The lastest on Garland

[Chisoxfn]

NICK MARKAKIS is a name I've seen mentioned. He's the Orioles top outfield prospect. I don't know too much about him but I thought I'd at least share this. He was the 2nd best prospect in the Carolina League (High A) according to Baseball America. The kid shows really good patience and supposedly has plus raw power. In just 350 ab's in the Carolina league he hit 12 hr's and drew 46 walks. He also hit .326 in the AFL with a .408 OBP. The guy seems to be a pretty well rounded player.

 

Heres what BA said:

One of the true five-tool players in the CL, Markakis stole the show at the California League-Carolina League all-star game in front of his home fans in Frederick. He won the home run derby over Royals slugger Billy Butler, then topped that performance by hitting two more homers in the game.

 

"Moon shots," Salem manager Ivan DeJesus said. "That's all I think of when I hear the name Markakis. We couldn't find a way to get him out."

 

Compared to former big league outfielder Andy Van Slyke, Markakis hits for average and shows outstanding raw power to all fields. While he has slightly above-average speed, his range and instincts fit better in right field than in center. Most teams considered Markakis a better prospect as a pitcher coming out of junior college, and his 70 arm on the 20-80 scouting scale fits well in right field.

[SSH2005]

Maybe this is why the Orioles don't want to include Bedard in the Tejada/Cubs trade? They could get two established starters (Prior and Garland) for Tejada, Bedard, and prospects if they play their cards right. And whatever else the Cubs throw in for Tejada.

Edited December 23, 2005 by SSH2005

[hi8is]

on bedards 2005:

"Began the season as one of the league's top starters, compiling a 5-1 record with a 2.08 ERA in the first six weeks. He missed two months with a strained left knee and won only one of his final 15 starts. Best game was seven scoreless innings against the Phillies on May 21."

 

 

also set a carrer high last year of 12 strike outs in 8 IP

 

also should be noted that his ERA to start august was 3.02

he had a bad last month and horrible last game (2 IP 5 ER vs NYY)

[Punch and Judy Garland]

Markakis=Matt Murton to me. I don't mean that in a terribly good or bad way. I think he was a guy that was going to be drafted as a pitcher by some teams and a hitter by others. The O's went with as an OF and he's been good. Is John Maine still a good prospect for the O's? I get him and Loewen confused.

[quickman]

I really believe many of you will be extremely dissapointed with what we get for garland. Quite frankly I truly believe many of you are over rating his trade value. We will see what comes out of it.

[Flash Tizzle]

I really believe many of you will be extremely dissapointed with what we get for garland. Quite frankly I truly believe many of you are over rating his trade value. We will see what comes out of it.

 

If Garland's departure gives us a disappointing package, I'll be very frustrated. If that were to occur, I can't wait until the season before Sheets becomes a free agent. To compensate for the discrepancy between Sheets and Garland, a poor package--opposed to a disappointing package, should be enough. Since it's a high certainty he'll seek a ridiculous contract in free-agency, I figure a bullpen arm and several fringe, mid-level prospects will get it done. Who would give up a good package for a pitcher they know is leaving the following season, right? For comparison sake: Sheets has endured back/shoulder injuries, opposed to Garland, and will be late 20's-early 30's when the contract is done. Sheets respectable ERA and WHIP would surely drop in the American League.

 

Sheets stuff is undeniably better than Garlands, but in the final year of both contracts, would his talent alone be enough to warrant a substantially higher package? I realize Sheets has ace potential, whereas Garland is typical #2, but it shouldn't be the difference between trading gold and crap. If there is justice in the baseball world, we will not be "extremely disappointed."

Edited December 24, 2005 by Flash Tizzle

[KevHead0881]

I really believe many of you will be extremely dissapointed with what we get for garland. Quite frankly I truly believe many of you are over rating his trade value. We will see what comes out of it.

 

Well, I wouldn't be the surprised if many scouts look at him as a 1 year wonder, and think that he'll return to his pre-2005 numbers. Hell, I certainly wouldn't be surprised at all if thats what happens (my guess is that he'll fall somewhere in between). Put that together with the fact that he's a free agent at the end of the year, and I'd understand why many would be afraid to give up top talent for Garland.

