PDA

View Full Version : Sox fans for the keeping of Jon Garland!


Whitesox029
12-19-2005, 01:48 PM
I thought we needed a thread for this. Jon Garland needs to remain in a White Sox uniform. To trade him would be awfully pointless in my opinion. To spend all those years patiently waiting for him to realize his potential and then to trade him right after he does is one of the most baffling things I've heard of so far this offseason. Who agrees with me? Is there actually a sensible argument for trading him? Comments, please.

CHIsoxNation
12-19-2005, 01:57 PM
I thought we needed a thread for this. Jon Garland needs to remain in a White Sox uniform. To trade him would be awfully pointless in my opinion. To spend all those years patiently waiting for him to realize his potential and then to trade him right after he does is one of the most baffling things I've heard of so far this offseason. Who agrees with me? Is there actually a sensible argument for trading him? Comments, please.

He had a good first half, that was about it. His value is as high as it has ever been and he hasn't given anyone any reason to believe he can put together a complete season like he did in the first have of 05'.

If Jon wanted to stay here that bad he would have signed that 3 year deal. Afterall, the White Sox were the ones that were so patient with him. If that's the thanks the Sox get for sticking with him throughout the years, then we'll see ya around Jon.

RallyBowl
12-19-2005, 01:59 PM
I want him to be here if he wants to be here. If he doesn't, so long.

MillerSoxFan
12-19-2005, 02:00 PM
Agree 100%.

samram
12-19-2005, 02:02 PM
Is there actually a sensible argument for trading him? Comments, please.

Yes, there is. The Sox have six starting pitchers and if they can trade one, especially one who is insistent upon playing the FA market, for a bat or good prospects, then they should trade him.

Ol' No. 2
12-19-2005, 02:03 PM
The argument for trading him is simple. Brandon McCarthy can deliver at a fraction of the price, allowing them to employ the same dollars in other improvements. Trading Garland brings either a valuable postion player or top prospects in return. Carrying six starters is silly.

WhiteSoxFan84
12-19-2005, 02:13 PM
Is there actually a sensible argument for trading him? Comments, please.

I have about 10 sensible arguments but I'll give you 1 and it's for the following reasons...

- His value will probably never be higher - unless he wins 20 games next year and posts an ERA under 3.50. However that hurts us because...
- He's on the last year of his contract and will more than likely end up leaving us with nothing in return.
- He declined our offer and from what I've heard he has not even thrown back a counter-offer in our direction. This leads me to believe that he has his mind set on testing the market (which I would do as well if I was in his position).
- He can easily be replaced from within the system (Brandon McCarthy).

The Dude
12-19-2005, 02:21 PM
I thought we needed a thread for this. Jon Garland needs to remain in a White Sox uniform. To trade him would be awfully pointless in my opinion. To spend all those years patiently waiting for him to realize his potential and then to trade him right after he does is one of the most baffling things I've heard of so far this offseason. Who agrees with me? Is there actually a sensible argument for trading him? Comments, please.

Sign him to an extension or trade him. It is just that plain and simple! :D:

soxfan13
12-19-2005, 02:24 PM
Would like to keep Garland but I think he will be gone by the trading deadline. I think that he doesnt want to stay in Chicago, I have read articles where he has stated that he would love to go back to the west coast and that is why he wants to test the free agent market.

BainesHOF
12-19-2005, 02:58 PM
I thought Garland was becoming more mature and smart, but he seems to be the one guy who's thinking strictly dollars. It's too bad.

Chicken Dinner
12-19-2005, 03:17 PM
It's abundantly clear that JG wants no part of the White Sox next year so you must use the value that you have invested in him to get the maximum amount of trade potential.

PAPChiSox729
12-19-2005, 03:19 PM
I really have been a pretty strong supporter of Jon. But it just doesn't seem like any reasonable amount of money is going to keep him around here. I would be very, very surprised if Garland was still around by ST. It is probably likely that he will have better seasons than this past one, but it is also likely that those seasons won't be in a Sox uniform. This is the best time to trade him, but I hope KW can get something really nice in return.

KRS1
12-19-2005, 03:19 PM
If we can't get a high quality, major league ready starter as well as a reliever and another low level pitching prospect with a lot of upside then I'm all for keeping him and getting our 2 first round picker next year.

vafan
12-19-2005, 04:26 PM
Hey, WhiteSox029, I've defended keeping Jon Garland on other threads, and since almost no one has supported your side of this, let me step up to do so.

