White Sox named as a possibility for Garland

[clyons]

I've said before that depending on salary (duh), Jon Garland + Atlanta prospects > Javy Vazquez; same as Abreu + Reds prospects (Bailey) > Jermaine Dye. You don't lose too much short term, and gain more in the long.

Edited December 18, 2008 by PlaySumFnJurny

[Steve9347]

You're telling me that you can make this comparison and "control" for the overall performances for the teams those guys pitched for over their entire careers...I'm not going to argue Vazquez is great, but by your theory, we should sign Andy Pettitte for $15 million per season, or Mike Mussina...because their overall W-L records with the Yankees will hold up against any pitcher.

 

Or maybe the Mariners would trade us Felix Hernandez straight up for Garland because of Jon's overall winning record vis a vis King Felix. If you were the GM, would you really make that move?

No, there's a difference there. Mussina and Pettitte have aged considerably since their glory year. In the time that they were, oh, I don't know, maybe around 30 years old, yes sign them.

 

We can't trade Garland to the Mariners, silly! We don't have him yet! However, I am being a realist and comparing two players of comparable age. You're bringing up ancient vets or hot shot youngsters. They have no basis on the Vazquez/Garland comparison.

[caulfield12]

 

 

It's "paid". Oh, and Coop'll fix 'im.

 

 

Record is all that matters. Good pitchers find ways to win games.

 

So Danny Wright was a "good" pitcher when he went 14-12 with a 5.18 ERA???

 

I think he played on an offensive juggernaut that covered up most of his mistakes by hitting extremely well (for whatever reason) when he started that year.

 

If you went by the first half of James Baldwin's 2000 season, you would think he would now be making $10-15 million per season. The fact is, many of the balls that were hit off of him found their way into fielder's gloves at an uncanny rate...but the "luck" equalled out and he quickly returned to his normal "mehhhhh" pitching ways before succumbing to injury.

 

Baldwin was 14-7 that season, and a "winning" pitcher, but that year was a statistical anomaly as well.

 

The point is, ROTO stats aren't the be-all, end-all (where Javy looks very good), but wins and losses aren't the only thing to take into consideration either when judging which pitcher would be best for your team.

Edited December 18, 2008 by caulfield12

[SoxFan1]

You said he'll keep the ball in the park. I disagreed. You said he allowed 5 HRs to a potent Rangers offense and that most of those HRs allowed came on the road. I listed a few of the s***ty hitters he allowed HRs to in pitchers parks (on the road), see if you hadn't mentioned that Rangers offense I never would have listed the s***ty hitters he allowed homeruns to (2 of which played for the Rangers). This has nothing to do with a 23 year old allowing 15 HRs in his 2nd full season in the bigs (incredibly impressive) it has to do with the fact that for a ground ball pitcher, Garland gives up a good amount of HRs even while pitching in pitchers parks.

Well, you listed s***ty hitters as if to say he was a s***ty pitcher for giving up those home runs. Danks gave up a home run to Guillermo freakin' Quiroz. Who he gave it up to means nothing to me. And a little bit more for the sake of comparison, Garland pitched 1.2 more innings than Danks in 1 less start.

 

Am I saying that Garland is better than Danks? Absolutely not.

 

Am I saying that 2008 was clearly an outlier for Garland, probably.

 

Am I saying I'd love Garland as our 4th starter, absolutely.

[Steve9347]

This is exactly what I'm talking about, instead of discussing the topic at hand you have to get all personal and correct grammatical errors. Indicators of a person who doesn't know how to conduct himself in an argument.

Dude, I was totally kidding. As I said to Slav as I posted it...

 

"i did three things i hate in that post... i completely ignored stats, i corrected grammar, and i said the coop will fix him line"

 

I'm just giving you a hard time.

 

Anyway, I'd rather have Garland than Vazquez anyday, and if we get him for a reasonable price, which is what I'm asking for, he's MUCH better than what we'd be trotting out there at #4.

[qwerty]

 

 

It's "paid". Oh, and Coop'll fix 'im.

 

 

Record is all that matters. Good pitchers find ways to win games.

 

John danks-12 wins- 3.32 era and one of the top pitchers in the league for the entire season.

 

Livan hernandez-13 wins- 6.05 era and was tied for the second worst era in the majors.

 

Livan is still available...

[ThunderBolt]

Wins are all that f***ing matters!

This is an incredibly flawed statement. There is no logic or proof to back up this claim. In fact, there are decades long worth of research to disprove it.

[SoxFan1]

He's obviously being extremely facetious. I'm pretty sure we all agree that wins don't guage a pitcher's worth at all. It's time to let that go.

[RockRaines]

How many people is that in this thread that took that line seriously?

[Steve9347]

He's obviously being extremely facetious. I'm pretty sure we all agree that wins don't guage a pitcher's worth at all. It's time to let that go.

Of course I was. Anyone who couldn't tell needs to pull their skirt back up!

[Steve9347]

How many people is that in this thread that took that line seriously?

I = winner.

 

I should be on Punk'd.

 

Seriously though.

 

Garland > Vazquez, and we should sign him for a reasonable salary if possible.

[RockRaines]

Of course I was. Anyone who couldn't tell needs to pull their skirt back up!

Had a hard week or something?

[caulfield12]

 

 

It's "paid". Oh, and Coop'll fix 'im.

 

 

Record is all that matters. Good pitchers find ways to win games.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/shareit/cjez

 

Basically, adjusting for ballpark over the last four seasons, Garland and Vazquez are pretty identical.

 

So if you can get Garland for significantly less than $23 million for 2 years, then you have to look at it. However, just because you can get Garland for less still doesn't necessarily make it a bargain, it just makes Vazquez's deal look comparably worse.

