PDA

View Full Version : Should We Bring Garland Back?


Thome25
11-01-2008, 03:25 PM
I think it'd be a good idea for the Sox to re-sign Garland.....I mean we could do alot worse at the back end of the starting rotation.

He has proven himself to be a pretty good pitcher for us over the years so why not give it another go around?

What do you think?

Frontman
11-01-2008, 03:39 PM
I certainly wouldn't be against it; IF the money is right.

Thome25
11-01-2008, 03:46 PM
Well Garland is coming off a down year.....so he may accept a 3 or 4 year deal at a good price because he wouldn't mind coming back to Chicago.

JB98
11-01-2008, 04:01 PM
If the price is right, sure. If Garland wants around $8 million per over three years, why not? But I wouldn't give Jon $70 million over five years or something outlandish like that.

Domeshot17
11-01-2008, 04:04 PM
No thanks, mid to high 4 era, crappy WHIP, bad K:BB ratio, opponents hit him hard. I get he throws 200 innings, but at some point a different criteria will be needed to judge our rotation. I would keep Javy over bringing Garland back.

We have plenty of middle rotation guys (Buehrle Floyd Javy) and only 1 guy with the potential to be a front line starter. Why bring in more of the same and not try to get what we really lack and need, a number 1 SP to put infront of them all.

I hope we win another world series soon, Im already sick to death of the names Crede Rowand and Garland. WHY NOT BRING BACK CARL EVERETT AND TIMO PEREZ. It really sucks because I liked Rowand and Crede and Garland, but come on, enough is enough.

cards press box
11-01-2008, 04:12 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the Sox: (a) deal Javier Vazquez, possibly as part of a deal to acquire a CF or 2B and/or a lead off man and (b) sign Jon Garland.

Allow me to borrow a bit of hockey history to explain. In 1955, the Detroit Red Wings dealt goaltender Terry Sawchuck to the Boston Bruins. Sawchuck had difficulty adjusting to Boston and, after two seasons, retired. In 1957, the Bruins dealt Sawchuck back to the Red Wings where he resumed a great NHL career.

Garland did not have a great season with L.A. It appears that he never wanted to leave the White Sox in the first place. Garland was comfortable here playing for Ozzie Guillen and Don Cooper. I wouldn't expect him to be an ace but, as a fourth starter on what is already a strong staff, Garland could excel.

Consider this starting rotation:

John Danks
Gavin Floyd
Mark Buerhle
Jon Garland
Clayton Richard

If Garland has a renaissance in Chicago and Richard continues to progress, this staff could be among the best in the AL.

Domeshot17
11-01-2008, 04:14 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the Sox: (a) deal Javier Vazquez, possibly as part of a deal to acquire a CF or 2B and/or a lead off man and (b) sign Jon Garland.

Allow me to borrow a bit of hockey history to explain. In 1955, the Detroit Red Wings dealt goaltender Terry Sawchuck to the Boston Bruins. Sawchuck had difficulty adjusting to Boston and, after two seasons, retired. In 1957, the Bruins dealt Sawchuck back to the Red Wings where he resumed a great NHL career.

Garland did not have a great season with L.A. It appears that he never wanted to leave the White Sox in the first place. Garland was comfortable here playing for Ozzie Guillen and Don Cooper. I wouldn't expect him to be an ace but, as a fourth starter on what is already a strong staff, Garland could excel.

Consider this starting rotation:

John Danks
Gavin Floyd
Mark Buerhle
Jon Garland
Clayton Richard

If Garland has a renaissance in Chicago and Richard continues to progress, this staff could be among the best in the AL.

Garland isn't worth the top pick he would cost. Richard does not belong in the rotation, he can either be a good MR or a bad SP. That would not be much of a rotation. It would again put all the pressure on the 2 kids to carry it.

Thome25
11-01-2008, 04:14 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the Sox: (a) deal Javier Vazquez, possibly as part of a deal to acquire a CF or 2B and/or a lead off man and (b) sign Jon Garland.

Allow me to borrow a bit of hockey history to explain. In 1955, the Detroit Red Wings dealt goaltender Terry Sawchuck to the Boston Bruins. Sawchuck had difficulty adjusting to Boston and, after two seasons, retired. In 1957, the Bruins dealt Sawchuck back to the Red Wings where he resumed a great NHL career.

