Trade Garland?

[EvilJester99]

I would probably feel a little better about trading Garland if Floyd or one the other prospects would step up and show they can actually pitch up here.

[beck72]

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.

I could see Jason Bourgeois splitting time w/ Richar at 2b, seeing he can also play Lf and CF. With big money contracts to certain position players, spending $3, 4 mill on bench guys makes little sense.

[29andPoplar]

I could see Jason Bourgeois splitting time w/ Richar at 2b, seeing he can also play Lf and CF. With big money contracts to certain position players, spending $3, 4 mill on bench guys makes little sense.

 

Agreed, he could be a fit for the bench or maybe a slightly bigger role. He may be duplicative with Ozuna but I like that Bourgeois can play CF, that's a plus. And he can run. We'll just have to see if he's in the plans.

[DBAHO]

I think Richar has shown enough to give him a starter's job for next season. He's got good plate discipline and he's shown a bit of power. All he needs to do is to work on his defence, and increasing that BA of his.

[BearSox]

I think Richar has shown enough to give him a starter's job for next season. He's got good plate discipline and he's shown a bit of power. All he needs to do is to work on his defence, and increasing that BA of his.

I think a Richar and Ozuna platoon is very possible and I for one would be in favor of it. Richar would be the usual starter but Ozuna would help take off some of the pressure of Richar being in his first full season and get in there vs. tough lefties. This is of course if Ozuna can return healthy next season. If not, Jason Bourgeois could fill that role.

[greg775]

There's nothing in the numbers that tells me Garland is anything more than a slightly above league average starter, not a damn thing

 

That's strange. Garland has had some dominant performances in his Sox career. Dominant.

The problem I have with those who want to dump Garland is like many of you said ... who do you replace him with?

I mean the Sox aren't going to find 5 Johans out there.

Everybody has bad outings in modern day baseball.

Garland has shown me plenty to say he's a good pitcher, not just a slightly above average pitcher.

He's had some GREAT outings. How can you deny that??

[RockRaines]

I think Richar has shown enough to give him a starter's job for next season. He's got good plate discipline and he's shown a bit of power. All he needs to do is to work on his defence, and increasing that BA of his.

Hes below the mendoza line yet still has a OBP higher than PODS and Owens

[Kalapse]

That's strange. Garland has had some dominant performances in his Sox career. Dominant.

The problem I have with those who want to dump Garland is like many of you said ... who do you replace him with?

I mean the Sox aren't going to find 5 Johans out there.

Everybody has bad outings in modern day baseball.

Garland has shown me plenty to say he's a good pitcher, not just a slightly above average pitcher.

He's had some GREAT outings. How can you deny that??

If Garland has 5 very dominant outings he tends to come right back with another 5 that are terrible. There's a reason why his ERA ends up around 4.50 every year. Hell, Ted Lilly is often dominant but he also tends to implode a couple times a year, hence why he's pretty close to league average by the season's end. Same goes for Jason Jennings and Doug Davis.

[whitesoxfan101]

Hes below the mendoza line yet still has a OBP higher than PODS and Owens

 

Tonight's home run actually got him to the mendoza line at 11 for 55 and an even .200, with a .323 on base and hey the slugging and OPS are up to .418 and .741. Plus, not only are his walks impressive, his ratio is too with more walks (10) than strikeouts (9). And now he's starting to show some of his power too, which is a big plus.

[ZoomSlowik]

That's strange. Garland has had some dominant performances in his Sox career. Dominant.

The problem I have with those who want to dump Garland is like many of you said ... who do you replace him with?

I mean the Sox aren't going to find 5 Johans out there.

Everybody has bad outings in modern day baseball.

Garland has shown me plenty to say he's a good pitcher, not just a slightly above average pitcher.

He's had some GREAT outings. How can you deny that??

 

Just about anyone can have a few GREAT outings, just look at all the no-name scrubs that have dominated the Sox. If he can't do it consistently, which he hasn't outside of 2005, then he really doesn't help you all that much outside of eating some innings. Sure, he'll have a month here or there where he dominates, then he'll have another somewhere where he gets absolutely rocked for a month to bring his numbers back down to earth.

 

He's had ONE full season as a starter where his ERA was under 4.50. How good can he really be?

Edited August 22, 2007 by ZoomSlowik

[greg775]

If Garland has 5 very dominant outings he tends to come right back with another 5 that are terrible

Kalapse ... my question to you is what pitchers nowadays are better No. 3 starters than Garland?

Who can you get in baseball that is consistent besides the aces?

