PDA

View Full Version : Garland for Renteria?


Pasqua's Mailman
07-22-2007, 07:48 PM
Buster Olney was on ESPN Radio's Baseball show this afternoon and claimed that Peter Gammons told him that the Braves offered Edgar Renteria to the Sox for Jon Garland and that the Sox declined... Granted, this appears to be coming from Gammons but it is an interesting idea...

Renteria is expensive (he makes $11 million/year) and he is around 32 but he would be a huge upgrade over Uribe... Maybe if there was a prospect involved in the deal it would be something to look at...

ilsox7
07-22-2007, 07:51 PM
Buster Olney was on ESPN Radio's Baseball show this afternoon and claimed that Peter Gammons told him that the Braves offered Edgar Renteria to the Sox for Jon Garland and that the Sox declined... Granted, this appears to be coming from Gammons but it is an interesting idea...

Renteria is expensive (he makes $11 million/year) and he is around 32 but he would be a huge upgrade over Uribe... Maybe if there was a prospect involved in the deal it would be something to look at...

Gammons is one of the few sources out there I trust. I've said all along if Mark signed, my gut tells me Gar is the one to go. I wouldn't be surprised to see rumors involving him take on some life this week.

oeo
07-22-2007, 07:54 PM
Gammons is one of the few sources out there I trust. I've said all along if Mark signed, my gut tells me Gar is the one to go. I wouldn't be surprised to see rumors involving him take on some life this week.

Not for Renteria, though. Any trade that has Garland going to the Braves better bring Salty back. And we could ask for someone his stature, and probably more with the terrible trade market for SP. Garland would easily be the best out there...we could get a killing.

Dan Mega
07-22-2007, 08:00 PM
Giving up Garland for Renteria would be a terrible trade.

Lip Man 1
07-22-2007, 08:01 PM
I agree.

At least TRY to see if you can lock him up to an extension thereby having 80% of your starting rotation set for the next three years.

Given the shortage of pitching and the PRICE to get it, it's still a hell of a lot easier to find a shortstop then an 18 game winner.

Lip

Pasqua's Mailman
07-22-2007, 09:29 PM
Giving up Garland for Renteria would be a terrible trade.

I'm not so sure... Sexy prospects are nice but if you could get a solid shortstop along with a decent prospect in return it would have to be something to look at... Other than Uribe, what viable SS options do the Sox have at the moment?

balke
07-22-2007, 09:41 PM
I agree.

At least TRY to see if you can lock him up to an extension thereby having 80% of your starting rotation set for the next three years.

Given the shortage of pitching and the PRICE to get it, it's still a hell of a lot easier to find a shortstop then an 18 game winner.

Lip

For next season A-Rod (not likely at this point) is followed by Vizquel as best available SS. Its not terribly easy to grab one at this point. But the report is the Sox declined, which I believe. Kenny would probably rather move someone else, but I'm sure every other team wants Garland.

Domeshot17
07-22-2007, 09:52 PM
For next season A-Rod (not likely at this point) is followed by Vizquel as best available SS. Its not terribly easy to grab one at this point. But the report is the Sox declined, which I believe. Kenny would probably rather move someone else, but I'm sure every other team wants Garland.

Espn reported last week several GM's said Kenny's order of preference was Jose-Vaz-Jon and teams who wanted to trade had the order reversed, although some teams are almost as high on Vazquez as they are Garland.

AJ Hellraiser
07-22-2007, 09:54 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if this gets revisited... I think KW turned it down for now cuz he is going to wait to see what other offers roll in over the next 8 days and figure out what makes the ballclub the strongest...

Now, the starting point is a legit starting position player for Garland.... will someone pony up more? What is Vazquez worth compared to Garland?

Let's also not forget that he turned down Wily Taveras, Bucholz and Hirch in the off-season

y2j2785
07-22-2007, 10:17 PM
Not for Renteria, though. Any trade that has Garland going to the Braves better bring Salty back. And we could ask for someone his stature, and probably more with the terrible trade market for SP. Garland would easily be the best out there...we could get a killing.