Garland did not have a great season with L.A. It appears that he never wanted to leave the White Sox in the first place. Garland was comfortable here playing for Ozzie Guillen and Don Cooper. I wouldn't expect him to be an ace but, as a fourth starter on what is already a strong staff, Garland could excel.

Consider this starting rotation:

John Danks
Gavin Floyd
Mark Buerhle
Jon Garland
Clayton Richard

If Garland has a renaissance in Chicago and Richard continues to progress, this staff could be among the best in the AL.


IMO That staff looks pretty darn good on paper.

Thome25
11-01-2008, 04:15 PM
Garland isn't worth the top pick he would cost. Richard does not belong in the rotation, he can either be a good MR or a bad SP. That would not be much of a rotation. It would again put all the pressure on the 2 kids to carry it.


We'll have picks to spare after all of our impending free agents depart. IMO Richard wouldn't be a bad #5 starter.

guillen4life13
11-01-2008, 04:18 PM
No thanks, mid to high 4 era, crappy WHIP, bad K:BB ratio, opponents hit him hard. I get he throws 200 innings, but at some point a different criteria will be needed to judge our rotation. I would keep Javy over bringing Garland back.

We have plenty of middle rotation guys (Buehrle Floyd Javy) and only 1 guy with the potential to be a front line starter. Why bring in more of the same and not try to get what we really lack and need, a number 1 SP to put infront of them all.

I hope we win another world series soon, Im already sick to death of the names Crede Rowand and Garland. WHY NOT BRING BACK CARL EVERETT AND TIMO PEREZ. It really sucks because I liked Rowand and Crede and Garland, but come on, enough is enough.

I really think that Floyd has front of rotation potential along with Danks, and Buehrle is a good #2. This past year, the weak link in the rotation was Contreras, even though he started pretty hot. I think Danks and Floyd are only going to get better, and Buehrle will give his normal 200-220 IP with a 3.5-3.9 ERA. Considering this is all done at the Cell, that is very respectable.

Garland is coming off of a down year but I would be happy to have him back... again, if the price is right.

Domeshot17
11-01-2008, 04:18 PM
We'll have picks to spare after all of our impending free agents depart. IMO Richard wouldn't be a bad #5 starter.

then the Garland trade was useless and moreover stupid if we resign him. We dealt him for 2 reasons (1) we needed a SS and had a Sp to spare (2) we traded 1 pick for 2. Now we are sending one of those picks right back to anaheim.

And why does everyone think Richard is going to be a fine SP? He was ok out of the bullpen vs a team that can't hit left handed pitching very well, but he had an era over 6 in the rotation this year. That is not promising, that is bad.

btrain929
11-01-2008, 04:30 PM
Garland isn't worth the top pick he would cost. Richard does not belong in the rotation, he can either be a good MR or a bad SP. That would not be much of a rotation. It would again put all the pressure on the 2 kids to carry it.

Garland is only a Type B free agent. So we as a team don't give up a pick for him. The Angels would just get a pick in the compensation round (round 1A).

Having said that, I don't wanna see Garland anywhere near Chicago.

Domeshot17
11-01-2008, 04:31 PM
I really think that Floyd has front of rotation potential along with Danks, and Buehrle is a good #2. This past year, the weak link in the rotation was Contreras, even though he started pretty hot. I think Danks and Floyd are only going to get better, and Buehrle will give his normal 200-220 IP with a 3.5-3.9 ERA. Considering this is all done at the Cell, that is very respectable.

Garland is coming off of a down year but I would be happy to have him back... again, if the price is right.

Danks is the only pitcher on this staff I feel ok about throwing game 1 of a playoff series. That pretty much defines number 1 sp. A guy who can pitch 8 shut out innings without his best stuff and win a game 2-0 when the offense isn't there. Javy can't win a game 6-5 so it isn't him. Floyd has great stuff but is weaker mental wise, and crumbled in the playoffs. Buehrle just doesn't have the dominating stuff to do this, unable to hold the lead vs TB. We need a guy who is a no doubt game 1 starter. Look at what Cole Hamels did for Philly. James Shields was great for TB. Beckett last year, Freddy for us in 05. You absolutely need dominant SP to win and go deep in the playoffs. NOT JUST good enough sp, that does not work. Garland was a non essential role in 2005. He was the 4th SP and was just good enough. We don't have a dominant Jose or Freddy to put in front of Burls to make it all work.

