PDA

View Full Version : Maybe Garland is not so expensive. . .


ohiosoxfan
10-24-2007, 03:49 PM
According to MLB Trade Rumors, Carlos Silva is worthy of 4 years at $10 Milllion. If this is true, Jon Garland and Jose Contreras might be considered bargains.

Link: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/10/silva-wants-fou.html

Gregory Pratt
10-24-2007, 06:50 PM
According to MLB Trade Rumors, Carlos Silva is worthy of 4 years at $10 Milllion. If this is true, Jon Garland and Jose Contreras might be considered bargains.

Link: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/10/silva-wants-fou.html

Silva is, IMO, the same as Garland. Except I don't trust Garland's shoulder to hold up and I imagine him having arm problems soon, considering his mild losses in velocity and his "should knot." I don't care what he says -- that isn't good.

And Contreras isn't a bargain if for no other reason than his age. You know what our organization does? It locks people up for no good reason. Contreras? After a career year, with reason to doubt his age and wonder how he'll rebound? How he'll age? And he's under contract for at least one more year? And you extend him for three?

Great move. Now he's been injured and averageish, overall, but probably a little less than average.

AJ Pierzynski is another guy. Extend him for a few more years at a time when he doesn't need to be extended, at the time where his age is going to bring him down as all catchers do around his age? Jeez.

It's not like people would break down the door to sign AJ Pierzynski. He's not very popular and he IS obnoxious by all accounts and hard to deal with a lot of the time. Good player? Decent. But no one would offer him much more than we would, and so there was no good reason to extend him.

Garland's extension, on the other hand, was probably a no-brainer, and Buehrle's, too, but let's not forget that Buehrle basically begged the White Sox to let him stay and begged them to pay him less than he'd have gotten on the market. (A lot less.)

It makes me sad that our organization is so...questionable.

TheOldRoman
10-24-2007, 07:41 PM
Silva is, IMO, the same as Garland. Except I don't trust Garland's shoulder to hold up and I imagine him having arm problems soon, considering his mild losses in velocity and his "should knot." I don't care what he says -- that isn't good.

And Contreras isn't a bargain if for no other reason than his age. You know what our organization does? It locks people up for no good reason. Contreras? After a career year, with reason to doubt his age and wonder how he'll rebound? How he'll age? And he's under contract for at least one more year? And you extend him for three?

Great move. Now he's been injured and averageish, overall, but probably a little less than average.

AJ Pierzynski is another guy. Extend him for a few more years at a time when he doesn't need to be extended, at the time where his age is going to bring him down as all catchers do around his age? Jeez.

It's not like people would break down the door to sign AJ Pierzynski. He's not very popular and he IS obnoxious by all accounts and hard to deal with a lot of the time. Good player? Decent. But no one would offer him much more than we would, and so there was no good reason to extend him.

Garland's extension, on the other hand, was probably a no-brainer, and Buehrle's, too, but let's not forget that Buehrle basically begged the White Sox to let him stay and begged them to pay him less than he'd have gotten on the market. (A lot less.)

It makes me sad that our organization is so...questionable.:rolleyes:

Gregory Pratt
10-24-2007, 07:50 PM
:rolleyes:

What great analysis.

PS: we wouldn't have to "lock up" an aging catcher (who no one else would really want) if we'd taken Kurt Suzuki over Donny Lucy but our organization doesn't do a good job scouting, drafting or developing.

Of course, what I really mean by that is -- "I hate the White Sox!"

That's why I'm rooting for the Rockies right now, after all.

TDog
10-24-2007, 08:35 PM
What great analysis.

PS: we wouldn't have to "lock up" an aging catcher (who no one else would really want) if we'd taken Kurt Suzuki over Donny Lucy but our organization doesn't do a good job scouting, drafting or developing.

Of course, what I really mean by that is -- "I hate the White Sox!"

That's why I'm rooting for the Rockies right now, after all.

Clearly the teal is implied in this post. One can only hope teal was implied in your first post in this thread.

Daver
10-24-2007, 08:55 PM
Silva is, IMO, the same as Garland. Except I don't trust Garland's shoulder to hold up and I imagine him having arm problems soon, considering his mild losses in velocity and his "should knot." I don't care what he says -- that isn't good.

And Contreras isn't a bargain if for no other reason than his age. You know what our organization does? It locks people up for no good reason. Contreras? After a career year, with reason to doubt his age and wonder how he'll rebound? How he'll age? And he's under contract for at least one more year? And you extend him for three?

