PDA

View Full Version : Interesting comments just now from KW regarding Garland.


It's Time
12-07-2005, 12:15 PM
He is on Silvy and Carmen right now and said this:

"If the market continues where it is, we may have to say goodbye. We have enough guys in house to get the job done".

Williams is saying that the market is just so out of control that they simply could not ante up the kind of money Jon may command as a F/A.

VERY, VERY interesting.

bighurt2719
12-07-2005, 12:17 PM
He is on Silvy and Carmen right now and said this:

"If the market continues where it is, we may have to say goodbye. We have enough guys in house to get the job done".

Williams is saying that the market is just so out of control that they simply could not ante up the kind of money Jon may command as a F/A.

VERY, VERY interesting.

at this point, we should all know to take anything ozzie or KW says with a grain of salt.

knocko94
12-07-2005, 12:18 PM
I'm listening as well, spectacular interview


Kenny saying they never had interest in Juan Pierre. Anderson and Owens as well as guys behind them make Sox better now and for the future.

Tekijawa
12-07-2005, 12:18 PM
It's true... That's why McCarthy's here and shouldn't be traded!

knocko94
12-07-2005, 12:20 PM
Kenny also spoke about Frank, said he was surprised that Frank was upset (in Trib Article) and that he thought White Sox went out of their way to be good to Frank.

Said that he didn't talk to Frank about Thome because it happened so fast.

It's Time
12-07-2005, 12:24 PM
at this point, we should all know to take anything ozzie or KW says with a grain of salt.

:?: I take anything KW says as how he feels and I agree with him here. If guys like Burnett are getting 11M a year, what will Garland command with back to back solid seasons?

I just thought they were interesting comments from KW and I think he was pretty amazed at the money being paid for mediocre players.

bighurt2719
12-07-2005, 12:26 PM
i dont even think kw owes apologies though. business is business, and baseball is a business. im sad to see frank go too...but thats just the way it panned out. i really do think KW says some stuff to the media to drive down the price of resigning some people, or to have some other effect on the market. just by dropping a few words to the press, he can cause the value of a player to go up or down. thats why im pretty skeptical about the garland comment- i think we will resign garland for at least 3 years at a later time. it's just the smart thing to do, unless someone is prepared to say that garland had a fluke season- something i would totally disagree with.

Stoky44
12-07-2005, 12:27 PM
With Burnett getting $11M and Jon has another 17-20 win season, I would bet that he get AT LEAST $14 mil per year. Not in our budget, I would rather spend it on Mark.

SoxFan76
12-07-2005, 12:29 PM
He is on Silvy and Carmen right now and said this:

"If the market continues where it is, we may have to say goodbye. We have enough guys in house to get the job done".

Williams is saying that the market is just so out of control that they simply could not ante up the kind of money Jon may command as a F/A.

VERY, VERY interesting.

Well, he's right. Byrd, went for, what, 8 mil? Loaiza for 7?

What do you think an actual GOOD pitcher like Garland is going to get? 12, 13, 14? Unfortunately the Mets, Yankees, Cubs, and Red Sox have ruined the market.

(I guess the Rangers started it all with Payrod)

Flight #24
12-07-2005, 12:30 PM
Most interesting from KW was the comment that they never received a counter offer from Garland. I would assume that as they get closer to arbitration that they'd at least make a counter offer, even a ridiculous one. That IMO is indicative of a desire to break the bank and hit FA.

knocko94
12-07-2005, 12:30 PM
He said that Graland did turn down a three year deal, and did not make a counteroffer. He said Garland was looking to see what the open market would get him ( or something along those lines)

Kenny thinks the market is a little crazy, doesn't blame the Blue jays because they Have to overpay to get players to come there.

Stoky44
12-07-2005, 12:32 PM
i dont even think kw owes apologies though. business is business, and baseball is a business. im sad to see frank go too...but thats just the way it panned out. i really do think KW says some stuff to the media to drive down the price of resigning some people, or to have some other effect on the market. just by dropping a few words to the press, he can cause the value of a player to go up or down. thats why im pretty skeptical about the garland comment- i think we will resign garland for at least 3 years at a later time. it's just the smart thing to do, unless someone is prepared to say that garland had a fluke season- something i would totally disagree with.

Would you give Jon at least $33 mil over 3 years? Thats probably what it would take. Because figure, if he doesn't get a contract he will get about $7-8M this year in arbitration, and would stand to get at least a 5 year $60 mil contract on the open market as a FA. So for this to make sense to Jon, he would have to sign a $33 mil contract as a min. KW would gladly sign him for ~$21M over 3 years, like Mark, but Jon's not signing that.

