The lastest on Garland

[VAfan]

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.

 

You don't bring up the exact same viewpoint in multiple threads????

 

As for the Sox budget, it has been a moving target in the offseason, hasn't it? And don't we always hear in the middle of the season that KW has flexibility to make deadline deals?

 

Until KW recants his statement that he's willing to go to spring training with 6 starters, or the Sox actually trade Jon Garland, I think it is totally fair game to suggest that he might be kept this year to make another run at a World Title.

[SSH2005]

You don't bring up the exact same viewpoint in multiple threads???? 

 

As for the Sox budget, it has been a moving target in the offseason, hasn't it?  And don't we always hear in the middle of the season that KW has flexibility to make deadline deals? 

 

Until KW recants his statement that he's willing to go to spring training with 6 starters, or the Sox actually trade Jon Garland, I think it is totally fair game to suggest that he might be kept this year to make another run at a World Title.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's called "posturing." Do you really think KW is going to say, "I WANT TO TRADE JON GARLAND! OKAY, NOW EVERY TEAM MAKE CRAPPY TRADE OFFERS TO ME! K? THX!"

[Guest JimH]

You don't bring up the exact same viewpoint in multiple threads???? 

 

As for the Sox budget, it has been a moving target in the offseason, hasn't it?  And don't we always hear in the middle of the season that KW has flexibility to make deadline deals? 

 

Until KW recants his statement that he's willing to go to spring training with 6 starters, or the Sox actually trade Jon Garland, I think it is totally fair game to suggest that he might be kept this year to make another run at a World Title.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First question: perhaps. At the risk of offending you, mine make sense though.

 

Second question: to my knowledge they set a number, that has been corroborated by other posters here who are more in the know. We always hear about midseason flexibility because KW and Hahn leave room just in case. But they work off a number. The media is telling us they are well over that number. KW said it was time for the two guys to "get serious" about extensions or he would "move ahead" with other plans. What does that tell you?

 

Third part: You do realize saying a player will be brought to spring training is totally different than paying them through the season, don't you?

 

For the record, to borrow your phrase, I would love the White Sox to be 6 deep in starting pitching. However, I have been around long enough to realize they operate on a budget and run the finances as a zero sum game.

 

You, on the other hand, seem unwilling or incapable of accepting that reality.

[Cerbaho-WG]

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").

 

 

Breaking news: You can have negative economic profits for a year and still survive as a business, more at 11 PM.

[Guest JimH]

Breaking news: You can have negative economic profits for a year and still survive as a business, more at 11 PM.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Addendum to breaking news, they don't do it this way. Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.

[Dick Allen]

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").

 

The White Sox have known for quite a while what Garland was in line for in arbitration, and tried to sign him to a under market 3 year contract , still worth approx. $8 million for 2006, which is probably the max he will earn in arbitration. I can't see where keeping him and losing in arbitration would be blowing up the budget, keep in mind the Vazquez trade only added a million or 2 to the payroll for 2006. The good news for me is Texas and the Dodgers both have said KW is asking for too much. I don't want him to settle for some B or C prospects that turn out to be of the ilk of Adkins, Diaz, Harris etc. Garland is a huge chip, depending on whether the Cubs are serious about possibly trading Prior, and Beane being serious about keeping Zito, he has to be the most attractive non free agent pitcher available. KW cannot settle. He has to stick to his guns and get quality or hold onto him and take the draft picks.

[nitetrain8601]

Addendum to breaking news, they don't do it this way.  Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.

 

I think they would. At first they would be losing money, but from all the revenue they will be receiving from attendance alone, they'll end up finishing on the plus side regardless.

[nitetrain8601]

The White Sox have known for quite a while what Garland was in line for in arbitration, and tried to sign him to a under market  3 year contract , still worth approx. $8 million for 2006, which is probably the max he will earn in arbitration. I can't see where keeping him and losing in arbitration would be blowing up the budget, keep in mind the Vazquez trade only added a million or 2 to the payroll for 2006. The good news for me is Texas and the Dodgers both have said KW is asking for too much. I don't want him to settle for some B or C prospects that turn out to be of the ilk of Adkins, Diaz, Harris etc. Garland is a huge chip, depending on whether the Cubs are serious about possibly trading Prior, and Beane being serious about keeping Zito, he has to be the most attractive non free agent pitcher available. KW cannot settle. He has to stick to his guns and get quality or hold onto him and take the draft picks.

 

Damn Skippy!

[Cerbaho-WG]

Addendum to breaking news, they don't do it this way.  Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.

 

Oh I forgot, teams have never overextended their budgets for small periods of time where they thought they could win championships. I mean, come on, sports franchises have never had economic losses, right? Right? Give me a break.

[ptatc]

First question:  perhaps.  At the risk of offending you, mine make sense though.

 

Second question:  to my knowledge they set a number, that has been corroborated by other posters here who are more in the know.  We always hear about midseason flexibility because KW and Hahn leave room just in case.  But they work off a number.  The media is telling us they are well over that number.  KW said it was time for the two guys to "get serious" about extensions or he would "move ahead" with other plans.  What does that tell you?

