PDA

View Full Version : Would You Support A Trade Of Jon Garland?


Thome25
07-29-2007, 10:20 AM
Would you back KW if he traded Garland for a boatload of prospects that made us good for years to come like the Brewers, Indians, and possible the Tigers have?

I'd have to say that I do. If we're not going to re-sign him we might as well cash in when his value can't be any higher.

Palehose Pete
07-29-2007, 10:24 AM
Yes, if a contending team that needed a guy like Garland was willing to give their top prospects, then, and only then, should the trade happen.

None of this PTBNL crap, cash, and/or some minor league re-tread that the Sox hope to turn into a fixer upper.

Zisk77
07-29-2007, 10:46 AM
I think keeping Jon, Mark, Javy, and Danks and filling holes with free agency will keep us good for years. While I understand trading Garland may bring us youth that will help, I know that the hardest commodity to acquire is starting pitching which we have. We can fix the Bullpen through free agency, minor trades, and our organization (Hell, I'm willing to bet at least one of Sisco, Aaardsma, Masset, Bukvitch, or McDougal will develop as a solid reliever). Remember, all of our Bullpen guys are young and have power arms they just may be a year or 2 away.
Also, some of our starter prospects may become relievers because their stuff isn't good enough over seven innings but solid for 2. As Richar, Owens, Fields, and Sweeney develop we may not have that many holes to fill. Or we could flip some of those guys in trades.

I'd sign Castillo to play 2nd next year and maybe re-sign Dye or go after Torii Hunter. Thats my 2 cents. :cool:

Thome25
07-29-2007, 10:51 AM
I think keeping Jon, Mark, Javy, and Danks and filling holes with free agency will keep us good for years. While I understand trading Garland may bring us youth that will help, I know that the hardest commodity to acquire is starting pitching which we have. We can fix the Bullpen through free agency, minor trades, and our organization (Hell, I'm willing to bet at least one of Sisco, Aaardsma, Masset, Bukvitch, or McDougal will develop as a solid reliever). Remember, all of our Bullpen guys are young and have power arms they just may be a year or 2 away.
Also, some of our starter prospects may become relievers because their stuff isn't good enough over seven innings but solid for 2. As Richar, Owens, Fields, and Sweeney develop we may not have that many holes to fill. Or we could flip some of those guys in trades.

I'd sign Castillo to play 2nd next year and maybe re-sign Dye or go after Torii Hunter. Thats my 2 cents. :cool:

I definitely agree with what you're saying. I can see the good in both sides of the debate. If we keep Garland I'd DEFINITELY like to see us get Luis Castillo and move Richar over to SS.

JB98
07-29-2007, 12:06 PM
I would support such a move only if it brought an everyday SS or CF in return.

If you're going to trade a reliable starter like Garland, you better get a legitimate big-leaguer, plus a top prospect.

letsgosox1592
07-29-2007, 12:09 PM
I would support such a move only if it brought an everyday SS or CF in return.

If you're going to trade a reliable starter like Garland, you better get a legitimate big-leaguer, plus a top prospect.
Trade him to the Dodgers for Chin-Lung Hu and Matt Kemp and then you got 2 solid young players with all the potential in the world to become stars.

JohnTucker0814
07-29-2007, 12:22 PM
Trade him to the Dodgers for Chin-Lung Hu and Matt Kemp and then you got 2 solid young players with all the potential in the world to become stars.

I'm guessing it takes more than garland for those two... but I'd package Garland with a prospect to get that done in a heartbeat!

MISoxfan
07-29-2007, 12:23 PM
Would you back KW if he traded Garland for a boatload of prospects that made us good for years to come like the Brewers, Indians, and possible the Tigers have?

I'd have to say that I do. If we're not going to re-sign him we might as well cash in when his value can't be any higher.

Is there really any other answer than yes when you come right out and say that the trade is going to make us good for years to come? Its too bad trades don't come with that certainty.

INSox56
07-29-2007, 07:08 PM
I don't care who it is. I would support a trade of anyone so long as the return was sufficient.

chisoxfanatic
07-29-2007, 07:32 PM
Absolutely not. Garland is one of the players you build a team around. He's way too much of value to this team to be doing that. He would be untouchable if I were GM.