It's Time
12-07-2005, 12:32 PM
Most interesting from KW was the comment that they never received a counter offer from Garland. I would assume that as they get closer to arbitration that they'd at least make a counter offer, even a ridiculous one. That IMO is indicative of a desire to break the bank and hit FA.

Yeah, IMO, Jon's gone after 2006. Baseball needs a cap and they need it soon. KW really put the screws down on Jon in that interview.

bighurt2719
12-07-2005, 12:38 PM
Would you give Jon at least $33 mil over 3 years? Thats probably what it would take. Because figure, if he doesn't get a contract he will get about $7-8M this year in arbitration, and would stand to get at least a 5 year $60 mil contract on the open market as a FA. So for this to make sense to Jon, he would have to sign a $33 mil contract as a min. KW would gladly sign him for ~$21M over 3 years, like Mark, but Jon's not signing that.

good point. if im KW, theres no way i give garland 33 mil.

patbooyah
12-07-2005, 12:45 PM
He said that Graland did turn down a three year deal, and did not make a counteroffer. He said Garland was looking to see what the open market would get him ( or something along those lines)

Kenny thinks the market is a little crazy, doesn't blame the Blue jays because they Have to overpay to get players to come there.

first off, we've seen what cooper and herm can do for a pitcher. our starters have mostly been healthy and most people that come to our team pitch better than expected.

second off, i don't mean to badmouth jon, but i would like to see more than one season of "ace" performance before i give him "ace" dollars.

second off, garland is with boras, so i have no problem reaping the benefits of his "contract year" and then letting the up-and-coming portland marlins pay him way more than he is worth.

Stoky44
12-07-2005, 12:48 PM
second off, i don't mean to badmouth jon, but i would like to see more than one season of "ace" performance before i give him "ace" dollars.



I say he only had 2/3 - 3/4 of an "ace" season. He slumped a bit, if he had been an "ace" all season he would have 20+ wins, prob like 22.


Last 10 Starts: 2-5; 3.97 ERA (POST SEASON, NOT INCLUDED)

Huisj
12-07-2005, 12:50 PM
Another thing to consider though is what the market might look like next offseason. This year there are very few pitchers on the market, let alone ace-caliber ones. That seems to have driven up the price a whole lot for guys like Burnett, Loaiza, etc. (not to mention all the relievers getting huge contracts).

I have no idea what the FA market looks like for next year, but it sort of seems like there would have to be a few more pitchers out there, and if there's more supply, prices may not be quite as high. Plus, Garland isn't really a "stuff" guy with big radar readings and knee buckling benders, and it seems that there are still teams out there who would rather have the guys with "upside" than a history of success without flashiness. Otherwise, how the heck can you explain Burnett getting what he got?

patbooyah
12-07-2005, 12:53 PM
I say he only had 2/3 - 3/4 of an "ace" season. He slumped a bit, if he had been an "ace" all season he would have 20+ wins, prob like 22.


Last 10 Starts:
DATEOPPWLERASVIPHERBBSO AUG 13 (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20050813&content_id=1169126&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb)@BOS013.4705.19524 AUG 19 (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20050819&content_id=1176254&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb)NYY013.4307.07223 AUG 25 (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20050825&content_id=1183482&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb)@MIN003.2807.26015 AUG 30 (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20050830&content_id=1189750&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb)@TEX013.4504.17532 SEP 04 (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20050904&content_id=1196572&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb)DET103.2809.04017 SEP 10 (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20050910&content_id=1204398&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb)LAA013.5106.08711 SEP 16 (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20050916&content_id=1212445&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb)@MIN003.4108.06116 SEP 21 (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20050921&content_id=1218761&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb)CLE013.5107.17543 SEP 26 (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20050926&content_id=1224919&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb)@DET003.5306.28337 OCT 01 (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20051001&content_id=1232548&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb)@CLE103.5006.24215 http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/images/trans.gif Totals253.97068.066301943

thats a good point. also- look at what loaiza did -- 20+ wins(with an inferior team) and then a return to mediocrity. i know that people "figured him out," but something like that could happen with jon, too, in which case i don't want to be tied in for 5 years.

Martinigirl
12-07-2005, 12:54 PM
second off, garland is with boras, so i have no problem reaping the benefits of his "contract year" and then letting the up-and-coming portland marlins pay him way more than he is worth.

I thought Crede was the only Boras client we had on our team?

the_valenstache
12-07-2005, 12:55 PM
I say he only had 2/3 - 3/4 of an "ace" season. He slumped a bit, if he had been an "ace" all season he would have 20+ wins, prob like 22.

Exactly. Jon's got another season to prove he deserves the "ace" paycheck. For all we know - and I don't actually want this to happen, of course - Jon could win less than 15 next season and end up resigning/leaving for 9 a year.

Hitmen77
12-07-2005, 01:00 PM
first off, we've seen what cooper and herm can do for a pitcher. our starters have mostly been healthy and most people that come to our team pitch better than expected.

second off, i don't mean to badmouth jon, but i would like to see more than one season of "ace" performance before i give him "ace" dollars.

second off, garland is with boras, so i have no problem reaping the benefits of his "contract year" and then letting the up-and-coming portland marlins pay him way more than he is worth.

Actually, Garland is not with Boras. The only Sox player who has Boras as an agent is Crede. That being said, I agree with you - I don't blame KW for not signing Garland to a huge contract after one good season.

Anyway, if the Sox win a second world series in 2006 or even if they just go deep in the playoffs next year, that should further boost team revenue and allow for an even larger payroll. So, that might give us even more ability to negotiate with JG or to obtain a suitable replacement for him.

soxfanatlanta
12-07-2005, 01:08 PM
thats a good point. also- look at what loaiza did -- 20+ wins(with an inferior team) and then a return to mediocrity. i know that people "figured him out," but something like that could happen with jon, too, in which case i don't want to be tied in for 5 years.

I think JG is in a different situation here. Keep in mind he is only 26 year old; his best years are still ahead of him. Even if he has a so-so season in 2K6, he will be getting a big fat contract from <insert deep pocketed team here>. If KW cannot sign him for 3 years, then why not trade him mid season for whatever gaps are needed, if any? He gone anyway, right?

Just a thought

patbooyah
12-07-2005, 01:08 PM
Actually, Garland is not with Boras. The only Sox player who has Boras as an agent is Crede. That being said, I agree with you - I don't blame KW for not signing Garland to a huge contract after one good season.

Anyway, if the Sox win a second world series in 2006 or even if they just go deep in the playoffs next year, that should further boost team revenue and allow for an even larger payroll. So, that might give us even more ability to negotiate with JG or to obtain a suitable replacement for him.

i'm sorry, i just figured since he is being a such a pain in the ass to deal with he was with boras.

i don't know why i thought that, and apologize!

LauraJ14
12-07-2005, 01:16 PM
Another thing to consider though is what the market might look like next offseason. This year there are very few pitchers on the market, let alone ace-caliber ones. That seems to have driven up the price a whole lot for guys like Burnett, Loaiza, etc. (not to mention all the relievers getting huge contracts).

I have no idea what the FA market looks like for next year, but it sort of seems like there would have to be a few more pitchers out there, and if there's more supply, prices may not be quite as high. Plus, Garland isn't really a "stuff" guy with big radar readings and knee buckling benders, and it seems that there are still teams out there who would rather have the guys with "upside" than a history of success without flashiness. Otherwise, how the heck can you explain Burnett getting what he got?


The 2 pitchers that I know of are Mulder and Zito. Both have better track records than Garland and Burnett. So imagine what those 2 could command.

Chicken Dinner
12-07-2005, 01:21 PM
As noted, Jon Garland has had 1, yes 1, respectable year. I'm sure that some pitching starved club will pay him more than he's worth next year. I'm just thankful that it won't be us. Failure is not an option, overpayment is.

CHIsoxNation
12-07-2005, 01:26 PM
Teams will pay him a lot of money because of the amount of innings he eats up. He is still young and has shown that he can pretty much go the distance. He could end up being a work horse for another team in the middle of their rotation. There will most definitely be teams that over-pay for that.

Ol' No. 2
12-07-2005, 01:28 PM
2006 potential free agents:

http://www.mlb4u.com/0607FA.html

CHIsoxNation
12-07-2005, 01:31 PM
2006 potential free agents:

http://www.mlb4u.com/0607FA.html

Wow, I didn't realize we have three starting pitchers potentially becoming free agents next year.

D. TODD
12-07-2005, 01:36 PM
As noted, Jon Garland has had 1, yes 1, respectable year. I'm sure that some pitching starved club will pay him more than he's worth next year. I'm just thankful that it won't be us. Failure is not an option, overpayment is. I think he has had 1 very good year. Every other year has been respectable, but nothing more. .500 type pitcher that eats up innings is respectable in my book. If he wants to get paid for more then a respectable pitcher he needs to back up his breakout performance he had this year.

gf2020
12-07-2005, 01:37 PM
Wow, I didn't realize we have three starting pitchers potentially becoming free agents next year.
I'll put a kajillion dollars on KW picking up Mark's option, so it's really only two.

bobowhite
12-07-2005, 01:50 PM
I think KW is smart to offer arbitration this year and just pay whatever is decided. Jon has pitched just over 1000 innings and is only 64-61 for W-L. With the White Sox he has a solid chance at returning to the World Series, how many other teams can say that? For 2007 I guess I'd offer a contract corresponding to the numbers he puts up in 2006. Jon could be a horse and if he really has turned a corner then I'd say ride him at $12-$11 million a year long-term. If Cooper is the one thing keeping this guy from being big-inning Jon of past years then he'd be smart just to take our (well, JR's actually) money.

MsSoxVixen22
12-07-2005, 01:59 PM
I, like alot of you would love to see Jon back next year. Although, I don't believe he's earned an "ace" salary. He started out really well this year and the 2cd half he was alittle shaky. I wouldn't want to see us overpay him either. If Jon feels like he can do better somewhere else for more $$, more power to him. Hey, we got Brandon. :cool:

CHIsoxNation
12-07-2005, 02:05 PM
I'll put a kajillion dollars on KW picking up Mark's option, so it's really only two.

I was referring to Garland, Conteras, and El Duque. According to that site, all three are expected to be free agents.

I pretty much assumed Mark would be resigned.

Mickster
12-07-2005, 02:08 PM
*SPECULATION*

Maybe this deserves a separate thread but do you think that Gammon's comments that the Sox are interested in AZ's Vazquez are a possibility? I know that he is signed for 2 more years at 10MM per iirc, could we send over Garland and a minor leaguer to get back Vazquez and some cash? just a thought.....

patbooyah
12-07-2005, 02:12 PM
*SPECULATION*

Maybe this deserves a separate thread but do you think that Gammon's comments that the Sox are interested in AZ's Vazquez are a possibility? I know that he is signed for 2 more years at 10MM per iirc, could we send over Garland and a minor leaguer to get back Vazquez and some cash? just a thought.....

i think that they would have to send us minor leaguer to make that deal... vazquez is alright, but he had a 4+ ERA in the national league last year.

unless, of course, cooper has something figured out.

truthfully, i hope kenny uses some of the money he saves on garland to rehire cooper. cooper is a more solid investment.

Flight #24
12-07-2005, 02:14 PM
By the way - doesn't this (again) validate KW's in-season trade attempts? IIRC he wanted a resigning window in any AJ trade, and you'd have to believe that AJ wouldn't have gotten the ridiculous contract that he did from the Jays. So ala Garcia, you'd end up with another solid, long-term, below-market contract and 4 starters locked in for 2007.

patbooyah
12-07-2005, 02:21 PM
By the way - doesn't this (again) validate KW's in-season trade attempts? IIRC he wanted a resigning window in any AJ trade, and you'd have to believe that AJ wouldn't have gotten the ridiculous contract that he did from the Jays. So ala Garcia, you'd end up with another solid, long-term, below-market contract and 4 starters locked in for 2007.

yes. the more i know him, the more i love him.

TomBradley72
12-07-2005, 02:31 PM
It's interesting that the consensus to seems to be "the market is going up....so no way can the White Sox afford to retain Garland.."....so that's the deal? The World Series Champion, in one of the largest markets in the US, who will draw 2.5-3.0 MM fans in 2006 can't afford to keep up? So we are committed to never keeping high end talent once they are FA eligible? If Garland pulls off another 18 win season...and that's what the market is...I hope the organization as a whole looks seriously at how we stay competitive with our starting pitching.

All that being said...my guess is Garland wants to end up in Southern CA.

Stoky44
12-07-2005, 02:38 PM
The World Series Champion, in one of the largest markets in the US, who will draw 2.5-3.0 MM fans in 2006 can't afford to keep up?

:offtopic:
||
\/
I don't think there's a chance we will draw 3M fans this year. I love the Sox, and think attendance will go up, but not that high. 3M fans = ~37,000 fans per game, thats a 10,000 increase from the 2005 avg. I say at the most 2.75 million. Would love to see it, but not going to happen. Besides, if Jon is worth that much, how much does Mark cost. We have to be realistic, there are budgets, and we have to choose who we want to keep.

Flight #24
12-07-2005, 02:43 PM
It's interesting that the consensus to seems to be "the market is going up....so no way can the White Sox afford to retain Garland.."....so that's the deal? The World Series Champion, in one of the largest markets in the US, who will draw 2.5-3.0 MM fans in 2006 can't afford to keep up? So we are committed to never keeping high end talent once they are FA eligible? If Garland pulls off another 18 win season...and that's what the market is...I hope the organization as a whole looks seriously at how we stay competitive with our starting pitching.

All that being said...my guess is Garland wants to end up in Southern CA.

KW mentioned that he's currently got a ton of $$$ locked up in the pitching staff, and that he's got to be cognizant of that while maintaining that as the core strength of the team.

IMO he's not only worried about a potential $11-12M Garland deal, but the following year's FA for Buehrle & Garcia. He may just be thinking that he'd rather put his $$ into those 2.

kevin57
12-07-2005, 03:12 PM
Yeah, IMO, Jon's gone after 2006. Baseball needs a cap and they need it soon. KW really put the screws down on Jon in that interview.

The Players Union has been fighting for a cap for years, if only Uncle Bud would go along.

Mots09
12-07-2005, 03:15 PM
I agree don't want to overpay a starter after one great .... err wilson alvarez

SouthSoxFan
12-07-2005, 03:26 PM
Garland is also taking one some risk playing one year for the big contract instead of signing for 3 years of guaranteed money. Pitching injuries can be disastrous to one's future market value.

Dat Funky Motion
12-07-2005, 03:34 PM
KW also said something along the lines of people being ready in the minors and bullpen. I assume he is talking about Neal.

kevingrt
12-07-2005, 03:52 PM
If Garland goes I have no doubt's in KW finding a quality #4 or #5 starter behind Buehrle, Garcia, Contreras, and McCarthy. Most teams survive with only four starters but I don't want to be left in the mess we were in two years ago starting Felix Diaz, Jon Rauch, Arnie Munoz, etc. That was a disaster. I think Kw has learned from his mistakes though and will be smart enough to sign somone when Jon is gonna leave the team.

CHIsoxNation
12-07-2005, 04:01 PM
KW also said something along the lines of people being ready in the minors and bullpen. I assume he is talking about Neal.

I would love to see Neal taking on the starting roll again. It would be nice to see a couple of quality lefties in the starting rotation.

KyWhiSoxFan
12-07-2005, 04:07 PM
If we cannot sign Garland, I think we should trade him. Like I've said before, trade him for someone's No. 4 starter and top prospect. The other team thinks they're getting a No. 1 and we will have another arm for the rotation. When Garland got off to an 8-0 start, he had the best run support of any starter in the Sox rotation. Our bullpen will be better next year, so I would like to make sure we get something rather than lose him without anything after 2006.

graham5
12-07-2005, 04:15 PM
I agree - Cotts and Brandon are the future of the rotation, so we can afford to let Garland and Hernandez go at the end of '06 - resign Buerhle and Contreras, leaving us with a rotation of Buerhle/Contreras/Garcia/McCarthy/Cotts. Not bad IMO! :redneck

FloridaSox
12-07-2005, 04:40 PM
Garland is also taking one some risk playing one year for the big contract instead of signing for 3 years of guaranteed money. Pitching injuries can be disastrous to one's future market value.

With the Burnett contract, any Garland contract is going to be north of 11 million a year. Peter Gammons writes this afternoon that the Burnett contract will have a huge impact on the Garland arbitration, assuming he does not sign.

Steelrod
12-07-2005, 04:53 PM
The Players Union has been fighting for a cap for years, if only Uncle Bud would go along.
What? I think you got that backwards!

Mickster
12-07-2005, 04:54 PM
What? I think you got that backwards!

Hence the teal.:wink:

salty99
12-07-2005, 04:56 PM
We need to lock these guys up now if possible to avoid another situation like Paulie hitting the open market and commanding big dollars.

Flight #24
12-07-2005, 05:11 PM
With the Burnett contract, any Garland contract is going to be north of 11 million a year. Peter Gammons writes this afternoon that the Burnett contract will have a huge impact on the Garland arbitration, assuming he does not sign.

Care to share the quote (but obviously not the whole article)?

Hitmen77
12-07-2005, 05:25 PM
If we cannot sign Garland, I think we should trade him. Like I've said before, trade him for someone's No. 4 starter and top prospect. The other team thinks they're getting a No. 1 and we will have another arm for the rotation. When Garland got off to an 8-0 start, he had the best run support of any starter in the Sox rotation. Our bullpen will be better next year, so I would like to make sure we get something rather than lose him without anything after 2006.

I don't know how the Sox can trade him now if their goal is to make a run at another world championship in '06.

How do we trade him without downgrading? What team is going to give us a quality starter in exchange for a quality starter that will want to break the bank as a free agent after the end of the season?

If we were the KC Royals - yes I would trade him now for some up and coming players. But the Sox goal isn't only to rebuild for the future, it's to also repeat in '06. The only way I see us trading JG is at the trading deadline in July if we (God forbid) totally fall flat on our face and are not in playoff contention.

MadetoOrta
12-07-2005, 07:14 PM
KW has to continue to be creative here. If Jon has to go, so be it. He's rock solid but $60 million over 5 years? Not gonna happen. To keep some of these over-priced players it'll take $100 box seats. Are we ready for that? Didn't think so. I have confidence in Kenny.

batmanZoSo
12-07-2005, 07:17 PM
If Garland goes I have no doubt's in KW finding a quality #4 or #5 starter behind Buehrle, Garcia, Contreras, and McCarthy. Most teams survive with only four starters but I don't want to be left in the mess we were in two years ago starting Felix Diaz, Jon Rauch, Arnie Munoz, etc. That was a disaster. I think Kw has learned from his mistakes though and will be smart enough to sign somone when Jon is gonna leave the team.

Yeah, having 5 competent and capable starters last year was immeasurably huge for this team. It's the difference between winning 99 games and finishing behind the Twins. Yes, there were a lot of roster changes that helped us achieve greatness in 05, but just going by W-L records you could make a lame argument. I mean what was our 5th starter a combined 1-15 with a 7 something in '04? Ugh...please let's not go through that again. Or even half that.

Mr. N Paul Todd
12-07-2005, 07:22 PM
I think that Kenny Williams should put some serious thought into squeezing whatever he can out of what remains of Garland's contract. If the market wants to overpay for free agent pitches, it will overpay for pitchers in a trade.

Granted, they'd be trading for a one year contract, but it's better than nothing. Regardless, it seems to me the Sox are holding a pretty valuable 7-8$ million dollar chip that is costing them much less.

Soxfest
12-07-2005, 07:53 PM
I am all for getting the max for Garland he is not worth what he is wanting in the future

Vernam
12-07-2005, 08:22 PM
Trading Garland would be tricky, though I agree KW can't afford to lose him without compensation in '07. If he trades him before the '06 season starts, Garland probably wouldn't bring as much in return as he would from a contending team in July. But if KW waits until then to unload him, people will scream it's White Flag II.

I doubt it's anywhere near that stage, actually, but KW is probably signaling that he won't give away the store.

Garland's agent is Craig Landis, btw, same as Konerko. He's the son of Jim Landis.

Vernam

Jjav829
12-07-2005, 08:24 PM
Care to share the quote (but obviously not the whole article)?

This is what Gammons has to say.

"What does this do to us with Jon Garland (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6396)?" asked one White Sox official. "Burnett opens this season at [age] 29, Garland at 26. Burnett won 12 games, Garland 18. Burnett has 15 fewer career wins. Garland is a fifth-year arbitration case coming off virtually the same salary [$3.4 million]. What's he going to get in arbitration? What's he going to ask if we try to do a longtime contract and keep him from going to free agency next fall?"

If you're Garland, you're looking at the Burnett table and telling the waiter, "I'll take what he has, only a much bigger serving." The White Sox are looking at a huge hit in arbitration, and no one would blame Garland for wanting more than five years at $11 million per season.

A. Cavatica
12-07-2005, 08:24 PM
Anyone know what Jarrod Washburn is asking for? If the salaries were comparable I would rather have a second lefthander.

bigfoot
12-07-2005, 09:21 PM
Anyone know what Jarrod Washburn is asking for? If the salaries were comparable I would rather have a second lefthander.

An interesting thought, though I don't think the lefty would be Washburn......Dontrelle Willis YES, Washburn NOWAY

Flight #24
12-07-2005, 09:35 PM
Dontrelle Willis = $12+/yr. Washburn = Byrd = $7M/yr.

