PDA

View Full Version : Jon's last stand


bigredrudy
05-24-2006, 06:28 PM
I anticipate that Toronto will knock Jon around this weekend and that could signal his removal from the starting rotation. I would hope McCarthy would take his place but who knows. There is that matter of the three year contract and the no trade clause. Jon really is a very mediocre pitcher who even with his year last year had an ERA of 4.42 entering this campaign. And it has gone even higher. People sometimes talk about Jon's great stuff but I don't see it. I just hope that the Sox can get rid of this contract and don't have to swallow the big money. Why did KW give Jon this deal? I think he panicked when he thought he was going to lose both Contreras and Garland after this year.I love KW but he certainly blew this one. You can't win them all I guess.

Meixner007
05-24-2006, 06:36 PM
I'm really glad you're not in a position to make these decisions. You want him out of the rotation after barely a fourth of a season??? Sure he hasn't been spectacular, but he's an innings eater and a 4th or 5th starter.

IlliniSox4Life
05-24-2006, 06:39 PM
I anticipate that Toronto will knock Jon around this weekend and that could signal his removal from the starting rotation. I would hope McCarthy would take his place but who knows. There is that matter of the three year contract and the no trade clause. Jon really is a very mediocre pitcher who even with his year last year had an ERA of 4.42 entering this campaign. And it has gone even higher. People sometimes talk about Jon's great stuff but I don't see it. I just hope that the Sox can get rid of this contract and don't have to swallow the big money. Why did KW give Jon this deal? I think he panicked when he thought he was going to lose both Contreras and Garland after this year.I love KW but he certainly blew this one. You can't win them all I guess.
I anticipate you being proven very wrong.

EDIT: Over his last 7 starts, he has an ERA of about 4.4. Certainly not spectacular, but if you take out one of those starts, he has an ERA of 3.456 in 6 of his last 7 games. He has had 3 really bad starts out of 9, and the rest have either been OK or very good.

JB98
05-24-2006, 06:43 PM
I anticipate you being proven very wrong.

I'm with you. I don't think Jon's position in the rotation is in any jeopardy.

hi im skot
05-24-2006, 06:45 PM
Forgetting how ridiculous this all is for a moment, taking Garland out of the rotation would be devastating for his psyche.

Garland will be fine.

cbrownson13
05-24-2006, 06:46 PM
I just hope that the Sox can get rid of this contract and don't have to swallow the big money. Why did KW give Jon this deal? I think he panicked when he thought he was going to lose both Contreras and Garland after this year.I love KW but he certainly blew this one. You can't win them all I guess.

You realize for the money that Jon is receiving he is giving about the same results as other pitchers around the league that have the same money?

Look at Kris Benson.

I am fully confident Coop and Ozzie can get him, if not back to last season's form, better than what he has been showing thus far.

But looking at other pitchers around the league and the money that pitchers are making on the market right now, he is NOT being overpaid.

TDog
05-24-2006, 06:47 PM
I anticipate that Toronto will knock Jon around this weekend and that could signal his removal from the starting rotation. I would hope McCarthy would take his place but who knows. There is that matter of the three year contract and the no trade clause. Jon really is a very mediocre pitcher who even with his year last year had an ERA of 4.42 entering this campaign. And it has gone even higher. People sometimes talk about Jon's great stuff but I don't see it. I just hope that the Sox can get rid of this contract and don't have to swallow the big money. Why did KW give Jon this deal? I think he panicked when he thought he was going to lose both Contreras and Garland after this year.I love KW but he certainly blew this one. You can't win them all I guess.

McCarthy, in place of Contreras, didn't pitch well in his only start this year, but because it's McCarthy you don't care. Vazquez said last night that he didn't have anything. He got the win because the Sox score nine runs. Because it's Vazquez, you don't care. Fans were all over Garland in a start where he gave up two solo home runs after ripping on people who criticized Buehrle for giving up two solo home runs. By the way, Garland won in Tampa Bay last week. It was only Tampa Bay, I've heard, but Vazquez and McCarthy lost in Tamp Bay.

It annoys me that people try to blame all the starting pitching problems on Garland.

Johnny Mostil
05-24-2006, 06:51 PM
Why did KW give Jon this deal?

Oh, I don't know . . . because he was a cog of a world championship pitching staff?

Here's a hypothesis I'm too lazy to prove or disprove (based on boxing's practice of always paying the defending champ more than the challenger, regardless of the result of the fight): champions are always overpaid. Garland may be overpaid. (I think Konerko may be as well.:duck:) One reason it doesn't bother me is because it isn't my money. Another reason it doesn't is because they're champions. A third is that Garland, and the season, are young . . .

Mohoney
05-24-2006, 06:51 PM
Our rotation is just fine the way it is. I firmly believe that at some point, Detroit will stop playing .720 ball on the road, and the "glaring weaknesses" that Garland and Anderson have become to some people will disappear.

In fact, I would like to propose a new rule. Any time we are playing .650 ball or better, we are not allowed to suggest that any everyday players or rotation starters should be replaced.

SweetnesSox
05-24-2006, 06:52 PM
Vazquez has an ERA of 4.25, that's not much better than jon over his past 6 starts. just relax.

QCIASOXFAN
05-24-2006, 06:53 PM
Give the guy until at least the all star break to figure if he sucks enough to be taken out of his spot in the rotation. I personally am not at all worried and that seems to be the majority.

SoxEd
05-24-2006, 07:01 PM
In fact, I would like to propose a new rule. Any time we are playing .650 ball or better, we are not allowed to suggest that any everyday players or rotation starters should be replaced.

You sir, are a spoilsport - if we can't kvetch when we're ONE FULL GAME out of first, with only three-quarters of the Season left to make it up, what's the point in being Sox fans?

ode to veeck
05-24-2006, 07:06 PM
I anticipate that Toronto will knock Jon around this weekend and that could signal his removal from the starting rotation. I would hope McCarthy would take his place but who knows. There is that matter of the three year contract and the no trade clause. Jon really is a very mediocre pitcher who even with his year last year had an ERA of 4.42 entering this campaign. And it has gone even higher. People sometimes talk about Jon's great stuff but I don't see it. I just hope that the Sox can get rid of this contract and don't have to swallow the big money. Why did KW give Jon this deal? I think he panicked when he thought he was going to lose both Contreras and Garland after this year.I love KW but he certainly blew this one. You can't win them all I guess.

What's the score dude!?! Jon will come around and it's wayyyy too pre-mature to be talking about demoting anyone from the starting rotation, especially a guy who has the stuff and was critical to the team's championship. We almost have the best record in baseball at the moment and you'd think the sky was falling!

:darkclouds:

Mohoney
05-24-2006, 07:06 PM
You sir, are a spoilsport - if we can't kvetch when we're ONE FULL GAME out of first, with only three-quarters of the Season left to make it up, what's the point in being Sox fans?

Another personal javelin thrown my way, eh?

INSox56
05-24-2006, 07:09 PM
I'm not calling for his head at all. I don't know if any of you saw the article today where Coop said the main problem is he's not pitching inside to righties enough. I've been saying that for weeks now....including during the whole last game on Monday (much to the annoyance of people around me at the park), but it's insane how his mind is working right now. It'd be outside outside outside balls, then one strike, then a walk. The next batter he'd bust two inside and the guy'd be out! I DO NOT understand why he's not getting the picture here....his success last year was MAINLY due to his pitching inside...if not ALL because of that. Either AJ, Widger, or Coop need to start FORCING him to pitch inside because for some reason, he's NOT getting it.

HotelWhiteSox
05-24-2006, 07:21 PM
Just think of Jon as the 5th starter. McCarthy is valuable in the pen right now

TomParrish79
05-24-2006, 07:26 PM
This thread is ridiculous...cut Garland some slack.

MadetoOrta
05-24-2006, 07:28 PM
This thread is ridiculous...cut Garland some slack.

Agreed. End of thread .... I hope.

The Immigrant
05-24-2006, 07:32 PM
[quote=In fact, I would like to propose a new rule. Any time we are playing .650 ball or better, we are not allowed to suggest that any everyday players or rotation starters should be replaced.[/quote]

HEAR HEAR!

Anyone who violates this rule warrants some time in the penalty box.

mccoydp
05-24-2006, 07:37 PM
Whew...sure am glad the Sox treated Contreras the same after his first half last year. What a bum!

chisoxfan64
05-24-2006, 07:43 PM
:dumbass:

jongarlandlover
05-24-2006, 10:30 PM
McCarthy, in place of Contreras, didn't pitch well in his only start this year, but because it's McCarthy you don't care. Vazquez said last night that he didn't have anything. He got the win because the Sox score nine runs. Because it's Vazquez, you don't care. Fans were all over Garland in a start where he gave up two solo home runs after ripping on people who criticized Buehrle for giving up two solo home runs. By the way, Garland won in Tampa Bay last week. It was only Tampa Bay, I've heard, but Vazquez and McCarthy lost in Tamp Bay.