Frater Perdurabo
07-29-2007, 07:42 PM
All things being equal, I'd rather keep Garland.

It took the Sox a decade to build a quality starting rotation after Jack McDowell was traded and Alex Fernandez departed. I don't want to endure another decade of Navarros, Parques, Sirotkas, Wellses and Ritchies. The Sox have a great 1-4; perhaps one of the strongest in the majors. Since we all know starting pitching is the most important and most valuable commodity, why subtract from that most important strength?

IMHO, the only thing worth the winningest pitcher in the AL in 2005-2006 would be a young, inexpensive star SS or CF who can play great defense and produce at the top or in the middle of the order.

Hypothetically, would the Tigers give up Granderson? Would the Mets give up Jose Reyes? Of course not.

No team is going to give up current, young, inexpensive star SS or CF.

A team might give up blue-chip prospects, but prospects always carry risk.

So, I don't see a realistic scenario in which I would support trading Garland.

The only wild cards are what the Sox know about the "knot" in Jon's shoulder. Obviously, IF there is any "bad news," AND I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM, the Sox would want to keep it as quiet as possible. We fans are not going to know any more than every other MLB team knows, though, so there's no point in speculating further on it.

Vernam
07-29-2007, 09:00 PM
I would support such a move only if it brought an everyday SS or CF in return.

If you're going to trade a reliable starter like Garland, you better get a legitimate big-leaguer, plus a top prospect.Yes, and you can count on getting that if you trade a reliable starter like Garland while he still has a year on his contract. The clock is ticking . . .

It's a shame that the run-down farm system has put us in this spot. The lack of dependable players to bring up from the minors has wasted the past two seasons for our big-league club. This year in particular it has wasted some of the best starting pitching in MLB, IMO. So it's ironic that we'll probably waste some more pitching by trading it to cover up the farm system's shortcomings.

Vernam

soxfanreggie
07-29-2007, 09:58 PM
If I analyzed the trade and figured that we were getting the better end of the deal, then yes I would support a trade. If I felt we were getting the short-end of the stick, then no. No player is "untradable" IMO because there can always be a ridiculously huge offer...improbable at times, yes...impossible, no.

Tragg
07-29-2007, 10:08 PM
Obviously you'll do any deal for the right price; and Garland's contract is a up after next year. And of course a trade for Garland for younger and better pitchers is always interesting.
However, in my opinion, the Sox offense is seriously deficient, and is unlikely to get much better because we lose one of our best hitters (who's been pretty cheap), the incoming youth, and the offensive philosophy of the manager (a philosophy which has taken over this team signficantly this year).
So the best chance to win is to out-pitch and out defend the other teams. If we give up a pitcher, it makes that tougher; and while it will help our offense, I doubt it will be enough - unless the price is really right. And I'm not worried about our pen for next year ....that's fixable with maybe 1 addition and a couple of our quality youngsters, until they're ready for the pen.
I also doubt that Garland would bring a really immense haul anyway. Vasquez likely would, but we need a dominator like Vasquez.

kevin57
07-30-2007, 08:53 PM
I was the furthest thing from a Garland fan for a long time. I had the typical Sox fan complaints: inconsistent, not living up to the potential/hype, nonchalant attitude, but the guy's kind of grown on me of late. I'd keep him.

esbrechtel
07-31-2007, 10:29 AM
If the price is right....

Jjav829
07-31-2007, 10:54 AM
If the price is right....

Exactly. I don't think the Sox want a repeat of the Buehrle situation. And they might not be willing to give a similar deal for Garland. If KW can find a team that wants a starter, and get some good young, MLB-ready prospects in return, he has to consider it. The D-backs are reportedly shopping Carlos Quentin in an attempt to land a starter. The Dodgers went after Joe Blanton, but couldn't strike a deal. They have a bunch of good, young players that would make for a good return.

Obviously KW isn't going to give Garland away, but if he can find a desperate team, it would make sense to shop Garland.

oeo
07-31-2007, 10:57 AM
Exactly. I don't think the Sox want a repeat of the Buehrle situation. And they might not be willing to give a similar deal for Garland. If KW can find a team that wants a starter, and get some good young, MLB-ready prospects in return, he has to consider it. The D-backs are reportedly shopping Carlos Quentin in an attempt to land a starter. The Dodgers went after Joe Blanton, but couldn't strike a deal. They have a bunch of good, young players that would make for a good return.

