Jon Garland poll.

[Felix]

So we are now evaluating pitchers based on one year? I would take Garland of last year over both of those "above average but injury prone pitchers."

 

Your Garland hate makes you look foolish when trying to defend these other jokers.

No, we aren't evaluating pitchers based on one year. I think that they possibly did, especially since Burnett has such a high upside. He does have a whole bunch of talent, a live arm, and success in the MLB level more than once, which is likely the reason that he was given that contract.

 

Personally, I think that Burnett's contract is idiotic, but thats just me.

[RockRaines]

Its so funny that Javier Vazquez can do no wrong on this board, and is called the next Ace, yet posts a similar career ERA to Garland and gets paid more money.

[WHarris1]

Its so funny that Javier Vazquez can do no wrong on this board, and is called the next Ace, yet posts a similar career ERA to Garland and gets paid more money.

Seems to be holding true so far, no?

[Felix]

Its so funny that Javier Vazquez can do no wrong on this board, and is called the next Ace, yet posts a similar career ERA to Garland and gets paid more money.

There's a difference between a 4.42 ERA and 1.38 WHIP (Garland), and a 4.28 ERA and 1.27 WHIP (Vazquez). Vazquez has also had numberous successful seasons (2000-2003), and had more above average seasons than average seasons... unlike Garland.

 

 

(these numbers aren't including this years stats)

Edited May 30, 2006 by Felix

[Balta1701]

Its so funny that Javier Vazquez can do no wrong on this board, and is called the next Ace, yet posts a similar career ERA to Garland and gets paid more money.

And Vazquez did most of his work in the NL as well. 4.53 for Garland career vs. 4.27 for Vazquez. Interesting way to look at it. And JV is about 3 years older.

 

There's a difference between a 4.42 ERA and 1.38 WHIP (Garland), and a 4.28 ERA and 1.27 WHIP (Vazquez). Vazquez has also had numberous successful seasons (2000-2003), and had more above average seasons than average seasons... unlike Garland.

(these numbers aren't including this years stats)

JV's WHIP was 1.36 when he was 1 year away from hitting Free Agency (the place Garland was at the end of last season.)

[WCSox]

Did you write off Contreras off at the beginning of last year?

 

Contreras was Cuba's version of Roger Clemens. Garland has ONE good professional season under his belt. And Steinbrenner is paying us a huge chunk of Contreras' salary. Nobody is compensating us for Jon's bad pitching. Poor comparison.

 

The market for good young starting pitching is alot higher than what we are paying Garland. We secured him for lower than market value, what more do you want?

 

I "secured" a tank of gas at $3.10/gallon today, which is lower than market value. What a steal!

 

While Jon is young, durable, eats innings, and has upside, he isn't doing much better than B-Mac could right now for just a fraction of the cost. I hope that he gets it together, but if his ERA isn't down in the low-5's by the end of this season, I'd be in favor of dealing him for a couple veteran relievers and giving B-Mac his spot in the rotation.

[RockRaines]

Contreras was Cuba's version of Roger Clemens. Garland has ONE good professional season under his belt. And Steinbrenner is paying us a huge chunk of Contreras' salary. Nobody is compensating us for Jon's bad pitching. Poor comparison.

Poor comparison how? Pitching for the cuban national team is the same as the MLB? Since when. Also contreras is 50 years old.

 

 

 

There's a difference between a 4.42 ERA and 1.38 WHIP (Garland), and a 4.28 ERA and 1.27 WHIP (Vazquez). Vazquez has also had numberous successful seasons (2000-2003), and had more above average seasons than average seasons... unlike Garland.

(these numbers aren't including this years stats)

Yes, Vaz pitched in the NL. Also they are very similar pitchers through the same age. No comments on the Radke comparison?

[WCSox]

Poor comparison how? Pitching for the cuban national team is the same as the MLB? Since when.

 

One of the best pitchers in Cuban baseball history certainly is more talented than a one-time MLB All-Star with an overwhelmingly mediocre career.

 

Also contreras is 50 years old.

 

You're right. Re-signing that old fogie Count was stupid.

[RockRaines]

One of the best pitchers in Cuban baseball history certainly is more talented than a one-time MLB All-Star with an overwhelmingly mediocre career.

You're right. Re-signing that old fogie Count was stupid.

