santo=dorf Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 You can't trade Garland because he's a winner. Look at how many games he won from 2005-2006. I think more than Halladay or Carpenter. 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. Yeah he sure got robbed in the Esteban Loaiza deal. Same with Sirotka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 04:14 PM) You can't trade Garland because he's a winner. Look at how many games he won from 2005-2006. I think more than Halladay or Carpenter. Yeah he sure got robbed in the Esteban Loaiza deal. Same with Sirotka Unloading an injured Freddy was pretty sweet too. So was BMAC for Danks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 Freddy's injury was new and Brandon doesn't fit the "veteran" status just yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 The big problem with trading Garland is who replaces the 200 innings? Rookies tend to struggle, Contreras won't be any younger next year, and there will be questions about how many innings Danks can throw. Can Vazquez keep up with what he's doing? There were a lot of questions in 2005 as well. I think unless KW gets someone to take Contreras' entire contract, that Garland is gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 01:05 AM) Or you could trade a slightly above league average starting pitcher who will make $12M next year and fill a couple other holes with the return. It's kind of funny that this sort of talk bothers you so much seeing as how Buehrle was being shopped hard at the beginning of the season and Garland has nearly been dealt twice since joining the team (including one such deal that broke down just this past offseason). Kalapse, your expert analysis of our players amazes me. Buerhle shouldn't have been traded either and wasn't. I spoke out against that trade idea too. Buerhle, Garland and Vazquez are better than "slightly above average." I am not too certain about Contreras anymore and if we get offered a good return in a trade that maybe Jose should go, but when he is on he is one of the best and has shown that. You don't mess around with trading away good pitching just because they have a rough stretch. Edited August 21, 2007 by elrockinMT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 (edited) The big problem with trading Garland is who replaces the 200 innings? Rookies tend to struggle, Contreras won't be any younger next year, and there will be questions about how many innings Danks can throw. Can Vazquez keep up with what he's doing? There were a lot of questions in 2005 as well. I think unless KW gets someone to take Contreras' entire contract, that Garland is gone. Who cares who replaces the 200 innings? Sell well when you have the chance. The last thing we need for next season is to slump into the trade deadline while Garland has a knot in his shoulder putting up a typical 4.50+ ERA and end up with some more 26 year old A-ballers. Edited August 21, 2007 by santo=dorf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 04:14 PM) You can't trade Garland because he's a winner. Look at how many games he won from 2005-2006. I think more than Halladay or Carpenter. Yeah he sure got robbed in the Esteban Loaiza deal. Same with Sirotka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 04:42 PM) HA! While this is correct, the recent injury to McCarthy could suggest he had it while with the Sox....... Absolutely to both. Anyone who thinks Freddy wasnt injured while with the sox is flat out dreaming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 He himself says his shoulder started bothering him in Spring Training. Why would it matter to him when he claims it happened? Didn't he just have forearm tightness while with the Sox? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 06:39 PM) He himself says his shoulder started bothering him in Spring Training. Why would it matter to him when he claims it happened? Didn't he just have forearm tightness while with the Sox? It was also a huge mystery how he lost 8 mph on his fastball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 04:49 PM) The big problem with trading Garland is who replaces the 200 innings? Rookies tend to struggle, Contreras won't be any younger next year, and there will be questions about how many innings Danks can throw. Can Vazquez keep up with what he's doing? There were a lot of questions in 2005 as well. I think unless KW gets someone to take Contreras' entire contract, that Garland is gone. That's a really good point. The Sox' system may have a few future starters who are near ready, but its unlikely they will come up and give you that kind of workmanship in their rookie year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 06:43 PM) That's a really good point. The Sox' system may have a few future starters who are near ready, but its unlikely they will come up and give you that kind of workmanship in their rookie year. Its a serious rarity for a rookie to come up and give you 200 innings. We would have to sign or trade for a stop gap until gio or eggy is ready. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 06:44 PM) Its a serious rarity for a rookie to come up and give you 200 innings. We would have to sign or trade for a stop gap until gio or eggy is ready. Or have a guy in the 'pen who has proven he can pick up an occasional start reasonably well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 04:56 PM) Kalapse, your expert analysis of our players amazes me. Buerhle shouldn't have been traded either and wasn't. I spoke out against that trade idea too. Buerhle, Garland and Vazquez are better than "slightly above average." I am not too certain about Contreras anymore and if we get offered a good return in a trade that maybe Jose should go, but when he is on he is one of the best and has shown that. You don't mess around with trading away good pitching just because they have a rough stretch. There's nothing in the numbers that tells me Garland is anything more than a slightly above league average starter, not a damn thing. If you have some statistics that I have not seen that proves otherwise I'd love to see it. A career 4.48 ERA, 103 ERA+ (100 being average), 1.37 WHIP and a ~2.2:1 K:BB suggests he's pretty damn average. I'm not saying he's a bad pitcher or anything, I think a league average starter is an incredibly valuable thing. You seem to have a habit of overrating White Sox personnel. ERA ERA+ WHIP K BB HR 4.58 100 1.407 112 83 23 2002 4.51 99 1.367 108 74 28 2003 4.89 100 1.378 113 76 34 2004 3.50 127 1.172 115 47 26 2005 4.51 103 1.363 112 41 26 2006 4.84 94 1.407 90* 61* 23* 2007 --------------------------- 4.45 102 1.344 108 64 27 6 Year Totals *Projected totals What am I missing here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 06:59 PM) <!--quoteo(post=1493466:date=Aug 21, 2007 -> 04:56 PM:name=elrockinMT)-->QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 04:56 PM) <!--quotec-->Kalapse, your expert analysis of our players amazes me. Buerhle shouldn't have been traded either and wasn't. I spoke out against that trade idea too. Buerhle, Garland and Vazquez are better than "slightly above average." I am not too certain about Contreras anymore and if we get offered a good return in a trade that maybe Jose should go, but when he is on he is one of the best and has shown that. You don't mess around with trading away good pitching just because they have a rough stretch. There's nothing in the numbers that tells me Garland is anything more than a slightly above league average starter, not a damn thing. If you have some statistics that I have not seen that proves otherwise I'd love to see it. A career 4.48 ERA, 103 ERA+ (100 being average), 1.37 WHIP and a ~2.2:1 K:BB suggests he's pretty damn average. I'm not saying he's a bad pitcher or anything, I think a league average starter is an incredibly valuable thing. You seem to have a habit of overrating White Sox personnel. ERA ERA+ WHIP K BB HR 4.58 100 1.407 112 83 23 2002 4.51 99 1.367 108 74 28 2003 4.89 100 1.378 113 76 34 2004 3.50 127 1.172 115 47 26 2005 4.51 103 1.363 112 41 26 2006 4.84 94 1.407 90* 61* 23* 2007 --------------------------- 4.45 102 1.344 108 64 27 6 Year Totals *Projected totals What am I missing here? His 2007 is eerily similar to 2002 and 2006 is almost the same to 2003. The last 2 years under Jerry Manuel, the guy that supposedly handled Garland all wrong and the last 2 years under Ozzie Guillen, the guy that made Garland a decent pitcher, are virtually identical. Amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Garland has proven this is who he is. Of course we can deal him to the NL he can flirt with a sub 4 ERA and we will have to endure Mariotti's rants about how he flourishes better without Guillen, but its pretty much predictable how he will pitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Does anyone think KW may take a flier on Freddy Garcia this winter? He had a rehab assignment Saturday. He probably would have been better off having surgery, but I'm sure will be available cheap, and probably wants to get back to hanging around Ozzie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Does anyone think KW may take a flier on Freddy Garcia this winter? He had a rehab assignment Saturday. He probably would have been better off having surgery, but I'm sure will be available cheap, and probably wants to get back to hanging around Ozzie. yeah I think so. The sox would pretty much be getting a free rehab session with the Phils this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 07:11 PM) Does anyone think KW may take a flier on Freddy Garcia this winter? He had a rehab assignment Saturday. He probably would have been better off having surgery, but I'm sure will be available cheap, and probably wants to get back to hanging around Ozzie. I've thought that. Wouldn't it be kind of funny? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 07:13 PM) I've thought that. Wouldn't it be kind of funny? You have to figure he will eventually go under the knife. I think if he had a multi year contract with the Phillies, they would have had him get it done, but they didn't want their high profile acquisition done in June, and therefore done with the Phillies. especially with only 1 victory to his credit. Unless someone wants to give Freddy a decent sized check, I really think he eventually, whether its next season or a year after surgery will come back to the Sox on a cheap 1 year contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Frankly I think that KW knew what was wrong with FG when he traded him, and thats why he jumped at that offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Frankly I think that KW knew what was wrong with FG when he traded him, and thats why he jumped at that offer. Yet somehow he brought back Crede, Pods, Cintron (elbow surgery late last year,) provided no back up for Thome and of course, signed Darin Erstad. KW isn't quite the Dookie Howser just yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 07:21 PM) Frankly I think that KW knew what was wrong with FG when he traded him, and thats why he jumped at that offer. I think so too, like Sirotka, and I'll bet it doesn't make for a popular man with GMs and probably limits his relationship with many of them for obvious reasons. (John Schuerholz used to keep a Giants batting helmet on his desk when he was with the Royals because they'd traded him Vida Blue but didn't clue him in on Blue's drug problem so it shamed him and the organization when it came out and so Schuerholz wanted to remind himself to never deal with whoever was GM of that team at that time. And I think that that attitude is prevelant, rightly so, because you're supposed to share that kind of a thing. It's sort of a gentleman's agreement.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 07:27 PM) Yet somehow he brought back Crede, Pods, Cintron (elbow surgery late last year,) provided no back up for Thome and of course, signed Darin Erstad. KW isn't quite the Dookie Howser just yet. Cintron's elbow wasn't supposed to take him out this long, Podsednik was a cheap alternative to spending money and he's a fan favorite, Crede he really had no choice with and people had mixed opinions on what rehabbing would do for him, Thome is Thome and you might not have expected him to be so bad -- besides, he's got a full NTC -- and Erstad is a GRINDER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 PS: you meant Doogie Howser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.