PDA

View Full Version : Will the real Jon Garland please stand up?


WhiteSoxFan84
12-16-2005, 02:38 PM
During the Jerry Manuel Era, I didn't like Jon Garland. I saw a young kid who was emotionless. To me, it seemed like he just didn't care. If he pitched a great game, he would have the same expression on his face as he would after a horrible outting. We all know Manuel had no faith in the kid and was pulling him out early almost everytime. We heard the chatter that Garland was not happy and had every right to be unhappy.

Two seasons ago, with Ozzie Guillen as his manager for the first time, Garland posted his worst ERA (4.89) since his rookie year (6.46). I was ready to give up on the kid. He just didn't seem to have the desire it takes to become a top flight pitcher. And I don't want people to think that emotion equals success, but showing SOME emotion does at least let the fans know that this guy cares. I wanted this guy off my team.

Last season, Garland goes 18-10 with the low ERA (3.50) and everyone is talking about how the kid has matured into the man that everyone thought he would be. Of course I enjoyed it and how can you not enjoy a great season like the one we had? So I started building up some love for Jon Garland and I even made up a nickname for him, The SoCal Cool. What's weird is, I gave him that nickname for the same reason I disliked him - his "lack" of emotion on the field. When you're losing, no signs of any emotions means you don't care. When you're winning, no signs of emotions means you're just cool. It's odd, but that's truly how it works in a lot of people's minds.

So my new found love for the SoCal Cool was a great one. I started enjoying every game he pitched and bragging to my friends and family about how he was so damn good and yet he was still very young. I also threw in the fact that we picked him up from the Cubs for some reliever who's name I forgot, I believe it was Art Kuschner. I even went out and bought this kid's autographed rookie card. My love for the Gar-man (another nickname, lol) was extreme. As it was for the rest of the team. But then, the offseason comes...

And now, I don't like Jon Garland. At all. He has gone back to making me think that he doesn't care about anything. Who cares if we won the World Series? Who cares that the team put up with his sub-par numbers for five years until he finally came through last season? And the chemistry he has built with his fellow teammates, who cares about that? I'll tell you someone who does care: Paul Konerko. He cared and he signed for less money to stay with the team that gave him every chance he needed. Now don't get me wrong here, I understand where the kid is going by trying to get his money. He's young, he's in the prime of his career, and heck, we don't know the whole story. But, from what I'm reading here and on other websites or newspapers, he's not going to sign an extension with us or anyone else unless he gets a ridicilous offer ($10-12 mill per). This hurts us in two ways; 1) the obvious, being that he most likely will leave the Sox, 2) teams looking to trade for him won't give up as much because they know he will probably be a one year rental, thus lowering his value.

I just scrolled up and saw how long this looks, so I'll end it with this; he should look around the pitching staff and ask himself; am I better than Mark Buehrle? Am I better than Freddy Garcia? Am I better than Jose Contreras? The answer to all 3 questions is NO. Yet Buehrle and Garcia recently signed multi-year deals paying them each $9 mill per. Contreras is making $8 mill per and probably will get an extension paying him $9-$9.5 per. Looking outside the team, arguably the best pitcher in baseball, Johan Santana is making $10 mill per. Garland should ask himself, "Am I better off taking a chance of having a bad season and/or getting injured AND going into a deeper market next offseason and not get paid what I think I'm going to get" -OR- "Should I just stay where I've been practically my whole career, where I won a World Series ring(!!!), and where I'm being offered a very reasonable amount".

Hopefully Garland comes to his senses before it's too late. If not, good riddance. You did what you had to do here and if you think you're time has come, so-be-it. You used us to raise your value and you were practically a waste of a spot in the rotation for 5 years until you finally decided to step it up and be a man last year. We used you to win a World Series title. Fair trade I guess. Just do us all a favor, don't bitch and moan when the door hits you on the way out. Don't tell the media stories about how we didn't offer you enough money or that we were never serious about keeping you around. IF you leave, leave with a smile and a thank you.

XplodingScorbord
12-16-2005, 02:50 PM
Somebody mail this post to Jonny. Well said, especially the bit about "Is he a better pitcher than..."

Jon, be smarter than Magglio. Take our millions now, just be freakin' reasonable about it.

chisox
12-16-2005, 03:47 PM
nicely said.

kevin57
12-16-2005, 03:48 PM
Last year, Jon Garland finally pitched as all the scouts and experts said he could/would.

The team was very patient with him. I do think he "owes" a certain amount to the organization that hung in there with him. As you say, like Konerko. Konerko did give a sort of hometown discount in the end. That would be reasonable.

As to his personality, I really don't care about how "emotional" he is. For all we know, after the cameras and microphones are turned off he stays awake all night upset at himself over a bad outing. We all have different personalities.

dlee120
12-16-2005, 04:01 PM
I happen to like his even keel personality. This is the attitude that allows success. It is a flatliners approach - no point gets to high, no point gets to low. It keeps you humble when success finds you, and it allows you to keep your head up when failure hits. And just because you don't wear your emotions on your sleeve does not make you unemotional or apathetic.

SOecks
12-16-2005, 04:15 PM
Great thread and great post. You summed up my feelings on Garland exactly. It is obvious to me that he doesn't want to be here anymore and I'm sure KW will give him his wish sooner than later.

Goose
12-16-2005, 04:19 PM
Great post!

I have been thinking about these situations since PK went through his FA stint (and, of course, the eventual signing with the Sox). I have come to believe it is a situation very much like our every day life. We, like ball players, work for a "company". Ours may be listed on the Stock Market, where their company is a team, but when you boil it down, as they say, it is just a business. Some of us LOVE the company we work for, and others like the type of work we do, meaning that we would never change fields, but don't have much of a loyalty to our current employer. We accept the paycheck, do the best we can, and every once in a while, we meet someone that works at another company and they offer a better salary for a similar job. If they offered you more money to do the same job would you not at least consider that other company? Now, some people would resign from their current job with the hopes of a serious counter offer from your employer if there is some sort of loyalty for that company. If the offer is reasonably similar to the new offer, you may want to stay. If there is no loyalty, then you may just take the new job for a change of scenery (and sometimes come to find that the money is not always what matters, but the intangibles like the people you work with that make the difference).

Bottom line is that WE think of this from a FAN'S perspective, and not from an employer-employee perspective.

I definitely do not disagree with you, I just wanted to offer a different perspective.

MsSoxVixen22
12-16-2005, 04:21 PM
During the Jerry Manuel Era, I didn't like Jon Garland. I saw a young kid who was emotionless. To me, it seemed like he just didn't care. If he pitched a great game, he would have the same expression on his face as he would after a horrible outting. We all know Manuel had no faith in the kid and was pulling him out early almost everytime. We heard the chatter that Garland was not happy and had every right to be unhappy.

Two seasons ago, with Ozzie Guillen as his manager for the first time, Garland posted his worst ERA (4.89) since his rookie year (6.46). I was ready to give up on the kid. He just didn't seem to have the desire it takes to become a top flight pitcher. And I don't want people to think that emotion equals success, but showing SOME emotion does at least let the fans know that this guy cares. I wanted this guy off my team.

Last season, Garland goes 18-10 with the low ERA (3.50) and everyone is talking about how the kid has matured into the man that everyone thought he would be. Of course I enjoyed it and how can you not enjoy a great season like the one we had? So I started building up some love for Jon Garland and I even made up a nickname for him, The SoCal Cool. What's weird is, I gave him that nickname for the same reason I disliked him - his "lack" of emotion on the field. When you're losing, no signs of any emotions means you don't care. When you're winning, no signs of emotions means you're just cool. It's odd, but that's truly how it works in a lot of people's minds.

So my new found love for the SoCal Cool was a great one. I started enjoying every game he pitched and bragging to my friends and family about how he was so damn good and yet he was still very young. I also threw in the fact that we picked him up from the Cubs for some reliever who's name I forgot, I believe it was Art Kuschner. I even went out and bought this kid's autographed rookie card. My love for the Gar-man (another nickname, lol) was extreme. As it was for the rest of the team. But then, the offseason comes...

And now, I don't like Jon Garland. At all. He has gone back to making me think that he doesn't care about anything. Who cares if we won the World Series? Who cares that the team put up with his sub-par numbers for five years until he finally came through last season? And the chemistry he has built with his fellow teammates, who cares about that? I'll tell you someone who does care: Paul Konerko. He cared and he signed for less money to stay with the team that gave him every chance he needed. Now don't get me wrong here, I understand where the kid is going by trying to get his money. He's young, he's in the prime of his career, and heck, we don't know the whole story. But, from what I'm reading here and on other websites or newspapers, he's not going to sign an extension with us or anyone else unless he gets a ridicilous offer ($10-12 mill per). This hurts us in two ways; 1) the obvious, being that he most likely will leave the Sox, 2) teams looking to trade for him won't give up as much because they know he will probably be a one year rental, thus lowering his value.

I just scrolled up and saw how long this looks, so I'll end it with this; he should look around the pitching staff and ask himself; am I better than Mark Buehrle? Am I better than Freddy Garcia? Am I better than Jose Contreras? The answer to all 3 questions is NO. Yet Buehrle and Garcia recently signed multi-year deals paying them each $9 mill per. Contreras is making $8 mill per and probably will get an extension paying him $9-$9.5 per. Looking outside the team, arguably the best pitcher in baseball, Johan Santana is making $10 mill per. Garland should ask himself, "Am I better off taking a chance of having a bad season and/or getting injured AND going into a deeper market next offseason and not get paid what I think I'm going to get" -OR- "Should I just stay where I've been practically my whole career, where I won a World Series ring(!!!), and where I'm being offered a very reasonable amount".

Hopefully Garland comes to his senses before it's too late. If not, good riddance. You did what you had to do here and if you think you're time has come, so-be-it. You used us to raise your value and you were practically a waste of a spot in the rotation for 5 years until you finally decided to step it up and be a man last year. We used you to win a World Series title. Fair trade I guess. Just do us all a favor, don't bitch and moan when the door hits you on the way out. Don't tell the media stories about how we didn't offer you enough money or that we were never serious about keeping you around. IF you leave, leave with a smile and a thank you.

VERY well said! Yeah someone should def email this to JG.

Chicken Dinner
12-16-2005, 04:22 PM
Who's going to start the Jon Garland appreciation thread????

TheKittle
12-16-2005, 04:24 PM
Great thread and great post. You summed up my feelings on Garland exactly. It is obvious to me that he doesn't want to be here anymore and I'm sure KW will give him his wish sooner than later.

What are you talking about??? He doesn't want to be here just because he's asking for a lot of money??? I mean he didn't set the market. The Blue Jays overpaid for Burnett. Why not just wait until things get settle with Garland before ripping him? I mean if he holds out or gets traded due to his high salary demands, ok fine, rip him. But right now in Dec. why make such a big deal about it??

miker
12-16-2005, 04:27 PM
Loyalty is all well and good but c'mon, he's got a family to feed.

DaleJRFan
12-16-2005, 04:30 PM
Loyalty is all well and good but c'mon, he's got a family to feed.

Garland is single with NO kids.

miker
12-16-2005, 04:31 PM
Garland is single with NO kids.
So that means he should take less money (in theory) to stay with the White Sox?

Ol' No. 2
12-16-2005, 04:34 PM
So that means he should take less money (in theory) to stay with the White Sox?Absolutely. Where's his loyalty to the team and to the fans?

Nevermind the fact that the team tried to trade him at least twice and the fans booed him repeatedly up until this year.

MillerSoxFan
12-16-2005, 04:35 PM
To me JG was a symbol of the Sox - great potential but couldn't quite get there. Then in the beginning of the season he (and the Sox) just kept on winning and winning. I hope he stays, but I will never forget the first half of the 2005 season as the most unexpected beginning to an amazing year.

Hitmen77
12-16-2005, 04:35 PM
Loyalty is all well and good but c'mon, he's got a family to feed.

:tealpolice:
I hope you meant that to be teal.

If he wants to make as much money as possible, fine. But, I hate this BS about how millionaire players are worried about "feeding their families". GMAB.

krohnjw
12-16-2005, 04:37 PM
He can pull a magglio and go all for the money, but don't hide it behind "he has a family to feed". I am pretty sure we could all find the necessary coupons and pinch the right pennies to "feed our family" on 9 million a year instead of 11-12 (especially a family of 1).

SOecks
12-16-2005, 04:45 PM
What are you talking about??? He doesn't want to be here just because he's asking for a lot of money??? I mean he didn't set the market. The Blue Jays overpaid for Burnett. Why not just wait until things get settle with Garland before ripping him? I mean if he holds out or gets traded due to his high salary demands, ok fine, rip him. But right now in Dec. why make such a big deal about it??

It's not just that he's "asking for a lot of money" it's because he didn't even bother to counter KW's initial offer (wasn't it 3 years 24 mil?). If he had countered with a fair offer, or any offer at all then it would fall on KW and the org to make a decision. Since he didn't counter, that says to me that he doesn't want to be here and will sign wherever the biggest payday is.

miker
12-16-2005, 04:47 PM
[quote=Hitmen77]I hope you meant that to be teal. [quote]
Half-teal.

I would love to have Jon do a "Konerko" and stay, but that really is the exception rather than the rule.

mweflen
12-16-2005, 04:47 PM
A. Some men go for team loyalty (or love of city).
B. Some men want excellence and sustained success.
C. Some men go for big bucks regardless of success.
D. Some men are content with one ring, then it's time for $$$.

Usually, any normal person would have a combo of a little from each column. I'm sure if you looked into your heart of hearts, and considered what you'd do, it wouldn't be as easy as saying "I'm a Sox till I die." A difference of a million or more bucks per year is a big deal, no matter what you make. I sure as hell know I'd relocate to Boo-Foo Montana for a job that promised to pay me a million bucks more than I make now. And I love Chicago, would never want to move.

So yeah, it's annoying, but oh well, what are you gonna do?

Konerko did the same thing, and his equation was probably 25% A, 50% B, 25% D. I don't see anyone here ripping him a new one for taking $12mil from us when it might be better for the team if he took $10, or had deferred $$, or whatnot.

We should treasure the rare players who are all A or B. The rest, hey, welcome aboard, you'd better earn your $$$.

Rocky Soprano
12-16-2005, 04:47 PM
Loyalty is all well and good but c'mon, he's got a family to feed.

:rolleyes:

So what he makes now is not enough to feed his family?

Dan Mega
12-16-2005, 04:53 PM
Loyalty is all well and good but c'mon, he's got a family to feed.

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/sp/v/nba/players/4/858.jpg
"Thats what I said!"

KRS1
12-16-2005, 04:55 PM
Last year, Jon Garland finally pitched as all the scouts and experts said he could/would.

The team was very patient with him. I do think he "owes" a certain amount to the organization that hung in there with him. As you say, like Konerko. Konerko did give a sort of hometown discount in the end. That would be reasonable.

As to his personality, I really don't care about how "emotional" he is. For all we know, after the cameras and microphones are turned off he stays awake all night upset at himself over a bad outing. We all have different personalities.

Sadly, this is just not the case anymore. It used to be that players so revered the town and team they played for that they would live there forever. Now, they all own houses across the counrty and world, and have little to no loyalty to teams, but we can not forget this is a business. Yes its the entertainment business and nowadays noone owes anyone anything, no the millions of fans who buy a singers albums, or the tens of thousand regulars who pack seats in the stadium. It has become all about the money, and even if you love the game noone would play for free, or even for 4 square meals and room and board like some of us would. Jon is not the only player to ever turn down a contract that he deemed unfair, but it's choice as well as KW's to understand that.

akingamongstmen
12-16-2005, 04:56 PM
Loyalty is all well and good but c'mon, he's got a family to feed.

He must eat a lot.

wsox3505
12-16-2005, 04:56 PM
I agree with your sentiments. I have always questioned JG's heart. His complaints about the D in the past really irked me and I dont blame him for wanting as much $$$ as possible. My main concern is that he had his career last year, he won't repeat the same numbers, and if KW gets a good deal. . .let him go.

Ol' No. 2
12-16-2005, 05:02 PM
Sadly, this is just not the case anymore. It used to be that players so revered the town and team they played for that they would live there forever. Now, they all own houses across the counrty and world, and have little to no loyalty to teams, but we can not forget this is a business. Yes its the entertainment business and nowadays noone owes anyone anything, no the millions of fans who buy a singers albums, or the tens of thousand regulars who pack seats in the stadium. It has become all about the money, and even if you love the game noone would play for free, or even for 4 square meals and room and board like some of us would. Jon is not the only player to ever turn down a contract that he deemed unfair, but it's choice as well as KW's to understand that.I hate to burst your bubble, but there was NEVER a time when players stayed with teams out of loyalty. It was a little thing called the reserve clause.

mweflen
12-16-2005, 05:04 PM
I hate to burst your bubble, but there was NEVER a time when players stayed with teams out of loyalty. It was a little thing called the reserve clause.

True true. And teams were none too loyal to their players in that era. Hasn't anyone here watched Ken Burns' Baseball?

PS, I adjusted your post, because you relish bursting bubbles. :tongue:

asindc
12-16-2005, 05:07 PM
My main concern is that he had his career last year, he won't repeat the same numbers, and if KW gets a good deal. . .let him go.

This is why I think the Sox offer is fair. It is based on his entire career, not just last year. Besides, I think JG caught a bit of fortune during playoffs with the long layoff. His MO has been to wear down towards the end of the season. The layoff allowed him to get a second wind. Point being, he faded down the stretch again this year, so there's no indication that he won't do it consistently in the future since he has consistently done so before, even in a career year.

I'm not blasting him for not taking the contract, but I'd lose much respect for him if he blasted the team for not offering more.

VivaOzzie
12-16-2005, 05:07 PM
He must eat a lot.

:roflmao: :rolling: :thumbsup:

spiffie
12-16-2005, 05:11 PM
Let me preface this by saying I really would prefer to see JG get dealt this off-season (and it's funny how for all the talk of disloyalty by him there are tons of threads on this board gleefully putting out ideas of where to uproot this guy to because we want something better for our team) as it seems a better long-term move.

That said, I see nothing wrong and do not feel somehow slighted by the idea that he wants to see what he is worth in the open market. Hell, I don't feel slighted by the idea that he would rather go play out on the West Coast or anything like that. Last year he did exactly what we asked of him. He pitched wonderfully and was a key piece in getting the title we waited 88 years for. I think that repaid this organization and its fans just fine. Jon Garland doesn't owe me, anyone else on this board, or anyone outside of the White Sox organization a damn thing. And as for what he owes the White Sox is to go out and pitch every 5th day as best he can until his contract expires or we finish one of the many attempts we've made to send him to a destination of our choosing. If he chooses to come back here after being a FA, wonderful. Konerko made the choice that this is where he felt he could be happiest. If Garland feels he can be happier, for whatever reason ($$$, geography, family, etc.) in some other location, then go for it. But to rip a guy because he wants to see what is out there seems just wrong to me. Deal with the reality of the situation, if there is a trade out there worth making, I really hope it gets made. But I'm reserving my anger with Garland for if he regresses to his earlier form after getting a big raise this offseason.

And for anyone who ever says you'd play baseball for free...the game has been going on for over 100 years, if anyone truly believed that, wouldn't someone have done it by now? Seems like the only people who would be willing to play for free are the one who would still be getting overpaid to do so. :rolleyes:

CluelessJoe1919
12-16-2005, 05:12 PM
With the rate pitchers are getting paid now, Garland would be smart to test the market. And the Sox would be smart to deal him now.

KRS1
12-16-2005, 05:12 PM
This is why I think the Sox offer is fair. It is based on his entire career, not just last year. Besides, I think JG caught a bit of fortune during playoffs with the long layoff. His MO has been to wear down towards the end of the season. The layoff allowed him to get a second wind. Point being, he faded down the stretch again this year, so there's no indication that he won't do it consistently in the future since he has consistently done so before, even in a career year.

I'm not blasting him for not taking the contract, but I'd lose much respect for him if he blasted the team for not offering more.

He did fade down the stretch but he should have gotten at least 4 more wins by my count. I know shoula woulda coulda BS, but when your team doesnt score during 0,0,3,1 run outings its kinda hard to win.

asindc
12-16-2005, 05:16 PM
He did fade down the stretch but he should have gotten at least 4 more wins by my count. I know shoula woulda coulda BS, but when your team doesnt score during 0,0,3,1 run outings its kinda hard to win.

Fair point. But I do think the offer is fair.

KRS1
12-16-2005, 05:19 PM
Fair point. But I do think the offer is fair.

We dont really know the exact offer just that it was between, 3 yrs 21-25mil, and thats a pretty broad spectrum. I personally think with the market he's worth as much a 9 per, but we probably wont give him that, thus making a trade the smartest thing to do.

Goose
12-16-2005, 05:23 PM
Konerko did the same thing, and his equation was probably 25% A, 50% B, 25% D. I don't see anyone here ripping him a new one for taking $12mil from us when it might be better for the team if he took $10, or had deferred $$, or whatnot.

I disagree. PK did NOT do the same thing. Actually, the situations are completely different. The SOX were the ones that wanted to wait on PK's contract. If KW would have gone to PK in Spring Training, none of this would have happened to him. He would have accepted the contract and played the season. The Sox waited and they had to pay the price for an exceptional postseason. Dem's da breaks, and KW understood that.

Jon's situation is that an offer was maid and refused.

WhiteSoxFan84
12-16-2005, 05:25 PM
So that means he should take less money (in theory) to stay with the White Sox?

No, it just kills your theory.

Nevermind the fact that the team tried to trade him at least twice and the fans booed him repeatedly up until this year.

It's called tough love. It's also called being a fan that cares. I know you don't mean anything negative about the fans when you say what you said, but if you suck, you will get booed. Just like how we will cheer our asses off for you if you do good.

I sure as hell know I'd relocate to Boo-Foo Montana for a job that promised to pay me a million bucks more than I make now. And I love Chicago, would never want to move.

Let's say you currently make $250,000 a year. If a company offered you a $1 mill more, that's a 400% raise. If you're making $9 million a year and another company offers you $1 million more, that's a 11% increase. Now honestly, 400%, I understand, but is 11% worth changing so much in your life? I know he doesn't live in Chicago during the offseason, but the regular season is a huge chunk of his life.

Steelrod
12-16-2005, 05:28 PM
I have never understood the system.
You draft someone, give them a bonus, then pay them to go to your minor leagues, where you pay your coaches to make them better, then you bring them up, your big league coaches are paid to work with them, they sometimes succeed, sometimes fail. If they succeed, they hold you up for money or leave. If they fail, you've wasted all money spent on them, as well as all money spent on the 100's that failed.
I almost forgot, you spent millions scouting the world to find them.
I almost forgot, if you pay them a lot and they play badly, you lose, If they play well, they want to rework their contract.
Why would you expect players that pan out to be loyal?

Goose
12-16-2005, 05:34 PM
I have never understood the system.
You draft someone, give them a bonus, then pay them to go to your minor leagues, where you pay your coaches to make them better, then you bring them up, your big league coaches are paid to work with them, they sometimes succeed, sometimes fail. If they succeed, they hold you up for money or leave. If they fail, you've wasted all money spent on them, as well as all money spent on the 100's that failed.
I almost forgot, you spent millions scouting the world to find them.
I almost forgot, if you pay them a lot and they play badly, you lose, If they play well, they want to rework their contract.
Why would you expect players that pan out to be loyal?

That is not completely fair. Yes, they couch young players in the minors and spend a ton of money hoping that a few of them work out. If they do, then they get a contract in the Majors. If they pan out there, then they get offered another contract worth much more money. BUT they also offer years on that contract. Teams (read: Sox) don't offer pitchers more than 3 years generally because they dont want to be locked down when/if that player gets hurt. It works both ways. What we can take out of this is the following:

LOYALTY IS A DISEASE OF DOGS.

mweflen
12-16-2005, 05:45 PM
Let's say you currently make $250,000 a year. If a company offered you a $1 mill more, that's a 400% raise. If you're making $9 million a year and another company offers you $1 million more, that's a 11% increase. Now honestly, 400%, I understand, but is 11% worth changing so much in your life? I know he doesn't live in Chicago during the offseason, but the regular season is a huge chunk of his life.

Let's say I'ma ballplayer. I know my career has very specific lifetime. Once I'm 40 or so, it's time to find a new line of work.

A million a year difference, even if it's only an 11% raise (I'd LOVE to get an 11% raise), over 5 years ends up being a lot of scratch, plus interest, to work with, if I want to invest, start a business, whatever.

Different people have different goals. If I were a ballplayer, I'd want to make as big a chunk as I could to give me the greatest number of possible options when I retire. Sure, I'd like to play in a city I loved (Garland has never expressed any particular love for Chicago) and win the highest honors, but if Tampa Bay was going to pay me twice as much, I would probably end up doing it.

I guess my point is just that everyone is an individual withtheir own motivations. Getting upset with JG is pointless. He's looking out for number one, and I don't think it's fair of us to think we'd do any different. We can admire the players who have different priorities, but we shouldn't rag on the ones who don't.

WhiteSoxFan84
12-16-2005, 05:46 PM
I have never understood the system.
You draft someone, give them a bonus, then pay them to go to your minor leagues, where you pay your coaches to make them better, then you bring them up, your big league coaches are paid to work with them, they sometimes succeed, sometimes fail. If they succeed, they hold you up for money or leave. If they fail, you've wasted all money spent on them, as well as all money spent on the 100's that failed.
I almost forgot, you spent millions scouting the world to find them.
I almost forgot, if you pay them a lot and they play badly, you lose, If they play well, they want to rework their contract.
Why would you expect players that pan out to be loyal?

I maybe misunderstanding you, but you're pretty much saying a player should pretty much stay with one team his whole career? So like, no free agency, no trading, etc? I maybe wrong with that assumption, but my point is this;what did that old school system lead our 1919 White Sox to do?

I'd rather have disloyal players going for the money rather than being led to lose games on purpose to make extra dough.

mcfish
12-16-2005, 05:46 PM
I have never understood the system.
You draft someone, give them a bonus, then pay them to go to your minor leagues, where you pay your coaches to make them better, then you bring them up, your big league coaches are paid to work with them, they sometimes succeed, sometimes fail. If they succeed, they hold you up for money or leave. If they fail, you've wasted all money spent on them, as well as all money spent on the 100's that failed.
I almost forgot, you spent millions scouting the world to find them.
I almost forgot, if you pay them a lot and they play badly, you lose, If they play well, they want to rework their contract.
Why would you expect players that pan out to be loyal?Don't go crying for the teams/owners. First of all, players were essentially indentured servants for many many years in baseball. The owners screwed it up for themselves over the years and continue to do so by paying far too much money to free agents every single year. Second, 2005 was Jon Garland's 5th full year as a starter for this team. He had a 1 year contract in 2005. And yet, he's not a free agent because the Sox still have rights to him for next year by offering him arbitration. After 2006, he will finally have his first opportunity to become a free agent, and if he does so, then more power to him. I hate to see players make life more difficult for Kenny Williams, but it's not outside of Jon's rights to do so, and it's not like the team hasn't had ample opportunity with him before his first free agency year.

KRS1
12-16-2005, 05:49 PM
Let's say I'ma ballplayer. I know my career has very specific lifetime. Once I'm 40 or so, it's time to find a new line of work.

A million a year difference, even if it's only an 11% raise (I'd LOVE to get an 11% raise), over 5 years ends up being a lot of scratch, plus interest, to work with, if I want to invest, start a business, whatever.

Different people have different goals. If I were a ballplayer, I'd want to make as big a chunk as I could to give me the greatest number of possible options when I retire. Sure, I'd like to play in a city I loved (Garland has never expressed any particular love for Chicago) and win the highest honors, but if Tampa Bay was going to pay me twice as much, I would probably end up doing it.

I guess my point is just that everyone is an individual withtheir own motivations. Getting upset with JG is pointless. He's looking out for number one, and I don't think it's fair of us to think we'd do any different. We can admire the players who have different priorities, but we shouldn't rag on the ones who don't.

