Jon Garland signs a 3 year extension

[S720]

Then you haven't followed the pitching market very well the last two offseasons.

 

Rowand44,

 

I do follow the offseason market for starting pitchers the last two years, and that's why I'm kind of confused with the Garland's signing! Throw the first year out since Garland is going to receive that amount in his arbitration year anyway. That means he's going to get $11 mil for each of 2007 and 2008. I am just not sure Garland warrants that much!

 

Put it this way. If you have a choice of offering the same amount $29 for 3 years to Contreras or Garland, and you will have to trade one away, who would you give it to? With me, I will offer the contract to Contreras. I just feel that whatever pitcher receives $11 mil/year contract, he ought to be the #1 starting pitcher. I don't see Garland as that, but in my eyes, Contreras definitely is the #1 starting pitcher on our rotation. That's why Ozzie started him on all of the 1st game of the playoff series and the World Series.

 

If you read the Dodgers message board, their fans do not want to trade their highly rated prospects for Garland. However, once Garland was signed to the contract extension, they were willing to let go some of their prospects for Contreras. They even said Contreras would head their starting pitching rotation.

 

My point is most of us did not like the contracts of Burnett, Millwood, etc. They are making $11/year as well but with longer years. At the end of 2008, if you think Garland will be resigned with the White Sox for $11 mil/year again, what is the difference between Garland's contract and other overrated contracts of Millwood or Burnett? I don't think Garland will get another big contract from the White Sox after 2008, and that's the reason why I prefer giving this $11 mil/year for 2 years to Contreras.

[Kyyle23]

I do follow the offseason market for starting pitchers the last two years, and that's why I'm kind of confused with the Garland's signing! Throw the first year out since Garland is going to receive that amount in his arbitration year anyway. That means he's going to get $11 mil for each of 2007 and 2008. I am just not sure Garland warrants that much!

 

Whether he warrants that kind of salary is moot. The market is set, and the Sox ponied up to make their guy happy. If a consistent underacheiver like Burnett is getting 11-12 million a year, then what do you think Garland would command? The Sox got him at a discount and protected themselves from an unhappy player next year if the market takes off again. There are plenty of players in the league that dont warrant their contracts, you just have to be able to set apart the ones who will rip you off from the ones who will (somewhat)earn their money.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I was wrong about Jose's age. He's officially 35 going on 36. Unofficially if El Duque is considered to be turning 40-41 in 2006 than Jose is turning 38-39. A 3 yr extension means the White Sox are locking up $33M/3 yr for a guy in his 40's. The risk is far too great.

 

What was Jose's biggest strength? K's. With Vazquez we now have one of the best K-starters in the league. We don't need Jose as much any more.

 

Look at the sits:

NON: Jose 122IP, 97K, 1.48ERA, 1.22WHIP, .233BAA vs Javier 134IP, 128K, 2.56ERA, 1.16WHIP, .250BAA

RON: Jose 83IP, 57K, 6.72ERA, 1.25WHP, .230BAA vs Javier 82IP, 64K, 7.46ERA, 1.39WHIP, .296BAA

 

Javier will be turning 30 in 2006 making him 8-9 yrs younger than Jose. Who is more likely to have the better year?

Edited December 29, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[knightni]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPol...lb&pollId=34479

 

Garland poll

[qwerty]

I was wrong about Jose's age.  He's officially 35 going on 36.  Unofficially if El Duque is considered to be turning 40-41 in 2006 than Jose is turning 38-39.  A 3 yr extension means the White Sox are locking up $33M/3 yr for a guy in his 40's.  The risk is far too great.

 

What was Jose's biggest strength? K's.  With Vazquez we now have one of the best K-starters in the league.  We don't need Jose as much any more.

 

Look at the sits:

NON: Jose 122IP, 97K, 1.48ERA, 1.22WHIP, .233BAA  vs  Javier 134IP, 128K, 2.56ERA, 1.16WHIP, .250BAA

RON: Jose 83IP, 57K, 6.72ERA, 1.25WHP, .230BAA  vs  Javier 82IP, 64K, 7.46ERA, 1.39WHIP, .296BAA

 

Javier will be turning 30 in 2006 making him 8-9 yrs younger than Jose.  Who is more likely to have the better year?

 

Every place has him as 34... not 35. I have seen the birthdate off by about a weeks worth but nothing crazy. He is listed being born in 1971 every where but i am definitely thinking he is move in the 1967-1968 range. There is also nothing ''unofficial'' about hernandez's age... he is 40.

[JUGGERNAUT]

2005 last 8 GS: Jose 63IP, 18ER Team 7W-1L vs Javier 56IP, 20ER Team 5W-3L

 

This is a good example of why wins & losses don't say much about a pitcher. Javier was on par with Jose to end the season. Jose avg'd 8IP/3ER per start in the post season. Can Javier do that? Yes.

 

To see why you have to look at his distribution of runs:

< 6 IP : 08 GS, 53 ER = 6.63 ER per start

>=6 IP : 25 GS, 53 ER = 2.12 ER per start

[WCSox]

He hasn't shown as much as say, a Johan Santana has, but given that he's only pitched 67 innings, he's probably proven as much as any pitcher could.  See:  Dominating performances against Boston, Texas, Minnesota, Cleveland coming down the stretch.

