PDA

View Full Version : John Smoltz


getonbckthr
06-14-2006, 02:02 AM
I was reading at cbs.sportsline.com that there is a chance Atlanta won't pick his option (8 million) at the end of the season. Now I know he pitched well tonight, but if Atlanta continues to struggle and Garland as well would you consider trying to get Smoltz for the playoff run and using Garland to improve our bullpen then deal Jon in the offseason when the clause is dead and pick up Smoltz' option? It would also be a cheaper alternative to Garland.

TheOldRoman
06-14-2006, 02:43 AM
Smoltz is having a decent year, but he hasn't been great.
If the Sox got Smoltz, they would put him in the bullpen because he has closed before. There is no way they take Garland out of the rotation for Smoltz. So, basically, you are getting an $11 million middle reliever.

No thanks.

miker
06-14-2006, 11:47 AM
Agreed. I'd rather go without, than overpay for someone on the decline.

MadetoOrta
06-14-2006, 01:27 PM
I love these trades where we trade the young, innings eating, 18-game winner for guys one foot into retirement. :rolleyes:

soxfan13
06-14-2006, 01:37 PM
I love these trades where we trade the young, innings eating, 18-game winner for guys one foot into retirement. :rolleyes:

He won 18 games once. Yes, he eats innings, but before last year the most he won was 12 (3x's). Was a career 46-51. He didnt say trade Garland for Smoltz. He said trade for Smoltz, then trade Garland in the offseason. So more or less rent Smoltz for the playoff run and release at the end of the year. I would do this and keep Garland in the rotation with Smoltz being a big boost to the bullpen.

MadetoOrta
06-14-2006, 01:49 PM
Jon Garland was compared to a young Kevin Brown when the Sox stole him from the cubs. Let's see the comparison from 21-25 years of age:

Kevin Brown 26 wins 20 losses

Jon Garland 64 wins 60 losses

Very comparable. Please everyone quit talking about trading Garland unless you're getting something remarkable back like Miguel Cabrera, Ichiro or Carl Crawford.

MERPER
06-14-2006, 01:54 PM
Smoltz continues to tell people he WILL NOT pitch in the bullpen... the only way I'd imagine he would even consider it would be as a closer and we happen to have the best closer in baseball...

That being said, if the man truly desires WORLD SERIES RING #2, we give him the most legit chance at winning it and if we were to acquire him, he would do what OZZIE and KW tell him because that's the way our great organization works....

On a side note, about a month ago I heard a pretty solid rumor that if the Braves were out of it at the All-Star break for the first time in like 15 years, the Sox would make a very tempting offer to acquire both Smoltz and Andruw Jones... just food for thought....

soxfan13
06-14-2006, 01:57 PM
I never said trade Garland. I said trade for Smoltz for the bullpen. I would keep Garland. He is a great 5 pitcher will never be a number one or two. Sorry i just dont think Garland has the head to be number 1 on a staff. He lets too many things bother him during a game. I think last year was more of a fluke then what he will do every year.

DSpivack
06-14-2006, 02:13 PM
Smoltz continues to tell people he WILL NOT pitch in the bullpen... the only way I'd imagine he would even consider it would be as a closer and we happen to have the best closer in baseball...

That being said, if the man truly desires WORLD SERIES RING #2, we give him the most legit chance at winning it and if we were to acquire him, he would do what OZZIE and KW tell him because that's the way our great organization works....

On a side note, about a month ago I heard a pretty solid rumor that if the Braves were out of it at the All-Star break for the first time in like 15 years, the Sox would make a very tempting offer to acquire both Smoltz and Andruw Jones... just food for thought....

They might be out of it soon enough but they sure as hell aren't trading Andruw Jones.

caulfield12
06-14-2006, 02:18 PM
Jenks is the best closer in the game over Rivera? Well, I guess if Aaron Rowand is a great CFer...and great sinkerballers like Brown, I don´t think they lead the league in homers allowed too often.

The comparison between Brown and Garland was due to the fact that they´re both sinkerballers. Garland started in the big leagues when he was 20, I think it was July of 2000 against KC.

Brown went to GaTech and started his career much later.

Yes, Brown and Garland had similar win-loss records, but Garland has been pitching for a team quite a few games over .500, versus the the Rangers, who had very average teams from 86-91.

