PDA

View Full Version : Stupid Garland Rumor


jabrch
09-07-2007, 02:08 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors/post/Garland-could-be-gone;_ylt=Av44OIQ3gDW3ULpsulkDcH4RvLYF?urn=mlb,441 42


GM Ken Williams will try to get two relievers – at least one of them proven – for Garland.
Source: Chicago Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/546412,CST-SPT-soxip07.article)http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/nt/ic/ut/bsc/newwin12_1.gif (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/546412,CST-SPT-soxip07.article)


If all he gets for JG is two relievers, someone ought to hang him by his balls.

Foulke You
09-07-2007, 02:20 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors/post/Garland-could-be-gone;_ylt=Av44OIQ3gDW3ULpsulkDcH4RvLYF?urn=mlb,441 42



If all he gets for JG is two relievers, someone ought to hang him by his balls.
I agree. 2 Relievers AND a SS for Garland maybe. The only way I'd do two relievers for Garland is if we'd be getting Shields and K-Rod in return or relievers of similar quality.

sox1970
09-07-2007, 02:23 PM
This offseason is going to be interesting, but will probably set a record for the number of dumbest rumors.

chisoxmike
09-07-2007, 02:25 PM
This offseason is going to be interesting, but will probably set a record for the number of dumbest rumors.

The 05 trading deadline and offseason holds its own, I think. Whitesox4ever had a new idea for a trade every other hour.

russ99
09-07-2007, 02:29 PM
The 05 trading deadline and offseason holds its own, I think. Whitesox4ever had a new idea for a trade every other hour.

If Kenny turned down Garland for Hirsh, Tavarez and Buchholz (not the Boston kid) there's no way he'd agree to 2 relievers, no matter how good.

I don't take too much stock. Still, I think Kenny's gonna be a major player at the Winter Meetings this year.

getonbckthr
09-07-2007, 02:43 PM
Maybe Garland can be a piece of the Tejada puzzle.
Garland, Contreras, Anderson for Tejada, Cabrera and one of their high priced mistake relievers?

TDog
09-07-2007, 02:51 PM
Two relievers would not total the number of innings Garland will pitch. If the Sox had acquired a quality sixth starter for two relievers -- at least one of them proven -- in Cotts and Politte -- before the 2006 season, the 2006 season may have gone differently.

oeo
09-07-2007, 03:08 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors/post/Garland-could-be-gone;_ylt=Av44OIQ3gDW3ULpsulkDcH4RvLYF?urn=mlb,441 42



If all he gets for JG is two relievers, someone ought to hang him by his balls.

Well, unless Garland stops ****ting his pants, his trade value will be pretty low. The guy has never been consistent, he's never put together a good, full season, and now he's pitching like crap (minus his last start). Add to that, that it will be a one year rental, and Garland isn't going to be some guy that's sought after by many.

LITTLE NELL
09-07-2007, 03:09 PM
The yahoo rumor says that Garland is expendable, but just who takes his place?

Domeshot17
09-07-2007, 04:08 PM
I think Kenny missed his shot to deal Garland this offseason. I think teams are now finding out what he already knew, Garland is an average to above average pitcher who got the benefit of a LOT of run support. Wins are a great stat, but you could win and have an era of 9.21 if your team scores 11 runs a game. Garlands ERA and WHIP have always been less then stellar, and he never has high K totals. Hes a great 3-4 man in a rotation, but as we found out this year, he doesnt match up well with the number 2s on a lot of teams. He kind of reminds me of Kevin Millwood. A decent to good player, but not an Ace, no matter how much you build him up.

That being said, I think he is dealt this year, because Garland is not worth 4/56 or even 4/48.

The Immigrant
09-07-2007, 04:14 PM
Kenny wasn't happy with the packages offered for Garland when he had 2 years left on his deal and was coming off consecutive 18-win seasons. I don't recall a single impact player being discussed in the deals that were rumored at the time, and I doubt we get one for the 2002-2004 version of Garland with only a year left on his deal.

We might as well start lowering our expectations now.

spiffie
09-07-2007, 04:49 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors/post/Garland-could-be-gone;_ylt=Av44OIQ3gDW3ULpsulkDcH4RvLYF?urn=mlb,441 42



If all he gets for JG is two relievers, someone ought to hang him by his balls.
If Kenny finds the market for Garland will only bear a couple of decent relief arms, while providing significant salary relief, shouldn't we trust that this was the best move for the team, or else he wouldn't have made it?