[Flash Tizzle]

Well, I wouldn't be the surprised if many scouts look at him as a 1 year wonder, and think that he'll return to his pre-2005 numbers.  Hell, I certainly wouldn't be surprised at all if thats what happens (my guess is that he'll fall somewhere in between).  Put that together with the fact that he's a free agent at the end of the year, and I'd understand why many would be afraid to give up top talent for Garland.

 

So general managers listen to scouts concerning the possibility of a certain player returning to mediocrity, yet seemingly enlist no assistance when handing out ridiculous contracts to relief pitchers and mediocre starters? I don't buy it. Or if so, it's just the White Sox luck when a player of ours is being shopped suddenly baseball officials use their heads.

 

I'd like to know Riccardi can sign an outlandish contract for Burnett, who's never had a fluke (good) season to draw comparisons from, yet not ONE general manager is willing to give up a decent return for Garland? It just boggles my mind. Suddenly prospects are more highly regarded than usual. You'd think the upcoming class of rookies are all Hall-of-Fame bound.

 

If Garland is regarded as a fluke, at an age when most reach their full potential, then nearly every pitcher in the majors who hasn't had back-to-back seasons of good production must be flukes. You have to begin somewhere.

[SkokieSox]

This isn't rumored, but what about sending Garland to Boston for Andy Marte. Ride out Crede for this year, maybe use him for a trade at the deadline, and possibly deal Fields as well. It certainly makes Boston even stiffer competition, but could also make us solid at third for several years to come.

[Dam8610]

This isn't rumored, but what about sending Garland to Boston for Andy Marte. Ride out Crede for this year, maybe use him for a trade at the deadline, and possibly deal Fields as well. It certainly makes Boston even stiffer competition, but could also make us solid at third for several years to come.

 

It also creates another difficult to fill hole for the Red Sox. I don't think they would jump at the oppurtunity to create another hole for themselves, even if they make their pitching staff better (and far more expensive in the short and long term, should they decide to keep Garland).

[quickman]

If Garland's departure gives us a disappointing package, I'll be very frustrated. If that were to occur, I can't wait until the season before Sheets becomes a free agent. To compensate for the discrepancy between Sheets and Garland, a poor package--opposed to a disappointing package, should be enough. Since it's a high certainty he'll seek a ridiculous contract in free-agency, I figure a bullpen arm and several fringe, mid-level prospects will get it done. Who would give up a good package for a pitcher they know is leaving the following season, right? For comparison sake: Sheets has endured back/shoulder injuries, opposed to Garland, and will be late 20's-early 30's when the contract is done. Sheets respectable ERA and WHIP would surely drop in the American League.

 

Sheets stuff is undeniably better than Garlands, but in the final year of both contracts, would his talent alone be enough to warrant a substantially higher package? I realize Sheets has ace potential, whereas Garland is typical #2, but it shouldn't be the difference between trading gold and crap.  If there is justice in the baseball world, we will not be "extremely disappointed."

 

 

Then I believe you will be dissapointed. Despite the fact I don't care much for garland, He pitched well last year. The best year he had. other years he was average. He could go either way right now and he is in his escape year. I just don't think he will draw what people on this board think. I could be wrong, but if I am not I won't be dissapointed at all. I wouldn't pay him the money based on 1 season nor would I pay burnett. Only stupid teams would do that. We didn't win with a big payroll, or a great farm system, we won by getting good players for good value and being right. You see I think neal Cotts is a good pitcher with some better upside. I would have considered him a middle tier guy when we got him. He was not there top guy . If we could get a couple of these middle tier guys that is what I expect.

[DBAHO]

This isn't rumored, but what about sending Garland to Boston for Andy Marte. Ride out Crede for this year, maybe use him for a trade at the deadline, and possibly deal Fields as well. It certainly makes Boston even stiffer competition, but could also make us solid at third for several years to come.

I don't really see the point in dealing an excellent starting pitcher for a young third baseman, when we've already got Joe Crede who'll still be under our control for 3 seasons, and Josh Fields who'll start 2006 in Charlotte.

 

That's why we're going after good starting pitching prospects. We can't assume that when Buerhle, Garcia's and Contreras's deals finish up, that they're going to re-sign with us again.

