PDA

View Full Version : Garland cleared waivers


Jjav829
08-27-2004, 07:36 AM
According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Jon Garland was one of the few pitchers who cleared waivers along with Kris Benson and Darrell May. If true, I hope KW is actively seeking trades with teams who may have interest in him. I can't imagine any contending team actually believes that Jon Garland would be the piece that puts them over the top. But there might be a desperate team or two out there that would take a chance on him. The Giants and Rangers would both seem to fit. It might be better to keep him and try to trade him in the offseason though.


Pitchers being claimed

A large number of pitchers being put through waivers are being claimed, according to major league officials. The gamut runs from Arizona's Randy Johnson to Detroit's Nate Robertson. Once a claim is made, a team can pull the player back.

A few are getting through, however, including Kris Benson of the New York Mets, Jon Garland of the Chicago White Sox and Kansas City's Darrell May and Brian Anderson.

After the July 31 deadline, players must pass through waivers before being traded. But clubs, especially the Royals, are still asking for outfielder Kevin Mench when they talk trade with the Rangers.

The Colorado Rockies still have Shawn Estes, but the Rangers rejected a July 31 deal for shortstop Ian Kinsler and pitcher Frankie Francisco. The Rangers aren't likely to give much for a pitcher who will likely make just six-seven starts.Link (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/baseball/9511676.htm?1c)

samram
08-27-2004, 07:50 AM
Well, I would figure no contender would want him to take a spot, but if he was on the wire, I'm surprised a low-payroll team looking for a young pitcher with experience wouldn't take a shot at him. Do teams around baseball really feel that he has no chance to be any better than he is now? Apparently the Sox feel that way, and maybe other teams don't see any reason to think differently.

nccwsfan
08-27-2004, 08:20 AM
According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Jon Garland was one of the few pitchers who cleared waivers along with Kris Benson and Darrell May. If true, I hope KW is actively seeking trades with teams who may have interest in him. I can't imagine any contending team actually believes that Jon Garland would be the piece that puts them over the top. But there might be a desperate team or two out there that would take a chance on him. The Giants and Rangers would both seem to fit. It might be better to keep him and try to trade him in the offseason though.

Link (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/baseball/9511676.htm?1c)
Just a question, but couldn't Garland remain on the team as a #5 starter and have KW search for another pitcher in the offseason? I would think that although Garland's been inconsistent he would be fine in the #5 role. Anyone who is expecting greater things out of JG is probably expecting too much.

BeerHandle
08-27-2004, 08:38 AM
According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Jon Garland was one of the few pitchers who cleared waivers along with Kris Benson and Darrell May. If true, I hope KW is actively seeking trades with teams who may have interest in him. I can't imagine any contending team actually believes that Jon Garland would be the piece that puts them over the top. But there might be a desperate team or two out there that would take a chance on him. The Giants and Rangers would both seem to fit. It might be better to keep him and try to trade him in the offseason though.

Link (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/baseball/9511676.htm?1c)
Get rid of the bum. I told my biddy that lives in Garland's condo building to go light a fire under his "you know". This kid has no emotion and always places the blame.

He has so much talent, but lets it waste away!

nccwsfan
08-27-2004, 08:59 AM
Get rid of the bum. I told my biddy that lives in Garland's condo building to go light a fire under his "you know". This kid has no emotion and always places the blame.

He has so much talent, but lets it waste away!
Who are we going to replace him with? Before you say 'most anyone', remember that we're having a heckuva time right now trying to get a pitcher, ANY pitcher, to take hold of the #5 spot. It just doesn't happen overnight, and if KW can spend this offseason looking for another proven pitcher at #4, then having Garland's 10 wins at #5 will be a big help.

I've been just as disappointed in JG as the next guy, but couldn't it be because we've expected too much out of him? At some point you have to say that his chances of being a solid #3 or #4 are diminishing, and that he could be most effective at the end of the rotation. I'll take his 10 wins at that spot.

Brian26
08-27-2004, 08:59 AM
I can't imagine a team seriously trying to go deep into the playoffs would want to pick him up as a starter. He's just too much of a headcase.

HebrewHammer
08-27-2004, 10:02 AM
I could see Jon getting traded and getting clothes all over his condo while trying to pack.

:jon

"That's just how I pack. I don't pack my clothes for the fans, I do it for myself and my teammates."

wdelaney72
08-27-2004, 10:08 AM
Unless KW plans on signing 2 new FA pitchers this off-season, we will need him in 2005.