Rumor is they wont even part with Salty for a guy like Texeira, so I doubt theyd give him up for Garland.

Sockinchisox
07-22-2007, 10:20 PM
For Garland I'd want Yates/Soriano, Escobar, and another prospect

HotelWhiteSox
07-22-2007, 10:30 PM
The Braves must think pretty low of Kenny

A. Cavatica
07-22-2007, 10:32 PM
Renteria's capable of batting first or second in the order, so he might be worth targeting (though not straight up for Garland or Vazquez). But can he handle the AL? He stunk it up with Boston, so much so that they ate a big chunk of his contract to unload him.

How about Renteria, a quality reliever, and a prospect for Vazquez?

ilsox7
07-22-2007, 10:35 PM
Renteria's capable of batting first or second in the order, so he might be worth targeting (though not straight up for Garland or Vazquez). But can he handle the AL? He stunk it up with Boston, so much so that they ate a big chunk of his contract to unload him.

How about Renteria, a quality reliever, and a prospect for Vazquez?

The thought was that he could not take the insanity of Boston and honestly, I don't blame him. I don't know why anyone would ever want to play there.

A. Cavatica
07-22-2007, 10:38 PM
Renteria's capable of batting first or second in the order, so he might be worth targeting (though not straight up for Garland or Vazquez). But can he handle the AL? He stunk it up with Boston, so much so that they ate a big chunk of his contract to unload him.

How about Renteria, a quality reliever, and a prospect for Vazquez?

Just looked at Renteria's numbers...did you know he has a decent chance at finishing his career with 3000 hits?

I'd take Renteria and a reliever OR a good prospect.

ilsox7
07-22-2007, 10:40 PM
Just looked at Renteria's numbers...did you know he has a decent chance at finishing his career with 3000 hits?

I'd take Renteria and a reliever OR a good prospect.

I agree that if they can package him another plus part, it would be tough to turn down. If we can get a guy who is solid up the middle, gets on base, and has a few good years in him plus another usable part, you have to seriously consider it.

Palehose Pete
07-22-2007, 10:44 PM
Nope, as a straight-up trade, Renteria for Gar stinks. It should be Kenny who is wearing a mask and holding a gun when the talk turns to trading away a starting pitcher who won 18 games last year. Can't blame Boston for asking, but I also doubt they'd be willing to give up what Garland is really worth, so this strikes me as less of a first move in a negotiation and more of a way to see how desperate Kenny really is right now.

Don't do it, Kenny. Either take them to the cleaners or stick it out until the off-season.

UserNameBlank
07-22-2007, 11:27 PM
That would be a bad deal for us. Renteria is a very good player and would fill a need, but we need to get younger if we're going to trade Garland. And cheaper, too.

One thing the Braves have though that hasn't been mentioned anywhere is Willy Aybar. The last thing I could find on him said he was still with the Braves after being suspended in April for no-showing games. He had some problems with substance abuse and in May was seeking treatment, but I don't know much else. He hasn't played for the Braves or any of their minor league affiliates this year. Willy's a switch hitter who can play the IF and if we could get him for a bag of balls he could be a nice acquisition as a UT guy. Maybe a change of scenery and a Spanglish speaking manager would help him fit in better and deal with his problems?

WhiteSox5187
07-22-2007, 11:44 PM
No, I don't like this idea. I'd really like to see Buerhle and Garland being our one-two guys for awhile. I think we oughta trade Uribe for a bucket of balls, call up that Richard kid (is that his name?) from AAA and see what he can do at short (what have we got to lose this year?). If he's any good I'd say we sign Eckstein and put him at second base and the top of the order.

GAsoxfan
07-23-2007, 12:13 AM
Rumor is they wont even part with Salty for a guy like Texeira, so I doubt theyd give him up for Garland.