LITTLE NELL
11-01-2008, 04:53 PM
I say bring him back if the $$$ is right. He gives you 200+ innings and he is only 30 years old.

guillen4life13
11-01-2008, 05:01 PM
then the Garland trade was useless and moreover stupid if we resign him. We dealt him for 2 reasons (1) we needed a SS and had a Sp to spare (2) we traded 1 pick for 2. Now we are sending one of those picks right back to anaheim.

And why does everyone think Richard is going to be a fine SP? He was ok out of the bullpen vs a team that can't hit left handed pitching very well, but he had an era over 6 in the rotation this year. That is not promising, that is bad.

In 8 starts. He had a decent K/BB ratio and showed a lot more than just what his ERA says. I'm not saying he'll be great but he will be a decent 5th starter.

And by the way, Danks had a 5.50 ERA in his first season (over 26 starts, BTW). Was that bad, not promising? So if Danks can move from being a bad to top of rotation pitcher in a year, I'm quite confident Richard can move from being a bad pitcher in 08 to a serviceable 5th starter in 09.

veeter
11-01-2008, 05:12 PM
It all depends. Re-sign Jon vs. what? If it's Garland instead of Richard as the 5th starter, hell yes. (Putting Clayton in the pen) If it's Garland instead of A.J. Burnett, hell no. I just think the re-signing of Jon, will be dependant on which dominos either fall or don't fall for Kenny.

turners56
11-01-2008, 05:18 PM
For the right price, I wouldn't mind. But Garland was horrible last year in Anaheim, which is a much more pitcher's park than the Cell. His WHIP in Chicago was always around the 1.2-1.3 range. But his WHIP was 1.5 last year, his ERA was also well below league average. He'd make a good 5th starter, but it looks like he's regressed to his pre-2005 days.

Domeshot17
11-01-2008, 05:52 PM
In 8 starts. He had a decent K/BB ratio and showed a lot more than just what his ERA says. I'm not saying he'll be great but he will be a decent 5th starter.

And by the way, Danks had a 5.50 ERA in his first season (over 26 starts, BTW). Was that bad, not promising? So if Danks can move from being a bad to top of rotation pitcher in a year, I'm quite confident Richard can move from being a bad pitcher in 08 to a serviceable 5th starter in 09.

The question is do you want a good left handed RP in the bullpen or do you want Boone Logan back in the pen and Richard in the rotation? If you can't see the difference in Danks and Richard then Im sorry. Danks has plus stuff, and his biggest issue was not stuff, or movement, but control and location. Fixable things. Richard does not have plus stuff. He has alright stuff, he doesn't throw overly hard. Nothing about him says GOOD major league starting pitcher. However, he does have the stuff to be a good Loogy and that is where his career will be the best.

Its fine, if we want to go into the year with Getz and Fields and Richard and Broadway, fine. I for one liked the playoffs last season and was hoping for a return trip.

btrain929
11-01-2008, 06:00 PM
It all depends. Re-sign Jon vs. what? If it's Garland instead of Richard as the 5th starter, hell yes. (Putting Clayton in the pen) If it's Garland instead of A.J. Burnett, hell no. I just think the re-signing of Jon, will be dependant on which dominos either fall or don't fall for Kenny.

If it's Garland for $10 million a year instead of Richard for $400,000, hell no.

btrain929
11-01-2008, 06:01 PM
I say bring him back if the $$$ is right. He gives you 200+ innings and he is only 30 years old.

So he's a young AND durable pitcher.......that completely ****ing sucks. Sweet....

Sargeant79
11-01-2008, 06:03 PM
I'll be surprised if Garland doesn't wind up with a contract that at least equals what Carlos Silva got last year. He's not worth that type of money. Pass.

Daver
11-01-2008, 06:38 PM
Where is the option of "Why the hell was he traded in the first place?"

Whitesoxfan23
11-01-2008, 06:44 PM
I rather the Sox have Garland than Javy. At least Garland has balls, unlike Javy.

Craig Grebeck
11-01-2008, 06:45 PM
Where is the option of "Why the hell was he traded in the first place?"
Probably because the Sox had no intention of resigning him and wanted to net two draft picks instead of the compensatory one they would receive in the event they held onto Jon. Also because they wanted to slot Floyd into the rotation, something that wouldn't have happened without moving Jon.