Great move. Now he's been injured and averageish, overall, but probably a little less than average.

AJ Pierzynski is another guy. Extend him for a few more years at a time when he doesn't need to be extended, at the time where his age is going to bring him down as all catchers do around his age? Jeez.

It's not like people would break down the door to sign AJ Pierzynski. He's not very popular and he IS obnoxious by all accounts and hard to deal with a lot of the time. Good player? Decent. But no one would offer him much more than we would, and so there was no good reason to extend him.

Garland's extension, on the other hand, was probably a no-brainer, and Buehrle's, too, but let's not forget that Buehrle basically begged the White Sox to let him stay and begged them to pay him less than he'd have gotten on the market. (A lot less.)

It makes me sad that our organization is so...questionable.

You're an idiot.

DumpJerry
10-24-2007, 08:58 PM
You're an idiot.
I think he's just upset that the White Sox aren't the ones playing tonight. He's been slamming the Sox' decisions in several threads today.

TheOldRoman
10-24-2007, 09:01 PM
You're an idiot.:thumbsup:I knew you would come into this conversation sooner or later.

You mean Carlos Silva isn't as good as Jon Garland?

The Immigrant
10-24-2007, 09:14 PM
Please don't feed the trolls.

TheOldRoman
10-24-2007, 09:15 PM
What great analysis.

PS: we wouldn't have to "lock up" an aging catcher (who no one else would really want) if we'd taken Kurt Suzuki over Donny Lucy but our organization doesn't do a good job scouting, drafting or developing.

Of course, what I really mean by that is -- "I hate the White Sox!"

That's why I'm rooting for the Rockies right now, after all.Oh! I can play that game, too. The Bears were dumb because they didn't draft Tom Brady, Chad Johnson, Brett Favre, Michael Strahan, etc. The Sox are dumb because they should have drafted Chase Utley, Mike Piazza, Albert Pujols, etc.

There are a few things you should know. Ken Williams, despite being apparently the worst GM in baseball, and having people around him who are terrible at scouting, drafting, and developing talent, has won as many championships as your idol Schuerholz.

And on the subject of Garland, do you honestly think the Braves won't be calling Kenny about him this offseason? Of course they will. Do you think the Braves would go anywhere near Carlos Silva for $10 mil a year? No chance in hell.

Boondock Saint
10-24-2007, 11:22 PM
You're an idiot.

That's about as polite a criticism this guy should get...if he wants to rip our organization, he can find a Cubs board where everyone will agree with his opinions, no matter how ridiculous.

JB98
10-24-2007, 11:35 PM
What great analysis.

PS: we wouldn't have to "lock up" an aging catcher (who no one else would really want) if we'd taken Kurt Suzuki over Donny Lucy but our organization doesn't do a good job scouting, drafting or developing.

Of course, what I really mean by that is -- "I hate the White Sox!"

That's why I'm rooting for the Rockies right now, after all.

Aging catcher? AJ Pierzynski is 30. Look around baseball. There are several catchers older than AJ who are still playing well. Varitek, Posada, Rodriguez, etc.

Get a clue, man.

DSpivack
10-25-2007, 12:30 AM
Aging catcher? AJ Pierzynski is 30. Look around baseball. There are several catchers older than AJ who are still playing well. Varitek, Posada, Rodriguez, etc.

Get a clue, man.

He's right. AJ is aging. We are all aging, just like we are all dying.

Domeshot17
10-25-2007, 12:38 AM
For all the hating here, I agree we cant look too much at drafting players. The mlb draft, as much as I agree we suck at drafting and developing, is the biggest crapshoot in sports.


That said, Silva is a Garland clone you just have to be willing to admit it. Take away wins, which is an inflated stat for pitchers because of run support, and Garland is right there with the Silva's Doug Davis's and Jason Marquis's of the world. Mid 4 career era, 190-210 innings a year, whip over 1.3 below 1.5, basically a dependable 3rd or 4th starter on a good team and a number 2 on a bad team. I mean you can argue all you want but he numbers dont lie. Silva actually blows Garland away when it comes to K:BB ratio. Garlands above average, but the idea he is a front line starter is insane. I like Garland, but we way over value him.

And Ill save you the trouble of a reply

HE WON 18 GAMES 2 YEARS IN A ROW!!!!!!