He's been disappointing, but that's mostly because the organization has hyped him up so much. He'd make a very nice #5.

Maybe Ozzie should crash his condo and still all of his bongs. Maybe THAT would spark some competitive fire in him.

SEALgep
08-27-2004, 10:33 AM
Unless KW plans on signing 2 new FA pitchers this off-season, we will need him in 2005.

He's been disappointing, but that's mostly because the organization has hyped him up so much. He'd make a very nice #5.

Maybe Ozzie should crash his condo and still all of his bongs. Maybe THAT would spark some competitive fire in him.I think KW would be thinking exactly that (signing two FA pitchers.) Not that I expect this, but with interest continuing for Randy Johnson, Garland could be one of the pieces to make that happen.

nccwsfan
08-27-2004, 10:40 AM
I think KW would be thinking exactly that (signing two FA pitchers.) Not that I expect this, but with interest continuing for Randy Johnson, Garland could be one of the pieces to make that happen.
This team is going to have several holes that need to be filled for 2005, and knowing that Garland could be our #5 for a cheap price means that they'll focus on other spots in the offseason.

If the WSO doesn't resign Maggs (certainly a possibility if not a probability) they'll have quite a bit of extra money to fill the holes. Getting a proven starter would need to be a priority.

Aidan
08-27-2004, 11:35 AM
I would take Kevin Mench (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/player.jsp?player_id=407891) in a heartbeat for Garland. We need a right fielder for next season. Of course, Texas would never trade him to us for Garland... or would they?

LASOXFAN
08-27-2004, 11:35 AM
I could see Jon getting traded and getting clothes all over his condo while trying to pack.

:jon

"That's just how I pack. I don't pack my clothes for the fans, I do it for myself and my teammates."
now THAT'S funny!

SEALgep
08-27-2004, 11:45 AM
This team is going to have several holes that need to be filled for 2005, and knowing that Garland could be our #5 for a cheap price means that they'll focus on other spots in the offseason.

If the WSO doesn't resign Maggs (certainly a possibility if not a probability) they'll have quite a bit of extra money to fill the holes. Getting a proven starter would need to be a priority.There are going to be several changes for 2005. Garland, although cheaper than some options, is also less desirable than some other options. A Garland trade could potentially fill a hole while opening a spot for another FA pitcher signing. It all really depends on KW's plan, which obviously will be contingent on several different scenerios. However, Garland certainly wouldn't be given away, he also isn't make or break for us in 2005.

StillMissOzzie
08-27-2004, 11:48 AM
Keep Garland, but as a #5 starter. Heck, if we had a #5 starter that could be a .500 pitcher, we'd have won the division last year AND this year. Of course, that means that we'd have a #3/#4 then...

SMO
:gulp:

WSox8404
08-27-2004, 11:51 AM
The team that may get him would be Texas. They have so many scrubs going out there now and pitching like crap that even Jonny boy would be a massive improvement. They might be thinking that Jon may need a scenery change kind of like Contreras. Texas has more than enough offense. We may get a left handed bat out of the deal. Who knows. I just hope he goes somewhere.

Soxzilla
08-27-2004, 12:24 PM
The team that may get him would be Texas. They have so many scrubs going out there now and pitching like crap that even Jonny boy would be a massive improvement. They might be thinking that Jon may need a scenery change kind of like Contreras. Texas has more than enough offense. We may get a left handed bat out of the deal. Who knows. I just hope he goes somewhere.
With garland's past history against al west teams. They would be crazy to make a deal for the man. Heck, if he gets hammered around on a consistent bases by the detroit tigers, just think of what the angels and athletics would consistently do to him.

Then again, I wouldn't mind seeing bucky jacobsen humiliate jon boy on espn after a trade like this goes through.:bandance:

:jon
"Someone that shows immediate results from being called up? Sorry, thats just blasphemy. Go spread your voodoo on the white sox fans, because they are like the little crumbs of food that get stuck between my teeth after I pig out after getting hammered by a limp opposing offense."

hold2dibber
08-27-2004, 12:28 PM
I would take Kevin Mench (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/player.jsp?player_id=407891) in a heartbeat for Garland. We need a right fielder for next season. Of course, Texas would never trade him to us for Garland... or would they?
The Rangers would trade Mench for Garland in a heart beat. But I'm not sure if it's a good idea - Mench is more of the same of what we already have. Another right handed, power hitting outfielder with a not-so-great OBP (.318 this year).

