Ryan Madson

[beck72]

With Madson really struggling in the Phils rotation, he should be sent back to the bullpen. Yet now the Phils have the best bullpen ERA in the NL [along with the worst ERA for their SP]. Their offense is decent [6th in runs, 5th in SLG, 10th in OBP yet 15th in avg.]

 

I could definitely see a Garland for Madson + deal happen in the offseason, when the no-trade clause is gone.

 

But could a deal be swung for Madson by the trade deadline? Somehow, I don't think AAA SP's like Haeger and Heath Phillips would be enough to fill the Phills need for SP help. Yet Josh Fields for 3b to take the place of David Bell would have to be enticing.

 

Thoughts?

[zygoat]

no i like garland where he is. We shouldnt be screwing around with our already strong rotation. Garland sucks this year, but if he has anything close to what he had last year, we will regret it dearly. I say we stick to what we have and sign relievers over the offseason. But at the moment, i think our bullpen is improving greatly (they shut down the reds except for jenks who just wanted to make things interesting). I say we keep our rotation where it is.

[Dam8610]

You're looking at a deal involving Fields to net Madson. He's young and talented, although he has yet to show it as a starter at the big league level.

[beck72]

no i like garland where he is. We shouldnt be screwing around with our already strong rotation. Garland sucks this year, but if he has anything close to what he had last year, we will regret it dearly. I say we stick to what we have and sign relievers over the offseason. But at the moment, i think our bullpen is improving greatly (they shut down the reds except for jenks who just wanted to make things interesting). I say we keep our rotation where it is.

 

Garland would be kept where he is in the rotation [though I think he'll be moved in the offseason]. This trade would be for this year and Madson would return to the bullpen where he's had a lot of success.

[Dam8610]

Trading Garland for Madson is a great idea for the Sox. Unfortunately, it's also a horrible idea for the Phillies.

[SoxAce]

I'd tell ya what, I'll look nice seeing a nice young group of trio (Buehrle-McCarthy-Madson) for a long time. Add some vets like Count and Vazquez for a couple years, wait for a Broadway/Lumsden/McCulloch to develop and this team is really lookin good with or without Garland/Garcia. But I don't really want to look to the future too much.. Every sox fan should enjoy what we are seeing in our lives with this team, this century.

[BobDylan]

Garland would be kept where he is in the rotation [though I think he'll be moved in the offseason]. This trade would be for this year and Madson would return to the bullpen where he's had a lot of success.

 

Am I the only one who doubts Garland will be moved in the off-season? Let's say he pitches the second half lights out as he did all year last year...do the Sox move him then?

 

Trading Garland for Madson is a great idea for the Sox. Unfortunately, it's also a horrible idea for the Phillies.

 

How do you figure? Garland is a proven major league pitcher who can toss 200 innings. Madson has proved?

[sircaffey]

Am I the only one who doubts Garland will be moved in the off-season? Let's say he pitches the second half lights out as he did all year last year...do the Sox move him then?

How do you figure? Garland is a proven major league pitcher who can toss 200 innings. Madson has proved?

 

No, they move Garcia then. One of them will be moved. I think there should be little doubt in that. Garcia or Garland. If Garcia and Garland's contracts/contract demands are the same then whoever performs better this year will be kept. If I had to guess, it will be Garland that will be moved (younger, longer contract, no ties to Ozzie).

[Dam8610]

How do you figure? Garland is a proven major league pitcher who can toss 200 innings. Madson has proved?

 

Garland has proven that, other than one year, he can toss about 200 innings as an average pitcher. Madson has proven that he can be a good-great reliever and has tremendous potential. Madson hasn't shown what he's capable of as a starter yet, Garland has, and it's nothing great. In fact, I'd say it's amazingly mediocre.

[whitesoxfan101]

After I in person saw him go out to the mound with a 3-0 lead in the bottom of the 1st at The Cell in 2004, only to promptly give up 6 runs and not complete the first inning.....I decided I did not like Mr. Madson.

Edited June 19, 2006 by whitesoxfan101

[BobDylan]

Garland has proven that, other than one year, he can toss about 200 innings as an average pitcher. Madson has proven that he can be a good-great reliever and has tremendous potential. Madson hasn't shown what he's capable of as a starter yet, Garland has, and it's nothing great. In fact, I'd say it's amazingly mediocre.