True, but his stats in 2005 have never been close to repeated, and every stat besides W-L was better or the pretty much the same in 2007 then 2006. Wins are just a product of run support often.

pmck003
10-25-2007, 03:39 AM
For all the hating here, I agree we cant look too much at drafting players. The mlb draft, as much as I agree we suck at drafting and developing, is the biggest crapshoot in sports.


That said, Silva is a Garland clone you just have to be willing to admit it. Take away wins, which is an inflated stat for pitchers because of run support, and Garland is right there with the Silva's Doug Davis's and Jason Marquis's of the world.

I'm too lazy to look up the stats, but you could argue about what parks they pitch in. I think its a grossly underrated stat, especially when you consider the psychology of it which cannot be measured with numbers. I may be biased having lived in Denver for so long, but if Garland and Silva have the same stats, I think you have to give a minor edge to Garland. If you want to include fielding percentage, MN had a slight edge in 2006 and 2007.

UserNameBlank
10-25-2007, 04:14 AM
Yet another reason why WSI > SoxTalk...

You go back in time to when we signed Contreras and you'll see we were coming off a World Series title and we wanted to have some veterans locked up. How were the Sox supposed to know Jose would fall as far as he has? Besides, since Jose came back out of the bullpen he's been a lot better. With the market where it is, if we get that Jose for a full year next season he'll probably be a below-market value pitcher. We just have to wait and see. I think the Sox will look to unload him, but it's not like his arm has fallen off or anything. Hopefully we'll either get the old Jose back or we'll get something for him. You can also look at like this: if we were going to extend one of Contreras or Garcia, we made the right choice.

I don't like the way things are looking either, but mostly that has to do with this year's team and the state of the free agent market. I'm unconvinced that throwing something like $17mil+ at a veteran CF and a MIF like David Eckstein is going to take us over the hump. But whatever, I'll still get to see Fields and Danks at least. I hope Egbert debuts next year too. I want to see him pitch. And go DLS. Please, start in Birmingham and get here quickly. Gio, you too. Either start with the MLB club or don't take too long to get there from Charlotte. And then let's rip off a couple of teams in a trade. That sounds good.

It's gonna be a long winter though.

Grzegorz
10-25-2007, 05:54 AM
For all the hating here, I agree we cant look too much at drafting players. The mlb draft, as much as I agree we suck at drafting and developing, is the biggest crapshoot in sports.


That said, Silva is a Garland clone you just have to be willing to admit it. Take away wins, which is an inflated stat for pitchers because of run support, and Garland is right there with the Silva's Doug Davis's and Jason Marquis's of the world. Mid 4 career era, 190-210 innings a year, whip over 1.3 below 1.5, basically a dependable 3rd or 4th starter on a good team and a number 2 on a bad team. I mean you can argue all you want but he numbers dont lie. Silva actually blows Garland away when it comes to K:BB ratio. Garlands above average, but the idea he is a front line starter is insane. I like Garland, but we way over value him.

And Ill save you the trouble of a reply

HE WON 18 GAMES 2 YEARS IN A ROW!!!!!!

True, but his stats in 2005 have never been close to repeated, and every stat besides W-L was better or the pretty much the same in 2007 then 2006. Wins are just a product of run support often.

Silva is also being used to help retain the services of Santana.

How do you convince the fan base that you will compete in a very competitive division next year if you trade a front line starter? Who replaces that starter?

Will it be Danks, Floyd, or do you expect Contreras to become Lazarus?

Pitching is the bedrock of any championship team. If you replace a quality starter that starter must be replaced by one in kind. If not, all you have to reply on is good fortune.

The last time I looked, good fortune smiles on those those who are experienced and talented.

oeo
10-25-2007, 07:49 AM
$14 million (or whatever he will be demanding) is still $14 million. Unless we have a significant increase in payroll, $14 million still takes up just as much. With Buehrle and Vazquez already locked up at about a quarter of our current payroll, something would have to give in order to keep Garland around.

SBSoxFan
10-25-2007, 11:22 AM
Pitching is the bedrock of any championship team. If you replace a quality starter that starter must be replaced by one in kind. If not, all you have to reply on is good fortune.

The last time I looked, good fortune smiles on those those who are experienced and talented.

I guess that depends on what good fortune asked to begin with. :kneeslap:

Or you could rely on good fortune.

Stoky44
10-25-2007, 05:30 PM
According to MLB Trade Rumors, Carlos Silva is worthy of 4 years at $10 Milllion.