Domeshot17
09-07-2007, 05:02 PM
Kenny wasn't happy with the packages offered for Garland when he had 2 years left on his deal and was coming off consecutive 18-win seasons. I don't recall a single impact player being discussed in the deals that were rumored at the time, and I doubt we get one for the 2002-2004 version of Garland with only a year left on his deal.

We might as well start lowering our expectations now.

To be fair Hirsch was a big pitching spec in the Houston deal. I would guess about along the lines of Danks

SoxxoS
09-07-2007, 05:07 PM
Lets not overvalue Garland here...he is a little above average - But he is what he is - Although he is "only" 28 he has 7 full MLB seasons under his belt - and his statistics tell who he is -

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/G/jon-garland.shtml

Other than those stats...which are fine - What makes him a little above average is his ability to stay healthy, he keeps his team in games to win, and he had postseason success. All big pluses.

But lets not overrate him.

jabrch
09-07-2007, 05:45 PM
Well, unless Garland stops ****ting his pants, his trade value will be pretty low. The guy has never been consistent, he's never put together a good, full season, and now he's pitching like crap (minus his last start). Add to that, that it will be a one year rental, and Garland isn't going to be some guy that's sought after by many.

Lets not overvalue Garland here...he is a little above average - But he is what he is - Although he is "only" 28 he has 7 full MLB seasons under his belt - and his statistics tell who he is -

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/G/jon-garland.shtml

Other than those stats...which are fine - What makes him a little above average is his ability to stay healthy, he keeps his team in games to win, and he had postseason success. All big pluses.

But lets not overrate him.


18 wins in back to back seasons - how many of those will be available with 1 year at about 10mm? And then whomever gets him can get themselves 2 draft picks for him if/when he leaves.

The thought of him only getting two relievers is complete sillyness. If that's the case, KW would keep JG.

oeo
09-07-2007, 06:11 PM
The thought of him only getting two relievers is complete sillyness. If that's the case, KW would keep JG.

What if he doesn't plan on re-signing him? IMO, he should not. Garland is not, never has been, and never will be worth a contract like Buehrle's.

We all saw the lowball offers for Buehrle at midseason, just imagine how low Garland's would be at midseason next year. I think Kenny will take the best possible offer over the offseason, and if that's two relievers, one of them being proven (I'm thinking like a Scot Shields-type; a guy that is dominant year in and year out, not just a career year here and there), so be it.

FarWestChicago
09-07-2007, 06:13 PM
Maybe Garland can be a piece of the Tejada puzzle.
Garland, Contreras, Anderson for Tejada, Cabrera and one of their high priced mistake relievers?Tejada is fading fast. Even with 'roids, I don't know that he's worth it.

santo=dorf
09-07-2007, 06:42 PM
18 wins in back to back seasons - how many of those will be available with 1 year at about 10mm? And then whomever gets him can get themselves 2 draft picks for him if/when he leaves.

The thought of him only getting two relievers is complete sillyness. If that's the case, KW would keep JG.
Win totals mean very little when talking about a pitcher's talent and performances. You know better than that. :tsk:

ERA is much more important, as are innings pitched and WHIP.

JB98
09-07-2007, 07:31 PM
I don't believe in trading starters who throw 200 innings every year for relievers, who throw 50-60 innings a year. It's senseless.

If Garland is traded for relievers, it's about money, not baseball.

getonbckthr
09-07-2007, 07:46 PM
Tejada is fading fast. Even with 'roids, I don't know that he's worth it.
I disagree. He is a guarentee for 25 hrs/ 100 RBI's/ .300 Average.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/tejadmi01.shtml

UserNameBlank
09-07-2007, 09:32 PM
If Kenny is shopping Garland and isn't looking for a young bat with big potential in the Majors or high minors we have some serious problems. That said, I don't think Kenny is looking for relievers for Garland and the article is pure speculation by someone who has no idea what our primary needs really are.

We have:
A closer (Jenks), a lefty specialist (Logan), a righty specialist (Wassermann), a full inning lefty (Thornton), a full inning righty (MacDougal), and all we really need is a veteran guy who can pitch anywhere including LR. Not Masset, not Sisco, not Aardsma, not Day, not Myers, not Bukvich, not Phillips, not Broadway, not Heager, not anyone on in our organization can fill this last crucial spot. Kenny can't wing it here anymore; he needs to get someone worth a damn. We do that and we have a bullpen.