Obviously KW isn't going to give Garland away, but if he can find a desperate team, it would make sense to shop Garland.

Everyone said KW's price was 'unreasonable.' Whatever that means...the guy isn't some POS starter like everyone else on the market. Again, it seems like teams are more willing to give up their good prospects for relievers (like Dotel and Gagne), than starters. I know there isn't a lot out there in terms of starting pitching, but Vazquez or Garland would improve any team's rotation (especially teams like the Braves, D'backs, and Dodgers).

ode to veeck
07-31-2007, 11:02 AM
All things being equal, I'd rather keep Garland.

It took the Sox a decade to build a quality starting rotation after Jack McDowell was traded and Alex Fernandez departed. I don't want to endure another decade of Navarros, Parques, Sirotkas, Wellses and Ritchies. The Sox have a great 1-4; perhaps one of the strongest in the majors. Since we all know starting pitching is the most important and most valuable commodity, why subtract from that most important strength?

IMHO, the only thing worth the winningest pitcher in the AL in 2005-2006 would be a young, inexpensive star SS or CF who can play great defense and produce at the top or in the middle of the order.

Hypothetically, would the Tigers give up Granderson? Would the Mets give up Jose Reyes? Of course not.

No team is going to give up current, young, inexpensive star SS or CF.

A team might give up blue-chip prospects, but prospects always carry risk.

So, I don't see a realistic scenario in which I would support trading Garland.

The only wild cards are what the Sox know about the "knot" in Jon's shoulder. Obviously, IF there is any "bad news," AND I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM, the Sox would want to keep it as quiet as possible. We fans are not going to know any more than every other MLB team knows, though, so there's no point in speculating further on it.

I strongly agree. The Sox still have one of the best stables of starters around and Garland is still fairly young and with good mechanics, and along with Burly-mon could remain the core of a strong staff once we put the fires out in the pen. Sign him KW!

Flight #24
07-31-2007, 11:17 AM
Exactly. I don't think the Sox want a repeat of the Buehrle situation. And they might not be willing to give a similar deal for Garland. If KW can find a team that wants a starter, and get some good young, MLB-ready prospects in return, he has to consider it. The D-backs are reportedly shopping Carlos Quentin in an attempt to land a starter. The Dodgers went after Joe Blanton, but couldn't strike a deal. They have a bunch of good, young players that would make for a good return.

Obviously KW isn't going to give Garland away, but if he can find a desperate team, it would make sense to shop Garland.

If KW can get a Teixeira-like haul for Jon, that's fine. Otherwise, hold out, see if you can up Jose's value in August/September, and make a lesser deal with him.

Right now, there's one hole for an SP (Jose's slot). If the Sox create another one by trading Jon or Javy, they'd better get back enough to fill it along with other holes.

DrewSox56
07-31-2007, 11:41 AM
If the price is right....

That price would need to be a whole outfield of major leage ready talent and a 2B/SS prospect or a mixture of these.

Ain't gonna happen - I voted no.

Garland is a horse, low injury risk, proven SP with playoff success and is still under 30. That makes him more valuable than gold in a market where others are buying lead for more than what he is costing us.

Not only wouldn't I trade him, but I hope he's locked back up, and the sooner the better.

santo=dorf
08-02-2007, 06:03 PM
ERA since becoming a full time starter:
4.58
4.51
4.89
3.50
4.51
4.60

A visual for 2005 http://l.yimg.com/www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gifhttp://farm1.static.flickr.com/159/333111850_e3ba1bada1.jpg?v=1167082095

Nellie_Fox
08-03-2007, 01:18 AM
Had you just hit that thumb with a hammer?

Grzegorz
08-03-2007, 05:04 AM
Garland is a horse, low injury risk, proven SP with playoff success and is still under 30. That makes him more valuable than gold in a market where others are buying lead for more than what he is costing us.

I want consistency out of this fellow. His recent performances have not been good and I am beginning to wonder if he's lost enthusiasm for this season.