First, Paul Konerko rejected the White Sox first offer, and I don't think any of the posters on this thread or elsewhere took the "well screw him, let's dump him" approach with Konerko they seem to apply to Garland. Garland may indeed be unsignable, but I don't think the Sox have finished exploring that option yet. They have to at least agree on a salary figure for this year or go to arbitration, which the Sox are loathe to do. So I expect further negotiation sessions. Personally, I believe it would be wise for the Sox to up their offer at the very least.

Second, I don't believe Jon Garland is anywhere near his highest value. He won 18 games for the first time, but he did so after changing his approach to model Mark Buehrle, and with a catcher who called an aggressive game. I see no reason why he will not build on that success in 2006 and beyond. He's only 26 years old. Kevin Brown didn't do much until he was 26 even though, like Jon, he'd had quite a few years in the majors by then, but he did a whole lot after that age. If the Sox were able to sign Jon for 3 more years, and decided to trade him with a year left to go in that deal, there is no question Garland would have more value then than he does now.

Third, a very good case can be made that Jon Garland was the Sox' second best starter last year, behind only Mark Buehrle (with Contreras clearly being the best second half pitcher). He led the staff with 18 wins and 3 complete game shutouts, his 1.17 WHIP was the best on the staff (and 12th best in baseball), and his mastery of the Angels in game 3 as as good as any game pitched by our starters in the postseason, to name just a few accomplishments.

Fourth, there is no doubt in my mind at least that Garland, at 26, has much more upside potential than Javier Vazquez at 29. Had the Sox had Vazquez's 11-15 record and 4.49 ERA instead of Garland last year, Cleveland would have beat us for the AL Central title. Remember, Garland compiled his 21st-best 3.50 ERA in the DH-friendly AL and Vazquez did a run worse in the weaker-lineup NL. You can consult true experts who will tell you the difference is significant. Coop may work wonders and get Vazquez back on track, but then again, Jon Garland could also get better than he was in 2005.

So there are four reasons why the Sox should try their damnedest to bring back Jon for another 3-year stint. Of course, Jon could continue to refuse to sign, in which case even I would accept that he should probably be traded. But I'd still only do it for the right offer. If keeping Jon for even another year and then letting him walk for draft picks would significantly increase our chances of repeating as WS champs, I'd be strongly inclined to keep him. To trade him, I'd want a player or players back that would increase our chances of repeating more than keeping Jon would do so.

Frater Perdurabo
12-19-2005, 04:38 PM
Hey, WhiteSox029, I've defended keeping Jon Garland on other threads, and since almost no one has supported your side of this, let me step up to do so.

First, Paul Konerko rejected the White Sox first offer, and I don't think any of the posters on this thread or elsewhere took the "well screw him, let's dump him" approach with Konerko they seem to apply to Garland. Garland may indeed be unsignable, but I don't think the Sox have finished exploring that option yet. They have to at least agree on a salary figure for this year or go to arbitration, which the Sox are loathe to do. So I expect further negotiation sessions. Personally, I believe it would be wise for the Sox to up their offer at the very least.

Second, I don't believe Jon Garland is anywhere near his highest value. He won 18 games for the first time, but he did so after changing his approach to model Mark Buehrle, and with a catcher who called an aggressive game. I see no reason why he will not build on that success in 2006 and beyond. He's only 26 years old. Kevin Brown didn't do much until he was 26 even though, like Jon, he'd had quite a few years in the majors by then, but he did a whole lot after that age. If the Sox were able to sign Jon for 3 more years, and decided to trade him with a year left to go in that deal, there is no question Garland would have more value then than he does now.

Third, a very good case can be made that Jon Garland was the Sox' second best starter last year, behind only Mark Buehrle (with Contreras clearly being the best second half pitcher). He led the staff with 18 wins and 3 complete game shutouts, his 1.17 WHIP was the best on the staff (and 12th best in baseball), and his mastery of the Angels in game 3 as as good as any game pitched by our starters in the postseason, to name just a few accomplishments.

Fourth, there is no doubt in my mind at least that Garland, at 26, has much more upside potential than Javier Vazquez at 29. Had the Sox had Vazquez's 11-15 record and 4.49 ERA instead of Garland last year, Cleveland would have beat us for the AL Central title. Remember, Garland compiled his 21st-best 3.50 ERA in the DH-friendly AL and Vazquez did a run worse in the weaker-lineup NL. You can consult true experts who will tell you the difference is significant. Coop may work wonders and get Vazquez back on track, but then again, Jon Garland could also get better than he was in 2005.

