PDA

View Full Version : Gotta hand it to Sox ( NY DAILY NEWS )


Fenway
12-18-2005, 03:00 PM
from Bill Madden's Sunday notes in the NY Daily News

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/375575p-319169c.html


Gotta hand it to Sox The late humorist Jean Shepherd once said: "If I was ever ordered to storm a pillbox, going into sheer sudden and utter certain death, and told to pick my platoon, I would pick all White Sox fans because they have known death every day of their lives and it holds no terror for them." This was probably the case for the better part of the last 88 years, but now all that has changed and White Sox GM Kenny Williams seems intent on extending the euphoria on Chicago's South Side beyond just one world championship. Other than Toronto's J.P. Ricciardi, no GM has had a more productive winter than Williams, who upgraded significantly his DH (assuming Jim Thome's back and elbow are sound again), re-signed his best hitter, Paul Konerko, traded for one of the best utilitymen in the game in Rob Mackowiak and then bolstered what is already the deepest rotation in the game by acquiring Javy Vazquez from Arizona. You've gotta give Williams his due - he's not afraid to make bold moves - and one suspects he's not done. Look for him to next move Jon Garland for bullpen help and/or another big bat if he's unable to get him to agree to a contract extension with free agency looming after next season.

Theanticub
12-18-2005, 10:59 PM
Good post, I'm monitoring the JG rumors. I just have no idea what we can / would get for him. Also hearing rumors that KW wants 6 starters going into spring training, this could get interesting.

SOX ADDICT '73
12-18-2005, 11:11 PM
Other than Toronto's J.P. Ricciardi, no GM has had a more productive winter than Williams
Ricciardi's winter may have been "productive" for the Jays, but the ridiculous deals he gave Ryan and Burnett have been incredibly destructive to any team hoping to sign FA pitchers in the future.

nodiggity59
12-18-2005, 11:24 PM
Hmmm. It's been reported KW offered 3/$25mil to Garland.....how high do you think he'd be willing to go? If he went to 4/$36-40mil, that could get Johnny. JG would still be 30 or so around then, setting up another multi year deal for him.....

sircaffey1
12-18-2005, 11:53 PM
Hmmm. It's been reported KW offered 3/$25mil to Garland.....how high do you think he'd be willing to go? If he went to 4/$36-40mil, that could get Johnny. JG would still be 30 or so around then, setting up another multi year deal for him.....

I think KW went as high as he's willing to go for Garland. We really don't need Jon anymore. If the rumors are correct, then Jose is close to signing some sort of extension. Let Jon get his money, we don't need him.

ShoelessJoeS
12-18-2005, 11:59 PM
Plain and simple, if anybody should have won an award this offseason it should have been Kenny. They were picked fourth for God's sake?!?!?!?

WhiteSoxFan84
12-19-2005, 05:01 AM
Other than Toronto's J.P. Ricciardi, no GM has had a more productive winter than Williams,


What a load of crap. Omar Minaya is the hands down, the best GM so far this offseason. But he gets no love because he's a minority.

WhiteSoxFan84
12-19-2005, 05:11 AM
Hmmm. It's been reported KW offered 3/$25mil to Garland.....how high do you think he'd be willing to go? If he went to 4/$36-40mil, that could get Johnny. JG would still be 30 or so around then, setting up another multi year deal for him.....

Jon Garland is not worth $9 or $10 mill per. The kid is not worth $7 mill per, not yet at least. I hate to say this, but he's starting to make himself look like a greedy bastard. He finally has a breakout year and all of a sudden thinks we should break the bank for him?

5 years of BELOOWWW average performances >>> 1 year of success

He should happily sign a one-year, $6-7 million extension and avoid arbitration. KDub should offer him that and then promise him a very fair, long-term offer next offseason, if he were to prove himself.

Albert Pujols signed a one-year deal before the 2003 season that paid him $600,000.
In 2001, his stats looked like this: .329, 37 HR, 130 RBIs.
In 2002, he put up these numbers: .314, 34 HR, 127 RBIs.
So after two VERY impressive seasons, he gets handed a 1-year deal paying him $600k.
The Cardinals gave him that deal and told him if he were to prove himself, he would be handsomely rewarded. In January 2004, Pujols was handed a 7 year, $100 million extension.

Garland has had ONE good year and already wants the big money? If I were Kenny, like I said before, I'll give him a contract for 2006 paying him $6 mill. Then, if he has another good or great year, I'll reward him with a 4 year, $38 mill ($9.5 mill per) offer. I wouldn't go much higher than that, because if you do, the following year you have to deal with Freddy Garcia and Mark Buehrle who will look back to Garland's deals and say, "We think we are better than him and thus deserve more money".

Milw
12-19-2005, 09:36 AM
Jon Garland is not worth $9 or $10 mill per. The kid is not worth $7 mill per, not yet at least. I hate to say this, but he's starting to make himself look like a greedy bastard. He finally has a breakout year and all of a sudden thinks we should break the bank for him?
He knows he'll get at least $10 million on the open market next year from SOMEBODY, presuming he has another decent year. Why would he sign with us for $6 million now when he could get $12 million next winter?

I agree we shouldn't give him that, but, as they say, don't hate the player, hate the game. JG should go and get his payday if he can get it -- he'd be stupid not to.

batmanZoSo
12-19-2005, 11:41 AM
Jon Garland is not worth $9 or $10 mill per. The kid is not worth $7 mill per, not yet at least. I hate to say this, but he's starting to make himself look like a greedy bastard. He finally has a breakout year and all of a sudden thinks we should break the bank for him?

5 years of BELOOWWW average performances >>> 1 year of success

He should happily sign a one-year, $6-7 million extension and avoid arbitration. KDub should offer him that and then promise him a very fair, long-term offer next offseason, if he were to prove himself.

Albert Pujols signed a one-year deal before the 2003 season that paid him $600,000.
In 2001, his stats looked like this: .329, 37 HR, 130 RBIs.
In 2002, he put up these numbers: .314, 34 HR, 127 RBIs.
So after two VERY impressive seasons, he gets handed a 1-year deal paying him $600k.
The Cardinals gave him that deal and told him if he were to prove himself, he would be handsomely rewarded. In January 2004, Pujols was handed a 7 year, $100 million extension.

Garland has had ONE good year and already wants the big money? If I were Kenny, like I said before, I'll give him a contract for 2006 paying him $6 mill. Then, if he has another good or great year, I'll reward him with a 4 year, $38 mill ($9.5 mill per) offer. I wouldn't go much higher than that, because if you do, the following year you have to deal with Freddy Garcia and Mark Buehrle who will look back to Garland's deals and say, "We think we are better than him and thus deserve more money".

Corner position players and starting pitchers are two different beasts. And when it comes down to it, Garland's just looking out for his own best interests. Right now, you have .500 pitchers making over 10 million, so what does Garland consider an 18-game winner to be worth? I don't know that I'd be doing things much differently myself if I were Garland.

Flight #24
12-19-2005, 12:03 PM
Jon Garland is not worth $9 or $10 mill per. The kid is not worth $7 mill per, not yet at least. I hate to say this, but he's starting to make himself look like a greedy bastard. He finally has a breakout year and all of a sudden thinks we should break the bank for him?

5 years of BELOOWWW average performances >>> 1 year of success

He should happily sign a one-year, $6-7 million extension and avoid arbitration. KDub should offer him that and then promise him a very fair, long-term offer next offseason, if he were to prove himself.

Albert Pujols signed a one-year deal before the 2003 season that paid him $600,000.
In 2001, his stats looked like this: .329, 37 HR, 130 RBIs.
In 2002, he put up these numbers: .314, 34 HR, 127 RBIs.
So after two VERY impressive seasons, he gets handed a 1-year deal paying him $600k.
The Cardinals gave him that deal and told him if he were to prove himself, he would be handsomely rewarded. In January 2004, Pujols was handed a 7 year, $100 million extension.

Garland has had ONE good year and already wants the big money? If I were Kenny, like I said before, I'll give him a contract for 2006 paying him $6 mill. Then, if he has another good or great year, I'll reward him with a 4 year, $38 mill ($9.5 mill per) offer. I wouldn't go much higher than that, because if you do, the following year you have to deal with Freddy Garcia and Mark Buehrle who will look back to Garland's deals and say, "We think we are better than him and thus deserve more money".

That's a horrid comparison. Pujols signed that deal because his alternative was to make the minimum salary as a 2-yr player. He was 4 years away from FA. Garland is 1 year away. He's also a position player v. a pitcher.

It's easy to say he isn't worth it, but ask yourself who you'd replace him with and how much that player would cost. You ain't saving any money unless you go with a REAL chump or a far older player, I can guarantee you that. If Garland goes .500 with a mid-4s ERA in '06, he's guaranteed $10M/yr minimum, probably on a 4-year deal. If he repeats his '05, he's going to command more like $12M/yr. So it's not surprising that he's scoffing at a deal for about $2-3M less per year and 1 year less.

As for Garcia/Buehrle, I can also guarantee you that they're looking at the market and saying the same thing Jon is - I'm worth a lot of money. Even if the Sox don't resign Garland, both will be looking at $12M+. Pitching is expensive, that's just a fact. Which makes McCarthy that much more valuable.

spiffie
12-19-2005, 12:09 PM
Ricciardi's winter may have been "productive" for the Jays, but the ridiculous deals he gave Ryan and Burnett have been incredibly destructive to any team hoping to sign FA pitchers in the future.
We have only ourselves to blame for this. People copy what works, and since everyone saw the Sox pitching dominate the postseason, this year's battle cry for GM's is to get as deep and solid a staff as possible. And really, that's probably how it should be, since there's a lot of guys who can hit about the same, but the amount of pitchers who can really do their job at a high level seems to be getting ever smaller, esp. in the AL.

nevr say dye sox
12-19-2005, 12:32 PM
I can't believe people are upset that JG wants a big payday. I guarantee anybody on WSI, if in his position would want as much as they could get. This is a business as much of you would like to think otherwise. He'd (JG) would be an idiot not to go to free agency! If the sox really offered 3 yrs/ $25mil, if he went to free agency he'd get 3/35 mil. Your telling me that you guys wouldn't want the extra 10 mil.

WhiteSoxFan84
12-19-2005, 01:03 PM
It's easy to say he isn't worth it, but ask yourself who you'd replace him with and how much that player would cost. You ain't saving any money unless you go with a REAL chump or a far older player, I can guarantee you that.

What's odd is, you mention the guy I'm about to give you at the end of your post...

http://images.tsn.ca/images/stories/20050715/CWS_mccarthy_52405.jpg

"Last I checked, I'm only 21, so I'm no 'older player'. And why don't you step into the batter's box against me and see how big of a chump I really am".

Flight #24
12-19-2005, 01:16 PM
What's odd is, you mention the guy I'm about to give you at the end of your post...

http://images.tsn.ca/images/stories/20050715/CWS_mccarthy_52405.jpg

"Last I checked, I'm only 21, so I'm no 'older player'. And why don't you step into the batter's box against me and see how big of a chump I really am".

Which gives you a hole at the #5. And it's not a fair comparison. The question wasn't "Should we spend $10-12M on Jon Garland", it was "Is he worth that". The same argument could for example be used against resigning Freddy, or heck - against resigning Buehrle to a likely $12M/yr.

The point is - a pitcher of Garland's history and caliber on the FA market is commanding $10M+/yr. That's what he is "worth". The Sox may decide that they'd rather put resources elsewhere, or that they have younger and cheaper options, but that doesn't make Garland overpaid at $10M.

DenverSock
12-19-2005, 01:22 PM
The point is - a pitcher of Garland's history and caliber on the FA market is commanding $10M+/yr. That's what he is "worth". The Sox may decide that they'd rather put resources elsewhere, or that they have younger and cheaper options, but that doesn't make Garland overpaid at $10M.

Why don't people get that? I didn't major in Economics and I get it.

WhiteSoxFan84
12-19-2005, 03:20 PM
Which gives you a hole at the #5. And it's not a fair comparison. The question wasn't "Should we spend $10-12M on Jon Garland", it was "Is he worth that". The same argument could for example be used against resigning Freddy, or heck - against resigning Buehrle to a likely $12M/yr.

The point is - a pitcher of Garland's history and caliber on the FA market is commanding $10M+/yr. That's what he is "worth". The Sox may decide that they'd rather put resources elsewhere, or that they have younger and cheaper options, but that doesn't make Garland overpaid at $10M.

Based on the market lately, I COMPLETELY agree with you that he is "WORTH" $10-$11 mill a year based on last seasons stats. But I'm looking at it from a White Sox origanizational POV. Is he worth $10-$11 mill in OUR market/budget? No. I know other teams are willing to give him the $11 mill, but we should not because to us (a team with 6 solid starting pitchers) he is not worth that much.

As far as you saying we'd still have have hole in the No. 5 spot if we traded Garland and replaced him with McCarthy, I don't get it? IF we deal Garland, we still have Contreras/Buehrle/Garcia/Vazquez/McCarthy.