This whole "overpaid" is kind of a weird concept. All these guys are overpaid. In terms of market, $11M for Jon Garland is currently market rate, as the rate for a Paul Byrd-like pitcher is $7M. Of course, were Willis/Buehrle on the market, the rate for that type of pitcher would be more like $12-14M. Like it or not, the market has shifted. If you can find someone undervalued, or it you think Garland will pitch more like Paul Byrd than AJ Burnett, then you can afford to save some $$$. But you won't find an 05 Garland-like guy on the market for less.

So it's a question of whether you can afford reliable, proven pitchers or not. If not - say hello to your choice of a $7M Paul Byrd/Jarrod Washburn type or a rookie (or even worse, a Hector Carrasco type at $3M).
IMO the Sox are in position based on their minor league system & salary structure to pay one of Garland/Contreras their market rate of $11M/yr. That locks in 4 guys through '07 using El Duque's $$$ after this year. And you replace Dye with another of the OFs, saving $6M that you can put towards resigning/extending Buehrle/Garcia. After '07, you've got Fields, Sweeney, Valido to replace your position players with and keep your budget focused on pitching.

A. Cavatica
12-07-2005, 09:46 PM
Garland, career: 64-61, 4.42 ERA, 1009/1016/375/551 (IP/H/BB/SO)

Washburn, career: 75-57, 3.93, 1153/1122/348/699

Washburn's 2002 (18-6, 3.15) was better than Jon's 2005 (18-10, 3.50).

Granted, Washburn is five years older and has pitched in a more pitcher-friendly park, but his numbers are a lot better than Garland's. I think he'll command more like $9M, and I don't think he's worth it, but if he could be had for $7M then why wouldn't you trade Garland?

Flight #24
12-08-2005, 12:19 AM
Garland, career: 64-61, 4.42 ERA, 1009/1016/375/551 (IP/H/BB/SO)

Washburn, career: 75-57, 3.93, 1153/1122/348/699

Washburn's 2002 (18-6, 3.15) was better than Jon's 2005 (18-10, 3.50).

Granted, Washburn is five years older and has pitched in a more pitcher-friendly park, but his numbers are a lot better than Garland's. I think he'll command more like $9M, and I don't think he's worth it, but if he could be had for $7M then why wouldn't you trade Garland?

You answered your own question. Garland's 26, Washburn's 31. I.e. Jon's got a much stronger likelihood of improving whereas Washburn's likely to regress. If we were getting Washburn ca.2002, fine. But we're not.

As long as we're playing these games, I'd like an order of Frank Thomas ca. 1994.

The only reasons to make this type of move is if payroll simply won't support the arb award Garland will get, or if you're convinced that in 2006, Washburn will give you similar #s to Garland, which seems unlikely. Because beyond '06, you have to figure Garland to be better than Washburn (if not in '06 as well).

Steelrod
12-08-2005, 05:55 AM
You answered your own question. Garland's 26, Washburn's 31. I.e. Jon's got a much stronger likelihood of improving whereas Washburn's likely to regress. If we were getting Washburn ca.2002, fine. But we're not.

As long as we're playing these games, I'd like an order of Frank Thomas ca. 1994.

The only reasons to make this type of move is if payroll simply won't support the arb award Garland will get, or if you're convinced that in 2006, Washburn will give you similar #s to Garland, which seems unlikely. Because beyond '06, you have to figure Garland to be better than Washburn (if not in '06 as well).
Garlands success is mainly as a #5 starter. Think back to a year ago when Garland was overpaid at $3.4. He could end up back there. Definately not worth 5 @$50. Let someone else find it out! Of course , I may be wrong and he's turned the corner, but I personally wouldn't take the risk! I'm sure someone will.

A. Cavatica
12-08-2005, 08:38 AM
...if you're convinced that in 2006, Washburn will give you similar #s to Garland, which seems unlikely. Because beyond '06, you have to figure Garland to be better than Washburn (if not in '06 as well).

Actually, I think he [Washburn] will give similar numbers for the next 3-4 years, and I'd really like to find a way to get a second lefty into the rotation. Of course, if we can't afford Jon, we likely can't afford Washburn either -- and we don't sign Boras clients so the argument is moot.

I'm not happy with penciling El Duque back into the rotation, so if Garland has to go, I guess Cotts is the next guy to try. His problem (a la Foulke) is that he was so good in the bullpen that he may never get another chance to start.

soxwon
12-08-2005, 08:40 AM
He is on Silvy and Carmen right now and said this:

"If the market continues where it is, we may have to say goodbye. We have enough guys in house to get the job done".

Williams is saying that the market is just so out of control that they simply could not ante up the kind of money Jon may command as a F/A.

VERY, VERY interesting.


welcome to town bobby abreau!!!!

GoSox2K3
12-08-2005, 09:10 AM
The Sox goal for 2006 is to make another run at the World Series. Since the key to this is their starting rotation, they will NOT be trading Garland for a lesser starter, prospects or for a non-pitcher! I don't think El Duque can be a starter for a full season, so I don't see them dumping Garland and going with McCarthy and El Duque in the rotation with no backup for when El Duque goes down.

This is the price you pay for going for another championship - you might in the long run lose a player to FA without getting anything other than a draft pick in return.

Flight #24
12-08-2005, 10:38 AM
Garlands success is mainly as a #5 starter. Think back to a year ago when Garland was overpaid at $3.4. He could end up back there. Definately not worth 5 @$50. Let someone else find it out! Of course , I may be wrong and he's turned the corner, but I personally wouldn't take the risk! I'm sure someone will.

If you think you could have found a pitcher for $3M 2 years ago that would give you 200IP with a solid ERA, I think you need to revisit FA lists. Yes, there are E-Lo type of finds, but they're not all that common. Garland wasn't overpaid compared to market, which is the point.

Washburn is nice, but he's basically putting up similar stats to Garland but is 5 years older (and a lefty). And he'd be making a shift to USCF which one would anticipate would raise his ERA if not other stats as well. Basically, I'd classify him as "Garland without the upside". At a difference of $2-3M/yr, that's a pretty big dropoff, IMO.

vafan
12-08-2005, 02:28 PM
Who has the best long term potential among Garland, Buehrle, and Garcia?

I think from this point forward, Garland is likely to win the most games among those three, in a very close race with Buehrle. He's a 26-year-old pitcher who has now gained a tremendous amount of big league experience. He's got the best arm and throws the hardest of the 3.

So, if I were KW, I would try to sign Garland for 3 more years at around the time of his arbitration hearing. (If it cost me $10 million/year or a little bit more, I would consider it a bargain.)

I would also try to add two more years to Jose Contreras's contract before the year begins. And next offseason I would try to extend Buehrle. Garcia is the pitcher I would not re-sign after his current contract is up. El Duque will also likely move on after this year.

If the Sox do that, they only have to work in Brandon McCarthy into the rotation over the next two years. I think we need those two years to develop a pitcher that can follow McCarthy into the rotation and into Garcia's slot. Anyone knocking on the door? There's no one in AAA who is going to crack our rotation anytime soon, is there?

So, the Sox need to keep after Garland. Remember, any contract he can be coaxed to sign this offseason will be cheap compared to what he'll get on the open market a year from now.

Remember too that keeping a stable of reliable, solid starting pitchers, and phasing in new ones only when necessary is what kept the Atlanta Braves on top of their division for so long.

When you've got a guy like Jon Garland, whose only problem seemed to be mental, and he turns that corner at 26, you do everything you can to keep him.

CallMeNuts
12-08-2005, 11:00 PM
Players generally perform better in their walk year. So if we want to milk every last ounce of effort out of JG, in our drive to repeat in 2006, then don't sign him to a multi-year deal now. And be prepared to lose him after the season if he has a season like 2005 or better. If JG doesn't want our money in 2007, KW will do a good job in selecting a pitcher who wants to help us go after a 3-peat.

Trav
12-09-2005, 12:36 AM
Management doesn't like to sign pitchers for a lot of money at a lot of years so I would expect for JG to be a 1-2 starter for another team for the next 4-7 years. Then again, Sox park should have a sign that says "Under new management" because the last two years have been pretty much 180 degrees from what they were.

Garland is going to make a ton of money. The argument is $10 or $15 per. Then you have to ask yourself if they can afford to have three SP all making that kind of cash because they all will be making it somewhere.

Dynasties hold on to pitching and replace hitters.. I would imagine the Sox made a killing this year and if they make the playoffs again next year then the tide will turn in Chicago and the average fan will be wanting to see the Sox and not Wrigley so the money will continue to pour in during the year. JR said he would spend the money if he was making it and he made it this year. The White Sox will move up into the top tier as far as payroll goes if they want to win year in and year out. No more middle market budget. It is about time they took advantage of the flaws in the game (no cap) while they can. $90-$100 budget is what I imagine if they want to remain dominant. The rest of the central is waking up. Detroit spends freely (on risky players, IMO) and the Indians' ownership said they will spend if they contend and we all know that MN has an incredible GM. I can't wait for the hottest teams to come from the Central. With the Sox on top, of course. I think it starts with what they do with Garland.