Because the Braves need pitching, not offense. Salty can put up the same numbers as Texeira for a lot less money, so I don't see why they would do a Salty-Tex trade.

letsgosox1592
07-23-2007, 12:34 AM
No, I don't like this idea. I'd really like to see Buerhle and Garland being our one-two guys for awhile. I think we oughta trade Uribe for a bucket of balls, call up that Richard kid (is that his name?) from AAA and see what he can do at short (what have we got to lose this year?). If he's any good I'd say we sign Eckstein and put him at second base and the top of the order.

Its just Richar, and we would be lucky to get a bucket of balls for Uribe.

WhiteSox5187
07-23-2007, 01:12 AM
Its just Richar, and we would be lucky to get a bucket of balls for Uribe.
How about Uribe and Day for a bucket of balls?

DSpivack
07-23-2007, 01:20 AM
Braves have a handful of decent-good SS prospects that could interest us. I like Renteria, but no point in giving up a lot for a guy that will likely be a free agent after '08, anyway. I doubt the Braves re-sign him, not with Escobar, Lillibridge, and others waiting.

letsgosox1592
07-23-2007, 01:27 AM
How about Uribe and Day for a bucket of balls?

We might be able to get a used bucket of balls :smile:

balke
07-23-2007, 08:28 AM
Because the Braves need pitching, not offense. Salty can put up the same numbers as Texeira for a lot less money, so I don't see why they would do a Salty-Tex trade.

Really? Brian Anderson has better #'s than Salty in the minors. He's had a great start to the majors, but I don't see him as a Teixera in anyway so far.

Tragg
07-23-2007, 09:37 AM
Renteria is expensive (he makes $11 million/year) and he is around 32 but he would be a huge upgrade over Uribe... Maybe if there was a prospect involved in the deal it would be something to look at...
that trade would be an outrage.

SoxxoS
07-23-2007, 09:44 AM
How about Uribe and Day for a bucket of balls?

More like Uribe and Day and KW gets kicked in the balls. That should do it.

balke
07-23-2007, 09:51 AM
that trade would be an outrage.

Not if Atlants picked up some salary. Renteria can hit .300, be on base .360, hit 40 doubles, steal 10, and hit 10 homers. I think that makes him more valuable at the plate than everyone but Dye, Konerko, and Thome.

Mr. White Sox
07-23-2007, 09:54 AM
Buying high on Renteria doesn't make sense, especially with his age and contract. Though you could argue with the upcoming FA SS class, KW may have no choice.

KW will ask for (but won't get) Salty and Escobar + a prospect for Garland; I could see Salty + Lillibridge working, but we'll see if Atlanta wants to pony up the price.

EDIT:
Looks like Boston is paying a bunch of Renteria's salary, making him a 6-7mil a year player until his 11mil option. Actually not a bad contract.

The Immigrant
07-23-2007, 10:21 AM
How about Uribe and Day for a bucket of balls?

Okay, but only if you're willing to take used balls. For new ones you'll have to throw in Andy Gonzales.

Fenway
07-23-2007, 11:33 AM
Buster Olney was on ESPN Radio's Baseball show this afternoon and claimed that Peter Gammons told him that the Braves offered Edgar Renteria to the Sox for Jon Garland and that the Sox declined... Granted, this appears to be coming from Gammons but it is an interesting idea...

Renteria is expensive (he makes $11 million/year) and he is around 32 but he would be a huge upgrade over Uribe... Maybe if there was a prospect involved in the deal it would be something to look at...

Most of that $11 Million is being paid by Boston,

Renteria failed badly in the American League. Now perhaps he couldn't handle the pressure of Boston but I could see why KW doesn't want to risk it.

veeter
07-23-2007, 12:14 PM
You guys have been right on. No way, a very good pitcher entering his prime, for an old, albeit very good shortstop. The question that will always remain: If we trade Jon, who takes his spot?