 

Third part:  You do realize saying a player will be brought to spring training is totally different than paying them through the season, don't you?

 

For the record, to borrow your phrase, I would love the White Sox to be 6 deep in starting pitching.  However, I have been around long enough to realize they operate on a budget and run the finances as a zero sum game.

 

You, on the other hand, seem unwilling or incapable of accepting that reality.

 

Jim,

 

it's useless, he won't accept reality. Everyone who has been following the Sox transactions and activity knows JG is gone. He probably still thinks trading CLee was all about getting Pods et al. and nothing to do with spreading the budget around.

[SSH2005]

Oh I forgot, teams have never overextended their budgets for small periods of time where they thought they could win championships. I mean, come on, sports franchises have never had economic losses, right? Right? Give me a break.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't the Yankees do it every year?

[ptatc]

Oh I forgot, teams have never overextended their budgets for small periods of time where they thought they could win championships. I mean, come on, sports franchises have never had economic losses, right? Right? Give me a break.

 

reinsdorf has always siad "the investors run this team to break even and win. They will not lose money on this venture. That is where the budget comes from. They may over or underestimate a little. But JR did not make his money in real estate by poor financial speculation.

 

Thus, they will not go into the red to field a team. This has been the policy since they bought the team in the 80's.

[Cerbaho-WG]

Don't the Yankees do it every year?

 

They did for a while, but because of YES they make up for those losses pretty easily.

[NorthSideSox72]

Don't the Yankees do it every year?

 

You and Cerbaho are missing the point here. Of course teams do it. Of course businesses take a loss at times.

 

But those teams are not run by JR. His team is profitable, and he plans to keep it that way. He has said it before. He wants operating profits every year. He is much less willing to lose money than other owners, and recent history reflects that. He has been a budget hawk ever since he bought the team (lest we forget, he wanted to move the team, TWICE, to make more money).

 

Reinsdorff will not let KW push the payroll to the point of us losing money. He hasn't suddenly become a different businessman overnight.

[ptatc]

Don't the Yankees do it every year?

 

No the Yankees have an 80 mil. dollar per year head start on everyone due to the YES network programming. The Yankees don't go into the red, they just have more revenue than everyone due to the population size, media contracts and attendance.

[Dick Allen]

Oh I forgot, teams have never overextended their budgets for small periods of time where they thought they could win championships. I mean, come on, sports franchises have never had economic losses, right? Right? Give me a break.

The White Sox have to be real careful. The season ticket base is almost going to double in 2006, but its a house of cards really. Many are bandwagon jumpers who will hop off at the first sign of trouble. A couple of guys get hurt and the Sox win 75 games in 2006, we may be looking at a fire sale next offseason.

[Guest JimH]

I think they would. At first they would be losing money, but from all the revenue they will be receiving from attendance alone, they'll end up finishing on the plus side regardless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would be nice if it could work out this way, but they've never done it this way and I don't expect them to start now. They've already projected their revenue for 2006 for the most part anyway.

[NorthSideSox72]

No the Yankees have an 80 mil. dollar per year head start on everyone due to the YES network programming. The Yankees don't go into the red, they just have more revenue than everyone due to the population size, media contracts and attendance.

 

Actually, even with YES, the Yankees did indeed finish FY 04 in the red. Forbes published it in their annual list. About a third of all MLB teams did, in fact.

 

But again, this team is run by a group of very budget-conscious investors. This has not changed.

[Cerbaho-WG]

You and Cerbaho are missing the point here.  Of course teams do it.  Of course businesses take a loss at times.

 

But those teams are not run by JR.  His team is profitable, and he plans to keep it that way.  He has said it before.  He wants operating profits every year.  He is much less willing to lose money than other owners, and recent history reflects that.  He has been a budget hawk ever since he bought the team (lest we forget, he wanted to move the team, TWICE, to make more money).

 

Reinsdorff will not let KW push the payroll to the point of us losing money.  He hasn't suddenly become a different businessman overnight.

 

The tradeoff is pretty simple assuming Garland pitches somewhere in the vicinity of where he did last year: small economic loss for one year and that's it, or a very good possibility of going back into the ALCS or WS (on paper, of course). The deeper the Sox get into the playoffs the more money they would recoup. If you make an economic loss for one year it's not going to ruin the franchise. It could be easily offset down the road.

[Guest JimH]

Oh I forgot, teams have never overextended their budgets for small periods of time where they thought they could win championships. I mean, come on, sports franchises have never had economic losses, right? Right? Give me a break.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Give me a break and see how the White Sox have done business.

 

Let me guess, you're a big Garland fan and you want them to keep him, right? That wouldn't be entering into your viewpoint now would it?

[Guest JimH]

The White Sox have to be real careful. The season ticket base is almost going to double in 2006, but its a house of cards really. Many are bandwagon jumpers who will hop off at the first sign of trouble. A couple of guys get hurt and the Sox win 75 games in 2006, we may be looking at a fire sale next offseason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with this and that's why they are trying to stay in budget and lock up players to what they feel they can realistically pay. Hence, this Garland situation.