It's really not something we should bemoan. He's getting the **** hit out of him more and more every year.

thomas35forever
11-01-2008, 06:59 PM
How 'bout we trade for Aaron and sign Freddy while we're at it? No thanks.

turners56
11-01-2008, 07:30 PM
Where is the option of "Why the hell was he traded in the first place?"

Orlando Cabrera was better than Garland in 2008. As much as we hated OC, Garland would of made you puke if he was still playing here. He had a 4.90 ERA in Anaheim, think of how that would translate over at the Cell. Plus, if we still had Garland, either Danks or Floyd wouldn't of had a chance to pitch this year.

Daver
11-01-2008, 08:16 PM
Orlando Cabrera was better than Garland in 2008. As much as we hated OC, Garland would of made you puke if he was still playing here. He had a 4.90 ERA in Anaheim, think of how that would translate over at the Cell. Plus, if we still had Garland, either Danks or Floyd wouldn't of had a chance to pitch this year.

So if Garland was here Contraes would have magically not gotten injured?


And it is a known fact that moving into a new team and coaching staff did not affect his performance?

btrain929
11-01-2008, 08:30 PM
Where is the option of "Why the hell was he traded in the first place?"

If Garland isn't traded, Floyd doesn't get his chance and put up the numbers he did for us in '08.

Brian26
11-01-2008, 08:34 PM
I'd take Garland back here in a second.

btrain929
11-01-2008, 08:36 PM
I rather the Sox have Garland than Javy. At least Garland has balls, unlike Javy.

If by balls, you mean Garland had worse stats in almost every category imaginable compared to Javy, then yeah he has balls. :rolleyes:

Soxfest
11-01-2008, 08:36 PM
No to JG....................Not a fan!

Daver
11-01-2008, 08:39 PM
If Garland isn't traded, Floyd doesn't get his chance and put up the numbers he did for us in '08.

Managing by hindsight is the stupidest approach I have ever heard of.

Domeshot17
11-01-2008, 08:44 PM
The trade made perfect sense. We had 1 too many SP, we needed a SS. We traded an average at best type B pitcher for one of the better SS in the game who netted us type A comp. Trading Garland had NO NEGATIVE IMPACT on this season, ZERO. You can argue ok, Floyd moves into the 5th role when Contreras got hurt, but would he be where he was without that monster start to the year? Without him in the rotation, we would not have been in first, especially if Garland was pitching like his usual craptacular self.

White Sox Fans, we seem to value mediocrity in players more than any other fan base. Aaron Rowand on offense, now Jon Garland on the mound. Everyone acts like he pitched that much worse than his season norm. He had a 4.9 era. Over 3/5 of his career his era has been OVER 4.5. Yet you guys want to throw 8-10-12-14 mil at him. Lets use that money and sign someone who can actually win us some games. I would rather spend 18-20 mil on the front of the rotation then 12-14 mil on the back.

turners56
11-01-2008, 08:48 PM
So if Garland was here Contraes would have magically not gotten injured?


And it is a known fact that moving into a new team and coaching staff did not affect his performance?

He moved back to his home state of California right by where he grew up. That should boost comfort level. The rest of the Angels staff was awesome, so I don't think they have a bad pitching coach. I doubt it was the personnel around him. He just had a bad year.

btrain929
11-01-2008, 08:51 PM
Managing by hindsight is the stupidest approach I have ever heard of.

Outside of 1 year, Garland has sucked. Always has, always will. If you don't look at the number of wins he's had year in and year out, and just look at his other peripheral stats, calling him mediocre would be a compliment. And he's going to be making 11-14 million a year for the foreseeable future.

We had a young SP (Floyd) that a small number of fans, as well as upper management, felt could put up close to the career averages Garland would have had he stayed here. That young SP was going to cost you $400,000. So we were able to trade Garland to a team that was under the funny impression that he would be a quality addition to their team, and fill a weakness on our team.

That's not hindsight.

Brian26
11-01-2008, 09:00 PM
He moved back to his home state of California right by where he grew up. That should boost comfort level. The rest of the Angels staff was awesome, so I don't think they have a bad pitching coach.

Pretty bad logic all-around. There are plenty of talented pitching staffs with bad coaches and plenty of bad coaches with untalented pitching staffs. As for comfort level, Buehrle said at Soxfest that Garland considered Chicago home now.