It annoys me that people try to blame all the starting pitching problems on Garland.

that is exactly my point. people will never complain about anyone else if they have a bad start. but if it's jon, oh my god, he's horrible! it's only been 2 months. he's not terrible. he's struggling and he needs to pitch more inside, but he's not so bad that he should be in the bullpen.

it's just annoying the hell out of me, all this jon-bashing.

Frontman
05-24-2006, 10:33 PM
I'd give this thread merit had Jon not gotten a win these past two months. He has. Sure, has he been shaky? Yeah. But so has Mark. It's funny that very few "let's move Mark" comments have ever been uttered, but Jon has a rough start and we are ready to ride him out of town on a rail.

I agree that Jon shouldn't be considered more than our 5th man in the rotation, as Vaquez (sp?) has been very good.

He'll be fine, just needs to settle down, locate his pitches better, and the team rally behind him, like they always will.

Front

FarWestChicago
05-24-2006, 10:37 PM
I anticipate that Toronto will knock Jon around this weekend and that could signal his removal from the starting rotation. I would hope McCarthy would take his place but who knows. There is that matter of the three year contract and the no trade clause. Jon really is a very mediocre pitcher who even with his year last year had an ERA of 4.42 entering this campaign. And it has gone even higher. People sometimes talk about Jon's great stuff but I don't see it. I just hope that the Sox can get rid of this contract and don't have to swallow the big money. Why did KW give Jon this deal? I think he panicked when he thought he was going to lose both Contreras and Garland after this year.I love KW but he certainly blew this one. You can't win them all I guess.It's things like this that make me crack up when I hear about how "intelligent" Sox fans are. :roflmao:

BeviBall!
05-24-2006, 10:50 PM
:threadsucks

rdwj
05-24-2006, 10:55 PM
Jon has had some good outings and some bad ones - So has McCarthy. I wouldn't be so quick to call for his head.

My bet - he'll give up 4 runs and go 7, giving our bats a chance to win the game. That's pretty much standard Jon.

Oh and...
:threadblows:

Tragg
05-24-2006, 11:14 PM
I anticipate that Toronto will knock Jon around this weekend and that could signal his removal from the starting rotation. .
Come on.

Tragg
05-24-2006, 11:18 PM
that is exactly my point. people will never complain about anyone else if they have a bad start.
I wish it were only one.
Do a search on Crede, Anderson, Contreras (until August last year). I think even MB has a few from a couple of years ago.

D. TODD
05-24-2006, 11:22 PM
I'm really glad you're not in a position to make these decisions. You want him out of the rotation after barely a fourth of a season??? Sure he hasn't been spectacular, but he's an innings eater and a 4th or 5th starter. Agree totally! He is fine as a 4 or 5. It would be nice if last year was his coming out party as a stud, and who knows he may get back to that, but lets not panic and forget that he gives over 200 innings and double digit wins year in year out.

kittle42
05-24-2006, 11:22 PM
The Jermaine Dye Experiment Must End.

Ol' No. 2
05-24-2006, 11:24 PM
I anticipate that Toronto will knock Jon around this weekend and that could signal his removal from the starting rotation. I would hope McCarthy would take his place but who knows. There is that matter of the three year contract and the no trade clause. Jon really is a very mediocre pitcher who even with his year last year had an ERA of 4.42 entering this campaign. And it has gone even higher. People sometimes talk about Jon's great stuff but I don't see it. I just hope that the Sox can get rid of this contract and don't have to swallow the big money. Why did KW give Jon this deal? I think he panicked when he thought he was going to lose both Contreras and Garland after this year.I love KW but he certainly blew this one. You can't win them all I guess.Where did I put that bottle of aspirin?

Lip Man 1
05-24-2006, 11:31 PM
There was a story on this in the newspaper today or yesterday. Don Cooper said Garland isn't going anywhere (i.e. out of the rotation to the bullpen) that he is going to get 200 innings from him again in 2006.

The story did speculate that unless Jon gets it together he could be shipped out the door this winter when he no longer has a no-trade provision to make room for McCarthy.

Lip

Frontman
05-24-2006, 11:42 PM
The Jermaine Dye Experiment Must End.

Same with the Thome Experiment. Think we could get Aaron back? Wait, can't trade someone who is on the DL....

;)

Front

Baby Fisk
05-25-2006, 09:10 AM
I anticipate that Toronto will knock Jon around this weekend and that could signal his removal from the starting rotation.

No sir! Your hypothesis is flawed. In fact, quite the opposite will occur this weekend. Garland will most likely pitch deep into his start and shackle the Jays offense. He will smirk away with a nice win, capped off by several home runs by the Sox. This will happen, because I will be there, and my positive aura can shift tectonic plates if need be.

Oh yeah, like your reasoning was any better! :cool:

soxtalker
05-25-2006, 09:39 AM
... People sometimes talk about Jon's great stuff but I don't see it. I just hope that the Sox can get rid of this contract and don't have to swallow the big money. Why did KW give Jon this deal? I think he panicked when he thought he was going to lose both Contreras and Garland after this year.I love KW but he certainly blew this one. You can't win them all I guess.

I agree with the general sentiment that others have expressed, which is that he deserves much more time. It's a long season.

But I think that it is quite likely that we'll be seeing similar posts about one or two of the pitchers that KW signed in the next year or so. There will be injuries and/or players' skill will diminish. KW signed Jon and the others to provide flexibility and lower the Sox risk.

fuzzy_patters
05-25-2006, 09:43 AM
Most of you people are clueless. Jon very well may get his act together at some point, but some of you act like he has just had a few bad starts. Actually, he has only had one good start, and we are almost 1/3 of the way through the season. Garland has a 6.12 ERA and has allowed 13 homeruns. Our next worst starter, Javier Vazquez, is almost 2 runs better at 4.25. Buehrle has allowed the second most homeruns with 7. Furthermore, Contreras was not this bad during the first half of last season, either. Therefore, the comparisons to times that our other pitchers are invalid. A comparison to Jaime Navarro would be more accurate.

With that being said, I hope Garland pull himself out of this slump. He has the ability, and it is sad to see him wasting it. He needs to stop being afraid of the inside pitch. Almost every time that the catcher sats up inside when Garland is throwing, he winds up reaching back over the plate. For some reason, Garland has become gun shy in there. I think the Sox should give Cooper some more time to work with him if he thinks there is still help for Jon, but if he does not get his act together within his next few starts, Ozzie and KW will have to strongly consider moving him to the bullpen.

twsoxfan5
05-25-2006, 09:44 AM
I imagine Jon Garland will be traded by the end of the season b/c I feel he will prove that he is the worst on our staff. That is not saying he is horrible, but we need a spot for McCarthy next year and I think Garland will be traded to make room for that. I know that people were talking about a no trade clause, does anyone know the details? I.E. what teams are on it etc...

voodoochile
05-25-2006, 10:11 AM
No sir! Your hypothesis is flawed. In fact, quite the opposite will occur this weekend. Garland will most likely pitch deep into his start and shackle the Jays offense. He will smirk away with a nice win, capped off by several home runs by the Sox. This will happen, because I will be there, and my positive aura can shift tectonic plates if need be.

Oh yeah, like your reasoning was any better! :cool:

You've forgotten the FWC factor. West moved from Oakland to Toronto this year...:o:

SOXBOY
05-25-2006, 10:48 AM
Man how times change, we want to get rid of a good SP because he is not good enough?It was just two years ago we could not find a 5th starter.Oh by the way we won the world series with this bum!

ode to veeck
05-25-2006, 10:49 AM
Most of you people are clueless <...>

Jon has the stuff physically and doesn't have a torn labrum or other structural injury that took out a lot of our pitchers in the last few years. He's much more capable than say Danny Wright (who was injured) two years ago as our weakest starter and really has to find that mental groove to get himself through the game and the hitters. He has always, up to last year, seemed to struggle mentally not physically. I used to think he thought too much about it as he got to the 4th or 5th somewhere. I credit Cooper and Ozzie for really bringing him around and still think he's got a lot more potential than say Loaiza who really had a fluke year with and not nearly the stuff that Jon has consistently shown.

Baby Fisk
05-25-2006, 10:57 AM
You've forgotten the FWC factor. West moved from Oakland to Toronto this year...:o:
All FWC needs to do is glare towards Toronto from his new home, and the sweep will be assured. I will know this has happened when all of the pigeons and seagulls in the city go haywire all at the same time. :thumbsup:

Johnny Mostil
05-25-2006, 11:43 AM
Actually, he has only had one good start, and we are almost 1/3 of the way through the season.

Uh, OK, which was his one best start? I see four starts so far this year with at least 6 IP and no more than 3 ER. I didn't watch all four of those, so I've no idea in which game he had his best stuff.

162/4 =40.5. 162/3=54. Sox have played 46 (28.4% of season). I'm not sure I'd say "almost 1/3 of the way through the season," especially since Garland will have two more starts before game 54, no?

