Rangers Have Interest in Garland

[shoota]

It may boil down to the type of SP prospects the sox can get in return for one of their SP's. Only Garland may be able to net the top SP prospect the sox need. If Danks can be around for 10 years being a #1 or a #2, it may be worth the cost of garland for 2 years. Trading Freddy or even Javy, may only net #3 type SP who can give the sox 5 decent years.

 

The sox don't have a top of the rotation type prospect in their system, someone who can help the sox late in 07 and definitely in 2008. Garland may be the cost.

 

In the short term, the question should be, can Bmac give the sox Garland type numbers? 2006 numbers pretty sure. 2005 numbers, not yet.

 

Since Garland is the best of the three, I understand why potential trading partners would offer more value to acquire him than they'd offer for Vazquez or Garcia.

 

 

I believe trading Garland for pitching prospects downgrades the current, World Series-contending team by losing its best pitcher and not upgrading other areas of the 2007 team. With the construction of the current team, KW must play for the present.

[DBAHO]

The Sox seem to be interested in Masset as a bullpen piece. He's been a closer in the Mexican Winter League and has an ERA of about 2.25 with about 12 saves last time I checked. So he's a converted starter, and I assume the Sox would use him out of the pen if they acquired him. Kind of like another Bobby Jenks situation.

 

A little piece on Masset;

 

Asked to name some of the guys whose development he is particularly pleased with at this point, Adair named Eric Hurley, Michael Schlact, Omar Poveda, Kea Kometani, John Bannister and Jake Rasner as well as Nick Masset, whose turnaround, according to Adair, is the result of "maturity. On and off the mound."

 

 

"I think Nick took a look around this winter and saw what Kam Loe's done--- a guy he was coming up with--- and realized he could have that too. He's good enough."

 

Masset, a 6-foot-4 right-hander who was the Rangers eighth-round pick in 2000, could have a prominent future with the Rangers as a power right-handed setup reliever or even as a closer.

 

Pitching coach Mark Connor, when asked what he liked about Masset, said, "Everything. I love him."

 

Added Connor, "He's what they look like. He's a big strong kid who throws the ball downhill with above-average stuff: power sinker, power curve, two above-average pitches. The biggest thing is Nick believing in himself and his stuff, and throwing the ball over the plate, down in the zone.

 

"We're looking at him as a possible power guy at the end of a ballgame. If something happens and he can't handle that, he could go back to the starting rotation. He's got the kind of stuff that he can do anything, and there aren't too many guys who you can say that about."

 

Masset has been a starting pitcher for almost his entire professional career. He made one appearance for the Rangers on July 27, pitching a scoreless inning against the San Francisco Giants before being sent back to Triple-A.

 

It was shortly after that when the Rangers decided to put him in the bullpen. Masset was 2-0 with a 3.38 ERA in his last 13 relief appearances at Oklahoma, striking out 24 in 18 2/3 innings.

 

 

 

And also here's a really, really good article about Hurley vs. Danks;

 

Everywhere you look these days, there's another story about exploding Rangers pitching prospect Eric Hurley who is off to a 3-1 / 1.95 start to his Double-A career through six appearances after going 5-6 with a 4.11 ERA for Bakersfield.

 

Evan Grant’s latest contribution to Baseball America is about Hurley.

 

Prospect guru John Sickels has also featured Hurley recently at his minorleagueball.com site who ranking the 20 year old righty as the best pitching prospect in the Rangers system, "even ahead of Danks and Volquez."

 

Kevin Goldstein at Baseball Prospectus writes that, with Volquez in the big leagues, Hurley "has passed Danks and Diamond as the top prospect in the system," primarily because he "has pitched better than Danks at [Double A]."

 

I’m not quite there yet, though it's close.

 

Hurley showed up at spring training having added about 30-35 pounds to the 6'4",, 190 lb. frame he possessed when he was drafted. He had led the Low-A Midwest League in strikeouts in 2005 relying almost exclusively on his plus-plus fastball, he came into 2006 wielding a very promising slider and he finally began work on a changeup in earnest.

 

Since his arrival in Frisco, I’ve been impressed and somewhat surprised with how well Hurley locates his fastball. He does that better than any one of the DVD’s at this point (Danks is close, but he sometimes has more of a tendency to leave his fastball up than Hurley does). And like many power pitchers, he tends to gain power and increase velocity the longer you leave him out there (he’s sat at 90 mph early and 95-96 late all three times I’ve seen him pitch).