Flight #24
07-23-2007, 01:41 PM
FWLIW, in chat today Olney said GM's he's spoken with considered that a big win for the Sox. Not sure why unless Renteria's under contract for more than next year and that's the main factor.

SoxxoS
07-23-2007, 01:49 PM
FWLIW, in chat today Olney said GM's he's spoken with considered that a big win for the Sox. Not sure why unless Renteria's under contract for more than next year and that's the main factor.

Renteria is careering it this year, as he didn't have an OPS over .800 in 3 full seasons prior to this year. Garland is a proven number 3 that has pitched great in the clutch. I dont really understand. Pitchers like Garland dont grow on trees.

soxfan13
07-23-2007, 02:03 PM
Renteria is careering it this year, as he didn't have an OPS over .800 in 3 full seasons prior to this year. Garland is a proven number 3 that has pitched great in the clutch. I dont really understand. Pitchers like Garland dont grow on trees.

Now, I wouldnt do this trade but if you look past your 3 year window it would be hard for him to be having a career year this year. He had outstanding years in 2002 and 2003 and the years before that were not bad.

balke
07-23-2007, 02:06 PM
Most of that $11 Million is being paid by Boston,

Renteria failed badly in the American League. Now perhaps he couldn't handle the pressure of Boston but I could see why KW doesn't want to risk it.

Was it really that bad or was it that he was in Boston and they dogged him from day one? It was one under par season in his career. Every player has one at least.

He's not a savior or anything, but he's got an OBP over .330 and can hit doubles with some speed.

I'd definitely take the guy. I realize the people who are freaking out are the ones that think the Sox would give up Garland, but the whole premise of the thread is that idea got shot down.

I don't know how I'd feel about giving up Garland right now if it does happen. He might not be happy here, as the fans (especially if he's snuck a peek on a board like this) haven't always been the friendliest to him, until he won a ton of games. The Sox organization already gave the fans Buehrle, but they need to improve in a lot of areas and they seem strongest at starting pitcher when inspecting the minors.

If the team is dead last in hitting, and top 3 in starting pitching somethings gotta give. The Sox would do well to upgrade at SS offensively. I don't ever want to see 2004's calamity at the 5th starter again, but there's at least a decent chance that won't happen that way again. Haeger, Broadway, Gio, Floyd, Masset, someone should be able to step up if a starter is dealt.

Fenway
07-23-2007, 02:06 PM
FWLIW, in chat today Olney said GM's he's spoken with considered that a big win for the Sox. Not sure why unless Renteria's under contract for more than next year and that's the main factor.

he is signed thru 2008

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2004/12/15/renteria_signs_with_red_sox_for_four_years_40m/

Boston will pay $8 million of the $26 million Renteria is owed for the next three seasons. In addition, the Red Sox must pay the $3 million buyout if his $11 million option for 2009 is declined.

Tragg
07-23-2007, 02:29 PM
Not if Atlants picked up some salary. Renteria can hit .300, be on base .360, hit 40 doubles, steal 10, and hit 10 homers. I think that makes him more valuable at the plate than everyone but Dye, Konerko, and Thome.
For a workhorse starter? And you're describing his career year.
Boston got a prospect for Renteria. A good one, but a prospect. They then traded that prospect for Coco Crisp. We're going to give Jon Garland for him? Would you trade Jon Garland for Coco Crisp?
Ridiculous.

SoxxoS
07-23-2007, 02:37 PM
Now, I wouldnt do this trade but if you look past your 3 year window it would be hard for him to be having a career year this year. He had outstanding years in 2002 and 2003 and the years before that were not bad.

Im not saying I wouldnt like to have him, I think he would be a really good fit - but you are giving up a LOT in Garland. A lot more, I believe, than people give him credit for.

