PDA

View Full Version : Garland deal not dead and involves a couple of teams


Gammons Peter
12-08-2006, 08:15 AM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/4387786.html

"Again, there's a couple of clubs involved. And we've been in communications during the day, and hopefully we can get something done."

jenn2080
12-08-2006, 08:18 AM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/4387786.html

"Again, there's a couple of clubs involved. And we've been in communications during the day, and hopefully we can get something done."



:mg: :thud: :talktothehand:

Round 2.

mccoydp
12-08-2006, 08:20 AM
Great googly-moogly.

I wonder who the "other" teams are in this deal.

Taliesinrk
12-08-2006, 08:22 AM
What Clubs?!?!?

furthermore, i just skimmed the article; but nonetheless didn't see anything about other clubs. does it actually say that in there? sorry, but i have got to go to class..

Mickster
12-08-2006, 08:23 AM
Great googly-moogly.

I wonder who the "other" teams are in this deal.

It really doesn't make a difference. Even if we ultimately land a Baldelli or Andrew Jones, etc., we'll still have the revolving door 5th starter situation that Garland will leave in this rotation. Me no likey.

FedEx227
12-08-2006, 08:23 AM
From the news source that said the Astros were about to announce the acquisition. No thanks.

Gammons Peter
12-08-2006, 08:31 AM
From the news source that said the Astros were about to announce the acquisition. No thanks.

actually, it's from Astro GM Tim Purpura

ChiSoxGirl
12-08-2006, 08:32 AM
Oh man! :mg: I just don't get it! There are just so many conflicting reports out there that I don't know what to believe anymore!

Yesterday we see this from whitesox.com:

Nowhere on the White Sox general manager's schedule was any sort of time allotment for completing a trade with the Astros, sending Jon Garland to Houston in exchange for pitcher Taylor Buchholz and center fielder Willy Taveras. In fact, Williams and the White Sox strongly denied a report posted on the Web site of the Houston Chronicle that any such trade involving these particular players was imminent.
And now this morning the report is surfacing from Houston that this Garland deal could still go down?! :thud:Kenny, PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS! I can't take this anymore!

mccoydp
12-08-2006, 08:34 AM
It really doesn't make a difference. Even if we ultimately land a Baldelli or Andrew Jones, etc., we'll still have the revolving door 5th starter situation that Garland will leave in this rotation. Me no likey.

Exactly.

wulfy
12-08-2006, 08:38 AM
I really don't understand why you trade a 27 year old starter, who has won 36 games the last two years. AND, you have him under contract for 2 more years at what is, in today's environment, reasonable money.

Garlands' ERA after the All-Star break was sub-4.

Hangar18
12-08-2006, 08:49 AM
I really don't understand why you trade a 27 year old starter, who has won 36 games the last two years. AND, you have him under contract for 2 more years at what is, in today's environment, reasonable money.

Garlands' ERA after the All-Star break was sub-4.

Yup. I dont get it at all.
1 The SOX want all new rotation after their contracts run out.
PLUS
2 The SOX definitely arent giving these guys extensions
PLUS
3 Therefore the SOX want to trade everyone BEFORE they are due for $$$

EQUALS

Another 88 years before we see a World Series.

itsnotrequired
12-08-2006, 08:55 AM
Yup. I dont get it at all.
1 The SOX want all new rotation after their contracts run out.
PLUS
2 The SOX definitely arent giving these guys extensions
PLUS
3 Therefore the SOX want to trade everyone BEFORE they are due for $$$

EQUALS

Another 88 years before we see a World Series.

:rolleyes:

twsoxfan5
12-08-2006, 08:59 AM
Am I the only one that thinks both Tim Purpura and the Houston Chronicle are being a little irresponsible here? Can you imagine Kenny ever going over a trade check-list with the Sun Times? This is the kind of stuff I expect to be posted on rotoworld or mlb trade rumors but not a major newspaper.

jenn2080
12-08-2006, 09:00 AM
Oh man! :mg: I just don't get it! There are just so many conflicting reports out there that I don't know what to believe anymore!

Yesterday we see this from whitesox.com:


And now this morning the report is surfacing from Houston that this Garland deal could still go down?! :thud:Kenny, PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS! I can't take this anymore!



Believe none of it. There is no reason to stress about rumors.

:whocares

Fenway
12-08-2006, 09:05 AM
This article explains what Houston is thinking



It was unclear yesterday how hard the Astros will try to put together another trade for Garland. But people close to the situation said McLane was upset at the Hendricks brothers for leaking word that Pettitte was interested in returning to the Yankees.

"He doesn't like being bullied," said an agent who has dealt with McClane. "This (the attempt to acquire Garland) is how he reacts."

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/478308p-402360c.html

fquaye149
12-08-2006, 09:06 AM
Yup. I dont get it at all.
1 The SOX want all new rotation after their contracts run out.
PLUS
2 The SOX definitely arent giving these guys extensions
PLUS
3 Therefore the SOX want to trade everyone BEFORE they are due for $$$

EQUALS

Another 88 years before we see a World Series.

you know henry, for a guy who hates the tribune...

...you would fit in perfectly well at the tribune

Baby Fisk
12-08-2006, 09:18 AM
Am I the only one that thinks both Tim Purpura and the Houston Chronicle are being a little irresponsible here? Can you imagine Kenny ever going over a trade check-list with the Sun Times? This is the kind of stuff I expect to be posted on rotoworld or mlb trade rumors but not a major newspaper.

It reads as if the Chronicle still badly wants a deal to happen, and won't let it go.

jenn2080
12-08-2006, 09:25 AM
you know henry, for a guy who hates the tribune...

...you would fit in perfectly well at the tribune

:rolling: :rolling: this is the funniest thing you have ever said.

:thumbsup:

SoxxoS
12-08-2006, 09:27 AM
If we get Hirsh I am all for it...I am very intrigued by his numbers/size...

Bring it! Only if we get him in the deal

munchman33
12-08-2006, 09:29 AM
It looks like Kenny is going to take the Billy Beane approach, sans the OBP model. Which is fine by me. We'll be a little weaker heading into next year, but stronger in the longrun.

caulfield12
12-08-2006, 09:30 AM
If we get Hirsh I am all for it...I am very intrigued by his numbers/size...

Bring it! Only if we get him in the deal


See Rauch/Ginter/Barcelo/Myette/Danny Wright/Brian West.

I remember the Mets had that 6'10" pitcher and he threw 86-89 MPH...not too much below Jon.

I guess we'll never know what Rauch could have been before his injuries, but he was never a fireballer out there. At one point he had a "plus" arm and fastball but lost it in 2001/2002.

caulfield12
12-08-2006, 09:32 AM
It looks like Kenny is going to take the Billy Beane approach, sans the OBP model. Which is fine by me. We'll be a little weaker heading into next year, but stronger in the longrun.

We're only weaker if McCarthy has a plus five ERA and less than 15 wins.

AND, if that $9.5 million in savings is NOT used on Buehrle, Crede or Dye OR repairing one more bullpen spot.

soxfan13
12-08-2006, 09:32 AM
Yup. I dont get it at all.
1 The SOX want all new rotation after their contracts run out.
PLUS
2 The SOX definitely arent giving these guys extensions
PLUS
3 Therefore the SOX want to trade everyone BEFORE they are due for $$$

EQUALS

Another 88 years before we see a World Series.

I guess we should just bring back the 25 guys that won the world series. Lock them all up to lifetiime contracts and only replace them when they die.

GoSox2K3
12-08-2006, 09:33 AM
Yup. I dont get it at all.
1 The SOX want all new rotation after their contracts run out.
PLUS
2 The SOX definitely arent giving these guys extensions
PLUS
3 Therefore the SOX want to trade everyone BEFORE they are due for $$$

EQUALS

Another 88 years before we see a World Series.

Please find me a quote where KW says this - and Phil Rogers putting words in KW's mouth and saying this doesn't count.

I don't have the exact quote handy, but I believe KW said that at one point they were hopeful of giving extensions to ALL of their starters. But, now because of escalating salaries for mediocre talent, that won't be possible.

Get it? KW says the Sox have acknowlegded that they won't extend all 5 starters. He didn't say the Sox won't extend any starters. That's a big difference and apparently the subtleness of this distinction is lost on fine journalists like Rogers and Morrissey.

What KW says makes perfect sense. If even mediocre starters are going to be getting $12 million a year, I really don't see the Sox sinking $60 to $70 million/year just on the starting 5. Worse yet, tie them all up to high priced, long term deals and odds are very high that at least one of them will break down or become washed up long before the contract ends.

I do think it's possible for the Sox to sign extensions to 2-3 of their starters. But, that's not good enough. As the Sox learned over the past 5 years, having 3 good starters and total crap for the #4 and/or #5 starters is good enough for about 85 wins and 10 games out. That is why KW's plan includes stocking up on possible replacements for our starters to remain competitive in the future while still going for the a championship in '07. The other alternative is to go for broke in '07 and then struggle with a crappy pitching staff after that.

JermaineDye05
12-08-2006, 09:34 AM
If we get Hirsh I am all for it...I am very intrigued by his numbers/size...

Bring it! Only if we get him in the deal

same here I like the way our rotation looks in the long run. It looks to me like Kenny is trying to have what the Twins had last year a surplus of young arms to jump in in case someone goes down and that could pitch effectively at the major league level. With Broadway, Gonzalez, Floyd, and now possibly Buchholz and Hirsh either one could go in the rotation next season, well Buchholz Hirsh and Floyd could, Broadway and Gonzalez need some more seasoning. Now I'm not comparing either of these guys to the Twins young arms (Liriano, Bonser, Garza) but it's one hell of a start.

I'm not gonna lie though I am still a little bit hesitant to let our best pitcher in the past 2 years go.

caulfield12
12-08-2006, 09:36 AM
I guess we should just bring back the 25 guys that won the world series. Lock them all up to lifetiime contracts and only replace them when they die.


People are complaining we signed JD for a bargain-basement deal and should now give him $15 million for four years.

Did we not resign Conteras and Garland, and put together a deal to keep Vazquez through 2008?

Did we not trade away Lumsden and Chris Young to get more expensive veterans in MacDougal and Vazquez?

