Trade Garland?

[Marky Mark]

I can't believe how many people here can't think outside of the temporary box. Come on guys, most of you were probably agreeing that Jon was the real ace of the team back between June 4 and July 1. If you want to trade him because you want to free up money that's one thing, but don't say you want to trade him just because he's pitched bad for the past month and a half. He's not a Cy Young by any means, but we all know he's a lot better than he is right now. Are you still going to be yelling for a trade when he's putting up zeros and getting us wins?

[Felix]

I can't believe how many people here can't think outside of the temporary box. Come on guys, most of you were probably agreeing that Jon was the real ace of the team back between June 4 and July 1. If you want to trade him because you want to free up money that's one thing, but don't say you want to trade him just because he's pitched bad for the past month and a half. He's not a Cy Young by any means, but we all know he's a lot better than he is right now. Are you still going to be yelling for a trade when he's putting up zeros and getting us wins?

Is he really? His career ERA is 4.48, and his career has proven that he's a very average pitcher who can't strike batters out that had an abnormally good 2005.

[witesoxfan]

I can't believe how many people here can't think outside of the temporary box. Come on guys, most of you were probably agreeing that Jon was the real ace of the team back between June 4 and July 1. If you want to trade him because you want to free up money that's one thing, but don't say you want to trade him just because he's pitched bad for the past month and a half. He's not a Cy Young by any means, but we all know he's a lot better than he is right now. Are you still going to be yelling for a trade when he's putting up zeros and getting us wins?

 

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I've backed the trading of Garland for quite a while. He's a league average, perhaps slightly above league average pitcher, he's making $12 mill next year, and it's not going to make sense to sign him long term; there are pitchers out there, either within the minor league system (Gio and Egbert come to mind) and within other organizations that can put up similar numbers (meaning anywhere from a 4.00-5.25 ERA) for about a 36th of his price tag. On top of that, you can likely get some good pieces from him in return, as he's going to be an attractive option for a contending team who is in need of a starting pitcher.

 

If anyone is suggesting that Garland be traded primarily because he's pitched poorly for a month and a half, then they should be pretty pissed off that the Sox resigned Buehrle.

[beck72]

Garland would be the best available SP this offseason by a long shot. For a team wanting to win in 2008, and who thinks they can re-sign him to a long term deal--think west coast teams--they'll trade a lot for Jon. At least what Houston did for Jennings.

 

If the sox could then fill long term holes at SS, an OF spot, and the bullpen with one trade while subtracting $12 mill, I think they should do it in a heartbeat. Esp. if Jose isn't hurt, which by all accounts he's not. Then the sox have SP's 1-3 signed for at least 2 years, #4 in Danks, who will improve on his 2007 year, and #5 from a few solid candidates who would likely be able to give what Danks has this year--innings and an ERA in the 4's.

[beck72]

I can't believe how many people here can't think outside of the temporary box. Come on guys, most of you were probably agreeing that Jon was the real ace of the team back between June 4 and July 1. If you want to trade him because you want to free up money that's one thing, but don't say you want to trade him just because he's pitched bad for the past month and a half. He's not a Cy Young by any means, but we all know he's a lot better than he is right now. Are you still going to be yelling for a trade when he's putting up zeros and getting us wins?

I think it boils down to how can the sox improve their team the most, given the current roster and prospects ready to come to the bigs. The sox have options in the pitching dept--both in the bigs and minors. If this is a strength, and one trade won't necessarily hurt the pitching but could improve holes at a few other key spots, like SS, OF, bullpen, then a case can be made to trade a guy like Garland. If Contreras can regain some resemblance of the pitcher he was at the end of 2005, beg. of 2006, then the sox pitching wouldn't be hurt that much with jon dealt.

 

Outside of Fields, the sox have few strong position player prospects that could help the sox in 2008 or 2009. This is a big problem the sox need to address this offseason. Because 2008 is the year to do it with big contracts going to Dye, Thome, PK, and maybe a free agent like Hunter or Rowand. the sox could then work in a young SS or a leftfielder, along with Fields and Richar, and not hurt their long term chances of winning. Personally, I'd much rather go with a young guy with upside like Richar to go with the current sox vets than pay millions to a mediocre vet like Grudzelanik.