I mean I know what you are saying, but what I am saying is Garland is as good a No. 3 or 4 as anybody you'll find.

Garland is a damn fine pitcher in the "non-ace" category.

How can you deny that? What pitchers would you prefer?

[Kalapse]

It's pretty interesting looking at Garland's game logs for the season. BR has a GameScore for each outing where anything around 50 is meh, over 60 is damn good and under 40 is bad. This year Garland has had 8 outings with a score of 60+, 9 between 40-59 and another 8 below 40. I'd say that's pretty consistent.

[ZoomSlowik]

Kalapse ... my question to you is what pitchers nowadays are better No. 3 starters than Garland?

Who can you get in baseball that is consistent besides the aces?

I mean I know what you are saying, but what I am saying is Garland is as good a No. 3 or 4 as anybody you'll find.

Garland is a damn fine pitcher in the "non-ace" category.

How can you deny that? What pitchers would you prefer?

 

The better question is that if he's only a No. 3 or 4, why would you pay him like he's a No. 1 or No. 2?

[Kalapse]

Kalapse ... my question to you is what pitchers nowadays are better No. 3 starters than Garland?

Who can you get in baseball that is consistent besides the aces?

I mean I know what you are saying, but what I am saying is Garland is as good a No. 3 or 4 as anybody you'll find.

Garland is a damn fine pitcher in the "non-ace" category.

How can you deny that? What pitchers would you prefer?

An average starting pitcher is considered a ~#4 starter these days. I never said Garland was bad or that I didn't want him on the team, just that he's closer to league average than anything else. Like I said before, a league average starter can be a very valuable commodity, just ask Ted Lilly's accountant.

[ZoomSlowik]

An average starting pitcher is considered a ~#4 starter these days. I never said Garland was bad or that I didn't want him on the team, just that he's closer to league average than anything else. Like I said before, a league average starter can be a very valuable commodity, just ask Ted Lilly's accountant.

 

That's a good way to put it. It's not that he sucks, it's just if you can deal him to some team for 2 or 3 solid pieces and get his $12 mil 2008 salary off the books and not have to worry about paying him more than that in the future, that makes a lot of sense.

[greg775]

Oh, I didn't understand. I thought you wanted Garland gone.

I agree he's been bad at times but my argument of keeping him and not dealing him was the fact there are not a lot of consistent 3-4-5 starters in the game today.

I mean look at Mike Mussina's horses*** outing tonight. My god.

There are a lot of mediocre pitchers out there, folks.

 

[ZoomSlowik]

Oh, I didn't understand. I thought you wanted Garland gone.

I agree he's been bad at times but my argument of keeping him and not dealing him was the fact there are not a lot of consistent 3-4-5 starters in the game today.

I mean look at Mike Mussina's horses*** outing tonight. My god.

There are a lot of mediocre pitchers out there, folks.

 

Yeah, Jon's outing against the Twins was SOOO much better.

 

No, he's not totally awful, but he's not going to be winning any Cy Young's any time soon either. Given how much it'd cost to keep him around for the next few years, I can think of a fair number of guys I'd rather have.

 

However, that doesn't mean I'd endorse GIVING him away...

[iamshack]

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.)

 

Which is why Gillick came right back and dealt with Kenny again at the deadline? Let's face it, the Phillies made the deal at the Winter Meetings. There was no rush to get the deal done before a deadline or anything. They could have done more homework, and they chose not to. Starting pitchers, especially guys that have a lot of mileage on their arms, can experience an injury at any given time. Unfortunately for Gillick, he got burned. But he also got Freddy at a discount considering his velocity and struggles in mid 06', and probably thought it was a risk worth taking.

 

I highly doubt he has a White Sox helmet sitting on his desk and a Kenny Williams voodoo doll in his top drawer.

[WHITESOXRANDY]

Two years ago, in the White Sox championship season, the Sox called on Garland to pitch 2 games in the playoffs. He responded thusly:

 

League Championship Series vs. L.A. Angels 9 IP, 4 H, 2 R, 1 BB, 7 K and THE WIN.

 

World Series vs. Houston Astros 7 IP, 7 H, 2 ER, 2 BB, 4 K and THE WIN.

 

He's the same pitcher NOW that he was THEN. If you want to replace that with Nick Masset - good luck.

[DBAHO]

Tonight's home run actually got him to the mendoza line at 11 for 55 and an even .200, with a .323 on base and hey the slugging and OPS are up to .418 and .741. Plus, not only are his walks impressive, his ratio is too with more walks (10) than strikeouts (9). And now he's starting to show some of his power too, which is a big plus.