Great source!!
LOL

chaerulez
10-26-2007, 01:04 AM
I'd say Garland is a little bit better than Silva. If you have the money to pay Silva to be a 4th starter, then so be it. $10 million a year for average starting pitching is the norm. Ted Lilly and Gil Meche got that kind of money when they had very average careers, although they turned out to have above average 2007 seasons. The idea that AJ is getting too old to be a everyday catcher is nonsense. Posada just had a career year and he has a few years on AJ.

balke
10-26-2007, 08:14 AM
For all the hating here, I agree we cant look too much at drafting players. The mlb draft, as much as I agree we suck at drafting and developing, is the biggest crapshoot in sports.


That said, Silva is a Garland clone you just have to be willing to admit it. Take away wins, which is an inflated stat for pitchers because of run support, and Garland is right there with the Silva's Doug Davis's and Jason Marquis's of the world. Mid 4 career era, 190-210 innings a year, whip over 1.3 below 1.5, basically a dependable 3rd or 4th starter on a good team and a number 2 on a bad team. I mean you can argue all you want but he numbers dont lie. Silva actually blows Garland away when it comes to K:BB ratio. Garlands above average, but the idea he is a front line starter is insane. I like Garland, but we way over value him.

And Ill save you the trouble of a reply

HE WON 18 GAMES 2 YEARS IN A ROW!!!!!!

True, but his stats in 2005 have never been close to repeated, and every stat besides W-L was better or the pretty much the same in 2007 then 2006. Wins are just a product of run support often.




Well K/BB is much more important than wins, I'll give you that. Besides, Garland had that dynamite offense that completely blew away baseball those seasons.


I had to add some more teal to this thread cause there wasn't enough already.


Bottom line, Silva is a sucky pitcher who's consistantly crappy. Garland is much like Jose in that he will lose a game for you by 14 runs in 2 innings, then he'll dominate for about 4 games with 1-2 runs through 7. Thus, wins.

As far as K/BB there's not that much difference between 112/41 and 70/32 (2006)

As long as Garland's shoulder is fine next season, he's far and away the better pitcher.

spiffie
10-26-2007, 08:37 AM
Well K/BB is much more important than wins, I'll give you that. Besides, Garland had that dynamite offense that completely blew away baseball those seasons.


I had to add some more teal to this thread cause there wasn't enough already.


Bottom line, Silva is a sucky pitcher who's consistantly crappy. Garland is much like Jose in that he will lose a game for you by 14 runs in 2 innings, then he'll dominate for about 4 games with 1-2 runs through 7. Thus, wins.

As far as K/BB there's not that much difference between 112/41 and 70/32 (2006)

As long as Garland's shoulder is fine next season, he's far and away the better pitcher.
A quality start is defined as 3 ER or less in 6 or more IP. The first set is Jon Garland's quality starts. The second one is Carlos Silva's. The third set is Mark Buehrle.

2007: 21/32
2006: 17/32
2005: 22/32
2004: 16/33
Total: 76/129 (58%)

2007: 20/33
2006: 10/27
2005: 17/31
2004: 17/33
Total: 64/124 (51%)

2007: 20/30
2006: 16/32
2005: 20/33
2004: 23/35
Total: 79/130 (60%)

Zisk77
10-26-2007, 10:17 AM
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Garland is way better than Silva no matter how many of you dislike Jon for his "California Cool" demeanor.

Domeshot17
10-26-2007, 10:32 AM
A quality start is defined as 3 ER or less in 6 or more IP. The first set is Jon Garland's quality starts. The second one is Carlos Silva's. The third set is Mark Buehrle.

2007: 21/32
2006: 17/32
2005: 22/32
2004: 16/33
Total: 76/129 (58%)

2007: 20/33
2006: 10/27
2005: 17/31
2004: 17/33
Total: 64/124 (51%)

2007: 20/30
2006: 16/32
2005: 20/33
2004: 23/35
Total: 79/130 (60%)

Still, you take away 2 off years from those guys and its a different story. Buehrle sucked in 2006, other than that he is much closer to 66% then 60. Silva Sucked in 2006 which skews his numbers real bad too.

If you wanna believe Garland is better then his average mid 4 era and whip show, good for you. I agree that he is a pitcher who gets shelled a lot which brings his era up, but Im also a firm believer that you are your stats. I dont care if Konerko hits .198 for a month and .358 for a month to finish the year hitting .285, at the end of the year he is a .285 hitter.