[DBAHO]

I wouldn't pay him the money based on 1 season nor would I pay burnett. Only stupid teams would do that. We didn't win with a big payroll, or a great farm system, we won by getting good players for good value and being right. You see I think neal Cotts is a good pitcher with some better upside. I would have considered him a middle tier guy when we got him. He was not there top guy . If we could get a couple of these middle tier guys that is what I expect.

Ok so is St. Louis a stupid team for almost signing A.J Burnett to a 4 year $40M deal?

 

Burnett has better stuff than Garland, I'll give him that. But A.J has pitched in a pitcher's park for his entire career. In 2005, he had away splits of 7-8 with a 3.80 ERA. Garland had better home and away splits in 2005 then that.

 

Remember when we got Neal Cotts and he first came up with the big team? He didn't produce right away, and like I've said before 3/4'ers of Soxtalk wanted him out. When he acquired him was he a top prospect? No, he wasn't.

 

Look at what Oakland got for Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder last season. Sure Atlanta were able to re-sign Hudson, and Mulder still had an option year on his contract in 2006, but the Mulder deal especially showed what teams will offer for good starting pitching if they become available.

 

The issue for a team trading for Jon Garland is this, are they gonna be able to lock him up? I said right now, the odds of that are about 20:80, which hurts Garland's value, but if a team like the Angels or Dodgers traded for him, I think Garland's about a 50:50 to re-sign long - term with them because of the homegrown factor.

[quickman]

Ok so is St. Louis a stupid team for almost signing A.J Burnett to a 4 year $40M deal?

 

Burnett has better stuff than Garland, I'll give him that. But A.J has pitched in a pitcher's park for his entire career. In 2005, he had away splits of 7-8 with a 3.80 ERA. Garland had better home and away splits in 2005 then that.

 

Remember when we got Neal Cotts and he first came up with the big team? He didn't produce right away, and like I've said before 3/4'ers of Soxtalk wanted him out. When he acquired him was he a top prospect? No, he wasn't.

 

Look at what Oakland got for Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder last season. Sure Atlanta were able to re-sign Hudson, and Mulder still had an option year on his contract in 2006, but the Mulder deal especially showed what teams will offer for good starting pitching if they become available.

 

The issue for a team trading for Jon Garland is this, are they gonna be able to lock him up? I said right now, the odds of that are about 20:80, which hurts Garland's value, but if a team like the Angels or Dodgers traded for him, I think Garland's about a 50:50 to re-sign long - term with them because of the homegrown factor.

 

 

In my opinion yes the cardinals would have been stupid. To pay a 500 pitcher 10 million a year in my opinion is overpaying. Just my opinion. Don't know what your argument is, but my argument is I beleive the sox would do quite well with getting a couple of mid tier prospects or a reliever and a mid tier prospect. I think I have remained consistant. I would be very happy with this type of trade but who cares if I am happy the whitesox will do what they think is best they can do in this market. Sometimes I think certian people believe our players are the best. They are not, we had the best team last year, not the best players.

[quickman]

Ok so is St. Louis a stupid team for almost signing A.J Burnett to a 4 year $40M deal?

 

Burnett has better stuff than Garland, I'll give him that. But A.J has pitched in a pitcher's park for his entire career. In 2005, he had away splits of 7-8 with a 3.80 ERA. Garland had better home and away splits in 2005 then that.

 

Remember when we got Neal Cotts and he first came up with the big team? He didn't produce right away, and like I've said before 3/4'ers of Soxtalk wanted him out. When he acquired him was he a top prospect? No, he wasn't.

 

Look at what Oakland got for Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder last season. Sure Atlanta were able to re-sign Hudson, and Mulder still had an option year on his contract in 2006, but the Mulder deal especially showed what teams will offer for good starting pitching if they become available.

 

The issue for a team trading for Jon Garland is this, are they gonna be able to lock him up? I said right now, the odds of that are about 20:80, which hurts Garland's value, but if a team like the Angels or Dodgers traded for him, I think Garland's about a 50:50 to re-sign long - term with them because of the homegrown factor.

 

PS I completely agree that if a west coast team trades for him, he would sign on.

[DBAHO]

In my opinion yes the cardinals would have been stupid. To pay a 500 pitcher 10 million a year in my opinion is overpaying. Just my opinion. Don't know what your argument is, but my argument is I beleive the sox would do quite well with getting a couple of mid tier prospects or a reliever and a mid tier prospect. I think I have remained consistant. I would be very happy with this type of trade but who cares if I am happy the whitesox will do what they think is best they can do in this market. Sometimes I think certian people believe our players are the best. They are not, we had the best team last year, not the best players.

Ok so what about Kevin Millwood. Do you think a team that offers him $10M a season is overpaying because he wasn't even a .500 pitcher last season? Would you pay more for Rodrigo Lopez then Millwood because Lopez won 6 more games last season?

 

I think the Sox can definitely do better then a reliever and a mid - tier prospect. Remember the Mark Mulder deal was Mulder for Kiko Calero (there's your reliver), Danny Haren (now a good young starter) and Daric Barton (definite top 20 prospect in baseball). Now I don't know if the Sox would be able to get something like this because of Garland's contract. But the market for starting pitching hasn't gone done at all, the Paul Byrd's and Scott Elarton's are still getting very nice contract.

 

Of course we had the best team last season. But I'd like to see you show any team at all last season that had better starting pitching then us at all in 2005. That's what won us the World Series.

[SkokieSox]

It also creates another difficult to fill hole for the Red Sox. I don't think they would jump at the oppurtunity to create another hole for themselves, even if they make their pitching staff better (and far more expensive in the short and long term, should they decide to keep Garland).

Boston has Lowell for two seasons.

[SkokieSox]

I don't really see the point in dealing an excellent starting pitcher for a young third baseman, when we've already got Joe Crede who'll still be under our control for 3 seasons, and Josh Fields who'll start 2006 in Charlotte.

 

That's why we're going after good starting pitching prospects. We can't assume that when Buerhle, Garcia's and Contreras's deals finish up, that they're going to re-sign with us again.

Crede is most likely gone after this season, and although I like Fields, Marte has higher upside. Fields can still bring in some talent via trade. It was just a thought, very unlikely.

[Kalapse]

Crede is most likely gone after this season, and although I like Fields, Marte has higher upside. Fields can still bring in some talent via trade. It was just a thought, very unlikely.

Why exactly would Crede be gone after this season. And because he has Boras as an agent is not an acceptable answer, Boras has zero leverage in Crede's situation.

[greg775]

Sheets stuff is undeniably better than Garlands

 

I think the stuff Garland had last season is undeniably better than Sheets' and almost every other pitcher in the A.L.

The guy dominated last season. And he's still young.

We robbed him from the Cubs and now we're not going to pay him and keep him a Cub embarrassment and Sox start for years to come.

That sucks.

[Punch and Judy Garland]

How does Boras have no leverage? If that were true, he wouldn't be Joe's agent anymore. When was the last time we signed/extended a Boras client that wasn't a draft pick or a guy we traded for? Really, I don't know

[Rowand44]

Sheets stuff is undeniably better than Garlands

 

I think the stuff Garland had last season is undeniably better than Sheets' and almost every other pitcher in the A.L.

The guy dominated last season. And he's still young.

We robbed him from the Cubs and now we're not going to pay him and keep him a Cub embarrassment and Sox start for years to come.

That sucks.

Stuff wise Garland isn't even close to Sheets but that doesn't mean anything when comparing the two as pitchers.

[Rowand44]

How does Boras have no leverage? If that were true, he wouldn't be Joe's agent anymore. When was the last time we signed/extended a Boras client that wasn't a draft pick or a guy we traded for? Really, I don't know

Crede is not a fa after this season so right now there isn't much Boras can do, because he has nothing to do with the arbitration process.

[Chisoxfn]

This isn't rumored, but what about sending Garland to Boston for Andy Marte. Ride out Crede for this year, maybe use him for a trade at the deadline, and possibly deal Fields as well. It certainly makes Boston even stiffer competition, but could also make us solid at third for several years to come.

Screw that, I'm not dealing to one of our major competitors in the AL and the BoSox are exactly that.

[Harry&JimmyRocked]

i don't have a problem getting rid of garland. once he gets his FAT contract he's gonna drop back to a .500 pitcher.