 

Well, that's nice, but he has to do it over the course of a full season to convince me that he's more valuable that Buehrle, Garcia, Garland, or Vasquez. Mark Prior had a good half-year in '02, a great year in '03, and then was bitten hard by the injury bug in consecutive seasons. Who's to say that the same won't happen to McCarthy? And who's to say that McCarthy's going to be able to pitch at the same level that he did this year over the course of a full season and stay healthy. B-Mac may be the next Tim Hudson... or he may be the next Jason Bere. We won't know for another year or two.

 

When you've just won a WS and have a stud rotation, you can afford to trade your young, promising #6 pitcher for an All Star-caliber hitter. I'm not saying that KW should trade McCarthy, but he damn well better consider the idea if there's a need for more offense on this team in July. This team is in a position to win NOW and needs to do what's necessary to accomplish that. If KW agressively pursues that goal, I won't hold it against him if he has to hold a firesale two or three years down the road.

[UC76]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPol...lb&pollId=34479

 

Garland poll

 

So I take it Minnesota is the only state in the nation that thinks it was a bad move?

 

Dumb Twins fans.

[qwerty]

Well, that's nice, but he has to do it over the course of a full season to convince me that he's more valuable that Buehrle, Garcia, Garland, or Vasquez.  Mark Prior had a good half-year in '02, a great year in '03, and then was bitten hard by the injury bug in consecutive seasons.  Who's to say that the same won't happen to McCarthy?  And who's to say that McCarthy's going to be able to pitch at the same level that he did this year over the course of a full season and stay healthy.  B-Mac may be the next Tim Hudson... or he may be the next Jason Bere.  We won't know for another year or two.

 

When you've just won a WS and have a stud rotation, you can afford to trade your young, promising #6 pitcher for an All Star-caliber hitter.  I'm not saying that KW should trade McCarthy, but he damn well better consider the idea if there's a need for more offense on this team in July.  This team is in a position to win NOW and needs to do what's necessary to accomplish that.  If KW agressively pursues that goal, I won't hold it against him if he has to hold a firesale two or three years down the road.

 

If we do indeed need to cut payroll at any point during this season ( i believe we are actually were they want to be at this point)mccarthy will be the very last one to go. There is really no need for him to be traded as he should be able to stick around this league for a while. He can't do at least what garland did before this past season ( league average pitcher)? I think he can and do it for the league minimum. Once he puts on some weight with hopefully a couple miles an hour in velocity he will be very tough.

[qwerty]

So I take it Minnesota is the only state in the nation that thinks it was a bad move?

 

Dumb Twins fans.

 

They are just bitter that their offense is awful.

[jackie hayes]

WC, what a bad comparison. If I knew BMac would have a start like Prior, I'd take him in 1/10th of a heartbeat over 35 year old Contreras. If you want to say Tejada's more important, okay, that's an argument. But saying he may be like Prior...geez, f*** Tejada then.

[southsider2k5]

WC, what a bad comparison.  If I knew BMac would have a start like Prior, I'd take him in 1/10th of a heartbeat over 35 year old Contreras.  If you want to say Tejada's more important, okay, that's an argument.  But saying he may be like Prior...geez, f*** Tejada then.

 

Especially because your scenario could theoretically happen to anyone... What's to say Garcia, Buehrle, Garland, Contreras, or Vazquez couldn't have the same huge injury? If you want to justify something like that with a history of injury, that is one thing, but to just say "well he could..." doesn't do much for me.

[RockRaines]

My point is most of us did not like the contracts of Burnett, Millwood, etc.  They are making $11/year as well but with longer years.  At the end of 2008, if you think Garland will be resigned with the White Sox for $11 mil/year again, what is the difference between Garland's contract and other overrated contracts of Millwood or Burnett?  I don't think Garland will get another big contract from the White Sox after 2008, and that's the reason why I prefer giving this $11 mil/year for 2 years to Contreras.

What is the difference between these players that you mentioned?

Garland has almost the same statistics as the Cy Young award winner last year, except for a couple less wins. Burnett and Millwood werent the performers that Jon was. Plus Jon is 26 with no injury history, and his contract is less that that of those two players, in years and money. Thats why this is a bargain, business 101.

[WCSox]

Especially because your scenario could theoretically happen to anyone... What's to say Garcia, Buehrle, Garland, Contreras, or Vazquez couldn't have the same huge injury?  If you want to justify something like that with a history of injury, that is one thing, but to just say "well he could..." doesn't do much for me.

 

Garcia, Buehrle, Garland, and Vazquez have all proven to be very (1) effective and (2) durable over several seasons. McCarthy, through no fault of his own, hasn't proven to be either. Like all young pitchers, he's a question mark. The point of my post is that if KW decides that this team needs another bat in its lineup in July, he needs to keep the proven pitching talent around. The only vet that I'd be comfortable with him parting with would be Contreras. Unfortunately, his age, contract, and inconsistency drag down his value.

 

If I'm KW and I determine that the Sox are in desperate need of another bat in July and the O's offer me Tejada for B-Mac and Uribe, I say "to hell with the future" and pull the trigger. (This is after my counter-offer of Contreras and Uribe gets shot down, of course.)

Edited December 29, 2005 by WCSox