[Cerbaho-WG]

Give me a break and see how the White Sox have done business.

 

Let me guess, you're a big Garland fan and you want them to keep him, right?  That wouldn't be entering into your viewpoint now would it? 

 

I want the best for the team more than anything. KW has shown that he'll trade favorites to better the team, but unless the right package comes along for Garland, I'd keep him for the year. I don't understand how this would horribly affect the franchise.

[ZoomSlowik]

I fail to see exactly how Garland is going to get much better than he was last year. Virtually everything went right for Garland and he finished with 18 wins and a 3.50 ERA. Those are pretty good numbers, but it's far from a guarantee that he will do that again. We're not exactly talking about Pedro Martinez or Johan Santana.

 

He got very good run support for most of the year and obviously got very good defensive support. Even on our team, Buehrle managed to get tagged for quite a few unearned runs when we were in our funk (17 unearned runs for Mark, only 7 for Jon), not to mention some other plays that weren't considered errors that we'd normally make. Garland simply isn't an elite pitcher that can succeed regardless of what's going on around him. He doesn't have elite stuff and is not a strikeout pitcher. He relies heavily on the defense to make plays on the large number of balls that are put in play. Also, his walk totals were the lowest they've been in his entire career. He was over 70 the previous few years, and this year was in the 40's. That absolutely has to stay constant, because he can't afford to give guys free passes with the amount of hits that he allows. It would not surprise me at all if he had an ERA of about 4.10 next year with 14 wins. Until he puts up at least one more season like this past one, he's going to be a one-year wonder in my mind.

 

Right now I look at last year much like Brad Radke's last year. He has been an average to slightly above average pitcher for most of his career. He's one of those guys that doesn't blow you away with the velocity of his pitches, although he does have pretty good movement on his curve and has an effective changeup. He had a very solid season last year, posting a 3.48 ERA with 11 wins, a total that would have been higher if not for poor support from the Twins' offense. This year he wasn't as good, posting an ERA over 4 and only winning 9 games. There aren't that many pitchers that are consistently well above average pitchers with a pitching style like Jon's. The only guys that immediately come to mind are Buehrle, Mulder, Wells (I'm being a little generous in including him), and Maddux, the last of those still put up some pretty impressive strikeout numbers in his prime. I'm not convinced that Jon is going to consistently win 15 games and have an ERA under 4 from here on out, and because of that paying him more than about $9 mil a year because of one good season is a bit asanine. If we could get a good collection of talent back now, I'm all for it. If we just hang on to him and let him walk at the end of the season, we're going to get two draft picks with the highest of them being in the first-second round sandwich area that probably won't be on the major league club for 3 years. If we deal him now, we can get guys that can help us now while still possibly netting a player that can help us a couple of years down the road.

 

Kenny isn't going to trade him for a couple of mediocre relievers, let's give him some credit since he did build a World Series winner. All reports say that is asking price is too high at the moment, which is a good sign. He's obviously going to try to get guys he think can be dominant, and preferrably be young and cheap. Odds are high that he's probably going to try to get a decent pitching prospect included, since we all know he likes starting pitchers. I highly doubt he'd deal him for less than Brazoban, Braxton, and someone from the Jackson/Miller/Elbert group, or something like Scott Shields and a couple of prospects. He's not just going to give Garland away. We're probably in a better position now than we would be at the deadline for three reasons: 1) we're probably not going to get more than one good reliever or one top prospect for half a season of Jon Garland, especially if his production dips, 2) the teams that have the type of package we're looking for are very few in number, and 3) there's a decent chance that LA and Texas will be out of the running by the deadline, and few of the probable contenders have what we are looking for (best I can tell it looks like just the Cardinals, Astros, Angels and Giants, and they probably won't deal some of those guys).

 

It'd be nice to have 6 quality starting pitchers, but that's a luxury that only the Yankees can afford, and they can't seem to get the right guys. We might as well get as good a package as we can while Garland is still under our control and has some value. I don't think his trade value can get much higher.

[Guest JimH]

I want the best for the team more than anything. KW has shown that he'll trade favorites to better the team, but unless the right package comes along for Garland, I'd keep him for the year. I don't understand how this would horribly affect the franchise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I also want what's best for the team, i want to win every year.

 

I also understand, clearly, how they run the franchise. Therefore my comments are based on economic reality and how they run the business. They have not run purposely at a budget deficit, I don't see them doing it now. Otherwise why does KW go out and trade for a good starting pitcher who's locked up? Answer is, he wouldn't. Note that he only did it after Garland turned down the extension.

 

It's not that an economic loss wouldn't horribly affect the franchise, that isn't the point. The point is how they do business. It is not as if we have a new owner. He and his group have done it this way since 1981, I don't expect them to change their approach. It may not be what I like or you like, but it is reality. And my comments are based from that viewpoint.

[RockRaines]

soooo. Jims thread will surpass the other one in 20 min?