Edited December 18, 2008 by caulfield12

[RockRaines]

I = winner.

 

I should be on Punk'd.

 

Seriously though.

 

Garland > Vazquez, and we should sign him for a reasonable salary if possible.

I can see him getting between 8 and 9 million. My best guess is 8x8x9 for a 3 year deal.

[Steve9347]

I can see him getting between 8 and 9 million. My best guess is 8x8x9 for a 3 year deal.

I'd almost rather see a front-loaded deal. But 3x8.33 or 3x9 works for me.

[Steve9347]

Had a hard week or something?

No just really itching for my Christmas time off. Also a signing for the Sox would do well to curb my Soxiety, especially with how terriBULL the bulls are. Thank God for the Hawks.

[Kalapse]

Well, you listed s***ty hitters as if to say he was a s***ty pitcher for giving up those home runs. Danks gave up a home run to Guillermo freakin' Quiroz. Who he gave it up to means nothing to me. And a little bit more for the sake of comparison, Garland pitched 1.2 more innings than Danks in 1 less start.

 

Am I saying that Garland is better than Danks? Absolutely not.

 

Am I saying that 2008 was clearly an outlier for Garland, probably.

 

Am I saying I'd love Garland as our 4th starter, absolutely.

That's not what I was saying at all. When you mentioned the 5 HRs he allowed to the Rangers, you were implying that a good chunk of his HR allowed last year really were excusable because they came against a great offense, which really wasn't the case at all. That's all, he's not a s***ty pitcher, he just tends to give up a good amount of inexcusable homeruns (unlike Danks) for a groundball pitcher.

 

He thew more innings in 1 less start than John Danks, the 23 year old who had trouble getting out of the 6th inning last season and rarely went deep into games.

 

I don't agree at all that 2008 was clearly an outlier, there's just too many red flags there to rule it out. Could it have been an outlier? Sure, there is reason to believe that he was just throwing too damn hard last year and it led to a major decrease in control. Would I be willing to give him $30M in hopes that it was just a fluky season? f*** no.

 

however . . .

I just love this stat. Last year 48 major league pitchers threw at least 190 innings, of them, Jon Garland was the worst (according to VORP). 67 pitchers threw at least 175 innings, Garland was the 7th worst out of the group, the 6 pitchers behind him: Zach Duke, Daniel Cabrera, Tim Redding, Jeff Suppan, Barry Zito and Brian Bannister.

 

That being said, if he were somehow interested I'd still give Garland a Jason Marquis type deal (assuming he's healthy, if that shoulder is f***ed I'm not interested); 3 years, $21M-$24M with incentives for All Star appearances, Cy Young voting and ~210 IP that could raise the deal to say $30M.

I stand by this.

[SoxFan1]

I stand by this.

And I agree completely. I probably wouldn't give more than 8 a season for JG.

[Steve9347]

So what we're all saying here is that we all basically agreed the whole time.

 

I love it.

[Kalapse]

Dude, I was totally kidding. As I said to Slav as I posted it...

 

"i did three things i hate in that post... i completely ignored stats, i corrected grammar, and i said the coop will fix him line"

 

I'm just giving you a hard time.

 

Anyway, I'd rather have Garland than Vazquez anyday, and if we get him for a reasonable price, which is what I'm asking for, he's MUCH better than what we'd be trotting out there at #4.

I haven't posted on here in almost a week and a whole lot less of late than I'd like to because I'm not seeing any good discussions that really interest me, I'm hard up for some good Sox talk right now, I don't find you talking down to me to be all that funny especially when I'm trying to actually discuss the topic with another poster and it's not like you're a stranger to the condescending remark.

 

I'm also wound pretty tight right now, this has been a pretty long week.

[Steve9347]

I haven't posted on here in almost a week and a whole lot less of late than I'd like to because I'm not seeing any good discussions that really interest me, I'm hard up for some good Sox talk right now, I don't find you talking down to me to be all that funny especially when I'm trying to actually discuss the topic with another poster and it's not like you're a stranger to the condescending remark.

 

I'm also wound pretty tight right now, this has been a pretty long week.

Alright. I've always known you to be good at taking it. We're all ready for this week to be over... I find it funny that we were all arguing the same thing, Slav and myself that Garland most certainly would be a great signing at the right price. Your arguments made it seem like you wanted him nowhere near the Sox, but after reading the post you quoted of yourself, we obviously all agree.

[Kalapse]

So what we're all saying here is that we all basically agreed the whole time.

 

I love it.

I'm sick of everyone always agreeing with me. Rarely does anyone actually call me out, sometimes I have to fabricate an disagreement just to get some good dialogue going.

[Steve9347]

I'm sick of everyone always agreeing with me. Rarely does anyone actually call me out, sometimes I have to fabricate an disagreement just to get some good dialogue going.

SO basically we both were just full of s*** on an argument for fun's sake to get us through the last hour of the workday? I think that's what I'm hearing.

 

I think that makes us awesome.

[SoxFan1]

I'm sick of everyone always agreeing with me. Rarely does anyone actually call me out, sometimes I have to fabricate an disagreement just to get some good dialogue going.

Well, I imagine it gets tough having everyone agree with you when you're 100% right all the time.

[Kalapse]

Alright. I've always known you to be good at taking it. We're all ready for this week to be over... I find it funny that we were all arguing the same thing, Slav and myself that Garland most certainly would be a great signing at the right price. Your arguments made it seem like you wanted him nowhere near the Sox, but after reading the post you quoted of yourself, we obviously all agree.

Snark is f***ing awesome and often times hillarious, about 50% of my total posts are sarcastic. Right now however, not so much.