It also shows how much of a better hitter Juan Uribe could be if he would take a walk as Richar does.

 

KW said we needed more OBP players, and Richar could be the 1st new player really in that type of mould who can stick.

 

I didn't like the trade with him for Cunningham, but right now, things are looking quite good.

[DBAHO]

Two years ago, in the White Sox championship season, the Sox called on Garland to pitch 2 games in the playoffs. He responded thusly:

 

League Championship Series vs. L.A. Angels 9 IP, 4 H, 2 R, 1 BB, 7 K and THE WIN.

 

World Series vs. Houston Astros 7 IP, 7 H, 2 ER, 2 BB, 4 K and THE WIN.

 

He's the same pitcher NOW that he was THEN. If you want to replace that with Nick Masset - good luck.

I don't think anyone really doubts that (unless Garland is injured which is a possibility).

 

The question is, are we going to get back to a World Series with Jon Garland around on our team, or would we get their quicker by trading him to fill some other needs and revamp the roster, and create some payroll flexibility to help fill some more needs?

[Balta1701]

I don't think anyone really doubts that (unless Garland is injured which is a possibility).

 

The question is, are we going to get back to a World Series with Jon Garland around on our team, or would we get their quicker by trading him to fill some other needs and revamp the roster, and create some payroll flexibility to help fill some more needs?

And...on top of that...to make sure that we get something of greater value than the 2 draft picks we would get if Jon Garland walked as a FA. It's entirely possible that if he hit the open market, it'd cost us $14-$15 million a year or more to hold onto him, the way the market currently is moving. So, the other thing to look at is...can we hold onto the guy at all?

[Gregory Pratt]

Which is why Gillick came right back and dealt with Kenny again at the deadline? Let's face it, the Phillies made the deal at the Winter Meetings. There was no rush to get the deal done before a deadline or anything. They could have done more homework, and they chose not to. Starting pitchers, especially guys that have a lot of mileage on their arms, can experience an injury at any given time. Unfortunately for Gillick, he got burned. But he also got Freddy at a discount considering his velocity and struggles in mid 06', and probably thought it was a risk worth taking.

 

I highly doubt he has a White Sox helmet sitting on his desk and a Kenny Williams voodoo doll in his top drawer.

 

I highly doubt I said that he did but maybe I'm mistaken.

[ZoomSlowik]

Two years ago, in the White Sox championship season, the Sox called on Garland to pitch 2 games in the playoffs. He responded thusly:

 

League Championship Series vs. L.A. Angels 9 IP, 4 H, 2 R, 1 BB, 7 K and THE WIN.

 

World Series vs. Houston Astros 7 IP, 7 H, 2 ER, 2 BB, 4 K and THE WIN.

 

He's the same pitcher NOW that he was THEN. If you want to replace that with Nick Masset - good luck.

 

Does that mean we need to keep Pods too? Should we have held on to Freddy as well so we'd have a basically worthless starter instead of Gio and Floyd? Maybe we should keep Contreras around and give him a few more shots in the rotation.

 

Seriously, if you want to pick out a few starts you can make just about anyone look like a superstar. Just look at Jeff Weaver last year.

 

Come on now, I'm glad he has done some good things, but he's just not consistent enough to justify paying him what we'd have to in order keep him around past next year. This is his 6th full year as a starter and thus far he's had one that you could say merits being a $12 mil+ pitcher. As long as we're getting some solid pieces back that can help the franchise, I have absolutely zero problem with moving him.

Edited August 22, 2007 by ZoomSlowik

[Kalapse]

Does that mean we need to keep Pods too? Should we have held on to Freddy as well so we'd have a basically worthless starter instead of Gio and Floyd? Maybe we should keep Contreras around and give him a few more shots in the rotation.

 

Seriously, if you want to pick out a few starts you can make just about anyone look like a superstar. Just look at Jeff Weaver last year.

 

Come on now, I'm glad he has done some good things, but he's just not consistent enough to justify paying him what we'd have to in order keep him around past next year. This is his 6th full year as a starter and thus far he's had one that you could say merits being a $12 mil+ pitcher. As long as we're getting some solid pieces back that can help the franchise, I have absolutely zero problem with moving him.

Brandon Backe, Nate Robertson, Jeff Suppan, Jeff Weaver . . . that's just from the last 2 Championship series/World series. Jeff Suppan has been incredibly dominant over his last 5 CS starts and his only World Series start with the Cards was a beauty. I don't think I'd throw ~$13M a year at Jeff Suppan.