SOXPHILE
05-25-2006, 11:55 AM
I anticipate that Toronto will knock Jon around this weekend and that could signal his removal from the starting rotation. I would hope McCarthy would take his place but who knows. There is that matter of the three year contract and the no trade clause. Jon really is a very mediocre pitcher who even with his year last year had an ERA of 4.42 entering this campaign. And it has gone even higher. People sometimes talk about Jon's great stuff but I don't see it. I just hope that the Sox can get rid of this contract and don't have to swallow the big money. Why did KW give Jon this deal? I think he panicked when he thought he was going to lose both Contreras and Garland after this year.I love KW but he certainly blew this one. You can't win them all I guess.

Oh, I agree ! I'll take you even one better- It was a BIG mistake to re-sign Konerko for all that money. It's bad enough we already have a light hitting clubhouse cancer on our team in A.J., now they're tied in to all that money they owe Konerko, when he's already shown this year he can't live up to expectations. Also, put me down as agreeing with how the JD experiment MUST END NOW !!!

:dumbpeople:

INSox56
05-25-2006, 12:17 PM
There was a story on this in the newspaper today or yesterday. Don Cooper said Garland isn't going anywhere (i.e. out of the rotation to the bullpen) that he is going to get 200 innings from him again in 2006.

The story did speculate that unless Jon gets it together he could be shipped out the door this winter when he no longer has a no-trade provision to make room for McCarthy.

Lip

Same article that Coop says Jon's problem is not pitching inside. I think that he simply has to start doing that and we'll start seeing the Jon of last year. Simple as that.

fuzzy_patters
05-25-2006, 12:41 PM
Uh, OK, which was his one best start? I see four starts so far this year with at least 6 IP and no more than 3 ER. I didn't watch all four of those, so I've no idea in which game he had his best stuff.

162/4 =40.5. 162/3=54. Sox have played 46 (28.4% of season). I'm not sure I'd say "almost 1/3 of the way through the season," especially since Garland will have two more starts before game 54, no?

I stand corrected. I forgot about his starts against Kansas City and Seattle. That means he has pitched well against Tampa, Kansas City, and Seattle and has pitched poorly against Kansas City, Detroit, LAA, Minny, and Oakland. Do you see a theme here? Garland has pitched poorly everytime that he has faced a team in the top 10 hitting teams in the American League. I guess we can just keep on running him out there as long as he is facing one of the bottom four hitting teams. Oh wait! He has two poor starts against Kansas City and Oakland. I guess that won't work, either.

By the way, the season lasts six months, and we are three weeks into May. That is about 1/3 of the way into the season (as is 28.4%). Do you need to grab a dictionary and look up the definition of "about?"

kraut83
05-25-2006, 12:53 PM
Jon Garland would be a #2 starter on a handful of teams in the league. Maybe we should dig up Cy Young and drop him in the 5th spot. :rolleyes:

Tekijawa
05-25-2006, 01:00 PM
I anticipate that Toronto will knock Jon around this weekend and that could signal his removal from the starting rotation. I would hope McCarthy would take his place but who knows. There is that matter of the three year contract and the no trade clause. Jon really is a very mediocre pitcher who even with his year last year had an ERA of 4.42 entering this campaign. And it has gone even higher. People sometimes talk about Jon's great stuff but I don't see it. I just hope that the Sox can get rid of this contract and don't have to swallow the big money. Why did KW give Jon this deal? I think he panicked when he thought he was going to lose both Contreras and Garland after this year.I love KW but he certainly blew this one. You can't win them all I guess.

Well I'm not counting 2 of his wins and instead I am going to count them as losses. I'm also going to add 3 runs to his ERA because of all the errors behind him that are his fault, I'm also going to take away 14 strike outs because Paul Konerko wears 14... in my eyes Garland is 1-5 with a 9.12 ERA and 15 Strike outs!

fuzzy_patters
05-25-2006, 01:02 PM
Are you comparing Jon Garland's >6 ERA to Cy Young?:rolleyes:

As for the contention that Garland would be the #2 starter on some teams, do we aspire to be like those teams? Do you want to be the Royals and the Devil Rays? Are you aware that only 7 pitchers in the American League that have made at least 3 starts have a higher ERA than Jon Garland?

kwolf68
05-25-2006, 01:07 PM
I like Garland and think he will be fine, but I just hate it because so many said last year was a fluke...and he's started this year slow.

Hopefully, his 2nd half this year will be like his first half last year.

ode to veeck
05-25-2006, 01:27 PM
I stand corrected. I forgot about his starts against Kansas City and Seattle. That means he has pitched well against Tampa, Kansas City, and Seattle and has pitched poorly against Kansas City, Detroit, LAA, Minny, and Oakland. Do you see a theme here? Garland has pitched poorly everytime that he has faced a team in the top 10 hitting teams in the American League. I guess we can just keep on running him out there as long as he is facing one of the bottom four hitting teams. Oh wait! He has two poor starts against Kansas City and Oakland. I guess that won't work, either.

By the way, the season lasts six months, and we are three weeks into May. That is about 1/3 of the way into the season (as is 28.4%). Do you need to grab a dictionary and look up the definition of "about?"

sorry but this is nothing but a :darkclouds: rant and rave

Jon's gonna stay in there as Coop says and get 200 innings this year. His results have more to do with his mentality than "best hitters"

maybe we should not count those starts against KC and Seattle (right next to Shoota's not counting Crede HRs)

Johnny Mostil
05-25-2006, 01:28 PM
By the way, the season lasts six months, and we are three weeks into May. That is about 1/3 of the way into the season (as is 28.4%). Do you need to grab a dictionary and look up the definition of "about?"

Wow, you're touchy. Such sweetness must bring readers flocking to your blog. Too bad the season is measured in games and not months . . .

But let's see, "about." I assume you used it as an adverb, specifically, "reasonably close to." I think 28.4 percent is more "reasonably close to" 25 percent than 33.3 percent. Most, if not all, persons able to grab a calculator or even work the elementary math involved here by hand would agree. Furthermore, Garland has made 9 starts; assuming he gets his full complement of 32 in a five-man rotation, then he's only made 28.1 percent of his starts and needs two more--or, for those of you keeping score at home, an increase of 22.2 percent of those he's already made--before he surpasses a third of his starts for the season.

I agree only four of nine "good" starts so far isn't a good sign, but (1) if his next two starts are good then most of them will be before a third of the season is over and (2) you really ought to be more precise before calling other folks "clueless."

Good enough for you, sugarplum?

fuzzy_patters
05-25-2006, 01:31 PM
Wow, you're touchy. Such sweetness must bring readers flocking to your blog. Too bad the season is measured in games and not months . . .

But let's see, "about." I assume you used it as an adverb, specifically, "reasonably close to." I think 28.4 percent is more "reasonably close to" 25 percent than 33.3 percent. Most, if not all, persons able to grab a calculator or even work the elementary math involved here by hand would agree. Furthermore, Garland has made 9 starts; assuming he gets his full complement of 32 in a five-man rotation, then he's only made 28.1 percent of his starts and needs two more--or, for those of you keeping score at home, an increase of 22.2 percent of those he's already made--before he surpasses a third of his starts for the season.

I agree only four of nine "good" starts so far isn't a good sign, but (1) if his next two starts are good then most of them will be before a third of the season is over and (2) you really ought to be more precise before calling other folks "clueless."

Good enough for you, sugarplum?

Sure, you are arguing that Garland is pitching well. Is that correct? Well enough to pitch on a championship team, sugarplum?

kwolf68
05-25-2006, 01:34 PM
Sugerplum? lol

ode to veeck
05-25-2006, 01:34 PM
Sure, you are arguing that Garland is pitching well. Is that correct?

Nobody is saying this

Well enough to pitch on a championship team, sugarplum?

Absolutely! Garland belongs on OUR championship Sox!

fuzzy_patters
05-25-2006, 01:38 PM
Nobody is saying this



Absolutely! Garland belongs on OUR championship Sox!

I am not sure why we are having this argument, then. In my initial post, I said that Garland deserved more time, but he should go to the bullpen if he does not start pitching better, which would meant that he would still be on the team. IF you agreed with me, why the hell did you reply in the first place?

kraut83
05-25-2006, 01:57 PM
Are you comparing Jon Garland's >6 ERA to Cy Young?:rolleyes:

As for the contention that Garland would be the #2 starter on some teams, do we aspire to be like those teams? Do you want to be the Royals and the Devil Rays? Are you aware that only 7 pitchers in the American League that have made at least 3 starts have a higher ERA than Jon Garland?

No, I'm saying that the Sox have the luxury of 4 starters currently better than him, and that he's an adequate #5. As far as your comparison of pitchers with over 3 starts, how many teams have a revolving door at the end of their rotation, and keep trotting the latest AAA flavor of the month as their #5?

SoxFan64
05-25-2006, 02:16 PM
I love Sox Fans we are looking at the "Bright Side of Life" (http://www.thebards.net/music/lyrics/Always_Look_Bright_Side_Life.shtml)

Johnny Mostil
05-25-2006, 02:16 PM
Sure, you are arguing that Garland is pitching well. Is that correct? Well enough to pitch on a championship team, sugarplum?