Now you are just reaching. The Count was a good player to sign, but at this time last year, you would have had a different opinion of his worth. And raking in a foreign league doesnt mean much really. I would stop using that as proof to his talent, especially when he wasnt as dominant when thrown into MLB compeition at first.

 

Garland is a young pitcher with great upside. For similar pitchers at similar ages, his contract is well worth it. s***, the twins #1 pitcher (Radke) for a long time period was paid about the same for similar production.

 

Basically there are two sides of the fence. The Garland hater side that will turn on anything that is underproducing after the first quarter of the season.

 

And the people who believe in the player's development, and the managements decisions.

 

There really is no way for the two sides to debate.

[WHarris1]

Basically there are two sides of the fence. The Garland hater side that will turn on anything that is underproducing after the first quarter of the season.

 

And the people who believe in the player's development, and the managements decisions.

 

There really is no way for the two sides to debate.

Ooo fun, I can slant that to my side too

 

Side 1 - Realistic about Garlands performance, points out his flaws. Is happy when he succeeds, realizes when he is struggling.

 

Side 2 - Rides Garlands jock for whatever he does, fails to realize when he struggles.

 

At least describe the 2 sides fairly.

Edited May 30, 2006 by WHarris1

[WCSox]

Now you are just reaching. The Count was a good player to sign, but at this time last year, you would have had a different opinion of his worth.

 

Given that you're incapable of reading my mind, I find it amusing that you're so sure of what I would've thought.

 

Again, Count was a phenom in Cuba, much like El Duque. Judy has a whole one year of solid pitching under his belt. Count also has better stuff than Garland and we got him at a discount.

 

Honestly, my only worry about Count was his age. Unlike Jon, I never doubted his ability.

 

And raking in a foreign league doesnt mean much really.

 

Yeah, because El Duque and Ichiro didn't amount to s*** in the majors.

 

he wasnt as dominant when thrown into MLB compeition at first.

 

Count pitched pretty well in his first season with the Yankess.

 

Garland is a young pitcher with great upside. For similar pitchers at similar ages, his contract is well worth it.

 

Sure, if you're not paying three other starters in your rotation $10-$11 million/year and are on the verge of having to re-sign your ace to a $15 mil+/year contract. Not to mention a third-baseman who will also be looking for a long-term deal soon. Garland's also well worth it if you have a strong, young bullpen and you don't have long-reliever who will likely put up similar numbers at the back of the rotation at just a fraction of the cost. But that's not the case here.

 

 

Ooo fun, I can slant that to my side too

 

Side 1 - Realistic about Garlands performance, points out his flaws. Is happy when he succeeds, realizes when he is struggling.

 

Side 2 - Rides Garlands jock for whatever he does, fails to realize when he struggles.

 

At least describe the 2 sides fairly.

 

^^^

Edited May 30, 2006 by WCSox

[Balta1701]

Sure, if you're not paying three other starters in your rotation $10-$11 million/year and are on the verge of having to re-sign your ace to a $15 mil+/year contract. Not to mention a third-baseman who will also be looking for a long-term deal soon. Garland's also well worth it if you have a strong, young bullpen and you don't have long-reliever who will likely put up similar numbers at the back of the rotation at just a fraction of the cost. But that's not the case here.

Oh that's pretty silly...judging whether or not that deal makes sense to a particular team doesn't depend only on what other people on the team are making, it depends on how much your team is able to spend overall, and what you have on the way up. You don't need to have a strong, young bullpen to offset the cost of an expensive starting pitcher if, for example, you have a strong, young outfield, with 2-3 guys making pretty close to the league minimum, as we'll have in a year or two if things go well, a young closer, and a few other young guys intersperced in there, such as your last starter.

 

If we're paying $100 mil a year, and we have guys like Anderson, Sweeney, Macarthy, Jenks, and eventually Stewart, Fields, and maybe Owens and a few other relievers hanging around, then there's no reason why we can't spend that much on a 4th/5th starter.

 

The real question we still have to answer is who will be the 4th starter next year, and what will we get for the guy who departs to make room for Mac.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 30, 2006 -> 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Garland is ALOT like Brad Radke, especially through this point in his career.

Based on what?

 

Radke nevers gives up walks, and the ONE year that Garland didn't give up walks, he was great.

[WCSox]

Oh that's pretty silly...judging whether or not that deal makes sense to a particular team doesn't depend only on what other people on the team are making, it depends on how much your team is able to spend overall, and what you have on the way up.