 

Hurly is big, strong, determined, confident and focused. Though he's one of the youngest players in the Texas League, he exudes a mound presence that suggests that he's in complete control. He's truly impressive. But there are two reasons that I still rate Danks ahead of Hurley for now:

 

First: Both of Danks’s secondary pitches — a curve, mostly to lefties and a change that has become his out pitch against right handers — are vastly superior to either of Hurley’s. Hurley throws a slider that has a lot of potential, but he’s been about as likely to hang one as snap one off, and he rarely uses his change up, though it appears to be a pretty solid offering (he seems to throw it at about 84 mph, making it more effective in later innings when his velocity increases).

 

Second: I need to see Hurley prove that he can make adjustments like Danks has proven.

 

Take a look at these monthly ERA’s for both pitchers:

 

Hurley (Midwest League): 2.33; 5.09; 4.70; 3.15; 4.00

 

Danks (Midwest League): 2.51; 0.76

 

______________________________________________

 

Hurley (California League): 2.73; 3.03; 4.18; 9.45

 

Danks (California League): 5.48; 7.20 / 1.74; 2.92

 

______________________________________________

 

Hurley (Texas League): 1.38; 2.25

 

Danks (Texas League): 3.89; 6.10; 5.67 / 7.15; 3.32; 2.16

 

______________________________________________

 

Note that Danks tends to become much stronger the longer he stays in a league while Hurley, so far, tends to go in the other direction. I interpret trends like these to indicate the ability to make adjustments which, I believe, a skill every bit as important as the ability to throw a quality breaking ball or locate a fastball, if not moreso.

 

I think back to Kameron Loe in this respect. Loe's first month at Frisco back in 2004 didn't go very well; he posted a 5.06 ERA and the league pounded him at a .294 clip. But Loe hung in there and got a little better, going 2-2 / 4.24 / .338 in May. He improved some more in June, going 4-1 / 2.47 / .248 and by the time July rolled around, Loe was proving himself to be far too much for the league to handle, going 1-1 / 1.24 / .228. Moving on to the PCL, Loe was crushed in July with a 7.50 ERA, but then (of course) he got better, putting up a 2.97 mark in August and a 1.29 in September, earning a callup to the big club.

 

Now, I’m not saying that Hurley doesn’t have the capacity to make adjustments like Danks does, just that he’s yet to really prove it like Danks has (and is doing once again, lowering his ERA in Oklahoma from 6.75 in July to 1.66 in August).

 

It’s no small thing, but it seems to me that just about the only thing Danks is missing right now is a little consistency locating his fastball. Once he begins to locate consistently, like he can, he’s ready to go, both mentally and physically. Hurley, on the other hand, appears to need quite a bit of work on not one, but two pitches that he’ll need to maximize his extraordinary potential.

 

I’m probably prone to making too much of this "trend" issue, but over the past few years of doing this, I’ve just come to believe that the best way to judge a pitcher’s long-term projection is to watch for these kinds of trends and, as of now, Danks edges Hurley in the positive trend / adjustments department.

 

In any case, determining which of the two you like better falls into the "nice problem to have" category.

[beck72]

Since Garland is the best of the three, I understand why potential trading partners would offer more value to acquire him than they'd offer for Vazquez or Garcia.

I believe trading Garland for pitching prospects downgrades the current, World Series-contending team by losing its best pitcher and not upgrading other areas of the 2007 team. With the construction of the current team, KW must play for the present.

 

Trading Garland would be for prospects and probably a bullpen arm. But Bmac would take his place in the rotation. I don't think that's a huge drop off. Esp. if 2 of Freddy, Mb, Javy and Jose return to form.

[DBAHO]

Since Garland is the best of the three, I understand why potential trading partners would offer more value to acquire him than they'd offer for Vazquez or Garcia.

I believe trading Garland for pitching prospects downgrades the current, World Series-contending team by losing its best pitcher and not upgrading other areas of the 2007 team. With the construction of the current team, KW must play for the present.

Garland had a 4.51 ERA for us in 2006.

 

Who's to say Brandon McCarthy in a whole season in the rotation can't produce that, and win 18 games for us like Jon Garland did?

 

And the money you save from dealing Garland and trading for stud pitching prospects, can then be used to upgrade over parts of the team, such as getting a good setup pitcher in Justin Speier, or upgrading in LF/CF with a new leadoff hitter.

 

With the way our farm system is and the age of some of our guys in our lineup, we need to work more young guys into the team over the next few seasons to stay competitive. How do you figure the Minnesota Twins have been so good over the past 6 seasons?

[Gregory Pratt]

In a case like Garland's, the last two years mean more than his first three. He joined the rotation at a very young age. It's not like he's Kent Bottenfield or anything.