Obviously McDougal and Thornton have been disappointing this year but they have had success in the past. No one that we can possibly acquire without overpaying and giving up some of our best prospects is going to bring us any greater of a chance of putting together a domainant season than Thornton or MacDougal, so we should keep these guys. Whoever got this idea that we'd dump Garland for a couple of relievers doesn't know what he's talking about.

The Sox do not HAVE to deal Garland and they should only do so if it makes the team younger and better in an important area, and by that I mean we need to get a position player.

Grzegorz
09-07-2007, 09:40 PM
Tejada is fading fast. Even with 'roids, I don't know that he's worth it.

I totally agree; there is far more Tejada love on this site that expected. Tejada is not worth creating a hole in the rotation. If you want to trade starting pitching then blow up the whole damned show and start over.

The yahoo rumor says that Garland is expendable, but just who takes his place?

Anyone... Everyone knows that starting pitching isn't an important factor in this game.

oeo
09-07-2007, 09:58 PM
I totally agree; there is far more Tejada love on this site that expected. Tejada is not worth creating a hole in the rotation. If you want to trade starting pitching then blow up the whole damned show and start over.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, trading a starting pitcher that will be a free agent in a year, who you have no interest in signing, is always a bad idea. You get what you can for him if you don't want to re-sign him...and Garland isn't worth a Buehrle contract (or possibly more with the way the market is going).

FarWestChicago
09-07-2007, 10:48 PM
I totally agree; there is far more Tejada love on this site that expected. Tejada is not worth creating a hole in the rotation. If you want to trade starting pitching then blow up the whole damned show and start over.Not only are your logical points correct, the Miggy Tej lovers have to deal with the fact an HGH test might actually be created. Science does not rest. Then you have a hugely expensive, aging anchor, who created a hole in your rotation who could be banned for, well, assuming The Tool ever grows a set, forever. Yep, that's where I want to mortgage the future of the team. It's just absolutely brilliant.

Tragg
09-07-2007, 10:50 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors/post/Garland-could-be-gone;_ylt=Av44OIQ3gDW3ULpsulkDcH4RvLYF?urn=mlb,441 42



If all he gets for JG is two relievers, someone ought to hang him by his balls.
Seems like a real silly rumor.

How about a young, stud outfielder? We have stuff to trade.

spiffie
09-08-2007, 12:13 AM
Not only are your logical points correct, the Miggy Tej lovers have to deal with the fact an HGH test might actually be created. Science does not rest. Then you have a hugely expensive, aging anchor, who created a hole in your rotation who could be banned for, well, assuming The Tool ever grows a set, forever. Yep, that's where I want to mortgage the future of the team. It's just absolutely brilliant.
Let me just preface this by saying that trading for Tejada is a terrible idea, and I wouldn't do it even if they were just looking for a pure salary dump.

That said, can you really imagine Bud and Don Fehr coming to agreement on an HGH test before 2012 if one were unveiled over this weekend? Oh wait, I guess with the controversy lately it might speed it up...how about 2010? Anything that depends on Bud growing a set seems like a longshot.

FarWestChicago
09-08-2007, 12:23 AM
That said, can you really imagine Bud and Don Fehr coming to agreement on an HGH test before 2012 if one were unveiled over this weekend? Oh wait, I guess with the controversy lately it might speed it up...how about 2010? Anything that depends on Bud growing a set seems like a longshot.All I can do is agree with you. And isn't that depressing?

FedEx227
09-08-2007, 12:59 AM
The 05 trading deadline and offseason holds its own, I think. Whitesox4ever had a new idea for a trade every other hour.

But MLBTraderumors is at the top of its game these days. They can get piles of crap from thousands of different sources these days.

I <3 blind, meaningless trade proposals. And they're good friend blind speculation from random, unnamed sources.

Domeshot17
09-08-2007, 01:04 AM
Ill throw my name into 2 pointless rumors

Garland for Hu and Broxton from LA

Garland to the Dodgers for Shields and Aybar

Nellie_Fox
09-08-2007, 01:35 AM
Well, unless Garland stops ****ting his pants...I'd like to nominate this phrase (and its variants) for the list of clichés that have been run into the ground and should be retired.

StillMissOzzie
09-08-2007, 02:08 AM
Then you have a hugely expensive, aging anchor, who created a hole in your rotation who could be banned for, well, assuming The Tool ever grows a set, forever.

Oh wait, I guess with the controversy lately it might speed it up...how about 2010? Anything that depends on Bud growing a set seems like a longshot.

I have a wacky idea that just might work: Have Bud confiscate all the 'roids and HGH he can get his mitts on, and then....use it on himself! If that won't make him grow some 'nads in a hurry, nothing will!

SMO
:gulp::D:

Nellie_Fox
09-08-2007, 02:21 AM
I have a wacky idea that just might work: Have Bud confiscate all the 'roids and HGH he can get his mitts on, and then....use it on himself! If that won't make him grow some 'nads in a hurry, nothing will!The opposite is true. Anabolic steroid use causes the body to shut down its own production of testosterone, eventually resulting in testicular atrophy (tiny nads.)

TDog
09-08-2007, 02:23 AM
I'd like to nominate this phrase (and its variants) for the list of clichés that have been run into the ground and should be retired.

I'd like to second that.

itsnotrequired
09-08-2007, 02:24 AM
Jon Garland smells of overspice and symphony sweets. To trade him would be an olfactory disaster.

JB98
09-08-2007, 03:05 AM
:rolleyes:

Yeah, trading a starting pitcher that will be a free agent in a year, who you have no interest in signing, is always a bad idea. You get what you can for him if you don't want to re-sign him...and Garland isn't worth a Buehrle contract (or possibly more with the way the market is going).

Well, if we think we can win a championship in 2008, we better hold on to Garland. It's hard for me to fathom the Sox getting it done next year without him.

A rotation of Buehrle, Vazquez, Contreras, Danks and big gaping question mark isn't going to get it done.

santo=dorf
09-08-2007, 06:27 AM
Well, if we think we can win a championship in 2008, we better hold on to Garland. It's hard for me to fathom the Sox getting it done next year without him.

A rotation of Buehrle, Vazquez, Contreras, Danks and big gaping question mark isn't going to get it done.
I agree Garland is better than a question mark, but is he really worth $12 million next year? Aside from 2005, his ERA is around 4.5 and his WHIP is at least 1.36. Those are numbers for an average pitcher.

If someone is willing to give up good talent for an $12 million pitcher who puts up average numbers, I say you pull the trigger.

oeo
09-08-2007, 08:54 AM
I'd like to nominate this phrase (and its variants) for the list of clichés that have been run into the ground and should be retired.

I disagree, that's one of my favorite phrases. :tongue:

PaleHoseGeorge
09-08-2007, 09:59 AM
Wow... the Sun-Times really is a worthless pile of ****.

People are paying for this???

:o:

DSpivack
09-08-2007, 10:31 AM
I agree Garland is better than a question mark, but is he really worth $12 million next year? Aside from 2005, his ERA is around 4.5 and his WHIP is at least 1.36. Those are numbers for an average pitcher.

If someone is willing to give up good talent for an $12 million pitcher who puts up average numbers, I say you pull the trigger.

Gil Meche is getting $11 mil a year, is he not? Then again, he's having a much better year than Garland. Although two wrongs don't make a right.

FarWestChicago
09-08-2007, 12:15 PM
Gil Meche is getting $11 mil a year, is he not? Then again, he's having a much better year than Garland. Although two wrongs don't make a right.This post made me laugh out loud. :cool:

FarWestChicago
09-08-2007, 12:16 PM
I have a wacky idea that just might work: Have Bud confiscate all the 'roids and HGH he can get his mitts on, and then....use it on himself! If that won't make him grow some 'nads in a hurry, nothing will!

SMO
:gulp::D:

The opposite is true. Anabolic steroid use causes the body to shut down its own production of testosterone, eventually resulting in testicular atrophy (tiny nads.)You gotta love SMO's idea. But, alas, Nellie is right. :smile:

santo=dorf
09-08-2007, 12:34 PM
Gil Meche is getting $11 mil a year, is he not? Then again, he's having a much better year than Garland. Although two wrongs don't make a right.
The Meche signing was viewed as being very absurd, which one writer described it along the lines of a "low income, starving family, spending all their money on a 42" plasma TV that doesn't work."

Two wrongs don't make a right, but two Wrights make a plane.

FarWestChicago
09-08-2007, 05:09 PM
The Meche signing was viewed as being very absurd, which one writer described it along the lines of a "low income, starving family, spending all their money on a 42" plasma TV that doesn't work."

