PDA

View Full Version : Garland rumors.


LITTLE NELL
07-29-2007, 09:22 AM
Why all this talk about trading Garland. Right now our starting pitching 1 to 4 is as good as any other team. Why break up a very good staff and who would take Garlands place. Now lets get someone to take Contrares off our hands.

Paulwny
07-29-2007, 09:29 AM
Why all this talk about trading Garland. Right now our starting pitching 1 to 4 is as good as any other team. Why break up a very good staff and who would take Garlands place. Now lets get someone to take Contrares off our hands.


If they trade Garland the sox will receive quality players/prospects who'll fill some holes.
With the way Contreras has looked the last ~ 7 games the sox will be lucky to get someone to take his contract. You won't get anything for Contreras.

jabrch
07-29-2007, 09:57 AM
Why all this talk about trading Garland. Right now our starting pitching 1 to 4 is as good as any other team. Why break up a very good staff and who would take Garlands place. Now lets get someone to take Contrares off our hands.

Because now is when Jon's trade value may be at its peak. You'd get someone buying not only him for the stretch run, but to control him for next year, and then being able to offer him arbitration and get compensation. For that, you'd be able to get an organization to give up multiple top tier prospects. That's the kind of deal that could really impact this team for years to come.

Nobody is suggesting giving Jon up for nothing like many would with Jose. If Jon gets moved, it is a blockbuster deal with a team surrendering multiple top tier prospects or even young MLB ready players.

Thome25
07-29-2007, 10:00 AM
Because now is when Jon's trade value may be at its peak. You'd get someone buying not only him for the stretch run, but to control him for next year, and then being able to offer him arbitration and get compensation. For that, you'd be able to get an organization to give up multiple top tier prospects. That's the kind of deal that could really impact this team for years to come.

Nobody is suggesting giving Jon up for nothing like many would with Jose. If Jon gets moved, it is a blockbuster deal with a team surrendering multiple top tier prospects or even young MLB ready players.

And for that reason, if we're not going to re-sign him after next year then GO FOR IT!!! We'd be good for years to come with lots of good young players like the Indians, Brewers, and maybe even the Tigers.

ArkanSox
07-29-2007, 10:31 AM
Hopefully, Garland was just being used to open trade communication lines with other clubs. I'll be disappointed if the Sox don't extend his contract, especially since Contreras seems to have completely lost it, and there's little guarantee that the young arms will be able to approach either one's past success. We definately need to keep Jon in our rotation, unless the Twinkies want to trade Santana for him. Yeah, right. Well you get my drift. I hope we'll rebuild through free agency, not by trading our possibly, potentially best starting pitcher.

jabrch
07-29-2007, 10:42 AM
I'll be disappointed if the Sox don't extend his contract,

It is up to Jon, not the Sox. We have set our clear upper threshold for a deal. If Gar wants in, he can get in probably at something at or just below what Mark just got. If he wants more money or more years, that's just not going to happen. It should be very easy to work out a deal with Gar, if he wants. 4 years, 13-14mm per, full NTC in year 1 and maybe some other protection until he hits 10/5.

I'm guessing Jon won't resign because he can get much more money from a West Coast team, where I think he'd rather end up spending the next 5-10 years of his career.

Madscout
07-29-2007, 10:52 AM
Too bad, because he has been the most consistant and winningest pitcher on this club.

ArkanSox
07-29-2007, 11:02 AM
If the Sox are going to make another "exception" to their policy, their established norms of negotiation, I think this is a guy to do it with. If we can solidify our starting pitching, I'm not so sure we'll be that many "pieces" away from championship contention. I think Garland remains a key piece of the puzzle, so I'm hoping your guess is wrong, jabrch.

jabrch
07-29-2007, 11:46 AM
If the Sox are going to make another "exception" to their policy, their established norms of negotiation, I think this is a guy to do it with. If we can solidify our starting pitching, I'm not so sure we'll be that many "pieces" away from championship contention. I think Garland remains a key piece of the puzzle, so I'm hoping your guess is wrong, jabrch.

You can make a similar exception to Gar that you made for Mark - but you can't justify giving Jon MORE than you just gave Mark.

letsgosox1592
07-29-2007, 12:06 PM
Garland will not be traded this year bye Tuesday, but over the offseason the Sox will trade him. He will have a lot more value in the offseason because he would have a better chance to sign an extension with a team and by the way hes pitching this year hes been consistent for 3 straight years now.

TDog
07-29-2007, 12:21 PM
If they trade Garland the sox will receive quality players/prospects who'll fill some holes.
With the way Contreras has looked the last ~ 7 games the sox will be lucky to get someone to take his contract. You won't get anything for Contreras.

When the White Sox traded Rowand in a package for Thome, they filled a hole but created a hole in center field. They didn't realize there would be a hole in center field because they believed they could fill it from within their system, but they were wrong.