RCWHITESOX
07-23-2007, 03:25 PM
I say make that R Soriano and Renteria for Garland and one of our gas cans and you got a deal.

balke
07-23-2007, 04:23 PM
For a workhorse starter? And you're describing his career year.
Boston got a prospect for Renteria. A good one, but a prospect. They then traded that prospect for Coco Crisp. We're going to give Jon Garland for him? Would you trade Jon Garland for Coco Crisp?
Ridiculous.

Uhh, I'm not describing his career year. I'm talking the general area he's landed the past 3 years. And that's exactly what I should put when I describe what he CAN do. His career year, his #'s were better than that.

His Career year FWIW includes 47 doubles, a .330 avg, .394 OBP, 13 HR's, 34 SB's 100 RBI, 96 Runs. The numbers I posted were more a representation of what he is capable of when he's doing well, and what he's done lately. His great season last season, compared to his worst season the year before actually don't differ too much. He's been a fairly consistant player, and he'd be an upgrade at a position that right now is the biggest offensive weakness the Sox have.

If Garland is gone after next season, and Kenny knows that then he won't get too many offers for SS's better than that. He already supposedly tried sending Contreras Uribe and Sweeney for Tejada before last season, and that didn't get done. That's when JC still looked good.

I also look at the idea of this trade, and realize the Sox would probably be getting more than just Renteria in a deal like that, like a bullpen arm that they need desperately.

I hope the Sox can keep the pitching in tact for next season, but its pretty naive to think the Sox are going to send Contreras for an offensive threat, and keep John and Vazquez so they can resign them forever. Someone out of the 3 is going to go, and every team with half a brain will be asking for Garland before anyone.

TheVulture
07-23-2007, 04:27 PM
Trade Garland? Madness.

pearso66
07-23-2007, 06:23 PM
I wouldn't take Renteria straight up for Garland, but if they got us another piece or 2, BP plus another position player, (Lillibridge?), then you'd have to think about it.


Thread Hijack:

You think this is bad? yesterday on Murphy (commercial on Dan Patrick), a "Sox" fan called in and suggested the Sox trade Garland to the Cubs straight up, for Marmol. And to make it worse, Murphy had to think about it before saying he'd do it. All I thought, after the "fan" ripped KW for only getting us to the playoffs 1 year, was if that guy was our GM, we'd have drafted in the top 2 the last 7 years instead of winning the World Series.

sullythered
07-23-2007, 08:12 PM
27 year old quality starter with NO history of injury and another year left on his contract better bring back something young and awesome in return.

sullythered
07-23-2007, 08:15 PM
I wouldn't take Renteria straight up for Garland, but if they got us another piece or 2, BP plus another position player, (Lillibridge?), then you'd have to think about it.


Thread Hijack:

You think this is bad? yesterday on Murphy (commercial on Dan Patrick), a "Sox" fan called in and suggested the Sox trade Garland to the Cubs straight up, for Marmol. And to make it worse, Murphy had to think about it before saying he'd do it. All I thought, after the "fan" ripped KW for only getting us to the playoffs 1 year, was if that guy was our GM, we'd have drafted in the top 2 the last 7 years instead of winning the World Series.

Mike Murphy is an idiot with a ridiculous voice. Anything he says, or is said on his show is irrelevant.

soxfan13
07-24-2007, 10:56 AM
Im not saying I wouldnt like to have him, I think he would be a really good fit - but you are giving up a LOT in Garland. A lot more, I believe, than people give him credit for.

I wouldn't take Renteria straight up for Garland, but if they got us another piece or 2, BP plus another position player, (Lillibridge?), then you'd have to think about it.


Thread Hijack:

You think this is bad? yesterday on Murphy (commercial on Dan Patrick), a "Sox" fan called in and suggested the Sox trade Garland to the Cubs straight up, for Marmol. And to make it worse, Murphy had to think about it before saying he'd do it. All I thought, after the "fan" ripped KW for only getting us to the playoffs 1 year, was if that guy was our GM, we'd have drafted in the top 2 the last 7 years instead of winning the World Series.

Agreed you are giving up alot in Garland for Renteria straight up but if Atlanta threw another piece or 2 into the trade the Sox would definately have to consider it.

soxinem1
07-24-2007, 02:35 PM
Renteria is careering it this year, as he didn't have an OPS over .800 in 3 full seasons prior to this year. Garland is a proven number 3 that has pitched great in the clutch. I dont really understand. Pitchers like Garland dont grow on trees.

Renteria has had a solid career. Even during his 'off-year' in BOS, he hit .276 with 70 RBI's and 100 runs scored. Would anyone complain if we had a SS give that kind of production? I sure doubt it.

He was a butcher on the field that year, but he's always made a lot of errors because he covers a lot of ground. He turns DP's with ease, and is an excellent athlete. After watching Snicker's bars fall out of Uribe's pocket for nearly two years now, we'd forget him in a hurry.

Especially if BOS is paying a big chunk of his salary, how much of an increase would Renteria bring, esp. when they would decline Uribe's $5 million option for 2008.

Garland has not had a solid career, and has only had one half (first part of 2005) season in which he was really solid. Too many people are over estimating his worth.

This is a no-brainer, send Garland packing, and let Gonzalez and Floyd pitch the rest of the year. Danks will continue to develop and be even better in 2008.

My guess is that one of them will do well enough to replace Garland.

SoxxoS
07-24-2007, 03:24 PM
Garland has not had a solid career, and has only had one half (first part of 2005) season in which he was really solid. Too many people are over estimating his worth.

This is a no-brainer, send Garland packing, and let Gonzalez and Floyd pitch the rest of the year. Danks will continue to develop and be even better in 2008.

My guess is that one of them will do well enough to replace Garland.

Im not arguing Renteria isn't solid, he is. Good player.

People saying winning/losing records don't matter for pitchers. I strongly disagree. Sure, Scott Kazmir can't be analyzed by W/L b/c of the team he plays for. But what W/L records do show is that a guy can keep his team in the game and PITCH WITH THE LEAD. Look at Matt Cain this year. His numbers are pretty good... 4.00 ERA decent periperals - But he is 4-11. Some say bad luck. I say some bad luck, some being unable to pitch with a lead/give up runs at inopportune times.

Jon Garland is off back to back 18 game winning seasons. That means a lot. 5 18 game winners is a 90 win season....without counting bullpen. That is how big winning 18 games is. And not one year, but two.

If you don't think Jon Garland has had a solid career, you are completely kidding yourself. That is asinine.

This is a no-brainer, send Garland packing, and let Gonzalez and Floyd pitch the rest of the year. Danks will continue to develop and be even better in 2008.


What about Floyd's past performance makes you think he can replace Garland? B/c Im definitely not seeing it. Gio is going to be a stud...but who is going to replace Contreras?

Danks will continue to develop and be even better in 2008.


Yeah that is possible and probably true. But Danks should be getting better as the season goes on with that logic, and that isn't happening. I like him, but you definitely can't count on him yet.

The only guys you can count on are Garland, Buehrle and Vazquez. You have 2 question marks in the rotation already. Trading Garland makes THREE and a bullpen FULL of question marks as well. No thanks.

soxinem1
07-25-2007, 10:37 AM
Im not arguing Renteria isn't solid, he is. Good player.

People saying winning/losing records don't matter for pitchers. I strongly disagree. Sure, Scott Kazmir can't be analyzed by W/L b/c of the team he plays for. But what W/L records do show is that a guy can keep his team in the game and PITCH WITH THE LEAD. Look at Matt Cain this year. His numbers are pretty good... 4.00 ERA decent periperals - But he is 4-11. Some say bad luck. I say some bad luck, some being unable to pitch with a lead/give up runs at inopportune times.

Jon Garland is off back to back 18 game winning seasons. That means a lot. 5 18 game winners is a 90 win season....without counting bullpen. That is how big winning 18 games is. And not one year, but two.

If you don't think Jon Garland has had a solid career, you are completely kidding yourself. That is asinine.



What about Floyd's past performance makes you think he can replace Garland? B/c Im definitely not seeing it. Gio is going to be a stud...but who is going to replace Contreras?



Yeah that is possible and probably true. But Danks should be getting better as the season goes on with that logic, and that isn't happening. I like him, but you definitely can't count on him yet.

The only guys you can count on are Garland, Buehrle and Vazquez. You have 2 question marks in the rotation already. Trading Garland makes THREE and a bullpen FULL of question marks as well. No thanks.


The facts are quite simple. Garland has spent most of his career getting rocked and throwing batting practice. When the run support is there, like it has been for him for the most part, he usually emerges with some wins.

I cannot see him as an anchor of the rotation over the next five years.

He does not consistently attack hitters, and lacks the 'here it is, hit it' mentality Buerhle and even Danks exhibit. He has only had one full season in the rotation in which his ERA is below 4.50. The first half of 2005 he was the number five guy, matched up usually against other number five guys. In the second half, his rotation spot changed, and so did garland's performances.

In 2006 he got a ton of runs, and he gave up a ton in return, and was very easy to hit off of. Why should he be so guarded? He is leaving for So-Cal after next season anyway, so to get one of the best SS out there, it's a no-brainer.

Breaking in three young starters with a SS with some of the best range in MLB should be a confidence booster for them, instead of having Uribe blow easy DP's and routine plays.

They have to let Floyd pitch sometime or another, because in ST 2008, he's out of options. So Gonzalez and Floyd, who I am not a fan of, should just be put in and pitched every fifth day for the rest of the year. The season is dead anyway, might as well see what you have. Contreras can sit and rot as far as I'm concerned, or put in the bullpen.

oeo
07-25-2007, 10:47 AM
But what W/L records do show is that a guy can keep his team in the game and PITCH WITH THE LEAD.

What if you're never given the lead? Take Danks' win/loss record this year, for example. He's kept us in the game all year, but without the run support, he hasn't been able to pick up wins. It's not a good statistic for measuring a pitcher. It's the main reason a few guys got selected to the All Star Game over Buehrle, when Buehrle had better numbers.

I'm not discounting Garland's 18-win seasons, because he did pitch well...but are wins/losses overrated? Most definitely.

balke
07-25-2007, 10:52 AM
The facts are quite simple. Garland has spent most of his career getting rocked and throwing batting practice.

I cannot see him as an anchor of the rotation over the next five years.



Over the past 4 seasons he's had 17, 22, 16 and 18 quality starts. That ain't bad. He's a pitcher who is going to last. I tend to agree though, he's at a good age for a trade and I'm not entirely convinced he'll come back to Chicago when his contract is up. His potential is through the roof when he's fully focused though, I can say that.

One thing to note, his agent is the son of Jim landis. And I wonder how many better pitchers out there don't have Boras as their agent. I think he's definitely the last pitcher the Sox try to part with now. But he's not untouchable.

Sox It To Em
07-25-2007, 11:39 AM
Im not arguing Renteria isn't solid, he is. Good player.

People saying winning/losing records don't matter for pitchers. I strongly disagree. Sure, Scott Kazmir can't be analyzed by W/L b/c of the team he plays for. But what W/L records do show is that a guy can keep his team in the game and PITCH WITH THE LEAD. Look at Matt Cain this year. His numbers are pretty good... 4.00 ERA decent periperals - But he is 4-11. Some say bad luck. I say some bad luck, some being unable to pitch with a lead/give up runs at inopportune times.

Matt Cain is 4-11 because the stellar Giants offense scores an average of only 3.15 runs every time he starts. Look at his game log for this year: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?playerId=6202. (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?playerId=6202) Notice the abundance of losses he has had where he has given up three runs or less. Now, tell me, was Matt Cain a bad pitcher during those losses?

Tim Wakefield has the same amount of wins as Johan Santana despite having an ERA nearly two runs higher. In 2005, Roger Clemens posted a mediocre 13-8 record despite having an ERA of 1.87. In 1987 Nolan Ryan had an ERA of 2.76 and a ERA+ of 142 yet finished the season at 8-16. This season Mark Buehrle has an ERA+ of 140 yet is once pace to finish at about a .500 record. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Face it, W-L records are incredibly context-dependent and are an exceedingly poor way to judge a pitcher's contribution to his team. Pitchers on teams with a great offense and a great bullpen will always have a considerable advantage over those on teams with poor offenses and bad bullpens.

KyWhiSoxFan
07-25-2007, 05:59 PM
The thing that worries me about Garland--and why the Sox may want to trade him--is his arm. He says he has this "knot" and he seems to have trouble getting loose. He's giving up a lot of runs in the first inning. But his velocity picks up in the middle innings.

If he were to be traded, I would want the Sox to get a couple of pretty solid pitching prospects and an everyday player in return. As thin as the trade market is right now for starting pitchers available, I think Garland can bring a heck of a lot.

Mr. White Sox
07-29-2007, 01:06 AM
More unfounded rumors! Yay!

This from mlbtraderumors.com, sourcing Ken Rosenthal:

Jon Garland can be had, but Kenny Williams' price is sky-high. The Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Mets, and Braves all have interest. The Braves had offered not only Edgar Renteria but a top pitching prospect, and still were rejected. Rosenthal expects Garland to stay put because as the asking price is not met.

Renteria and Matt Harrison actually seems like a logical trade, but I guess KW won't deal Garland unless he can completely fleece the other GM. I'm also guessing KW isn't high on Renteria, because on a talent-for-talent trade, this one is pretty even.

letsgosox1592
07-29-2007, 01:51 AM
The thing that worries me about Garland--and why the Sox may want to trade him--is his arm. He says he has this "knot" and he seems to have trouble getting loose. He's giving up a lot of runs in the first inning. But his velocity picks up in the middle innings.

If he were to be traded, I would want the Sox to get a couple of pretty solid pitching prospects and an everyday player in return. As thin as the trade market is right now for starting pitchers available, I think Garland can bring a heck of a lot.
Sounds like Freddy Garcia in 2005 when getting out of the 1st hes pretty much lights out.

Tragg
07-29-2007, 07:57 AM
Atlanta traded ONE prospect for Renteria. ONE.

For 10 million a year and Jon Garland, we can find a lot more production than Edgar Renteria (at another position) and find someone who can field the SS position at least as good. Or we could get a young SS and/or CF that we really need and STILL have a bunch of money to spend on a FA.
We might have to trade Garland to fix the team...his contract is up in 1.5 years, etc. But not for a 32 year old (32 years old...familiar age...hmmmm) SS at twice the price Atlanta paid for a 2 years younger version.

dickallen15
07-29-2007, 08:04 AM
Atlanta traded ONE prospect for Renteria. ONE.

For 10 million a year and Jon Garland, we can find a lot more production than Edgar Renteria (at another position) and find someone who can field the SS position at least as good. Or we could get a young SS and/or CF that we really need and STILL have a bunch of money to spend on a FA.
We might have to trade Garland to fix the team...his contract is up in 1.5 years, etc. But not for a 32 year old (32 years old...familiar age...hmmmm) SS at twice the price Atlanta paid for a 2 years younger version.
Renteria was also coming off a dissappointing season and Garland is signed for 1 more season at $12 million. I am leery of trading with Atlanta though. They seem to usually get rid of their guys at just the right time.

California Sox
07-29-2007, 08:19 AM
Atlanta's just looking to dump Renteria and his $11 million salary so they can play Escobar. I'd rather have Escobar too. The last thing we need is another old player with a fat contract.