You´re also conveniently skipping at the point where Brown took off in his career and won 21 games. From that point on, he was known as a #1 caliber starter for most of his career, based on his outstanding stuff (FB 94-97), strikeouts and fiery demeanor....Garland, in every way, is the opposite of Brown. Brown has never been popular with teammates, but he´s a consummate battler and professional. Nobody has ever speculated about bumping him from the rotation for a near-rookie during his career, have they?

Technically, Sabathia and Buehrle rank ahead of only Garland in career victories for under 27 or 27 and under pitchers in the bigs today. Does that mean that any scout would think of Garland in the same category? No way.

MadetoOrta
06-14-2006, 03:19 PM
McCarthy a "near rookie?" He's one of the top young pitching prospects in baseball who would be - in my opinion - a starter on ANY OTHER TEAM except the Chicago White Sox. You guys who bitch about Garland will be the first ones throwing stones at KW if he didn't re-sign him after the WS.:rolleyes:

MadetoOrta
06-14-2006, 03:28 PM
Jenks is the best closer in the game over Rivera? Well, I guess if Aaron Rowand is a great CFer...and great sinkerballers like Brown, I don´t think they lead the league in homers allowed too often.

The comparison between Brown and Garland was due to the fact that they´re both sinkerballers. Garland started in the big leagues when he was 20, I think it was July of 2000 against KC.

Brown went to GaTech and started his career much later.

Yes, Brown and Garland had similar win-loss records, but Garland has been pitching for a team quite a few games over .500, versus the the Rangers, who had very average teams from 86-91.

You´re also conveniently skipping at the point where Brown took off in his career and won 21 games. From that point on, he was known as a #1 caliber starter for most of his career, based on his outstanding stuff (FB 94-97), strikeouts and fiery demeanor....Garland, in every way, is the opposite of Brown. Brown has never been popular with teammates, but he´s a consummate battler and professional. Nobody has ever speculated about bumping him from the rotation for a near-rookie during his career, have they?

Technically, Sabathia and Buehrle rank ahead of only Garland in career victories for under 27 or 27 and under pitchers in the bigs today. Does that mean that any scout would think of Garland in the same category? No way.

#1 caliber starter his entire career? Let's check Brown's numbers:

25 12-10 Tex
26 9-12 Tex
27 21-11 Tex
28 15-12 Tex
29 7-9 Tex
30 10-9 Balt
31 17-11 Fla
32 16-8 Fla
33 18-7 SD
34 18-9 LAD
35 13-6 LAD

Take out his single 20-win season [when he was 27 - two years older than Garland] and he was 4 games over .500 between 25-30 years of age. Hardly the numbers of a #1 starter. Brown hit his stride at the age of 31. The best thing that ever happened to KW and the Sox was the Angels nixing the Garland/Erstad deal. Quit ripping the guy. Would you rather Glendon Rusch?

Huisj
06-16-2006, 02:15 AM
I would love to see what my Tigers fan friends would say if the Sox picked up Smoltz. Smoltz grew and went to high school here in Lansing, and is somewhat of a town hero. I've got some friends who are pretty big Tigers fans who are also huge Smoltz fans--they've even travelled to Pittsburg to see him pitch. It would be pretty funny to see how they'd handle that seeing how they suddenly hate the Sox now that the Tigers are good.

TheOldRoman
06-16-2006, 02:49 AM
On a side note, about a month ago I heard a pretty solid rumor that if the Braves were out of it at the All-Star break for the first time in like 15 years, the Sox would make a very tempting offer to acquire both Smoltz and Andruw Jones... just food for thought....
Are you talking about the article in the Daily Herald a few weeks ago? Here (http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/rozner.asp?id=187531)
The last thing you’d think he needs is starting pitching, which is why he’s probably dialing up Braves GM John Schuerholz as we speak, attempting to con him out of John Smoltz, while asking him to throw in Andruw Jones as a sweetener.
I don't see the Braves trading Andurw, and I don't see the Sox picking up his monster salary.

getonbckthr
06-16-2006, 03:15 AM
McCarthy a "near rookie?" He's one of the top young pitching prospects in baseball who would be - in my opinion - a starter on ANY OTHER TEAM except the Chicago White Sox. You guys who bitch about Garland will be the first ones throwing stones at KW if he didn't re-sign him after the WS.:rolleyes:
KW didn't have to resign Garland at the end of 05 because he wasn't a free agent. Plus alot of people thought we should deal Garland in the offseason cause of his stock being so high.