Actually I like this set of stats because it proves one thing. Most of this board thinks Garland had a BAD year this year. Yet if you didnt look at W/L his QS ratio mirrors 2005, and his other stats > 2006 when he won 18. That is my Point, Garland isn't the same kind of ace 18 game winner as Brandon Webb or Jake Peavy or even on par with the next group of pitchers like Buehrle Cole Hamels Jon Lackey Jeremy Bonderman. Like I said, I dont dislike Garland, but I dont buy into him being a top flight starter. I think if someone wants to pay for him like hes a number 1 or 2 we better take that trade because he is easier to replace then some think. Why should we pay him MORE to be not as good as a guy like Javy. Again I like Garland at 9 a year, I love him at 8, at 12 Im not happy and at 14 Im holding the door open and throwin him out, especially if that door brings back a top prospect a solid reliever or a SS PLUS enough cash to go sign what we dont get back and replace him with a pitcher like Jason Jennings.

Right now makes so much sense to deal him, unless he is willing to say Ill play for what Im worth and that is not double digit million dollars per year.

spiffie
10-26-2007, 11:26 AM
Still, you take away 2 off years from those guys and its a different story. Buehrle sucked in 2006, other than that he is much closer to 66% then 60. Silva Sucked in 2006 which skews his numbers real bad too.

If you wanna believe Garland is better then his average mid 4 era and whip show, good for you. I agree that he is a pitcher who gets shelled a lot which brings his era up, but Im also a firm believer that you are your stats. I dont care if Konerko hits .198 for a month and .358 for a month to finish the year hitting .285, at the end of the year he is a .285 hitter.

Actually I like this set of stats because it proves one thing. Most of this board thinks Garland had a BAD year this year. Yet if you didnt look at W/L his QS ratio mirrors 2005, and his other stats > 2006 when he won 18. That is my Point, Garland isn't the same kind of ace 18 game winner as Brandon Webb or Jake Peavy or even on par with the next group of pitchers like Buehrle Cole Hamels Jon Lackey Jeremy Bonderman. Like I said, I dont dislike Garland, but I dont buy into him being a top flight starter. I think if someone wants to pay for him like hes a number 1 or 2 we better take that trade because he is easier to replace then some think. Why should we pay him MORE to be not as good as a guy like Javy. Again I like Garland at 9 a year, I love him at 8, at 12 Im not happy and at 14 Im holding the door open and throwin him out, especially if that door brings back a top prospect a solid reliever or a SS PLUS enough cash to go sign what we dont get back and replace him with a pitcher like Jason Jennings.

Right now makes so much sense to deal him, unless he is willing to say Ill play for what Im worth and that is not double digit million dollars per year.

Javier Vazquez:
2007: 20/32
2006: 14/32
2005: 20/33
2004: 16/32
Total: 70/129 (54%)

Jason Jennings:
2007: 6/18
2006: 20/32
2005: 8/20
2004: 17/33
Total: 51/103 (49%)

Jason Jennings ERA+:
2007: 68
2006: 130
2005: 95
2004: 89
2003: 97

Jon Garland ERA+
2007: 112
2006: 105
2005: 128
2004: 97
2003: 103

I would take Jason Jennings as a fifth starter. I would take Jason Jennings at a few million a year. But the idea of replacing a consistently above average pitcher who consistently gives you 32 starts a year, with almost 60% of them being quality starts, with a guy who has topped 20 starts twice since 2003 and has been a mostly slightly below average pitcher in a weaker hitting league...I'm not sure what you're going to get with the 2-4 million you would save with that switch (as someone will likely give Jennings a Jason Marquis like contract at least), but I doubt it would give you all that much value. You might get another Darin Erstad, and I know that would make some people on the board totally ecstatic.

balke
10-26-2007, 12:43 PM
Still, you take away 2 off years from those guys and its a different story. Buehrle sucked in 2006, other than that he is much closer to 66% then 60. Silva Sucked in 2006 which skews his numbers real bad too.

If you wanna believe Garland is better then his average mid 4 era and whip show, good for you. I agree that he is a pitcher who gets shelled a lot which brings his era up, but Im also a firm believer that you are your stats. I dont care if Konerko hits .198 for a month and .358 for a month to finish the year hitting .285, at the end of the year he is a .285 hitter.

