santo=dorf

Buehrle: 1.53 HR/ 9IP at home. .922HR/9IP on the road. Garcia: 1.38 HR/ 9IP at home. 1.21HR/9IP on the road. (smaller sample size) So you're saying Garland has been exactly average ever since he came into the big leagues, hence showing no signs of improvements over this period of time. I can't tolerate that from someone who is suppose to have a breakout season every year, and supposedly has #1 stuff. I'm surprised noone has compared him to Kevin Brown yet.

He has a road ERA of 4.69, and I'm sick of hearing how old he is on a yearly basis. He has been pitching in the major leagues since 2000. He has been given the #3 spot since 2002 and hasn't done a damn thing to earn it or keep it. How do you explain Garland giving up more HR on the road than at home if our ballpark is so bad?

The bench will cost more than $5 million considering Everett is coming back at $4 million.

What if we trade him for someone who is talented and can fill one of our other holes?

:puke Let's make them toss in k-Rod or Figgins!!!

Too bad Garland is pitching in his 4th full season unlike Peavy and Perez whom are in their 2nd full seasons. Their numbers have progressively gotten better, whereas Garland's have been either getting worse or staying mediocre.

I believe JD's question was already answered by qwerty, 3E8, and yours truly. FOR SURE: Oakland, Boston, Yanks, Cubs, Florida, Houston, St. Louis. STRONG CASE: San Diego, L.A., Atlanta, Twins. A CASE: Cleveland, Mets, Toronto, Philly. That's close to 85% isn't it? Small Market teams: Twins, Indians, Florida, Oakland, Toronto.

Compare his home/road splits to Buehrle's and Garcia's Buehrle: Road: 6-3, 2.77ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 11HR, 2.50 SO/BB Home:9-7, 5.02ERA, 1.42 WHIP, 22HR, 3.50 SO/BB Garcia: Road: 5-1, 3.86ERA, 1.02 WHIP, 5HR, 3.00 SO/BB Home:3-3, 5.37ERA, 1.40 WHIP, 9HR, 3.10 SO/BB Garland: Road: 6-5, 4.69ERA, 1.34 WHIP, 18 HR, 1.39 SO/BB Home:5-6, 5.27ERA, 1.43 WHIP, 16 HR, 1.69 SO/BB Having a road record that is ONE game better than a your home ballpark isn't too special, especially if your home ballpark is considered to be a "launching pad."

Yeah, but coming into this year Millwood was their #1, Milton was #2, and I think Wolf was their #3 because Padilla was hurt.

You're forgetting St. Louis, and Philly. I'd take Randy Wolf or Vicente Padilla over Garland. So that's 15 out of 29. Which isn't even close to 85%.

Road: 6-5, 4.69, 1.34 WHIP, 18 HR, 1.39SO/BB Home:5-6, 5.27, 1.43 WHIP, 16 HR, 1.69 SO/BB Can't use the launching pad excuse with Garland, he has given up more HR on the road than home.

I'm basing it on MLB experience. I recall SI calling Garland a"veteran" in their 2004 MLB preview.

Let me get this straight; Grilli is the veteran, and Garland is the young gun with promise?

He is? He has been pitching in the major leagues for 4 full seasons now, he is supposed to be maturing, but he has been too inconsistent.

Paying Garland 3 million won't leave enough money to sign Pavano. We'll HAVE to trade Konerko or Lee if we want to sign either Clement or Perez in addition to Garland. How are we going to make up for the loss of offense that Konerko or Carlos give us if we spend all our money on pitching. I would love to see a rotation of Buehrle Garcia Perez Contreras Garland but that would cost us at least 28 million for next year.

Using the Sun-Times attendance figures: 2003: 1,939,630 2004: 1,970,111 And don't forget how there was an increase in ticket prices, and beer went up 75 cents too.

Well it's kind of hard to improve numbers like 16-8 with a 3.29 ERA, or a 19-12 record with a 3.58 ERA, compared to going 12-12 with an ERA around 4.50. Garland has shown no signs of improvements this year, whereas Mark has better numbers than last year, should've been an All-Star, and more importantly, he is a still WINNING pitcher, something Garland can't say. As for this Garland is young bulls***, we've been hearing it for the past 3 seasons. He has nearly 800 IP under his belt, he's not a kid anymore. The reason why he is throwing more innings this year compared to previous year is due to Ozzie having more confidence in his starting pitching. Manuel HATED Garland! I recalled being at a game where Manuel pulled Garland after 78 pitches, and Garland wasn't even throwing that badly. When we are fighting for a division title, we can't waste time on a pitcher just to see if he can "improve." He was supposed to be a number 3, with #1 stuff, but now everyone wants to see him be the #5 just because he has failed in the #3 spot?

What makes you think he'll be better next year? All of his numbers have gotten worse. If Garland's the #5, who will be the #3 starter? Be specific with names, and how this pitcher will affect the team financially. How many teams have a fifth starter that cost between 3.5-4 million?

Is it economically wise to spend 3.5-4 million on a fifth starter? I'd rather see Felix in the #5 spot and have a quality starter to be in the #3 spot in the rotation.

Here's a graph I made using the attendance figures from the Sun-Times.

I think we had a few sellouts on Saturday due to fireworks. We also set our own record for sellouts in a season. I remember Dave Wills saying the previous record was 8 in 2000. Don't forget that the schedule makers had our longest homestand during the second week in April. :headshake

Fair enough.

Take it easy. AND IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT FOR OZZIE PULLING GARLAND NOW!!!

It just bugs me when people around here are at the same grammar level as Cubs fans. :fthecubs

It's "too," not "to."