PDA

View Full Version : Phil Rogers: Rangers might call for Garland


Jerry_Manuel
09-05-2004, 12:33 PM
From today's Trib:
After the season, don't be surprised if Texas tries to induce the White Sox into Jon Garland-Alfonso Soriano discussions. As dangerous a hitter as Soriano is, his chronic hacking (108 strikeouts, 29 walks) and erratic fielding frustrate his managers. He's barely a better offensive player than Juan Uribe.

doublem23
09-05-2004, 12:33 PM
Soriano for Garland?

Cha-ching.

santo=dorf
09-05-2004, 12:34 PM
It the Cubune "borrowing" material from WSI again? We been suggesting the idea of Garland going to the Rangers for the past month.

nodiggity59
09-05-2004, 12:40 PM
Soriano would be a pretty big investment (around $6mil I think?). We need to focus on getting another SP and a closer.

manuelsucks
09-05-2004, 12:41 PM
Soriano for Garland?

Cha-ching.
Ditto

But what about Willie?

nodiggity59
09-05-2004, 12:48 PM
Soriano's carrer SLG% is under .500 and he's only got 24 homers this year w/ over 100 strikeouts. Plus, he's only hitting in the .270s and only has 15 SBs....he's not really an elite player anymore, if he ever was. PLus, he's making 7mil this year.

I guess if Texas threw some cash our way I would consider it tho.

SomebodyToldMe
09-05-2004, 01:02 PM
Soriano?!

Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god.

I'm drooling here.

pinwheels3530
09-05-2004, 01:03 PM
We need pitching !!!!

SEALgep
09-05-2004, 01:12 PM
We need pitching !!!!We do, but they would obviously replace Garland in the FA market, which we are set to explore regardless.

Soxfest
09-05-2004, 01:15 PM
Garland for Soriano is a absolute no brainer and Uribe i like but Soriano is a hell of alot better.

idseer
09-05-2004, 01:24 PM
We do, but they would obviously replace Garland in the FA market, which we are set to explore regardless.
exactly what is so obvious about it?

soxtalker
09-05-2004, 01:52 PM
Doesn't the description of Soriano's batting issues/style sound a bit like Valentin's?

HomeFish
09-05-2004, 01:56 PM
This should be in deep pink. I would seriously consider buying season tickets if this trade went through. Not necessarily because I think the Sox would have a winning season, but merely to reward the ownership, in my own little way, for such an awesome deal.

HomeFish
09-05-2004, 01:58 PM
Soriano's carrer SLG% is under .500 and he's only got 24 homers this year w/ over 100 strikeouts. Plus, he's only hitting in the .270s and only has 15 SBs....he's not really an elite player anymore, if he ever was. PLus, he's making 7mil this year.

I guess if Texas threw some cash our way I would consider it tho.

.270 and 15 is still better than what we've had at 2B for a long time.

We dump a bad-attitude underachiever with a sky-high ERA and, in exchange, fill one of our most persistant holes? There is a term for that, and I believe it is :bandance:.

Daver
09-05-2004, 02:01 PM
Why would the Sox make a bad defensive team even worse?

fquaye149
09-05-2004, 02:31 PM
Why would the Sox make a bad defensive team even worse?

to get some speed at the top of the order.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-05-2004, 02:35 PM
Why would the Sox make a bad defensive team even worse?
Exactly. In addition, why would we further weaken our pitching staff? Right now the Sox need a minimum 2 more starting pitchers. If we trade Garland, that becomes 3.

At least Garland can be #5. If he pitches well he'll be a huge upgrade. And if he doesn't pitch well, he is still better than any other #5 pitcher we've tried the past 3 seasons.

Somebody is going to have to offer the Sox way more than Soriano before I would be happy about trading away Garland... and I can't stand the cement-headed idiot.
:cool:

Hey, how about Crede to Texas for Soriano? That's more like it.
:bandance:

SEALgep
09-05-2004, 03:05 PM
Exactly. In addition, why would we further weaken our pitching staff? Right now the Sox need a minimum 2 more starting pitchers. If we trade Garland, that becomes 3.

At least Garland can be #5. If he pitches well he'll be a huge upgrade. And if he doesn't pitch well, he is still better than any other #5 pitcher we've tried the past 3 seasons.

Somebody is going to have to offer the Sox way more than Soriano before I would be happy about trading away Garland... and I can't stand the cement-headed idiot.
:cool:

Hey, how about Crede to Texas for Soriano? That's more like it.
:bandance:An important aspect to consider though is the overall plan. This is an offseason rumor, and may be contigent on certain things happening, such as us signing a premeire FA pitcher like a Pavano or someone, or another trade for a premeire starter. It isn't necessarily the first move we make, assuming this has merit.

nodiggity59
09-05-2004, 03:11 PM
An important aspect to consider though is the overall plan. This is an offseason rumor, and may be contigent on certain things happening, such as us signing a premeire FA pitcher like a Pavano or someone, or another trade for a premeire starter. It isn't necessarily the first move we make, assuming this has merit.
Speaking of SPs, nobody has mentioned Sheets even tho hes a FA after next year. The Brewers dumped Sexson and that worked out, they may try to do the same with Sheets especially with his poor second half.

Crede, Diaz, and Harris for Sheets?

THEN

Garland for Soriano + $2mil?

PaleHoseGeorge
09-05-2004, 03:46 PM
An important aspect to consider though is the overall plan. This is an offseason rumor, and may be contigent on certain things happening, such as us signing a premeire FA pitcher like a Pavano or someone, or another trade for a premeire starter. It isn't necessarily the first move we make, assuming this has merit.
It would be typical "cheap, timid, and stupid" White Sox thinking to trading away a servicable pitcher who would neatly fill a long-term roster hole. I'm talking about Garland as the solution to the #5 slot that has turned into an abyss the past 3 seasons.

It would be utterly out of character for the Sox to pick up 3 new starting pitchers to solve the rotation problems. In fact, Reinsdorf and Williams haven't done **** to fix even the easiest of these problems: the #5 starter hole.

Sure, the "overall plan" might be achieved and all these holes might be filled. Monkeys might fly out of my butt, too.

AddisonStSox
09-05-2004, 03:52 PM
Monkeys might fly out of my butt, too.

http://www.retrojunkyard.com/images/sat1.jpg


"Shaaa, and monkeys fly out of my butt."

What a movie.

nitetrain8601
09-05-2004, 03:55 PM
Soriano sounds like a Ozzie type of guy. I personally will do it. Soriano would be great for the top of the order. And Greg Walker would help him immensly. He's already good and has prescence, now team him up with GW and you got a real dangerous hitter.

Garland for Soriano and you guys wouldn't do that?