Actually I like this set of stats because it proves one thing. Most of this board thinks Garland had a BAD year this year. Yet if you didnt look at W/L his QS ratio mirrors 2005, and his other stats > 2006 when he won 18. That is my Point, Garland isn't the same kind of ace 18 game winner as Brandon Webb or Jake Peavy or even on par with the next group of pitchers like Buehrle Cole Hamels Jon Lackey Jeremy Bonderman. Like I said, I dont dislike Garland, but I dont buy into him being a top flight starter. I think if someone wants to pay for him like hes a number 1 or 2 we better take that trade because he is easier to replace then some think. Why should we pay him MORE to be not as good as a guy like Javy. Again I like Garland at 9 a year, I love him at 8, at 12 Im not happy and at 14 Im holding the door open and throwin him out, especially if that door brings back a top prospect a solid reliever or a SS PLUS enough cash to go sign what we dont get back and replace him with a pitcher like Jason Jennings.

Right now makes so much sense to deal him, unless he is willing to say Ill play for what Im worth and that is not double digit million dollars per year.



You cannot both believe "you are your stats" and at the same time argue for taking away the players 2 worst seasons. On avg. Garland gives 4 more quality starts a season than Silva by those #'s. That's 12 more great opportunities to rack up a win in a 4 year stretch. That's probably why he's well liked and referred to as an 18 game winner, rather than a 13 game winner like Silva. Garland had a great beginning to the season, and I think he pitched the entire season with shoulder discomfort. If the Sox get good value for him I won't cry about it, but I'm not going to fool anyone into thinking he's a crappy pitcher.

I am dreading the day that is coming, when the Sox do lose pitchers and are stuck with what the rest of the league has... which is guys like Carlos Silva. I'd take Contreras over Silva if he can pitch like he was the previous 2 seasons before 07'. Heck even if he's going to pitch like he did all last year but July. Silva's a chump.

Domeshot17
10-26-2007, 01:11 PM
Javier Vazquez:
2007: 20/32
2006: 14/32
2005: 20/33
2004: 16/32
Total: 70/129 (54%)

Jason Jennings:
2007: 6/18
2006: 20/32
2005: 8/20
2004: 17/33
Total: 51/103 (49%)

Jason Jennings ERA+:
2007: 68
2006: 130
2005: 95
2004: 89
2003: 97

Jon Garland ERA+
2007: 112
2006: 105
2005: 128
2004: 97
2003: 103

I would take Jason Jennings as a fifth starter. I would take Jason Jennings at a few million a year. But the idea of replacing a consistently above average pitcher who consistently gives you 32 starts a year, with almost 60% of them being quality starts, with a guy who has topped 20 starts twice since 2003 and has been a mostly slightly below average pitcher in a weaker hitting league...I'm not sure what you're going to get with the 2-4 million you would save with that switch (as someone will likely give Jennings a Jason Marquis like contract at least), but I doubt it would give you all that much value. You might get another Darin Erstad, and I know that would make some people on the board totally ecstatic.


I didnt say Jennings would replace Garland, I said hes part of the puzzle. You are taking it the same way you say PODS REPLACES CARLOS LEE (oh and we got AJ and El Duque and Vizciano and more cash but shhhhhh). What I am saying is its a great package if you get a top pitching spec, either a HUGE RP or a starting SS (or even CF) then have the Cash to get a 5th starter with a big upside AND another big reliever.

Garland for Jennings? No. Garland for say Kemp Beimel Hu Linebrink (4 mil) and Jennings (5 mil), HELL YAH. Can we get that package I have no idea, but thats about where we were last year when we held on to him.

Domeshot17
10-26-2007, 01:17 PM
You cannot both believe "you are your stats" and at the same time argue for taking away the players 2 worst seasons. On avg. Garland gives 4 more quality starts a season than Silva by those #'s. That's 12 more great opportunities to rack up a win in a 4 year stretch. That's probably why he's well liked and referred to as an 18 game winner, rather than a 13 game winner like Silva. Garland had a great beginning to the season, and I think he pitched the entire season with shoulder discomfort. If the Sox get good value for him I won't cry about it, but I'm not going to fool anyone into thinking he's a crappy pitcher.

I am dreading the day that is coming, when the Sox do lose pitchers and are stuck with what the rest of the league has... which is guys like Carlos Silva. I'd take Contreras over Silva if he can pitch like he was the previous 2 seasons before 07'. Heck even if he's going to pitch like he did all last year but July. Silva's a chump.

I realize players have blip years. Silva has had 1 terrible year, is he those numbers no, do those number really SKEW his stats, YES. Buehrle had 1 TERRRRIIIBBBLLEE Year, by those numbers he is a number 2 or 3 SP, do we feel confident Burls is better than that? YUP. Konerko hit what .220 one year, is he better? Yah. Dye hit .250 last year playing through an injury. Its just how it is.