Actually, it is hard being a pitcher now because the game is geared to generate more offense but I expect better performances from Jon who I consider one of the better pitchers in the game.

I could be wrong; it's been known to happen... :D:

I just want the starters to be solid going into next year; otherwise KW will not have enough fingers to plug all the holes in the dike.

cws05champ
08-03-2007, 11:41 AM
Exactly. I don't think the Sox want a repeat of the Buehrle situation. And they might not be willing to give a similar deal for Garland. If KW can find a team that wants a starter, and get some good young, MLB-ready prospects in return, he has to consider it. The D-backs are reportedly shopping Carlos Quentin in an attempt to land a starter. The Dodgers went after Joe Blanton, but couldn't strike a deal. They have a bunch of good, young players that would make for a good return.

Obviously KW isn't going to give Garland away, but if he can find a desperate team, it would make sense to shop Garland.

The deal I heard on XM before the trade deadline was the Braves offered Edgar Renteria and pitching prospect Matt Harrison for Garland and KW turned it down. Harrison went to the Rangers in the Texiera deal eventually. Harrison seems to be like a Mark Buehrle type...good command avg fast ball in the 87-90 range good change and curve. He was the Braves top pitching prospect.

DrewSox56
08-03-2007, 03:55 PM
The deal I heard on XM before the trade deadline was the Braves offered Edgar Renteria and pitching prospect Matt Harrison for Garland and KW turned it down. Harrison went to the Rangers in the Texiera deal eventually. Harrison seems to be like a Mark Buehrle type...good command avg fast ball in the 87-90 range good change and curve. He was the Braves top pitching prospect.

I heard today that Harrison was part of the deal with Texas all along and it almost didn't happen BECAUSE of him. Something about a potential shoulder problem...

Renteria would be nice, though.

fozzy
08-12-2007, 07:00 AM
i'd have no problem with the sox trading jon for the right package. that does not include a trade for either renteria or tedaji. both are past their primes and way over paid. just last year the red sox's had to pay 11.5 million dollars t0 the braves to take renteria off their hands to get a prospect that neted them coco crisp yep coco crisp and 11.5 mil was equal to renteria last year. yet were going to give up a legit #2 in garland to get him this year. it makes no sense if you want garland you have to overpay for him. why? because our other option is to have him pitch for us maybe win a championship then let him go for draft picks. this off season i'd trade him for a package of no less the (to the dodgers) matt kemp and their big ss prospect in Chin-Lung Hu i'd sweaten the pot but if they say no just keep garland

TheVulture
08-12-2007, 04:37 PM
Sure Garland gets beat up several times a year, but what about the other 25+ starts? Garland earns wins, I don't care if his numbers aren't pretty, especially when Ozzie is apt to leave him to rack up 11 runs after it was obvious after he gave up 4 or 5 that he just didn't have it. Plus, Garland is 27, and the type of pitcher who only gets better at this point in his career - the kind of kind guy that lives by forcing bad contact. He doesn't overpower many people. He relies on craftiness. He's hasn't even peaked yet. Probably will peak 3-5 years from now. With Burls, Vasquez and Garland at the head of the rotation, the sox can compete next year, with a couple of good moves. No way I'd move him. The sox, if anything, need to add another guy like Garland, not subtract one.

TheVulture
08-12-2007, 04:47 PM
I want consistency out of this fellow. His recent performances have not been good and I am beginning to wonder if he's lost enthusiasm for this season.



Garland's only had 3 or 4 bad starts all year. So he's had his 3 worst in the last month? One where he was left in a couple innings just racking up runs after it was apparent he had nothing? Big deal. Garland is the kind of pitcher that can't really dominate, so sometimes when he's off he gets pounded. Look at his game log, though. It's riddled with games he's throwing 7+ and giving up 1 or 2 runs. And he's shown he can win a big game, has he not?

jabrch
08-12-2007, 10:34 PM
Sure - if the price was right.

Tragg
08-12-2007, 10:47 PM
I'm glad he turned that deal with the Braves down.
We don't need another huge contract for a 30+ year old player, who's not that compelling of a hitter anyway on a year in year out basis. And don't forget what they gave for Renteria - one prospect.

Now, Garland for one of their stud SS prospects and a top pitching prospect, I'm all ears. But Garland's not going to be that easy to trade for a top package with only 1 year left on his contract.

