Jump to content

Garland thread continues in Diamond Club


wilmot825

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 21, 2009 -> 10:41 AM)
As long as a huge year from Pauly is .275, 30, 100, I think you'll be happy.

 

When he's healthy he produces. And besides that, a .275 30 100 line from PK could result in a .900 or near OPS. A .900 OPS from the 1Bman would be fantastic considering that it would be a huge improvement over what the Sox have gotten the previous two seasons. Health and avoiding nagging injuries is his biggest concern, and if he can do that, he'll be fine. The problem is that he really hasn't been able to do it over the past couple years, and it could be a big concern going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Strange that Oliver Perez is supposedly worth $10 million per year and Garland only $5 million.

 

Wolf has a long injury history, and I would put Looper closer to Pedro Martinez/Schilling/K.Rogers than I would to Garland as well. Garland's not worth $10 million in this market (or even his $12 million from last year, which could have been cut to only $9.6 million had he accepted arb.), but it's equally hard to believe that he won't get $6-8 million at his age and with his durability.

 

FWIW, I'm elated we don't have to pay Javier Vazquez $12.5 million in 2009. Garland at HALF or $6.25 million for one year, on this Sox team, would seem like a pretty good bargain, but it will NEVER happen under KW.

 

Theoretically, Pettitte, Sheets and Oliver Perez will all sign for at least $10 million per year, if they do sign.

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 25, 2009 -> 09:24 AM)
Strange that Oliver Perez is supposedly worth $10 million per year and Garland only $5 million.

 

Wolf has a long injury history, and I would put Looper closer to Pedro Martinez/Schilling/K.Rogers than I would to Garland as well. Garland's not worth $10 million in this market (or even his $12 million from last year, which could have been cut to only $9.6 million had he accepted arb.), but it's equally hard to believe that he won't get $6-8 million at his age and with his durability.

 

FWIW, I'm elated we don't have to pay Javier Vazquez $12.5 million in 2009. Garland at HALF or $6.25 million for one year, on this Sox team, would seem like a pretty good bargain, but it will NEVER happen under KW.

 

Theoretically, Pettitte, Sheets and Oliver Perez will all sign for at least $10 million per year, if they do sign.

 

If I were one of these guys, I would be looking for a 1-year deal anyways. Why they would want to sign a multi-year deal in this economy, I just don't understand. Wait two years and then sign the multi-year deal.

 

I am also a bit surprised that Jon Garland is being offered deals with low base salaries and incentives. He has never missed a start. What you see is what you get. Not sure why he is being offered incentive-based deals...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, the other scenario comes into play...maybe it's like 1930 during the Great Depression and things will only get worse over the next 2-3 years. Then it would be better to take whatever you can get now (for 2-3 years) instead of facing even more of a bear market in 2010 or 2011, right?

 

So definitely 2 quite distinct schools of thought on this subject from the agents and owners as well.

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 25, 2009 -> 11:17 AM)
Of course, the other scenario comes into play...maybe it's like 1930 during the Great Depression and things will only get worse over the next 2-3 years. Then it would be better to take whatever you can get now (for 2-3 years) instead of facing even more of a bear market in 2010 or 2011, right?

 

So definitely 2 quite distinct schools of thought on this subject from the agents and owners as well.

 

Yeah, for the sake of avoiding an economic debate in this thread, I definitely see what you are saying.

 

And I could understand that if Jon didn't already have $30 million in earnings over the past few years. But given that he does, I think I would go year-to-year and take my chances...the difference is not worth the risk of what you might lose from one year to the next compared to what you might make with a multi-year deal in a better economy.

 

Just my humble opinion, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 25, 2009 -> 11:27 AM)
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/aug/19/sports/sp-35951

 

Speaking of the Dodgers, I came across this really inspiring story that could warm up all but the coldest hearts...

 

Very nice article caulfield.

 

Looks like Sarah has gotten decent exposure since.

 

She had an article about the Dodgers on mlb.com yesterday.

Edited by scenario
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 10:01 PM)
Well perhaps we should all just pull an Oedipus Rex by pulling our eyes out and f***ing our mothers.

 

I wasn't expecting much in this thread. That was gold. :notworthy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (SleepyWhiteSox @ Jan 26, 2009 -> 09:10 PM)
Very heart-warming.

 

And the Dodgers should buy her that apparatus she's asking donations for. <_>

 

hell, she said nice things about jeff kent. they should add her to the p.r. staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dodgers sound about right. I wish we'd sign him. He'd be a nice inning replacement

for Vas and he's a better big game pitcher.

We'd have 2 veterans added to go with Mark and the two young studs.

We'd have some other young guys for mid relief or to battle for starts as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

an article on braves.com (i found it via rosenblooms blog) had this to say about adam dunn

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...rtnerId=rss_atl

Last week an unnamed agent told The Washington Post that he believed Dunn "will get a max of $5 million per year." Given that Dunn has hit at least 40 homers each of the past five seasons, this initially seemed somewhat ridiculous. But two other baseball sources have since indicated they believe that projection could prove accurate.

 

if thats true...the sox should do everything possible to nab and have him as the long term jim thome replacement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (daa84 @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 03:25 PM)
an article on braves.com (i found it via rosenblooms blog) had this to say about adam dunn

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...rtnerId=rss_atl

 

 

if thats true...the sox should do everything possible to nab and have him as the long term jim thome replacement

 

I think if he were to sign a deal like that it would be a one-year deal. These guys who get lowballed aren't going to sign multi-year deals...they'll sign one-year deals and wait it out until the economy betters itself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 03:33 PM)
I think if he were to sign a deal like that it would be a one-year deal. These guys who get lowballed aren't going to sign multi-year deals...they'll sign one-year deals and wait it out until the economy betters itself...

Chances are, next year it will be worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (R.J. @ Jan 27, 2009 -> 12:52 PM)
Adam Dunn at $5 million will be a steal for someone.

Especially when you consider that he wasn't offered arbitration, so you get him at that salary and you can offer him arbitration next year and wind up with 2 fancy draft picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We dont really have a spot for him but I wouldnt mind signing him, he can platoon at bother corner OF spots, 1B, and DH. Gives Dye/Konerko/Thome a lot of rest which at this point in their careers they need a day off more often. Than we can offer him arbitration or resign him at the end of season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...