The lastest on Garland

[Guest JimH]

I just dont understand why you want to trade Garland so bad and why you think he wont get any better?  There is noone in the major leagues that the White Sox could trade with and possibly get better.  Its impossible.  I have not been able to reach a conclusion that states otherwise.  Stats prove that you cannot trade a SP of Jon Garlands calibur and recieve equal value in return. 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One of your best, nicely played.

[southsideirish71]

1)It doesn't matter where Garland wants to play. He's going to play there. I'm sure he would like to play in Seattle simply because the chances of him keeping his current market value or have it go up jumps up greatly since that's a huge pitcher's park. Seattle would want him because they have a frontline starter for at least 1 year and might be able to actually compete for the division next year. I don't know who Seattle would give up though.

 

And I was saying yesterday that we probably and should hang onto Garland til around the trading deadline because that's when you could rip off teams.

 

 

Waiting to the trade deadline only limits your trading partners. Remember last year, no one made big trades, pretty much everyone stood pat. Right now everyone outside of a few teams feel that they are x amount of moves away. The Dodgers have to feel that they are close, if we can get the relievers that are being talked about, you get them. Our bullpen would be good to go for a long time not just this year.

[nitetrain8601]

Waiting to the trade deadline only limits your trading partners.  Remember last year, no one made big trades, pretty much everyone stood pat.  Right now everyone outside of a few teams feel that they are x amount of moves away.  The Dodgers have to feel that they are close, if we can get the relievers that are being talked about, you get them.  Our bullpen would be good to go for a long time not just this year.

 

The problem last year was that there was still alot of teams in contention for their division/playoff spot. That's why a lack of moves were made. The only exception was Cincy with Ken Griffey Jr. because they were in the middle of selling the team.

 

Again, look at the Villone deal. Look at the Farnsworth deal. Florida and Atlanta overpaid for those guys. Your prospects are usually not worth much to a team in the middle of a season which is why you could ripoff a team completely at the deadline.

[Kyyle23]

Waiting to the trade deadline only limits your trading partners.  Remember last year, no one made big trades, pretty much everyone stood pat.  Right now everyone outside of a few teams feel that they are x amount of moves away.  The Dodgers have to feel that they are close, if we can get the relievers that are being talked about, you get them.  Our bullpen would be good to go for a long time not just this year.

 

I have to agree with this. Parity last year made sure everyone was in the race, and also ensured that noone wanted to make a trade because they were afraid of making the competition better. Of course, its kind of nice for once to not see the good get better because another marginal team gave up and decided to go younger.

[Guest JimH]

Again, look at the Villone deal. Look at the Farnsworth deal. Florida and Atlanta overpaid for those guys. Your prospects are usually not worth much to a team in the middle of a season which is why you could ripoff a team completely at the deadline.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What do you do about the budget situation, that has to factor in.

[VAfan]

Once again, you don't get it.

 

Please connect the dots:

 

Garland is in line for a huge arbitration award.

 

The White Sox are apparantly over budget already.

 

Conclusion:

 

It doesn't matter what your preferences are.  Try looking at reality.  Why are you assuming mediocre bullpen arms?  You are not a scout.

 

If you will (for once) look at the whole, realistic picture, you would not be throwing around names like Guardado and Trevor Hoffman.  They make big money.  Same with Brian Giles by the way.

 

Again, they are apparantly over budget, they would not have made the Vazquez trade if Garland had signed an extension.

 

It takes more analysis than just looking at the other team's major league roster and drawing a short sighted conclusion.

 

Williams just said the other day that he favors starting out young pitchers in the bullpen and ultimately grooming them to be a starter if it suits the team and the player.  Do you not think they could find a younger pitcher or two who would fit and contribute nicely in a 2006/2007 bullpen role, with an eye toward developing them as a starter for years beyond?

 

I fail to see why you don't come to grips with reality on this.  It has nothing to do with what you want.  It has everything to do with what the White Sox need and want to do.  Otherwise, you are needlessly arguing and belaboring ideas with no basis in reality.

 

I thought the point of Sox Talk was to discuss what we believe the Sox should do. Of course the field shifts every time the Sox do something, or we receive more information.

 

Based on your post, I analyzed whether getting two bullpen arms was fair value for the Sox for trading Jon Garland. I offered more analysis in that regard than anyone posting on this thread with the possible exception of Chisoxfn. (No I don't think the Mariners are giving us Eddie Guardado or the Padres Trevor Hoffman. That was my point.)

 

As for reality, I seem to recall several quotes from Kenny Williams recently that he was happy to go to spring training with 6 starters. So, budget or not, until the Sox trade Jon Garland or he becomes a free agent, keeping him is certainly a distinct possibility and as much grounded in reality as anything you have written to the contrary.