No, honeybuns, only that you overstated the case when you said Garland had only one good start and that a season is one-third over. My own point of view is probably closer to yours than most anybody else who has posted.

I know it's only a baseball discussion, so civility shouldn't always be expected, but do you really think you're persuading anybody?

maurice
05-25-2006, 02:19 PM
As for the contention that Garland would be the #2 starter on some teams, do we aspire to be like those teams?

No, we aspire to be a team that has him as their #4 or #5 starter. In fact, we ARE that team.
:rolleyes:

Dan H
05-25-2006, 02:31 PM
I don't want Garland out of the rotation and we will have to wait to see what he does in Toronto and for many starts after that. However, he tailed off somwhat after the break last year and is off to a rough start this year. And until last year, he was not a big winner.

Having said that, I know he is still very young and still has a strong, healthy arm. It just has been frustrating so far this season to watch him getting his hat handed to him.

The Sox are 31-15 so far with a sub-par Garland. It's nice to think what the Sox would be if the guy gets his stuff back together. Taking any rash actions like removing him from the rotation is something the Cubs might do. I only hope some quality starts are on the way.

fuzzy_patters
05-25-2006, 03:00 PM
I don't want Garland out of the rotation and we will have to wait to see what he does in Toronto and for many starts after that. However, he tailed off somwhat after the break last year and is off to a rough start this year. And until last year, he was not a big winner.

Having said that, I know he is still very young and still has a strong, healthy arm. It just has been frustrating so far this season to watch him getting his hat handed to him.

The Sox are 31-15 so far with a sub-par Garland. It's nice to think what the Sox would be if the guy gets his stuff back together. Taking any rash actions like removing him from the rotation is something the Cubs might do. I only hope some quality starts are on the way.
I understand your point. However, the Sox have had a lot of success with moving guys to the bullpen in the past. Alex Fernandez and James Baldwin were both moved to the bullpen at one point in their careers where they could not hurt the team as bad while they worked things out. Once they started pitching better, they were moved back into the rotation. This would also give us a chance to find out exactly what we have in McCarthy. We may need him in the future, or we could showcase him for a trade.

Having said that, I think Garland should be given a couple more starts first. I have noticed that Widger has caught several of his off games, so maybe they should think about letting AJ catch him next time. However, I do think that the end of May is generally a good time to reevaluate your players, and we are almost there.

Chips
05-25-2006, 03:26 PM
:chickenlittle

maurice
05-25-2006, 03:50 PM
Alex Fernandez and James Baldwin were both moved to the bullpen

:?:
According to baseball-reference.com, Fernandez had a grand total of 2 relief appearances in his entire MLB career, both when he was 21 years old.

In other news, Garland > Baldwin.

TomBradley72
05-25-2006, 03:53 PM
I anticipate that Toronto will knock Jon around this weekend and that could signal his removal from the starting rotation. I would hope McCarthy would take his place but who knows. There is that matter of the three year contract and the no trade clause. Jon really is a very mediocre pitcher who even with his year last year had an ERA of 4.42 entering this campaign. And it has gone even higher. People sometimes talk about Jon's great stuff but I don't see it. I just hope that the Sox can get rid of this contract and don't have to swallow the big money. Why did KW give Jon this deal? I think he panicked when he thought he was going to lose both Contreras and Garland after this year.I love KW but he certainly blew this one. You can't win them all I guess.

Roadhouse material. :angry:

Chips
05-25-2006, 03:55 PM
:?:


In other news, Garland > Baldwin.

Without a doubt.

Does this even need to be stated?

maurice
05-25-2006, 03:57 PM
To put things into perspective, a starting pitcher with a "terrible, disappointing" 4.50 ERA usually finishes somewhere around 15-30 in the AL at the end of the year.

There are 70 starting pitcher slots in the AL (14 teams x 5 slots / team).

HotelWhiteSox
05-25-2006, 04:26 PM
http://www.kshs.org/exhibits/blc/graphics/custer.jpg

I resent this thread

hawkjt
05-25-2006, 04:40 PM
no doubt a dumb thread.

but I have a question;

What exactly is the no-trade clause in Jon's contract?

Is it for this year and next year only?

Just want to be armed with this info to shut up the next stupid fan I talk to that suggests trading him.

balke
05-25-2006, 04:57 PM
Why does this thread still exist? Gotta love the idiots who think Mccarthy is somehow ready to take over Jon Garland's spot. Mccarthy has "gotten his hat handed to him" in basically every game he's started this season. He's the perfect long reliever for this team, and perhaps the best arm in the pen. But he'll be around for a while, there's no need to get your nipples in a twist cause you wanna see him in the rotation now.

Garland is still a winner and had a great game a couple starts ago. He's at least 5 straight losses from Ozzie even thinking of starting Mccarthy over him. And that won't happen, because he's too good of a pitcher. I'm bumping this thread after he has 4 more starts.

fuzzy_patters
05-25-2006, 05:15 PM
:?:
According to baseball-reference.com, Fernandez had a grand total of 2 relief appearances in his entire MLB career, both when he was 21 years old.

In other news, Garland > Baldwin.

IIRC, Alex Fernandez pitched in relief at AAA in July of 1991 or 1992 because he had mechanical issues. The Sox felt that there were better places to work on mechanics than in a big league starting rotation.

By the way, I agree that Garland was better than Baldwin last year. I hope he will be better in the future. None of that changes the fact that taking the pressure away sometimes can help a pitcher.

ode to veeck
05-25-2006, 06:53 PM
I am not sure why we are having this argument, then. In my initial post, I said that Garland deserved more time, but he should go to the bullpen if he does not start pitching better, which would meant that he would still be on the team. IF you agreed with me, why the hell did you reply in the first place?

I don't agree with you, Garland should NOT be relegated to the pen

bigredrudy
05-25-2006, 07:20 PM
I started this thread and I just want to add this. Jon's next three starts are against Toronto, Texas, and Detroit. We will know more after these three starts. If Jon's ERA is still over 6, I would have to think that there might be a change-especially in view of the poor second half Jon had last year.

Chips
05-25-2006, 07:38 PM
I started this thread and I just want to add this. Jon's next three starts are against Toronto, Texas, and Detroit. We will know more after these three starts. If Jon's ERA is still over 6, I would have to think that there might be a change-especially in view of the poor second half Jon had last year.

Since his first two games, Jon has pitched fine with the exception of the Minnesota game. His problem this year seems to be giving up the long ball. He has given up 13 jacks this season.

Rob190
05-25-2006, 07:46 PM
Since his first two games, Jon has pitched fine with the exception of the Minnesota game. His problem this year seems to be giving up the long ball. He has given up 13 jacks this season.

Garland also isn't using his sinker and pitching inside. I believe in order for him to be successful, he has to bust the hitters inside, like he did against the D-rays.

Ol' No. 2
05-25-2006, 10:25 PM
I started this thread and I just want to add this. Jon's next three starts are against Toronto, Texas, and Detroit. We will know more after these three starts. If Jon's ERA is still over 6, I would have to think that there might be a change-especially in view of the poor second half Jon had last year.Maybe Cintron can pitch and Garland can play SS.:rolleyes:

RKMeibalane
05-25-2006, 11:24 PM
http://www.petitionspot.com/uploads/9634-jesus-thread-sucks.gif

bigredrudy
05-28-2006, 07:15 PM
It was a good day for Jon. His ERA only rose to 6.25 and he only surrendered 3 homeruns making his total for the year of only 16. I am sure Jon is leading the league. Hawk said he did a great job-that is all that matters.

JUribe1989
05-28-2006, 07:18 PM
It was a good day for Jon. His ERA only rose to 6.25 and he only surrendered 3 homeruns making his total for the year of only 16. I am sure Jon is leading the league. Hawk said he did a great job-that is all that matters.

Jon's last stand

....(cue the John Wayne Western music)

:D:

We won, stop bitching.

Ol' No. 2
05-28-2006, 07:20 PM
It was a good day for Jon. His ERA only rose to 6.25 and he only surrendered 3 homeruns making his total for the year of only 16. I am sure Jon is leading the league. Hawk said he did a great job-that is all that matters.They have eyes, but they do not see...

SoxEd
05-28-2006, 07:20 PM
It was a good day for Jon. His ERA only rose to 6.25 and he only surrendered 3 homeruns making his total for the year of only 16. I am sure Jon is leading the league. Hawk said he did a great job-that is all that matters.

And the score when JG left the game was..?

Who got the W?

Sure, that was no Complete Game shutout, let alone a no-no, but he outperformed the opposition, (who just beat us in the two previous games remember) and we won the game.

Call me a silly, sentimental, old fool if you will, but that'll do for me.

I don't care if his ERA gets as high as 12, if we win every game he pitches.

beckett21
05-28-2006, 07:35 PM
Jon actually pitched very well until the 6th. Made a couple mistakes, but with a big lead you can afford to let them put the ball in play.

Overall I was satisfied with his outing today.