If Pavano departs, any chance Florda would take Harris/Garland for Pierre? Probably not - but you get my point. If the Sox can pick up another high quality starter (Russ Ortiz, Pavano, Clement, etc.) I think Diaz or Cotts would be an acceptable no. 5, allowing the Sox to move Garland for a high OBP guy at C, SS, 2B or OF and/or a power arm out of the pen.

daveeym
08-27-2004, 01:52 PM
And just for good measure that smirk he has in his photo just makes me want to crack him upside the head. I think that smirk says a lot.

CaptUSN
08-27-2004, 02:03 PM
KW has said he wants to find a #2/#3 type (plus some middle relief). Then Contreras goes to #4 and Garland #5. Garland's record as a #5 would be vastly superior to what we've gotten form the #5 spot the last 2 years.

DumpJerry
08-27-2004, 04:55 PM
Get rid of the bum. I told my biddy that lives in Garland's condo building to go light a fire under his "you know". This kid has no emotion and always places the blame.

He has so much talent, but lets it waste away!:sopranos

"We need the street address, unit number and be told when he is home."
"Don't worry about payment. The job is already paid for."

batmanZoSo
08-27-2004, 05:01 PM
According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Jon Garland was one of the few pitchers who cleared waivers along with Kris Benson and Darrell May. If true, I hope KW is actively seeking trades with teams who may have interest in him. I can't imagine any contending team actually believes that Jon Garland would be the piece that puts them over the top. But there might be a desperate team or two out there that would take a chance on him. The Giants and Rangers would both seem to fit. It might be better to keep him and try to trade him in the offseason though.

Link (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/baseball/9511676.htm?1c)
No one does feel that he'd put them over the top. He'd be a great 5th starter for a team without one, but it's too late for that to save a team.

DickAllen72
08-27-2004, 05:05 PM
Unless KW plans on signing 2 new FA pitchers this off-season, we will need him in 2005.

He's been disappointing, but that's mostly because the organization has hyped him up so much. He'd make a very nice #5.



If we don't resign Maggs and Valentin, we could afford both Pavano and Radke.

balke
08-27-2004, 05:34 PM
If we don't resign Maggs and Valentin, we could afford both Pavano and Radke.
mmm Radke

Soxzilla
08-27-2004, 07:04 PM
mmm Radke
Radke has an era comparable to garland. He isn't worth 10 million my friend.

He only owns US. People need to get that through there head.

Lip Man 1
08-27-2004, 07:33 PM
Soxzilla:

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Radke win 20 one season? and how many years in a row has it been that he's won in double digits?

Lip

Soxzilla
08-27-2004, 07:42 PM
Soxzilla:

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Radke win 20 one season? and how many years in a row has it been that he's won in double digits?

Lip
He probably played 20 games against us.

Eitherway, we shouldn't pay radke 10 million dollars (8 million more than garland), to have an era in the 4.00 range. I'm sorry, that is just ignorant. Thus I don't understand the fascination with the man.

Sure you can bring up the "Well, it's one pitcher the twins won't have that we don't have to worry about." Well you can bet your butts that the money that radke is pursing this year is going to go towards every attempt to lock up santana. Not too mention radke is rumoured to be heading to the devil rays, where his family is.

Radke's career era is 4.24, Garland's is 4.65. Not an 8 million dollar difference. Period.

20 wins or not.

kitekrazy
08-27-2004, 09:27 PM
Before everyone gets too carried away with this thread, did any of the Chicago sources confirm Garland is on waivers.

This doesn't make sense when there are other losers on this team that aren't on waivers. Like Jose V.

samram
08-28-2004, 03:51 AM
Radke has an era comparable to garland. He isn't worth 10 million my friend.

He only owns US. People need to get that through there head.
Radke won't get 10 mil anywhere, but his ERA is a full run lower than Garland's (3.74; 4.79), and that's with a bad outing last night. He's much better, and I think he would be a good fit.

nodiggity59
08-28-2004, 11:50 AM
Radke won't get 10 mil anywhere, but his ERA is a full run lower than Garland's (3.74; 4.79), and that's with a bad outing last night. He's much better, and I think he would be a good fit.
Radke could get 10mil if he ends up performing well in the post season.

Soxzilla
08-28-2004, 12:02 PM
Radke won't get 10 mil anywhere, but his ERA is a full run lower than Garland's (3.74; 4.79), and that's with a bad outing last night. He's much better, and I think he would be a good fit.
He's already getting 10.75 this year, and with the year he has had so far. I don't think he is expecting any sort of downgrade in pay.

kitekrazy
08-28-2004, 12:07 PM
Radke won't get 10 mil anywhere,
Baseball always has it's share of stupid owners. We should all know that.

balke
08-28-2004, 02:58 PM
I don't want Garland gone unless we know we have 2 great pitchers coming to the Sox. Garland is pretty good for a 4-5 spot guy. VERY good actually. I think starters have 3 wins in 2 years out of the 5-spot. correct me if I'm wrong. Might even be less.

So if we have to lose Maggs, Konerko, Garland, whatever... just give me 2 solid starters. Radke, consistant. Pavano, good. Clement, good. Laundry lists have been made on this board. But the sox need to just concede that we need pitching to win games. We can't expect to get 10 runs every night, with good pitching, you can expect to only give up 4-6 a night.

This team has great pop without Frank and Maggs still. So don't you think we can drop a big bat or 2 to gain some big arms and have a better shot at the division? IF it's going to be one bat, then keep Garland, and have a solid 5-man rotation by picking up a FA in the offseason.

MRKARNO
08-28-2004, 03:44 PM
There have been many bad ideas floating around here in the past few days such as we need to break up our offensive core of Lee, Konerko and Thomas and that we need to employ a small-ball offense. This is one of those bad ideas. There is no reason that Garland should be dealt unless we can acquire 2 capable starters this offseason. It's clear that we can't rely on anyone from our minor league system, except for McCarthy who shouldnt even be up here till late next year, to provide starting pitching help. Garland can be one of the best fifth starters in the league next year for us.

samram
08-28-2004, 03:49 PM
He's already getting 10.75 this year, and with the year he has had so far. I don't think he is expecting any sort of downgrade in pay.
Well, you earlier said that he had an ERA comparable to Garland's- now he's having a year worth 10.75M. The market for pitchers when he signed (I think in 1999) was different than it is now. It's much harder to for teams to get insurance on long term contracts for pitchers, and especially on a guy over 30. Look at what happened with Andy Pettite, who is Radke's age. If the Yankees decide they need him, maybe he gets his 10, but I don't think anyone else will pay him that, especially with a strong pitching class on the market this year.

samram
08-28-2004, 03:50 PM
There have been many bad ideas floating around here in the past few days such as we need to break up our offensive core of Lee, Konerko and Thomas and that we need to employ a small-ball offense. This is one of those bad ideas. There is no reason that Garland should be dealt unless we can acquire 2 capable starters this offseason. It's clear that we can't rely on anyone from our minor league system, except for McCarthy who shouldnt even be up here till late next year, to provide starting pitching help. Garland can be one of the best fifth starters in the league next year for us.
Garland as the fifth works for me.

Mohoney
08-28-2004, 04:20 PM
I would be all for trading Garland, but not for offense. I want him in a package to get a pitcher that is an upgrade from him. I think somebody might give us a decent pitcher for Garland and Cotts.

Is Garland already signed for '05 at about $2 million? I thought he was arbitration eligible. $2 million is about the limit that I would give him, and if he is seeking a raise, then we should trade him now before we either have to meet his demands or non-tender him. The last thing I want is for this guy to win an arbitration case and fleece us for about $3.5-4 million for his services in '05 when that money can easily be coupled with Valentin's money to get a much better option in free agency.

Soxzilla
08-28-2004, 07:12 PM
Well, you earlier said that he had an ERA comparable to Garland's- now he's having a year worth 10.75M. The market for pitchers when he signed (I think in 1999) was different than it is now. It's much harder to for teams to get insurance on long term contracts for pitchers, and especially on a guy over 30. Look at what happened with Andy Pettite, who is Radke's age. If the Yankees decide they need him, maybe he gets his 10, but I don't think anyone else will pay him that, especially with a strong pitching class on the market this year.
By HIS standards that is. This era he is pitching almost a point under his career era, and while a 3.71 era isn't enough to warrant a 10 million dollar contract for a guy like radke, I would expect him to get that kind of cash somewhere, be it minnesota or tampa bay. Hopefully not us.

I wouldn't give him 10 million dollars to pitch for my team, but if someone game him that kind of money a few years ago, I'd bet they'd do it again.

And especially since minny has such a weak payroll, just think what he'd garner from a team with a decent sized payroll...

Hell, maybe he'll go to the yankees, especially if they don't grab pedro.

Soxfest
08-28-2004, 11:02 PM
JG can go and good riddance.