White Sox named as a possibility for Garland

[Dick Allen]

Jon Garland SUCKED last year. He wasn't just bad. He was terrible. And he's pretty much regressed every season since his career 2005. But he's "proven" because he's been in the league a number of years? I guess scrubs like Jason Marquis are proven because they've been in the league 6-7 years. Some of you guys are going to have to get over this chronic fear of giving young guys a shot. You don't throw money at garbage just because "Well, at least he's been around a while. And he can eat some innings. Anything is better than giving a scrub like Marquez, a guy I've never seen before, a shot."

Garland did suck last year. He had a 1.50 WHIP. You're right, give Marquez and his 1.45 WHIP in AAA a shot. He HAS to be better. BTW, as great of prospect as KW calls Marquez, and I see your drinking the Kool-Aid, his minor league WHIP is higher than Garland's career WHIP in the major leagues.

 

I don't really think Marquez is a guy you can count on.

[Jordan4life_2007]

The problem with you theory there is that the young guys arent used to pitching over 200 innings which means that our pen and the rest of our staff would be more taxed thus really hurting our rotation and the team as a whole. There is alot of value in a player like Garland that can help the younger guys (Danks, Floyd, 5th starter) keep their innings reasonable and also keep our pen which is somewhat injury prone, from being over worked. You cannot just inject young guys into a rotation because you want to see if they work, there are many other factors to consider.

 

Sorry, but I'm not throwing money at Jon Garland just because he can eat some innings. Especially when a lot of those innings were real bad ones. Like Kenny has said, you can't go out there overpaying or trading for every mediocre veteran out of fear of giving your young guys a chance.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Garland did suck last year. He had a 1.50 WHIP. You're right, give Marquez and his 1.45 WHIP in AAA a shot. He HAS to be better. BTW, as great of prospect as KW calls Marquez, and I see your drinking the Kool-Aid, his minor league WHIP is higher than Garland's career WHIP in the major leagues.

 

I don't really think Marquez is a guy you can count on.

 

I figured you'd be the first one to respond with a post like this. I've never said once that I'm crazy about Marquez. Going by his minor league numbers from last year, and that's all anybody from this site can go by, he's not all that. But he won't cost me 8-10 million dollars like Jon Garland would. If we can add a quality guy, I'm all for it. If not, I think the team is much better off going in-house.

 

[Ozzie Ball]

What? We're currently with only 3 proven starters on the ML level, one of which, Floyd, very well could regress. I'm all for a little battle for the #5 spot, but a team that has ANY aspirations of repeating as AL Central Champs sure as hell had better have another major league arm ready.

I agree to an extent, I believe we need another arm but Garland is most definitely not the answer due to the fact that he has been terrible for the last two years and even prior to that he was only ever league average. Handing $10+/year to Jon would be a huge mistake, however if we could get a Ben Sheets on a similar deal then that would be a great move, then we'd only have about 4 spots in our line up and one spot in our rotation to worry about. Result!

[Jordan4life_2007]

I agree to an extent, I believe we need another arm but Garland is most definitely not the answer due to the fact that he has been terrible for the last two years and even prior to that he was only ever league average. Handing $10+/year to Jon would be a huge mistake, however if we could get a Ben Sheets on a similar deal then that would be a great move, then we'd only have about 4 spots in our line up and one spot in our rotation to worry about. Result!

 

Now this is the s*** I'm talking about. Ben Sheets, although his injury history would scare me off, is the kinda move you look to make if at all possible. Jon Garland? I don't think so.

[RockRaines]

Now this is the s*** I'm talking about. Ben Sheets, although his injury history would scare me off, is the kinda move you look to make if at all possible. Jon Garland? I don't think so.

So, you want want 3 young arms, Buehrle and a guy that probably wont pitch over 140 innings in your rotation? Thats just bad baseball.

[Jordan4life_2007]

So, you want want 3 young arms, Buehrle and a guy that probably wont pitch over 140 innings in your rotation? Thats just bad baseball.

 

Like I said, his injury history would scare me off. As in I wouldn't do it. But those are the kinda impact guys you look for. Not below average vets like Garland.

[RockRaines]

Like I said, his injury history would scare me off. As in I wouldn't do it. But those are the kinda impact guys you look for. Not below average vets like Garland.

I dont think you quite understand the concept of having a rotation pitch a certain amount of innings. You are really focusing on the overall ceiling of the arms in the rotation and are not taking into account the spillover effect if eat SP can only throw 140 innings. We have an extremely injury prone bullpen, we are going to have at least 3 young arms in the rotation, the other two slots need to be filled with guys that are guaranteed to go over 200IP no matter what.

[YASNY]

The White Sox have a very established track record of not overpaying for pitchers, salary wise. The only way the Sox are going to be successful is to give the young guys they have faith in a legitimate shot to succeed or fail and hope they have enough good yound pitchers to succeed.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I dont think you quite understand the concept of having a rotation pitch a certain amount of innings. You are really focusing on the overall ceiling of the arms in the rotation and are not taking into account the spillover effect if eat SP can only throw 140 innings. We have an extremely injury prone bullpen, we are going to have at least 3 young arms in the rotation, the other two slots need to be filled with guys that are guaranteed to go over 200IP no matter what.

 

OK, so basically we're in agreement that Garland is below average and would be a waste of money at 8-10 million (I'm sure he's looking for at least 8)? I'm assuming this because you're only reasoning behind signing him is that we have multiple young starters and he could save your bullpen some with the innings he'd be able to eat (despite the fact that a lot of the innings would be bad ones). If you sign him as a one year stopgap to one, get some of your young guys some more seasoning, and two, set yourself up to go for a big free agent at the end of 2009 when Dye, assuming we don't trade him, and Thome's contracts come off the books, at let's say 5 or 6 million, I might be inclined to do that. But what are the chances Jon would take a deal like that? I say less than 1%. So he's not a legitimate option, IMO.

[Jordan4life_2007]

The White Sox have a very established track record of not overpaying for pitchers, salary wise. The only way the Sox are going to be successful is to give the young guys they have faith in a legitimate shot to succeed or fail and hope they have enough good yound pitchers to succeed.

 

I'd also like to add that I've become a big believer in our organization's philosophy of scouting the stuff/makeup/I.Q. of certain players over just raw numbers. Going by raw numbers alone guys like Gavin Floyd, Jose Contreras and Matt Thornton wouldn't have sniffed Chicago. You can't get 'em right all the time (Andrew Sisco and Nick Masset come to mind). But we've had enough successes over the years that I'm more than willing to give KW and his scouts the benefit of the doubt in regards to some of the young guys we plan on going into battle with next year.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Jordan4life

[RockRaines]

OK, so basically we're in agreement that Garland is below average and would be a waste of money at 8-10 million (I'm sure he's looking for at least 8)? I'm assuming this because you're only reasoning behind signing him is that we have multiple young starters and he could save your bullpen some with the innings he'd be able to eat (despite the fact that a lot of the innings would be bad ones). If you sign him as a one year stopgap to one, get some of your young guys some more seasoning, and two, set yourself up to go for a big free agent at the end of 2009 when Dye, assuming we don't trade him, and Thome's contracts come off the books, at let's say 5 or 6 million, I might be inclined to do that. But what are the chances Jon would take a deal like that? I say less than 1%. So he's not a legitimate option, IMO.

He would not be a waste of money at 8 million at all. I think he is a league avg guy whose value is in how he fits in with his current team and his ability to give the team quality starts and eat innings. For a team that is trying to inject youth into their rotation, he is a great value.

[Jordan4life_2007]

He would not be a waste of money at 8 million at all. I think he is a league avg guy whose value is in how he fits in with his current team and his ability to give the team quality starts and eat innings. For a team that is trying to inject youth into their rotation, he is a great value.

 

Will just agree to disagree. If you can get him for 1 year at 5 or 6 million, that's the only way I'd consider him. I pray Kenny feels the same way I do.

[Princess Dye]

He would not be a waste of money at 8 million at all. I think he is a league avg guy whose value is in how he fits in with his current team and his ability to give the team quality starts and eat innings. For a team that is trying to inject youth into their rotation, he is a great value.

 

8 million isnt a waste value wise, but it's probably pointless if we're willing at this point to let youth take on more responsibility at other positions.

 

The way it's not a waste this year is if we go all out to contend in other areas as well.

[iamshack]

I'm confused...most of us seemed to be fairly happy when Kenny re-signed Jon after 05' to the 3 year/27 million...why would some of you now balk at $8 million per?

 

I'd personally love to take him back at 3/$27 or so...

[lostfan]

I'm confused...most of us seemed to be fairly happy when Kenny re-signed Jon after 05' to the 3 year/27 million...why would some of you now balk at $8 million per?

 

I'd personally love to take him back at 3/$27 or so...

Well, look at how he did in '05, and look at how he did in '08. Those are 2 extremes.

[G&T]

I'm confused...most of us seemed to be fairly happy when Kenny re-signed Jon after 05' to the 3 year/27 million...why would some of you now balk at $8 million per?

 

I'd personally love to take him back at 3/$27 or so...

 

2005 was a career year for a young pitcher. It looked like that deal would be a great value on a top of the rotation arm. But he regressed and it's clear he won't have another season like that again.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I'm confused...most of us seemed to be fairly happy when Kenny re-signed Jon after 05' to the 3 year/27 million...why would some of you now balk at $8 million per?

 

I'd personally love to take him back at 3/$27 or so...

 

Because he's done nothing but regress since 2005. I for one thought that he had turned the corner after that season. I was wrong.

[iamshack]

Because he's done nothing but regress since 2005. I for one thought that he had turned the corner after that season. I was wrong.

 

He actually pitched very solidly for us after about mid-May in 06'. Kept us in the race into September when the rest of the rotation was just god-awful...

 

I think most of us understand what we're getting from Jon, and in my humble opinion, that is easily worth $8-9 million...

[Jordan4life_2007]

He actually pitched very solidly for us after about mid-May in 06'. Kept us in the race into September when the rest of the rotation was just god-awful...

 

I think most of us understand what we're getting from Jon, and in my humble opinion, that is easily worth $8-9 million...

 

I remember. He had a nice little 8-10 start stretch in which he carried the staff. Even with that, his era was a full run higher than the previous season. I won't even get into his peripheral's. I'm sure you know they were bad. Jon was disturbingly bad last year. Especially when you consider Angel stadium is more of a pitcher's park.

[iamshack]

I remember. He had a nice little 8-10 start stretch in which he carried the staff. Even with that, his era was a full run higher than the previous season. I won't even get into his peripheral's. I'm sure you know they were bad. Jon was disturbingly bad last year. Especially when you consider Angel stadium is more of a pitcher's park.

 

Yeah, I agree...I am sort of throwing last year out and chalking it up to him being on a new team, trying to impress his hometown fans, etc...

 

Were he to come back here, I would fully expect him to come back to about a 4.00 ERA or so...

[Kalapse]

Yeah, I agree...I am sort of throwing last year out and chalking it up to him being on a new team, trying to impress his hometown fans, etc...

 

Were he to come back here, I would fully expect him to come back to about a 4.00 ERA or so...

Eh, 4.00 is a stretch for sure, 4.50 is the safer bet. Jon's been a full time starter for 7 years now and he's only posted an ERA south of 4.50 twice, he's finished in the 4.50's four times.

 

Garland is a 4.50 ERA, 1.36 WHIP, 26 HR, 207 IP starter with an awful K:BB ratio, he's going rely heavily on his defense and get absolutely destroyed in about 4 starts, he's incredibly inconsistent from month to month but in the end he's going to give you 32 starts and a ~104 ERA+ so he's valuable in the back of your rotation.

 

Assuming of course that his shoulder is healthy and that knot isn't giving him problems.

[beck72]

The problem with you theory there is that the young guys arent used to pitching over 200 innings which means that our pen and the rest of our staff would be more taxed thus really hurting our rotation and the team as a whole. There is alot of value in a player like Garland that can help the younger guys (Danks, Floyd, 5th starter) keep their innings reasonable and also keep our pen which is somewhat injury prone, from being over worked. You cannot just inject young guys into a rotation because you want to see if they work, there are many other factors to consider.

Good points. To go into 2009 with the 4th and 5th starters two of Marquez/ Richard/ Homer Bailey [if the sox got him], and expect them both to throw 200 innings w/ a 4.50 ERA is unreasonable. Maybe one of those 3 could-esp. for the 1st half, until Contreras or Poreda could help for the 2nd half. But having a 5th starter like Garland at $8 mill., to eat innings, would really help a pitching staff like the sox, both bullpen and SP. Danks and Floyd both may see a drop off. Having a solid, unspectacular starter like Garland would help the sox more than most teams.

[Chisoxfn]

Eh, 4.00 is a stretch for sure, 4.50 is the safer bet. Jon's been a full time starter for 7 years now and he's only posted an ERA south of 4.50 twice, he's finished in the 4.50's four times.

 

Garland is a 4.50 ERA, 1.36 WHIP, 26 HR, 207 IP starter with an awful K:BB ratio, he's going rely heavily on his defense and get absolutely destroyed in about 4 starts, he's incredibly inconsistent from month to month but in the end he's going to give you 32 starts and a ~104 ERA+ so he's valuable in the back of your rotation.

 

Assuming of course that his shoulder is healthy and that knot isn't giving him problems.

And when you have two young arms who are still in the developmental/growing pains phase (Danks/Floyd) and a questionable 5th there is a lot of value in the guy you described above.

[Jordan4life_2007]

If Danks and Floyd regress even a little bit in '09 we have no shot at winning anything anyway. Both those guys have to be as good or better for us to have a chance at anything next year. As far as the young guys not being able to throw 200 innings? How many teams have 3-4 starters that give you 200 innings a year? You'd even be hard pressed to find many rotations made up of veterans that have that many 200 inning guys a year.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Jordan4life