 

Given our history, we're pretty much at the high end of what we can spend and don't have much on the way up, outside of Fields. Oh, and our bullpen blows.

 

The real question we still have to answer is who will be the 4th starter next year, and what will we get for the guy who departs to make room for Mac.

 

But I thought that we could spend $10 million/year on a 4th/5th starter?

Edited May 30, 2006 by WCSox

[Balta1701]

But I thought that we could spend $10 million/year on a 4th/5th starter?

$12-$15 mil for Buehrle. $10 = Contreras. What is it with the money from Arizona, like $10-$11 mil for Vazquez? Then it comes down to Garcia versus Garland, and they're both at around $10 mil next year (especially if we trade Garland & have to sign Garcia to an extension.) Mac = 5th starter until he gets that first cy young award. So either way, we'll be spending at least $9 mil for a 4th starter, unless somehow KW pulls a miracle and turns Garland/Garcia into a ML ready starting pitching prospect.

[RockRaines]

Based on what?

 

Radke nevers gives up walks, and the ONE year that Garland didn't give up walks, he was great.

So? Based on their similar ERA's Career and at the same age.

[WCSox]

$12-$15 mil for Buehrle. $10 = Contreras. What is it with the money from Arizona, like $10-$11 mil for Vazquez?

 

$15 million/year will be the low end for Buehrle. $12 million/year is a pipe dream.

 

So either way, we'll be spending at least $9 mil for a 4th starter, unless somehow KW pulls a miracle and turns Garland/Garcia into a ML ready starting pitching prospect.

 

The big difference, of course, is that we won't be spending anywhere near Garland or Garcia's current salaries for our #5 next season. It'll be much closer to the league minimum.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 30, 2006 -> 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So? Based on their similar ERA's Career and at the same age.

So one stat makes them "alot" similar?

 

Even playing for some absolute horsehit Twins teams, Radke was able to win 20 games in his 3rd season, with an ERA under 4, and a flashy 3.63 K/BB.

Edited May 30, 2006 by santo=dorf

[Felix]

Yes, Vaz pitched in the NL.

So you think that because Vazquez pitched in the NL, he's equal to Garland? Get real.

 

Also they are very similar pitchers through the same age.

Not quite. Javier Vazquez has the beloved 'live arm'. He has much better stuff than Garland, and throughout his career has both struck out more batters and walked less batters. Vazquez has had more success in the major league level (3 seasons with an ERA under 4, another with a 4.05 ERA), and has always gone long into games (multiple complete games nearly every year; Garland only has one year with more than one, which was last year).

 

No comments on the Radke comparison?

Didn't see it, sorry (that what happens when you edit the post and its on a different page than the latest one). They aren't similar, sorry to burst your bubble. First off, Radke does have the lower ERA by .2, which isn't exactly nothing. Second, Radke averages 40 walks per season, compared to Garland's 75 average. Third, Radke averages 134 strikeouts, compared to Garland's 110. Fourth, Radke has a lower WHIP (1.25) than Garland (1.38). Fifth, Radke has had much more success in the MLB level, including 3 seasons with ERA+'s of 120 or more, and 4 seasons with an ERA under 4 (unlike Garland, who has had 1 full season with an ERA under 4).

[kevin57]

Take out the first half of last season, and it appears that JG has the following pitching pattern:

 

1/3 of his games are brilliant, superb.

The other 2/3 of his games are very mediocre. In those games he either gets an big fat "L" or the offense pounds out enough runs to save his sorry ass.

 

In the overall scheme of things, that will make Jon a .600 pitcher. By today's standards that's goes for very good, but it's not nearly up to the hype that preceded his arrival on the scene.

[T R U]

Based on what?

 

Radke nevers gives up walks, and the ONE year that Garland didn't give up walks, he was great.

 

Garlands not giving up walks this year, he is just getting hit around which is why I am positive that he will come around as the season moves along

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 30, 2006 -> 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its so funny that Javier Vazquez can do no wrong on this board, and is called the next Ace, yet posts a similar career ERA to Garland and gets paid more money.

Feel free to get back in touch with me Garland win 16 games on a horses*** team, own a career 3.23 K/BB and post a WHIP under 1.37 more than ONCE in a season (Javier has done that 7, SEVEN times.) Vazquez will also be paid less money than Garland by the White Sox, and it was the Yankees who threw all that money at him, so it's not really fair to compare the two contracts (Vazquez's is the much better deal anyways.)