Trading Garland to fill a hole would probably create another hole. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that I don't want it to happen.

Lip Man 1
07-29-2007, 12:36 PM
That's the double edged sword the Sox find themselves in based on the most part, in my opinion, because of an ailing farm system.

Yes Garland gives you the most value in return. He can probably get you two maybe even three guys who could, potentially, fill some holes....but at the same time, trading him means you have ANOTHER hole, this one in the starting rotation.....the most difficult part to find and most expensive part in MLB.

Lip

esbrechtel
07-29-2007, 12:38 PM
We will see what happens but I seem to remember that we have had trade rumors about garland Since 2000...

jabrch
07-29-2007, 12:42 PM
trading him means you have ANOTHER hole, this one in the starting rotation.....the most difficult part to find and most expensive part in MLB.

Lip

While that is true, I think we have no choice but to stick with the plan - and that is that out of the bevy of pitching prospects, that one of them is ready next year. Gio? Broadway? Floyd? Massett? Sisco?

The odds are better that one of those guys can be a #5, Danks can be a #4, Jose somehow is a #3 and Javy is a #2 than the odds are that our farm can develop, lets say for example, a Brandon Wood and a Jeff Mathis by the time we get to camp next year.

We wouldn't trade Jon cheaply - but if you give me Wood, Mathis and Adenhart, I'll part with Jon.

WhiteSox5187
07-29-2007, 04:40 PM
Well...I thought the Sox were saying that by re-signing Buerhle they were going to build a rotation around Buerhle and Garland...I don't think the Sox will start looking to extend Jon until this off season or next year (and if, God willing, we're competitve next year, we'll wait until the off-season), but I think it makes sense to just listen to offers, a guy like Garland you don't need to actively shop...but if you get the right offer, make the deal.

ozzie is god
07-29-2007, 05:03 PM
While that is true, I think we have no choice but to stick with the plan - and that is that out of the bevy of pitching prospects, that one of them is ready next year. Gio? Broadway? Floyd? Massett? Sisco?

The odds are better that one of those guys can be a #5, Danks can be a #4, Jose somehow is a #3 and Javy is a #2 than the odds are that our farm can develop, lets say for example, a Brandon Wood and a Jeff Mathis by the time we get to camp next year.

We wouldn't trade Jon cheaply - but if you give me Wood, Mathis and Adenhart, I'll part with Jon.

I doubt the Sox could get two of the three guys you just mentioned. Remember were talking about Stoneman who dosen't like to deal prospects.

Vernam
07-29-2007, 07:34 PM
Because now is when Jon's trade value may be at its peak. You'd get someone buying not only him for the stretch run, but to control him for next year, and then being able to offer him arbitration and get compensation. For that, you'd be able to get an organization to give up multiple top tier prospects. That's the kind of deal that could really impact this team for years to come.

Nobody is suggesting giving Jon up for nothing like many would with Jose. If Jon gets moved, it is a blockbuster deal with a team surrendering multiple top tier prospects or even young MLB ready players.I completely agree with this. The lesson Kenny learned this year, IMO, is not to get stuck holding too many guys heading into their "walk year." It was a calculated risk this year, to give the WS05 team one more shot. But I'll be very surprised if Garland starts the season with the team if he hasn't been re-signed.

Crede might be an exception, because his trade value has cratered until he proves himself healthy for a few months. But for anyone prepared to cry foul if Garland gets traded, just remember the cliche Sell High and Buy Low. How pretty would we be sitting if Kenny had pulled the trigger last winter on trading Crede and Contreras? At least I hope that's the lesson he learned, as opposed to appeasing the most vocal fans. The way he kept us squirming over the Buehrle re-signing indicates he hasn't suddenly become a windsock.

Vernam

soxfanreggie
07-29-2007, 10:28 PM
Could we package both Garland and Contreras to get someone to take his contract off our hands? He isn't going to help us, and if we are going to deal Garland, maybe a package deal? Yes, that would put us down two starters, but I'm thinking that he will be moved to the pen in due time. Hopefully he can give us something out of the pen if he does go there.

In all honesty, I couldn't ever see a packaged deal happening, but it was just a thought.

jabrch
07-29-2007, 10:34 PM
I doubt the Sox could get two of the three guys you just mentioned. Remember were talking about Stoneman who dosen't like to deal prospects.

I don't disagree with you. In fact, I would be very surprised to see Garland traded. But if he is traded, it will be a big package.

broker3d
07-30-2007, 11:41 AM
Garland should stay put and this rotation should be built around Buehrle and Garleand.

oeo
07-30-2007, 12:36 PM
Garland should stay put and this rotation should be built around Buehrle and Garleand.

How do you know Garland will be as generous as Buehrle? Build the rotation around Buehrle, Danks, and Gio...there's no guarantee that Garland will take a 'hometown discount.'