So there are four reasons why the Sox should try their damnedest to bring back Jon for another 3-year stint. Of course, Jon could continue to refuse to sign, in which case even I would accept that he should probably be traded. But I'd still only do it for the right offer. If keeping Jon for even another year and then letting him walk for draft picks would significantly increase our chances of repeating as WS champs, I'd be strongly inclined to keep him. To trade him, I'd want a player or players back that would increase our chances of repeating more than keeping Jon would do so.

Perfectly stated.

+1

I want Garland to choose willingly to sign a long-term deal with the Sox. If the choice came down to one or the other, I'd rather have him than Vasquez (whom we could package with other prospects to Tampa Bay for Carl Crawford, to get a speedier if less powerful version of what we had hoped Chris Young would become, who would help the Sox in CF in 2006 and in the future at a reasonable price).

Flight #24
12-19-2005, 04:43 PM
So there are four reasons why the Sox should try their damnedest to bring back Jon for another 3-year stint. Of course, Jon could continue to refuse to sign, in which case even I would accept that he should probably be traded. But I'd still only do it for the right offer. If keeping Jon for even another year and then letting him walk for draft picks would significantly increase our chances of repeating as WS champs, I'd be strongly inclined to keep him. To trade him, I'd want a player or players back that would increase our chances of repeating more than keeping Jon would do so.

Something crucial that you miss is that the choice for the Sox (or any non-Yankee team) is Garland or Contreras/Vazquez+cash. It's that last bit that introduces the issue. There's likely reasonable savings to be had form one of the other guys v. Jon, possibly as high as $3M depending on where contracts come in at.

TaylorStSox
12-19-2005, 04:48 PM
In Garland's first start of next year he should dive head-first into the CF wall. Maybe that way people will respect him. :rolleyes:

vafan
12-19-2005, 04:50 PM
Something crucial that you miss is that the choice for the Sox (or any non-Yankee team) is Garland or Contreras/Vazquez+cash. It's that last bit that introduces the issue. There's likely reasonable savings to be had form one of the other guys v. Jon, possibly as high as $3M depending on where contracts come in at.

Well, Garland is worth $3 million more than Vazquez, and I hope that the Sox are not that tight any longer on the payroll. We aren't talking a Roger Clemens $18 million/year contract here. And since the first year of any extension would be the arbitration year (which gives the Sox some discount), a 3-year $30-32 million deal at say, $8, 10, 12 would be fair to both sides. I mean, Garland himself has to realize that he has some downside risk if he opts not to re-sign now.

HomeFish
12-19-2005, 05:00 PM
Carrying six starters is silly.

Will you still say that if Contreras, Garcia, or Buehrle gets injured, and we have Arnie Munoz in the #5 spot?

I don't see why BMac can't pitch long relief for this season. It would allow us to have a potential ace in reserve in case somebody gets injured. Six starters is a problem you want to have, not a problem you want to avoid.

thomas35forever
12-19-2005, 05:09 PM
We've been able to trust Kenny this offseason. No matter what he does with Garland, it should be a good move.

HomeFish
12-19-2005, 05:12 PM
We've been able to trust Kenny this offseason. No matter what he does with Garland, it should be a good move.

Do you think Miguel Tejada (the best-case scenario for a Garland trade, imo) will make up for the black hole that would be a 5th starter from the minors, if one of Buehrle/Garcia/Contreras/Vazquez/BMac were injured?

We had a pretty killer offense some years before 2005, with Maggs and Caballo, but we also had Danny Wright, Arnie Munoz, Jason Grilli, et al. on those teams, and I don't recall those teams doing so well.

Keeping all of our starters and putting BMac in the bullpen offers us security, relief strength, etc. I'm getting excited just thinking about such a setup.

kevin57
12-19-2005, 05:19 PM
Has anyone been keeping track of how many "Jon Garland" related threads--or more importantly posts--have been created.

He pushes a lot, a WHOLE LOT of buttons for us Sox fans.

Ol' No. 2
12-19-2005, 05:24 PM
Will you still say that if Contreras, Garcia, or Buehrle gets injured, and we have Arnie Munoz in the #5 spot?

I don't see why BMac can't pitch long relief for this season. It would allow us to have a potential ace in reserve in case somebody gets injured. Six starters is a problem you want to have, not a problem you want to avoid.Who said anything about Arnie Munoz? Garland should bring a decent reliever AND a team's top (as in almost MLB-ready) pitching prospect in return. That prospect is your backup, just as McCarthy was last year, and provides long-term insurance in case one of the other starters decides to leave to FA after 2007. In fact, the spectre of Arnie Munoz starting is exactly why the Sox need to replenish their pitching prospects. Other than Broadway, they're mostly grade B pitchers.