 

I'm not too impressed with Garland's last two years, actually. Aside from an amazing start to 2005 -- or, hell, a damn good 2005 -- he's been the same old Jon Garland as before. IMO, he's always going to be a mid-4 ERA guy and it's a stroke of good fortune from the baseball gods that 2005, wasn't.

 

Considering he's the only pitcher who didn't finish the year 1) on the DL, 2) dealing with diminishing velocity, or 3) battling 76th-pitch demons, he comes out looking pretty good in comparison.

 

None of our starters ended the year on the DL. Contreras missed his last start, that much is true.

 

Vazquez ended the year very well, and so did Garcia. I don't think Garcia's end was a fluke. Buehrle will almost certainly rebound next year. Contreras will be all right, too, in my opinion next year. I think the Count really needs an offseason to rest.

 

Personally, I believe that all of our pitchers, sans Vazquez, have better years ahead of them than Garland does. Maybe I'm undervaluing him, but I just think that I'm the only one not overvaluing him.

(That said, I think that even Vazquez can be, at least, the same as Jonny Hollywood.)

Edited November 19, 2006 by Gregory Pratt

[cwsfan13]

The Sox seem to be interested in Masset as a bullpen piece. He's been a closer in the Mexican Winter League and has an ERA of about 2.25 with about 12 saves last time I checked. So he's a converted starter, and I assume the Sox would use him out of the pen if they acquired him. Kind of like another Bobby Jenks situation.

 

A little piece on Masset;

And also here's a really, really good article about Hurley vs. Danks;

Im impressed man. You did your homework. I was wondering why reports kept mentioning his name.

[shoota]

Trading Garland would be for prospects and probably a bullpen arm. But Bmac would take his place in the rotation. I don't think that's a huge drop off. Esp. if 2 of Freddy, Mb, Javy and Jose return to form.

 

Okay, that posts gives me a clear understanding of your thinking, and I wasn't factoring a new, quality bullpen arm for 2007 in my thinking. But why make moves to improve the 2008+ teams by weakening the current, Series-contending 2007 team?

[DBAHO]

Im impressed man. You did your homework. I was wondering why reports kept mentioning his name.

As soon as I heard Masset was a converted starter, I had a feeling he was another Jenks. Power guy, good heavy stuff who's effective when the ball is down in the zone, these are the type of guys KW wants to acquire for the pen, as you've seen from the Aardsma acquisition.

 

I like the Hurley, Danks, Masset for Garland and BA idea, but the only reservation I have is how the Sox are going to fill the LF/CF need. If you can acquire a guy like Figgins without having to give up too much, then by all means pull the trigger on the Garland deal.

 

Okay, that posts gives me a clear understanding of your thinking, and I wasn't factoring a new, quality bullpen arm for 2007 in my thinking. But why make moves to improve the 2008+ teams by weakening the current, Series-contending 2007 team?

How does replacing a starter with someone who can put up similar numbers, and free salary for other needs weaken the 2007 team?

[cwsfan13]

As soon as I heard Masset was a converted starter, I had a feeling he was another Jenks. Power guy, good heavy stuff who's effective when the ball is down in the zone, these are the type of guys KW wants to acquire for the pen, as you've seen from the Aardsma acquisition.

 

I like the Hurley, Danks, Masset for Garland and BA idea, but the only reservation I have is how the Sox are going to fill the LF/CF need. If you can acquire a guy like Figgins without having to give up too much, then by all means pull the trigger on the Garland deal.

How does replacing a starter with someone who can put up similar numbers, and free salary for other needs weaken the 2007 team?

How does replacing a starter with someone who can put up similar numbers, and free salary for other needs weaken the 2007 team?

So what are you thinking, Masset in the pen with poss. Danks and or Hurley in the rotation in 08?

[WCSox]

Jon Garland is currently the best and most reliable pitcher on the Sox

 

Garland is not the most reliable pitcher on the Sox. His offspeed pitches are mediocre and he gets hammered when he can't locate them. He also lacks the confidence to pitch inside at times and gets hammered then as well. Garland is a good #3 and can be dominant at times, but his average command and lack of confidence at times will prevent him from being a #1 or #2. Historically-speaking, Buehrle has been the most reliable and Contreras has been the most dominant.

 

That said, I wouldn't trade Garland either.

[DBAHO]

So what are you thinking, Masset in the pen with poss. Danks and or Hurley in the rotation in 08?

Yeah that would be the plan right there.

[shoota]

Garland had a 4.51 ERA for us in 2006.

 

Who's to say Brandon McCarthy in a whole season in the rotation can't produce that, and win 18 games for us like Jon Garland did?

