PDA

View Full Version : Garland,,,dare I say we have 3!


row18
03-24-2004, 09:32 PM
White Sox starter Jon Garland improved to 4-0, pitching six shutout innings and allowing just four hits. The right-hander walked three and struck out two, throwing 91 pitches.

from espn.com

Wow I'm impressed, I know it MARCH, but if he would have started the spring 0-4, we'll all planning a hanging at 35th & Shields.
Just my 2cents.

delben91
03-24-2004, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by row18
Wow I'm impressed, I know it MARCH, but if he would have started the spring 0-4, we'll all planning a hanging at 35th & Shields.
Just my 2cents.

Yeah, I've always been a huge Garland fan/supporter, but I must say his spring has impressed me. I'll be even more impressed if I can say the same after April, and May, etc, etc. But here's hoping.

JohnBasedowYoda
03-24-2004, 10:13 PM
i know i'm no baseball analyst or expert but most of the games i went to were john garland losses but he seemed pretty impressive. Had a good handle on himself and could easily have won with a few more runs behind him.

As for this year maybe Ozzie lighting a fire under the team's collective @$$ will eliminate all those 1-run or so losses (especially to the freakin tigers)

cubhater
03-24-2004, 10:30 PM
Garland should be much better than last year. Remember, he came in with a lot of hype...he was the original Prior of the Cub's minor league system for whatever that's worth . He's still young and took his lumps. He may not be dominating but he'll do the job and will be a solid third starter.

RedPinStripes
03-24-2004, 10:34 PM
I think alot of Garland's head problems was Manuel. No matter how well Jon was doing in a game , he was always quick to pull him. Could be why he couldnt shake off a big inning? Might have been wondering when dumbass would come out and tinker with the bullpen. Ozzie might be a good change for Garland.

Veeky
03-24-2004, 10:37 PM
Judy did not crack 4.50 ERA last year despite having such offensive juggeraunts as Tigers, Tribe and Twins in his division.

He will live and die with that curveball. Otherwise, he's just sinker-change and his change is only serviceable, his control -- mediocre.

As far as this ST "break-through"....Josh Stewart anyone? 3 walks in 22 innings last spring with a 2.05 ERA.

fquaye149
03-24-2004, 10:49 PM
^and pitched well in limited opportunities until injuries hurt his season

stillz
03-24-2004, 10:56 PM
John is hard to figure out. I remember a game at Fenway a couple years ago - he was dominant. I also went to a Tigers game at Comiskey the same year and watched him walk at least 6-7 guys (with a huge lead).

He could have a tremendous year though. Danny Wright as well. I remember I didn't anticipate squat from the trio of Baldwin, Sirotka and Parque in 2000.

mike squires
03-24-2004, 10:57 PM
Unfortunataly we still need a #4 and 5

Veeky
03-25-2004, 05:39 AM
Unfortunataly we still need a #4 and 5

No, we have #4 and #5 -- Garland and Showenweiss/Wright.

What we need is a #3.

Check that, IDEALLY, we need a bona-fied ACE if we want to do serious damage in the playoffs and re-caputure this city. Loaiza is fine as a #2 and Buerhle as a #3, but we don't have a Beckett, a Brown, a Prior, a Shilling, a Unit, a Pedro, a Moose, a Hudson, a Schmidt.

I hope if we're in the lead at the break, Sox swing a deal and get a true ace for half the price -- less if we throw in prospects.

:reinsy
"Half the price is still half too much."

BeerHandle
03-25-2004, 09:54 AM
Garland will give us 15 wins!. He came to our organization as a young pup, took his licks, matured and now is ready for the breakout year. All he needs to do is stay focused. He has great stuff. I have never seen a Sox pitcher get so many batters to hit ground balls.

Frater Perdurabo
03-25-2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Veeky
Check that, IDEALLY, we need a bona-fied ACE if we want to do serious damage in the playoffs and re-caputure this city. Loaiza is fine as a #2 and Buerhle as a #3, but we don't have a Beckett, a Brown, a Prior, a Shilling, a Unit, a Pedro, a Moose, a Hudson, a Schmidt.

I hope if we're in the lead at the break, Sox swing a deal and get a true ace for half the price -- less if we throw in prospects.



Sounds great. But do we care to venture a guess as to what team with a true ace starter is going to be mailing it in by the middle of July -- and willing to dump that ace pitcher for prospects?

poorme
03-25-2004, 10:20 AM
Garland has fooled me in the past. Unless he has changed something fundamental about the way he pitches, I have no reason to be overly optimistic.

Baby Fisk
03-25-2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Frater Perdurabo
Sounds great. But do we care to venture a guess as to what team with a true ace starter is going to be mailing it in by the middle of July -- and willing to dump that ace pitcher for prospects?

Beckett's not too happy a camper these days...

sas1974
03-25-2004, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Veeky
As far as this ST "break-through"....Josh Stewart anyone? 3 walks in 22 innings last spring with a 2.05 ERA.

And then he got sizzled in the chest w/ a line drive and suffered nerve damage in his hand.

jeremyb1
03-25-2004, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Veeky
Judy did not crack 4.50 ERA last year despite having such offensive juggeraunts as Tigers, Tribe and Twins in his division.

How terrible. If it'd be 4.49 instead of 4.51 it would've been a much better season.

Veeky
03-26-2004, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by sas1974
And then he got sizzled in the chest w/ a line drive and suffered nerve damage in his hand.

He wasn't exactly lights out prior to that point.

Veeky
03-26-2004, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
How terrible. If it'd be 4.49 instead of 4.51 it would've been a much better season.

