Trade Garland?

[WCSox]

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.

 

Jon relies way too heavily on his two-seamer and sinker because his off-speed stuff is mediocre. If he threw 97, like Randy Johnson in his prime, he might be able to get away with that. But it doesn't work when you top off at 93.

 

[RockRaines]

Jon relies way too heavily on his two-seamer and sinker because his off-speed stuff is mediocre. If he threw 97, like Randy Johnson in his prime, he might be able to get away with that. But it doesn't work when you top off at 89.

fixed

[wbicker2424]

I've liked JG since the sox traded for him, but I would trade him if we could get something useful for him. I doubt he would be kept past 08 anyhow, so might as well trade him now. I'm sure that with all the focus on pitching in this org. that there should be several guys ready for the rotation by then. Egbert and Gio should both be ready to start for 09, and that's not taking into account the collection of masset/sisco/floyd/insert name here combo that we have. I'd really like to see a nice young SS and a young OF that can hit for average without too many strikeouts.

[WCSox]

fixed

 

I didn't realize that his velocity was down that much. No wonder he's getting smacked around like a red-headed stepchild.

 

[CanOfCorn]

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?

 

It's not so much...CAN WE? It's more of...SHOULD WE?

 

And don't forget, the market isn't necessarily dictated by an individual's skill. It's dictated by the individual's counterpart's skill. F'rinstance...if the Twins decide to put Santana on the block...Garland gets bumped down a few notches and the Sox won't get that good of a return. But, if Garland is the best pitcher available via trade, then his value goes up...not to Santana level, but higher than before.

 

Garland has lots of things going for him. Young. Durable (so far). Post season experience. Occasional dominating stuff. Those kinda things mean a lot to GM's.

[southsideirish71]

It's not so much...CAN WE? It's more of...SHOULD WE?

 

And don't forget, the market isn't necessarily dictated by an individual's skill. It's dictated by the individual's counterpart's skill. F'rinstance...if the Twins decide to put Santana on the block...Garland gets bumped down a few notches and the Sox won't get that good of a return. But, if Garland is the best pitcher available via trade, then his value goes up...not to Santana level, but higher than before.

 

Garland has lots of things going for him. Young. Durable (so far). Post season experience. Occasional dominating stuff. Those kinda things mean a lot to GM's.

 

Well the durable part might on the teeter right now as he has been pitching the last year or so with a "knott" in his shoulder. He is about to get a major payday. When a pitcher, no matter how young, is about to come into megabucks for megayears and complains about a long shoulder knott and his line drive ratio starts to climb, and his ground ball ratio starts to drop you have an issue. I would trade him in the offseason and wouldnt blink twice on it.

[Balta1701]

It's not so much...CAN WE? It's more of...SHOULD WE?

 

And don't forget, the market isn't necessarily dictated by an individual's skill. It's dictated by the individual's counterpart's skill. F'rinstance...if the Twins decide to put Santana on the block...Garland gets bumped down a few notches and the Sox won't get that good of a return. But, if Garland is the best pitcher available via trade, then his value goes up...not to Santana level, but higher than before.

 

Garland has lots of things going for him. Young. Durable (so far). Post season experience. Occasional dominating stuff. Those kinda things mean a lot to GM's.

I think it's also entirely possible that the Twins putting Santana on the market could up Garland's value also.

 

Think about this hypothetical...the Mets deal like 3 guys, say Humber, Pelfrey, and that Gomez guy in the OF or whatever his name is, 3 top level guys for Johan. That's something entirely plausible on both sides if the Twins decide to move him.

 

Now, what option does the rest of the NL have? As I pointed out a few posts ago...there's not a team in the NL right now that wouldn't have Garland as it's #3 starting pitcher except for maybe the Dodgers, and in many cases he'd be their #2. Teams like the Dodgers, Phillies, Braves, maybe even the D-Backs, etc., might not want to just concede, and to keep up with that kind of deal, they would need pitching.

 

And beyond that, if someone actually gives up young talent for Santana, it could re-encourage teams to start moving young talent for proven vets again, which it seems everyone except the Braves is loathe to do right now (when even the Yankees are holding on to their kids, you know the market has changed)

[CanOfCorn]

I think it's also entirely possible that the Twins putting Santana on the market could up Garland's value also.

 

Think about this hypothetical...the Mets deal like 3 guys, say Humber, Pelfrey, and that Gomez guy in the OF or whatever his name is, 3 top level guys for Johan. That's something entirely plausible on both sides if the Twins decide to move him.

 

Now, what option does the rest of the NL have? As I pointed out a few posts ago...there's not a team in the NL right now that wouldn't have Garland as it's #3 starting pitcher except for maybe the Dodgers, and in many cases he'd be their #2. Teams like the Dodgers, Phillies, Braves, maybe even the D-Backs, etc., might not want to just concede, and to keep up with that kind of deal, they would need pitching.

 

And beyond that, if someone actually gives up young talent for Santana, it could re-encourage teams to start moving young talent for proven vets again, which it seems everyone except the Braves is loathe to do right now (when even the Yankees are holding on to their kids, you know the market has changed)

 

Ah, but if the Mets part with those three players for Santana, then he's no longer on the market. And Garland is a major step down from Santana. Therefore, they may still overpay, but very little.

[Gregory Pratt]

If Santana and Garland are both traded, the returns won't be comparable at all.

[witesoxfan]

I really don't think the value for Garland will be up or down whether the other option is Scott Elarton or Johan Santana. I understand what people are saying...the prospect of acquiring Garland goes down or up based on the pitchers available, but it won't make or stop a team from giving up the value for Garland. Just because Johan's on the market doesn't mean a team is going to offer scraps for Garland, and just because Garland is far and away the best pitcher on the market doesn't mean a team is going to give up their entire farm system for him. It just won't happen.

[iamshack]

If Santana nets Pelfrey/Humber/Gomez, we would be better served just keeping Jon.

 

In the real world, Santana nets a HELL of a lot better package than that.

[iamshack]

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

 

I'm just continuing to poke fun at your newfound Schulerholzness.

[CanOfCorn]

I really don't think the value for Garland will be up or down whether the other option is Scott Elarton or Johan Santana. I understand what people are saying...the prospect of acquiring Garland goes down or up based on the pitchers available, but it won't make or stop a team from giving up the value for Garland. Just because Johan's on the market doesn't mean a team is going to offer scraps for Garland, and just because Garland is far and away the best pitcher on the market doesn't mean a team is going to give up their entire farm system for him. It just won't happen.

 

You are right. But you are also taking it to the extremes. For instance, if the Astros wanted Santana last year, they would have gotten Pence AND Hirsh. Both were number 1 prospects hitting and pitching in the 'Stros org. I think what the Sox were offered, and what the Rocks got, was about what Garland would get. But, with no Santana on the market, ya never know...the Sox could get both. That's all I'm saying. It's not extremes, it's a player switch.

[Gregory Pratt]

I'm just continuing to poke fun at your newfound Schulerholzness.

 

It's not newfound. It's just very much deepened with research.

[Harry Chappas]

It's not newfound. It's just very much deepened with research.

 

I think his point comes from the fact that in the last month or so it seems that you are a diehard Braves fan the somehow found their way onto this board to hang out with the cool kids.

[Gregory Pratt]

I'll say something nice about Kenny Williams when we do something right as an organization going into the future.

 

Cue: "Kenny Williams good" or "DANNY RICHAR!!111111" who I am not sold on but he isn't half the defensive hack he's made out to be and he has all right at-bats. Still, I'm unwilling to label him anything as Brian Anderson was good for a very small sample size and so was KW as a player, so I'll wait and see what Mr. Richar does.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Gregory Pratt

[LVSoxFan]

Me too. I'm a bit wary of KW's version of "All the pieces are in place" after this season, saying that's kinda what he said about... this season. And '06.

[Yossarian]

Well the durable part might on the teeter right now as he has been pitching the last year or so with a "knott" in his shoulder. He is about to get a major payday. When a pitcher, no matter how young, is about to come into megabucks for megayears and complains about a long shoulder knott and his line drive ratio starts to climb, and his ground ball ratio starts to drop you have an issue. I would trade him in the offseason and wouldnt blink twice on it.

I completely agree. I think Garland may have peaked. My one caveat is please get more than a Class A pitcher for him.

 

[witesoxfan]

I completely agree. I think Garland may have peaked. My one caveat is please get more than a Class A pitcher for him.

 

we'll get a bag of balls along with him, don't worry

[Baines3]

I wouldn't trade Garland, but knowing KW, anything is possible.

[Soxfest]

Jon Garland gave up six runs -- five earned -- in seven innings Friday in a loss to the Red Sox.

 

Jose Contreras isn't the worst starter on the White Sox right now. Garland fell to 0-3 with a 9.51 ERA during August. He's at 7.63 since the start of July.

[Whitewashed in '05]

No excuses, Garland has simply been doing bad. Actually, this is close to Buehrle last year. At one point in the season they both had an ERA close to 3.00 then just got rocked. I expect Gar to return to form next season. He still has some time to put together some good starts this season.

[greg775]

Garland strikes me as kind of a flake.

The fact the veterans gave up long ago, him included, makes me think he can bounce back next year if the Sox put together a team that can get off to a good start and look like a contender.

It's obvious he's given up on this season.

 

[Balta1701]

Garland strikes me as kind of a flake.

The fact the veterans gave up long ago, him included, makes me think he can bounce back next year if the Sox put together a team that can get off to a good start and look like a contender.

It's obvious he's given up on this season.

I still think that Garland would be throwing up surprisingly good numbers in the NL right now. Better than Zambrano this season, that I'll bet.

[Flash Tizzle]

Garland strikes me as kind of a flake.

The fact the veterans gave up long ago, him included, makes me think he can bounce back next year if the Sox put together a team that can get off to a good start and look like a contender.

It's obvious he's given up on this season.

His overall statistics in comparison to past seasons suggest he will marginally improve (ERA+ currently 94, career is around 104), but even with an improvement from his current slide, he's still just an average pitcher.

 

Whether he's "given up" or is simply regressing, Garland is absolutely killing his trade value entering the offseason. We're not winning anything next year. I wish people would get that in their heads right now. Just think to yourself what would have to occur for us to rebound and overtake every team (including KC) above us. It's just not happening. Best thing we could do is trade Contreras/Garland, promote Egbert/Gonzalez, and just let them pitch.