I swear, some of you people are just dumb Sox fans. He's relatively young. You people overrate our players immensly. Most of you guys call Garland out for being do damn shaky and not showing us anything, but when it comes to trading him for an all-star 2B it's "no, give us more." Good thing you guys aren't the GM.

Tragg
09-05-2004, 03:57 PM
Doesn't the description of Soriano's batting issues/style sound a bit like Valentin's?Yes

Lead off hitter?-- .322 career OBP is not a lead-off hitter

We had a much better 2nd baseman than Soriano and he cost about the same--his name was Ray Durham. And his career OBP is .350.

We do not need this baseball player. Let's get a ballplayer we NEED

How about a REAL lead off hitter, a young SS, a young CF a young 2nd baseman, etc. Plenty of holes to fill.

Aidan
09-05-2004, 03:59 PM
Garland for Soriano? Good lord, who wouldn't make this trade? Even if Garland was having a good year I would still make this trade. But right now, Garland looks like a 5th starter. If we can trade a 5th starter for Soriano, I would do it in a second.

Soxzilla
09-05-2004, 05:07 PM
If we trade garland how does that equal needing 3 more starting pitchers?! Sorry, last I checked, we already have buehrle - contreras and garcia locked for next year, and 3 + 3 = 6, why would we have a 6 man rotation. Please people, math isn't HARD, let's figure it out.

I would drop garland for a sack of wheat if I was offered the chance, he's an abyss of anus. Hell, I'd rather have schoe's foes as a 5th starter than garland, he's cheaper, he may not have as high a ceiling, but at least he has proved he can throw the ball worth a damn (Who was our pitching mvp in the first half before he was injured? yeah, thought so, shut up).

If we bring in a perez, and our rotation is set like that, I would buy season tickets......(if i had the money).

I would do this trade in a heartbeat.

BTW - SORIANO makes 5 million, and he isn' due much of a raise.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-05-2004, 05:10 PM
If we trade garland how does that equal needing 3 more starting pitchers?! Sorry, last I checked, we already have buehrle - contreras and garcia locked for next year....
Hey, you want to take a chance on Contreras as your #3, more power to you. Your line of thinking sounds suspiciously similar to what has the Sox cleaning out their clubhouse while other teams getting ready for Game 1 of the ALDS.

Wishing and hoping is for losers.

CWSGuy406
09-05-2004, 05:35 PM
Garland for Soriano? Good lord, who wouldn't make this trade? Even if Garland was having a good year I would still make this trade. But right now, Garland looks like a 5th starter. If we can trade a 5th starter for Soriano, I would do it in a second.
I wouldn't do this trade. We already have a better leadoff hitting secondbaseman than Soriano, so why trade for him?

We need contact hitters in this lineup - not guys who are going to hit a lot of homers and strikeout over 150 times...

And I think PHG said it - we finally have a reliable option for the spot that has really kept us out of the playoffs the last couple of years. And we want to trade him away? Hell, Carl Pavano is 28, 29, or somewhere in that area, and finally this year, is getting into his own. Yet people want to give up on Garland at 24? GMAB.

I'll take Harris/Uribe platoon at second over Soriano...

Tragg
09-05-2004, 05:37 PM
An important aspect to consider though is the overall plan. This is an offseason rumor, and may be contigent on certain things happening, such as us signing a premeire FA pitcher like a Pavano or someone, or another trade for a premeire starter. It isn't necessarily the first move we make, assuming this has merit. Under what possible plan is a .320 OBP player who can't field an ingredient of??

CWSGuy406
09-05-2004, 05:37 PM
Soriano sounds like a Ozzie type of guy. I personally will do it. Soriano would be great for the top of the order. And Greg Walker would help him immensly. He's already good and has prescence, now team him up with GW and you got a real dangerous hitter.

Garland for Soriano and you guys wouldn't do that?

I swear, some of you people are just dumb Sox fans. He's relatively young. You people overrate our players immensly. Most of you guys call Garland out for being do damn shaky and not showing us anything, but when it comes to trading him for an all-star 2B it's "no, give us more." Good thing you guys aren't the GM.
Good thing YOU aren't the GM. You want Soriano and his career .322 OBP to lead off for your team? Go right ahead, see how many games that team wins... :rolleyes:

Win1ForMe
09-05-2004, 05:41 PM
Hey, you want to take a chance on Contreras as your #3, more power to you. Your line of thinking sounds suspiciously similar to what has the Sox cleaning out their clubhouse while other teams getting ready for Game 1 of the ALDS.

Wishing and hoping is for losers.So by saying that the Sox need to acquire two SP with Garland (and 3 w/o him), you're of the opinion that Jon Garland is better than Jose Contreras?:kukoo:

That's probably the type of thinking that has kept Garland on the roster for this long. 5th starters making $4 M per on a mid-market payroll team don't mix.

As far Soriano, he would fit nicely on the 2000-2004 Sox. I hope 2005 is a bit different.

SomebodyToldMe
09-05-2004, 05:42 PM
When Soriano was with the Yanks he hit down in the order as well. Even the 9 spot a lot.

I want this trade. Soriano was my favorite player on that darn yankthese team. And I was overjoyed when they traded him because I could root for him and not feel dirty.

Mohoney
09-05-2004, 06:09 PM
Please let this happen. Even if we just turn around and trade Soriano right afterward to get some bullpen help or another good starter, it still gets Jon Garland out of a White Sox uniform, and forces this team to add 2 real starters.

We can finally get over our blind hope that this guy will have a "breakout" season, and go into next season with 5 starters that at least give us a chance to win every day.

I think someone would give us a quality bullpen arm for Soriano, and we might be able to pick up cash, too.

Sign a Russ Ortiz, Carl Pavano, or Odalis Perez, trade for a Gil Meche, and get a solid bullpen arm, and this team might be in business.

JB98
09-05-2004, 06:52 PM
We need pitching a lot more than we need Soriano. In fact, I don't want Soriano on my team at all. He can't field. He swings at everything. He's pull-happy. He strikes out a ton. His attitude is questionable. He's another one of these guys who has "all the tools", yet he's in jeopardy of being traded for the second consecutive offseason. Shouldn't that throw up a red flag?

Apparently, not for some WSI posters.

I'm not against trading Garland, but if we do, why don't we get a player that we actually need? Like, perhaps, a real leadoff hitter, or some bullpen help.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-05-2004, 07:20 PM
So by saying that the Sox need to acquire two SP with Garland (and 3 w/o him), you're of the opinion that Jon Garland is better than Jose Contreras? .I'm not sure how you have drawn this conclusion about anything I've written.