If Judy had half the talent routinely ascribed to him, Sox would be in good shape..

sas1974
03-26-2004, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Veeky
He wasn't exactly lights out prior to that point.

Agreed. Apparently I had selective memory. He was working on a 5.96 ERA w/ 16 walks in 25 innings.

Kittle
03-26-2004, 10:16 AM
Garland is probably better than what we saw under JM, who often gave him the hook too early. His numbers so far have been those of a good #4 pitchers, but I think that he has the talent to be a very good #3. I predicted that this would be his breakout year and he's been looking good so far.

sas1974
03-26-2004, 10:21 AM
From the reports that I have seen on Garland, I think he's going to be in great shape this year. I have to agree w/ those of you that think JM was holding him back. Jon has all of the talent in the world, but I think a lot of problems were between his ears. It seems Ozzie has loosened him up a little and is just letting him pitch.

hold2dibber
03-26-2004, 11:11 AM
IIRC, one of Garland's primary problems in the past is that he walks too many people. From what I've seen so far this spring, he's still walking too many people - which makes me think his spring performance is smoke and mirrors.

With that said, Garland is a decent pitcher. But as someone else pointed out, he's a no. 4 starter, not a no. 3.

sas1974
03-26-2004, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
IIRC, one of Garland's primary problems in the past is that he walks too many people. From what I've seen so far this spring, he's still walking too many people - which makes me think his spring performance is smoke and mirrors.

With that said, Garland is a decent pitcher. But as someone else pointed out, he's a no. 4 starter, not a no. 3.

7 walks in 23 innings isn't terrible. He's been working on keeping the ball down in the zone. If he can continue that, with his sinker, a lot of those walks will turn into double plays.

CubKilla
03-26-2004, 11:20 AM
I'm sick and tired of believing at the beginning of every season that this year is THE BREAKOUT year for Jon Garland. He's never been anything more than a .500 pitcher, who..... on a good team..... would be a number 4 or 5.

Anything over .500 at season's end for Jon would be considered a breakout year for Sox fans that, like me, are tired of waiting for Garland to establish confidence and consistency.

sas1974
03-26-2004, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
I'm sick and tired of believing at the beginning of every season that this year is THE BREAKOUT year for Jon Garland. He's never been anything more than a .500 pitcher, who..... on a good team..... would be a number 4 or 5.

Anything over .500 at season's end for Jon would be considered a breakout year for Sox fans that, like me, are tired of waiting for Garland to establish confidence and consistency.

I am tired of hearing it too, but I don't think it's out of the question. He's only 24.

Tekijawa
03-26-2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by cubhater
...he was the original Prior of the Cub's minor league system

Even though it seems like Garland has been around since the late 80's keep in mind that he's less than a year older than Prior, 345 days. Let's hope this is his break out season!

Kittle
03-26-2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
I'm sick and tired of believing at the beginning of every season that this year is THE BREAKOUT year for Jon Garland. He's never been anything more than a .500 pitcher

A pitcher's winning percentage has as much to do with his team's bullpen and offensive output as his pitching quality. ERA and WHIP are the more accurate ways to measure a pitcher's performance.

DSpivack
03-26-2004, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
on a good team..... would be a number 4 or 5.

Like last year's White Sox?

CubKilla
03-26-2004, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by DSpivack
Like last year's White Sox?

Loaiza was the number 4 going into last season. But your point is well taken. If only we had a manager capable of bringing out the best in everyone for the stretch run..... :(:

Additionally, I think most here would be hard-pressed trying to prove that the '04 White Sox are better than the '03 White Sox with the glaring holes the '04 squad has.

sas1974
03-26-2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Loaiza was the number 4 going into last season. But your point is well taken. If only we had a manager capable of bringing out the best in everyone for the stretch run..... :(:

Additionally, I think most here would be hard-pressed trying to prove that the '04 White Sox are better than the '03 White Sox with the glaring holes the '04 squad has.


:jerry
"Yea! Someone like me!"

Veeky
03-26-2004, 06:48 PM
I have to agree w/ those of you that think JM was holding him back. Jon has all of the talent in the world, but I think a lot of problems were between his ears .

. His numbers so far have been those of a good #4 pitchers, but I think that he has the talent to be a very good #3.

I am sick and tired of hearing about Judy's Talent.

What is his Talent?

90-93mph four-seamer with no movement?'

Merely average change-up?

Bad curveball?

His age?

The closest I can come up with is a really good 90mph two-seamer -- thanks to his 6'6'' frame.

RichFitztightly
03-26-2004, 08:20 PM
^ By all accounts he has an excellent sinker.

sas1974
03-26-2004, 09:19 PM
Veeky calling Jon Garland "Judy" reminds me of the time that Jim Rome kept calling Jim Everett "Chris" until Jim almost beat the living crap out of him. Veeky, if you see a 6'6" frame coming at you out of the shadows, RUN!

Veeky
03-26-2004, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
Veeky calling Jon Garland "Judy" reminds me of the time that Jim Rome kept calling Jim Everett "Chris" until Jim almost beat the living crap out of him. Veeky, if you see a 6'6" frame coming at you out of the shadows, RUN!

Judy can kiss my ass.

A power-knee to the balls and he gawn.

batmanZoSo
03-26-2004, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
Veeky calling Jon Garland "Judy" reminds me of the time that Jim Rome kept calling Jim Everett "Chris" until Jim almost beat the living crap out of him. Veeky, if you see a 6'6" frame coming at you out of the shadows, RUN!

They have video of that footage at ebaumsworld.com. I never knew it was Jim Rome until I dl'd it. I had only seen a brief clip once or twice before. He looks like a little pansy with no goatee. Still sounds like a jerk.