FarWestChicago
05-28-2006, 09:20 PM
bigredrudy sure reminds me of charlie browned. I wonder... :redneck

jongarlandlover
05-28-2006, 09:48 PM
Jon actually pitched very well until the 6th. Made a couple mistakes, but with a big lead you can afford to let them put the ball in play.

Overall I was satisfied with his outing today.

I agree. He had only given up 2 hits before that 6th inning with the home runs. He was pitching inside more, so I'm assuming he's regaining some confidence, confidence he himself said he was losing.

I was pretty happy with his outing today, it was probably his best of the year.

santo=dorf
05-28-2006, 09:55 PM
it was probably his best of the year.
Sorry, that's not good enough. It's near June and he's still pitching like crap. He has given up way, way too many homers for a supposed groundball pitcher.

Chips
05-28-2006, 10:02 PM
I was pretty happy with his outing today, it was probably his best of the year.
What about his 8 innings against Seattle? He gave up 3 runs that one.

Or his two outings against Kansas City where he only gave up 1 run?

patbooyah
05-28-2006, 10:06 PM
I'm sorry, but you can't honestly say that Jon has been lights out or that you feel confident with him going forward. The only reason he got the win today was because he was going against a AAAA pitcher who the Sox lit up.

The issue to me is that we are paying Jon 7 million this year, 10 million next year and 12 million in 2008. That is almost exactly what the Jndians are paying C.C. Sabathia (7+ mil this year, 10 next). Jon was solid last year, but for that amount of money he really needs to prove that he can sustain that success.

You can go on and on about how most teams would kill to have Jon as a #5 starter, but not at 7 million they wouldn't.

slobes
05-28-2006, 11:40 PM
I agree. He had only given up 2 hits before that 6th inning with the home runs. He was pitching inside more, so I'm assuming he's regaining some confidence, confidence he himself said he was losing.

I was pretty happy with his outing today, it was probably his best of the year.\

Confidence is exactly what he needs. Last year he had a good start, which gave him confidence. This year he was even quoted saying that he had lost his confidence, which is a terrible thing for a pitcher. Hopefully this'll start him back on the right track.

All that matters is the W.

Mohoney
05-28-2006, 11:43 PM
You can go on and on about how most teams would kill to have Jon as a #5 starter, but not at 7 million they wouldn't.

I don't know. $7-million-plus seems to be right around the going rate for a guaranteed 200+ innings of above-average starting pitching.

patbooyah
05-28-2006, 11:44 PM
I don't know. $7-million-plus seems to be right around the going rate for a guaranteed 200+ innings of above-average starting pitching.

nothing about jon's performances this year has been above average. i'm not saying he doesn't have it in him, but CC has outperformed him so far this year.

Ol' No. 2
05-28-2006, 11:45 PM
nothing about jon's performances this year has been above average. i'm not saying he doesn't have it in him, but CC has outperformed him so far this year.And who would you have gotten instead of Garland for $7M?

chaerulez
05-29-2006, 12:03 AM
Jon's ERA is over 6. Maybe on the Royals that's fine, but I don't think we need a starter with a ERA over 6. Yes we won, but that was due to the run support. Garland will not get run support like this all the time. McCarthy didn't do so well in his start this year, but if he gets 4 or 5 starts I think there's a good chance his ERA will not be over 6.

soxjim
05-29-2006, 12:08 AM
The SOX won thats the bottom line. Jon Garland from the start in todays game tried to go inside more which can only help him with his confidence.

santo=dorf
05-29-2006, 12:15 AM
I don't know. $7-million-plus seems to be right around the going rate for a guaranteed 200+ innings of above-average starting pitching.
How about $10 million?
How about $12 million?

...and how the hell can anyone call Garland's pitching this year "above-average?"

jongarlandlover
05-29-2006, 12:46 AM
What about his 8 innings against Seattle? He gave up 3 runs that one.

Or his two outings against Kansas City where he only gave up 1 run?

True.

I think I missed those starts cos I had something for school...ugh.

Oh, and to slobes - He needs his confidence back so he can start working batter inside. And it appears that he's getting it back.

patbooyah
05-29-2006, 01:20 AM
And who would you have gotten instead of Garland for $7M?

i wouldn't have signed anyone. i would have let garland pitch this year and prove that he wasn't a fluke.

champagne030
05-29-2006, 01:20 AM
How about $10 million?
How about $12 million?

...and how the hell can anyone call Garland's pitching this year "above-average?"

It's clearly not above average, but he has the ability. It's all in his head. I'll still stay that the Angels game during the playoffs has screwed his mind. He had a 10 day layoff and blew them away with two pitches - a 94-95 mph fastball and a straight change. He cannot pitch that way on normal rest. AJ was quoted earlier this season about Jon looking at the radar gun after each fastball. Jon needs to get it through his thick head that his out pitch is the sinker and quit trying K guys with his fastball. Jon, your fastball is for show, the sinkerball is your dough!

TDog
05-29-2006, 05:30 AM
And yet, Garland was the only Sox pitcher to win in Toronto and Tampa Bay. I can remember when the Sox's weakest starter never won games.

Had the game been closer, Ozzie wouldn't have left Garland in as long. As it was, he didn't pitch as badly in Toronto as Garcia did.

Fixate on something else.

Ol' No. 2
05-29-2006, 09:24 AM
i wouldn't have signed anyone. i would have let garland pitch this year and prove that he wasn't a fluke.I'm going to write that down and we'll revisit it in October. Even last year, sub-.500 pitchers were going for $9-10M a year. I'm sure the going rate for next year will be far beyond what they'll be paying Garland. Also, if they let him walk, they'd get nothing. With him signed, they could trade him next winter as part of a deal for a big-name player. Don't kid yourself. There are lots of teams that would love to have Jon Garland for that amount of money.

dickallen15
05-29-2006, 09:40 AM
The SOX won thats the bottom line. Jon Garland from the start in todays game tried to go inside more which can only help him with his confidence.

Don't listen to Hawk and DJ. They also said Garcia threw well Friday, but Toronto's hitters are so hot. Garcia, and Ozzie, and Cooper all said Freddy threw like crap. If he gets confidence out of a game he gives up 3 long balls and an ERA of 7.50, that scares me. With Garland, the $7 million the Sox are paying him this year is probably less than they would have had to pay him if they just let him go to arbitration. His payoff was the next 2 years. The only other White Sox contract that I recall being so backloaded was Ordonez', and if you recall the Sox tried to trade him the offseason before his at the market or above money was kicking in. That was before any of his injuries. Garland will pitch some great games this year, and a few more pitiful ones. He's pretty much been the same pitcher his whole career, except for the first 2 months of 2005.

TornLabrum
05-29-2006, 11:34 AM
Don't listen to Hawk and DJ. They also said Garcia threw well Friday, but Toronto's hitters are so hot. Garcia, and Ozzie, and Cooper all said Freddy threw like crap. If he gets confidence out of a game he gives up 3 long balls and an ERA of 7.50, that scares me. With Garland, the $7 million the Sox are paying him this year is probably less than they would have had to pay him if they just let him go to arbitration. His payoff was the next 2 years. The only other White Sox contract that I recall being so backloaded was Ordonez', and if you recall the Sox tried to trade him the offseason before his at the market or above money was kicking in. That was before any of his injuries. Garland will pitch some great games this year, and a few more pitiful ones. He's pretty much been the same pitcher his whole career, except for the first 2 months of 2005.

If I'm Garland I get confidence from the fact that I owned the inside of the plate, and the ones they hit off me were mistakes out over the plate. There are two things that I work on:

1) Continuing to work the inside;

2) Getting the ball DOWN when it's over the plate.

slavko
05-29-2006, 11:53 AM
If I'm Garland I get confidence from the fact that I owned the inside of the plate, and the ones they hit off me were mistakes out over the plate. There are two things that I work on:

1) Continuing to work the inside;

2) Getting the ball DOWN when it's over the plate.

#2 says it all. Garland has said the same recently. His stuff doesn't work unless it's down, like any other sinkerball pitcher. When he throws belt high, it gets ripped. When they're down, the batter can't tell the sinker from the fastball from the change and he's hard to hit. There has to be something (like striding too long) keeping him from getting the ball down.

patbooyah
05-29-2006, 12:12 PM
I'm going to write that down and we'll revisit it in October. Even last year, sub-.500 pitchers were going for $9-10M a year. I'm sure the going rate for next year will be far beyond what they'll be paying Garland. Also, if they let him walk, they'd get nothing. With him signed, they could trade him next winter as part of a deal for a big-name player. Don't kid yourself. There are lots of teams that would love to have Jon Garland for that amount of money.
i'd be surprised if there was a team willing to pay 10 million bucks for a pitcher with a 6.25 ERA and 1.53 ERA all under the guidance of don cooper.

jon garland signed a 3 year deal worth about 31 million. johan santana signed a 4 year deal worth 40 million. just because some teams are willing to overpay doesn't mean the sox should.

i'd love for jon garland to be worth 10 million next year. but he's going to have to start throwing like an ace to earn that cash. now. especially when one could argue that brandon mccarthy is a suitable replacement. at a savings of 6.7 million dollars this year, and 9.7 next year.