[BlackBetsy]

Garland's agent, Craig Landis, has a good relationship with the White Sox (see:  Paul Konerko).  Note how Konerko took less to stay here.  Note how Garland does not want to negotiate with the White Sox. 

 

Paul Konerko did not take less money to stay with the White Sox.

 

See the facts here.

[NorthSideSox72]

What do you do about the budget situation, that has to factor in.

 

I think some people refuse to acknowledge that MLB teams, including the Sox, do have budgets.

 

:banghead

 

Some teams are more willing than others to take losses. JR is actually one who is pretty serious about trying to make an operating profit. Yes, he'll increase the payroll as he can, but there will still be a limit. And it sounds like that limit is somewhere in the 90's. We can't just say "I want to keep Jon" and push the payroll so high that the team loses money. JR won't do that.

[Al Lopez's Ghost]

I can't seem to copy their stat lines over from ESPN, but Brazoban's ERA was 5.33 over 72 innings with 6 blown saves, 32 walks, and a WHIP of 1.40.  Broxton's line was worse: 13 innings, 5.93 ERA, 12 walks, 1.83 WHIP, 1 blown save. 

 

Luis Vizcaino, by comparison, pitched 70 innings, posted a 3.73 ERA, walked 29 guys with a WHIP of 1.47, and blew only 3 saves. 

 

So other than the fact that you think these guys arms are great, it looks like Vizcaino performed quite a bit better than both last year.  Sure, Brazoban and Broxton are both quite a bit younger than Vizcaino, but that may or may translate into performance next year or beyond. 

 

 

 

I don't pretend to know what the best choice KW has in front of him is, but you need to remember that this is a projection business. How will the kids you get be in not just this summer but for the next 4 or 5.

Remember the Foulke-Koch trade? While KW was getting roasted, he kept saying that you shouldn't ignore who else was in the trade. Couple of years later, Cotts is the best player in the trade, given Foulke's knees, and Koch's, well, everything.

[GoodAsGould]

I dont mind trading Garland... but I hope if the right deal doesnt come up that KW considers holding on to him until the trading deadline and than making the move......I just dont want to get ripped off.

[Cerbaho-WG]

Assuming Garland is traded to LA, I want to see Billingsley or Guzman in return. Brazoban would be nice, but when you're trading a 26-year-old who could very well put up a low 3 ERA in the NL, the Dodgers better be willing to give up a lot.

[SSH2005]

Is anyone else worried about KW not getting enough value back for Garland? It's not often that he's the one trading away the proven player for prospects, etc. Usually it's the other way around.

[nitetrain8601]

What do you do about the budget situation, that has to factor in.

 

Ask for cash in the deal.

[VAfan]

Look at Broxton's periphs. The guy was fresh into AA and he's possibly the best closer prospect in the minors right now.  As far as Brazoban goes, teams would love to have him.  He hit a funk when he lost his closers role, but he has had success at the major league level.  The problem was he got rushed into the closers spot. 

 

And in Elbert we are getting a guy that would be our top pitching prospect along with Broadway.

 

I'll take your word for it, as you've obviously studdied minor league guys a whole lot more than I have. Broxton appears to have been a wild man, however, in his short stint in the majors.

 

Obviously, if Kenny Williams is going to trade Garland he's going to try to get the best value available. I'm remain doubtful, however, that two bullpen arms could possibly amount to equal value. (Your trade idea was two bullpen arms plus the equivalent of Gio Gonzalez, where Elbert might in fact be the biggest value in the deal. That's very different from what Jim H posted.)

[SSH2005]

The problem last year was that there was still alot of teams in contention for their division/playoff spot. That's why a lack of moves were made. The only exception was Cincy with Ken Griffey Jr. because they were in the middle of selling the team.

 

Again, look at the Villone deal. Look at the Farnsworth deal. Florida and Atlanta overpaid for those guys. Your prospects are usually not worth much to a team in the middle of a season which is why you could ripoff a team completely at the deadline.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look at the Mark Mulder trade of last offseason. Look at the Javier Vazquez trade of this offseason. Both the Cardinals and the White Sox gave up good talent in the trades for a proven starting pitcher.

[southsideirish71]

The problem last year was that there was still alot of teams in contention for their division/playoff spot. That's why a lack of moves were made. The only exception was Cincy with Ken Griffey Jr. because they were in the middle of selling the team.

 

Again, look at the Villone deal. Look at the Farnsworth deal. Florida and Atlanta overpaid for those guys. Your prospects are usually not worth much to a team in the middle of a season which is why you could ripoff a team completely at the deadline.