Did we not resign AJ long-term instead of giving the job to Chris Stewart?

Did we not resign Konerko...I forgot, he's on the Orioles or Angels now, isn't he?

Did we not add to the payroll with Jim Thome? Oh, yeah, we have Gload/Mackowiak as our DH now, don't we?

Did we not build the best bench depth in the majors with Cintron, Ozuna, Gload and Mackowiak? Name one better!

UGH!

caulfield12
12-08-2006, 09:37 AM
same here I like the way our rotation looks in the long run. It looks to me like Kenny is trying to have what the Twins had last year a surplus of young arms to jump in in case someone goes down and that could pitch effectively at the major league level. With Broadway, Gonzalez, Floyd, and now possibly Buchholz and Hirsh either one could go in the rotation next season, well Buchholz Hirsh and Floyd could, Broadway and Gonzalez need some more seasoning. Now I'm not comparing either of these guys to the Twins young arms (Liriano, Bonser, Garza) but it's one hell of a start.

I'm not gonna lie though I am still a little bit hesitant to let our best pitcher in the past 2 years go.


And Scott Baker has a very good arm, better than Bonser and similar to Garza.

Of course, Liriano being down makes a HUGE difference.

kittle42
12-08-2006, 09:40 AM
:rolling: :rolling: this is the funniest thing you have ever said.

:thumbsup:

Well of course, he was ripping on Hangar.

In this debate over whether the Sox' apparent course of action (avoiding the inflated market), both sides have good points. It is understandable from a business perspective, but it is curious from the perspective of a fanbase that was hoping for championship-caliber ball for the foreseeable future. However, until Williams trades Garland for two A ball pitchers, I'm not going to get upset.

RedHeadPaleHoser
12-08-2006, 09:49 AM
Based on the Astros' being thrown around about the never ending love fest Pettite and Clemens both have about the Yankees, anything that the local press can cling to to show movement for another quality pitcher will keep this story alive.

Until I see a confirm or a denial I refuse to give this any more consideration as a real story.

CLR01
12-08-2006, 09:49 AM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/4387786.html

"Again, there's a couple of clubs involved. And we've been in communications during the day, and hopefully we can get something done."

So yesterday he had no problem telling the world he stole Garland from the Sox but now it's hush hush about who the mystery clubs are? My guess is these other clubs don't exist and this is just a face saving "We tried but the third club caused it to fall through, don't blame me" kind of thing.

I hope the other club is Philly and they send us Rowand.

"In my opinion, it's not a dead issue," Purpura said of all the trade talks he has had.

My opinion is you are dreaming. I'm sure the Sox will change there mind about whatever it was they didn't like about Buchholz yesterday.

CLR01
12-08-2006, 09:51 AM
I guess we should just bring back the 25 guys that won the world series. Lock them all up to lifetiime contracts and only replace them when they die.

Dye sucks though. That move will kill the Sox.

Hangar18
12-08-2006, 09:52 AM
Am I the only one that thinks both Tim Purpura and the Houston Chronicle are being a little irresponsible here? .


my company has an office in Houston, and thats all theyre talking about down there, they'd love to have Garland.

Ol' No. 2
12-08-2006, 09:52 AM
It really doesn't make a difference. Even if we ultimately land a Baldelli or Andrew Jones, etc., we'll still have the revolving door 5th starter situation that Garland will leave in this rotation. Me no likey.Exactly. I have a feeling this was an either-or situation. Either he was going to do the Garcia deal or the Garland deal, but he never intended to do both, and what we're seeing is just the Chronicle desperately trying to pump air into this.

How many times has Kenny said he doesn't want to go through that 5th starter nonsense again? So now he's suddenly changed his mind? Makes no sense.

Hangar18
12-08-2006, 09:55 AM
Please find me a quote where KW says this - and Phil Rogers putting words in KW's mouth and saying this doesn't count.

I don't have the exact quote handy, but I believe KW said that at one point they were hopeful of giving extensions to ALL of their starters. But, now because of escalating salaries for mediocre talent, that won't be possible.

Get it? KW says the Sox have acknowlegded that they won't extend all 5 starters. He didn't say the Sox won't extend any starters. That's a big difference and apparently the subtleness of this distinction is lost on fine journalists like Rogers and Morrissey.

What KW says makes perfect sense. If even mediocre starters are going to be getting $12 million a year, I really don't see the Sox sinking $60 to $70 million/year just on the starting 5. Worse yet, tie them all up to high priced, long term deals and odds are very high that at least one of them will break down or become washed up long before the contract ends.

I do think it's possible for the Sox to sign extensions to 2-3 of their starters. But, that's not good enough. As the Sox learned over the past 5 years, having 3 good starters and total crap for the #4 and/or #5 starters is good enough for about 85 wins and 10 games out. That is why KW's plan includes stocking up on possible replacements for our starters to remain competitive in the future while still going for the a championship in '07. The other alternative is to go for broke in '07 and then struggle with a crappy pitching staff after that.

What KW says and what he does are 2 different things.
I say, if were going with the philosophy of 05 (pitching) thats what you spend your money on. We kept hearing Sox Philly talking, somebody was going to get traded, and thats all we got for Garcia? Now we hear Sox Houston talking? Why is a young pitcher being subject to the same criteria that the older pitchers are being subject to?

Hangar18
12-08-2006, 09:56 AM
:rolling: :rolling: this is the funniest thing you have ever said.

:thumbsup:


That is the most typical thing you've ever said

UserNameBlank
12-08-2006, 09:57 AM
I didn't see this posted anywhere, but apparently Garland is definitely available. This article (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-sp.orioles08dec08,0,7747297.story?coll=bal-sports-baseball)says the O's nixed a proposal that would have sent Jon to Baltimore for Daniel Cabrera and prospect Garett Olson.

Edit: there is also a comment about Zito admitting he wouldn't play in Baltimore and another about the Orioles thinking they lost out on Luis Gonzalez because of a "west coast bias." LOL, yeah right. You lost out because you have a **** team.

russ99
12-08-2006, 10:01 AM
I have to mention about the writers on the Houston Chronicle (Justice & Ortiz) is that all the Astros fans really hate them. Think of them as Mariotti cut in half. Ortiz is the straight guy and Justice is the muckraker.

They stirred up tons of dirt on potential Lidge and Oswalt trades at the deadline that turned out to be complete fabrications, and often have resorted to name-calling the Astros owner (McLane) as cheap, when he's obviously spending 100+ million on payroll and bringing name players like Clemens, Pettitte, Kent and Lee to the team.

I'd advise not to listen to these guys as a credible source, and wait for an official confirmation, or at least a new ESPN report not based on a Chron story.

Ol' No. 2
12-08-2006, 10:07 AM
I have to mention about the writers on the Houston Chronicle (Justice & Ortiz) is that all the Astros fans really hate them. Think of them as Mariotti cut in half. Ortiz is the straight guy and Justice is the muckraker.

They stirred up tons of dirt on potential Lidge and Oswalt trades at the deadline that turned out to be complete fabrications, and often have resorted to name-calling the Astros owner (McLane) as cheap, when he's obviously spending 100+ million on payroll and bringing name players like Clemens, Pettitte, Kent and Lee to the team.

I'd advise not to listen to these guys as a credible source, and wait for an official confirmation, or at least a new ESPN report not based on a Chron story.Muckraking sportswriters fabricating rumors and calling the owner cheap? Horrors!!!! I'm sure glad we don't have that here.

CHISOXFAN13
12-08-2006, 10:08 AM
Believe none of it. There is no reason to stress about rumors.

:whocares

Thank you. Its amazing how many people get all bent out of shape over stuff like that. RELAX.

SoxxoS
12-08-2006, 10:10 AM
See Rauch/Ginter/Barcelo/Myette/Danny Wright/Brian West.

I remember the Mets had that 6'10" pitcher and he threw 86-89 MPH...not too much below Jon.

I guess we'll never know what Rauch could have been before his injuries, but he was never a fireballer out there. At one point he had a "plus" arm and fastball but lost it in 2001/2002.

All (most) those guys got injured and had labrum surgery, almost the death knell for a pitcher. Are you assuming Hirsh will have the same thing happen to him? A little ridiculous, dont you think?

You are right, we will never know what Rauch would have been had he not got injured, but judging he was the minor league player of the year, my guess is "pretty good"...

Hirsh's K rate in the minors was above average, and he was voted "best control in the Astros system and the #1 prospect by BA."

This isn't really THAT high risk...the guy is a fantastic prospect and if he doesn't get injured, could be better than Jon Garland. And since nobody can predict injuries and Jon Garland has the possibility of getting injured this season, I would pull the trigger and hope for the best. I think Hirsh is going to be a frontline starter in the bigs, personally.

But KW better spend the money he is saving with Garland on something, in addition to acquiring Hirsh.

Baby Fisk
12-08-2006, 10:11 AM
I didn't see this posted anywhere, but apparently Garland is definitely available. This article (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-sp.orioles08dec08,0,7747297.story?coll=bal-sports-baseball)says the O's nixed a proposal that would have sent Jon to Baltimore for Daniel Cabrera and prospect Garett Olson.

Edit: there is also a comment about Zito admitting he wouldn't play in Baltimore and another about the Orioles thinking they lost out on Luis Gonzalez because of a "west coast bias." LOL, yeah right. You lost out because you have a **** team.



Schmidt, a San Francisco Giants pitcher who was considered one of the top two free-agent arms along with Barry Zito, also eschewed Orioles' interest and ended up in Los Angeles.

The Orioles, according to a source, offered a three-year, $48 million deal, about $1 million more than he got from the Dodgers.
"We made a very significant offer," Duquette said. "If you have a guy like Zito, who said specifically this is not a place [he'd want to play], why are we going to waste our time? That's why we try to get a sense if they are using us to jack up their price, but in this particular case, we didn't feel that way. If we did, we wouldn't have gotten in."