McCarthy isn't suited to long relief, and even if he was, it's a waste of a perfectly good starting pitcher. And if he did, he wouldn't be stretched out enough to come in and start anyway. You can't just keep a "potential ace in reserve" as if you could just hang him up in a closet and pull him out when you need him. Besides, you need to get maximum value from your players, and parking a guy like McCarthy in the bullpen or AAA is not getting value.

The reasons for trading Garland are much the same as for trading Rowand: his trade value is high, you have other needs and you have a ready (and much cheaper) replacement all ready to go. The fact that he's walking after 2006 is just icing.

TomBradley72
12-19-2005, 06:23 PM
Garland is worth market value....his post season was steller (seems to be often forgotten...he had a couple of great starts late in the year against Cleve and Minn when we really needed them)....but if Kenny's offering a "market value" contract and he's want to get greedy for even more...he's doesn't really "get it" and I wouldn't mind seeing a trade to help us restock our system, etc. All in all....I'd love for him to be part of the next few years...not sure he feels the same way.

vafan
12-20-2005, 03:42 PM
One thing I don't get is why anyone thinks any team would trade us major-league ready starting pitching prospects (e.g., the Brandon McCarthy type) for Jon Garland.

If a team has a cheap pitching option anywhere near good enough to replace Garland for us, they will keep the pitcher. Especially after the Sox as WS champs have set the new model in baseball - deep starting pitching.

Face it, we aren't going to get pitching back for Garland if we end up trading him. We're going to have to look for position players and longer term prospects.

KRS1
12-20-2005, 03:55 PM
One thing I don't get is why anyone thinks any team would trade us major-league ready starting pitching prospects (e.g., the Brandon McCarthy type) for Jon Garland.

If a team has a cheap pitching option anywhere near good enough to replace Garland for us, they will keep the pitcher. Especially after the Sox as WS champs have set the new model in baseball - deep starting pitching.

Face it, we aren't going to get pitching back for Garland if we end up trading him. We're going to have to look for position players and longer term prospects.

Oh I dont know, maybe because it happens all the time. Teams will give up potential for a certain thing or a proven players.

Flight #24
12-20-2005, 03:59 PM
One thing I don't get is why anyone thinks any team would trade us major-league ready starting pitching prospects (e.g., the Brandon McCarthy type) for Jon Garland.

If a team has a cheap pitching option anywhere near good enough to replace Garland for us, they will keep the pitcher. Especially after the Sox as WS champs have set the new model in baseball - deep starting pitching.

Face it, we aren't going to get pitching back for Garland if we end up trading him. We're going to have to look for position players and longer term prospects.

Huh? It happens all the time, because prospects, however good, aren't guaranteed. And they take time to hit their "game", whereas Garland is in his prime. McCarthy's in a bit of a different situation because he's demonstrated the ability to excel in the bigs. But think of how the Sox were willing to deal him at the break for Burnett.

Palehose13
12-20-2005, 04:01 PM
First, Paul Konerko rejected the White Sox first offer, and I don't think any of the posters on this thread or elsewhere took the "well screw him, let's dump him" approach with Konerko they seem to apply to Garland.

I thought Konerko said that there never was a 4/48 offered that was rejected as reported. It was KW's decision not to pursue an extension before last season because he wanted to make sure that Konerko was the direction he wanted to go.

However, if there was a rejected offer, it is totally different because PK was already a free agent and was able to take offers from other suitors. JG is currently not a FA and has rejected (IMO, a fair) offer. This pretty much tells KW that he wants to test the waters also instead of getting security (in case of injury or even poor performance) from the White Sox for the next 3 years. The Sox have had a lot of patience with Garland and this is how he repays them, by looking to walk??? Forget it. His value is really high right now. Get something for him instead of nothing when he signs with the highest bidder next year.

Flight #24
12-20-2005, 04:02 PM
Who said anything about Arnie Munoz? Garland should bring a decent reliever AND a team's top (as in almost MLB-ready) pitching prospect in return. That prospect is your backup, just as McCarthy was last year, and provides long-term insurance in case one of the other starters decides to leave to FA after 2007. In fact, the spectre of Arnie Munoz starting is exactly why the Sox need to replenish their pitching prospects. Other than Broadway, they're mostly grade B pitchers.