SweetnesSox
05-29-2006, 01:10 PM
i'd love for jon garland to be worth 10 million next year. but he's going to have to start throwing like an ace to earn that cash.

ace's don't make 7-10 mil per year... weren't they offering 40-something roger clemens 18 mil??

look at last uear's free agent signings. injury-plagued, sub-.500, 5+ ERA pitchers were goin for 10 mil a year.

jongarlandlover
05-29-2006, 01:16 PM
If I'm Garland I get confidence from the fact that I owned the inside of the plate, and the ones they hit off me were mistakes out over the plate. There are two things that I work on:

1) Continuing to work the inside;

2) Getting the ball DOWN when it's over the plate.

I agree completely. When he works inside he's awesome. And he does need to get his pitches to go down, he's a sinkerball pitcher. If he had kept a few pitches from staying up yesterday, his stats would have looked a whole lot better.

I still think that yesterday was a great outing for him. Before I think it was the 6th inning, he had only allowed two hits. And he owned the inside of the plate. Hopefully, he'll regain his confidence from that outing.

patbooyah
05-29-2006, 01:27 PM
ace's don't make 7-10 mil per year... weren't they offering 40-something roger clemens 18 mil??

look at last uear's free agent signings. injury-plagued, sub-.500, 5+ ERA pitchers were goin for 10 mil a year.
i meant that jon is going to have to pitch like an ace to make his numbers match what he's earning. the season is a fourth of the way over and he needs to bring those numbers down.

and i repeat: just because desperate teams like the rangers and the mariners are overpaying for guys doesn't mean the sox have to. garland is making what sabathia and santana are making. heck, even elarton is out performing him for 3 million less. he needs to step it up.

santo=dorf
05-29-2006, 01:36 PM
look at last uear's free agent signings. injury-plagued, sub-.500, 5+ ERA pitchers were goin for 10 mil a year.
Like whom?
Not Millwood, not Burnett, and not Washburn

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=agentsign&prov=st&type=lgns

Grzegorz
05-29-2006, 01:42 PM
With him signed, they could trade him next winter as part of a deal for a big-name player. Don't kid yourself. There are lots of teams that would love to have Jon Garland for that amount of money.

Write that down; I fully expect to see this event come to fruition.

SoxEd
05-29-2006, 04:13 PM
and i repeat: just because desperate teams like the rangers and the mariners are overpaying for guys doesn't mean the sox have to.

Actually, it does - when the supply of any commodity that is ALWAYS in demand (e.g. WS-calibre pitchers) is short, the price for that commodity invariably rises.


garland is making what sabathia and santana are making. heck, even elarton is out performing him for 3 million less. he needs to step it up.

That bit is true, but: when did Captain Cheeseburger sign his current contract?

How much are last season's crop of FA pitchers banking now?

Sure, Jon needs to get his head/action straight and get back up towards last year's performance, but who (with a better track record than Jon) could we have got cheaper?

I think that DC (et al) should be able to turn JG around - after all, he managed to do it last year, so why not his year too?
(I hope so anyway :wink:.)

Ol' No. 2
05-29-2006, 07:05 PM
i'd be surprised if there was a team willing to pay 10 million bucks for a pitcher with a 6.25 ERA and 1.53 ERA all under the guidance of don cooper.

jon garland signed a 3 year deal worth about 31 million. johan santana signed a 4 year deal worth 40 million. just because some teams are willing to overpay doesn't mean the sox should.

i'd love for jon garland to be worth 10 million next year. but he's going to have to start throwing like an ace to earn that cash. now. especially when one could argue that brandon mccarthy is a suitable replacement. at a savings of 6.7 million dollars this year, and 9.7 next year.AJ Burnett: Signed with Toronto for 5/$55M. Career 49-51, 6.30 ERA (in the NL).
Oh, and by the way, he's on the DL and has started TWO games this year.

The year before the Yankees signed Carl Pavano for 4/$40M. Career 61-64, 4.27 ERA (NL). He's also on the DL and has started NO games this year.

There are others, but I've grown bored with this. The fact is, $10M/yr doesn't buy much pitching on the FA market.

Garland is 68-63, with a career 4.53 ERA (AL). Is Jon starting to look a little better?

BTW, Garland's contract is 3/$28M, including this year at $7M, which is about what he'd have gotten in arbitration anyway, so it has no real bearing on this year.

Ol' No. 2
05-29-2006, 07:08 PM
If I'm Garland I get confidence from the fact that I owned the inside of the plate, and the ones they hit off me were mistakes out over the plate. There are two things that I work on:

1) Continuing to work the inside;

2) Getting the ball DOWN when it's over the plate.I'll add one more:

3) When a hitter moves back off the plate because you've been busting him inside, throw the slider away.

soxinem1
05-29-2006, 07:27 PM
Sorry, that's not good enough. It's near June and he's still pitching like crap. He has given up way, way too many homers for a supposed groundball pitcher.

Garland is pitching like he has during his whole career, minus 3 1/2 months of 2005 and one playoff start. Did anyone honestly expect he was going to be any better?

If Jerry Manuel was right about one thing, it was Garland. He can throw 3, 4, or 5 innings and look like Cy Young, then almost instantly becomes Jaime Navarro.

Hitmen77
05-29-2006, 07:30 PM
AJ Burnett: Signed with Toronto for 5/$55M. Career 49-51, 6.30 ERA (in the NL).
Oh, and by the way, he's on the DL and has started TWO games this year.

The year before the Yankees signed Carl Pavano for 4/$40M. Career 61-64, 4.27 ERA (NL). He's also on the DL and has started NO games this year.

There are others, but I've grown bored with this. The fact is, $10M/yr doesn't buy much pitching on the FA market.

Garland is 68-63, with a career 4.53 ERA (AL). Is Jon starting to look a little better?

BTW, Garland's contract is 3/$28M, including this year at $7M, which is about what he'd have gotten in arbitration anyway, so it has no real bearing on this year.

Don't forget that Garland has averaged 205 innings pitched over the last 4 seasons. I think there are quite a few teams that would love to have another 200+ inning pitcher.

patbooyah
05-29-2006, 07:32 PM
AJ Burnett: Signed with Toronto for 5/$55M. Career 49-51, 6.30 ERA (in the NL).
Oh, and by the way, he's on the DL and has started TWO games this year.

The year before the Yankees signed Carl Pavano for 4/$40M. Career 61-64, 4.27 ERA (NL). He's also on the DL and has started NO games this year.

There are others, but I've grown bored with this. The fact is, $10M/yr doesn't buy much pitching on the FA market.

Garland is 68-63, with a career 4.53 ERA (AL). Is Jon starting to look a little better?
no, he's not. because for as many examples of people being overpaid, there are as many examples of people being underpaid (santana/sabathia).

heck, garland is making about what mark is making.

i've grown bored with this, too. my only point is that with his 6+ ERA jon is NOT worth the money we are paying him now. he REALLY isn't worth the money we are scheduled to pay him next year. and REALLY REALLY isn't worth the money we are scheduled to pay him the year after that. he has to turn it on. and i really hope he does.

even if garland pitched lights out this year we could have signed him for basically the same amount come november. with way less risk.

and soxed- one luxury of having a guy like brandon mccarthy is that the sox DON'T have to pay more than market value. we have a capable fifth starter at the cost of 300k. we could have let garland pitch this entire year before deciding to give him his raise.

just because pitchers are overpaid one offseason doesn't mean they will be the next. i have a feeling that after seeing so many teams be burned this year (burnett) the price people are willing to pay for an iffy pitcher will go down. (EDIT: not calling garland iffy. calling burnett iffy.)

and finally, i don't want to see garland fail. i want him to prove that he is worth every cent.

Daver
05-29-2006, 07:38 PM
no, he's not. because for as many examples of people being overpaid, there are as many examples of people being underpaid (santana/sabathia).

heck, garland is making about what mark is making.

i've grown bored with this, too. my only point is that with his 6+ ERA jon is NOT worth the money we are paying him now. he REALLY isn't worth the money we are scheduled to pay him next year. and REALLY REALLY isn't worth the money we are scheduled to pay him the year after that. he has to turn it on. and i really hope he does.

even if garland pitched lights out this year we could have signed him for basically the same amount come november. with way less risk.

and soxed- one luxury of having a guy like brandon mccarthy is that the sox DON'T have to pay more than market value. we have a capable fifth starter at the cost of 300k. we could have let garland pitch this entire year before deciding to give him his raise.

just because pitchers are overpaid one offseason doesn't mean they will be the next. i have a feeling that after seeing so many teams be burned this year (burnett) the price people are willing to pay for an iffy pitcher will go down.

and finally, i don't want to see garland fail. i want him to prove that he is worth every cent.


Pitching, especially starting pitching, is the most valuable commodity in all of baseball, you do what it takes to keep it, having a surplus makes what you even more valuable when it comes time to answer offers from another team.

patbooyah
05-29-2006, 07:42 PM
Pitching, especially starting pitching, is the most valuable commodity in all of baseball, you do what it takes to keep it, having a surplus makes what you even more valuable when it comes time to answer offers from another team.

well, i don't consider a starter with a 6+ ERA who is owed about 27 million to be an asset.

now if he starts working both sides of the plate that's another story. I hope he does.

Ol' No. 2
05-29-2006, 07:43 PM
no, he's not. because for as many examples of people being overpaid, there are as many examples of people being underpaid (santana/sabathia).

heck, garland is making about what mark is making.

i've grown bored with this, too. my only point is that with his 6+ ERA jon is NOT worth the money we are paying him now. he REALLY isn't worth the money we are scheduled to pay him next year. and REALLY REALLY isn't worth the money we are scheduled to pay him the year after that. he has to turn it on. and i really hope he does.

even if garland pitched lights out this year we could have signed him for basically the same amount come november. with way less risk.

and soxed- one luxury of having a guy like brandon mccarthy is that the sox DON'T have to pay more than market value. we have a capable fifth starter at the cost of 300k. we could have let garland pitch this entire year before deciding to give him his raise.

just because pitchers are overpaid one offseason doesn't mean they will be the next. i have a feeling that after seeing so many teams be burned this year (burnett) the price people are willing to pay for an iffy pitcher will go down. (EDIT: not calling garland iffy. calling burnett iffy.)

and finally, i don't want to see garland fail. i want him to prove that he is worth every cent.Certainly there are a lot of pitchers that are underpaid. There's just one catch: YOU CAN'T GET THEM. Sure, I'd rather have Santana for the same money as Garland. I'd also like a Ferrari for the same price as my VW.

When you enter the realm of the possible, you'll find that you can't really expect to do better for the same money.

Daver
05-29-2006, 07:43 PM
well, i don't consider a starter with a 6+ ERA who is owed about 27 million to be an asset.

now if he starts working both sides of the plate that's another story. I hope he does.

Look at it from the Yankees point of view, they would love to have that in their rotation right now.

Ol' No. 2
05-29-2006, 07:47 PM
Look at it from the Yankees point of view, they would love to have that in their rotation right now.As would about 28 other teams. (Well, maybe not the Marlins.) Garland is making $7M this year, which is EXTREMELY reasonable. Even his $9M for 2007 is not out of line with what the market has set. And by the time he's making his $12 in 2008, who knows what the market rate for a pitcher like him will be (if he's even with the White Sox).

patbooyah
05-29-2006, 07:59 PM
As would about 28 other teams. (Well, maybe not the Marlins.) Garland is making $7M this year, which is EXTREMELY reasonable. Even his $9M for 2007 is not out of line with what the market has set. And by the time he's making his $12 in 2008, who knows what the market rate for a pitcher like him will be (if he's even with the White Sox).
i guess this is where we have to agree to disagree. i don't think that 7 million is reasonable for a pitcher with jon's stats so far (EDIT: ie 4 quality starts and only against the powerhouses that are KC, SEA, TB). as i've said about 2000 times during this thread, i hope he manages to turn it around.

but if he doesn't, i will regret that the white sox signed him before the season and not after he had proven that he is capable of maintaining numbers similar to last year's. Heck, I'd be satisfied if he matched his pre-career year standard of high 4s ERA.

balke
05-29-2006, 08:27 PM
Armchair GM's. The thread should've started with "I want Jason Grilli back as our 5th starter". This is as bad as the Jeremy Reed thread. We are so spoiled with pitching, we have to bitch about having a 5th starter who is going to help us stay in control of the division all season long. These people obviously didn't watch the White Sox play baseball 2-3 years ago when the Sox didn't know you actually have to have 5 pitchers to fill a 5-man rotation.

Its not surprising these are some of the same people who would have the nerve to quote Jerry Manuel as a source of baseball knowledge.

I'll also add that its ridiculous that people are thinking Jon's going to end the season with a 6+ ERA. Medication people.

patbooyah
05-29-2006, 08:33 PM
Armchair GM's. The thread should've started with "I want Jason Grilli back as our 5th starter". This is as bad as the Jeremy Reed thread. We are so spoiled with pitching, we have to bitch about having a 5th starter who is going to help us stay in control of the division all season long. These people obviously didn't watch the White Sox play baseball 2-3 years ago when the Sox didn't know you actually have to have 5 pitchers to fill a 5-man rotation.

Its not surprising these are some of the same people who would have the nerve to quote Jerry Manuel as a source of baseball knowledge.

I'll also add that its ridiculous that people are thinking Jon's going to end the season with a 6+ ERA. Medication people.

i think we can have this discussion without insulting people.

i agree that having 5 quality starters is important. garland hasn't been quality. not for any sum. we can all agree we hope he starts.

Ol' No. 2
05-29-2006, 08:34 PM
i guess this is where we have to agree to disagree. i don't think that 7 million is reasonable for a pitcher with jon's stats so far (EDIT: ie 4 quality starts and only against the powerhouses that are KC, SEA, TB). as i've said about 2000 times during this thread, i hope he manages to turn it around.

but if he doesn't, i will regret that the white sox signed him before the season and not after he had proven that he is capable of maintaining numbers similar to last year's. Heck, I'd be satisfied if he matched his pre-career year standard of high 4s ERA.Just as players who get off to hot starts can generally be expected to cool off, players who get off to bad starts can generally be expected to improve. Except for his rookie year, Garland has never had a 5 ERA season. He is a lifetime 4.53 ERA, above .500 pitcher. You can't get those for $7M. It's still May. Relax.

patbooyah
05-29-2006, 08:35 PM
Just as players who get off to hot starts can generally be expected to cool off, players who get off to bad starts can generally be expected to improve. Except for his rookie year, Garland has never had a 5 ERA season. He is a lifetime 4.53 ERA, above .500 pitcher. You can't get those for $7M. It's still May. Relax.

here's to hoping!! :cheers:

beckett21
05-29-2006, 08:37 PM
Just as players who get off to hot starts can generally be expected to cool off, players who get off to bad starts can generally be expected to improve. Except for his rookie year, Garland has never had a 5 ERA season. He is a lifetime 4.53 ERA, above .500 pitcher. You can't get those for $7M. It's still May. Relax.

I look at it the same way.

Things will eventually even out, so in order to do that there are much better times ahead. Patience is a virtue in cases such as these.

balke
05-29-2006, 08:53 PM
i think we can have this discussion without insulting people.

i agree that having 5 quality starters is important. garland hasn't been quality. not for any sum. we can all agree we hope he starts.

All I know is Brad Radke has an ERA of 7+ with Jeff Weaver at 6.99, Matt Clement is 4-4 with a 6.62 ERA, Andy Pettitte is at 5.76, Randy Johnson is at 5.89 and I'm sure these are all pitchers we wouldn't mind having in our rotation. Jon has over 20 more starts to drop his ERA, I'm sure soon he'll be doing that. People have to remember he is still young, and is pretty well proven. He's also a pitcher who doesn't seem to get injured. I have full confidence in the kid, cause I have full confidence in Coop to keep the pitching staff in check. The money argument is ridiculous, you paid a pitcher who just got off of an 18 win season and helped catapult your team to the best season its had in ages. I was thrilled this team stayed together. What if we would've given up on Contreras?

patbooyah
05-29-2006, 08:59 PM
All I know is Brad Radke has an ERA of 7+ with Jeff Weaver at 6.99, Matt Clement is 4-4 with a 6.62 ERA, Andy Pettitte is at 5.76, Randy Johnson is at 5.89 and I'm sure these are all pitchers we wouldn't mind having in our rotation. Jon has over 20 more starts to drop his ERA, I'm sure soon he'll be doing that. People have to remember he is still young, and is pretty well proven. He's also a pitcher who doesn't seem to get injured. I have full confidence in the kid, cause I have full confidence in Coop to keep the pitching staff in check. The money argument is ridiculous, you paid a pitcher who just got off of an 18 win season and helped catapult your team to the best season its had in ages. I was thrilled this team stayed together. What if we would've given up on Contreras?

the white sox were supposed to pay him around 3.5 million this year, right? this is a sincere question. i can't find the answer.

with the contract extension they are paying him 7 million this year and have 22 million set aside for him over the next two years. that's 25 million extra they set aside for jon.

if they had waited, they could have just signed him in august to a 2 year deal for 25 million and not lost any money. and if he keeps this up, they could have probably signed him for less. but alas, they didnt. i hope we don't regret that. that is my only point.

Ol' No. 2
05-29-2006, 09:00 PM
the white sox were supposed to pay him around 3.5 million this year, right? this is a sincere question. i can't find the answer.

with the contract extension they are paying him 7 million this year and have 22 million set aside for him over the next two years. that's 25 million extra they set aside for jon.

if they had waited, they could have just signed him in august to a 2 year deal for 25 million and not lost any money. and if he keeps this up, they could have probably signed him for less. but alas, they didnt. i hope we don't regret that. that is my only point.No. Garland's contract was up. He was going to get about $7M in arbitration anyway (maybe more). He gets $9M in 2007 and $12M in 2008.

beckett21
05-29-2006, 09:03 PM
the white sox were supposed to pay him around 3.5 million this year, right? this is a sincere question. i can't find the answer.

with the contract extension they are paying him 7 million this year and have 22 million set aside for him over the next two years. that's 25 million extra they set aside for jon.

if they had waited, they could have just signed him in august to a 2 year deal for 25 million and not lost any money. and if he keeps this up, they could have probably signed him for less. but alas, they didnt. i hope we don't regret that. that is my only point.

I see what you're saying Pat, but it also says a lot about the Sox as a franchise to go ahead and extend him earlier. Besides, I doubt that he would have signed only a two-year deal after this season, unless he really tanks.

It was just as much a gesture of good faith and goodwill as far as I'm concerned. A reward for a job well done, and a World Championship.

Treat your players well, and others will want to come here in the future. Nickle and dime them, and they won't. It goes beyond Jon.

JMO.

patbooyah
05-29-2006, 09:03 PM
No. Garland's contract was up. He was going to get about $7M in arbitration anyway (maybe more). He gets $9M in 2007 and $12M in 2008.
hahaha. then i'm sorry for wasting your afternoon. :redface:

but 22 million tied up in garland seems like a lot with mccarthy in the wings. (i've heard/read 10 mil for next year)

(but still. please jon- pitch inside!)

balke
05-29-2006, 09:04 PM
the white sox were supposed to pay him around 3.5 million this year, right? this is a sincere question. i can't find the answer.

with the contract extension they are paying him 7 million this year and have 22 million set aside for him over the next two years. that's 25 million extra they set aside for jon.

if they had waited, they could have just signed him in august to a 2 year deal for 25 million and not lost any money. and if he keeps this up, they could have probably signed him for less. but alas, they didnt. i hope we don't regret that. that is my only point.

I wouldn't regret it. He could've in the same measure came out like he did last season, and gotten even more in arbitration. Its normally better to go out and let your pitchers play without having to worry about contracts. The Sox need to get these pitchers when they can. Who knows if Buehrle decides he really needs to play in St. Louis at contract's end. Maybe Contreras would only come back if the Sox were serious about contending. There's lots of what ifs, Kenny took a chance. By all rights, after what Jon has helped the Sox accomplish, he deserves the money he got. Why pay him less now after a great season like that? That's what a team like the Twins would do or the Marlins would do, then they would lose that player to another team willing to pay their salary, and that may set a whole string of players to leave. Champions pay their players for the most part. Ask Lip about that.

patbooyah
05-29-2006, 09:05 PM
I see what you're saying Pat, but it also says a lot about the Sox as a franchise to go ahead and extend him earlier. Besides, I doubt that he would have signed only a two-year deal after this season, unless he really tanks.

It was just as much a gesture of good faith and goodwill as far as I'm concerned. A reward for a job well done, and a World Championship.

Treat your players well, and others will want to come here in the future. Nickle and dime them, and they won't. It goes beyond Jon.

JMO.
i agree. and i think that's a great point. i've just been really disappointed by garland's performance this year. he doesn't seem like the garland of old who would be lights out for 5 innings but then have a terrible one. he seems lost, timid, and confused in every inning.

i can't wait till he's back to form.

beckett21
05-29-2006, 09:07 PM
i agree. and i think that's a great point. i've just been really disappointed by garland's performance this year. he doesn't seem like the garland of old who would be lights out for 5 innings but then have a terrible one. he seems lost, timid, and confused in every inning.

i can't wait till he's back to form.

He's been frustrating to watch at times, especially after last season and his performance in the playoffs.

The good news is that it really hasn't cost the team much yet. Should this trend continue throughout the summer, I won't be pleased. But I do think that he's ready to come out of it soon. At least I hope so.

jongarlandlover
05-29-2006, 09:09 PM
i agree. and i think that's a great point. i've just been really disappointed by garland's performance this year. he doesn't seem like the garland of old who would be lights out for 5 innings but then have a terrible one. he seems lost, timid, and confused in every inning.

i can't wait till he's back to form.

I can't wait for him to get back to his old form either. I hate how people are screaming for his head all the time. Ugh.

patbooyah
05-29-2006, 09:12 PM
I can't wait for him to get back to his old form either. I hate how people are screaming for his head all the time. Ugh.

well, now that i know his middle name i have a special affection for him.

i think the frustrating thing is that it all seems mental. i want to reach into my TV and shake some sense into him when i see him pitch.

Ol' No. 2
05-29-2006, 09:17 PM
hahaha. then i'm sorry for wasting your afternoon. :redface:

but 22 million tied up in garland seems like a lot with mccarthy in the wings. (i've heard/read 10 mil for next year)

(but still. please jon- pitch inside!)Keep in mind that if they'd just let him go to arbitration, he'd be a FA after the season, and he could walk and they'd get nothing but draft picks. By having him under contract for 2 more years, he's tradable, and don't think that there won't be teams wanting him. As I've shown, even mediocre pitchers can get that kind of money on the FA market. So if they trade him, they get a player they otherwise couldn't have gotten, and they don't pay the $21M left on his contract.

jongarlandlover
05-29-2006, 09:23 PM
well, now that i know his middle name i have a special affection for him.

i think the frustrating thing is that it all seems mental. i want to reach into my TV and shake some sense into him when i see him pitch.

haha.

but yes, that is the frustrating thing. it's all in his head. so once he straigtens himself out, he should be good. i just wish that someone, like mark or coop, would sit him down and talk it out with him.

patbooyah
05-29-2006, 09:30 PM
Keep in mind that if they'd just let him go to arbitration, he'd be a FA after the season, and he could walk and they'd get nothing but draft picks. By having him under contract for 2 more years, he's tradable, and don't think that there won't be teams wanting him. As I've shown, even mediocre pitchers can get that kind of money on the FA market. So if they trade him, they get a player they otherwise couldn't have gotten, and they don't pay the $21M left on his contract.
and that is great. somehow my argument got all diluted throughout this thread. my only point was that it is frustrating to see garland struggle knowing that we have so much money tied up in him. as i said from the beginning, i hope/know that he will turn it around, but for now, it is frustrating.

however, if for some crazy reason (it's baseball, so you never know) he doesn't turn it around, i will regret having so much money invested in him.

EDIT: this is just like i would be upset if konerko was hitting .220 with 2 homers. kenny did absolutely the right thing by signing both players (before i was just confused about when garland was arbitration eligible). it just sucks when someone doesn't perform to expectation.

Ol' No. 2
05-29-2006, 09:39 PM
and that is great. somehow my argument got all diluted throughout this thread. my only point was that it is frustrating to see garland struggle knowing that we have so much money tied up in him. as i said from the beginning, i hope/know that he will turn it around, but for now, it is frustrating.

however, if for some crazy reason (it's baseball, so you never know) he doesn't turn it around, i will regret having so much money invested in him.Garland has been frustrating Sox fans (and coaches) for years. Why stop now?:angry:

We saw last year what we all knew would happen if he finally got his head out of his ass. Now it seems firmly planted again. But Garland has shown that he can be a 4.5 ERA pitcher on raw talent alone, which is why I'm not really that worried. A mediocre season for him is 12-12, which wouldn't be a disaster.

And they've really only invested $7M. The rest is due only if they keep him. Even coming off a 12-12 season, I think there would be a lot of teams who would want him. They're probably going to trade one of the starters after the season to make room for McCarthy anyway.

patbooyah
05-29-2006, 09:40 PM
Garland has been frustrating Sox fans (and coaches) for years. Why stop now?:angry:

We saw last year what we all knew would happen if he finally got his head out of his ass. Now it seems firmly planted again. But Garland has shown that he can be a 4.5 ERA pitcher on raw talent alone, which is why I'm not really that worried. A mediocre season for him is 12-12, which wouldn't be a disaster.

And they've really only invested $7M. The rest is due only if they keep him. Even coming off a 12-12 season, I think there would be a lot of teams who would want him. They're probably going to trade one of the starters after the season to make room for McCarthy anyway.

i agree with you. my mistake earlier was that i thought garland was signed through this year and they gave him the raise for no reason. i'm slow.

Johnny Mostil
05-29-2006, 10:48 PM
haha.

but yes, that is the frustrating thing. it's all in his head. so once he straigtens himself out, he should be good. i just wish that someone, like mark or coop, would sit him down and talk it out with him.

Didn't a HoF catcher (Berra) say half of this game is 90 percent mental?

I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist . . .

StockdaleForVeep
05-29-2006, 10:53 PM
I'm really glad you're not in a position to make these decisions. You want him out of the rotation after barely a fourth of a season??? Sure he hasn't been spectacular, but he's an innings eater and a 4th or 5th starter.

I want him gone after several seasons of medicore pitching, he pitches one good season(a half really) and people think he's finally come around, we said the same thing about loiaza. Regardless we won with the trade with karchner for him but trade garland while we can

Soxfest
05-29-2006, 11:23 PM
JG is a .500 pitcher and end of rotation guy nothing more, one good year in career no stud to me.