Oh yeah, he'd have a real hard time getting by on 30 million for the rest of his life. He might have to pay a butler to scratch his *** and walk back and forth to fridge between all the nothing he has to do to make money. After a good career there's lots of golf vacations and downtime, let alone a great one(in terms of dollars).

mweflen
12-16-2005, 05:54 PM
Oh yeah, he'd have a real hard time getting by on 30 million for the rest of his life. He might have to pay a butler to scratch his *** and walk back and forth to fridge between all the nothing he has to do to make money. After a good career there's lots of golf vacations and downtime, let alone a great one(in terms of dollars).

You're obviously very good at putting yourself in someone else's shoes. Do you laugh when people trip on the street, too?:rolleyes:

WhiteSoxFan84
12-16-2005, 05:55 PM
Let's say I'ma ballplayer. I know my career has very specific lifetime. Once I'm 40 or so, it's time to find a new line of work.

A million a year difference, even if it's only an 11% raise (I'd LOVE to get an 11% raise), over 5 years ends up being a lot of scratch, plus interest, to work with, if I want to invest, start a business, whatever.

Different people have different goals. If I were a ballplayer, I'd want to make as big a chunk as I could to give me the greatest number of possible options when I retire. Sure, I'd like to play in a city I loved (Garland has never expressed any particular love for Chicago) and win the highest honors, but if Tampa Bay was going to pay me twice as much, I would probably end up doing it.

I guess my point is just that everyone is an individual withtheir own motivations. Getting upset with JG is pointless. He's looking out for number one, and I don't think it's fair of us to think we'd do any different. We can admire the players who have different priorities, but we shouldn't rag on the ones who don't.

Good argument, but let me take my defense one step further.

YOU are Jon Garland. You decide to leave Chicago. You leave behind whatever it is you had. A few things that you leave behind are a team with a great defense. A great pitching coach that may have finally figured you out. And a manager and general manager who believe in you and love you.

You go to... the Yankees, or anyone for that matter. You sign that deal that gives you the 11% raise. You get 4 years $40 million from them (and let's say you turned down 4 years $36 million from the Sox) and are making $4 million more than you would have with the Sox.

With the change of scenery, you as a person begin to change. All of a sudden high expectations are laid upon your shoulders and you're feeling pressure that you've never felt before. You also start realizing that the new team you're on, doesn't have a defense as good as Chicago's. All of a sudden your mechanics start getting to you and you are not the same pitcher you were before. You want to ask Don Cooper how he figured you out and what he noticed, but guess what? He's no longer on your side. You're first year in New York is a disaster. You post a record of 8-13, 5.65 ERA. Steinberner doesn't know anything about you, other than you had one good season in Chicago. He's not Kenny Williams and decides he has seen enough, right after the New York media proclaims you as a one-year wonder. You get traded to... Colorado for God knows who. Needless to say, Colorado won't make your stats any better. You try to make it work and play their for a year. Baddd mistake. Your numbers look something like 6-15 with a 5.95 ERA. Now the Rockies want to get rid of you. They finally fool a mid-level team to pick you up. You play out the rest of your contract and don't do so well the last 2 years of your contract. Now, your market value is crapped out. By 2011, you are an average pitcher and will be lucky to pick up $6 mill per (inflation).

You look back and ask yourself, "Was that 11% difference worth the possibility of this happening?" And I understand that this scenario of his career collapsing can also play out if he stays in Chicago. But chances are, it is MUCH more likely to happen if he leaves.

mweflen
12-16-2005, 05:59 PM
Good argument, but let me take my defense one step further.
YOU are Jon Garland. You decide to leave Chicago. You leave behind whatever it is you had. A few things that you leave behind are a team with a great defense. A great pitching coach that may have finally figured you out. And a manager and general manager who believe in you and love you.
With the change of scenery, you as a person begin to change. All of a sudden high expectations are laid upon your shoulder's and you're feeling pressure that you've never felt before.
You look back and ask yourself, "Was that 11% difference worth the possibility of this happening?" And I understand that this scenario of his career just collapsing can also play out if he stays in Chicago. But chances are, it is MUCH more likely to happen if he leaves.

Up until last year, I'd have agreed that staying in Chicago would mean less pressure and lower expectations. Now, I don't know :smile:

WhiteSoxFan84
12-16-2005, 06:02 PM
Up until last year, I'd have agreed that staying in Chicago would mean less pressure and lower expectations. Now, I don't know :smile:

Very true. But that's a good thing.

Wait, by more pressure and higher expectations from a Chicago team, you mean the Cubs right?

JB98
12-16-2005, 07:09 PM
Absolutely. Where's his loyalty to the team and to the fans?

Nevermind the fact that the team tried to trade him at least twice and the fans booed him repeatedly up until this year.

LOL. I knew it was only a matter of time before WSI members started scolding Garland for his lack of loyalty to the team and the fans. Jon hasn't always been treated well by the organization. His first three years here, Manuel stunted his development by pulling him from the game every time he gave up two hits in an inning. Then, KW tried to trade him to Anaheim for Darin Erstad.

As fans, we have booed him mercilessly. Even last year, people in the stands and on this board started up with the "Judy Garland" crap every time he had a subpar outing. Whenever Jon lost a game, we had a thread asking "Has the old Garland returned?" It was ridiculous.

On several occasions, Jon has commented in the papers about being treated poorly by the fans. Sometimes, he has deserved the boos. But given all that has happened, I don't think Jon feels any special love for the city or the organization. Unless the Sox pay him, he'll walk. It is what it is.

jerry myers
12-16-2005, 07:18 PM
Loyalty is all well and good but c'mon, he's got a family to feed.hes loaded im almost sure if he has a family ,they wont starve. and if they did, then hes about stupid. cmon these guys need to learn to thank god for their blessings. the post was well said, jon your with us or not, get in or get out. you are replaceable. we dont have time for this, the sox are building a team. anyway and i may be wrong but my gut feeling says jon had his best year in 05 that he will ever have.

RallyBowl
12-16-2005, 07:46 PM
It may be time for him to go. I truthfully don't care if he goes 30-0 next year. All signs point to this whole thing being about the $. Jon doesn't want to be here, at least it appears that way. Maybe it isn't all about the money- maybe he doesn't like the fans, wants to pitch in Cali, whatever. Everyone says he is this uber-laid back dude, I disagree. I think it is possible that he is an over-sensitive baby, who thinks he has a chance to stick it to us, and is going to try to. It will blow up in his face, because I don't think he can be a successful as he was last year for the rest of his career if he doesn't have Coop, Ozzie, Mark, and a first-rate defense behind him.

If he stays, I will cheer him and wish him well, but in the back of my mind I think he doesn't want to be hear anymore, so I don't want him here anymore. If he wanted to be here, why wasn't there a counter offer? KW made it clear he wants him, now Jon is making it clear he is greedy.

Time to drop some bombs, Kenny.

Steelrod
12-16-2005, 07:52 PM
That is not completely fair. Yes, they couch young players in the minors and spend a ton of money hoping that a few of them work out. If they do, then they get a contract in the Majors. If they pan out there, then they get offered another contract worth much more money. BUT they also offer years on that contract. Teams (read: Sox) don't offer pitchers more than 3 years generally because they dont want to be locked down when/if that player gets hurt. It works both ways. What we can take out of this is the following:

LOYALTY IS A DISEASE OF DOGS.
I'm not suggesting owners are any more loyal than players. However... the point I was trying to make is a team probably invests 3-5 million on every player who makes the majors. That is the 150-200 drafted, paid, minor league players and coaches in each system, that maybe 5% ever play a big league game. It sorta makes me wonder if it would be cheaper to Not have any minor leaguers, and buy free agents.
Look at 2006. Anticipation is that one, maybe two players will make this team. If the minor league budget is $15 million (a guess), thats 7 1/2 million each for unproven rookies. Plus 300,000 salaries. Obviously you have others waiting in event of injuries. But these are usually low ceiling players.

My point is the owners pay handsomly for those 6 years of those who get there.

ShoelessJoeS
12-16-2005, 07:54 PM
After the whole Magglio fiasco last year, player loyalty just seems non-existent nowadays. Free angency isn't helping either. Call me crazy, but I guess I'll never understand why 7 million a year just isn't enough Jon....

Steelrod
12-16-2005, 07:57 PM
It may be time for him to go. I truthfully don't care if he goes 30-0 next year. All signs point to this whole thing being about the $. Jon doesn't want to be here, at least it appears that way. Maybe it isn't all about the money- maybe he doesn't like the fans, wants to pitch in Cali, whatever. Everyone says he is this uber-laid back dude, I disagree. I think it is possible that he is an over-sensitive baby, who thinks he has a chance to stick it to us, and is going to try to. It will blow up in his face, because I don't think he can be a successful as he was last year for the rest of his career if he doesn't have Coop, Ozzie, Mark, and a first-rate defense behind him.

If he stays, I will cheer him and wish him well, but in the back of my mind I think he doesn't want to be hear anymore, so I don't want him here anymore. If he wanted to be here, why wasn't there a counter offer? KW made it clear he wants him, now Jon is making it clear he is greedy.

Time to drop some bombs, Kenny.
Look at me. I'm defending ownership all day. lol
It will not blow up in his face if he leaves. He will sign a lucrative, long term contract, and the money will be his if he doesn't win another game. Success in a job is salary, not wins and losses. If that happens, the only good news is that it will blow up in his new team,s face, not the Sox!

Dolanski
12-16-2005, 08:04 PM
hes loaded im almost sure if he has a family ,they wont starve. and if they did, then hes about stupid. cmon these guys need to learn to thank god for their blessings. the post was well said, jon your with us or not, get in or get out. you are replaceable. we dont have time for this, the sox are building a team. anyway and i may be wrong but my gut feeling says jon had his best year in 05 that he will ever have.

I can't blame the guy wanting to test the market. What's wrong with seeing what is out there? This is his job after all, and if I were in his position, I would probably do the same. If you can get paid more to do the same job elsewhere, why wouldn't you?

On the flipside, I can't blame the Sox for wanting to sign him for cheaper than the market. This is a business and profit is the most important thing.

But to call Jon Garland out because he did accept an offer from the White Sox, is stupid. We don't know what the offer was, and if it is anything below the market, why would he accept it? His agent is Landis, not Boras and all he has said is he would sign if the offer was fair (i.e. what the market dictates). And no where in this discussion has he ever said I want out. All he wants is either a fair market offer or the chance to see what the market will give him.

I want him to stay with the Sox, but I am not going to chastise him or call him out for making a business decision.

JB98
12-16-2005, 08:08 PM
After the whole Magglio fiasco last year, player loyalty just seems non-existent nowadays. Free angency isn't helping either. Call me crazy, but I guess I'll never understand why 7 million a year just isn't enough Jon....

Player loyalty doesn't exist nowadays? Paul Konerko had better offers from two other teams, but he chose to stay with the Sox.

Again, Jon isn't loyal to the team or the city because neither the team nor the city have always been loyal to him. Every situation is different.

BTW, AJ Burnett got $11 million, and Jon is arguably a more accomplished pitcher. That's why $7 million isn't enough.

kevin57
12-16-2005, 08:08 PM
Loyalty is all well and good but c'mon, he's got a family to feed.

Actually, Garland is single :tongue:

Ol' No. 2
12-16-2005, 08:09 PM
I'm not suggesting owners are any more loyal than players. However... the point I was trying to make is a team probably invests 3-5 million on every player who makes the majors. That is the 150-200 drafted, paid, minor league players and coaches in each system, that maybe 5% ever play a big league game. It sorta makes me wonder if it would be cheaper to Not have any minor leaguers, and buy free agents.
Look at 2006. Anticipation is that one, maybe two players will make this team. If the minor league budget is $15 million (a guess), thats 7 1/2 million each for unproven rookies. Plus 300,000 salaries. Obviously you have others waiting in event of injuries. But these are usually low ceiling players.

My point is the owners pay handsomly for those 6 years of those who get there.One thing you've neglected to mention. More than sixty million people buy tickets to games every year, and they're not paying to see the owners. Players get next to nothing playing in the minors and, compared to the amount of money paid to see them, very little their first 3-6 years. By the time a player reaches free agency, the balance has already tipped pretty far in the owners favor. Getting a big payday just evens out the scales.

jerry myers
12-16-2005, 08:10 PM
After the whole Magglio fiasco last year, player loyalty just seems non-existent nowadays. Free angency isn't helping either. Call me crazy, but I guess I'll never understand why 7 million a year just isn't enough Jon....thank you!

SOecks
12-16-2005, 08:12 PM
I know I'm going to get flamed for this question but I really would like to know. Does anyone remember any interviews or great reactions from Jon after we won the WS? I can clearly remember everyone hugging, smiling, celebrating from the starters to bench players to Man Soo Lee. I just don't remember ever seeing him celebrate or enjoy the madness that was our championship. Please tell me if I'm wrong or am forgetting something and go ahead and rip on me now...

Ol' No. 2
12-16-2005, 08:15 PM
After the whole Magglio fiasco last year, player loyalty just seems non-existent nowadays. Free angency isn't helping either. Call me crazy, but I guess I'll never understand why 7 million a year just isn't enough Jon....And I'll never understand why people think if they were in the same situation, they'd accept less than they're worth.:?:

jerry myers
12-16-2005, 08:16 PM
what im saying is he wants more money, and hes not worth it. we can do better with it. if he can get it somewhere else. jon thank you for 05, but dont let the door hit you in the rear.

RadioheadRocks
12-16-2005, 08:17 PM
Actually, Garland is single :tongue:

I'm pretty sure we got to see his fiancee during the ALCS in Anaheim.

jerry myers
12-16-2005, 08:19 PM
One thing you've neglected to mention. More than sixty million people buy tickets to games every year, and they're not paying to see the owners. Players get next to nothing playing in the minors and, compared to the amount of money paid to see them, very little their first 3-6 years. By the time a player reaches free agency, the balance has already tipped pretty far in the owners favor. Getting a big payday just evens out the scales.well them poor poor fellows:whiner::whiner:

Ol' No. 2
12-16-2005, 08:22 PM
well them poor poor fellows:whiner::whiner:Do you know the definition of wealthy?

Anyone who has more than I do.

Don't kid yourself. If you were in their position, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't pass up a $50M contract out of "loyalty".

JB98
12-16-2005, 08:30 PM
Do you know the definition of wealthy?

Anyone who has more than I do.

Don't kid yourself. If you were in their position, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't pass up a $50M contract out of "loyalty".

Precisely.

And I can't lecture people about "loyalty" because I've held three different jobs in the eight years since I graduated from Illinois. I left each of the first two jobs I had for a better paycheck. In fact, if I had shown "loyalty" to the employer who hired me when I first came out of college, my personal income would be half of what it is today. That's how business works. It just so happens that in baseball, the money is much, much greater than it is for the rest of us.

jerry myers
12-16-2005, 08:33 PM
maybe ballplayers should be billonaires.

kevin57
12-16-2005, 08:37 PM
I agree with the observation that most people will pursue the higher money. That's the way our system operates. We shouldn't begrudge baseball players the same.

Looking at the bigger picture, however, what has this done and what will it do to baseball's overall health? It's been noted time after time that before the season ever begins, half the teams don't even stand a chance because their payroll is so low they can't possibly compete. I know there are exceptions to the rule, but that's a fair assessment of things overall.

Not to hijack this thread, but baseball is the only professional sport whose finance structure seems to put it on a very bad course. I know that owners are principally to blame for this mess, so this isn't a "Who's to blame?" sort of thing.

jerry myers
12-16-2005, 08:39 PM
well i didnt go to college,(should have) but did join the army. and wealth i dont know much about. but i have seen poverty. and thankfulness for very little, so i guess it just nerves me to see the spoiled and its about me attitude side of the good ol USA.

Dolanski
12-16-2005, 08:52 PM
Precisely.

And I can't lecture people about "loyalty" because I've held three different jobs in the eight years since I graduated from Illinois. I left each of the first two jobs I had for a better paycheck. In fact, if I had shown "loyalty" to the employer who hired me when I first came out of college, my personal income would be half of what it is today. That's how business works. It just so happens that in baseball, the money is much, much greater than it is for the rest of us.

Right on, man. Can't blame a guy for doing whats best for him. Remember, its all about the benjamins.

And as far as loyalty from the old days, are you referring to the pre-FA days when players were basically owned and had no rights themselves? Loyalty works both ways too. Are the Sox being loyal to their player and paying him what he is worth?

---

So let's say the Sox are quibbling with Garland over money now, and refusing to give him the kinda money that he is asking and he moves on. So what happens in 3 years, when the salary he was demanding is considered cheap and the Sox end up signing someone off the trash heap for the same money. I can just hear all the naysayers now talking about how the Sox should have given him the money and bitching about how they could have had Garland at this price instead of this joker.

And if you don't believe me, why don't you ask an Hawks fans (are there any left?) when Dollar Bill refused to give Roenick a long term deal circa 1992 because his price was too high, but then the next year willing to sign a washed up Doug Gilmore for the same salary.

Ol' No. 2
12-16-2005, 08:54 PM
well i didnt go to college,(should have) but did join the army. and wealth i dont know much about. but i have seen poverty. and thankfulness for very little, so i guess it just nerves me to see the spoiled and its about me attitude side of the good ol USA.I can't disagree with that, but why stop at ballplayers? What about actors, rock bands, CEO's and all the other people who make huge amounts of money? That's the way the system works. Everyone is free to his own pursuit of happiness, however he chooses to define it.

Dolanski
12-16-2005, 08:56 PM
well i didnt go to college,(should have) but did join the army. and wealth i dont know much about. but i have seen poverty. and thankfulness for very little, so i guess it just nerves me to see the spoiled and its about me attitude side of the good ol USA.
Again, how does this make him greedy? We have no idea what he was offered. To go out looking for the salary that other people in his position are being paid, that's not greedy, that's smart. Capitalism is the halmark of the good ole USA and this is pure and simple capitalism.

jerry myers
12-16-2005, 08:58 PM
I agree.

jerry myers
12-16-2005, 08:58 PM
I can't disagree with that, but why stop at ballplayers? What about actors, rock bands, CEO's and all the other people who make huge amounts of money? That's the way the system works. Everyone is free to his own pursuit of happiness, however he chooses to define it.I agree

Steelrod
12-16-2005, 09:03 PM
One thing you've neglected to mention. More than sixty million people buy tickets to games every year, and they're not paying to see the owners. Players get next to nothing playing in the minors and, compared to the amount of money paid to see them, very little their first 3-6 years. By the time a player reaches free agency, the balance has already tipped pretty far in the owners favor. Getting a big payday just evens out the scales.
I agree, but this big payday that you think evens out the scales is paid for by your 60 million ticket buyers. Owners upfront the money, the customers make them whole.
Each minor league team is supported by the big league club. Pays salaries, coaches, trainers, per diem. uniforms, bats. I don't know for sure, but I will stand on my 10-15 million dollar figure for minor league cost to big club. While it is true the players only may make 10-30 thousand a year, Now add in above expenses, signing bonuses. Using the Sox, Our $ !,000,000 minor league catcher last year, multiple signing bonuses. Travel to different levels.
Finally, most major league clubs DO NOT OWN THE MINOR LEAGUE CLUBS. Ticket revenue from all this goes to the team's owners. I know for a fact that the White Sox own none of their minor league clubs. Do not know about other teams. Minor league ownership IS A BONANZA. They own the revenue, but pay a very small part of the expenses

ShoelessJoeS
12-16-2005, 09:28 PM
Player loyalty doesn't exist nowadays? Paul Konerko had better offers from two other teams, but he chose to stay with the Sox.

Again, Jon isn't loyal to the team or the city because neither the team nor the city have always been loyal to him. Every situation is different.

BTW, AJ Burnett got $11 million, and Jon is arguably a more accomplished pitcher. That's why $7 million isn't enough.
Well I guess Paulie is the exception to the rule, maybe. The reason he came back to Chicago was to win. Turning down higher contracts and re-signing with the team you won a World Series with doesn't show as much loyalty as you are saying. Wasn't Baltimore a team that offered him more money? You think he actually wanted to play there? Paulie wants to win another championship, plain and simple, his "loyalty" to the Sox is a non-issue here. You have to remeber JB, that he initially turned down a 4-year contract and didn't re-sign until Kenny upped the ante. The Garland situation is different. Our team is better than what is was last year and we won the World Series, yet, Garland doesn't want to sign an extension because he wants to see how much money he can get. That was obviously not the case with Konerko. PK sees a good thing and wants to stick with it, Garland, not so much. And another thing, please don't use the Jays stupidity as an argument, we all know Burnett is not worth that kind of money.

JB98
12-16-2005, 09:52 PM
Well I guess Paulie is the exception to the rule, maybe. The reason he came back to Chicago was to win. Turning down higher contracts and re-signing with the team you won a World Series with doesn't show as much loyalty as you are saying. Wasn't Baltimore a team that offered him more money? You think he actually wanted to play there? Paulie wants to win another championship, plain and simple, his "loyalty" to the Sox is a non-issue here. You have to remeber JB, that he initially turned down a 4-year contract and didn't re-sign until Kenny upped the ante. The Garland situation is different. Our team is better than what is was last year and we won the World Series, yet, Garland doesn't want to sign an extension because he wants to see how much money he can get. That was obviously not the case with Konerko. PK sees a good thing and wants to stick with it, Garland, not so much. And another thing, please don't use the Jays stupidity as an argument, we all know Burnett is not worth that kind of money.

Matt Clement wasn't worth the contract he got from Boston. Jaret Wright and Carl Pavano weren't worth the contracts they got from the Yankees. The Mets overpaid for Pedro. The Dodgers overpaid for Derek Lowe. The Cubs overpaid for Gascan Howry and Eyre. The Jays overpaid for Ryan. Someone will overpay for Millwood in the coming days. Every pitcher that goes on the open market gets more than they deserve. Garland is no dummy. He sees that, and he'll make a crapload when he reaches free agency. To me, that point is an essential part of this discussion.

As for Paulie, he could have gone to Anaheim. The Angels are obvious World Series contenders. If the criteria was, "Who has the best chance to win?", you could flip a coin between the Sox and Angels. They were the two best teams in the AL in 2005, and that might be the case again in 2006. I think Paulie does have loyalty to the city and the organization. He is respected and idolized here. You can't say the same for Garland, so those type of personal factors probably won't apply in his case.

TaylorStSox
12-16-2005, 11:13 PM
I'm sorry, but this is a stupid post. Do you think Jon Garland cares if you don't like him? Judging the kid's loyalty to a team and ambition based on his demeanor is ridiculous. He's developed as planned.

Here are the facts:
He was rushed to the majors.
He was coached by a manager that didn't believe in him.
He's been unfairly criticized by zealot fans who judge him by his "attitude."
His growth as a pitcher is very reasonable.

Jon Garland doesn't owe a damn thing to you, me, or the White Sox. He owes it to himself to find the best situation for him. If that's here, then it's great. If he leaves, that's fine too. It's his decision.

But, the Sox suffered and endured for so long while Garland developed. He was horrible. This is just garbage. He would have been starting for 29 other teams during the last few years. God forbid a 23 year old kid puts up 12 wins with a league average ERA.

wdelaney72
12-16-2005, 11:13 PM
Matt Clement wasn't worth the contract he got from Boston. Jaret Wright and Carl Pavano weren't worth the contracts they got from the Yankees. The Mets overpaid for Pedro. The Dodgers overpaid for Derek Lowe. The Cubs overpaid for Gascan Howry and Eyre. The Jays overpaid for Ryan. Someone will overpay for Millwood in the coming days. Every pitcher that goes on the open market gets more than they deserve. Garland is no dummy. He sees that, and he'll make a crapload when he reaches free agency. To me, that point is an essential part of this discussion.

As for Paulie, he could have gone to Anaheim. The Angels are obvious World Series contenders. If the criteria was, "Who has the best chance to win?", you could flip a coin between the Sox and Angels. They were the two best teams in the AL in 2005, and that might be the case again in 2006. I think Paulie does have loyalty to the city and the organization. He is respected and idolized here. You can't say the same for Garland, so those type of personal factors probably won't apply in his case.

I say this not to bash Paulie, but to point out the facts. Loyalty had nothing to do with Paulie re-signing here. He stayed because he's comfortable here, the money was comparable, and most importantly, OUR BALLPARK IS VERY CONDUSIVE TO HIS HITTING. He stayed because it was the best situation FOR HIM, not because he was loyal.

Huisj
12-16-2005, 11:59 PM
I even made up a nickname for him, The SoCal Cool.

Is it cool in SoCal to wear a hat 2 sizes too small way up on the top of your head during days off?:cool:

ShoelessJoeS
12-17-2005, 12:05 AM
JB,
At least we are on the same level that pitchers are overpaid in today's market. All I'm saying is that Paulie did not "do it for the money" and it appears that Garland is. And when the Sox beat the Angles 4-1, that is not a toss up that you claim it is. That is simply a dominant pitching staff with clutch hitting, something the Angels did not possess in the postseason.

JB98
12-17-2005, 12:20 AM
I say this not to bash Paulie, but to point out the facts. Loyalty had nothing to do with Paulie re-signing here. He stayed because he's comfortable here, the money was comparable, and most importantly, OUR BALLPARK IS VERY CONDUSIVE TO HIS HITTING. He stayed because it was the best situation FOR HIM, not because he was loyal.

Please, let's not turn this into another stupid Paulie thread. The reasons he signed with the Sox are beside the point. All I'm saying is, Garland's relationship with management and the fans is not as good as Konerko's. Therefore, with Jon, it's going to come down to money and nothing else. A lot of people in this thread are expecting, or even demanding, that Garland give the Sox a hometown discount. My response: Forget about it.

JB98
12-17-2005, 12:26 AM
JB,
At least we are on the same level that pitchers are overpaid in today's market. All I'm saying is that Paulie did not "do it for the money" and it appears that Garland is. And when the Sox beat the Angles 4-1, that is not a toss up that you claim it is. That is simply a dominant pitching staff with clutch hitting, something the Angels did not possess in the postseason.

When I said it's a toss-up, I'm talking about next year. The Angels are a championship contender in 2006, just like we are.

And I agree with you that Paulie did not "do it for the money." Money was a factor, but so was a whole bunch of other stuff. For Garland, it probably will be all about the money. Some people have a problem with that. I don't.

ShoelessJoeS
12-17-2005, 12:41 AM
And I agree with you that Paulie did not "do it for the money." Money was a factor, but so was a whole bunch of other stuff. For Garland, it probably will be all about the money. Some people have a problem with that. I don't.That was my original argument, cheers JB!

:gulp:

SOXfnNlansing
12-17-2005, 02:38 AM
Garland is single with NO kids. I have a 'friend' who went to school with JG's g/f. They are planning on getting married. She wants JG to sign with the Dodgers/Angels/Padres so they can spend more time together.

She plays softball and from what I hear they are very serious. I know I've done things in my past I regret from listening to a woman. Maybe this is what is going on or it's just hearsay.
:?:

Steelrod
12-17-2005, 03:43 AM
I have a 'friend' who went to school with JG's g/f. They are planning on getting married. She wants JG to sign with the Dodgers/Angels/Padres so they can spend more time together.

She plays softball and from what I hear they are very serious. I know I've done things in my past I regret from listening to a woman. Maybe this is what is going on or it's just hearsay.
:?:So did Nomar, and look where it got him! Went from a mainstay to a nomad. Turned down 10 plus multi year from Boston, and gets rejected by the Cubs, after he builds his house!
However, it looks like the market will save his butt!

bigfoot
12-17-2005, 08:34 AM
And I'll never understand why people think if they were in the same situation, they'd accept less than they're worth.:?:

Perhaps all the anxiety in this thread is a result of the use of the term "worth". Sorry #2, I don't mean to pick on you by using your quote, while agreeing with you.

If the concept of "what the marketplace will bear" is used, which is what is actually in place here, then the personal hatred of JG(or anyone) using the CBA to their advantage is not only understood, but to be encouraged.

No one forces management/s to "over-pay" for talent, perceived or real. It is KW's duty to perform with what tools are available to him, including the signing of FAs, promotion of draft picks, Rule 5 aquisitions etc. If KW can use some or all of these tactics to induce JG to resign with the Sox great, if not.....plan B.

JG's head for the game seem to have finally caught up with his talent potential. The real question here should be......Can he repeat? If so, the Sox have an even better opportunity to do like-wise. And by repeating JG WILL increase his marketvalue tremendously.

One need only ask the ?, "How many players(pitchers in particular) have had breakout seasons, only to never duplicate the year again?"

The pitcher that have "backed up" that breakout season with another can be counted on a very few fingers.

And this notion that the fans will find a pitcher, any pitcher as "lovable" as a position player is pure folly, too. Maybe a stud closer, but a every 5th day starter, not likely. Even full ST holders will only see any given starter once a homestand, in most cases. Unlike the every day "Paulie, AJ, etc"

No slight meant to any other poster here, but a little less angst and bit more perspective.....you'll live longer and be able to drink more.:gulp:

wassagstdu
12-17-2005, 09:46 AM
This is ridiculous. Jon Garland helped the Sox get off to a great start, was Cy Young material until he slowed down a bit in the second half, came back and pitched superbly in the postseason, and ended up leading the team in W (the only stat that matters). He has done nothing to deserve being vilified here. But then I seem to remember a similar thread a couple of years ago about Mark Buehrle, and how he really had no loyalty to the Sox and would rather play for the Cards and good riddance. Give me a break.

.

chaerulez
12-17-2005, 09:59 AM
During the Jerry Manuel Era, I didn't like Jon Garland. I saw a young kid who was emotionless. To me, it seemed like he just didn't care. If he pitched a great game, he would have the same expression on his face as he would after a horrible outting. We all know Manuel had no faith in the kid and was pulling him out early almost everytime. We heard the chatter that Garland was not happy and had every right to be unhappy.

Two seasons ago, with Ozzie Guillen as his manager for the first time, Garland posted his worst ERA (4.89) since his rookie year (6.46). I was ready to give up on the kid. He just didn't seem to have the desire it takes to become a top flight pitcher. And I don't want people to think that emotion equals success, but showing SOME emotion does at least let the fans know that this guy cares. I wanted this guy off my team.

Last season, Garland goes 18-10 with the low ERA (3.50) and everyone is talking about how the kid has matured into the man that everyone thought he would be. Of course I enjoyed it and how can you not enjoy a great season like the one we had? So I started building up some love for Jon Garland and I even made up a nickname for him, The SoCal Cool. What's weird is, I gave him that nickname for the same reason I disliked him - his "lack" of emotion on the field. When you're losing, no signs of any emotions means you don't care. When you're winning, no signs of emotions means you're just cool. It's odd, but that's truly how it works in a lot of people's minds.

So my new found love for the SoCal Cool was a great one. I started enjoying every game he pitched and bragging to my friends and family about how he was so damn good and yet he was still very young. I also threw in the fact that we picked him up from the Cubs for some reliever who's name I forgot, I believe it was Art Kuschner. I even went out and bought this kid's autographed rookie card. My love for the Gar-man (another nickname, lol) was extreme. As it was for the rest of the team. But then, the offseason comes...

And now, I don't like Jon Garland. At all. He has gone back to making me think that he doesn't care about anything. Who cares if we won the World Series? Who cares that the team put up with his sub-par numbers for five years until he finally came through last season? And the chemistry he has built with his fellow teammates, who cares about that? I'll tell you someone who does care: Paul Konerko. He cared and he signed for less money to stay with the team that gave him every chance he needed. Now don't get me wrong here, I understand where the kid is going by trying to get his money. He's young, he's in the prime of his career, and heck, we don't know the whole story. But, from what I'm reading here and on other websites or newspapers, he's not going to sign an extension with us or anyone else unless he gets a ridicilous offer ($10-12 mill per). This hurts us in two ways; 1) the obvious, being that he most likely will leave the Sox, 2) teams looking to trade for him won't give up as much because they know he will probably be a one year rental, thus lowering his value.

I just scrolled up and saw how long this looks, so I'll end it with this; he should look around the pitching staff and ask himself; am I better than Mark Buehrle? Am I better than Freddy Garcia? Am I better than Jose Contreras? The answer to all 3 questions is NO. Yet Buehrle and Garcia recently signed multi-year deals paying them each $9 mill per. Contreras is making $8 mill per and probably will get an extension paying him $9-$9.5 per. Looking outside the team, arguably the best pitcher in baseball, Johan Santana is making $10 mill per. Garland should ask himself, "Am I better off taking a chance of having a bad season and/or getting injured AND going into a deeper market next offseason and not get paid what I think I'm going to get" -OR- "Should I just stay where I've been practically my whole career, where I won a World Series ring(!!!), and where I'm being offered a very reasonable amount".

Hopefully Garland comes to his senses before it's too late. If not, good riddance. You did what you had to do here and if you think you're time has come, so-be-it. You used us to raise your value and you were practically a waste of a spot in the rotation for 5 years until you finally decided to step it up and be a man last year. We used you to win a World Series title. Fair trade I guess. Just do us all a favor, don't bitch and moan when the door hits you on the way out. Don't tell the media stories about how we didn't offer you enough money or that we were never serious about keeping you around. IF you leave, leave with a smile and a thank you.

I hate this whole "emotion" argument. Do you want Garland to show "emotion" and have the "fire" Carlos Zambrano does and at times make a fool out of himself? Is Lovie Smith a bad coach because he's not "emotional" like Mike Ditka? (I actually think Lovie Smith isn't a good coach but it has nothing to do with the emotions he shows) If you are angry at Garland because he's overpricing himself already in the market, so be it, but just because the guy doesn't show a lot of emotion on the field doesn't make him any less of a player. If he were to start pumping his first and yelling after strikeouts I don't think he'd suddenly become a sub-3.00 ERA pitcher.

wdelaney72
12-17-2005, 10:38 AM
I don't blame Garland for trying to earn the most money he can command. I don't particularly like it, but it's certainly his right.

Some players want to win more than make the most coin, others (A-rod, Ivan Rodriguez, Burnett... to name a few) want to make the most money. There's nothing wrong with that. Garland now has a WS championship and wants to make the most $$ ha can. Like I said, I don't like it, but I certainly can't say it's not his right to do so. When he moves on, just like Frank, Foulke, Colon, and all the other former WS players, I'll say thank you for your time served and then hope they crap down their leg whenever they play the White Sox.

jerry myers
12-17-2005, 11:06 AM
i think a lot of people need something in their life besides the sox. alot of folks act like they know these players, or they idolize these guys. or some get offended. thats just goofy. lots of these ballplayers are stuckup, greedy, aholes that need to have a reality check, now i know some of you just got offended. sorry , go hug someone that loves you back. some our really good hearted men that do count their blessing. but it seems some live in the baseball soap opera lives. lets leave it up to KW, we have nothing to do with in anyway, voice your opionion and quit acting like you know these guys. cause you dont, you just have a opinion. personally if jg is back good, if hes not my opinion is were not losing anything, in fact kw would make us stronger. but i dont know everything. but i do feel a need to thank konerko cause he could of made more money closer to his home, with a good good team.some people like big frank are just white sox. maybe garland just isnt one.

akingamongstmen
12-17-2005, 11:29 AM
...I know I've done things in my past I regret from listening to a woman.

:nod:

TheKittle
12-17-2005, 02:30 PM
Do White Sox fans think Rowand was loyal? I would assume yes. But look at how the White Sox treated him!!! They traded him after he helped the White Sox acheive something they haven't done in 88 years. Rowand loved it in Chicago, even if he lived in Vegas in the off season. He was good with fans, he did everything the team asked. But less than two months after winning the WS, he gets traded.

Loyality is a two way street and we all know that the teams aren't loyal to the players if they get hurt.

TaylorStSox
12-17-2005, 02:35 PM
Do White Sox fans think Rowand was loyal? I would assume yes. But look at how the White Sox treated him!!! They traded him after he helped the White Sox acheive something they haven't done in 88 years. Rowand loved it in Chicago, even if he lived in Vegas in the off season. He was good with fans, he did everything the team asked. But less than two months after winning the WS, he gets traded.

Loyality is a two way street and we all know that the teams aren't loyal to the players if they get hurt.

That's nice and all. It doesn't mean a whole lot when you're just an average player though.

Steelrod
12-17-2005, 02:42 PM
Do White Sox fans think Rowand was loyal? I would assume yes. But look at how the White Sox treated him!!! They traded him after he helped the White Sox acheive something they haven't done in 88 years. Rowand loved it in Chicago, even if he lived in Vegas in the off season. He was good with fans, he did everything the team asked. But less than two months after winning the WS, he gets traded.

Loyality is a two way street and we all know that the teams aren't loyal to the players if they get hurt.
No, they just pay them!!

TheKittle
12-17-2005, 02:46 PM
That's nice and all. It doesn't mean a whole lot when you're just an average player though.

Rowand was an average player? Any pitcher who wins 18-19 games isn't an average pitcher. Yeah Garland should accept less than he's worth. Just brilliant. Would you, in whatever profession, accept less? Of course not. Why should Garland?

The Wall
12-17-2005, 02:55 PM
Is it Garland's fault if other GMs are foolishly offering 5 years for 55 million kind of deals to far inferior pitchers than Jon? No. So its natural for him to expect a similar deal. If Buerhle, Garcia or Jose were on the FA market this year, would they have commanded better than Konerko's numbers?? You bet. So dont blame him. The system is flawed and that needs fixing.

TaylorStSox
12-17-2005, 03:05 PM
Rowand was an average player? Any pitcher who wins 18-19 games isn't an average pitcher. Yeah Garland should accept less than he's worth. Just brilliant. Would you, in whatever profession, accept less? Of course not. Why should Garland?

I never said anything about Garland being average. I was responding to your diatribe about Rowand. Yes, he's an average player.

I'm so tired of this Rowand crap. He was the weakest link in our offense. His defense was overated due to park conditions. He was a poor baserunner. He couldn't bunt.


I feel better now. :)

Steelrod
12-17-2005, 04:16 PM
Rowand was an average player? Any pitcher who wins 18-19 games isn't an average pitcher. Yeah Garland should accept less than he's worth. Just brilliant. Would you, in whatever profession, accept less? Of course not. Why should Garland?

The REAL point is that WE are Sox fans. The players play for a team (obviously want to win), but in fact do and should put themselves ahead of the organization.The owners are here long after the players are gone, and DO have a responsibility to the city and it's fans. I cannot see how anyone can be critical of ownership and Not the players. THe owners have no guarantee of success no matter what they do or spend. The players have zero risk once they sign their contract.
We currently have one player living in Chicago. I can't remember when the last time we had two! We just got a guy from Pittsburgh who is a Sox fan. He's excited to be here, yet feels badly about leaving his teammates. (and I don't blame him for that). We now have a grand total of one Sox fan!!

Steelrod
12-17-2005, 04:19 PM
You know what the real problem is? Money and friendship are important, yet every player wants to win it at least once! Well, our guys have now done that and can focus on the other things!!!

leens01
12-17-2005, 06:23 PM
When I went away to college down in central Illinois, the White Sox weren't really the priority in my life. When I moved back up to Chicago, though, I really started to get into the team, and my favorite player after the 2001 season was Jon Garland. I thought that he was a phenomenal pitcher and really thought he had potential. So much so, that when I went to Sox Fest that winter, I personalized my jersey to read Garland 52.

The next Sox Fest, after he didn't have the greatest of years, I got some flack from people for wearing my jersey, but I wore it proudly. I still wear it to this day, even though people comment about how it is the wrong number.

Throughout this post, people have talked about how Jon shows no emotion in the game. There have been many interviews with the man where he said he has always recieved that criticism since high school. His old coach even said that about him. There has been criticism that he has no loyalty. How many people on here loving refered to him as Judy for years. I know that I recieved some choice words at games for wearing my jersey at times. If he had no loyalty to the fans, I think it was well deserved. It isn't like many fans showed him loyalty until this season. In fact, at opening day, I heard many boos over my cheering for him. My mom, nephew, and I were the only ones who cheered in my section.

Another criticism I have heard about Garland is that he isn't fan friendly. Once again, while at Sox Fest, he was in the kids corner. My family walked in as he was just about done signing. The woman told us we were the last ones in line. My niece and nephew went up to get their picture taken with him and got him to sign some baseballs. He was nothing but nice. When we were done, the woman told him he could leave and his time was up. He looked at all the kids waiting to get more autographs and told her he had nothing else going on and stayed another hour and a half to sign. Even as he was leaving he signed as many balls as he could. I even stopped him on his way out and he acted like he had nothing but all the time in the world for me. I realize that this was at Sox Fest and this is what he is expected to do, but when I was out Downtown this summer and ran into him in a bar after he just won against the Red Sox, he was just as accomodating and nice as he was at Sox Fest.

To blame the guy who has spent most of his carreer getting booed wanting to see how much more he can make is insane. I hope that Jon Garland stays, but I really can't blame him if he leaves.

SOXandILLINI
12-17-2005, 10:12 PM
i love people that say he has to feed his family..you gotta be kiddin me, right?....jon garland was shown a world of patience by this organization, and if he wants to repay that patience and that world series championship by demanding more money than pitchers who HAVE been clearly better, then i say good riddance. by the way jon, if you wanna know how to feed your family, which he has none btw, on alot less, come see me and we'll talk. and for the record, i like JG, and i think he's gonna continue what he did this year, but whats right is right.

RadioheadRocks
12-17-2005, 10:24 PM
For the last time, Garland did NOT set the market!!! The owners have no one to blame but themselves but for letting the salaries and contracts spiral out of control, and when mediocrity is apparently rewarded with these kind of contracts, who could honestly blame Garland from wanting to find his market value? Give him a break already!!!

SOXandILLINI
12-17-2005, 10:32 PM
ok Gordon Gecco...greed is good...whatever. all you people that are saying he didnt set the market, will be the first ones booing his butt off if he gets a huge contract and goes 8-15, saying he got lazy. whatever, i'm tired of these primodonas, who apparantly cant live on 10 million a year. i couldnt figure out how to begin to spend 10 million a year , but thats me. and just out of curiosity, do you think he deserves more than MB? i'm sure you don't, and either does anybody else, but perhaps jon garland.

RadioheadRocks
12-17-2005, 10:47 PM
ok Gordon Gecco...greed is good...whatever. all you people that are saying he didnt set the market, will be the first ones booing his butt off if he gets a huge contract and goes 8-15, saying he got lazy. whatever, i'm tired of these primodonas, who apparantly cant live on 10 million a year. i couldnt figure out how to begin to spend 10 million a year , but thats me. and just out of curiosity, do you think he deserves more than MB? i'm sure you don't, and either does anybody else, but perhaps jon garland.

I can only speak for myself, but I certainly won't be booing Garland if he gets a huge contract and goes 8-15 next year (there's that IF word again... "IF this, IF that, IF grandma had cajones she'd be grandpa"). You're entitled to your opinion (as is everyone here in the forum), but let's not get all wrapped up in IFs here.

MHOUSE
12-18-2005, 01:23 AM
I was down on Garland for several years because he was leaving so much to be desired with all the talent he had. I give a lot of credit to Ozzie for showing immediate faith in him because Manuel never did. This offseason I've soured on Garland because of his refusal to sign an extension and basically saying thanks for the years of faith, World Series Ring, etc. but I'll be making my $10-12 million elsewhere. Maybe he wants a challenge to be a #1 starter or to be recognized as the gem of the free agent class '06. Who knows, but as long as he pitches his butt off this summer, I don't really care what happens after that. We're deep enough in the rotation and with McCarthy waiting in the wings, we won't need to shell out the cash to Garland.

starboy0
12-18-2005, 09:46 AM
I don't believe Garland showing no emotion necessarily equals Garland doesn't care. Some people just don't like to dwell in their emotions. He had a great season last year; he was to the first half what Contreras was to the second half. He cared a lot about winning. He's just a guy of few words who doesn't get upset out there.

Free agent pitchers made a ton with contracts this winter. Jon is obviously sure he can pull down much more than 8 million a year. I can't fault him for that.

I do wonder what loyalty he feels to the team. I'm wondering if loyalty really does exist among mlb players? Is it true players only seemed more loyal before because of the reserve clause?

jabrch
12-19-2005, 01:32 AM
If JG stays, great, I'd be happy. If JG doesn't re-sign, KW will not keep him for long. He will get traded. And ya know what? I'd still be happy. We would get a TON for Garland right now. Probably never more. He's fairly cheap next year, and he'd net whatever team two draft picks if he leaves after next year. We could trade him for some serious talent if KW wants to.

All I know is that Garland better decide quickly. KW didn't acquire Vazquez so he could have 6 starters. He acquired him to get leverage on both JG and Contreras. One of them will resign and stay. They other will be sent to the highest bidder. Take your chances Jon, and you will likely be a Texas Ranger very shortly.

MillerSoxFan
12-19-2005, 09:38 AM
I know I'm going to get flamed for this question but I really would like to know. Does anyone remember any interviews or great reactions from Jon after we won the WS? I can clearly remember everyone hugging, smiling, celebrating from the starters to bench players to Man Soo Lee. I just don't remember ever seeing him celebrate or enjoy the madness that was our championship. Please tell me if I'm wrong or am forgetting something and go ahead and rip on me now...

I don't remember any interviews, but saw numersous shots of him celebrating, pouring champagne on teammates, etc.

VivaOzzie
12-19-2005, 09:45 AM
:tomatoaward

vafan
12-19-2005, 04:43 PM
What are you talking about??? He doesn't want to be here just because he's asking for a lot of money??? I mean he didn't set the market. The Blue Jays overpaid for Burnett. Why not just wait until things get settle with Garland before ripping him? I mean if he holds out or gets traded due to his high salary demands, ok fine, rip him. But right now in Dec. why make such a big deal about it??

I'm on your side of this debate. Does anyone posting here realize that Paul Konerko rejected the White Sox' first offer and held out for a 5th year that we didn't want to give him? Anyone want to "dump Paulie" for negotiating his due? The Sox have more time to negotiate with Jon. Let it happen.

And has Garland been overpaid for his work for the Sox to this point? It seems to me he earned what the market pays for a .500 pitcher in his early years. Up to now, both sides have gotten a fair deal for Garland's services.

Third, Jon Garland was the second best starter over the course of last season. Buehrle was the best overall, and Contreras was the best in the second half. Check it out. Garland won the most games, had the most shut outs, had the best WHIP, and his game against the Angels was at least tied for the best-pitched postseason game with Buehrle's 1-run outing and the Garcia/Cotts/Jenks shutout in the clinching game.

Javier Vazquez, by comparison, was 11-15 in the pitcher-friendly NL, with an ERA a run higher. Maybe Coop can turn him around, but he's never had a single season through age 29 as good as Jon Garland had last year at 26.

If Garland won't sign, perhaps he should be traded, and likely he will be. But I wouldn't mind winning another WS with him on the staff either.

Ol' No. 2
12-19-2005, 04:48 PM
Javier Vazquez, by comparison, was 11-15 in the pitcher-friendly NL, with an ERA a run higher. Maybe Coop can turn him around, but he's never had a single season through age 29 as good as Jon Garland had last year at 26.Actually, both Vazquez' 2001 and 2003 seasons in Montreal were better than Garland's 2005. Not in W-L because he pitched for a crappy team, but his ERA, WHIP, BAA, K/9 and just about every other stat was better.

jerry myers
12-19-2005, 04:56 PM
ok Gordon Gecco...greed is good...whatever. all you people that are saying he didnt set the market, will be the first ones booing his butt off if he gets a huge contract and goes 8-15, saying he got lazy. whatever, i'm tired of these primodonas, who apparantly cant live on 10 million a year. i couldnt figure out how to begin to spend 10 million a year , but thats me. and just out of curiosity, do you think he deserves more than MB? i'm sure you don't, and either does anybody else, but perhaps jon garland.thank you!

Ol' No. 2
12-19-2005, 05:56 PM
ok Gordon Gecco...greed is good...whatever. all you people that are saying he didnt set the market, will be the first ones booing his butt off if he gets a huge contract and goes 8-15, saying he got lazy. whatever, i'm tired of these primodonas, who apparantly cant live on 10 million a year. i couldnt figure out how to begin to spend 10 million a year , but thats me. and just out of curiosity, do you think he deserves more than MB? i'm sure you don't, and either does anybody else, but perhaps jon garland.If people always got what they're worth, trash collectors wouldn't make more than teachers. Life isn't always fair.

kevin57
12-20-2005, 10:13 AM
If people always got what they're worth, trash collectors wouldn't make more than teachers. Life isn't always fair.

As someone who has taught for 10+ years, let me second that! :wink:

VASoxfan1
12-20-2005, 10:31 AM
Everyone keeps talking about how the market has been set by burnett, bj ryan, etc for career .500 pitchers in the open market. But what about the market of pitchers who've resigned with their teams for reasonable rates? Oswalt (2yr/16.9mil), santana with the twins, sheets with the brewers? Are these reasonable contracts with mid market teams just completely thrown out hte window now?

Aren't those guys all at or around 10 a year?

Beauty35thStreet
12-26-2005, 06:07 PM
First off, good post to start the whole thread with. #1, Manuel could have ruined Garland if Ozzie didn't let him pitch out his kinks. Ozzie had a very smart approach to handling Garland by making him battle. That's why his ERA was higher in '04 than with Manuel. Manuel didn't give him a chance.

The market likely has already risen anyways. So Garland is going to get $10-12 million from someone, and likely if we need a new pitcher, we'd have to sign him for a ridiculous amount of money also. That being said, I say we that trying to sign him was a good move. I say that we try to sign him again based on how he is doing at All-Star break or after two months. Maybe if he's doing well and we give him $12 million for 3 years, people won't be so upset about that. If he's Garland of old, we just don't resign him or try to get him on the cheap, because (one of many reasons) we have .... Cotts!

One thing to remember is that we still have a legit LH starter in Neil Cotts. I think KW's priorities should be to land some nice LH pitching prospects so we can have a replacement for Cotts in the bullpen when that time comes.

The future is likely going to be Buehrle, Cotts, BMac, Garland if he buys into it. Have fun with Freddy, Vasquez, Contreras. To those that don't think Cotts should move out or are satisfied with him there...remember, the best relief pitching is good starting pitching. Remember the ALCS. (But it was nice to know we had a good bullpen)

batmanZoSo
12-26-2005, 06:30 PM
Actually, both Vazquez' 2001 and 2003 seasons in Montreal were better than Garland's 2005. Not in W-L because he pitched for a crappy team, but his ERA, WHIP, BAA, K/9 and just about every other stat was better.

You're right there. I would have to say that at their respective bests, Vazquez is a shade better than Garland.

Lip Man 1
12-26-2005, 07:26 PM
If circumstances dictate that the Sox decide to deal Garland I have no issues with that AS LONG AS they get major league talent in return. None of this three double A prospects garbage.

The Sox could for example get two relief pitchers for him or a center fielder and a relief pitcher. That would fill holes and make the team better.

If this takes place again I'd have no issues with it.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
12-26-2005, 07:42 PM
If circumstances dictate that the Sox decide to deal Garland I have no issues with that AS LONG AS they get major league talent in return. None of this three double A prospects garbage.

The Sox could for example get two relief pitchers for him or a center fielder and a relief pitcher. That would fill holes and make the team better.

If this takes place again I'd have no issues with it.

Lip

I'd say KW's history shows you have very little about which to worry. I cannot think of a single deal where Kenny traded an established veteran for prospects. (The only exception I can think of is Ray Durham for Jon Adkins, which was made after the Sox were buried in the AL Central race, and Durham was a pending free agent KW had no intention of re-signing.) In almost every deal, KW has given up prospects in order to get established MLB talent.

Lprof
12-26-2005, 10:59 PM
Absolutely. Where's his loyalty to the team and to the fans?

Nevermind the fact that the team tried to trade him at least twice and the fans booed him repeatedly up until this year. There should be a hometown discount, but only up to a point. Paulie didn't really take much less than other teams were offering, and, most importantly, if the Sox hadn't come up a year, it was goodbye. Burnett got, what, five years? Why should Garland take three? The Sox don't sign pitchers for five years, and up to now, at least, they have been proven right. Maybe it is just not a good fit. I don't see why that is a reason to bash Garland, however. I seriously doubt that, in his place, any of us would take two years less out of "loyalty to the team and to the fans." Where is the Sox's loyalty to Garland?

Lprof
12-26-2005, 11:08 PM
If circumstances dictate that the Sox decide to deal Garland I have no issues with that AS LONG AS they get major league talent in return. None of this three double A prospects garbage.

The Sox could for example get two relief pitchers for him or a center fielder and a relief pitcher. That would fill holes and make the team better.

If this takes place again I'd have no issues with it.

Lip Fantastic post! All this talk about getting prospects makes no sense to me: if we are going for it this year (and the trade for Thome makes that clear), shouldn't we keep Garland this year if we can't get solid hole-filling major league talent for him? I am shocked that so many people are calmly talking about getting prospects for him who, while very promising, are at least a year away.

Lprof
12-26-2005, 11:53 PM
I'd say KW's history shows you have very little about which to worry. I cannot think of a single deal where Kenny traded an established veteran for prospects. (The only exception I can think of is Ray Durham for Jon Adkins, which was made after the Sox were buried in the AL Central race, and Durham was a pending free agent KW had no intention of re-signing.) In almost every deal, KW has given up prospects in order to get established MLB talent.

Great avoidance of ending sentence withe a preposition! Also, i think you are dead on about Kenny's history, especially when we should be in the thick of it.

Brian26
12-27-2005, 12:08 AM
Actually, both Vazquez' 2001 and 2003 seasons in Montreal were better than Garland's 2005. Not in W-L because he pitched for a crappy team, but his ERA, WHIP, BAA, K/9 and just about every other stat was better.

Don't forget where Vazquez pitched - Olympic Stadium. ERA and WHIP are probably skewed a bit when comparing to numbers generated at the Cell.

Flight #24
12-27-2005, 12:14 AM
If circumstances dictate that the Sox decide to deal Garland I have no issues with that AS LONG AS they get major league talent in return. None of this three double A prospects garbage.

The Sox could for example get two relief pitchers for him or a center fielder and a relief pitcher. That would fill holes and make the team better.

If this takes place again I'd have no issues with it.

Lip

The problem with what you're advocating is that it basically commits the Sox to a significant payroll bump, or a shortening of the window of contention. Because you're either going to get a more expensive but established player or one that's just not a difference-maker. And how much better does say a Jay Payton type help the Sox v. just going with Anderson? Plus, chances are that said player will be leaving the team or requiring a decent salary in '07-09, which detracts from $$$ available for resigning Buehrle/Garcia.

However, if the Sox focus on replenishing a now shallow system using Garland, you're talking about adding a guy who KW thinks can help the team in '07-'10, and do so while enabling you to keep your core pitchers. Yes, there's the potential for bust, but you're simply not going to get a guy who's both proven and cheap for a few years in exchange for Jon. You might get a McCarthy, but remember - at the trade deadline, he was far from proven in the bigs and wouldn't qualify under your assumption.

KW is building both a title contender in '06 and one in '07-'09 (and beyond). His moves to date have focused on short term at the expense of the long, I'd bet his next big move is more long-term oriented, i.e. prospects.

Lip Man 1
12-27-2005, 02:30 AM
Flight:

So you're advocating trading an All Star pitcher and a 19 game winner (total) in 2005 who has thrown at least 200 innings for the past five years for prospects? Prospects that history has shown far and away don't spend one day in the big leagues let alone make an impact (Baseball America study.)

I'm sure that will go over 'real well' with Sox fans.

Just my own opinion, but Williams for at least the past two years was publicly stated and been quoted in the papers, that he wanted to Sox to win something significant to 'break' (my word) the cycle of mediocrity they were in. His reasoning was win something, more fans, increase payroll significantly, get better talent,win, more fans and so forth.

The Sox have now finally broken that cycle. Please don't advocate going back to the 'bad old days' because you are worried about payroll.

As long as the Sox have a legit chance to contend for a post season berth (notice my choice of words) they need to keep pushing the envelop. If and when the time comes that they fall apart you can dump everyone, recoup your losses and THEN load up on prospects.

Also I personally think the bullpen is a bigger issue right now then center field but I was stating the two areas where the Sox can improve should they choose to.

To me it's absolutely insane to even consider trading an established young starting pitcher for Moe, Larry and Curly. If that's the best you can come up with then the Sox should keep him and take their chances in the off season with him.

Lip

Lprof
12-27-2005, 08:36 AM
The problem with what you're advocating is that it basically commits the Sox to a significant payroll bump, or a shortening of the window of contention. Because you're either going to get a more expensive but established player or one that's just not a difference-maker. And how much better does say a Jay Payton type help the Sox v. just going with Anderson? Plus, chances are that said player will be leaving the team or requiring a decent salary in '07-09, which detracts from $$$ available for resigning Buehrle/Garcia.

However, if the Sox focus on replenishing a now shallow system using Garland, you're talking about adding a guy who KW thinks can help the team in '07-'10, and do so while enabling you to keep your core pitchers. Yes, there's the potential for bust, but you're simply not going to get a guy who's both proven and cheap for a few years in exchange for Jon. You might get a McCarthy, but remember - at the trade deadline, he was far from proven in the bigs and wouldn't qualify under your assumption.

KW is building both a title contender in '06 and one in '07-'09 (and beyond). His moves to date have focused on short term at the expense of the long, I'd bet his next big move is more long-term oriented, i.e. prospects.
Interesting perspective. But I have two questions about your reasoning: First, does it necessarily follow that adding a difference maker in exchange for Garland would, in fact, require a significant salaray bump? Recall that by trading Garland, we are getting rid of around $8 million in budget; can't the Sox add a difference maker, simply by spending that money or adding a couple of million? That doesn't really require the bump you refer to, does it? Second, even if all we do is add a solid bench player or two in exchange for Garland, couldn't that be key in winning it all again? I just read a new fantasy league publication that says Anderson has no idea of the strike zone, and even in the minors had a terrible walk/strike out ratio. He may work out great, but getting a solid fourth OF who can play center regularly if Anderson flops could be vital to winning. Add that to a solid middle inning relief pitcher (preferably lefthanded), and it might be worth trading Garland for that. Given my first question, however, I doubt we even get to this second point.

Flight #24
12-27-2005, 10:43 AM
Flight:

So you're advocating trading an All Star pitcher and a 19 game winner (total) in 2005 who has thrown at least 200 innings for the past five years for prospects? Prospects that history has shown far and away don't spend one day in the big leagues let alone make an impact (Baseball America study.)

I'm sure that will go over 'real well' with Sox fans.

Just my own opinion, but Williams for at least the past two years was publicly stated and been quoted in the papers, that he wanted to Sox to win something significant to 'break' (my word) the cycle of mediocrity they were in. His reasoning was win something, more fans, increase payroll significantly, get better talent,win, more fans and so forth.

The Sox have now finally broken that cycle. Please don't advocate going back to the 'bad old days' because you are worried about payroll.

As long as the Sox have a legit chance to contend for a post season berth (notice my choice of words) they need to keep pushing the envelop. If and when the time comes that they fall apart you can dump everyone, recoup your losses and THEN load up on prospects.

Also I personally think the bullpen is a bigger issue right now then center field but I was stating the two areas where the Sox can improve should they choose to.

To me it's absolutely insane to even consider trading an established young starting pitcher for Moe, Larry and Curly. If that's the best you can come up with then the Sox should keep him and take their chances in the off season with him.

Lip

"The bad old days" of a $90M payroll? Don't I recall you using that specific # many a time as the type of payroll the Sox should be at? But now your strategy is to go higher or it's a "return to the bad old days"? Big surprise..... And I'm quite sure that if and when they did decide to "dump everyone", you'd be leading the charge to support management's decision, no?

The Sox will never have a Yankee-like ability to manage their entire team via trade and FA signings. They need to develop some talent internally and manage like the Braves and Cardinals have. That requires you to draft and acquire top-level talented prospects. And that's the way that you keep a consistent window of contention open rather than planning for a short-term one.

I'll again use the example of McCarthy. I suppose you'd be 100% willing to deal him for more proven relievers? Because he's the type of "Larry, Moe, and Curly" that you'd be getting back. It's a choice between guys who have proven to be mediocre and top-level prospects. That's what you'll get for a guy who's 1 year away from FA.

Flight #24
12-27-2005, 10:46 AM
Interesting perspective. But I have two questions about your reasoning: First, does it necessarily follow that adding a difference maker in exchange for Garland would, in fact, require a significant salaray bump? Recall that by trading Garland, we are getting rid of around $8 million in budget; can't the Sox add a difference maker, simply by spending that money or adding a couple of million? That doesn't really require the bump you refer to, does it? Second, even if all we do is add a solid bench player or two in exchange for Garland, couldn't that be key in winning it all again? I just read a new fantasy league publication that says Anderson has no idea of the strike zone, and even in the minors had a terrible walk/strike out ratio. He may work out great, but getting a solid fourth OF who can play center regularly if Anderson flops could be vital to winning. Add that to a solid middle inning relief pitcher (preferably lefthanded), and it might be worth trading Garland for that. Given my first question, however, I doubt we even get to this second point.

Reports from KW's lips are that payroll shold settle in around $90M. That actually requires some (cue Hangar18 voice) cutting of payroll!

The Sox have a proven LH reliever in Neal Cotts. You're now talking about a 2d LH reliever, which doesn't provide a huge value to the team, especially since they have a bunch of other guys who are solid against lefties in the first place. That and a 4th OF should be things you can find via FA at relatively low salaries. Thus it's better to trade Jon for prospects, pick up your 5th reliever and 4th OF via FA and still have your payroll at $90M than to waste an asset like Garland by trading for marginal major leaguers.

jabrch
12-27-2005, 12:08 PM
KW has given us every reason to believe he will do well if he chooses to trade JG.

SOXSINCE'70
12-27-2005, 12:16 PM
KW has given us every reason to believe he will do well if he chooses to trade JG.

And with the Blow Jays overpaying for Burnett and Ryan
(not to mention the Rangers now about to pay waaaaayyyyy
too much to Kevin Millwood),the odds of the Sox keeping Garland
after 2006 are,to quote former Bull Horace Grant before he became
a free agent in '95, "slim and none,and slim just walked out the door".

Lip Man 1
12-27-2005, 12:49 PM
Flight:

The Sox now have a real chance to return to the days of the 1950's when they were a nationally known team as well as have a real chance to take back their own city.

Sorry what you are advocating doesn't cut it anymore and in my opinion you don't have to spend a ton of money to pick up a few decent bullpen arms.

The Pirates trade proven players for Moe, Larry and Curly. The White Sox are no longer in that line of work and they can do it without spending Yankee type money.

Regarding my supporting the Sox organization should they decide to cut and run. If they have no chance to win (please understand my parameters, we are not talking 1997 here), given that they have now fulfilled my goal of getting to (let alone winning) a World Series title, you are damn right I'll support whatever Williams feels he has to do. (No, that is NOT in teal...)

For every Brandon McCarthy there are a dozen Mike Bertotti's, Chris Clemons' and Tom Fordham's (Remember them? I didn't think so...)

And who said anything about trading McCarthy for two relief pitchers in the first place? I didn't....even I can see he has some talent.

Stop exaggerating to try to prove your point.

Face it trading Garland for three scrub prospects is a bad idea.

Lip

Flight #24
12-27-2005, 01:37 PM
Flight:

The Sox now have a real chance to return to the days of the 1950's when they were a nationally known team as well as have a real chance to take back their own city.

Sorry what you are advocating doesn't cut it anymore and in my opinion you don't have to spend a ton of money to pick up a few decent bullpen arms.

The Pirates trade proven players for Moe, Larry and Curly. The White Sox are no longer in that line of work and they can do it without spending Yankee type money.

Regarding my supporting the Sox organization should they decide to cut and run. If they have no chance to win (please understand my parameters, we are not talking 1997 here), given that they have now fulfilled my goal of getting to (let alone winning) a World Series title, you are damn right I'll support whatever Williams feels he has to do. (No, that is NOT in teal...)

For every Brandon McCarthy there are a dozen Mike Bertotti's, Chris Clemons' and Tom Fordham's (Remember them? I didn't think so...)

And who said anything about trading McCarthy for two relief pitchers in the first place? I didn't....even I can see he has some talent.

Stop exaggerating to try to prove your point.

Face it trading Garland for three scrub prospects is a bad idea.

Lip

Your parameters are quite convenient given that it's difficult for a team to have NO shot at a title unless they plan things that way or are Pittsburgh. As for your mistaken contention, did we not just see an all-star SS, recent bigtime FA traded for a "scrub prospect" by big-market Boston? Did we not see stud pitcher Mark Mulder traded for younger stud pitcher Dan Haren (and another good prospect)? Trading from a position of strength for talented prospects is something that good teams do. What distinguishes them from bad teams is that good teams also make moves that require them to take on salaries or sign/retain FAs.

-The McCarthy comment wwas not advocating trading him for relief arms, but noting that a McCarthy-ca2005 pitcher is what you'd expect back in return for a Garland. At the deadline last year, that was the asking price for AJ Burnett, and to that point Brandon had not translated his minor league success to the bigs (the sticking point ended up being the inclusion of Mike Lowell's salary). He was an unproven prospect. So by your reasoning, had no value. The fact that "even you" could see he had talent would say that if you can ID another prospect who has talent, it would be a good move, no? No one's saying trade Jon for complete unknowns - it would be for a stud, ready or almost ready pitcher.

Fact is: The Sox are at budget or even perhaps over. From KW's own lips. That's after a pretty significant payroll hike and with them taking on some long-term contracts and apparently planning for more (resigning Contreras, Buehrle/Garcia).

Lprof
12-27-2005, 04:42 PM
And with the Blow Jays overpaying for Burnett and Ryan
(not to mention the Rangers now about to pay waaaaayyyyy
too much to Kevin Millwood),the odds of the Sox keeping Garland
after 2006 are,to quote former Bull Horace Grant before he became
a free agent in '95, "slim and none,and slim just walked out the door".If that happens, it happens, and the Sox can use all of his salary either to dip into the free agent market or make a trade for 07. The key is, in deciding whether to trade Garland and for whom, KW should have 06 as his focus. If the budget doesn't allow either keeping Garland or getting back impact major leaguers for him, so be it; there is nothing to be done about that. That doesn't mean either that we need to like it or that it is a wise move from non-budgetary perspectives. What troubles me is so many people saying it is a good idea to trade JG for prospects who clearly aren't expected to have an impact in 06, because they are worried about 07 or because they are concerned about replenishing the farm system. We are, I think, very close for next year; it would be a shame to sacrifice next year out of concern for the following two years. World Series aren't won that way. Other than for inescapable budget restriction reasons, then, it makes no sense to trade JG for anyone not expected to help in 06.

havelj
12-27-2005, 09:49 PM
Does anyone think that the reason the Orioles haven't dealt Tejada to the northside yet is because they are looking at a counter-offer from the Sox for Garland (and others?) Angelos doesn't want a player like Garland (entering his free agent year) and perhaps is negotiating a contract extension with Garland's agent?

Flight #24
12-27-2005, 11:03 PM
If that happens, it happens, and the Sox can use all of his salary either to dip into the free agent market or make a trade for 07. The key is, in deciding whether to trade Garland and for whom, KW should have 06 as his focus. If the budget doesn't allow either keeping Garland or getting back impact major leaguers for him, so be it; there is nothing to be done about that. That doesn't mean either that we need to like it or that it is a wise move from non-budgetary perspectives. What troubles me is so many people saying it is a good idea to trade JG for prospects who clearly aren't expected to have an impact in 06, because they are worried about 07 or because they are concerned about replenishing the farm system. We are, I think, very close for next year; it would be a shame to sacrifice next year out of concern for the following two years. World Series aren't won that way. Other than for inescapable budget restriction reasons, then, it makes no sense to trade JG for anyone not expected to help in 06.

Your premise is that trading Garland significantly impacts the chances in '06. That's not true if you can find halfway decent 5th & 6th relievers because you have McCarthy currently waiting in the 'pen who was fairly dominant his second stint in the bigs, and IIRC that was when he finally started to use his change.

So you have a negligible impact on the '06 chances, mainly reducing your injury cushion for the #5 starter, and in exchange you significantly improve your long-term prospects. And even the injury cushion is debatable since you should be getting a McCarthy-esque guy back in trading Garland. A guy like Bedard, for example, is excellent #5 insurance.

unclegary
12-27-2005, 11:20 PM
This guy finally had a breakout year. I thought he was a loser and advocated dumping him at the end of last season. Let him gamble on his performance this year. I hate to say it but there is at least a 50 - 50 chance he will suck again this year. It is his gamble. If he sucks we don't lose because we have such a strong pitching staff. If he puts up great numbers again and we win the Series.....maybe we can pay him what he wants. Either way.........he is a bit of a weenie.

Daver
12-27-2005, 11:31 PM
Your premise is that trading Garland significantly impacts the chances in '06. That's not true if you can find halfway decent 5th & 6th relievers because you have McCarthy currently waiting in the 'pen who was fairly dominant his second stint in the bigs, and IIRC that was when he finally started to use his change.

So you have a negligible impact on the '06 chances, mainly reducing your injury cushion for the #5 starter, and in exchange you significantly improve your long-term prospects. And even the injury cushion is debatable since you should be getting a McCarthy-esque guy back in trading Garland. A guy like Bedard, for example, is excellent #5 insurance.

But if you wait until July, you will know where the Sox stand against the rest of the league, and have a gauge on his performance versus last year, and put yourself in a position to get the max value out of him, as teams in the hunt will overpay in July.

Trading Jon Garland now for prospects would be a foolish move without recieving MLB proven talent in return.

Flight #24
12-27-2005, 11:51 PM
But if you wait until July, you will know where the Sox stand against the rest of the league, and have a gauge on his performance versus last year, and put yourself in a position to get the max value out of him, as teams in the hunt will overpay in July.

Trading Jon Garland now for prospects would be a foolish move without recieving MLB proven talent in return.

I don't have an issue with waiting until July because you maximize the value you get in return. I have an issue with being fairly certain that he won't resign and keeping him all year, letting him walk, and getting only the comp picks. I also think the Sox are in position where the value to the organization from top prospects is greater than that from mediocre but proven guys. If you can get an Erik Bedard, all the better, but I'd rather have a guy like McCarthy ca March 2005 than say Greg Maddux and Scott Eyre (and cash) even though they're more "proven" (Names pulled off the top of my head as an example, not meant to suggest any actual trade).

The right decision to me is to trade him for the best deal you can get back in terms of young talent. If that value is maximized by waiting until midseason, all the better since the Sox would have half a year of Jon and get more in return.

Lprof
12-28-2005, 12:56 AM
I don't have an issue with waiting until July because you maximize the value you get in return. I have an issue with being fairly certain that he won't resign and keeping him all year, letting him walk, and getting only the comp picks. I also think the Sox are in position where the value to the organization from top prospects is greater than that from mediocre but proven guys. If you can get an Erik Bedard, all the better, but I'd rather have a guy like McCarthy ca March 2005 than say Greg Maddux and Scott Eyre (and cash) even though they're more "proven" (Names pulled off the top of my head as an example, not meant to suggest any actual trade).

The right decision to me is to trade him for the best deal you can get back in terms of young talent. If that value is maximized by waiting until midseason, all the better since the Sox would have half a year of Jon and get more in return.
So let me get this straight: If we are in the midst of a heated pennant race in July, but, nearing the trading deadline it appears clear that Garland (who, let's say, at the time is 12-6) won't sign for 07, we should trade him for prospects, thereby seriously undermining our position in the race???? Or did I misunderstand (admittedly, it wouldn't be the first time)? If that is, in fact, what you are saying, I think you are actually making my point about how strange it is to trade Garland even now for those prospects, since it is reasonable at this point to predict both (1) we will be in the midst of a heated pennant race, and (2) Garland will be doing reasonably well (and if he isn't you won't get much in the way of prospects anyway). Logical implication: Don't trade Garland for prospects if you are trying to win in 06.

Lprof
12-28-2005, 01:09 AM
i think a lot of people need something in their life besides the sox. alot of folks act like they know these players, or they idolize these guys. or some get offended. thats just goofy. lots of these ballplayers are stuckup, greedy, aholes that need to have a reality check, now i know some of you just got offended. sorry , go hug someone that loves you back. some our really good hearted men that do count their blessing. but it seems some live in the baseball soap opera lives. lets leave it up to KW, we have nothing to do with in anyway, voice your opionion and quit acting like you know these guys. cause you dont, you just have a opinion. personally if jg is back good, if hes not my opinion is were not losing anything, in fact kw would make us stronger. but i dont know everything. but i do feel a need to thank konerko cause he could of made more money closer to his home, with a good good team.some people like big frank are just white sox. maybe garland just isnt one.
Nice one! Right on! Adds important perspective.:D: A+.

Flight #24
12-28-2005, 02:37 AM
So let me get this straight: If we are in the midst of a heated pennant race in July, but, nearing the trading deadline it appears clear that Garland (who, let's say, at the time is 12-6) won't sign for 07, we should trade him for prospects, thereby seriously undermining our position in the race???? Or did I misunderstand (admittedly, it wouldn't be the first time)? If that is, in fact, what you are saying, I think you are actually making my point about how strange it is to trade Garland even now for those prospects, since it is reasonable at this point to predict both (1) we will be in the midst of a heated pennant race, and (2) Garland will be doing reasonably well (and if he isn't you won't get much in the way of prospects anyway). Logical implication: Don't trade Garland for prospects if you are trying to win in 06.

From a pure baseball standpoint, the question is: what does Garland give you in the 2d half that McCarthy can not? If you think Brandon can give you close to Garland's productions and that you can get an effective 5th or 6th RP, then you don't really lose anything in terms of '06 contention.

From a PR perspective it may be tougher, and you may limit your trading partners since you probably don't want to strengthen your rivals in-season. But from a baseball perspective, you can not lose much short term and gain significantly long term.

But you highlight exactly why I think they'l try and trade him pre-season or in ST. Because they can do so to a broader array of teams now, and because you don't have the PR hit from what could be an otherwise good baseball move.

Lprof
12-28-2005, 08:46 AM
From a pure baseball standpoint, the question is: what does Garland give you in the 2d half that McCarthy can not? If you think Brandon can give you close to Garland's productions and that you can get an effective 5th or 6th RP, then you don't really lose anything in terms of '06 contention.

From a PR perspective it may be tougher, and you may limit your trading partners since you probably don't want to strengthen your rivals in-season. But from a baseball perspective, you can not lose much short term and gain significantly long term.

But you highlight exactly why I think they'l try and trade him pre-season or in ST. Because they can do so to a broader array of teams now, and because you don't have the PR hit from what could be an otherwise good baseball move. I think your comment is very helpful, because it effectively narrows down the differences between us: At this point in the pre-season, you seem wiling to take the risk that the production of McCarthy and Vasquez next year will be pretty much fungible with Garland's. I readily concede that this is a plausible scenario. Indeed, one could point out that Garland really had only an all-star half, not an all-star year. My point, in contrast, is that while this certainly may happen, we of course cannot know that at this point. The question is, then, should we be willing to get rid of what looks like a pretty good insurance policy at this point? To answer, we need to know what we are getting back. My point is that if what we are getting back cannot reasonably be expected to help us in the 06 race, I would choose to retain the insurance policy rather than take the post-06 help. If it turns out your prediction is correct and we wouldn't really need Garland in 06, then of course it would be right to take the prospects. But since we cannot know that at this point (injuries or disappointing pitching performance are certainly not unknown occurrences), I would choose the risk averse course of keeping Garland, unless we can get something else that would help us in 06 in other departments.

Flight #24
12-28-2005, 10:21 AM
I think your comment is very helpful, because it effectively narrows down the differences between us: At this point in the pre-season, you seem wiling to take the risk that the production of McCarthy and Vasquez next year will be pretty much fungible with Garland's. I readily concede that this is a plausible scenario. Indeed, one could point out that Garland really had only an all-star half, not an all-star year. My point, in contrast, is that while this certainly may happen, we of course cannot know that at this point. The question is, then, should we be willing to get rid of what looks like a pretty good insurance policy at this point? To answer, we need to know what we are getting back. My point is that if what we are getting back cannot reasonably be expected to help us in the 06 race, I would choose to retain the insurance policy rather than take the post-06 help. If it turns out your prediction is correct and we wouldn't really need Garland in 06, then of course it would be right to take the prospects. But since we cannot know that at this point (injuries or disappointing pitching performance are certainly not unknown occurrences), I would choose the risk averse course of keeping Garland, unless we can get something else that would help us in 06 in other departments.

You discount the prospect being an insurance policy. Much like McCarthy was an "unproven" prospect providing insurance for El Duque in 2005, the prospect could fill that role. Or you go get yourself a veteran guy cheap ala Loaiza, Rogers of a few year ago, etc. Someone that can be a 6th reliever and give you spot starts. To me, significantly extending the window of contention is worth a reduction in the caliber of your insurance starter.

kevin57
12-28-2005, 10:28 AM
Indeed, one could point out that Garland really had only an all-star half, not an all-star year.

I am not a Jon Garland "groupie," but I find this observation by many Sox fans confusing. After all, one could argue that Contreras "had only an all-star half, not an all-star year." Yet, JC seems untouchable whereas Garland is not. Although I do not have their post-season stats, I would dare say that both JG and JC were pretty comparable.

Flight #24
12-28-2005, 10:48 AM
I am not a Jon Garland "groupie," but I find this observation by many Sox fans confusing. After all, one could argue that Contreras "had only an all-star half, not an all-star year." Yet, JC seems untouchable whereas Garland is not. Although I do not have their post-season stats, I would dare say that both JG and JC were pretty comparable.

Difference is that being far younger, And coming off of a series of ~200IP years, Garland has a lot more trade value than Contreras. Plus, on the flipside, the assumption is that Contreras will be easier to resign at a lower salary and/or a shorter contract than Garland, which will help retain Buehrle & Garcia.

All things being equal, I think most would agree it's better to keep Garland than Contreras. But things are not equal.

Hitmen77
12-28-2005, 01:17 PM
I guess the "real Jon Garland" just stood up. :cool:

Gremlin3
12-28-2005, 01:24 PM
I guess the "real Jon Garland" just stood up. :cool:

I was coming to this thread to post that.

WhiteSoxFan84
12-28-2005, 01:25 PM
I guess the "real Jon Garland" just stood up. :cool:

And I'm damn proud of him. Annual salary of just under $10 mill, I like it. It will raise Buehrle, Garcia, and Contreras' values (as if the market outside Chicago hasn't yet), but at least he didn't lead us on and then left us (Carlos Beltran with Houston).

Jon, be the man you were last year and dominate. Chicago loves you.

Lip Man 1
12-28-2005, 01:36 PM
Flight:

It looks like we won't have to gamble now and see which one of the guys Moe, Larry or Curly finally developed for the Sox.

And that's not a good thing that's a GREAT thing. :D:

Let the Pirates, Reds and Devil Rays trade proven talent for Mickey Mouse.

Lip

Flight #24
12-28-2005, 01:49 PM
Flight:

It looks like we won't have to gamble now and see which one of the guys Moe, Larry or Curly finally developed for the Sox.

And that's not a good thing that's a GREAT thing. :D:

Let the Pirates, Reds and Devil Rays trade proven talent for Mickey Mouse.

Lip

You mean and the Red Sox, right? Those small-minded, small-market fools!

Let's be clear, there was never any question that it was far far better to resign Garland than to deal him. But until this announcement, all signs pointed to Jon wanting to test the market.

And all this REALLY does is shift the speculation to Contreras....

Lprof
12-28-2005, 01:52 PM
You discount the prospect being an insurance policy. Much like McCarthy was an "unproven" prospect providing insurance for El Duque in 2005, the prospect could fill that role. Or you go get yourself a veteran guy cheap ala Loaiza, Rogers of a few year ago, etc. Someone that can be a 6th reliever and give you spot starts. To me, significantly extending the window of contention is worth a reduction in the caliber of your insurance starter.Our debate has apparently been mooted, by the truly astonishing news that Garland has, in fact, signed for three years. This is a masterful move by Kenny, since the problem was not going to be the yearly salary as much as the years--the Sox never give more than 3, and Beckett got 5. We still have six pitchers, but as I see it Kenny has two options now, and neither is bad: (1) start with McCarthy cutting his teeth in the bull pen (like Mark did?), and have an incredible 5-man rotation with great insurance, or (2) (and I bet this is it) trading Garland, along with Uribe and a top prospect, for Tejada. The biggest drawback to using Garland in this manner was the fact that he was going to be a free agent signed for next year. Now, from the Orioles' perspective, this looks far better than getting Prior: even before last year, Garland was healthy and an innings eater(unlike Prior, who has proven to be something of a health risk), and now he is an 18 game winner who pitched brilliantly in the ALCS having been off for a long time beforehand. They also get a wonderful defensive shortstop who can hit you 270 and hit 20 homers (last year was down for Uribe, compared to the year before). Add in Brian Sweeney or Sean Tracey (fill in the blank), and this is a great deal for the Orioles. And it is for the Sox, too: Unlike the Cubs, whose pitching would be devastated by losing Prior, the Sox can take the hit of losing Garland, and adding a hitter like Tejada....well, we can all salivate about that. But even if this deal doesn't happen, Garland might bring, for example, Abreu (shifting Pods to center?), or someone I can't even think of now--or just give us an incredible pitching staff. Hats off to Kenny!!!:supernana: :supernana: :supernana:

Lip Man 1
12-28-2005, 01:59 PM
Flight:

Which as I have stated elsewhere isn't a big deal. God knows how old Contreras is. I appreciate what he has done but if the Sox ship him out for some bullpen help now that's fine with me.

Lip

gf2020
12-28-2005, 02:14 PM
Our debate has apparently been mooted, by the truly astonishing news that Garland has, in fact, signed for three years. This is a masterful move by Kenny, since the problem was not going to be the yearly salary as much as the years--the Sox never give more than 3, and Beckett got 5. We still have six pitchers, but as I see it Kenny has two options now, and neither is bad: (1) start with McCarthy cutting his teeth in the bull pen (like Mark did?), and have an incredible 5-man rotation with great insurance, or (2) (and I bet this is it) trading Garland, along with Uribe and a top prospect, for Tejada. The biggest drawback to using Garland in this manner was the fact that he was going to be a free agent signed for next year.
There is no way that the Sox are trading Garland in the immediate future after signing this deal. Their name would be mud in the eyes of agents and players if they signed someone to an extension like this and then immediately traded them.

soxfan1983
12-28-2005, 02:21 PM
There is no way that the Sox are trading Garland in the immediate future after signing this deal. Their name would be mud in the eyes of agents and players if they signed someone to an extension like this and then immediately traded them.

im with you on that idea. i dont see the sox trading garland now. perhaps contreras because of his age. the sox starting pitching sitting pretty age wise (excluding contreras) and ability wise. but on another note... Lprof's idea does sound interesting. but i dont think it will happen.

Lprof
12-28-2005, 05:21 PM
There is no way that the Sox are trading Garland in the immediate future after signing this deal. Their name would be mud in the eyes of agents and players if they signed someone to an extension like this and then immediately traded them.You're right (though I disagree with your point about KW's name being mud with agents; I was assuming that it was done with the implicit understanding on everyone's part that it made the Tejada deal possible); I just heard that the first year has a no-trade clause. So either he plans to trade Contreras, or he is simply going to keep six, with probably McCarthy in the pen. I guess having already improved the lineup and bench, Kenny is making sure the pitching is strong. Any way you cut it, it is a very positive move.

GoSox2K3
12-29-2005, 12:15 AM
Okay, time for some of you on this thread to eat some crow. It's funny how people here quickly turned against Garland: it's obvious he doesn't want to be here, he's greedy, I don't like his attitude, blah blah blah GMAB.

Will it be Jose Contreras's turn to get bashed around here next? Maybe some of us need to get a grip.

By the way, I do realize that not everyone on this thread was bashing JG, but it does bug me that people so quickly turned on someone who helped us win a World Series when all along he apparently wanted to stay with the Sox and not "break the bank" (in relative terms of course).