And the money you save from dealing Garland and trading for stud pitching prospects, can then be used to upgrade over parts of the team, such as getting a good setup pitcher in Justin Speier, or upgrading in LF/CF with a new leadoff hitter.

 

With the way our farm system is and the age of some of our guys in our lineup, we need to work more young guys into the team over the next few seasons to stay competitive. How do you figure the Minnesota Twins have been so good over the past 6 seasons?

 

I agree McCarthy could produce numbers better than Jon Garland in 2007. But since I believe Garland is currently a better pitcher than Garcia and Vazquez, I think the 2007 staff is best with both Garland and McCarthy in the rotation. So instead of comparing Garland to McCarthy, as you did, I'd prefer to compete with the best 5, and trade the 6th along with prospect(s) to upgrade LF or SS.

 

To your important point of working young, good, inexpensive talent into the team, my philosophy is to maximize the talent of an already World Series-contending team and play for a championship, aka the reason for playing. The Twins do a lot of things right, but in the past 6 years, winning the World Series isn't one of them.

 

You're also presupposing the only way to acquire young talent is by trading current, good players from the team. I suggest the organization supplies this talent through better drafting, scouting and development.

 

 

 

As soon as I heard Masset was a converted starter, I had a feeling he was another Jenks. Power guy, good heavy stuff who's effective when the ball is down in the zone, these are the type of guys KW wants to acquire for the pen, as you've seen from the Aardsma acquisition.

 

I like the Hurley, Danks, Masset for Garland and BA idea, but the only reservation I have is how the Sox are going to fill the LF/CF need. If you can acquire a guy like Figgins without having to give up too much, then by all means pull the trigger on the Garland deal.

How does replacing a starter with someone who can put up similar numbers, and free salary for other needs weaken the 2007 team?

 

 

Because Garland is a better pitcher than Garcia and Vazquez, and trading Garland instead of Garcia or Vazquez (as suggested in beck72's scenario), results in a weaker pitching staff.

Edited November 19, 2006 by shoota

[cwsfan13]

Yeah that would be the plan right there.

Well I have to admit that I didnt like the idea of trading Garland either but since you were nice enuff to find info. on the possible prospects we would get in return and then factor in that these guys must be legit since KW is no fool, I sold.

 

Especially in the current shape of our pitching in the minors. I would say its anarexic at best.

 

Going into 07 with MB, JC, BMc, Javy and Freddy is still one of the best rotations in baseball. People have to remember that this team severely underachieved in 06 and I for 1 think they will bounce back.

[RockRaines]

Garland is not the most reliable pitcher on the Sox.

Of the last 2 years, he is one of the most consistent winners in the MLB, and the most consistent pithers on the sox, you might want to re-examine your thoughts there.

[WCSox]

Of the last 2 years, he is one of the most consistent winners in the MLB, and the most consistent pithers on the sox, you might want to re-examine your thoughts there.

 

Nah, I'm pretty confident in saying that Buehrle is more consistent and that Contreras is beter.

[Gregory Pratt]

Nah, I'm pretty confident in saying that Buehrle is more consistent and that Contreras is beter.

 

I agree.

[DBAHO]

You're also presupposing the only way to acquire young talent is by trading current, good players from the team. I suggest the organization supplies this talent through better drafting, scouting and development.

Well you have to remember that KW has actually traded away a lot of our prospects for the likes of Jim Thome and Javier Vazquez.

 

But I think KW has found out the value of good young pitching, because of the price you have to pay in Free Agency to actually get quality starting pitching there. Hence why he is interested in trading for Danks, Masset and possibly Hurley, because they're young, cheap and under our control for 6 seasons.

 

We don't want to be a team that basically goes all out for a World Series, and then drops back down the division because we don't have enough young players being worked into the mix, especially if you have the likes of Dye, Garcia, Iguchi and Buehrle leaving in the next off-season.

[alk3kevin]

Shoota, care to explain why Garland is a better pitcher than Garcia or Vazquez? Freddy/Javy/JG are all around the same quality, but at least Garcia and Vazquez have had sustained success. Jon had one good year, and the rest have been brutal.

 

Please, no one ever enter wins into a discussion about pitching quality ever again.

[shoota]

Well you have to remember that KW has actually traded away a lot of our prospects for the likes of Jim Thome and Javier Vazquez.

 

But I think KW has found out the value of good young pitching, because of the price you have to pay in Free Agency to actually get quality starting pitching there. Hence why he is interested in trading for Danks, Masset and possibly Hurley, because they're young, cheap and under our control for 6 seasons.

 

We don't want to be a team that basically goes all out for a World Series, and then drops back down the division because we don't have enough young players being worked into the mix, especially if you have the likes of Dye, Garcia, Iguchi and Buehrle leaving in the next off-season.