Not to sidetrack too far, but that really says a lot about what's become of the Baltimore franchise. The Orioles were one of the marquis teams from the 60s to the 90s. After the buzz of their new stadium wore off and Cal Ripken retired, this team regressed into a second division wasteland. What a shame. What a disgrace, really. The Orioles should be a perennial AL East contender, but when free agents are essentially thumbing their noses at you, you are screwed before the season even starts. The Black Jays deserve some credit for at least TRYING to overcome the New York-Boston axis of evil.

Hangar18
12-08-2006, 10:11 AM
Thank you. Its amazing how many people get all bent out of shape over stuff like that. RELAX.

I hate when people use the "who cares" tag. People were worrying about Garcia being traded, and we really didnt get as much as the market said we should. My boss said to me last week "I think Kennys going to do something dumb, and trade just to trade"

itsnotrequired
12-08-2006, 10:16 AM
Believe none of it. There is no reason to stress about rumors.

:whocares

I don't think anyone is "stressing". It's hot stove time. If we weren't discussing potential trades, what would we talk about?

*itsnotrequired glances at Parking Lot, prepares important post for Dimebag Darrell Remembrance Thread*

:rolleyes:

UserNameBlank
12-08-2006, 10:17 AM
Not to sidetrack too far, but that really says a lot about what's become of the Baltimore franchise. The Orioles were one of the marquis teams from the 60s to the 90s. After the buzz of their new stadium wore off and Cal Ripken retired, this team regressed into a second division wasteland. What a shame. What a disgrace, really. The Orioles should be a perennial AL East contender, but when free agents are essentially thumbing their noses at you, you are screwed before the season even starts. The Black Jays deserve some credit for at least TRYING to overcome the New York-Boston axis of evil.

Well, if that article holds any truth and the O's did nix a deal for Garland because they didn't want to give up their young lefty strikeout pitcher and a Cabrera, it just goes to show you why FA's will not come there.

If Baltimore actually went out and make a few trades to improve the team, especially the starting staff, it would go a long way to show free agents that the attitiude over there has changed.

Remember when free agents supposedly wouldn't play for us? Well, we don't have that problem anymore because we have a GM with some balls who gets the dirty work done and gives up the future when he needs to in order to win.

jenn2080
12-08-2006, 10:18 AM
:supernana: :) 115 days until opening day! :) :supernana:

Baby Fisk
12-08-2006, 10:20 AM
Remember when free agents supposedly wouldn't play for us? Well, we don't have that problem anymore because we have a GM with some balls who gets the dirty work done and gives up the future when he needs to in order to win.

Brooks Boyer can probably lend the Orioles marketing department some leftover "The Kids Can Play" merchandise.

The Immigrant
12-08-2006, 10:21 AM
The Orioles should be a perennial AL East contender, but when free agents are essentially thumbing their noses at you, you are screwed before the season even starts. The Black Jays deserve some credit for at least TRYING to overcome the New York-Boston axis of evil.

Didn't they just sign three free agent relievers for a boatload of money? This just means they have to significantly overpay to convince top free agents to come to Baltimore, which really makes them no different than TB or KC.

Stupid Angelos.

caulfield12
12-08-2006, 10:22 AM
All (most) those guys got injured and had labrum surgery, almost the death knell for a pitcher. Are you assuming Hirsh will have the same thing happen to him? A little ridiculous, dont you think?

You are right, we will never know what Rauch would have been had he not got injured, but judging he was the minor league player of the year, my guess is "pretty good"...

Hirsh's K rate in the minors was above average, and he was voted "best control in the Astros system and the #1 prospect by BA."

This isn't really THAT high risk...the guy is a fantastic prospect and if he doesn't get injured, could be better than Jon Garland. And since nobody can predict injuries and Jon Garland has the possibility of getting injured this season, I would pull the trigger and hope for the best. I think Hirsh is going to be a frontline starter in the bigs, personally.

But KW better spend the money he is saving with Garland on something, in addition to acquiring Hirsh.

Another example that comes to mind is Ryan Anderson, who the M's drafted and who was supposed to be the next Big Unit.

soxfan13
12-08-2006, 10:23 AM
People are complaining we signed JD for a bargain-basement deal and should now give him $15 million for four years.

Did we not resign Conteras and Garland, and put together a deal to keep Vazquez through 2008?

Did we not trade away Lumsden and Chris Young to get more expensive veterans in MacDougal and Vazquez?

Did we not resign AJ long-term instead of giving the job to Chris Stewart?

Did we not resign Konerko...I forgot, he's on the Orioles or Angels now, isn't he?

Did we not add to the payroll with Jim Thome? Oh, yeah, we have Gload/Mackowiak as our DH now, don't we?

Did we not build the best bench depth in the majors with Cintron, Ozuna, Gload and Mackowiak? Name one better!

UGH!

I think you mistook the sarcasm. Im not bitching at all about signing this person or letting this guy go. The sarcasm is that alot of people on this board believe that a trade or 2 means the Sox are reverting back to the late 90's budget conscious White Sox. Alot of people here would be happy with Kenny standing pat and taking his chances that the team wins another World Series. I, for one, liked the Garcia trade and wouldnt be that bothered with a Garland trade. I think we all have to wait until April 1st to see what Kennys plan is and then start bitching if it doesnt work out.

caulfield12
12-08-2006, 10:25 AM
I think you mistook the sarcasm. Im not bitching at all about signing this person or letting this guy go. The sarcasm is that alot of people on this board believe that a trade or 2 means the Sox are reverting back to the late 90's budget conscious White Sox. Alot of people here would be happy with Kenny standing pat and taking his chances that the team wins another World Series. I, for one, liked the Garcia trade and wouldnt be that bothered with a Garland trade. I think we all have to wait until April 1st to see what Kennys plan is and then start bitching if it doesnt work out.

Sorry, I think this was supposed to directed at Hangar, whom you responded to...my bad.

caulfield12
12-08-2006, 10:26 AM
Didn't they just sign three free agent relievers for a boatload of money? This just means they have to significantly overpay to convince top free agents to come to Baltimore, which really makes them no different than TB or KC.

Stupid Angelos.


around $8.5 million (combined, per year) for Baez, Williamson, Walker and Williamson.

Not incredibly bad.

SoxxoS
12-08-2006, 10:27 AM
Another example that comes to mind is Ryan Anderson, who the M's drafted and who was supposed to be the next Big Unit.

You are evaluating pitchers that got injured...unless you are Miss Cleo, how can you say Hirsh will be like Jon Rauch or Ryan Anderson?

Hangar18
12-08-2006, 10:33 AM
Remember when free agents supposedly wouldn't play for us? Well, we don't have that problem anymore because we have a GM with some balls who gets the dirty work done and gives up the future when he needs to in order to win.


:knue

OK everybody, Listen Up! I want a story everyday thru the Holidays about how everyone wants to play for the Storied Cubs and long-time manager Lou Piniella. Get graphics on the line ............. Lets get some shots of Lou in a cub uniform from the 60's!

The Immigrant
12-08-2006, 10:34 AM
around $8.5 million (combined, per year) for Baez, Williamson, Walker and Williamson.

Not incredibly bad.

I think it's well more than that. They're paying $12 million to Walker over three years ($4m/yr) and $19 million over three years for Baez ($6.3m/yr). They are also paying $10.5 million for Bradford over three years ($3.5m/yr) and $900k to Williamson for a one year deal. That adds up to $15 million for next year alone. :o:

Hangar18
12-08-2006, 10:36 AM
Sorry, I think this was supposed to directed at Hangar, whom you responded to...my bad.


This is the funniest thing you have ever said :roflmao: :roflmao:

Domeshot17
12-08-2006, 10:49 AM
There is a great great qoute from JR (might have been Kenny not sure) yesterday. He said the problem with going the prospect route is you have to get an entire rotation of can't miss prospects to have 2 make your major league rotation, with 1 living up to most of his hype. The other can't miss prospects miss. Its the truth. Hopefully some of the guys we end up getting pan out. Also, hopefully we can get some position prospects worked in. We have nothing of the future coming up in the middle infield. With Kenny's new cut the ties attitude, I am not sure Iguchi re-ups with us. His agents were looking for 3 years 7 per when he came over. They will probably have the same demands when Iguchi becomes an FA.

Just for kicks, Im going to try and guess what it would take to bring back everybody on the sox, see where that puts our payroll

1b Konerko 13 per locked up
2b Iguchi 5.5 per
SS SOMEONE NEW leaving open
3b Crede 11.5 per
LF Sweeney300k
CF Anderon 300k/Baldelli 4 mil
RF Dye-9 mil
C AJ 5.5 per
Thome-10 mil (i think thats what we pay after philly money)

Buehlre-12 per
Contreras-10
Garland-12
Mccarthy-300k
Vazquez 9 mil (again I think thats what we are paying after NYY/AZ $$)

Bullpen as of now Im guessing is 5

All that leaves somewhere between a 102-106 million and we haven't even factored in much of the bench. If payroll isnt an issue, and it CAN hit say 110 mil, this is a pretty good base.

kevingrt
12-08-2006, 10:55 AM
Yup. I dont get it at all.
1 The SOX want all new rotation after their contracts run out.
PLUS
2 The SOX definitely arent giving these guys extensions
PLUS
3 Therefore the SOX want to trade everyone BEFORE they are due for $$$

EQUALS

Another 88 years before we see a World Series.

That is what it is looking like. I wonder who is telling KW to do everything or if if KW thinks this is best for the team.

caulfield12
12-08-2006, 11:18 AM
I think it's well more than that. They're paying $12 million to Walker over three years ($4m/yr) and $19 million over three years for Baez ($6.3m/yr). They are also paying $10.5 million for Bradford over three years ($3.5m/yr) and $900k to Williamson for a one year deal. That adds up to $15 million for next year alone. :o:

No, you're right...I was thinking of it in terms of the White Sox signing the other three (besides) Baez for $8.5 million and if that would be considered a good investment.

In others words,

G.Gonzalez, Floyd, S. Williamson, Bradford and Walker >>>> Garcia

Same cost.

The White Sox would never mess with Baez, they already have two "psedo-closers" in MacDougal and Thornton.

caulfield12
12-08-2006, 11:20 AM
This is the funniest thing you have ever said :roflmao: :roflmao:

:rolleyes:

caulfield12
12-08-2006, 11:23 AM
There is a great great qoute from JR (might have been Kenny not sure) yesterday. He said the problem with going the prospect route is you have to get an entire rotation of can't miss prospects to have 2 make your major league rotation, with 1 living up to most of his hype. The other can't miss prospects miss. Its the truth. Hopefully some of the guys we end up getting pan out. Also, hopefully we can get some position prospects worked in. We have nothing of the future coming up in the middle infield. With Kenny's new cut the ties attitude, I am not sure Iguchi re-ups with us. His agents were looking for 3 years 7 per when he came over. They will probably have the same demands when Iguchi becomes an FA.

Just for kicks, Im going to try and guess what it would take to bring back everybody on the sox, see where that puts our payroll

1b Konerko 13 per locked up
2b Iguchi 5.5 per
SS SOMEONE NEW leaving open
3b Crede 11.5 per
LF Sweeney300k
CF Anderon 300k/Baldelli 4 mil
RF Dye-9 mil
C AJ 5.5 per
Thome-10 mil (i think thats what we pay after philly money)

Buehlre-12 per
Contreras-10
Garland-12
Mccarthy-300k
Vazquez 9 mil (again I think thats what we are paying after NYY/AZ $$)

Bullpen as of now Im guessing is 5

All that leaves somewhere between a 102-106 million and we haven't even factored in much of the bench. If payroll isnt an issue, and it CAN hit say 110 mil, this is a pretty good base.

Forget Dye and $9 million in the same sentence...

I think Iguchi decision could go either way, a lot depends on this season for the entire team: Crede, Dye, Buehrle, Vazquez, Iguchi, Uribe, Pods and Anderson might all be gone.

cheezheadsoxfan
12-08-2006, 11:59 AM
I guess we should just bring back the 25 guys that won the world series. Lock them all up to lifetiime contracts and only replace them when they die.

:rolling:

ChiSoxGirl
12-08-2006, 12:04 PM
Thank you. Its amazing how many people get all bent out of shape over stuff like that. RELAX.

I'm sorry for getting all "bent out of shape," but it's stuff like this that make me dislike the off-season so much. The last time I checked, this was a place for fans to go and either vent their frustrations about things related to or about the team, or air their thoughts. I did both and it seems as though my comments were analyzed a little too much. It's for these reasons that I have taken to not posting nearly as much as I used to.

Sorry, but I just had to get that out.

cbotnyse
12-08-2006, 12:11 PM
Can someone please explain to me why our ace pitcher is being shopped around?

JohnTucker0814
12-08-2006, 12:15 PM
I'm sorry for getting all "bent out of shape," but it's stuff like this that make me dislike the off-season so much. The last time I checked, this was a place for fans to go and either vent their frustrations about things related to or about the team, or air their thoughts. I did both and it seems as though my comments were analyzed a little too much. It's for these reasons that I have taken to not posting nearly as much as I used to.

Sorry, but I just had to get that out.

I agree, I think I read almost every post on this website, however I do not post many of my own comments or suggestions because instead of someone just disagreeing with them and adding their comments, people have to make you feel like a complete tool. Everyone on this board for the most part are die hard White Sox fans... we all have different opinions on everything... we should embrace those differences!

gobears1987
12-08-2006, 12:19 PM
Did anyone hit Kenny Williams over the head? First he trades Freddy for 2 duds. Now this?

I want the 2004-05 off-season Kenny back.

Domeshot17
12-08-2006, 12:47 PM
I really think Dye might take a 3 year 27-30 mil deal. He took less to play here, by all accounts he LOVES it here, he is at the point in his career where the extra 10 mil over 3 years might not mean as much as spending his time on a team he loves. He has made a lot of money already. He has won a ring, the only 2 things that are going to matter to him now if hes getting paid is being happy and maybe being close to his family.

Dye is a Prince among thieves. He is the type of guy who just wants to get whats fair, and seal it with a handshake.

Now this is based on the thought he declines back to a 300-33-110 guy and not the monster we saw in 2006. If that JD comes back, he is 14+ EASILY (and I would still pay it)

SABRSox
12-08-2006, 12:54 PM
I really think Dye might take a 3 year 27-30 mil deal. He took less to play here, by all accounts he LOVES it here, he is at the point in his career where the extra 10 mil over 3 years might not mean as much as spending his time on a team he loves. He has made a lot of money already. He has won a ring, the only 2 things that are going to matter to him now if hes getting paid is being happy and maybe being close to his family.

You are living in a dream world. The STARTING price will be Drew money.

ondafarm
12-08-2006, 12:55 PM
I really think Dye might take a 3 year 27-30 mil deal. He took less to play here, by all accounts he LOVES it here, he is at the point in his career where the extra 10 mil over 3 years might not mean as much as spending his time on a team he loves. He has made a lot of money already. He has won a ring, the only 2 things that are going to matter to him now if hes getting paid is being happy and maybe being close to his family.

Dye is a Prince among thieves. He is the type of guy who just wants to get whats fair, and seal it with a handshake.

Now this is based on the thought he declines back to a 300-33-110 guy and not the monster we saw in 2006. If that JD comes back, he is 14+ EASILY (and I would still pay it)

I like Dye, both as a player and as an athlete. He doesn't leave anything on the field. I can also understand why he loves it here. He has a manager smart enough to protect him somewhat during his slow start of the season and to move him to the critical #3 hole when he gets hot.

That being said, I don't know if the White Sox are going to resign Dye. With the number of young outfielders moving up, they may need his spot for one of them.

ChiSoxGirl
12-08-2006, 01:08 PM
I agree, I think I read almost every post on this website, however I do not post many of my own comments or suggestions because instead of someone just disagreeing with them and adding their comments, people have to make you feel like a complete tool. Everyone on this board for the most part are die hard White Sox fans... we all have different opinions on everything... we should embrace those differences!

Absolutely! I'm really glad you agree with me because I was wondering if maybe I was the only one who was feeling like this and was taking it a little too far.

Domeshot17
12-08-2006, 01:13 PM
I know a ton will depend on how 2007 plays out, but if Dye had to the option of taking 2 or 3 mil less, same years, to stay on the sox, or make playing for 3rd place Texas, If anyone would take the home town discount, it would be Dye.

Dye would be a staple for what we have to do. If we are unwilling to give anybody, including our guys, top dollar money to stay, then we have to be able to sign within and convince guys its worth taking less to play here. Dye is the white sox, he should be our captain. He plays hard all the time, he puts the team on his back, He is a vocal leader, he needs to be kept.

People forget Dye started out as one of the most promising young OF in the game with Damon and Beltran. KC really had a special out field. He battled injuries, but this is the productivity Dye could be at for years to come. I would say it is more important to keep him then Crede.

oeo
12-08-2006, 01:15 PM
Remember when free agents supposedly wouldn't play for us? Well, we don't have that problem anymore because we have a GM with some balls who gets the dirty work done and gives up the future when he needs to in order to win.

No he doesn't, that's false! Kenny Williams is all about rebuilding...he could care a less about veterans...it's all about the prospects!

broker3d
12-08-2006, 01:32 PM
No he doesn't, that's false! Kenny Williams is all about rebuilding...he could care a less about veterans...it's all about the prospects!

That's garbage.

How soon people forget.

We have one of the best GM's in baseball. Have faith in the guy who brought us the championship.

QCIASOXFAN
12-08-2006, 01:34 PM
:nuts: When does the season start!

tstrike2000
12-08-2006, 01:39 PM
Dye is a Prince among thieves.

So, should we nickname him Robin Hood?

patbooyah
12-08-2006, 01:45 PM
I know a ton will depend on how 2007 plays out, but if Dye had to the option of taking 2 or 3 mil less, same years, to stay on the sox, or make playing for 3rd place Texas, If anyone would take the home town discount, it would be Dye.



yeah, but it's not like dye has spent an eternity here - it's been a couple of years. also, how are the third place rangers different from the third place sox, except for playing in an easier division? :cool:

Martinigirl
12-08-2006, 02:15 PM
I liked yesterday much better, I didn't read the site until after this had all blown over. But oh no, I took today off, I check the site and I see this again, except now I can fast forward to the resolution that I wanted to see.

This whole thing makes my head hurt. I want Jon to stay and I don't want a huge question mark in our starting rotation. I honestly don't understand what Kenny is thinking right now. I one article he states he never wants to have to sit through another season of the revolving 5th starter nightmare, and then he seems to turn around and try to create that exact situation.

He knows better than anyone that people can have all the potential in the world, but it doesn't guarantee it will happen during the reality of an MLB season. I can see giving Brandon his shot by giving Freddy up (even though I will miss FG), but to take the chance with someone taking over Garland's spot when we have NO clear cut replacement, short of paying out the nose for Zito, it just doesn't make sense. And it scares the hell out of me.

UserNameBlank
12-08-2006, 02:16 PM
yeah, but it's not like dye has spent an eternity here - it's been a couple of years. also, how are the third place rangers different from the third place sox, except for playing in an easier division? :cool:

The 3rd place Sox have a ****ing team and should have repeated as champs.

The 3rd place Rangers are lucky they have fans.

JUribe1989
12-08-2006, 02:28 PM
The 3rd place Rangers are lucky they have fans.

:?:

Rangers fans are very knowledgeable and are always in to the games. If you are basing that purely on attendance, then it is very hypocritical because until last year, the Rangers always had higher attendance than the Sox.

TheOldRoman
12-08-2006, 02:30 PM
I liked yesterday much better, I didn't read the site until after this had all blown over. But oh no, I took today off, I check the site and I see this again, except now I can fast forward to the resolution that I wanted to see.

This whole thing makes my head hurt. I want Jon to stay and I don't want a huge question mark in our starting rotation. I honestly don't understand what Kenny is thinking right now. I one article he states he never wants to have to sit through another season of the revolving 5th starter nightmare, and then he seems to turn around and try to create that exact situation.

He knows better than anyone that people can have all the potential in the world, but it doesn't guarantee it will happen during the reality of an MLB season. I can see giving Brandon his shot by giving Freddy up (even though I will miss FG), but to take the chance with someone taking over Garland's spot when we have NO clear cut replacement, short of paying out the nose for Zito, it just doesn't make sense. And it scares the hell out of me.
OK, so you are taking the media's word as truth "Sox still trying to move Jon" over Kenny's word "I want five solid starters"? I don't know Kenny's plans, and anyone who said they know what he has up his sleeve is lying. IF he did trade Jon, he would get someone else here that would fill out the rotation. I don't know how, but it would happen. There is a lot of offseason to go, and KW has a lot of work ahead of him. However, there is one reason to have faith he will make good decisions:

http://www.seesolutions.org/images/Trophy.jpg

jabrch
12-08-2006, 02:35 PM
Can someone please explain to me why our ace pitcher is being shopped around?

Because he had a 4.5 ERA last year, right around his career average. If someone will give us market value at "Ace" level, for our "Ace" then KW would be a complete fool not to trade him.

Jon Garland is a nice pitcher. He's a decent value at his current salary. But he's no Ace. If other teams will trade for him as they would for an ace, then we should trade him and go out and get a real ace.

TheOldRoman
12-08-2006, 02:43 PM
Because he had a 4.5 ERA last year, right around his career average. If someone will give us market value at "Ace" level, for our "Ace" then KW would be a complete fool not to trade him.

Jon Garland is a nice pitcher. He's a decent value at his current salary. But he's no Ace. If other teams will trade for him as they would for an ace, then we should trade him and go out and get a real ace.
I agree somewhat. Garland is a very good young pitcher, and he can help your team from probably 10 more years. However, if you can get a king's ransom for him (which I don't think the Garcia trade got you), you would have to do it, provided you could fill our the rotation with veterans this year.

Goose
12-08-2006, 02:52 PM
If other teams will trade for him as they would for an ace, then we should trade him and go out and get a real ace.

But that is the issue...who is out there to get and how much will it cost for the Sox to get that "Ace"? If we trade Gar, who you consider a less-than-ace pitcher, for a couple of high prospects, then what would the price be for a "real" ace that other teams would be asking? It would surely be more than a couple of high prospects, wouldn't you agree? At some point you are going to be overpaying, in either talent or $$, for that ace pitcher when Jon is very very serviceable as a #1 or #2 pitcher.

caulfield12
12-08-2006, 03:05 PM
But that is the issue...who is out there to get and how much will it cost for the Sox to get that "Ace"? If we trade Gar, who you consider a less-than-ace pitcher, for a couple of high prospects, then what would the price be for a "real" ace that other teams would be asking? It would surely be more than a couple of high prospects, wouldn't you agree? At some point you are going to be overpaying, in either talent or $$, for that ace pitcher when Jon is very very serviceable as a #1 or #2 pitcher.

He's never going to be a true "shutdown" ace. He's a 2 for a good/average team and a 3 for a great team.

munchman33
12-08-2006, 04:02 PM
Petitte signed with the Yanks today. This trade becomes more and more likely...

UserNameBlank
12-08-2006, 04:08 PM
:?:

Rangers fans are very knowledgeable and are always in to the games. If you are basing that purely on attendance, then it is very hypocritical because until last year, the Rangers always had higher attendance than the Sox.

They are lucky to have fans because in less than one year they traded Mench, Cordero, and Nix for Nelson Cruz and essentially draft picks AND they traded Chris Young, Adrian Gonzalaez, and Termel Sledge for a decent setup man/closer and an Adam Eaton that didn't even pitch.

Texas = :puking: :tsk: :nuts: :kukoo: :drunken: :drunken: :drunken: :anon:

veeter
12-08-2006, 04:12 PM
The Sox REALLY have Houston over a barrel now.

JUribe1989
12-08-2006, 04:12 PM
They are lucky to have fans because in less than one year they traded Mench, Cordero, and Nix for Nelson Cruz and essentially draft picks AND they traded Chris Young, Adrian Gonzalaez, and Termel Sledge for a decent setup man/closer and an Adam Eaton that didn't even pitch.

Texas = :puking: :tsk: :nuts: :kukoo: :drunken: :drunken: :drunken: :anon:

You get so many rare opportunities to make the playoffs in the American League that you have to take advantage of your chance. You can't blame them for trading Mench for Lee. Lee was a much better hitter. Nix appears to have been a flop prospect, and Cordero was TOAST in the American League. He had blown 8 saves and he wasn't even the setup man any more. Terrmel Sledge is no great talent, but the Chris Young trade I will give you. Gonzalez and Young are both better than Eaton. Nelson Cruz kept them in the race last year though with some HUGE hits. And it's not like they needed Gonzalez, they have Teixeira.

UserNameBlank
12-08-2006, 04:13 PM
The Sox REALLY have Houston over a barrel now.

Good. Let's just forget this whole Garland thing and ask the same package for Javy.

veeter
12-08-2006, 04:15 PM
Good. Let's just forget this whole Garland thing and ask the same package for Javy.Good thinking. Heck, I'd even reduce it to Tavares and the 6'8" kid, for Javy. Especially if Buckholz' shoulder hurts.

Taliesinrk
12-08-2006, 04:17 PM
Petitte signed with the Yanks today. This trade becomes more and more likely...

very interesting.. what's the status on clemens? and were they going after both of them? (sorry; it's finals week so i'm a bit behind). furthermore, i say we go all out and really hit them hard.. see how much they want jon. i was very upset when i heard we were trading (or thinking of) JG, but with this i think some serious dividends could come back our way.

UserNameBlank
12-08-2006, 04:27 PM
You get so many rare opportunities to make the playoffs in the American League that you have to take advantage of your chance. You can't blame them for trading Mench for Lee. Lee was a much better hitter. Nix appears to have been a flop prospect, and Cordero was TOAST in the American League. He had blown 8 saves and he wasn't even the setup man any more. Terrmel Sledge is no great talent, but the Chris Young trade I will give you. Gonzalez and Young are both better than Eaton. Nelson Cruz kept them in the race last year though with some HUGE hits. And it's not like they needed Gonzalez, they have Teixeira.

Texas never was in the race for anything. They had no chance and just because they spent a few days around 1st place at some point didn't mean anything other than Oakland and LAAA played well below their capabilities.

Besides, when Texas traded for Lee it was all over for them anyway. Oakland was into its run and LAAA was playing a bit better. Regardless of what you think of Cordero or what Texas thought of Cordero, if he were a FA right now he would be signing a nice fat contract. Teams will lineup around the block to get a bullpen arm like him, and I think any GM also would consider that he was pitching in a very hot climate in a pitchers park for a mediocre team with an overrated defense behind him. But yes, he struggled. Mench and Nix aren't exactly terrific players in any way, but I would have thought that Texas could have at least gotten something useful out of them as a package. Maybe a bullpen arm or a young starter from the Cubs or something? They are always looking for corner OF's and giving away starters. Instead Texas just gives them away for a half season of meaningless Lee, who is known for fading in the second half anyway.

Now if Texas had a legitimate chance, IMO it would have been a great move. BUT, I think everyone knew they didn't. Even their GM came out and said they had no pitching so they were going to try and get to the playoffs by outslugging everyone. Yeah, right. To me the Lee trade seemed like a PR move and nothing else. And while it's good to attempt to look nice in front of your fans, you don't give away more players when you already suck.

Craig Grebeck
12-08-2006, 04:33 PM
Good thinking. Heck, I'd even reduce it to Tavares and the 6'8" kid, for Javy. Especially if Buckholz' shoulder hurts.
I'd rather get Buchholz and Hirsh and keep Javy.

cbotnyse
12-08-2006, 04:59 PM
Because he had a 4.5 ERA last year, right around his career average. If someone will give us market value at "Ace" level, for our "Ace" then KW would be a complete fool not to trade him.

Jon Garland is a nice pitcher. He's a decent value at his current salary. But he's no Ace. If other teams will trade for him as they would for an ace, then we should trade him and go out and get a real ace.ok I'll take that. But dont you think garland is our best pitcher right now? He had a great year last year. Why not keep him and build on that then bring in someone else? Thats my thinking anyway

santo=dorf
12-08-2006, 05:32 PM
Can someone please explain to me why our ace pitcher is being shopped around?
Because we can get a ton in return for trading him?

How exactly is Garland our "ace?"

*waits for someone to talk about his win total.*

ok I'll take that. But dont you think garland is our best pitcher right now? He had a great year last year. Why not keep him and build on that then bring in someone else? Thats my thinking anyway
If Garland was great last year, so was Garcia.

How soon we forget Garland's ERA wasn't south of 5.00 until the trading deadline! :o:

cbotnyse
12-08-2006, 05:35 PM
Because we can get a ton in return for trading him?

How exactly is Garland our "ace?"

*waits for someone to talk about his win total.*who was a better pitcher than Garland last year?

SABRSox
12-08-2006, 05:35 PM
At this point, if we're really going to bend the Astros over, take out Taveras, and add Chris Burke to Buchholz and Hirsh.

santo=dorf
12-08-2006, 05:38 PM
who was a better pitcher than Garland last year?
Contreras and MAYBE Garcia.

Garland:18-7, 4.51 ERA, 1.36 WHIP our ace
Garica: 17-8, 4.53 ERA, 1.28 WHIP. People wanted him kicked to the curb.

Considering Jon had more run support than Garica, those numbers favor Freddy. The only thing Jon did better than Freddy last season was pitch well for a longer strech, and preventing base stealers.

cbotnyse
12-08-2006, 05:39 PM
Because we can get a ton in return for trading him?

How exactly is Garland our "ace?"

*waits for someone to talk about his win total.*


If Garland was great last year, so was Garcia.

How soon we forget Garland's ERA wasn't south of 5.00 until the trading deadline! :o:I agree, I didnt want to see Garcia go either, but he is older is he not? So I think it made a little more sense for him to go. (although, I'm not entirely sold on the trade, but it could be a good move.)

cbotnyse
12-08-2006, 05:44 PM
Contreras and MAYBE Garcia.

Garland:18-7, 4.51 ERA, 1.36 WHIP our ace
Garica: 17-8, 4.53 ERA, 1.28 WHIP. People wanted him kicked to the curb.

Considering Jon had more run support than Garica, those numbers favor Freddy. The only thing Jon did better than Freddy last season was pitch well for a longer strech, and preventing base stealers.ok but Contreras had a miserable second half and Jon was our only solid pitcher in the second half. I just dont think he is trade bait right now. I dont think we could get a big upgrade for him, but of course I dont know all that much in the offseason. It is Bears season for me, and Grossman is enough to worry about.

santo=dorf
12-08-2006, 06:13 PM
ok but Contreras had a miserable second half and Jon was our only solid pitcher in the second half. I just dont think he is trade bait right now. I dont think we could get a big upgrade for him, but of course I dont know all that much in the offseason. It is Bears season for me, and Grossman is enough to worry about.
Contreras' "miserable" second half is comparable's to Jon's first half. With the exception of W-L record which of course, we all know is not a reliable enough stat to judge a pitcher.

86.2 IP, 5.40 ERA, 1.38 WHIP, .794 OPS against
109 IP, 5.37 ERA, 1.42 WHIP, .838 OPS against.

So the second guy gave us 23 more crappier innings than the other guy. Care to guess which one is "our ace?"

Let's look at their good halves:
109.1 IP, 3.38 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, .639 OPS against
102.1 IP, 3.61 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, .733 OPS against

So player 1 gave the Sox 7 much better innings than the over guy.

Conclusion: Contreras is better than Garland and was in 2006. Garland is not our ace, and Garland is incredibly overrated by most Sox fans.
Just look at the numbers and ask yourself if you really believe Garland was as good as you think he was last season.

veeter
12-08-2006, 06:18 PM
After starting 4-3, Garland went 13-1 in his next 14 decisions. Garland is a stud and only getting better. He was trying to work his high era down from his miserable start. A start that included a sore arm, that he worked through like a man. He never went on the DL. He has never been on the DL. He's durable and very, very good.

Hitmen77
12-08-2006, 06:21 PM
Conclusion: Contreras is better than Garland and was in 2006. Garland is not our ace, and Garland is incredibly overrated by most Sox fans.
Just look at the numbers and ask yourself if you really believe Garland was as good as you think he was last season.

The thing about Contreras is that he was totally lights-out, Cy Young candidate, maybe All-Star starter up until the time he went on the DL. After that, he really wasn't consistently the same for the rest of the season. So, it's a big question mark to me if he can rebound in '07 to his August 2005 - May 2006 form.

I really don't care if he was better than Garland or not - I just hope he can return to his old dominance.

veeter
12-08-2006, 06:26 PM
Contreras just needs to be careful covering first. Twice last year he went down in a heap, clutching his hamstring. That guy worries me. And in no way did he have a better year than Garland last year. He was on his way, but he fell off a table.

HotelWhiteSox
12-08-2006, 06:28 PM
This article explains what Houston is thinking



http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/478308p-402360c.html



http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/2/25/180px-Costanza.jpg

You tell that son of a bitch that no Yankee is stepping foot near Houston!

HotelWhiteSox
12-08-2006, 06:31 PM
Also, to that quote in that article by the Astros GM, I didn't take it as the Garland deal including more than 1 team, I took it as them still looking at/working with a number of teams

cbotnyse
12-08-2006, 06:32 PM
Contreras' "miserable" second half is comparable's to Jon's first half. With the exception of W-L record which of course, we all know is not a reliable enough stat to judge a pitcher.

86.2 IP, 5.40 ERA, 1.38 WHIP, .794 OPS against
109 IP, 5.37 ERA, 1.42 WHIP, .838 OPS against.

So the second guy gave us 23 more crappier innings than the other guy. Care to guess which one is "our ace?"

Let's look at their good halves:
109.1 IP, 3.38 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, .639 OPS against
102.1 IP, 3.61 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, .733 OPS against

So player 1 gave the Sox 7 much better innings than the over guy.

Conclusion: Contreras is better than Garland and was in 2006. Garland is not our ace, and Garland is incredibly overrated by most Sox fans.
Just look at the numbers and ask yourself if you really believe Garland was as good as you think he was last season.I love both Contreras and Garland but I remember feeling very confidant when Garland took the mound and he usually didnt let me down. He was 9-1 with a 2.89 ERA in July and August last year. He stepped up when we really needed it and nobody else did. I dont know what your big problem with Garland is. He is a very promising young pitcher that i'd like to have back in 2007.

Goose
12-08-2006, 06:40 PM
I love both Contreras and Garland but I remember feeling very confidant when Garland took the mound and he usually didnt let me down. He was 9-1 with a 2.89 ERA in July and August last year. He stepped up when we really needed it and nobody else did. I dont know what your big problem with Garland is. He is a very promising young pitcher that i'd like to have back in 2007.

Can I get an "AMEN"...

mjmcend
12-08-2006, 06:51 PM
I love both Contreras and Garland but I remember feeling very confidant when Garland took the mound and he usually didnt let me down. He was 9-1 with a 2.89 ERA in July and August last year. He stepped up when we really needed it and nobody else did. I dont know what your big problem with Garland is. He is a very promising young pitcher that i'd like to have back in 2007.

There is an inherent problem basing baseball decisions on feelings.

cbotnyse
12-08-2006, 06:53 PM
There is an inherent problem basing baseball decisions on feelings.I think most GMs would disagree with you.

FarWestChicago
12-08-2006, 10:24 PM
Yup. I dont get it at all.
1 The SOX want all new rotation after their contracts run out.
PLUS
2 The SOX definitely arent giving these guys extensions
PLUS
3 Therefore the SOX want to trade everyone BEFORE they are due for $$$

EQUALS

Another 88 years before we see a World Series.**** off Hangar. I'm sick of your ****.

palehozenychicty
12-08-2006, 10:33 PM
**** off Hangar. I'm sick of your ****.


Seriously. I'd be redundant to say that his act is tired.

itsnotrequired
12-08-2006, 10:49 PM
**** off Hangar. I'm sick of your ****.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

:tongue:

RadioheadRocks
12-08-2006, 10:51 PM
There is an inherent problem basing baseball decisions on feelings.

"Whoa, whoa, whoa FEELINGS..." :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :rolling: :rolling:

FarWestChicago
12-08-2006, 10:58 PM
I must add, if you are a complete idiot, moron and wish to support Hangar in some visible way, I'll perma-whack your stupid ass, too. Go for it.

Harry Potter
12-08-2006, 11:11 PM
Seriously. I'd be redundant to say that his act is tired.

Yeah, I enjoyed it when he took his sabbatical during the summer

lakeviewsoxfan
12-08-2006, 11:30 PM
:hijacked:

Hangars rants were entertaining at first but the negative energy grew old very fast. Good to hear from ya West chilly up north this weekend?

Go Bears!:gulp: :gulp:

TheOldRoman
12-09-2006, 12:11 AM
I must add, if you are a complete idiot, moron and wish to support Hangar in some visible way, I'll perma-whack your stupid ass, too. Go for it.
:caballo
"Hey, Hangar seems like a nice guy. He told me that, if he were a GM, he would have given me $200 million."

I owe you a a beer, West.:cheers:

Craig Grebeck
12-09-2006, 12:49 AM
I think most GMs would disagree with you.
Then most GMs know nothing about baseball. I'd do Hirsh for Garland straight up, and if they threw in Bucholz and a position player (not names Taveras) that's just gravy.

cbotnyse
12-09-2006, 01:19 AM
Then most GMs know nothing about baseball. I'd do Hirsh for Garland straight up, and if they threw in Bucholz and a position player (not names Taveras) that's just gravy.My GM comment had to do with going off of feel. I think GMs have a certain feel for players and dont make decisions strictly on the numbers.

KRS1
12-09-2006, 01:56 AM
Probably not adding anything, but it's difficult to feel either way about this trade. It would be getting a VERY GOOD, potential ace, in Hirsh, but it would be tough losing a guy who Ive seen get as hot as anyone in baseball on the mound for good stretches. The fact that everyone wants to win now, including KW, is the obvious X-factor, combined with the words POTENTIAL, and UNPROVEN, at the major league level, and it really begins to weigh on you. It's just hard to feel good or terrible about the idea of this trade, but I would have been nervous as all hell until the season started and got some kind of answer as to how things played out on our side. Buchholz isnt too bad of a toss in either, but with his motion and seemingly all out effort on the mound, his shoulder's durability does become a huge concern. If the Astros add Nieve or Wheeler, then I'd say it was a done deal in my mind.

mjmcend
12-09-2006, 03:04 AM
My GM comment had to do with going off of feel. I think GMs have a certain feel for players and dont make decisions strictly on the numbers.

I wasn't saying it should be strictly on the numbers but not on feelings. Watching, scouting, and evaluating a player with your eyes and brain is one thing. Your feelings or gut instinct should have little to do with baseball decisions.

Ol' No. 2
12-09-2006, 10:08 AM
Then most GMs know nothing about baseball. I'd do Hirsh for Garland straight up, and if they threw in Bucholz and a position player (not names Taveras) that's just gravy.Who cares about winning? It's all about cost efficiency.

Craig Grebeck
12-10-2006, 12:51 AM
Who cares about winning? It's all about cost efficiency.
Oh please, don't give me your crybaby bs ON2. I'm sick of that garbage. If you think Garland is irreplacable, you need your head examined. Trading a mediocre innings eater who is making eight figures for one of the best prospects in the game, PLUS another good prospect is a no brainer.

itsnotrequired
12-10-2006, 12:55 AM
Oh please, don't give me your crybaby bs ON2. I'm sick of that garbage. If you think Garland is irreplacable, you need your head examined. Trading a mediocre innings eater who is making eight figures for one of the best prospects in the game, PLUS another good prospect is a no brainer.

The teal necessary in this post is beyond comical.

Craig Grebeck
12-10-2006, 01:04 AM
The teal necessary in this post is beyond comical.
Please. Show me why Garland is given this God-like status?

itsnotrequired
12-10-2006, 01:11 AM
Please. Show me why Garland is given this God-like status?

I meant it was teal in the sense of a response to ON2. His post oozed teal to the point where it was no longer necessary.

WizardsofOzzie
12-10-2006, 10:13 AM
Oh please, don't give me your crybaby bs ON2. I'm sick of that garbage. If you think Garland is irreplacable, you need your head examined. Trading a mediocre innings eater who is making eight figures for one of the best prospects in the game, PLUS another good prospect is a no brainer.
He is irreplaceable at the moment because who the hell are you going to plug into the lineup if he leaves? Unless KW lines that up first, this trade should be a dead issue. If he finds a worthy replacement, then we'll talk but im not ready to see any of our rookies in the starting 5 just yet

WizardsofOzzie
12-10-2006, 10:15 AM
Then most GMs know nothing about baseball. I'd do Hirsh for Garland straight up, and if they threw in Bucholz and a position player (not names Taveras) that's just gravy.
And this is why you are not a GM......although i hear the Cubs will have an opening soon. Sounds like you'd pick up right where he left off :redneck

Ol' No. 2
12-10-2006, 12:45 PM
Oh please, don't give me your crybaby bs ON2. I'm sick of that garbage. If you think Garland is irreplacable, you need your head examined. Trading a mediocre innings eater who is making eight figures for one of the best prospects in the game, PLUS another good prospect is a no brainer.Horse****. Garland is a proven winner. I don't care how good of a team he's pitching for, winning 18 games in back-to-back seasons is not chopped liver. If that's mediocre, give me an extra portion.

Prospects are called prospects for a reason. You want to build a team of prospects? Build the Marlins. They're currently everyone's darlings because they almost made the playoffs with a $15M payroll. But when they give out trophies at the end of the year there isn't one for "Most cost-efficient team to almost make the playoffs".

WizardsofOzzie
12-10-2006, 12:56 PM
Horse****. Garland is a proven winner. I don't care how good of a team he's pitching for, winning 18 games in back-to-back seasons is not chopped liver. If that's mediocre, give me an extra portion.

Prospects are called prospects for a reason. You want to build a team of prospects? Build the Marlins. They're currently everyone's darlings because they almost made the playoffs with a $15M payroll. But when they give out trophies at the end of the year there isn't one for "Most cost-efficient team to almost make the playoffs".
Well put :thumbsup:

Domeshot17
12-10-2006, 01:10 PM
You have to find the real Garland to find his worth. He won 18 games 2 years in a row and was not mentioned in any breath for Cy Young. However, he has won 18 games 2 years in a row, and that means something. He gets a ton of run support, and his era was mid 4, but hes still a solid young pitcher. I want to see Garland do it for an entire year. Last year it was the 2nd half he took off, the year before the first half, but he can't seem to put it together for 2 halfs.

The only way I trade Garlandd is if it nets Hirsch Burke and Lidge. Thats the trade I like. Bucholtz will never be anything because his arm is about to fall off. Hirsch is the real deal however. I won't lie, If Floyd CAN turn it around, and Hirsch and Gio live up to par, then a front 4 of Hirsch Floyd Brandon and Gio will be BETTER then Buehlre Garland Garcia Contreras

Ol' No. 2
12-10-2006, 01:21 PM
You have to find the real Garland to find his worth. He won 18 games 2 years in a row and was not mentioned in any breath for Cy Young. However, he has won 18 games 2 years in a row, and that means something. He gets a ton of run support, and his era was mid 4, but hes still a solid young pitcher. I want to see Garland do it for an entire year. Last year it was the 2nd half he took off, the year before the first half, but he can't seem to put it together for 2 halfs.

The only way I trade Garlandd is if it nets Hirsch Burke and Lidge. Thats the trade I like. Bucholtz will never be anything because his arm is about to fall off. Hirsch is the real deal however. I won't lie, If Floyd CAN turn it around, and Hirsch and Gio live up to par, then a front 4 of Hirsch Floyd Brandon and Gio will be BETTER then Buehlre Garland Garcia ContrerasRun support is one of the most misused statistics you'll find. If a pitcher wins a game 15-0, did he only win because of run support? You can't just assume the run support came evenly over the course of the season. Good pitchers bear down more in close games and relax and maybe give up more runs when their team is way ahead. The statheads like to just assume everything evens out, but given only 30-35 starts in a season, that's not a given.

For example, Garland got 6.39 RS in 2006 while Buehrle got 4.99. But it's the same team and the same offense. Why would there be such a big discrepancy if it's such a meaningful number?

patbooyah
12-10-2006, 01:42 PM
Run support is one of the most misused statistics you'll find. If a pitcher wins a game 15-0, did he only win because of run support? You can't just assume the run support came evenly over the course of the season. Good pitchers bear down more in close games and relax and maybe give up more runs when their team is way ahead. The statheads like to just assume everything evens out, but given only 30-35 starts in a season, that's not a given.

For example, Garland got 6.39 RS in 2006 while Buehrle got 4.99. But it's the same team and the same offense. Why would there be such a big discrepancy if it's such a meaningful number?

i think he was bringing up run support to question THE most misused statistic you'll find: wins.

mjmcend
12-10-2006, 02:03 PM
Run support is one of the most misused statistics you'll find. If a pitcher wins a game 15-0, did he only win because of run support? You can't just assume the run support came evenly over the course of the season. Good pitchers bear down more in close games and relax and maybe give up more runs when their team is way ahead. The statheads like to just assume everything evens out, but given only 30-35 starts in a season, that's not a given.

For example, Garland got 6.39 RS in 2006 while Buehrle got 4.99. But it's the same team and the same offense. Why would there be such a big discrepancy if it's such a meaningful number?

Maybe the team hates Buehrle for wearing Cardinals gear and wants him gone so they don't try as hard in his starts. Or maybe its luck and that is why a pitcher's run support is a meaningful number or more accurately why a pitcher's wins are meaningless.

santo=dorf
12-10-2006, 02:09 PM
Horse****. Garland is a proven winner. I don't care how good of a team he's pitching for, winning 18 games in back-to-back seasons is not chopped liver. If that's mediocre, give me an extra portion.

Prospects are called prospects for a reason. You want to build a team of prospects? Build the Marlins. They're currently everyone's darlings because they almost made the playoffs with a $15M payroll. But when they give out trophies at the end of the year there isn't one for "Most cost-efficient team to almost make the playoffs".
Actually it is, especially when the teams he played on combined for 189 wins.

You even said yourself that wins don't tell the whole story.

With Garland I see a guy who gives you a lot of innings with an average ERA, allowing guys on base at an average rate, doesn't strike anyone out, and doesn't get a lot more groundballs than flyballs despite using a sinker.

That's not worth $23 million over 2 years to me even if numbskulls like Chin Hendry are paying guys like Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis money in a similar range.

If somebody is offering a great package (better than the one for Garcia,) for Garland, you take it. The odds are much more likely for Garland to have an average year in 2007 and diminish his trade value even more by becoming a one year rental.

caulfield12
12-10-2006, 02:15 PM
Actually it is, especially when the teams he played on combined for 189 wins.

You even said yourself that wins don't tell the whole story.

With Garland I see a guy who gives you a lot of innings with an average ERA, allowing guys on base at an average rate, doesn't strike anyone out, and doesn't get a lot more groundballs than flyballs despite using a sinker.

That's not worth $23 million over 2 years to me even if numbskulls like Chin Hendry are paying guys like Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis money in a similar range.

If somebody is offering a great package (better than the one for Garcia,) for Garland, you take it. The odds are much more likely for Garland to have an average year in 2007 and diminish his trade value even more by becoming a one year rental.

What do you base that upon? Now I've never bought Garland as an ace, but he's become a solid 3/4 option. You get lots of innings, a little bit better than league average ERA's and what appears to be a very durable and resilient arm.

I would feel better about keeping him long-term than any of our other pitchers at this point.

Assuming Buehrle is gone, you're down to Vazquez and Conteras and McCarthy, that's COMPLETELY unpredictable.

The one thing Garland is IS predicable. Combined with his post-season performance and his age, that makes him a very valuable asset, which is why the return for JG was significantly higher than for Garcia.

Besides the fact that Garland and McCarthy are very similar in size/stature and I think Jon could teach quite a few things to Brandon.

dickallen15
12-10-2006, 02:47 PM
Why is Garland and his 4.44 career ERA a bargain at $22 or 23 million for 2 years, but Lilly and his 4.60 career ERA a totally insane contract at $10 million a year for 4 years? Their career WHIPS are also almost identical, 1.376 for Garland, 1.378 for Lilly.

KRS1
12-10-2006, 03:05 PM
Why is Garland and his 4.44 career ERA a bargain at $22 or 23 million for 2 years, but Lilly and his 4.60 career ERA a totally insane contract at $10 million a year for 4 years? Their career WHIPS are also almost identical, 1.376 for Garland, 1.378 for Lilly.


Durability, age, ability to stay healthy a whole season, just to name a few reasons. Lilly has never even thrown 200 innings in a season.

Domeshot17
12-10-2006, 03:15 PM
It makes perfect sense.

When Buehlre throws, he pitches against the number 1 on most teams. He faces better pitchers which means less runs scored. When Garland pitches, he throws against the 3-5 starter of most teams, which means more runs scored.

My point was, a pitcher could go 10-0 with a 2.91 era and be an ace, and a pitcher could go 15-0 with a 5.10 era if his team was scoring 7 runs a game. 15-0 can be very misleading.

TDog
12-10-2006, 03:37 PM
It makes perfect sense.

When Buehlre throws, he pitches against the number 1 on most teams. He faces better pitchers which means less runs scored. When Garland pitches, he throws against the 3-5 starter of most teams, which means more runs scored.

My point was, a pitcher could go 10-0 with a 2.91 era and be an ace, and a pitcher could go 15-0 with a 5.10 era if his team was scoring 7 runs a game. 15-0 can be very misleading.

That premise is flawed because team's schedules don't line up and even when they do and teams rarely get through a season consistently running out a five-man. The starter who is fifth in the rotation often will go up against the starter who is the first in the opponent's rotation. Buehrle faces the bottom of the rotation pitchers and spot starters just as Garland's first win in 2005 came against the Twins' No. 1 starter. The fact that Radke was No. 1 and Santana, a better pitcher, No. 2, also points out that the whole idea of No. 1 and No 2 starters is an example of statheads exaggerating the importance of where a pitcher pitches in the rotation and repeating it on the level that it becomes shorthand for so-called experts who pass it along to more casual fans.

I think in 1967, Ken Holtzman had an ERA exceeding 7 while getting out to a 7-0 start, but wins and ERA are rarely so skewed. Even when they are, often ERAs are deceptive because they reflect one or two bad outings. Over a course of a season, if a pitcher wins 18 games, you can't complain.

dickallen15
12-10-2006, 03:37 PM
It makes perfect sense.

When Buehlre throws, he pitches against the number 1 on most teams. He faces better pitchers which means less runs scored. When Garland pitches, he throws against the 3-5 starter of most teams, which means more runs scored.

My point was, a pitcher could go 10-0 with a 2.91 era and be an ace, and a pitcher could go 15-0 with a 5.10 era if his team was scoring 7 runs a game. 15-0 can be very misleading.
He does on opening day. I really question how more times he pitches against an ace than anyone else in the rotation. The way he pitched the second half of 2006, he would not have had many wins if all he was opposing were A ball call-ups. Wins are pretty important. There's no guarantee you're a HOFer with a sparkling ERA. 300 wins, you're pretty much assured a spot. There may be a season or so in a long career where the wins may be a little deceiving, but over a decent sample size, a lot of wins will mean you pitched pretty well.

caulfield12
12-10-2006, 03:39 PM
That premise is flawed because team's schedules don't line up and even when they do and teams rarely get through a season consistently running out a five-man. The starter who is fifth in the rotation often will go up against the starter who is the first in the opponent's rotation. Buehrle faces the bottom of the rotation pitchers and spot starters just as Garland's first win in 2005 came against the Twins' No. 1 starter. The fact that Radke was No. 1 and Santana, a better pitcher, No. 2, also points out that the whole idea of No. 1 and No 2 starters is an example of statheads exaggerating the importance of where a pitcher pitches in the rotation and repeating it on the level that it becomes shorthand for so-called experts who pass it along to more casual fans.

I think in 1967, Ken Holtzman had an ERA exceeding 7 while getting out to a 7-0 start, but wins and ERA are rarely so skewed. Even when they are, often ERAs are deceptive because they reflect one or two bad outings. Over a course of a season, if a pitcher wins 18 games, you can't complain.

I can't remember exactly, but it seems like Buehrle faced Cheeseburger/Hat Askew Guy (think Indians) at least twice this past season...

TDog
12-10-2006, 07:09 PM
I can't remember exactly, but it seems like Buehrle faced Cheeseburger/Hat Askew Guy (think Indians) at least twice this past season...


Sabathia missed some starts last season because of minor injuries. As the Indians' best starting pitcher, he would come back when he was ready, not when the mythical No. 1 spot in the rotation came around. After opening day his position in the rotation was purely arbitrary.

Huisj
12-10-2006, 07:16 PM
It makes perfect sense.

When Buehlre throws, he pitches against the number 1 on most teams. He faces better pitchers which means less runs scored. When Garland pitches, he throws against the 3-5 starter of most teams, which means more runs scored.


I've always questioned this theory to be honest. Sure, maybe for the first couple of weeks in a season that can be true, but with days off early on, some teams will skip the 5 spot. It's inevitable that some guys will get hurt and miss a start or two, throwing off the rotation. There there are rainouts and days off when other teams don't have days off. With all those things going on, I've never really believed these "aces face aces" and "scrubs face scrubs" kinds of arguments. There just seem to be too many factors that can upset the regular order of a pitching rotation for this to happen consistently.

Maybe there's data out there to prove me wrong, but right now I'm quite skeptical.

caulfield12
12-10-2006, 08:07 PM
I've always questioned this theory to be honest. Sure, maybe for the first couple of weeks in a season that can be true, but with days off early on, some teams will skip the 5 spot. It's inevitable that some guys will get hurt and miss a start or two, throwing off the rotation. There there are rainouts and days off when other teams don't have days off. With all those things going on, I've never really believed these "aces face aces" and "scrubs face scrubs" kinds of arguments. There just seem to be too many factors that can upset the regular order of a pitching rotation for this to happen consistently.

Maybe there's data out there to prove me wrong, but right now I'm quite skeptical.



I'm sure that you'll find that only 20% of the time do you see the two top pitchers randomly aligned after the first couple of weeks of the season, after the ASB in July and then the playoffs.

This theory is a bunch of bunk.

We've had Sox "aces" lose to Adam Bernero, Runelvys Hernandez (so good he was unclaimed on waivers) and Luke Hudson, just to name 3 Royals.

jabrch
12-10-2006, 10:23 PM
It makes perfect sense.

When Buehlre throws, he pitches against the number 1 on most teams. He faces better pitchers which means less runs scored. When Garland pitches, he throws against the 3-5 starter of most teams, which means more runs scored.

My point was, a pitcher could go 10-0 with a 2.91 era and be an ace, and a pitcher could go 15-0 with a 5.10 era if his team was scoring 7 runs a game. 15-0 can be very misleading.


Go back and look at Buehrle's matchups. You will find he does not face #1s all the time. Due mostly to off days, and also to rain and injuries, it doesn't work out that way.

jabrch
12-10-2006, 10:26 PM
without looking at the entire season, he pitched his last 5 starts against F. Hernandez, K. Rogers, E. Santana, C. Lee and O. Perez. Only Rogers is a #1 on his team.

TheOldRoman
12-10-2006, 10:31 PM
My point was, a pitcher could go 10-0 with a 2.91 era and be an ace, and a pitcher could go 15-0 with a 5.10 era if his team was scoring 7 runs a game. 15-0 can be very misleading.
Yep. Run support gave Roy Halladay the Cy Young in 03, depite the fact that his ERA was .35 higher than Loaiza and he had less strikeouts. He had more wins.

Huisj
12-10-2006, 11:05 PM
Yep. Run support gave Roy Halladay the Cy Young in 03, depite the fact that his ERA was .35 higher than Loaiza and he had less strikeouts. He had more wins.

He also threw a bazillion complete games and about 60 more innings than Loaiza. Didn't he even pitch a 10-inning shutout that year? I think those things make up for the ERA difference, and big whoop about the strikeouts.

TheOldRoman
12-10-2006, 11:27 PM
He also threw a bazillion complete games and about 60 more innings than Loaiza. Didn't he even pitch a 10-inning shutout that year? I think those things make up for the ERA difference, and big whoop about the strikeouts.
Complete games are aided by run support. You are going to give the pitcher a little wiggle room if you are up by 8. Besides that, Halladay didn't lose 2 games 1-0 to the worst team to ever play in the American League. I'm not saying Loaiza is a better pitcher than Halladay, but I think he was better that year.

Ol' No. 2
12-11-2006, 10:00 AM
Actually it is, especially when the teams he played on combined for 189 wins.

You even said yourself that wins don't tell the whole story.

With Garland I see a guy who gives you a lot of innings with an average ERA, allowing guys on base at an average rate, doesn't strike anyone out, and doesn't get a lot more groundballs than flyballs despite using a sinker.

That's not worth $23 million over 2 years to me even if numbskulls like Chin Hendry are paying guys like Ted Lilly and Jason Marquis money in a similar range.

If somebody is offering a great package (better than the one for Garcia,) for Garland, you take it. The odds are much more likely for Garland to have an average year in 2007 and diminish his trade value even more by becoming a one year rental.Wins don't tell the whole story, but neither does any other statistic. And you can't ignore the ability to win games. As for run support, it matters a lot WHEN you get it. One game where your team scores 15 runs increases your average RS by 0.3, even if you won 15-0.

In fact, Garland got most of his wins in the second half when the offense was struggling. You can't just look at averages and assume they're constant over the season or from game to game.

caulfield12
12-11-2006, 10:17 AM
Wins don't tell the whole story, but neither does any other statistic. And you can't ignore the ability to win games. As for run support, it matters a lot WHEN you get it. One game where your team scores 15 runs increases your average RS by 0.3, even if you won 15-0.

In fact, Garland got most of his wins in the second half when the offense was struggling. You can't just look at averages and assume they're constant over the season or from game to game.


I always went by IP-H + K's-BB's divided by 9.

That's the most effective measure that I have used for "general effectiveness".

Ol' No. 2
12-11-2006, 12:03 PM
I always went by IP-H + K's-BB's divided by 9.

That's the most effective measure that I have used for "general effectiveness".I guess I would argue that any quest for a single measure of effectiveness is doomed to fail. You have to look at the whole picture.

BTW, if Garland's win total was inflated by run support, it should be readily apparent in a high number of "cheap wins" (i.e. games where he got the win despite not turning in a quality start. Over the last two years he's had exactly TWO.

caulfield12
12-11-2006, 02:32 PM
I guess I would argue that any quest for a single measure of effectiveness is doomed to fail. You have to look at the whole picture.

BTW, if Garland's win total was inflated by run support, it should be readily apparent in a high number of "cheap wins" (i.e. games where he got the win despite not turning in a quality start. Over the last two years he's had exactly TWO.

Absolutely right. My stat gives you the best ROTO league pitcher (where K's are more valuable) and the one who probably has the best stuff (IP-H)...someone like Buehrle or Garland would be around average on that scale, and Vazquez/Contreras would look much better comparatively. But that wouldn't tell you who you would want out on the mound in the 7th game of the World Series.

santo=dorf
12-11-2006, 04:02 PM
BTW, if Garland's win total was inflated by run support, it should be readily apparent in a high number of "cheap wins" (i.e. games where he got the win despite not turning in a quality start. Over the last two years he's had exactly TWO.
Both those cheap wins came last season, and yes, he was tied with a few others on being #1 in that category. That's not too telling.

Ol' No. 2
12-11-2006, 04:11 PM
Both those cheap wins came last season, and yes, he was tied with a few others on being #1 in that category. That's not too telling.More fun with small numbers:

It was 200% of the number Ted Lilly had.:rolleyes:

You're trying to make something out of nothing. Even if he'd lost both of them he'd still have won 34 games over the last two seasons. Those wins are clearly not a result of unusual run support, which is what you've been trying to claim. Moreover, he had THREE tough losses in 2005, so cumulatively over the last two years he's been hurt by lack of run support more than he's been the beneficiary of good run support.