 

It's not like Garland is 35. And it's starting to look like he's coming around the corner anyway. Not to mention NL pitchers have it easier, not pitching to a DH. Madsen has a big upside, but I think people give Garland the short end because he blew chunks for 2 months. Will you be saying the same if Garland gets that ERA under 4?

[Dam8610]

After I in person saw him go out to the mound with a 3-0 lead in the bottom of the 1st at The Cell in 2004, only to promptly give up 6 runs and not complete the first inning.....I decided I did not like Mr. Madson.

 

In 2004, Ryan Madson posted a 2.34 ERA, a 1.13 WHIP, a .238 BAA, 55 K and 19 BB in 77 IP in 52 games (1 start) for the Phillies. The fact that he gave up 6 of his 23 R in 1 outing that year only makes those stats more impressive.

Edited June 19, 2006 by Dam8610

[whitesoxfan101]

In 2004, Ryan Madson posted a 2.34 ERA, a 1.13 WHIP, a .238 BAA, 55 K and 19 BB in 77 IP in 52 games (1 start) for the Phillies. The fact that he gave up 7 of his 23 R in 1 outing that year only makes those stats more impressive.

 

Really? Hot damn!! We must have ate our wheaties that day, because that was one of the worst starts I've ever seen a guy have in person. He couldn't have got his grandma out with the stuff he was throwing up to the plate.

[Kalapse]

It's not like Garland is 35. And it's starting to look like he's coming around the corner anyway. Not to mention NL pitchers have it easier, not pitching to a DH. Madsen has a big upside, but I think people give Garland the short end because he blew chunks for 2 months. Will you be saying the same if Garland gets that ERA under 4?

Jon Garland was quite average in the second half of last season as well.

Edited June 19, 2006 by Kalapse

[Dam8610]

It's not like Garland is 35. And it's starting to look like he's coming around the corner anyway. Not to mention NL pitchers have it easier, not pitching to a DH. Madsen has a big upside, but I think people give Garland the short end because he blew chunks for 2 months. Will you be saying the same if Garland gets that ERA under 4?

 

I know Garland isn't 35, but he's already had 6 seasons in the bigs, so pretty much what you see is what you get at this point IMO. I'm not "giving Garland the short end because he blew chunks for 2 months" either. I simply look at his career stats, seeing several years of 4+ ERA, and see an incredibly mediocre pitcher. IF he could get his ERA under 4, then he'd show that last year wasn't a fluke. However, at this point, I'm inclined to think it is (after all, he regressed back to his career averages after the 8-0 start in 2005). Madson, on the other hand, as you said, still has a TON of upside, not to mention he's proven his abilities as a reliever. It just seems like a dumb trade on Philadelphia's end IMO.

[SoxAce]

I love comparing Garland and Erstad (the two who were basically traded for one another) almost all the time as players. Both are mediocre, both have and probably will, live off one GREAT season, then turn back to mediocre (good lookin contracts for both after that GREAT year) Been saying that ever since this season ever started (I wanted to look stupid as Garland proved me wrong, hasn't happened yet) And both are getting overrated quite a bit. (Erstad's D, Garland's potential)

[Kalapse]

Jon Garland has about a 100 ERA+ for his career as of right now, it doesn't get much more telling than that. He's incredibly average.

 

Also Darin Erstad has a 97 OPS+ pretty similar huh.

[Dam8610]

I love comparing Garland and Erstad (the two who were basically traded for one another) almost all the time as players. Both are mediocre, both have and probably will, live off one GREAT season, then turn back to mediocre (good lookin contracts for both after that GREAT year) Been saying that ever since this season ever started (I wanted to look stupid as Garland proved me wrong, hasn't happened yet) And both are getting overrated quite a bit. (Erstad's D, Garland's potential)

 

Huh? That was a rumor that had Garland going to the Angels and Erstad coming to the White Sox. The Sox got Garland for Matt Karchner (sp?) from the Cubs back in 1998. Compare those two, you'll get an even better kick out of it.