 

That's reasonable. KW does need to supply the team with good, young talent but can't rob the parent club much to obtain it. I'm in favor of good deals no matter how they come; if KW can trade a little present success for a lot of future success, I can't disagree with that.

 

Remember that Crede, Garland, Dye, Buehrle, etc were all prospects too, and now that they've blossomed to expectations, it's time to win with them. Again.

[shoota]

Shoota, care to explain why Garland is a better pitcher than Garcia or Vazquez? Freddy/Javy/JG are all around the same quality, but at least Garcia and Vazquez have had sustained success. Jon had one good year, and the rest have been brutal.

 

Please, no one ever enter wins into a discussion about pitching quality ever again.

 

Page 5, post #72 explains my thoughts in more detail, but here's a shortened, reworded version:

 

I'd rather Garcia or Vazquez traded instead of Garland because of how I believe each man will pitch in 2007, not because I think Garland has had the most "sustained success." I believe Garland is the safest pick of the three based on age, injury history/risk, mechanics and performance.

 

On a pitching staff where 4 of the 5 pitchers had physical, mental or mechanical problems that could continue into 2007, I think it'd be a poor decision to trade away the one who didn't suffer those problems.

[Gregory Pratt]

On a pitching staff where 4 of the 5 pitchers had physical, mental or mechanical problems that could continue into 2007, I think it'd be a poor decision to trade away the one who didn't suffer those problems.

 

By his own admission Garland started the season with dead arm, so it isn't as if only Contreras and Buehrle and Garcia experienced effects from 2005. Vazquez is, from what is publicly known, the only one who was physically fine all season.

[rangercal]

Well you have to remember that KW has actually traded away a lot of our prospects for the likes of Jim Thome and Javier Vazquez.

 

But I think KW has found out the value of good young pitching, because of the price you have to pay in Free Agency to actually get quality starting pitching there. Hence why he is interested in trading for Danks, Masset and possibly Hurley, because they're young, cheap and under our control for 6 seasons.

 

We don't want to be a team that basically goes all out for a World Series, and then drops back down the division because we don't have enough young players being worked into the mix, especially if you have the likes of Dye, Garcia, Iguchi and Buehrle leaving in the next off-season.

I am very excited with KW's new way of thinking. It would be nice to secure our rotation for years with the right deal. Or,we could pull a baltimore and trade garland for an aging vet.

[shoota]

By his own admission Garland started the season with dead arm, so it isn't as if only Contreras and Buehrle and Garcia experienced effects from 2005. Vazquez is, from what is publicly known, the only one who was physically fine all season.

 

Your response has no substance disproving my statement suggesting Garland is the lowest risk based on physical, mental and mechanical problems. Your point about Vazquez being the only pitcher to be physically fine is useless because my statement was not solely based on physical injury, but factored mental instability and pitching mechanics too.

 

Your argument lacks logic. Are you suggesting Garland's dead arm period makes him less reliable than Contreras who went on the DL and changed his arm angle to avoid pitching pain; Buehrle, who ended the year with the worst half of his career; Vazquez, who had his mechanics changed and fought and lost mental wars; or Garcia who may never get his fastball back?

Edited November 19, 2006 by shoota

[103 mph screwball]

I'd rather go cheap with Fields, Anderson, Sweeny than trade our established pitchers who took what most people believe to be less than market value to play for the Sox. Dumping them for prospects is not a good way to show the teams loyalty. If JG had been traded last year after turning down KW's best extension offer, I could live with that because you don't want him to leave and get nothing in return. If this happens, stud prospects better be ready to take Freddie and MB's spot in 08 because they will be less likely to resign. KW has been good at getting established talent with prospects. He has been good at finding diamonds in the rough that other teams have given up on. I hope he is just as good at picking out which hyped up prospects deserve the hype and which will be the next bust.

 

Freddie took less to play for Ozzie.

Garland and JC extended at a discount not to be traded last year.

JV played golf with Ozzie and did not exercise a no trade clause to come to the Sox.

BMac was promised a spot in the rotation.

MB is the only lefty, a fan favorite, and a good clubhouse guy.

 

Trade MB or Freddie if they don't extend. If they both do, trade BMac and improve the 07 roster. I want the Sox to win again in 07. Make the best effort to win now, and I'll enjoy watching the kids play in 09.

[CWSGuy406]

Jon had one good year, and the rest have been brutal league average, which is pretty damn good considering the innings he gives us.

 

Please, no one ever enter wins into a discussion about pitching quality ever again.

 

Fixed.