[Harry Chappas]

There are not that many average pitchers out there and an average pitcher makes $10M a season. The Jason Jennings comparison is pretty solid although I think Garland's pitching in the AL makes him a little better. Every pithcher's arm is sore all season. Garland blames his poor performances on it that is the difference. He would bring back a pretty nice package in return. Last offseason Hunter Pence was the deal breaker.

 

To guage the value of Garland's worth start with the fact he has never missed a start and he throws about 200 innings. The prospect NOT THE REALITY of this scenario got Gil Meche a really nice deal. Garland in the NL wold be very successful.

[Gregory Pratt]

There are not that many average pitchers out there and an average pitcher makes $10M a season. The Jason Jennings comparison is pretty solid although I think Garland's pitching in the AL makes him a little better. Every pithcher's arm is sore all season. Garland blames his poor performances on it that is the difference. He would bring back a pretty nice package in return. Last offseason Hunter Pence was the deal breaker.

 

To guage the value of Garland's worth start with the fact he has never missed a start and he throws about 200 innings. The prospect NOT THE REALITY of this scenario got Gil Meche a really nice deal. Garland in the NL wold be very successful.

 

AL-NL conversions are overstated.

[Harry Chappas]

AL-NL conversions are overstated.

 

Why did Greg Maddux refuse to leave the NL then when offered $10M to do so? Ted Lilly stated it as well when asked about the differences in the two leagues.

 

I think the biggest difference is not in the numbers but in the psyche of the pitcher's mindset. I personally think it is harder to go through an AL line-up as compared to an NL line-up. For the last two years arguably the best four and 8 of the top 10 teams played in the AL.

[BearSox]

Garland would do great in the NL if you ask me.

[whitesoxfan101]

AL-NL conversions are overstated.

 

For hitters yes, but for pitchers, ESPECIALLY going from the AL to the NL, they are not at all. Ted Lilly and Aaron Harang say hi.

[Gregory Pratt]

Roger Clemens, too. And you know who says hi back? Barry Zito. Plenty of other guys, too, I'm sure.

 

I don't believe that Garland's going to go from average to ACE because of the AL-NL. HE'S ALREADY AN ACE! I was under the impression, too, that the typical AL-NL translation was much less than a run per game, but maybe I'm awfully wrong.

[Gregory Pratt]

Why did Greg Maddux refuse to leave the NL then when offered $10M to do so? Ted Lilly stated it as well when asked about the differences in the two leagues.

 

I think the biggest difference is not in the numbers but in the psyche of the pitcher's mindset. I personally think it is harder to go through an AL line-up as compared to an NL line-up. For the last two years arguably the best four and 8 of the top 10 teams played in the AL.

 

I don't believe Maddux turned down ten million from the Yankees for 5,800,000. That's not Boras' MO. Maybe he did overrule Scott, but I doubt that. I'm not sure what the Yankees offered him, but I do know that the Braves entered the Maddux derby late, wooed him, talked to him about their rotation and its potential, sold him on the city, etc. etc., and then he joined. But if you're implying that Greg Maddux would've sucked in the NL or been half the man he was with the Cubs/Braves...well, you're something! Because Greg Maddux is a top ten pitcher of all time, NL or not.

 

I, for one, don't live in a world where ERAs rise significantly for everyone and as far as I can tell, they don't rise quite like that for everyone. Surely, the NL is a weaker league for obvious reasons and always will be, but it's insane to pretend that good pitchers aren't at the same level in the AL or that great pitchers wouldn't be.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Gregory Pratt

[Dick Allen]

To guage the value of Garland's worth start with the fact he has never missed a start and he throws about 200 innings. The prospect NOT THE REALITY of this scenario got Gil Meche a really nice deal. Garland in the NL wold be very successful.

Sounds like a certain Venezuelan who was traded to Philadelphia last winter. Garland's performance the balance of this season is going to come into play. Garcia won 17 games and makes $10 million. Garland will make $12 million and is complaining about a knot in his shoulder. I think the return will be about the same, although Garland most likely won't tank like Garcia.

[29andPoplar]

Personally, I'd much rather go with a young guy with upside like Richar to go with the current sox vets than pay millions to a mediocre vet like Grudzelanik.

 

Personally I would like both. Richar getting a good chance to play with a veteran to back him up and be a key bat off the bench. A guy who can hit like Grudzelanek (not necessarily him but his profile) would look nice but I don't know if they can devote a roster spot to someone who is solely a 2B. No more Cintron though, they need to do better than him.

[Balta1701]

Personally I would like both. Richar getting a good chance to play with a veteran to back him up and be a key bat off the bench. A guy who can hit like Grudzelanek (not necessarily him but his profile) would look nice but I don't know if they can devote a roster spot to someone who is solely a 2B. No more Cintron though, they need to do better than him.

The only problem is...that based on recent history...if we give Ozzie another decent option, especially a veteran option, we'll wind up seeing that veteran guy in the lineup vastly more than he would deserve based solely on the production of each player.

[29andPoplar]

The only problem is...that based on recent history...if we give Ozzie another decent option, especially a veteran option, we'll wind up seeing that veteran guy in the lineup vastly more than he would deserve based solely on the production of each player.

 

All I want is the team to be better, and win. I don't believe in the Guillen conspiracy theories because I've seen first hand how much he works with young players and tries to help them. And I like when guys are in the lineup because they are more productive and don't care if they're 25 or 35.

 

I like working in (good) young players and also believe part of having a good team is a deep bench with solid players who can fill in, usually veterans. Not to specifically single out Grudzelanek but he would be one such player. Richar shows promise but he's not setting the world on fire. From what I've seen I'm not ready to annoint him the starting 2B for a 2008 team that plans to compete, I would like to see a capable Plan B in place.

[WCSox]

I don't believe Maddux turned down ten million from the Yankees for 5,800,000. That's not Boras' MO. Maybe he did overrule Scott, but I doubt that. I'm not sure what the Yankees offered him, but I do know that the Braves entered the Maddux derby late, wooed him, talked to him about their rotation and its potential, sold him on the city, etc. etc., and then he joined.

 

It's also possible that Maddux just didn't want to play in the fish bowl of New York. A lot of players don't want to play for the Yankees. Griffey turned down a trade to them years ago.... and got death threats from rabid Yankees fans because of it.

Edited August 21, 2007 by WCSox

[Gregory Pratt]

It's also possible that Maddux just didn't want to play in the fish bowl of New York. A lot of players don't want to play for the Yankees. Griffey turned down a trade to them years ago.... and got death threats from rabid Yankees fans because of it.

 

That's possible, but as far as I remember, the deal was pretty close and then Atlanta came in and wooed him.

[WHITESOXRANDY]

Trading Garland is a bad idea. Ofcourse, it depends what you get for him. But, most likely they would be better off extending him. They could always trade him later.

 

If they trade him now then they must sign a veteran FA starting pitcher or next year's rotation will put this team in the cellar again.

 

Mark, Javy, Contreras, Danks and Floyd/rookie will be awful.

 

Let's face it no one in the Sox system is really ready to be successful as a 5th starter come April. Floyd has the experience but he probably wouldn't be very good. Jose and Danks will still be ? for next year. No way they can win the division with that especially without a lights-out bullpen.

[witesoxfan]

AL-NL conversions are overstated.

 

By some, yes, but the conversion is there. Pitchers generally pitch better in the NL than they do the AL, and there are multiple reasons too.

 

Rock posted this sometime last week in the Zambrano thread. It's a good read.

[Gregory Pratt]

Yeah, that's all plausible and makes sense. Nobody's denying that the NL is a much better place to pitch in. But let's not pretend that Jon Garland would go from league averageish to Brandon Webb and that teams are going to be chomping at the bits for him.

[CanOfCorn]

Yeah, that's all plausible and makes sense. Nobody's denying that the NL is a much better place to pitch in. But let's not pretend that Jon Garland would go from league averageish to Brandon Webb and that teams are going to be chomping at the bits for him.

 

Why not? If a team thinks it's one pitcher away...you never know. Even in the NL, Garland is probably a 3rd starter. On a team that thinks they have a chance, he's a 3 or a 4. But, he's durable (he's complained about this knot before, so I don't put too much stock in it)...he's won 18 games back to back seasons...and he's got postseason experience. I'm sorry Pratt, but the Sox could EASILY get more for Garland than the Rockies got for Jennings.

 

It depends on Kenny...if he's patient, he'll get the package he wants. If he doesn't start screaming, "Look at the cool shiny red ball!!! I want it!!! I want it!!!" then the Sox will get less of a package.

[Gregory Pratt]

Kenny's not good at dealing veterans, prospects are the new gold and Jonny Hollywood's peak value was last offseason or this break, so whatever he gets will probably be less than he could've if he had a single clue what "sell high" means.

[Balta1701]

Here's another way to look at it. Take a moment to look at the top teams in the NL. And their pitching staffs.

 

Tom Glavine (L) Oliver Perez (L) Orlando Hernandez ® John Maine ® Brian Lawrence ®

Carlos Zambrano ® Ted Lilly (L) Jason Marquis ® Rich Hill (L) Sean Marshall (L)

Ben Sheets Dave Bush ® Claudio Vargas ® Jeff Suppan ® Yovani Gallardo ®

Derek Lowe ® Brad Penny ® Chad Billingsley ® Brett Tomko ® Eric Stults (L)

Brandon Webb ® Livan Hernandez ® Doug Davis (L) Micah Owings ® Yusmeiro Petit ®

John Smoltz ® Tim Hudson ® Chuck James (L) Buddy Carlyle ® Lance Cormier ®

Cole Hamels (L) Jamie Moyer (L) Kyle Kendrick ® Kyle Lohse ® J.D. Durbin ®

Jake Peavy ® Chris Young ® Greg Maddux ® Justin Germano ® Clay Hensley ®

 

The only 2 teams I see out of that entire list where I would think Garland would be a #4 starter would be the Dodgers and possibly the Padres.

 

Now, her'es the next thing to think about; where will teams actually go to find pitching this offseason?

Link

What was already the weakest free-agent starting pitcher market in years was made worse with the signing of Cubs ace Carlos Zambrano to a five-year, $91.5 million extension. There aren't any Zambrano replicas in the crop that remains, not even close. And it's likely no starting pitcher will get even a quarter of Zambrano's haul.

 

Zambrano and recently signed White Sox star Mark Buehrle were the potential gems of a free-agent class that now features a lot of age (Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, Jon Lieber), pain (Randy Wolf, Freddy Garcia, Bartolo Colon, Matt Clement, Eric Milton) and a combination of both (Kenny Rogers).

 

"It's a joke," is the way one general manager classified a group that contains a never ending supply of question marks to go along with some obvious talent.

 

Big free-agent signings have surprised us all before. But between the issues of age and pain, there may be only one or two multiyear contracts to be had here.

 

"There's nothing available," the GM added, before identifying the 40-year-old Schilling, who missed seven weeks with a shoulder issue, as the cream of the demonstrably weak crop.

Heyman gives a list of his top pitchers, and it really isn't loaded. Schilling and Clemens are at the top, and they're moderately old. That's one of the interesting points showing up from the ability of teams to resign their own star talent with the new money in MLB; pitchers aren't hitting the market like they were a couple years ago. Teams are resigning them or dealing them to teams that can sign them.

 

So...unless the Twins put Johan on the market...for teams looking for starting pitching this offseason...and there will be a boatload...there will be 2 options. Trade, or call up. Because there isn't really anything guaranteed showing up on this market this year.

[RockRaines]

The only way id trade garland is if we could get something along the lines of a Jimmy Rollins in return. If we cant, its not worth it IMO