McCarthy isn't suited to long relief, and even if he was, it's a waste of a perfectly good starting pitcher. And if he did, he wouldn't be stretched out enough to come in and start anyway. You can't just keep a "potential ace in reserve" as if you could just hang him up in a closet and pull him out when you need him. Besides, you need to get maximum value from your players, and parking a guy like McCarthy in the bullpen or AAA is not getting value.

The reasons for trading Garland are much the same as for trading Rowand: his trade value is high, you have other needs and you have a ready (and much cheaper) replacement all ready to go. The fact that he's walking after 2006 is just icing.

Don't forget, there will almost certainly be some non-tenders who get signed or get camp invites ala Loaiza of 2003. That ought to give you someone who can spot start and put up an ERA south of the 7 we had during our 5th starter debacle of 2004. It's a lower quality backup, to be sure. But the tradeoff is a higher quality position player/reliever and/or better quality prospects you get in a Garland/Jose trade.

EDIT: There's also multiple instances of someone in the org referring to Cotts moving back to the rotation eventually. Not a preferred alternative for 2006, but it would be an option.

TaylorStSox
12-20-2005, 04:34 PM
I thought Konerko said that there never was a 4/48 offered that was rejected as reported. It was KW's decision not to pursue an extension before last season because he wanted to make sure that Konerko was the direction he wanted to go.

However, if there was a rejected offer, it is totally different because PK was already a free agent and was able to take offers from other suitors. JG is currently not a FA and has rejected (IMO, a fair) offer. This pretty much tells KW that he wants to test the waters also instead of getting security (in case of injury or even poor performance) from the White Sox for the next 3 years. The Sox have had a lot of patience with Garland and this is how he repays them, by looking to walk??? Forget it. His value is really high right now. Get something for him instead of nothing when he signs with the highest bidder next year.

Again, Garland doesn't owe a damn thing to the Sox. He would have been starting for 29 other teams while they showed him "patience" during those terrible years.

Palehose13
12-20-2005, 04:38 PM
Again, Garland doesn't owe a damn thing to the Sox. He would have been starting for 29 other teams while they showed him "patience" during those terrible years.

Not necessarily. He could have also ping-ponged between the majors and the minors. A little loyalty would be nice, especially after I've heard members of the Sox organization say year after year in the offseason that this ('03, '04, '05) was going to be Garland's "break out year". Well, the finally got it right. I'm not saying that Garland should sign for a ridiculously low amount of money, but I would hope that he would be reasonable.

TaylorStSox
12-20-2005, 04:40 PM
Not necessarily. He could have also ping-ponged between the majors and the minors. A little loyalty would be nice, especially after I've heard members of the Sox organization say year after year in the offseason that this ('03, '04, '05) was going to be Garland's "break out year". Well, the finally got it right. I'm not saying that Garland should sign for a ridiculously low amount of money, but I would hope that he would be reasonable.

Garland was never as bad as you'd like to think. Inconsistant? There's no doubt. He was still league average. League average pitchers are commanding the salary that the Sox offered.

Hagan
12-20-2005, 04:47 PM
He had a good first half, that was about it.

His second half wasnt much worse than his first half. He really just had a shaky august and that was about it. Also if you figure in his playoff stats his 2nd half was almost just as good.

Exit_Only
12-20-2005, 04:53 PM
Keep him over Contreras.

paciorek1983
12-20-2005, 10:33 PM
It doesn't matter what kind of season he had, or how much the Sox offer him. Can't you guys tell that he doesn't want to play for the Sox?

He is going to take the best offer from a West Coast team. He doesn't like criticism and on the west coast he won't get any because they are not intense sports fans out there. Jon Garland is a California boy and that's where he is going to sign, or somewhere else warm where they really don't give a crap.

John Barrett
12-20-2005, 11:23 PM
See ya Judy thanks for the help. don't let the door hit you in the butt

beckett21
12-21-2005, 12:04 AM
If the Sox can sign Contreras and trade Jon now, I say do it. If they can't get good value for him in trade, hang onto him and let him play for his next contract. Make him show consistency to earn his fat payday.

That should be plenty of incentive to keep him interested one more season, then let him walk if necessary. He broke out last season; this season he has to prove it was not a fluke.

I wouldn't trade him at the deadline either, unless it is a remarkable deal. Make him suffer through one more World Series title.

Then he can walk back to Cali for all I care. :cool:

Lip Man 1
12-21-2005, 12:05 AM
Paciorek:

If the Sox give him financially what he wants I have no doubt he'd sign on the dotted line in a heartbeat.

The question is, is he and his agent willing to compromise like Konerko and A.J. did to stay in town and keep the team financially able to keep getting more talent.

Lip