[Kalapse]

Huh? That was a rumor that had Garland going to the Angels and Erstad coming to the White Sox. The Sox got Garland for Matt Karchner (sp?) from the Cubs back in 1998. Compare those two, you'll get an even better kick out of it.

(the two who were basically traded for one another)

 

This trade was just about done, Garland was on his way to Cali and Erstad was comming here, it was nixed at the last second, it was much more than just a rumor. Nearly would have been a better word than basically.

[Dam8610]

(the two who were basically traded for one another)

 

This trade was just about done, Garland was on his way to Cali and Erstad was comming here, it was nixed at the last second, it was much more than just a rumor. Nearly would have been a better word than basically.

 

Oh okay. Thanks for clearing that up.

[SoxAce]

Nearly would have been a better word than basically.

 

Ya my bad. Good call. I've been out of school for a year now and I'm going back this summer so I'll work on my grammar..

[beck72]

While I did mention that Garland could be dealt in the off-season, getting Madson this year wouldn't affect the rotation at all. Madson would be strictly for the bullpen, where he's had proven success. His struggles in the rotation may have shown Philly that he's strictly a bullpen guy--though very valuable at that. The sox need a young Scott Shields type bullpen guy, who could add/ replace what BMac does so he could be moved into the rotation at some point.

 

A deal along the lines of Josh Fields, and two pitchers of Haeger, Tracey and Phillips might be enough for this year to acquire Madson for the final bullpen guy this year.

 

FWIW, Garland is worth more than Madson. I believe I posted Garland for Madson +. The Phils could use a consistent SP like Jon. Though if Jon gets back on track like '05, pitching with confidence and great movement with his pitches, he won't be going anywhere.

[Dam8610]

While I did mention that Garland could be dealt in the off-season, getting Madson this year wouldn't affect the rotation at all. Madson would be strictly for the bullpen, where he's had proven success. His struggles in the rotation may have shown Philly that he's strictly a bullpen guy--though very valuable at that. The sox need a young Scott Shields type bullpen guy, who could add/ replace what BMac does so he could be moved into the rotation at some point.

 

A deal along the lines of Josh Fields, and two pitchers of Haeger, Tracey and Phillips might be enough for this year to acquire Madson for the final bullpen guy this year.

 

FWIW, Garland is worth more than Madson. I believe I posted Garland for Madson +. The Phils could use a consistent SP like Jon. Though if Jon gets back on track like '05, pitching with confidence and great movement with his pitches, he won't be going anywhere.

 

You went from wanting to trade Garland for him, to now wanting to trade a couple of above average pitching specs and a great 3B spec for him? That seems like a wide range of things you'd want to give up there, one end of the spectrum undervaluing Madson, the other end overvaluing him. I disagree that Garland is worth more than Madson, especially to the Phillies, because Madson has great potential, and his worth as a reliever has already been shown. Garland has little to no potential, and is only valuable as the amazingly mediocre SP, which IMO wouldn't be worth Madson's potential to the Phillies.

[BobDylan]

I know Garland isn't 35, but he's already had 6 seasons in the bigs, so pretty much what you see is what you get at this point IMO. I'm not "giving Garland the short end because he blew chunks for 2 months" either. I simply look at his career stats, seeing several years of 4+ ERA, and see an incredibly mediocre pitcher. IF he could get his ERA under 4, then he'd show that last year wasn't a fluke. However, at this point, I'm inclined to think it is (after all, he regressed back to his career averages after the 8-0 start in 2005). Madson, on the other hand, as you said, still has a TON of upside, not to mention he's proven his abilities as a reliever. It just seems like a dumb trade on Philadelphia's end IMO.

 

A pitcher can't get the beifit of the doubt after throwing well into October? How about a dead arm period? Not to mention KW is more partial to pitchers like Garland than he is Madson. As far as anyone is concerned, you know what you'll get from Garland and maybe its 18 wins...with Madson, all you get is a big maybe.

Edited June 19, 2006 by BobDylan

[Dam8610]

A pitcher can't get the beifit of the doubt after throwing well into October? How about a dead arm period? Not to mention KW is more partial to pitchers like Garland than he is Madson. As far as anyone is concerned, you know what you'll get from Garland and maybe its 18 wins...with Madson, all you get is a big maybe.

 

A dead arm period that lasts from June to October? I've never heard of that before.