Garland is slightly better then Silva yes. But Garland is not an ace and you are a fool if you believe so. He is a good number 3, a below average 2, and if he is your best pitcher you are in a world of trouble. Does that make him crappy? no, it makes him an above average but not great SP. When you can name 30-50 guys better than you at your position, you probably arent great, but being a pitcher, it makes you good.

Zisk77
10-26-2007, 01:53 PM
ERA is often a meaningless stat. Here's why:

Garland goes until about July with and ERA in the 2's Then he has nothing against the twinkies in a game where he is left in to take one for the team because it is game one of a doubleheader and or bullpen blows. He gives up something like 13 earned runs. The 6 or so he gives up in the first could have been totally avoided if it wasn't for some shoddy defense that wasn't called an error IIRC. Jon also runs into a buzzsaw in NY and gives up a lot of runs. Those two outings sre why Jon had a + 4 ERA last year. Ozzie also began to stretch out all his starters longer even when they were tiring because our BP was so bad, which inflated ERA's. Jon pitched much better than his ERA would indicate this year. Jon usually is reliable for 7 + innings Silva is often pulled after 5 to get to the strong twinkie bullpen a luxory we don't have.

You can spin statistics anyway you want. IMO Jon is easily one of 10=12 best pitchers in baseball. Silva isn't.

kittle42
10-26-2007, 02:01 PM
IMO Jon is easily one of 10=12 best pitchers in baseball.

Now *that* is the most ludicrous statement in this thread. He's the third-best starter on his own team.

jabrch
10-26-2007, 02:02 PM
ERA is often a meaningless stat. Here's why:


The same is true for most statistics. A baseball player is not a machine or a process. His performance can not be predicted to a Six Sigma level of detail.

Statistics tell me what a player did - and not what he is going to do. They don't tell if you good or bad - just aggregated #s.

But it is completely insane to suggest that Garland and Silva are worth the same to their teams.

ondafarm
10-26-2007, 03:59 PM
1) Jon Garland >> Carlos Silva

2) I think it would be more correct to say that the White Sox fans begged the team management to have Mark Buehrle stay. I don't think MB lowered himself to begging. That's just my feeling about the matter, you are welcome to your opinions.

balke
10-26-2007, 04:47 PM
Now *that* is the most ludicrous statement in this thread. He's the third-best starter on his own team.

In 2007. At least Garland is good when they are winning. Where has Javy been before this gutter 07'? I was really pleased with Javy's overall performance, but let's not crown him just yet. I'd like to see him give another season or so with 15+ wins before I declare him better than Garland. Garland still had 1 more QS than Javy. This was Javy's only good season in the past 4 years.

That said top 10 in baseball is quite a stretch. I could see Top 15 in the AL maybe.

MISoxfan
10-27-2007, 05:06 PM
That said, Silva is a Garland clone you just have to be willing to admit it. Take away wins, which is an inflated stat for pitchers because of run support, and Garland is right there with the Silva's Doug Davis's and Jason Marquis's of the world. Mid 4 career era, 190-210 innings a year, whip over 1.3 below 1.5, basically a dependable 3rd or 4th starter on a good team and a number 2 on a bad team. I mean you can argue all you want but he numbers dont lie.


Numbers don't lie, but it seems like you do.

190-210 innings a year for Silva and Garland?

Garland's last 4 seasons 208, 211, 221, 217. Looks more like 210 to 220 to me.
Silva's last 4 seasons 202, 180, 188, 203. More along the lines of 180-200.

Garland has given up less hits in that time period despite pitching 80+ more innings. Garland has given up less home runs in that time period as well.

The only thing Silva really does better than Garland is to give up less walks. I'd rather my pitcher give up more walks than more hits.

I don't think Garland is a proven number 2, but I think he can be. Silva will have to start hitting 200 innings on a regular basis to be in Garland's league.

Domeshot17
10-27-2007, 07:31 PM
Numbers don't lie, but it seems like you do.

190-210 innings a year for Silva and Garland?

Garland's last 4 seasons 208, 211, 221, 217. Looks more like 210 to 220 to me.
Silva's last 4 seasons 202, 180, 188, 203. More along the lines of 180-200.

Garland has given up less hits in that time period despite pitching 80+ more innings. Garland has given up less home runs in that time period as well.

The only thing Silva really does better than Garland is to give up less walks. I'd rather my pitcher give up more walks than more hits.