I simply noted that Garland figures to be needed by the Sox if they're to have a realistic shot at reaching the post-season. Sure, they could get lucky and slide by with 2 more starters. I just don't see it happening (i.e. Sox winning the division, forget about a championship) if they start trading away usable pitchers, especially because JR refuses to pay the going rate for major league pitching talent. Here's why:

Betting every pitcher is going to come through for your team is strictly for fools. Teams with REAL postseason aspirations always have at least one backup.

Go ahead, Kenny & Jerry, prove me wrong. Trade Garland and come back in 2005 with 3 new talented pitchers to more than make up the difference. 10:1 it never happens.

Go ahead, Kenny & Jerry, prove me right. Trade Garland and go cheap, timid, and stupid by coming back in 2005 with 2 or fewer new talented pitchers and finish in second-place or lower. 10:1 it does happen.

Daver
09-05-2004, 08:02 PM
This is not rocket science. The most valuable commodity in MLB is starting pitching, even if it is a dead between the ears goof that can give you five or six innings every fifth day as a fifth starter.

You do not win by trading starting pitching away, you win by stockpiling it and building around it.

The Sox have tried to build around offense for 4 years, what has it gotten them?

Win1ForMe
09-05-2004, 08:02 PM
I'm not sure how you have drawn this conclusion about anything I've written.
You wrote: "Exactly. In addition, why would we further weaken our pitching staff? Right now the Sox need a minimum 2 more starting pitchers. If we trade Garland, that becomes 3. "

So I'm assuming that what you're trying to say is: Garcia, Buehrle, Garland + 2 SP ... OR ... Garcia, Buehrle + 3 SP.

Unless of course you're proposing that we go into next season with 6 well paid starters, which is completely unrealistic. No team-- outside maybe the Yankees-- has done that.

Tragg
09-05-2004, 08:08 PM
Soriano exacerbates our weaknesses- lousy fielder, lousy plate discipline.

MB
Garcia
Contreras
Garland

All we need is someone in that 3-4 range, presuming we can't pick up a number 1.
Garland would be a damn good #5, and a passable #4, persuming we can get a #5 about at his level.


Take the money saved from Maggs and get some people who can get on base, while Frank, Konerko and Lee drive them in.
Even better, sign Beltran as well.
How does Soriano and his 322 OBP help this team?

nitetrain8601
09-05-2004, 08:21 PM
Garland sucks. We won't get much for him. You guys know it and so do I. We're not going to be able to pull off a Garland for someone's top pitching prospect deal or anything. Garland for Soriano is the best deal you could make when dealing him. It also forces the team to pick up another good arm. I'm confident in Contreras as a #3. In fact Garland has nothing to do with our pitching staff really when you talk about dealing him. He probably would be our 5th next year. So regardless you still need pitching at the 4 spot or 3 spot depending on where you want to put Contreras. There's a lot of pitching out there. I say the Sox go out and get a true ace like Pedro. I know he's older and stuff, but he would be great for Felix Diaz and others and he could throw anything at you. He's the type of pitcher who will get you 2-1 victories sometimes, which is what this team needs.Pedro & Soriano<Garland

PaleHoseGeorge
09-05-2004, 08:44 PM
You wrote: "Exactly. In addition, why would we further weaken our pitching staff? Right now the Sox need a minimum 2 more starting pitchers. If we trade Garland, that becomes 3. "

So I'm assuming that what you're trying to say is: Garcia, Buehrle, Garland + 2 SP ... OR ... Garcia, Buehrle + 3 SP.

Unless of course you're proposing that we go into next season with 6 well paid starters, which is completely unrealistic. No team-- outside maybe the Yankees-- has done that.Read carefully this time, okay?

You want to finish second again next year? Go right ahead and try to get by without Garland and 2 or fewer new pitchers. Go ahead. Be mediocre. See if I give a ****.

You want to win something of consequence, like one lousy playoff game -- something the Sox haven't accomplished in 11 years? Keep Garland or get *3* pitchers.

Nobody ever gets an entire pitching staff to have career years all at the same time. The Sox need to UPGRADE the pitching staff. That means better quantity and better quality, too. You make an impossible situation even worse trading Garland. Reinsdorf simply won't upgrade the pitching staff to the amount necessary.

I'm sick of this "thread the needle, somewhere over the rainbow, wishful thinking" bull****. I would think any intelligent Sox Fan would be sick of it, too.

Of course if you think cheap and mediocre pitching staffs are going to win a championship, you're JR's kind of fan. He's just cheap, timid, and stupid enough to field your sort of team... the kind that finishes second.

MRKARNO
09-05-2004, 08:57 PM
Why would the Sox make a bad defensive team even worse? The White Sox are not a bad defensive team and I could throw a lot of stats your way to prove it. If we could also trade Crede, put Uribe at the hot corner and have Vizquel at short, I dont think there'd be too much complaining about our defense. Soriano suffers from Jose Valentinitis: Good range but a high propensity for errors. I think this trade would improve our team enough on the whole that Soriano would make up at the plate what he loses in the field. While Soriano and Garland are both upsetting their respective teams this year, Soriano actually has some great numbers in his past (almost a 40-40 man in 2002 and 2003), while Garland's best year involves a 4.5 ERA. Garland is going to cost too much for someone of his present ability and the money would be better spent on Soriano.

I think if we do not pull a trade like this off that we need to keep Garland as our fifth starter though. To be honest, it might make more sense to keep the entire offense in tact as is and just add a 1 or 2 starter and Armando Benitez.

RichFitztightly
09-05-2004, 08:59 PM
Nobody ever gets an entire pitching staff to have career years all at the same time.
The 2004 Cardinals. I'm certainly not disagreeing with your post however.

Daver
09-05-2004, 09:01 PM
The White Sox are not a bad defensive team and I could throw a lot of stats your way to prove it..
Please alert me the next time a number plays an inning of MLB ball.

MRKARNO
09-05-2004, 09:04 PM
Please alert me the next time a number plays an inning of MLB ball.
Numbers dont play ball, but they reflect and measure the game which has been played so far. Please don't turn this into an anti-stats arguement because it's not worth having.

Daver
09-05-2004, 09:06 PM
Numbers dont play ball, but they reflect and measure the game which has been played so far. Please don't turn this into an anti-stats arguement because it's not worth having.
They give you about 1/3 of the information you need to make a decision on talent.

Jerome
09-05-2004, 09:10 PM
Why would the Sox make a bad defensive team even worse?


Yep. Defense. That's the reason the Sox suck this year. Defense needs to be out #1 offensive priority this offseason.


DEFENSE IS OVERRATED.

I don't care about Garland at all. I'd take Soriano. But I think he strikes out too much.

MRKARNO
09-05-2004, 09:11 PM
They give you about 1/3 of the information you need to make a decision on talent.
Do numbers reflect talent? Only if that player is producing to their talent. Statistics reflect actual results. If you want to continue this argument, PM me, otherwise back to Soraino vs Garland rumors

Daver
09-05-2004, 09:13 PM
Do numbers reflect talent? Only if that player is producing to their talent. Statistics reflect actual results. If you want to continue this argument, PM me, otherwise back to Soraino vs Garland rumors
It's not worth my time.

fquaye149
09-05-2004, 09:18 PM
well to both make and question george's points, we have to assume Kenny is looking to acquire two solid pitchers in this offseason.

everything seems to indicate that the whatever million of Maggs' money will be spent on pitching . . .so unless Kenny drops the ball, JR cuts payroll, or pitchers take less to go other places because their agents won't let them work with the Sox (all very real possibilities) we will get two quality pitchers this offseason.

I agree you can never have too much pitching, but would we be happy if we still have Todd Ritchie around making Garland money?

It's hard to say. . .I think Soriano would be a good addition to this team and I'm unenthusiastic about Garland's contributions, especially if we're hoping to compete at any level (divisional, league, or championship)...however I am also of the opinion that pitching not hitting is the keystone to a successful team and while offense is required, I think what we already have when Frank finally comes back next year goes above and beyond the offensive meagerness of, for instance, the Dodgers or the A's.

In short: I would not personally advocate this deal, but I believe if it goes through it probably won't end up hurting us as much as PHG or Daver are making it out to be.

Our current 5th starter woes notwithstanding, I believe Kenny can go out with the 12+ million Magglio money and get an 8 mill 3rd starter caliber starter and a 4/5 mil. 5th starter caliber pitcher with Cotts or SS penciled as spot/emergency starters. . .

Or maybe I'm being too optimistic here, in which case this deal should absolutely not be done.

Iguana775
09-05-2004, 09:36 PM
the sox have plenty of all or nothing guys. no point in trading a solid #4/#5 guy for another one. i'd rather keep Garland and have to only get 1 quality starter. Uribe/Harris is good at 2B, IMO.

DVsoxfan
09-05-2004, 09:40 PM
I just have a question for all of you "lets do this trade" people. Are you among the people, like myself, who complain(ed) about the 5th starter situation? My point is that trade this does not solve ANY of our problems. I'd like to sign Pavano, and KEEP JG so we have a solid 5th starter. 10-10 w/ a 4.92 ERA sounds AWESOME out of our 5th starter. Especially when you consider what the 5th spot has done to us over the last few years. Who knows, maybe JG will be better next year. Oh, and since when is defense not important? Are you people who say that defense is not important the same ones who want Valentin out of here based on his D? Championships are built with pitching, and defense compliments pitching. How much better would Tom Glavine be this yr. with a better defense behind him? Not only is it a statistical fact that Glavine would be better, but having a sound defense behind him gives a pitcher confidence that he doesn't need to stike out every hitter. Sorry, I just don't buy this trade. There's no way I want this to happen.

Soxzilla
09-05-2004, 09:48 PM
I just have a question for all of you "lets do this trade" people. Are you among the people, like myself, who complain(ed) about the 5th starter situation? My point is that trade this does not solve ANY of our problems. I'd like to sign Pavano, and KEEP JG so we have a solid 5th starter. 10-10 w/ a 4.92 ERA sounds AWESOME out of our 5th starter. Especially when you consider what the 5th spot has done to us over the last few years. Who knows, maybe JG will be better next year. Oh, and since when is defense not important? Are you people who say that defense is not important the same ones who want Valentin out of here based on his D? Championships are built with pitching, and defense compliments pitching. How much better would Tom Glavine be this yr. with a better defense behind him? Not only is it a statistical fact that Glavine would be better, but having a sound defense behind him gives a pitcher confidence that he doesn't need to stike out every hitter. Sorry, I just don't buy this trade. There's no way I want this to happen.
But what if we go out and pick up another starter like garland, a guy like meche...you know, a pitcher with some talent. Not a complete mental midget.

Let's not forget that garland and his, 7 some odd era in the second half are one of the reasons we are almost 9 games out of this race.

:jon
"Hey fool, I only gave up 7 runs in that detroit game where i pitched 3 innings. Scott gave up 9 in a little over ONE inning. Get off my back fool"

http://www.mlb.com/cws/photo/ph_play_mugshot_150011.jpg
"dude shut up"

DVsoxfan
09-05-2004, 09:51 PM
But what if we go out and pick up another starter like garland, a guy like meche...you know, a pitcher with some talent. Not a complete mental midget.

Let's not forget that garland and his, 7 some odd era in the second half are one of the reasons we are almost 9 games out of this race.

Garland has a lot more potential than any Gil Meche type FA. He's 24 yrs old. Maybe being the 5th starter will light a fire under his butt.

Win1ForMe
09-05-2004, 09:55 PM
Read carefully this time, okay?

You want to finish second again next year? Go right ahead and try to get by without Garland and 2 or fewer new pitchers. Go ahead. Be mediocre. See if I give a ****.

You want to win something of consequence, like one lousy playoff game -- something the Sox haven't accomplished in 11 years? Keep Garland or get *3* pitchers.
Well, the notion that Jon Garland is somehow an integral or neccesary part of a pennant winning rotation is rather riduculous. He's merely a 5th starter, and a team can find other 5th starters in free agency for much less cost.

Nobody ever gets an entire pitching staff to have career years all at the same time. The Sox need to UPGRADE the pitching staff. That means better quantity and better quality, too.
In regards to quantity, you still have not answered my original question: how many teams go into the season with 6 quality starters?

It would be nice if you could answer each of my points instead of just going to a non-specific rant.

Soxzilla
09-05-2004, 10:02 PM
Garland has a lot more potential than any Gil Meche type FA. He's 24 yrs old. Maybe being the 5th starter will light a fire under his butt.
Either that or a downward spiral hissy fit a la scott schoe. I'm more inclined to believe the latter.

He needs a pair of balls, and last I checked, he hasn't shown any signs of growth yet. 4 seasons later...

Daver
09-05-2004, 10:17 PM
Well, the notion that Jon Garland is somehow an integral or neccesary part of a pennant winning rotation is rather riduculous. He's merely a 5th starter, and a team can find other 5th starters in free agency for much less cost.


In regards to quantity, you still have not answered my original question: how many teams go into the season with 6 quality starters?

It would be nice if you could answer each of my points instead of just going to a non-specific rant.
Jon Garland is making a little over 2 mil this season,and is not eligible for FA, you really think you can find a starter for less than that on the FA market?

I wouldn't address your points either when you are basing an argument on pure speculation.

santo=dorf
09-05-2004, 10:36 PM
Jon Garland is making a little over 2 mil this season,and is not eligible for FA, you really think you can find a starter for less than that on the FA market?Suppose he finishes in a typical Jon Garland-fashion with a 12-12 record. How much is he worth? I don't see how we can make Garland the fifth starter and still be economical. Personally I would like to see Odalis Perez be our #3 next year followed by Contreras, and then someone who shows something special this year, or in spring training next year. If that still doesn't work out, be like the Twins and trade for an established (mediocre) pitcher to be the number 5. Terry Mullholland only costed the Twins a single dollar for the 2004 season.

JB98
09-05-2004, 11:09 PM
Well, the notion that Jon Garland is somehow an integral or neccesary part of a pennant winning rotation is rather riduculous. He's merely a 5th starter, and a team can find other 5th starters in free agency for much less cost.
Really? You'd never know that on the South Side of Chicago. We haven't had a serviceable fifth starter in an eternity. Most teams would love to have somebody like Garland in the fifth spot. I don't know how many teams have a double-digit winner in the five spot, but I'd guess not many. The ones that do are going to the playoffs (St. Louis and Oakland, for example.).

I really don't care if we have to pay Garland $4 million to be the fifth starter next year. The key is adding another guy either to the top or the middle of the rotation. With the contracts of Maggs and Valentin coming off the books, we should be able to do it. Wouldn't it be nice to have a rotation that goes five deep for a change, no matter what the cost?

Look at this season. We are eight games out in the loss column. How many games have we had this year where we knew going in that we had little or no chance to win trotting out the likes of Wright, Diaz, Munoz, Rauch, etc?
I'd guess we've given away anywhere from 10-15 games with this back-of-the rotation fiasco. That's one of the many reasons there will be no postseason on the South Side again this year.

Be careful what you wish for on Soriano. Yeah, he has speed. But so does Willie Harris, and Harris has a higher OBP and is a better fielder. And he's cheaper. I'd rather the Sox spend money to upgrade the pitching. I'm not as concerned about the offense as some around here are.

Win1ForMe
09-06-2004, 12:10 AM
Jon Garland is making a little over 2 mil this season,and is not eligible for FA, you really think you can find a starter for less than that on the FA market?

I wouldn't address your points either when you are basing an argument on pure speculation.
For 2005, it doesn't matter what Garland is making this season, only what he'll make next season. In one of his recent columns, Phil Rogers mentioned Garland should get around $4 M in arbitration, a large sum for such a mediocre pitcher. Here's a list of 2004 FA who are making less money and have pitched better:

Kenny Rogers 15 W -7 L, 4.59 ERA ($2.4 M)
Miguel Batista 10-10, 4.39 ERA ($3.6 M)
Jeff Suppan 14-6, 3.98 ERA ($1 M)
David Wells 9-7, 3.61 ERA ($1.25 M)
Mark Redman 10-10, 4.50 ERA ($2.0 M)
Jose Lima 11-5, 4.11 ERA ($950K)
John Thomson 10-8, 4.17 ERA ($2.25 M)

Win1ForMe
09-06-2004, 12:14 AM
I really don't care if we have to pay Garland $4 million to be the fifth starter next year. The key is adding another guy either to the top or the middle of the rotation. I agree. We need to get another #2 starter to go with Buehrle/Garcia/Contreras. But, as I pointed out in my previous post, you can then sign another pitcher to replace Garland, for less money than Garland, and with better production than Garland. And you'll still save $ to spend on other players. I don't see why so many people can't understand this.:?:

Be careful what you wish for on Soriano. Yeah, he has speed. But so does Willie Harris, and Harris has a higher OBP and is a better fielder. And he's cheaper. I'd rather the Sox spend money to upgrade the pitching. I'm not as concerned about the offense as some around here are.
I'm not sure if you're responding to me or not, but I never once wrote I wanted Soriano. Just that I don't see the necessity in hanging on to Garland for his pricetag.

Daver
09-06-2004, 12:39 AM
For 2005, it doesn't matter what Garland is making this season, only what he'll make next season. In one of his recent columns, Phil Rogers mentioned Garland should get around $4 M in arbitration, a large sum for such a mediocre pitcher.
You really think Jon Garland will double his salary in arbitration based on his performance this year?

The business of baseball does not work that way.

I'm done on this subject.

CWSGuy406
09-06-2004, 12:54 AM
Garland sucks. We won't get much for him. You guys know it and so do I. We're not going to be able to pull off a Garland for someone's top pitching prospect deal or anything. Garland for Soriano is the best deal you could make when dealing him. It also forces the team to pick up another good arm. I'm confident in Contreras as a #3. In fact Garland has nothing to do with our pitching staff really when you talk about dealing him. He probably would be our 5th next year. So regardless you still need pitching at the 4 spot or 3 spot depending on where you want to put Contreras. There's a lot of pitching out there. I say the Sox go out and get a true ace like Pedro. I know he's older and stuff, but he would be great for Felix Diaz and others and he could throw anything at you. He's the type of pitcher who will get you 2-1 victories sometimes, which is what this team needs.Pedro & Soriano<Garland
Let me give you the stats of a (for right now) nameless pitcher. He started pitching when he was 22. He is 28 right now - here are his stats through then:

134 IP, 4.21 ERA
104 IP, 5.63 ERA
97 IP, 3.06 ERA
42 IP, 6.33 ERA
61 IP, 3.79 ERA
74 IP, 6.30 ERA
201 IP, 4.30 ERA
186 (So far) IP, 3.09 ERA

People are talking about giving this pitcher anywhere from 8-11 million next season. If you haven't figured it out, it's Carl Pavano. Man - are his stats inconsistent or what. So, at the same age, Pavano had hit both ends of the spectrum, an excellent 3.06 ERA, yet a poor 6.33 ERA. With Garland, we know the worst from him - a smidge under a 5.00 ERA. Yet - do we know his best?

If I have a fifth starter - and I know that during the season, he's going to do two things for me: log a lot of innings (Jon is on a pace to log 200+ this year), and give me a sub-five ERA - then wow, that's pretty good. Now - factor in that most of us think that we really haven't seen Jon's best season yet - and that's just gravy.

You guys want to trade Garland for Soriano? Fine. And then next year, we'll go through the same carrasell (sp?) of fifth starters like we've done the past four years.

If we sign a Matt Clement/Odalis Perez/Carl Pavano - we'll finally have five guys who have can eat up 1000+ innings, plus at least four out of the five providing sub - 4.50 ERAs. Why not go into next season with ZERO question marks in the most important aspect of baseball - pitching?

CWSGuy406
09-06-2004, 12:59 AM
But what if we go out and pick up another starter like garland, a guy like meche...you know, a pitcher with some talent. Not a complete mental midget.

Let's not forget that garland and his, 7 some odd era in the second half are one of the reasons we are almost 9 games out of this race.

:jon
"Hey fool, I only gave up 7 runs in that detroit game where i pitched 3 innings. Scott gave up 9 in a little over ONE inning. Get off my back fool"

http://www.mlb.com/cws/photo/ph_play_mugshot_150011.jpg
"dude shut up"

LOL! I bet us not having our three and four hitters in the lineup has just a wee-bit more to do with that...

nitetrain8601
09-06-2004, 01:51 AM
Let me give you the stats of a (for right now) nameless pitcher. He started pitching when he was 22. He is 28 right now - here are his stats through then:

134 IP, 4.21 ERA
104 IP, 5.63 ERA
97 IP, 3.06 ERA
42 IP, 6.33 ERA
61 IP, 3.79 ERA
74 IP, 6.30 ERA
201 IP, 4.30 ERA
186 (So far) IP, 3.09 ERA

People are talking about giving this pitcher anywhere from 8-11 million next season. If you haven't figured it out, it's Carl Pavano. Man - are his stats inconsistent or what. So, at the same age, Pavano had hit both ends of the spectrum, an excellent 3.06 ERA, yet a poor 6.33 ERA. With Garland, we know the worst from him - a smidge under a 5.00 ERA. Yet - do we know his best?

If I have a fifth starter - and I know that during the season, he's going to do two things for me: log a lot of innings (Jon is on a pace to log 200+ this year), and give me a sub-five ERA - then wow, that's pretty good. Now - factor in that most of us think that we really haven't seen Jon's best season yet - and that's just gravy.

You guys want to trade Garland for Soriano? Fine. And then next year, we'll go through the same carrasell (sp?) of fifth starters like we've done the past four years.

If we sign a Matt Clement/Odalis Perez/Carl Pavano - we'll finally have five guys who have can eat up 1000+ innings, plus at least four out of the five providing sub - 4.50 ERAs. Why not go into next season with ZERO question marks in the most important aspect of baseball - pitching?
So you're saying we should hang onto him for the mere fact of him becoming Carl Pavano. Um no. I could see if he has improved, but Garland still is the headcase he was 4 years ago. He needs Phil Jackson(too bad he's a basektball coach and not a baseball coach). There are many serviceable pitchers out there. Hell the Sox could go after Matt Morris(or is it Chris Carpenter) Anway there's guys just as good, if not better than Garland out there. You can't bank on Garland being any better because his and Pavano's situation are different. Garland has always pitched. Pavano hasn't. Hell, I'm not even sure if I want Pavano considering how he sucked before hand. I rather get Soriano + sign Pedro for 2 years 20 mil and Clement for 8 mil a year. Then fill in spots with the extra dough or go a tiny bit over.

Dan Gelo
09-06-2004, 06:22 AM
I'd rather get Soriano + sign Pedro for 2 years 20 mil and Clement for 8 mil a year. Then fill in spots with the extra dough or go a tiny bit over.
There's about 24 Mil. Well there goes any bit of flexibility in payroll. Borchard in RF a whole year anyone? What about a SS? What extra dough? A tiny bit over? Then you're dealing with Borchard(RF), Valdez/Uribe(SS), Soriano(2B), Konerko(1B), Thomas(DH), Lee(LF), Crede(3B), Rowand(CF), Davis/Burke(C). I think we may set the records for K's. Valentin is gone, but between Valdez and Uribe, I'm sure we would more than compensate for that.:redneck This is a lineup full of holes. I thought KW was going to try and "fix" the corpseball thing. With this scenario, no help.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-06-2004, 07:12 AM
Well, the notion that Jon Garland is somehow an integral or neccesary part of a pennant winning rotation is rather riduculous. He's merely a 5th starter, and a team can find other 5th starters in free agency for much less cost.

In regards to quantity, you still have not answered my original question: how many teams go into the season with 6 quality starters?

It would be nice if you could answer each of my points instead of just going to a non-specific rant.How many teams have six quality starters? I haven't a clue. It's a stupid question because I *never* said the Sox needed six quality starters. I said the Sox needed to upgrade the pitching staff and couldn't reasonably expect all of their pitchers to pitch to peak performance (i.e. career year). I'll go even further... it's reasonable to expect at least one of them to have a positively mediocre season, .500 or lower.

How many teams have six quality starters? I haven't a clue. However I'll guarantee you this: the ones with REAL championship aspirations have way more quality pitchers--starters and otherwise-- than second-place pretenders.

The Chicago White Sox have sat on their ass and let a #5 starter hole fester unabated for 3 seasons now. Garland could be the solution. He could be a long reliever, too. He could serve as a nice hedge against Wells getting hurt or Buehrle getting a dead arm or Loaiza losing his Cy Young form--not that those things ever could possibly occur, right? He may even bloom into a decent pitcher and become a reliable everyday starter. The point is regardless of what Garland becomes, the Sox can use him.

You can never have enough pitching, especially a sad sack organization like the Sox capable of fooling only some of their fans into believing they are REAL contenders. Don't count me in your number.

Any more stupid questions you want to ask, or are you finally done?

gosox41
09-06-2004, 07:49 AM
Soriano for Garland?

Cha-ching.
This is a move KW would make. Why? Because it's a bad trade!! Soriano=over rated.

KW woould probably do this trade. But the Sox don't need a bad defensive player with 100+ K's who's BA and power #'s are down.




Bob

Win1ForMe
09-06-2004, 09:04 AM
The Chicago White Sox have sat on their ass and let a #5 starter hole fester unabated for 3 seasons now. Garland could be the solution. He could be a long reliever, too. He could serve as a nice hedge against Wells getting hurt or Buehrle getting a dead arm or Loaiza losing his Cy Young form--not that those things ever could possibly occur, right?
Haha. You want to pay $4 M to a backup-plan starter/long reliever? Good luck. I bet the "star studded young infield" of Crede/Uribe/Harris/Gload we'd have as a result of spending on pitching depth would more than hold up their end as well. And I'm the one asking stupid questions?

Win1ForMe
09-06-2004, 09:07 AM
You really think Jon Garland will double his salary in arbitration based on his performance this year?

The business of baseball does not work that way.I've seen it done before (Freddy Garcia comes to mind). And since Phil Rogers is the most credible source I've seen speculate on the subject, I'll go with his estimate for now.

I'm done on this subject.Ok, thanks.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-06-2004, 09:21 AM
Haha. You want to pay $4 M to a backup-plan starter/long reliever? Good luck. I bet the "star studded young infield" of Crede/Uribe/Harris/Gload we'd have as a result of spending on pitching depth would more than hold up their end as well. And I'm the one asking stupid questions?You're right, I was being too generous. They aren't stupid questions; You're simply irritating. Good luck explaining to everyone why Jon Garland will get double his salary in arbitration because Freddy Garcia already did. Somebody ought to find it amusing to read... but not me.

Now I'm done, too.

balke
09-06-2004, 09:28 AM
Stupid questions? No, you're just irritating. Good luck explaining to everyone why Jon Garland will get double his salary in arbitration because Freddy Garcia already did. Somebody ought to find it amusing to read... but not me.

Now I'm done, too.
Jon G's steadily increasing Era season by season does not make a good case for doubling his salary.

We aren't getting any Cardinals pitching, and if we do... I doubt those pitchers will have the career years they had in St. Louis. That team has a unique chemistry between bullpen and starters. They love St. Louis, and feed off of that and the fans. All those starters have Loaiza potential, save woody who's having his worst season in a while.

Brian26
09-06-2004, 11:03 AM
For what its worth, Bruce Levine's comment about this yesterday morning on AM 1000 was that he wants to know what Phil Rogers is smoking so he can get some of it. Soriano strikes out a ton and hasn't looked as impressive this year as last, but to think he's on the same level as Juan Uribe is nuts.

JB98
09-06-2004, 11:14 AM
So you're saying we should hang onto him for the mere fact of him becoming Carl Pavano. Um no. I could see if he has improved, but Garland still is the headcase he was 4 years ago. He needs Phil Jackson(too bad he's a basektball coach and not a baseball coach). There are many serviceable pitchers out there. Hell the Sox could go after Matt Morris(or is it Chris Carpenter) Anway there's guys just as good, if not better than Garland out there. You can't bank on Garland being any better because his and Pavano's situation are different. Garland has always pitched. Pavano hasn't. Hell, I'm not even sure if I want Pavano considering how he sucked before hand. I rather get Soriano + sign Pedro for 2 years 20 mil and Clement for 8 mil a year. Then fill in spots with the extra dough or go a tiny bit over.
Sign Pedro? Can we please stay within the realm of realistic scenarios here?

Also, Morris is on the downside of his career. He's slowing turning into Loaiza. Carpenter is having a career season. Don't bank on him repeating it. I might take Carpenter as a 4 or 5, but no way would I want Morris. I think Morris has given up 35 or so homers this year. He'd be serving up some serious gopher balls at the Cell.

DVsoxfan
09-06-2004, 11:26 AM
You guys want to trade Garland for Soriano? Fine. And then next year, we'll go through the same carrasell (sp?) of fifth starters like we've done the past four years.

If we sign a Matt Clement/Odalis Perez/Carl Pavano - we'll finally have five guys who have can eat up 1000+ innings, plus at least four out of the five providing sub - 4.50 ERAs. Why not go into next season with ZERO question marks in the most important aspect of baseball - pitching?
I agree 100%. For all of you who want this trade to go through, if it does happen you better not be the ones complaining about the 5th starter woes next year.

LauraJ14
09-06-2004, 11:33 AM
So you actaully think the White Sox are going to compete with all the other teams in baseball that need starting pitching and have more money to spend to get 2 starting pitchers? Yankees, Red Sox, Baltimore, Giants, Padres, Braves etc will be looking and we have such a good track record of signing free agents. I say keep Garland because we sure aren't getting any top tier pitcher with our cheap owner.

misty60481
09-06-2004, 11:58 AM
I hope KW doesnt make a big splash about going after a top flight pitcher and then getting beat out by Yanks or Braves or any other team then pick up two M. Jacksons and expect us to be satisfied--- we are not the most attractive team for a FA to be looking at especially if we lose Maggs and Frank is not 100%

jordan23ventura
09-06-2004, 11:59 AM
This is a move KW would make. Why? Because it's a bad trade!! Soriano=over rated.

KW woould probably do this trade. But the Sox don't need a bad defensive player with 100+ K's who's BA and power #'s are down.




Bob

Great. Back to the "KW makes bad trades" crap again. Will everyone PLEASE let go of the Ritchie thing?

kittle42
09-06-2004, 12:54 PM
So you actaully think the White Sox are going to compete with all the other teams in baseball that need starting pitching and have more money to spend to get 2 starting pitchers? Yankees, Red Sox, Baltimore, Giants, Padres, Braves etc will be looking and we have such a good track record of signing free agents. I say keep Garland because we sure aren't getting any top tier pitcher with our cheap owner.
Best post in this thread.

Why, oh why, do we all kid ourselves every year? Why do any of you think JR will improve this team overall? It just won't happen because it NEVER happens.

balke
09-06-2004, 01:00 PM
Best post in this thread.

Why, oh why, do we all kid ourselves every year? Why do any of you think JR will improve this team overall? It just won't happen because it NEVER happens.
"What you talkin bout mang? PEDRO for 8 mil!! Randy for Garland/ Borchard!!! Renteria for 7 mil! KW can do this mang!!"

Mohoney
09-06-2004, 02:12 PM
I don't want Soriano, either, but what about a 3 way trade where we give Soriano to someone for bullpen help?

Maybe Kenny can swindle the Yankees and get some bullpen help in exchange for Soriano? They need a 2nd baseman, and they have made some strange trades with us in the past, including giving up El Duque for Antonio Osuna to facilitate the Colon deal, and giving us Contreras for Loaiza. When Steinbrenner likes a guy, he will gladly overpay to get him.

If Texas and the Yankees both throw some cash our way, too, we might be in position to add one of these free agent starters that we all desire. We can then swing another trade to get another starter. Of course, the more preferable option would be to up the payroll and sign 2 free agents without having to give up any players, but this ownership group is unwilling to spend a dime to earn a dollar.

Either way, we need 2 new starters and bullpen help before next season starts. I want Garland replaced before he becomes a complete cancer. If I can get a guy like Soriano, whom I can turn around and trade for quality bullpen help, and all I have to give up is Jon Garland, where do I sign?

JB98
09-06-2004, 04:02 PM
I don't want Soriano, either, but what about a 3 way trade where we give Soriano to someone for bullpen help?

Maybe Kenny can swindle the Yankees and get some bullpen help in exchange for Soriano? They need a 2nd baseman, and they have made some strange trades with us in the past, including giving up El Duque for Antonio Osuna to facilitate the Colon deal, and giving us Contreras for Loaiza. When Steinbrenner likes a guy, he will gladly overpay to get him.

If Texas and the Yankees both throw some cash our way, too, we might be in position to add one of these free agent starters that we all desire. We can then swing another trade to get another starter. Of course, the more preferable option would be to up the payroll and sign 2 free agents without having to give up any players, but this ownership group is unwilling to spend a dime to earn a dollar.

Either way, we need 2 new starters and bullpen help before next season starts. I want Garland replaced before he becomes a complete cancer. If I can get a guy like Soriano, whom I can turn around and trade for quality bullpen help, and all I have to give up is Jon Garland, where do I sign?
Reasonable thought about a 3-way deal, but I don't think the Yankees are interested in Soriano. He wore out his welcome with Torre last year, just like he's worn out his welcome with Showalter this year.

BTW, today's line on Soriano:

1-for-5, 2Ks, failed to come through with bases loaded in first inning, made two errors, one leading directly to two Sox runs.

For those of you who argued that Soriano would "fit right in" with the Sox, I must admit you couldn't be more right. :D:

Mohoney
09-06-2004, 04:15 PM
Reasonable thought about a 3-way deal, but I don't think the Yankees are interested in Soriano. He wore out his welcome with Torre last year, just like he's worn out his welcome with Showalter this year.
If the Yankees don't win the World Series, I can see Joe Torre being fired. Then, it all will come down to Steinbrenner as to whether Soriano is manning 2B next year for the Yankees.

joe47
09-06-2004, 04:39 PM
Sign Pedro? Can we please stay within the realm of realistic scenarios here?

Also, Morris is on the downside of his career. He's slowing turning into Loaiza. Carpenter is having a career season. Don't bank on him repeating it. I might take Carpenter as a 4 or 5, but no way would I want Morris. I think Morris has given up 35 or so homers this year. He'd be serving up some serious gopher balls at the Cell.
I haven't heard any talk during this string about Radke. Isn't he a FA next year? For about the same money as Palvano, he would be the safer bet.

As for Soriano, I have mixed feelings about trading for him. He is definetly overrated, but it would be a good PR move. The only reason he is so well known is that he played for the Yanks. If he played for the Expos before Texas, no one would have heard of the guy.

Soxzilla
09-06-2004, 04:49 PM
I haven't heard any talk during this string about Radke. Isn't he a FA next year? For about the same money as Palvano, he would be the safer bet.

As for Soriano, I have mixed feelings about trading for him. He is definetly overrated, but it would be a good PR move. The only reason he is so well known is that he played for the Yanks. If he played for the Expos before Texas, no one would have heard of the guy.
Pavano makes around 3-4 million. Radke makes 10.75.

No.

SOXSINCE'70
09-06-2004, 05:27 PM
I don't want "a swing and a miss" guy like Soriano.The Yankmees gave up on him for a reason.Any chance the Sox could deal Garland for,say,Hank Blalock and Michael Young??:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

SOXSINCE'70
09-06-2004, 05:29 PM
"What you talkin bout mang? PEDRO for 8 mil!! Randy for Garland/ Borchard!!! Renteria for 7 mil! KW can do this mang!!"
"Fung is winning and winning is fung". :bandance: :bandance: :bandance: :bandance:

joe47
09-06-2004, 05:39 PM
Pavano makes around 3-4 million. Radke makes 10.75.

No.
I'm guessing Palvano is due for a big raise. He can probably get 8-9 mil on the free agent market.

batmanZoSo
09-06-2004, 05:51 PM
It the Cubune "borrowing" material from WSI again? We been suggesting the idea of Garland going to the Rangers for the past month.
Uribe's actually a better player than Soriano at least this year. .271 19 homers 61 rbis and a much better fielder. The only thing Uribe needs to improve is his on base. He's about .318 now, if he can be a consistent .330 he'll be more than alright. As is, I think he should be an everyday player without question.

That would be a bad trade. Not only do we lose a serviceable backend starter, we add to the payroll and get another no-walks strikeout king. Plus we now need TWO starters to have a real 5 man rotation. The idea is to sign a--forgive me--Carl Pavano type, and make Jon the 5th.

Tragg
09-06-2004, 06:43 PM
Uribe's actually a better player than Soriano at least this year. .271 19 homers 61 rbis and a much better fielder. The only thing Uribe needs to improve is his on base. He's about .318 now, if he can be a consistent .330 he'll be more than alright.
That would be nice if he could improve it. But even at 318, it's not much different from Soriano's 322.

Until we have 2 more starters in hand, keep Garland. And under no circumstances does this team need Soriano.

Soxzilla
09-06-2004, 07:54 PM
I'm guessing Palvano is due for a big raise. He can probably get 8-9 mil on the free agent market.
I wouldn't give pavano anything near that.

Daver
09-06-2004, 08:12 PM
I wouldn't give pavano anything near that.
You might not, but starting pitching is the most valuable commodity in MLB, someone will.

kittle42
09-07-2004, 09:56 AM
I'm guessing Palvano is due for a big raise. He can probably get 8-9 mil on the free agent market.
Who is this Palvano you speak of? He must be pretty good to merit a raise without ever playing a game. :smile:

MisterB
09-07-2004, 10:12 AM
Who is this Palvano you speak of? He must be pretty good to merit a raise without ever playing a game. :smile: http://www.tbsports.net/profiles/rays/other_teams/fla_pavano.jpg Pavano + http://thumb8.webshots.com/s/thumb3/0/31/68/2703168VmuctAjFAQ_th.jpg Valvano = Palvano :D:

Frater Perdurabo
09-07-2004, 01:13 PM
George and Daver (and others) are right about needed to stockpile starting pitching. Lip has said this before as well.

You never know when someone will get hurt. Also, if in 2005 Garland is the 5th or the 6th option who also comes out of the bullpen to make spot starts when the injury bug bites, the Sox bullpen will be that much better. When you have reliable starters who typically pitch into the 6th or 7th innings, you don't have to rely on the bullpen arms as much. Bullpen pitchers are guys who have good stuff, but aren't good enough to be starters. Therefore it follows logically (and has been repeatedly proven by experience) that the less other teams are exposed to them, the better the bullpen pitchers are. The bullpen pitchers are therefore fresher and sharper, further increasing their effectiveness.

The key to a strong bullpen is a strong starting rotation. How much better would the pen be if Garland - who has had success as a starter - was the "long reliever?" The bullpen has been bad this year for two reasons: First, Mike Jackson was old. Second, the pen has been overused specifically because of the debacles that have come in games pitched by a "#5 starter." If the Sox had a legitimate #5 starter (Shoeneweis was/is not a legit #5), and then Garland to plug in when someone else got hurt (Garcia?), the bullpen would have been better and the Sox would be in a much better position now.

BTW, even if the Sox had a plethora of starting pitchers, Soriano would not be a good fit on the Sox. (Now, if you want to talk about Michael Young, Hank Blalock, Mark Teixeira or Laynce Nix, then let's talk.)

Frater Perdurabo
09-07-2004, 01:24 PM
Here's my DeepPink 2005 Sox starters:
Buehrle
Garcia
Pavano
Radke
Contreras

Pen:
Garland
Marte
Shingo
And four from among: Diaz, Grilli, Cotts, Adkins, Politte, Munoz