Two wrongs don't make a right, but two Wrights make a plane.Oh dorf. :help:

jabrch
09-08-2007, 05:24 PM
I'd like to nominate this phrase (and its variants) for the list of clichés that have been run into the ground and should be retired.

You mods can fix it so we don't see that one again... :-)

slavko
09-08-2007, 06:52 PM
I agree Garland is better than a question mark, but is he really worth $12 million next year? Aside from 2005, his ERA is around 4.5 and his WHIP is at least 1.36. Those are numbers for an average pitcher.

If someone is willing to give up good talent for an $12 million pitcher who puts up average numbers, I say you pull the trigger.

In the case of some pitchers, WSI looks at their worst times when we evaluate them. In the case of other pitchers, we disreagard that they can and have gone into the tank for half a season at a time. Trading JG presupposes that we have a replacement. Do we?

getonbckthr
09-08-2007, 07:15 PM
In the case of some pitchers, WSI looks at their worst times when we evaluate them. In the case of other pitchers, we disreagard that they can and have gone into the tank for half a season at a time. Trading JG presupposes that we have a replacement. Do we?
The reason I would understand trading Garland is because it doesn't seem likely he will resign with us when his contract is up, and he is in a contract year.

jabrch
09-08-2007, 08:36 PM
Trading JG presupposes that we have a replacement. Do we?

Well - depends on what you mean replacement. I think it assumes we have someone who can start - but that pitcher doesn't have to be as good as JG if the other piece we get back makes us better.

Yes - we have SP options next year other than Garland.

voodoochile
09-08-2007, 11:47 PM
Well - depends on what you mean replacement. I think it assumes we have someone who can start - but that pitcher doesn't have to be as good as JG if the other piece we get back makes us better.

Yes - we have SP options next year other than Garland.

You really want to go into the off season with Danks, Floyd and Contreras all tentatively penciled into the starting rotation? If not, who would you sign to replace Garland who would cost less and be as or more effective?

UserNameBlank
09-09-2007, 03:39 AM
You really want to go into the off season with Danks, Floyd and Contreras all tentatively penciled into the starting rotation? If not, who would you sign to replace Garland who would cost less and be as or more effective?
I don't know if it has anything to do with wanting to go into the the '08 season with that kind of rotation. We're just in a bad spot.

Garland is going to make some very good money in his next contract and after extending Mark and JD, it is really kind of hard to imagine them extending Jon. And it's also no secret that we need to get some more talented young players on this team so that we're not relying solely on an injury-prone veteran offensive core. In order to get a young position player or two we'll have to trade someone, and really Garland is the best bet because he's young, has some value, and will probably not stick around after '08 anyway.

And on Contreras, again, what can we do? There's no reason to dump him off for nothing while eating most if not all of his contract. If we can't eat some cash and get something we can use for him or if we can't dump that salary, he's in our rotation.

Danks needs to pitch. Floyd has shown flashes, as usual, but nothing to say he's going to be consistently good or consistently bad.

Anyway, I think trying to contend next year is a bad idea, but whatever. Anything can happen, so hopefully KW has a terrific and shocking PS2-like offseason and we find our way back to the top of the AL Central...

Grzegorz
09-09-2007, 05:59 AM
And on Contreras, again, what can we do? There's no reason to dump him off for nothing while eating most if not all of his contract. If we can't eat some cash and get something we can use for him or if we can't dump that salary, he's in our rotation.

If Contreras is not pitching well then he'd better not be in the rotation. I do not even want to roll the dice on him next year; it is better to move him.

It is better to eat some contract money upfront than lose revenue money due to missing the playoffs or enduring another losing season which leads to attendance drop-offs.

Thank you Jose for all you've done for the franchise but it is time to move on.

KyWhiSoxFan
09-09-2007, 09:05 AM
While I think Garland will be traded this offseason, I take this recent "report" to be silly. It is an unnamed source with no substance. Why would KW have told the Sun-Times he's shopping Garland and all he wants in return is two relievers? And say that before the season is even over?

Silly rumors apparently aren 't reserved just for bulletin boards but actually appear in print in newspapers.

gosox41
09-09-2007, 11:48 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/rumors/post/Garland-could-be-gone;_ylt=Av44OIQ3gDW3ULpsulkDcH4RvLYF?urn=mlb,441 42



If all he gets for JG is two relievers, someone ought to hang him by his balls.

I don't think KW is that stupid, but you never know.


Bob