Daver
11-01-2008, 09:05 PM
Outside of 1 year, Garland has sucked. Always has, always will. If you don't look at the number of wins he's had year in and year out, and just look at his other peripheral stats, calling him mediocre would be a compliment. And he's going to be making 11-14 million a year for the foreseeable future.

We had a young SP (Floyd) that a small number of fans, as well as upper management, felt could put up close to the career averages Garland would have had he stayed here. That young SP was going to cost you $400,000. So we were able to trade Garland to a team that was under the funny impression that he would be a quality addition to their team, and fill a weakness on our team.

That's not hindsight.

There is no salary cap in baseball, payroll arguments mean nothing unless you are applying it to fantasy baseball.

A pitcher that can consistently give you 200+ innings a year does not suck, it may affect fantasy numbers but no one based in reality cares about that.

Domeshot17
11-01-2008, 09:09 PM
Pretty bad logic all-around. There are plenty of talented pitching staffs with bad coaches and plenty of bad coaches with untalented pitching staffs. As for comfort level, Buehrle said at Soxfest that Garland considered Chicago home now.

The logic may be bad, but Mike Butcher is very good pitching coach. Garland did not pitch bad because he was missing coop or he was homesick, he pitched bad because he isn't that talented of a pitcher. He is a waste of money at 14 mil.

And for Daver commenting on no salary cap in baseball, that logic only applies to the Yankees. The White Sox will only spend so much. So when we throw these huge wasteful contracts at Javy Garland Contreras etc. that is money we can't use to sign someone good.

Spend that 14 mil on Furcal, he will do more for us in 1 year then Garland would over the life of his contract.

And about Fantasy Numbers, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Im not a stat head, I dont get into the deep stats. We are talking basic everyday important stats like how many runs a game he gives up and how many guys get on base because of the pitcher, or how many guys he strikes out to how many he walks. If you think the only stat that matters is Innings Pitched, wow, give me a break. By your logic you would rather have Livan Hernandez then John Danks, because he has a rubber arm where Danks doesnt go as deep into games. Livan will give you 220 innings of 5.50 era ball, Danks maybe 190 of sub 4 era ball. Ill take Danks over Livan 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

btrain929
11-01-2008, 09:21 PM
A pitcher that can consistently give you 200+ innings a year does not suck

I'm glad you feel Carlos Silva and Livan Hernandez are anchors for any championship team.

If you think the only stat that matters is Innings Pitched, wow, give me a break. By your logic you would rather have Livan Hernandez then John Danks, because he has a rubber arm where Danks doesnt go as deep into games. Livan will give you 220 innings of 5.50 era ball, Danks maybe 190 of sub 4 era ball. Ill take Danks over Livan 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

Thank you.

Daver
11-01-2008, 09:23 PM
I'm glad you feel Carlos Silva and Livan Hernandez are anchors for any championship team.


Please show me where, exactly, I said that.

Putting words in my mouth is not a good habit to get into.

btrain929
11-01-2008, 09:36 PM
Please show me where, exactly, I said that.

Putting words in my mouth is not a good habit to get into.

Ok I guess we'll have to use baby language for Daver here:

Are...you....saying....that....Livan Hernandez.....and.....Carlos Silva.....do NOT suck?

Daver
11-01-2008, 09:45 PM
Ok I guess we'll have to use baby language for Daver here:

Are...you....saying....that....Livan Hernandez.....and.....Carlos Silva.....do NOT suck?

So now you accuse me of being a child?

turners56
11-01-2008, 09:51 PM
So now you accuse me of being a child?

A pitcher that can consistently give you 200+ innings a year does not suck, it may affect fantasy numbers but no one based in reality cares about that.

Livan Hernandez is a big exception to that statement. Plus, what do you mean by fantasy numbers?

LoveYourSuit
11-01-2008, 10:22 PM
There is no salary cap in baseball, payroll arguments mean nothing unless you are applying it to fantasy baseball.

A pitcher that can consistently give you 200+ innings a year does not suck, it may affect fantasy numbers but no one based in reality cares about that.


Exactly the reason why I laugh at people who want to run Javy out of town.

They want to run Javy out of town but quickly want to hand Garland a $60 million contract :scratch:

IMO they both are not GREAT pitchers but are very important middle of the rotation anchors for a good rotation. That said, I would not be handing either one of those guys $12 million per season for 5 years.

btrain929
11-02-2008, 03:50 AM
So now you accuse me of being a child?

As I thought, thanks for answering the question.

Frater Perdurabo
11-02-2008, 06:07 AM
Yes, I'd support re-signing Garland to be the #5 starter, and also keep Vazquez.

LoveYourSuit
11-02-2008, 11:31 PM
Yes, I'd support re-signing Garland to be the #5 starter, and also keep Vazquez.


Well, it's good to know Washington has authorized the White Sox to start printing money at US Cellular field.

That's a very exepnsive 4-5 rotation for average pitching you are proposing.

drewcifer
11-02-2008, 11:36 PM
Yes, I'd support re-signing Garland to be the #5 starter, and also keep Vazquez.

I don't support either one. But thank you Jon, for the record.

HomeFish
11-02-2008, 11:38 PM
Has Garland filled the messianic role that Aaron Rowand once held at WSI?

Nellie_Fox
11-03-2008, 12:38 AM
Has Garland filled the messianic role that Aaron Rowand once held at WSI?No, Rowand has that all locked up.

Zisk77
11-03-2008, 07:31 AM
No, Rowand has that all locked up.

How many innings can Rowand give us this year?:cool:

turners56
11-03-2008, 03:27 PM
How many innings can Rowand give us this year?:cool:

He'll grind out 200+ innings. No matter how many runs he gives up, he won't suck because pitchers who throw 200+ innings do not suck and he has the fire and the passion.

Frontman
11-03-2008, 04:09 PM
No, Rowand has that all locked up.


http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll291/Dath_Tim/Obiwankenobi.jpg
"Rowand? Rowand? Now that's a name I have not heard in a long time. A long time."

"My uncle seemed to know him. He says he's dead."

"Oh he's not dead. His career is; he's just in San Francisco."

chisox77
11-04-2008, 11:58 AM
I have mixed feelings about Garland.

But at this point in his career, in spite of a recent decline, he will still want a four or five year committment from somebody. And there will be someone out there who will agree to it.

For two, maybe three years at the back of the rotation - yes. Anything more than that - no.

Hard to say what will happen right now.


:cool:

NLaloosh
11-04-2008, 12:51 PM
Garland would be a perfect sign for the Brewers.

turners56
11-04-2008, 02:05 PM
Garland would be a perfect sign for the Brewers.

For some reason, he reminds me of Dave Bush now...

Saufley
12-08-2008, 05:21 PM
Could be our innings eater to replace Javy. Or are we sold on the young guys for next year to handle the #4 & #5 spots in the rotation?

JermaineDye05
12-08-2008, 05:25 PM
Because Kenny is wanting to dump some salary. Garland would be the opposite of that. If Kenny wanted to spend big money on pitcher, I think he'd rather do it on a #1 or #2 as opposed to a #4 or #5.

veeter
12-08-2008, 05:28 PM
I don't see Kenny going down that road. He only reunites with guys he's been obsessed with. I don't think he's too enamored with Jon. Personally, I'd be all for it.

Noneck
12-08-2008, 05:38 PM
Hes better than any 4 or 5 they currently have.

kittle42
12-08-2008, 05:41 PM
Looks from the ESPN live blog that the Cardinals may be interested.

guillensdisciple
12-08-2008, 05:44 PM
Well Garland is coming off a down year.....so he may accept a 3 or 4 year deal at a good price because he wouldn't mind coming back to Chicago.


He loves the west coast, I would be shocked if he thought about coming back to Chicago.

btrain929
12-08-2008, 05:48 PM
http://www.creepygif.com/images/full/95.gif

Daver
12-08-2008, 05:57 PM
http://www.creepygif.com/images/full/95.gif


Great post.

RowanDye
12-08-2008, 06:12 PM
Great post.

Thanks Daver, I needed a good laugh.

Jurr
12-08-2008, 06:20 PM
Hes better than any 4 or 5 they currently have.
Well, people assumed that last year's 4 and 5 would suck, too.

Domeshot17
12-08-2008, 06:23 PM
would rather spend 15-20 mil on a top of the rotation starter then 13 mil on a bottom. Garland, is a bottom.

champagne030
12-08-2008, 06:48 PM
would rather spend 15-20 mil on a top of the rotation starter then 13 mil on a bottom. Garland, is a bottom.

It's kind of hard to spend $13M, let alone, $15-20M when you don't have $.75 to spend.

35th and Shields
12-08-2008, 06:56 PM
Well, people assumed that last year's 4 and 5 would suck, too.

Both are 4 and 5 were at least considered to be top prospects. Broadway, Richard, Marquez.....please. Why would we not want Garland at his point. We have no 4th or 5th starter. Unless he's asking for a ridiculous contract, he would without a doubt help our team right now.

Brian26
12-08-2008, 06:57 PM
He loves the west coast, I would be shocked if he thought about coming back to Chicago.

I asked Buehrle about this at Soxfest. Garland considered Chicago his home and would have stayed here. He didn't want to leave...that story is blown out of proportion.

Noneck
12-08-2008, 06:58 PM
Well, people assumed that last year's 4 and 5 would suck, too.
Yes and the 4 did, Contreras.

whitesox901
12-08-2008, 07:03 PM
no

longtimesoxguy
12-08-2008, 07:19 PM
I asked Buehrle about this at Soxfest. Garland considered Chicago his home and would have stayed here. He didn't want to leave...that story is blown out of proportion.

He no doubt wants back in. He kept his place her for that reason. He was in town Thanksgiving weekend hanging out in the south loop.

champagne030
12-08-2008, 07:37 PM
Yes and the 4 did, Contreras.

According to several here, so did 5 (Javy). :shrug:

I predict that no pitcher, currently in our organization and outside of MB, JD, GF, will sniff Javy's 2008 numbers. I fully expect KW to fix this.....

kittle42
12-08-2008, 07:38 PM
I predict that no pitcher, currently in our organization and outside of MB, JD, GF, will sniff Javy's 2008 numbers. I fully expect KW to fix this.....

Yes, but they'll be Chicago Tough!

Noneck
12-08-2008, 07:51 PM
According to several here, so did 5 (Javy). :shrug:

I predict that no pitcher, currently in our organization and outside of MB, JD, GF, will sniff Javy's 2008 numbers. I fully expect KW to fix this.....

I had no problem with Vazquez as the 4 or 5. A workhorse that is not injury prone like Vazquez is a valuable commodity. Garland fills that bill.

kittle42
12-08-2008, 08:05 PM
Oh, and 2005!

btrain929
12-08-2008, 08:27 PM
Great post.

Yeah, it didn't work the 1st time. This is what I wanted to post. It's just an inside look on how I feel everytime someone suggests they want Garland back or think it's even a possibility....

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s278/jay8wonder/a_takedown.gif

kittle42
12-08-2008, 08:42 PM
yeah, it didn't work the 1st time. This is what i wanted to post. It's just an inside look on how i feel everytime someone suggests they want garland back or think it's even a possibility....

rko!

DaveFeelsRight
12-08-2008, 09:10 PM
rko!diamondcutter is more like it

Goose
12-08-2008, 09:12 PM
If it's Garland for $10 million a year instead of Richard for $400,000, hell no.

Are you paying the bills this year?

Why are people so concerned about the check when someone else is already paying for it?

champagne030
12-08-2008, 09:16 PM
Are you paying the bills this year?

Why are people so concerned about the check when someone else is already paying for it?

We're down net $20M since last year. :scratch:

btrain929
12-08-2008, 09:31 PM
Are you paying the bills this year?

Why are people so concerned about the check when someone else is already paying for it?

Okay, I'll explain it to you in 3 ways:

1) The team is trying to reduce payroll and go with younger options. So why would they (KW, JR, etc) throw all this money at Garland who is tight-roping the line of mediocre and suckage? In other words, what will he bring to the table that will make him 10MIL better than Richard/Marquez? 200IP's, right?
2) The team just dumped Vazquez and his salary on the Braves. Many outlets are amazed that we didn't have to cover any of his salary. Why would we turn around and give that money right back to a pitcher that more than likely isn't an upgrade over Javy? And please look at his stats this past year in a pitcher's park before you respond...
3) If none of that makes sense to you, then just look at post #78 and pray I'm not walking behind you at Soxfest....:D:

slavko
12-09-2008, 12:22 AM
Garland of 2007, if the price is right. Garland of 2008, no.

Frontman
12-09-2008, 09:53 AM
diamondcutter is more like it

More of a running bulldog. The cutter starts from in front of your opponent.......

*Frontman realizes how much of a wrestling dork he is, decides to stop typing.*

:redface: