PDA

View Full Version : Trade Garland?


SluggersAway
07-09-2007, 05:36 PM
Phil Rogers:

But don't be surprised if the Buehrle signing starts rumors about a Garland trade. (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070708rogers,1,5375379.column?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines) Assuming Friday's pulverization by the Minnesota Twins was the aberration it seems, Garland replaces Buehrle as Williams' best bargaining chip.

You'd hate to see him go, but if he stays, the Sox have more than $65 million tied up in Konerko, Thome and their top four starters. That's probably not the best way to put a scare into the Tigers and the Indians.

Sounds like a really dumb idea to me until one of our prospects can prove they are the real deal.

miker
07-09-2007, 05:39 PM
Phil Rogers:



Sounds like a really dumb idea to me until one of our prospects can prove they are the real deal.
You'll find that dumb ideas and RUMORS go hand in hand.

oeo
07-09-2007, 05:42 PM
You'll find that dumb ideas and PHIL ROGERS go hand in hand.

There you go.

chisoxmike
07-09-2007, 05:44 PM
Read what it says. "Don't be surprised if rumors start."

Garland isn't going anywhere, at least not until the 2008 trading deadline...:D: Even then I'd be shocked.

DumpJerry
07-09-2007, 05:46 PM
This thread begged for a poll.

santo=dorf
07-09-2007, 05:47 PM
Not right now. Maybe in the offseason unless he keeps pitching well and offers a little hometown discount.

DumpJerry
07-09-2007, 05:55 PM
Burls, Garland, Danks and Javy have the potential to be a very, very scary foursome to opposing hitters. We have some prospects *cough* Gio Gonzalez *cough* who could round that out.

Now, if we can get good bullpen help and decent fielding........:bandance:

Zisk77
07-09-2007, 05:55 PM
IMHO you build around Beurhle-Garland-Danks in the rotation and Konerko-Thome-Field-Jenks-Thornton for the rest of the roster. anyone else is fair game and Crede is damaged goods at the moment.

lostfan
07-09-2007, 06:09 PM
When exactly is the ETA for Gio anyway? Mid '08? Opening Day '09? I know he's in AA but it's not all that unusual for a guy to get called up straight from AA if the organization feels they have nothing left to prove.

palehozenychicty
07-09-2007, 06:52 PM
Garland is a particular case because he's still young and durable. We could get a lot of talent for him, but he's really improved since he came up as a 20-year old. Like Mark, he's the kind of pitcher that you build around rather than trade. Keep him.

tick53
07-09-2007, 07:23 PM
I say no. Remember? Pitching and defense?

soxtalker
07-09-2007, 07:31 PM
OK, I'll put in a "yes" vote. He just strikes me as the ideal candidate to trade in a down year. I could just see KW pulling off a trade in much same way as he traded McCarthy.

Think of it from the cold perspective of the value his remaining time with us represents. He's tied up with us for only another 1-1/2 years. For the next 1/2 year -- a significant fraction of that time -- he'll be pitching for us when we have virtually no chance. If he's traded away to a team in contention, they'll be able to make use of that value during the entire remainder of the contract. I'm not trying to help another team, but we can get some very good players for that remaining time.

Daver
07-09-2007, 07:50 PM
Why in the hell would you want to trade the best pitcher you have had for the last two seasons?

Boondock Saint
07-09-2007, 09:19 PM
Just like Buehrle, he just wins. I don't trade him, if at all possible.

rdwj
07-09-2007, 09:34 PM
I said no, but you trade ANYBODY for the right price. If somebody is willing to give us a sweetheart deal, of course you move him, but it has to be something special.

soxtalker
07-09-2007, 09:41 PM
Why in the hell would you want to trade the best pitcher you have had for the last two seasons?

I don't think that he will be very easy to sign -- as difficult or more difficult than MB. I also think that it is likely that his value will never be higher in the next 1-1/2 years than it is now. If that's what KW believes -- and he doesn't seem to be one to show his hand -- then it makes sense to explore trades right now.

I'm also assuming that we get a lot in return. The Sox have done this before. Lamar Hoyt was our best pitcher in '83, IIRC, and we traded him for a SS.

Tragg
07-09-2007, 10:17 PM
When exactly is the ETA for Gio anyway?
I would think he's better than most of our bullpen pitchers right now. ML bullpen is a good prep for starting; maybe it's a touch too early, but next year, I wouldn't see why not.
Is Floyd back down, or will he pitch out of our pen?

Tragg
07-09-2007, 10:25 PM
I'm also assuming that we get a lot in return. The Sox have done this before. Lamar Hoyt was our best pitcher in '83, IIRC, and we traded him for a SS.
We didn't exactly get a lot in return if it was the Hoyt of '83 we were trading; but that's not who we traded - we did okay in return for the strung-out Hoyt of a few years later.

I hope we make a decision on Garland before next season. I don't know if it will be harder or easier to sign Garland, but I don't think he'll command as much as MB would have as a FA. Also, his walks are up and his Ks are down; but, if you exclude the last game, his ERA this year is in the low 3s. His ERA last year was only mediocre and his career ERA is 4.4.
He's a workhorse, pitches a lot of innings and generally pitches them well.
Yet, this team, as constructed, isn't a contender....so something will have to give to get some position players in here.

Craig Grebeck
07-09-2007, 10:32 PM
Yes, trade him. He will net a large return and moving him could fill some serious holes. We must deal from a position of strength.

Flight #24
07-09-2007, 11:35 PM
IMO the ony way you even think about dealing Garland is a) if the budget won't let you resign him, b)you can't free up $$$ by trading (in order) Contreras/Vazquez, and c)you can get the provebial kings ransom for him, including a stud SP prospect.

Otherwise, what's the point. If Contreras has no value and you can get Buchholz+Ellsbury+Lugo for Garland & Uribe, maybe you consider it. But if you can do a smaller deal for an OF for Contreras I'd just do that and keep Jon.

Would the BloSawx do a Contreras+Uribe+Floyd for Lugo+Ellsbury+Cash deal? If Schilling is out and Tavarez continues to suck, they'd get a decent SP (assuming Jose bounces back after the break) and free themselves of the underperforming Lugo and his deal. On the Sox, Jose could play SS or 2B, if they get $2-3M/yr, he'd make $5M and his offensive stats in Tampa were always solid.

Or maybe the Sox can throw a third or 4th tier prospect at Boston for Wily Mo Pena. Could be worth a flier if it doesn't cost much given the dearth of impact OF bats they look to have.

Tragg
07-10-2007, 12:01 AM
Would the BloSawx do a Contreras+Uribe+Floyd for Lugo+Ellsbury+Cash deal? If Schilling is out and Tavarez continues to suck, they'd get a decent SP (assuming Jose bounces back after the break) and free themselves of the underperforming Lugo and his deal. On the Sox, Jose could play SS or 2B, if they get $2-3M/yr, he'd make $5M and his offensive stats in Tampa were always solid.
I doubt Boston would want to send us money, considering they take Contreras' contract.
Lugo's claim to fame is 2 decent OBP years in Tampa - his other years weren't very good and his defense has always been poor. Being weak up the middle is an effective way to offset the benefits we get from investing in great pitching. Uribe's a better ballplayer than is Lugo...and I would look to trade Uribe, but lord don't bring Lugo onto this team.

Flight #24
07-10-2007, 12:13 AM
I doubt Boston would want to send us money, considering they take Contreras' contract.
Lugo's claim to fame is 2 decent OBP years in Tampa - his other years weren't very good and his defense has always been poor. Being weak up the middle is an effective way to offset the benefits we get from investing in great pitching. Uribe's a better ballplayer than is Lugo...and I would look to trade Uribe, but lord don't bring Lugo onto this team.

I think the big difference would be if Jose's pitching effectively again then he's underpaid whereas Lugo's overpaid. It would fit with the Loaiza-Contreras style of deal where KW gets a veteran who he thinks can turn it around. IMO that's also what he was referring to when he talked today about checking "where we are financially" and seeing how they could be buyers: Taking on veterans who they think can contribute next year rather than focusing only on prospects.

MrX
07-10-2007, 12:22 AM
Buster Olney said in a chat today that Jose is the best pitcher availabe of those that could be moved by the deadline

Mr. White Sox
07-10-2007, 01:03 AM
I posted this in the Buehrle thread less than a week ago:
I'm throwing this out here now: I think if Buehrle gets his contract, Garland is traded (either now or in the off-season). Jon is signed through 2008 and will command a similar deal to Buehrle in the open market (5/70?). Management will not devote such a gigantic amount of payroll to two pitchers (three including Javy), and I just see Garland as the dark horse to be traded. Javy has three years left and could command quite a bit of return if he's traded now, but I think Garland will get KW even more in terms of prospects. Keep in mind KW loves those under-the-radar deals, and Jon is the only pitcher (aside from Danks) who hasn't been mentioned in trade rumors, from what I've seen.
Either Buehrle or Jon will be gone come 2008.
This is definitely out there as far as ideas go, and it seems pretty likely that Jose will be the one pitcher traded. However, KW can maximize his return by trading Jon now, and it just seems like a foregone conclusion that he won't be re-signed after 2008 anyway. KW made his choice of Mark over Jon, IMO, and the Dodgers, Braves, Mets and Red Sox could use a starter of Garland's caliber. I would expect nothing less than Matt Kemp and a prospect from LAD, Salty and Escobar from ATL, or Milledge/Humber and Gomez from NYM due to Garland's extra year on his deal relative to Buehrle a week ago. I say again: this is all complete, airheaded speculation.

Taliesinrk
07-10-2007, 01:04 AM
Phil Rogers.. are you kidding me? This is ****house material..

veeter
07-10-2007, 01:25 PM
Why in the hell would you want to trade the best pitcher you have had for the last two seasons?Thank You Daver. Sometimes I don't understand anyone's thinking. 'Yes, let's trade our best pitcher for more...um...pitching?' Or better yet, let's get two Gavin Floyds for one Garland. Jeesh.

johnnyg83
07-10-2007, 02:44 PM
Please Lord, no Lugo.

Jaffar
07-10-2007, 03:07 PM
I posted this in the Buehrle thread less than a week ago:
This is definitely out there as far as ideas go, and it seems pretty likely that Jose will be the one pitcher traded. However, KW can maximize his return by trading Jon now, and it just seems like a foregone conclusion that he won't be re-signed after 2008 anyway. KW made his choice of Mark over Jon, IMO, and the Dodgers, Braves, Mets and Red Sox could use a starter of Garland's caliber. I would expect nothing less than Matt Kemp and a prospect from LAD, Salty and Escobar from ATL, or Milledge/Humber and Gomez from NYM due to Garland's extra year on his deal relative to Buehrle a week ago. I say again: this is all complete, airheaded speculation.

I have been thinking the same thing. 2 questions, 1. will the Sox be contenders next year? 2. Will Garland give the Sox a discount in years and money like Buehrle did? Unless KW can put together a team that will contend next year (lots of holes in one offseason) then I could see it happening but it would have to come for a kings ransom this year or a great deal in the offseason.

103 screwball
07-10-2007, 03:48 PM
I think Jon will be traded.

1. He can bring a big return.
2. His salary could be freed up to make other improvements.
3. I don't think he will give as big of a discount as MB.
4. He has an knot in his shoulder.
5. KW almost traded him to Houston in the off season.

I like the kid. But I think this may be the hard decision KW will make to retool the club now that Buehrle is resigned. He can bring back 2 studs. However, that knot in the shoulder thing may prevent the trade too.

veeter
07-10-2007, 03:54 PM
I think Jon will be traded.

1. He can bring a big return.
2. His salary could be freed up to make other improvements.
3. I don't think he will give as big of a discount as MB.
4. He has an knot in his shoulder.
5. KW almost traded him to Houston in the off season.

I like the kid. But I think this may be the hard decision KW will make to retool the club now that Buehrle is resigned. He can bring back 2 studs. However, that knot in the shoulder thing may prevent the trade too.The problem is then, we won't have a pitcher that's won 18 games two years in a row.

Jaffar
07-10-2007, 04:52 PM
The problem is then, we won't have a pitcher that's won 18 games two years in a row.

I guess I don't see KW putting together a team that will surpass Min, Det, and Cle in 2008 and they are not in it what good is an 18 game winner that won't be on the team the following year. Can trading Garland bring us our ss/cf/lf/rf/2b of the future? It's got to be a great deal but for a year and half of Jon at his price you would think KW could blown away with some offers.

veeter
07-10-2007, 06:45 PM
I guess I don't see KW putting together a team that will surpass Min, Det, and Cle in 2008 and they are not in it what good is an 18 game winner that won't be on the team the following year. Can trading Garland bring us our ss/cf/lf/rf/2b of the future? It's got to be a great deal but for a year and half of Jon at his price you would think KW could blown away with some offers.Who says he's not going to be on the team the following year?

Daver
07-10-2007, 06:53 PM
I guess I don't see KW putting together a team that will surpass Min, Det, and Cle in 2008 and they are not in it what good is an 18 game winner that won't be on the team the following year. .

Lets take a look back, Jon was faced with impending arbitration eligibility, and chose to forgo those years by agreeing to a three year contract extension midseaon, so you are extropalating from what he has done in the past he will refuse to negotiate with the White Sox?

mccoydp
07-10-2007, 06:56 PM
Trade Jon Garland?

No.

Not only no, but hell no.

:cool:

veeter
07-10-2007, 06:58 PM
Lets take a look back, Jon was faced with impending arbitration eligibility, and chose to forgo those years by agreeing to a three year contract extension midseaon, so you are extropalating from what he has done in the past he will refuse to negotiate with the White Sox?'Extropalating', very nice. BUt exactly. Garland has been a class act all along. Never forced a money issue. Kenny gave him the, "you're either with us or against us" line, and he signed. The other issue guys repeatedly say, is, well since we signed Buerhle we won't give Garland the big bucks too. Why the hell not? We are not the Royals. PAY THEM BOTH.

veeter
07-10-2007, 07:05 PM
The ONLY reason I would agree that Garland may not be back after 2008, is because Kenny has already tried to trade him three times.

Daver
07-10-2007, 07:07 PM
The ONLY reason I would agree that Garland may not be back after 2008, is because Kenny has already tried to trade him three times.


He tried to trade him twice before he signed his extension.

Craig Grebeck
07-10-2007, 07:49 PM
You have to trade Garland if he can bring in a return like Orlando Hudson, Carlos Quentin, and a low A guy.

veeter
07-10-2007, 08:32 PM
You have to trade Garland if he can bring in a return like Orlando Hudson, Carlos Quentin, and a low A guy.I know this is just an example, but Carlos Quentin has played himself into the minors, Hudson could be a rental and leave via free agency and don't get me started on low A guys. My point is, certainties is baseball are few and far between. What HAS been certain is Mark Buehrle and Jon Garland pitching 200+ innings a year, and finishing .500 or well above. And they certainly peformed well in post-season play as also. And although Garland is talking about some "knot" in his shoulder, he'll undoubtedly work through it.

Grzegorz
07-10-2007, 08:40 PM
The ONLY reason I would agree that Garland may not be back after 2008, is because Kenny has already tried to trade him three times.

Kenny is a GM; he's paid to make roster moves.

Trade Garland? No...

getonbckthr
07-10-2007, 08:50 PM
Burls gave KW a gift with Garland. If John doesn't accept an extension similar to Marks he can be justified moving him. Personally I would look to the west coast. You can work an essential sign-n-trade since Jon is from out there and i'm sure a few of those teams would like to have him. Something to consider. Personally I would prefer to keep him here.

Daver
07-10-2007, 08:52 PM
Burls gave KW a gift with Garland. If John doesn't accept an extension similar to Marks he can be justified moving him. Personally I would look to the west coast. You can work an essential sign-n-trade since Jon is from out there and i'm sure a few of those teams would like to have him. Something to consider. Personally I would prefer to keep him here.

Sign and trade?

What the hell are you talking about?

getonbckthr
07-10-2007, 08:54 PM
Sign and trade?

What the hell are you talking about?
Like an extension that the team we are dealing with wants, similar to what we were discussing doing with Buerhle

Daver
07-10-2007, 08:56 PM
Like an extension that the team we are dealing with wants, similar to what we were discussing doing with Buerhle

He's under contract already.

getonbckthr
07-10-2007, 09:00 PM
He's under contract already.
Through 08 right? I'm talking during the offseason.

Daver
07-10-2007, 09:04 PM
Through 08 right? I'm talking during the offseason.


You're trying to project moves a year into the future?

Why?