santo=dorf

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 10:39 PM) Anyone else see something bizarre about whitesoxrumph's post? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah I hope BMAC was invited to ST, not the military.

I believe JR owns 5% and Ncorgbl owns the other 95%.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 09:29 PM) I wouldn't be at all supised if he had success for the Marlins though. When he pitched in Seattle, he was excellent there, and he's had real success in pitcher's parks before. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I sure as hell would considering he signed with the Mariners.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 08:53 PM) Back to the Williamson signing... Is there an option year for 2006? If there isn't, then wow... That's pretty stupid, IMHO. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, for $2 million.

Cheat, here's a story from ESPN.com when the trade was made. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1850088 Later in the article; So he had $17 million left on his deal at the time of the trade. $6 million per it is for the next 2 years.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 08:49 PM) OK - well, we're still basically on the same page. It's just that I have him pegged to (potentially) being able to win 16 (not a lock -- potentially), as well as having a little bit better potential ERA, but we're still in the same ballpark. We agree though, that Garland is not the ace he was once supposed to be, but that he can be a pretty solid three/four. Yes? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He can be a solid number 4, not a number 3. He has shown that the past 3 seasons.

QUOTE(farmteam @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 08:35 PM) Wait a minute...I read Santo's posts after I posted...so it IS 6 million a year? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 08:31 PM) I was using dugoutdollars on the 8&9 figures, and common sense(I thought, knowing how we backload contracts) on the 2&1 figures. It doesn't really matter, the point is we're stuck paying him a lot of money the next two years. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is it a lot compared to Perez, Lowe, Milton, Benson, Wright and Pavano?

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/col_greg...?intID=38239176 Mulder has a team option for $7.25 million for 2006. Here's another source: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/20...31-trades_x.htm

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 06:05 PM) Again, I ask the question that you leave unanswered... Who's fault is it for handing him the number three spot three consecutive years in a row -- a point that me and you both agree on, a spot in which Jon was/still is incapable of handling? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Williams and Manuel, but I only had a problem with Jon being in the #3 spot coming into the 2004 season. I felt him being in the #3 spot in 2003 wouldn't be that bad because of the 1-2 punch of Colon and Buehrle. I was still a fan of his until mid 2003, and coming into 2004 he should've been the #4 starter. Williams and Reinsdorf offered Bartolo the largest contract in White Sox history to him, but it wasn't good enough. The Sox didn't get a pitcher until the Freddy Garcia trade. Where in the world do some of you get the idea that because Garland clocked in 12 wins in 3 consecutive seasons, 12 wins is minimum number of games one would expect Garland to win? I'll say 10-14 wins, 180-205 IP, 4.40-5.00 ERA for 2005.

It's too bad Adkins isn't a lefty, he was better than Cotts last season. EDIT: Jesus Christ, I just noticed Cotts' ERA by month. April: .90 May: 7.00 June: 8.68 July: 9.45 August: 2.30 September: 7.98 :puke

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 03:47 PM) So, basically you're blaming Jon for not being capable of being a third starter at the age of 24... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quit looking at his age and look at the number of years he has been in the bigs. Obviously some people in the White Sox organization (from 2002-2004) viewed Garland as highly as some of you here. He has been handed the #3 spot for 3 consecutive years, and hasn't improved, yet some of you still think he's going to win 20 games and should be ahead of Contreras and Hernandez. I used to be a fan of Garland's, but he has a crappy attitude, and has shown no signs of improvement. But shouldn't we congratulate him on his first winning season? Thank God Ozzie has figured out that Garland isn't the real deal. Ozzie

QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 01:13 PM) IMO Jose needs to be the #5. At least Garland is fairly consistant with what he gives us. With Jose he's either dominating and throwing a shut out or he's giving up 10 runs. No real middle ground. Plus lord only knows how old he really is. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ahhhhh, yes. Because age is the most important statistic for a pitcher.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 12:48 PM) If that means that off days cause someone to miss a start, I don't agree with that on 1/19/05. That could change, but I would rest our #3 or #4 before Garland. Which I guess by definition makes Garland a 3-4 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But here's the thing, should the Sox bother skipping starts on off days? The Cubs didn't skipped over Matt Clement last season (until he got hurt in September.) Ozzie mentioned somewhere that Buehrle and Garcia were going to pitch under 200 innings this year because he wanted them to be ready for a potential playoff start. Guillen was talking about using his bullpen more (I believe the Sox were second to last in IP by Bullpen last season,) but Buehrle and Garcia could cut down on the number of innings they pitch by marching out the #5 starter every 5 games (as opposed to every fifth day, and if there isn't a game on the fifth day, he doesn't start.)

If I were Clemens, I would mention the contracts that Jaret Wright, Eric Milton, Kris Benson, and Derek Lowe got this offseason.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 11:45 AM) I don't think there is any more or any less pressure on Garland from #3, #4, or #5. He walks out of the dugout and takes the mound, he's got to pitch. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can seeGarland saying at a press conference after a horrible outing "Well if you compare it to the fifth starters of the past, it's not that bad of an outing. Plus if Podsednik had a 67 inch vertical, he could have caught that grand slam in the 3rd inning." Garland should stay in the fifth starter's spot all season long.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 11:45 AM) I like the Rooq Exquisite For IPB F 2.0.1 skin. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not the Canada skin? The mohaa.cz and the IPB 2.0F Default Green (although I wish it was darker) look good to me.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 19, 2005 -> 12:54 AM) This is the real confusion -- I say Jose is the 5th starter b/c he's the least reliable. As of now, he's the last one I'd start in the playoffs. But if you mean who should get the most rest, I'd say Orlando, at least initially. I don't think there's anything contradictory in saying, El Duque is our 3rd (best) starter, but we should skip him instead of our 4th or 5th starter, when possible. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How is Garland more reliable than Contreras? I don't think we should skip the fifth starter days now that we (finally) have a complete rotation. Let Mark, Freddy, Jose, and Jon get and extra day of rest by having Hernandez go 6 innings.

The "very bad" outings for Garland: 4-27: 6 IP, 10 H, 5 ER, 2 BB, 4 K's (L) 5-23: 7 IP, 10 H, 6 ER, 2 BB, 3 K's (W) 6-09: 4 IP, 8 H, 10 ER, 4 BB, 1 K (L) 6-25: 5.1 IP, 6 H, 5 ER, 1 BB 3 K's (L) 8-05 7 IP, 7 H, 6 ER, 2 BB, 3 K's (L) 8-19 2.2 IP, 6 H, 7 R, 3 ER (It was Konerko's fault,) 2 BB, 1 K (L) 8-29 7 IP, 9 H, 6 ER, 1 BB, 3 K's (L) 9-16 7 IP, 9 H, 5 ER, 3 BB, 4 K's (L) 9-21 6 IP, 9 H, 6 ER, 1 BB, 3 K's (ND) The only time Garland showed consistency was during the stretch of 7/15-8/05 where he went 7 IP on July 15th, gave up 4 runs (3 ER,) and the three other starts he went 6 IP, 4 ER. He was also okay in May as he managed to get out some bad situations at times. In his first start of the season against the Yanks, he had 7 BB's in 8 innings, but only gave up 1 run. On May 5th, he won against the BJ's with 7 IP, but gave up 10 hits with 1 walk.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 11:31 PM) You are horrible. :headshake He gave up ten runs against the phillies on june 9th. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Now calm down. He said "only once all season long."

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 11:40 PM) 6 innings and four earned runs is bad for anyone. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Even for the 5th starter on ANY team in the MLB? I know Garland is capable of putting up better numbers than those, but the Sox would've killed for someone who could go 6IP and give up only 4 ER back in 1996, 2003, or 2004.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 11:29 PM) Of course Contreras only pitched with the Sox for a couple of months, unlike Garland who pitched for us for the whole season. And I'm sure Contreras' bad starts gave up more runs than Garland's, who only gave up more than 8 runs once all season long I think. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm only judging Contreras from how he played with the Sox. So in 2004 both Garland and Contreras had 9 s***ty outings. How does that favor Garland? And if Garland didn't have a s***ty outing, he would go 6 IP, 4 ER, which isn't bad for a 5th starter, but isn't good for a guy who has been handed the #3 spot in the rotation for 3 consecutive years.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 11:21 PM) Guys, no offense but this is kind of a pointless argument to argue who is the 4th or 5th guy, if ozzie isn't skipping starts it really doesn't matter at all. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But spring training is so far away! I just can't believe there are some people here who are willing to put Garland ahead of Contreras, or would be unwilling to trade Garland for Randy Johnson or Javier Vazquez.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 11:19 PM) Over the entire course of the year he had 9 very bad starts. About six too many to me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> who Contreras? Contreras had 3 very bad starts with the Sox, and Garland had 9.

QUOTE(Man Of Steel @ Jan 18, 2005 -> 10:58 PM) I agree with you 100% that Contreras needs to be the 5th starter <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Or else what? GMAFB! Garland vs. Contreras (Sox numbers assuming he qualified) (AL rank) OPS: Contreras .772 (21) Garland .786 (28) K/9: Contreras 8.2 (5) Garland 4.69 (35) K/BB: Contreras 1.62 (35) Garland 1.49 (37) G/F (remember, Garland is the "groundball" pitcher): Contreras 1.51 (11) Garland 1.27 (17) Contreras' problem is that he had a few horrid outings that people can't get out of their head. Garland will go 6 innings and give up 4 ER or he'll have a meltdown and blame anybody but himself.