 

KW probably wants to get some young cheap talent that will help with our budget for not only this year but for the next few. We have a lot of players that are coming into their payday years, and this will get ugly soon unless some cheaper players come in to the fold. Outside of VAfan everyone pretty much agrees on this principle.

 

Now from a competition standpoint who do you want to trade with. Do you want to make the Angels better or the Yankees or the Red Sox you know one of these teams you wish to rip off. No you probably want to target a team that is in the NL so the risk of facing a good pitcher like Garland is limited. So that limits you to the NL. Now who has the prospects or the talent to give up. Some teams dont have what we want, some teams are not a good match. The minute you start to limit your tradling partners is the minute you pretty much limit your return. We make a deal now we can get some young talent. Yes you could bluff the entire baseball group and maybe somehow land the big score at the deadline for a desperate team. However that is too risky, and the "backup plan" of well we will get picks is laughable. People are crapping all over se they havent performed well in their september callup or their rookie season, but they are ready to take chances on completely unknown talent that may require a singing bonus. How is Joe Borchard doing everyone, was he worth our signing bonus or the first round pick. Because that is a possibliity when you go to draft picks. Take more mature proven talent that at least has their feet wet in some levels of the minors. At least most of the lemons have been taken out by this point.

[marsh]

Garland is in line for a huge arbitration award. The White Sox are apparantly well over budget as it stands right now.

 

 

This is exactly why Garland is being traded. If you have been a fan of the Sox for any amount of time than you should know that $$$ is watched very very carefully in everything they do.

 

Yes we won the World Series, yes the Sox have made boatloads of $$ from the playoffs/merch/increases in tix, but the bottom line is this organization will never be like the yankees, boston, cubs, dodgers and just go crazy with payroll. they will set a budget and stick to it.

 

Think about every deal the sox make. $$$ is almost always as important as the players. The Thome deal, the sox get around 22mil from philthy. You don't think that Philly would have did a deal straight up for Rowand if we took on Thome's whole contract? Hell, they would have been the one's throwing in the minor league pitchers.

 

Same with the Vazquez deal. AZ was adamant that they would not include $$ in any deal for Javy. So what happened? AZ says after the deal is done they gave the Sox 4-5 mil because the deal was too good to pass up (Young) so they gave up the cash.

 

People say that KW is always giving up too much in trades. He has too! That is the only way he can make these deals and stay within the budget he is handed. He has done a wonderful job improving this team without busting the bank so to speak. So, bottom line Garland is gone unless there is another deal out there that gets them to thier budget.

[nitetrain8601]

Is anyone else worried about KW not getting enough value back for Garland?  It's not often that he's the one trading away the proven player for prospects, etc.  Usually it's the other way around.

 

In terms of what the fans want, I have a feeling that most will be dissapointed. Billingsly and Guzman? 2 of their top 3 prospects we're talking about there. Honestly, people are overvaluing Garland there. I would be content with Brazobahn and Broxton and maybe cash or a lower level prospect.

[Guest JimH]

I thought the point of Sox Talk was to discuss what we believe the Sox should do.  Of course the field shifts every time the Sox do something, or we receive more information. 

 

Based on your post, I analyzed whether getting two bullpen arms was fair value for the Sox for trading Jon Garland.  I offered more analysis in that regard than anyone posting on this thread with the possible exception of Chisoxfn.  (No I don't think the Mariners are giving us Eddie Guardado or the Padres Trevor Hoffman.  That was my point.)

 

As for reality, I seem to recall several quotes from Kenny Williams recently that he was happy to go to spring training with 6 starters.  So, budget or not, until the Sox trade Jon Garland or he becomes a free agent, keeping him is certainly a distinct possibility and as much grounded in reality as anything you have written to the contrary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I said, you don't get it.

 

They don't start paying salaries until the season starts, how is that for reality. That means April 1, not March 1 which is the start of spring training.

 

You have yet to address the issue of budget, why not?

 

Yes the point of SoxTalk is to discuss but when you choose to leave out a large part of reality, and bring up the exact same viewpoint in multiple threads, multiple people tend to get annoyed with what you discuss. I suspect that's what's happening in your case.

[nitetrain8601]

KW probably wants to get some young cheap talent that will help with our budget for not only this year but for the next few.  We have a lot of players that are coming into their payday years, and this will get ugly soon unless some cheaper players come in to the fold.  Outside of VAfan everyone pretty much agrees on this principle.

 

Now from a competition standpoint who do you want to trade with.  Do you want to make the Angels better or the Yankees or the Red Sox you know one of these teams you wish to rip off.  No you probably want to target a team that is in the NL so the risk of facing a good pitcher like Garland is limited.  So that limits you to the NL.  Now who has the prospects or the talent to give up.  Some teams dont have what we want, some teams are not a good match.  The minute you start to limit your tradling partners is the minute you pretty much limit your return.    We make a deal now we can get some young talent.  Yes you could bluff the entire baseball group and maybe somehow land the big score at the deadline for a desperate team.  However that is too risky, and the "backup plan" of well we will get picks is laughable.  People are crapping all over se they havent performed well in their september callup or their rookie season, but they are ready to take chances on completely unknown talent that may require a singing bonus.  How is Joe Borchard doing everyone, was he worth our signing bonus or the first round pick.  Because that is a possibliity when you go to draft picks.  Take more mature proven talent that at least has their feet wet in some levels of the minors.  At least most of the lemons have been taken out by this point.

 

Why are draft picks laughable? Yes, Borchard didn't do as well, but at least you pick the guys you want with potential 1st and 2nd round picks from a team. You get to decide what position players you get or pitchers. You could develop them the way you want to develop them. That's not a shabby fallback plan at all. You also have to consider the WBC and the fact that someone's probably going to breakdown in the rotation. That's why I would keepp 6 until the trade deadline. If teams call our bluff, so be it. We still get a couple of good picks.

 

And before anyone goes on further, yes I know we need to shed cash before the season starts, but I don't see that happening.

Edited December 22, 2005 by nitetrain8601

[Guest JimH]

Paul Konerko did not take less money to stay with the White Sox.

 

See the facts here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I didn't say less money. I'm sorry I should have clarified, the Sox were only going 4 years and that's why he was serious about the two other offers. Them going to 5 years got him back. The money was probably more or less equal, although Konerko himself and the agent said it was a little less. And by the way your analysis on your blog, while thorough and an enjoyable read makes quite a few assumptions. You'd need to know the entire contract provisions to say "less" or "more", I will go with what Konerko said. And by the way I believe Boras charges his clients a slightly higher % than the standard 5%. I think he gets 7%.

Edited December 22, 2005 by JimH

[VAfan]

Just so the record is clear, if Garland is going to be traded, fine. My points have always been:

 

1. Don't undervalue him. The guy was our second best starter last year, and is only going to get better, ie., put up similar years to 2005 in the future.

 

2. Don't just dump him. Given his real value, to trade him without getting impact players (or several potential impact players) in return would not be a good deal for the Sox.

 

3. Keeping him for a single year may give us our best possible chance at repeating as WS Champs. After all, we've learned the hard way what happens when we are a starter short during the season. Better to have 6 than 4 (when an injury causes someone to go down).

 

I trust Kenny Williams agrees with all three of these points. Thus, I expect we'll either keep him or get great value in return.

[Guest JimH]

3.  Keeping him for a single year may give us our best possible chance at repeating as WS Champs.  After all, we've learned the hard way what happens when we are a starter short during the season.  Better to have 6 than 4 (when an injury causes someone to go down). 

 

I trust Kenny Williams agrees with all three of these points.  Thus, I expect we'll either keep him or get great value in return.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again, what about the budget, why are you ignoring this aspect of reality? Do you think other teams know the White Sox are over budget as it currently stands? (let me help you, the answer to that question is "yes"). Further, do you think that possibly gives other teams a slight bit of leverage in terms of what to give up? (answer again is "yes"). Finally, do you think other teams might be conerned about Garland's arbitration award which might also factor in to what they'd give up to take on that big $$ number? ("yes").

 

Edited December 22, 2005 by JimH

[CWSGuy406]

Ok lets presume Kenny wants two relievers in a deal:

Elbert or another prospect from the Dodgers, Broxton, and Brazoban.

 

Brazoban is a major leaguer reliever that started to really struggle late last year, however he did notch 22 saves and has a power arm.  Broxton is a converted reliever who was called up late last season and has a power arm and a good slider. 

 

Elbert is an A ball rookie thats on par with Gio Gonzalez.  Not a bad looking deal cause the Sox can slide Brazoban and Broxton into the back of there pen and let the two develop.  Plus you have a shot at letting Tracey compete. 

 

Would this not be a fair enough deal?

 

Add Guzman to the deal and I'm fine with it.

 

When Jim posted, "Crede not getting a long term deal", I immediately thought about Guzman.

 

I'd do Guzman + Elbert + Brazoban. That seems like a pretty good haul.

 

And SF1, please, please, stop talking about the economics of baseball. Please, stop embarassing yourself.

[jphat007]

A 1-year rental is only going to be really valued to teams who need a good starter on a contending team. One that really has a shot.