StillMissOzzie
08-13-2007, 01:39 AM
There are very few players on the Sox that I would call untouchable, and Jon is not one of them. That said, I would expect more than a boatload of prospects if he is traded. A proven MLB starter, signed at a below-market price for another year, should bring back at least one established MLB player along with a prospect or two. The Sox can't seem to find that rare trading partner that takes the trash off our hands in exchange for value, so they'll have to part with something of value in order to get something of value in return.
To do otherwise, the Sox are plugging one hole and creating a new hole, for no net improvement. Holes in the starting rotation are harder to fill, too. And, it reeks of a salary dump.

SMO
:gulp:

Grzegorz
08-13-2007, 04:47 AM
Like all things it depends on the deal. Question: if you deal him, who do you plug into his spot in the rotation?

I am satisfied with the starting pitching, I am not satisfied with an ossified middle of the lineup, an underachieving shortstop, and a bullpen which until recently was radioactive.

soxfan43
08-14-2007, 12:40 PM
I saw on CNNSI's rumor page today that the beat guy from the Southtown suggested a Garland & Brian ANderson deal to SD for Khalil Greene, Heath Bell and some prospects. I don't know much about Greene, but I would love a younger SS and I think trading Garland is the only way to do it.

CHIsoxNation
08-14-2007, 12:47 PM
I saw on CNNSI's rumor page today that the beat guy from the Southtown suggested a Garland & Brian ANderson deal to SD for Khalil Greene, Heath Bell and some prospects. I don't know much about Greene, but I would love a younger SS and I think trading Garland is the only way to do it.

Linky (http://www.dailysouthtown.com/sports/509010,141SPT3.article)

2. Khalil Greene, SS: General manager Ken Williams is good for one big trade per offseason and this could be it. Williams reportedly wanted Greene as part of a trade-deadline deal for Jermaine Dye, and he could finally acquire the quick, slick-fielding shortstop in an offseason swap with San Diego. The Sox would send Jon Garland -- who nearly was traded last offseason to Houston -- and Brian Anderson to San Diego for Greene, reliever Heath Bell and a pitching prospect or two.

He also mentioned that our Saviour will be roaming CF next year.

Sargeant79
08-14-2007, 02:21 PM
Linky (http://www.dailysouthtown.com/sports/509010,141SPT3.article)



He also mentioned that our Saviour will be roaming CF next year.


That lineup as proposed equals about 80 wins next year.

Mohoney
08-15-2007, 02:13 AM
I would offer Garland an extension first, something similar (about $6-8 million less would seem logical to me, with similar trade escalators) to what Buehrle got. Pay him what he's already getting in 2008, extend him for '09, '10, and '11, and bring the total of these 4 years to about $48-50 million. Then eat about $7 million of the Contreras contract, deal him, and have an open competition for the 5th spot between Floyd, Gonzalez, and a free agent SP signed in the offseason.

However, if Garland is adamant about going free agent after 2008, then we should seriously consider making a splashy trade with Garland as a centerpiece to bring back a SS or CF, depending on what we can get. Then we gamble on one more good season out of Contreras while we have the same competition for the 5th spot.

russ99
08-15-2007, 09:03 AM
No way, Garland is young, relatively cheap and good. Keeping Garland and Buehrle together is the best way to ensure the Sox don't become the new Royals through this reloading phase.

That said, if someone is dumb enough to offer the Sox a good young major-league starting outfielder, a top AAA shortstop/second baseman and a top pitching prospect or two for Jon, I wouldn't be completely against it.

A dump for low end/unsure prospects would be a bad move by Kenny. For a pitcher of Jon' s caliber, we need an established player and very good prospects.

upperdeckusc
08-16-2007, 08:43 AM
I want consistency out of this fellow. His recent performances have not been good and I am beginning to wonder if he's lost enthusiasm for this season.

Actually, it is hard being a pitcher now because the game is geared to generate more offense but I expect better performances from Jon who I consider one of the better pitchers in the game.

I could be wrong; it's been known to happen... :D:

I just want the starters to be solid going into next year; otherwise KW will not have enough fingers to plug all the holes in the dike.

lets not get out of hand now....