes are way overpaid.

They aren't overpaid. They just accept what they get offered. I absolutely despise the idea that some people get jealous because athletes make so much money. Its a billion dollar industyr (the sports industry) and the key players are going to make big bucks. Why the hell shouldn't they?

[WSFAN35]

They aren't overpaid.  They just accept what they get offered.  I absolutely despise the idea that some people get jealous because athletes make so much money.  Its a billion dollar industyr (the sports industry) and the key players are going to make big bucks.  Why the hell shouldn't they?

 

mcdonalds is a billion dollar industry and their people make 6.75 an hour

[RockRaines]

mcdonalds is a billion dollar industry and their people make 6.75 an hour

is it possible for this thread to get more off topic.

[fathom]

We better get two damn good relievers.  Cause if I read that right...a major league one, and one on the cusp I think of Brazoban and Broxton and I'd throw up at the idea of that.

 

Its not getting enough.  We have something EVERYONE wants and we better not get talent for it.  I'm sorry, we gave up Chris Young for Vazquez (there were financial reasons as well) but nothing tells me we shouldn't get a little more for Jon Garland.

 

I know that the biggest fear I have, as well as RockRaines, is that KW is so set on trading Garland, that he might take a lesser offer just to get rid of him. If KW is just set on getting relievers, then we're not going to get full value for Garland.

[Chisoxfn]

mcdonalds is a billion dollar industry and their people make 6.75 an hour

Not the higher ups. The key players at McDonalds (ie the guys in the corporate office) are getting paid very well I'm sure (plus there are more key players involved in McDonalds than MLB).

[Controlled Chaos]

Hey the Olympics are in February!!

[Chisoxfn]

I know that the biggest fear I have, as well as RockRaines, is that KW is so set on trading Garland, that he might take a lesser offer just to get rid of him.  If KW is just set on getting relievers, then we're not going to get full value for Garland.

Unless that reliever is Brad Lidge.

 

Here's a total odd ball thing to throw out, but what would people think about a package surrounded by Krod. I doubt the Angels would even listen, however, Krod has had some durability issues and the Angels could turn Escobar into there closer.

 

Shields would obviously be great, but we'd have to get a front line prospect along with him and I can't see the Angels doing that. Stoneman never gives up prospects and instead he's always just sitting and waiting for guys to develop. Thats why Angel fans are going to have to watch Jose Focking Molina be there everyday catcher.

[RockRaines]

I know that the biggest fear I have, as well as RockRaines, is that KW is so set on trading Garland, that he might take a lesser offer just to get rid of him.  If KW is just set on getting relievers, then we're not going to get full value for Garland.

You know I agree with that. Everyone knows he wants to deal him now. And if he has his mind set on that, then we may be in some trouble. Consequently, if he hangs onto him what are the positives and negatives:

 

 

Positives: Bullpen is better with BMAC

Pitching staff is better with Garland

Maybe increase his value at trade deadline

May increase offers

May open doors for more extension talks

 

Negative:

May only get draft picks

May hurt BMAC's dev

He may regress into the Garland of old.

[RockRaines]

Not the higher ups.  The key players at McDonalds (ie the guys in the corporate office) are getting paid very well I'm sure (plus there are more key players involved in McDonalds than MLB).

The highest paid CEO in chicago is MCD's FWIW