I don't think Garland is a proven number 2, but I think he can be. Silva will have to start hitting 200 innings on a regular basis to be in Garland's league.

Read what I said, that wasnt a line to silva exactly, but that tier of pitchers.

And Garland could be?? Hes pushing 30! I think at this point what you see is what you get

Daver
10-27-2007, 07:40 PM
Read what I said, that wasnt a line to silva exactly, but that tier of pitchers.

And Garland could be?? Hes pushing 30! I think at this point what you see is what you get

The Montreal Expos gave up on a pitcher in his late twenties and traded him to Seattle. Randy Johnson turned out to be a pretty good pitcher.

chisoxmike
10-27-2007, 08:06 PM
I'm not going to read this nonsense, but why are people comparing Carlos Silva to Jon Garland?

Garland >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Silva

You get rid of Garland, you don't contend in 2008.

MISoxfan
10-27-2007, 11:24 PM
Read what I said, that wasnt a line to silva exactly, but that tier of pitchers.

And Garland could be?? Hes pushing 30! I think at this point what you see is what you get

Yes I know what you said, but it was extremely misleading. You included Silva in a tier that he was below and Garland in a tier that he was above. At least in the case of IP, which you used to support it.

By that method I could include all of the pitchers in the AL and put Danks in the same category as Santana.

As you can see by these numbers, Santana and Danks both fit into the tier of the AL pitcher and can both be expected to pitch around 175 innings with a 4.8 ERA and a 3.5 whip. Although Wins are a team based stat, by including RP you can see that both will likely finish with a .500 record.

jabrch
10-28-2007, 10:48 AM
You get rid of Garland, you don't contend in 2008.

Holy Overstatements Batman!!!!

TheVulture
10-28-2007, 11:37 AM
That said, Silva is a Garland clone you just have to be willing to admit it. Take away wins, which is an inflated stat for pitchers because of run support, and Garland is right there with the Silva's Doug Davis's and Jason Marquis's of the world.

Silva had an ERA of 6.00 while giving up one and a half runners per inning just last year in 180 innings. Same with Marquis. Both pitch considerably less innings than JG. Davis, by Garland's current age, had only one full season in as a full-time starter, where he pitched 186 innings, whereas Garland has already had 6 seasons with at least that many innings pitched. Davis has only had Garland-like success after Garland's current age, and that has come pitching in the NL, while Garland's been pitching in one of the toughest parks to pitch in in the AL. I'll agree Garland's not a great pitcher, but he's still ahead of those guys

TheVulture
10-28-2007, 11:39 AM
Read what I said, that wasnt a line to silva exactly, but that tier of pitchers.

And Garland could be?? Hes pushing 30! I think at this point what you see is what you get

Garland's only 27 - most pitchers are just getting started at his age, particularly your Doug Davis. He's younger than all the pitchers you named as comparable.

Steelrod
10-28-2007, 12:06 PM
I'm not going to read this nonsense, but why are people comparing Carlos Silva to Jon Garland?

Garland >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Silva

You get rid of Garland, you don't contend in 2008.
...therefore, if a team gets Garland, they WILL contend.
BTW..Why didn't we contend in 2006?

Grzegorz
10-28-2007, 12:23 PM
...therefore, if a team gets Garland, they WILL contend.
BTW..Why didn't we contend in 2006?

Any team that acquires Garland's services does not become an "contender". The consequence of challenging for a playoff birth just because JG is in the starting rotation does not follow logic.

The Chicago White Sox did not contend for a playoff birth in 2006 as much as they participated in the event of capturing a playoff birth.

balke
10-28-2007, 12:57 PM
Any team that acquires Garland's services does not become an "contender". The consequence of challenging for a playoff birth just because JG is in the starting rotation does not follow logic.

The Chicago White Sox did not contend for a playoff birth in 2006 as much as they participated in the event of capturing a playoff birth.

If a team like Philadelphia or the Mets got Garland they would be instant contenders for a W.S. berth. I think you can say that. He's a good #2 who has shown good stuff in the playoffs. Put him in there with John Maine and those hitters and the success they have in the playoffs and season would increase greatly.

MISoxfan
10-28-2007, 01:38 PM
...therefore, if a team gets Garland, they WILL contend.
BTW..Why didn't we contend in 2006?

That is not how deductive logic works. :rolleyes:

JB98
10-29-2007, 01:54 AM
...therefore, if a team gets Garland, they WILL contend.
BTW..Why didn't we contend in 2006?

We didn't contend in 2006? :?: