The lastest on Garland

[Balta1701]

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

How many people in this country have the skills which would allow them to work as a cashier at McD's?

 

How many people in this country have the skills to throw a complete game shutout against any major league baseball team?

 

Right there you can explain the difference.

[Chisoxfn]

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.

Exactly, I'd be in no hurry to move him. I think the positives far outweigh the negatives. Plus, if were going to pick up a reliever, I'd probably rather deal our own mionr leaguers for one and than let Garland get us some stud prospects because thats better value on the most part.

 

Thats unless were talking about a big time closer that we'd have the rights to for more years.

 

Like if the nats were crazy enough to deal us Cordero.

[fathom]

All this McDonald's talk is making me hungry. Can we get back to talking about Garland please?

[bmags]

i'm starting to feel like we should keep him for this year...i'd be willing to sacrifice a couple of years in the future for back to back

[The Ginger Kid]

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.

 

 

wow.

 

I love that idea. Maybe Cooper could convince him to start throwing the fastball more. When did he fall so in love with his curve ball?

[fathom]

Exactly, I'd be in no hurry to move him.  I think the positives far outweigh the negatives.  Plus, if were going to pick up a reliever, I'd probably rather deal our own mionr leaguers for one and than let Garland get us some stud prospects because thats better value on the most part. 

 

Thats unless were talking about a big time closer that we'd have the rights to for more years.

 

Like if the nats were crazy enough to deal us Cordero.

 

I agree with it, but you're a smart enough fan to be able to read KW's actions/words. There's a reason so many of us will be shocked if Garland's on the 2006 roster. I would definitely rather just get value for Garland, and worry about filling the relief spots after that. When KW sets his mind on something, he usually puts in a ton of effort to get the move done.

[RockRaines]

wow.

 

I love that idea. Maybe Cooper could convince him to start throwing the fastball more. When did he fall so in love with his curve ball?

its the slider he loves.

[Balta1701]

Thats unless were talking about a big time closer that we'd have the rights to for more years.

 

Like if the nats were crazy enough to deal us Cordero.

Dude, is there some reason why we think Bobby can't handle that role for the next 6 years before his arbitration eligibility runs out?

 

I read at least 1 piece a few weeks ago talking about how teams were dumping huge amounts of cash on "Established closers", when at the same time teams like the White Sox and the Nats and the Marlins were discovering that it really wasn't hugely difficult to find people who have the ability to come in and close games for much less money than say, a BJ Ryan is going to earn. (Mariano Rivera, btw, remains in a class by his own).

[GoodAsGould]

difference is even the scrub players the backups like Timo Perez can make a million dollars..... hell even guys that never make the majors make 100,000's to play each year and hey Borchard has never really actually stayed in the majors and made millions. So its not like only the good players get paid everyone gets paid as long as you have just a little bit of talent. The best fries maker at McDonalds still only makes 6.25 .

 

 

 

As for the whole Jon Garland thing.... ive always been a fan of his so it sucks that he is all but gone but if we can fill a hole with him like the last 2 bullpen spots I wont really lose any sleep. I just hope that we get some good players no scrubs.

[RockRaines]

Exactly, I'd be in no hurry to move him.  I think the positives far outweigh the negatives.  Plus, if were going to pick up a reliever, I'd probably rather deal our own mionr leaguers for one and than let Garland get us some stud prospects because thats better value on the most part. 

 

Thats unless were talking about a big time closer that we'd have the rights to for more years.

 

Like if the nats were crazy enough to deal us Cordero.

Its a possibility. Im starting to think that its better to keep him for now unless we are wowed by an offer. Its much better to keep him and make our team better THIS year, than move him for the future.

[fathom]

-The Astros won't trade Lidge unless they get a marquee bat in the deal.

- Jenks is our closer for 2006.

- Relievers are so inconsistent, I really would rather get starting pitching prospects are stud position player prospects than guys who are just as likely to put up a 4.5 ERA as they are a 2.5 ERA.

 

- The only young reliever that would excite me as a possibility is H. Street, but there's no chance the A's deal for Garland.

[The Ginger Kid]

its the slider he loves.

 

but he's been throwing that curve so much more it seems. I never thought he needed anything but the heater and the slider. Remember how devastating that combo was in the WS?

[Rowand44]

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.

Do you go to Sox games SF1?

[RockRaines]

Dude, is there some reason why we think Bobby can't handle that role for the next 6 years before his arbitration eligibility runs out?

 

 

He is prone to injury and already has a screw in his elbow.

[Fingish]

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.

 

 

I was looking at your list, and I started thinking that it really does add up to that it is better to hold on to him than trade him right now.

 

First, I would add to the Positive side: We'll know what holes need to be filled better at the trade deadline.

 

Then if you look at it, "May regress into the Garland of old" and "Maybe increase his value" are two sides of the same question that is impossible to know the answer to right now. "May hurt BMAC's dev" and "Bullpen better with BMAC" pretty much offset each other as well.

 

What I'm left with is:

 

Positives:

 

Pitching Staff is better with Garland

May increase offers

We'll know better what our needs are at trade deadline.

 

Negatives:

 

May only get draft picks

 

 

To me that looks like a pretty strong case for hanging onto him for a bit. The only real negative is that we could end up getting some good draft picks. Maybe Javier or Freddy don't perform well next season and Garland becomes invaluable, we keep him, win the World Series again and let him sign somewhere else and take our trophy and our draft picks and have a nice winter.

Edited December 22, 2005 by Fingish

[Guest JimH]

-The Astros won't trade Lidge unless they get a marquee bat in the deal.

- Jenks is our closer for 2006. 

- Relievers are so inconsistent, I really would rather get starting pitching prospects are stud position player prospects than guys who are just as likely to put up a 4.5 ERA as they are a 2.5 ERA.

 

- The only young reliever that would excite me as a possibility is H. Street, but there's no chance the A's deal for Garland.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not many here were excited when the White Sox got Jenks, or Politte, or Cotts or even Marte who was very good for a time.

 

Point being, they've been pretty good at identifying pitchers they believe can blossom or turn things around.

[Chisoxfn]

I agree with it, but you're a smart enough fan to be able to read KW's actions/words.  There's a reason so many of us will be shocked if Garland's on the 2006 roster.  I would definitely rather just get value for Garland, and worry about filling the relief spots after that.  When KW sets his mind on something, he usually puts in a ton of effort to get the move done.

Thats what I fear

[Chisoxfn]

Dude, is there some reason why we think Bobby can't handle that role for the next 6 years before his arbitration eligibility runs out?

 

I read at least 1 piece a few weeks ago talking about how teams were dumping huge amounts of cash on "Established closers", when at the same time teams like the White Sox and the Nats and the Marlins were discovering that it really wasn't hugely difficult to find people who have the ability to come in and close games for much less money than say, a BJ Ryan is going to earn.  (Mariano Rivera, btw, remains in a class by his own).

No, but I have zero problem having two badass relievers that will be cheap for a long time. Relievers are inconsistent, they tend to have some awful years mixed in (well most of them) and they can get hurt. I have zero problem ensuring we have depth and if we are dealing Garland we should be getting some darn good relievers in return.

 

I want talent in the pen and our pen is lacking that at this moment. A deep bullpen will be such an aid to get into the playoffs. Almost always teams with strong strong bullpens make the playoffs in this day and age. Not many teams have them, but when you do, you don't blow your leads and are able to get momentum. You also are able to keep your team in games which lead to come from behind victories.

 

The Sox were able to do that last year, this year we need arms. If Kenny is just looking for similar arms to viz and Marte, we better not be dealing Garland to get them, that would be foolish. Unless we are also getting a #1 prospect along with that (in which case I say great, go for it).

[Guest JimH]

Its a possibility.  Im starting to think that its better to keep him for now unless we are wowed by an offer.  Its much better to keep him and make our team better THIS year, than move him for the future.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They haven't been wowed by an offer in the last two weeks, that's why he is still here.

 

In terms of keeping him, there are apparantly budget realities they are grappling with.

 

All aspect of this equation have to be considered, it's not as simple as "keep" or "trade".

[southsider2k5]

difference is even the scrub players the backups like Timo Perez can make a million dollars..... hell even guys that never make the majors make 100,000's to play each year and hey Borchard has never really actually stayed in the majors and made millions.  So its not like only the good players get paid everyone gets paid as long as you have just a little bit of talent.  The best fries maker at McDonalds still only makes 6.25  .

As for the whole Jon Garland thing.... ive always been a fan of his so it sucks that he is all but gone but if we can fill a hole with him like the last 2 bullpen spots I wont really lose any sleep.  I just hope that we get some good players no scrubs.

 

How many people does MCD employ vs MLB?

[GoodAsGould]

I want talent in the pen and our pen is lacking that at this moment.  A deep bullpen will be such an aid to get into the playoffs.  Almost always teams with strong strong bullpens make the playoffs in this day and age.  Not many teams have them, but when you do, you don't blow your leads and are able to get momentum.  You also are able to keep your team in games which lead to come from behind victories.

 

How about the Indians and Twins than .

 

As for closers im 100% confident in Bobby Jenks.... and if he gets hurt or cant handle it I have no problem going to Cotts or if he is ready to play Hermanson.

[Chisoxfn]

Not many here were excited when the White Sox got Jenks, or Politte, or Cotts or even Marte who was very good for a time.

 

Point being, they've been pretty good at identifying pitchers they believe can blossom or turn things around.

Maybe some weren't, but I saw talent in each of them. I give the Sox credit for all those moves. However, if you trade Garland for guys that are suspect relievers than its stupid.

 

A Garland trade can rejuvenate our farm system while at the same time getting us a guy like Jonathon Broxton who can come into our pen from the back. Than all you have to do is give up some of our prospects or find a non-tender guy the club has interest for the other pen spot (or they could get ballsy and enter spring training as is and see what Tracey/Baj/Broxton do and hope two of them earn the job).

 

My point is that giving up a starter for relievers is stupid when were talking about a front line starter. I dont' know why I'm getting so riled up over what Levine said and I am happy Kenny knows he needs to fill the pen, but getting a mediocre reliever or two is far worse than getting a couple big time arms from the Dodgers or someone else.

 

I am willing to wait and see how things play out. I know one thing, Garland is going to have another good year next year.

[ptatc]

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.

 

We won't get full value anyway, whatever that is. Everyone knows he is leaving after next year. Everyone knows KW is trying to get something for him before he leaves.

 

Before everyone jumps on the "look what we gave for Freddy." Morse suspended for roids again. Reed on the trading block and Olivo non-tendered. How much was there? Also, had a track record of very good seasons. Garland has a track record of 1 and what many people thought was a head case not living up to his potential.

 

I would be the first one to try to keep him but the circumstances prohibit that.

 

I trust KW will take the best offer he gets and there is nothing more he can do.

[Chisoxfn]

How about the Indians and Twins than  .

 

As for closers im 100% confident in Bobby Jenks.... and if he gets hurt or cant handle it I have no problem going to Cotts or if he is ready to play Hermanson.

The Twins pen helped them get 3 consecutive division titles and the Indians pen helped get them close (had it not stunk right at the beginning of the season theyd' have been in better shape).

[Rowand44]

The Twins pen helped them get 3 consecutive division titles and the Indians pen helped get them close (had it not stunk right at the beginning of the season theyd' have been in better shape).

I'm not sure I see why your so down on the pen right now. We have 4 very talented guys in there right now if you include Brandon, one who can be very solid if healthy, and imo a prospect that is a perfect fit for the pen in Tracey. I would like to see Kenny add another reliever or two if possible but our pen certainly isnt in bad shape imo.