Kalapse

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 19, 2008 -> 04:15 PM) Yeah, I agree...I am sort of throwing last year out and chalking it up to him being on a new team, trying to impress his hometown fans, etc... Were he to come back here, I would fully expect him to come back to about a 4.00 ERA or so... Eh, 4.00 is a stretch for sure, 4.50 is the safer bet. Jon's been a full time starter for 7 years now and he's only posted an ERA south of 4.50 twice, he's finished in the 4.50's four times. Garland is a 4.50 ERA, 1.36 WHIP, 26 HR, 207 IP starter with an awful K:BB ratio, he's going rely heavily on his defense and get absolutely destroyed in about 4 starts, he's incredibly inconsistent from month to month but in the end he's going to give you 32 starts and a ~104 ERA+ so he's valuable in the back of your rotation. Assuming of course that his shoulder is healthy and that knot isn't giving him problems.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2008 -> 03:29 PM) No, but by th etime his currrent contract is up, he will. Well his contract only runs through 2010 and he's 72 saves back of Hoffman. Mo has averaged about 34 saves per season over the past 3 years, assuming he gets good bump in save opportunities thanks to the Yankees improved pitching staff he could maybe save 82-86 games over the next 2 years. Now Trevor wants to keep pitching and there is shortage of quality closers in baseball right now so you figure someone will give him a job. If Hoffman can just pick up 16-20 saves next year with a bad team he could put the saves record out of reach for Rivera until 2011. I could see Rivera pitching well into his 40's though, he had arguably his most dominant season in 2008 as a 38 year old. He was easily the best relief pitcher in the game last year.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Dec 17, 2008 -> 07:34 AM) One of the Bens that replace Ebert and Roeper said "The Wrestler" is the best year of the movie and it's not even close. With 44 reviews in it currently has a perfect 100% at rotten tomatoes. http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/ It's down to 97% after 2 negative reviews. - Armond White, New York Press This is the same guy who hated Gran Torino, Milk, Slumdog Millionaire and Doubt but claims Transporter 3 is "the only movie you need to see this season."

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 19, 2008 -> 01:42 AM) So would Lamarcus Aldridge, but we probably don't get Rose if we picked anyone good. Eh, that sort of thinking is no fun. I just remember how badly I wanted Roy and how much I hated Tyrus. I just knew Brandon was going to be a stud.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 19, 2008 -> 01:03 AM) That 98-100 MPH heater would have been very helpful in the blown "Ken Harrelson HEART Carlos Gomez" game up in the Dome...does anyone have a replay of that game available? How hard was he throwing in the 9th inning of that game? 96 - 3 95 - 4 94 - 7 91 - 1

Brandon Roy dropped 50 on the Suns, he'd look awful good along side Rose right about now.

Well the snow started to fall here at about 11pm, it's accumulating rather quick like and the flakes about the size of sand-dollars.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 08:41 PM) "God, my brilliance is becoming a bit of a burden. Get back to me." What can I say? I'm a huge brain in a ripped up body.

I have him at $5.2M, Jenks is about to get real expensive, real quick. Closers in their first year of arbitration: 2008: Huston Street - $3.3M (coming off an injury, rather average closer for the first 3 years of his career) 2007: Chad Cordero - $4.15M (2 years previous as a full time closer, dominant in 2005, very good in 2006) 2006: Brad Lidge - $3.975M (1.5 years previous as a closer, one of the most dominant setup men in the game previously) 2006: Francisco Rodriguez - $3.75M (coming off first year as a full time closer, one of the most dominant setup men in the game previously)

QUOTE (Shadows @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 05:47 PM) If it makes you feel any better I disagree with a lot of what you say on here, I just don't say anything cause your my boy Kal I think you and I disagree more than we agree on topics pertaining to baseball. That love you have for Willy T. has been burning strong for a few years now, I remember you waxing poetic about him back when he was still with the Astros, I still think you're nuts.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 05:41 PM) Well, I imagine it gets tough having everyone agree with you when you're 100% right all the time. Oh if you only knew my pain. It really is more of a curse than a gift.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 05:39 PM) Alright. I've always known you to be good at taking it. We're all ready for this week to be over... I find it funny that we were all arguing the same thing, Slav and myself that Garland most certainly would be a great signing at the right price. Your arguments made it seem like you wanted him nowhere near the Sox, but after reading the post you quoted of yourself, we obviously all agree. Snark is f***ing awesome and often times hillarious, about 50% of my total posts are sarcastic. Right now however, not so much.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 05:35 PM) So what we're all saying here is that we all basically agreed the whole time. I love it. I'm sick of everyone always agreeing with me. Rarely does anyone actually call me out, sometimes I have to fabricate an disagreement just to get some good dialogue going.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 05:21 PM) Dude, I was totally kidding. As I said to Slav as I posted it... "i did three things i hate in that post... i completely ignored stats, i corrected grammar, and i said the coop will fix him line" I'm just giving you a hard time. Anyway, I'd rather have Garland than Vazquez anyday, and if we get him for a reasonable price, which is what I'm asking for, he's MUCH better than what we'd be trotting out there at #4. I haven't posted on here in almost a week and a whole lot less of late than I'd like to because I'm not seeing any good discussions that really interest me, I'm hard up for some good Sox talk right now, I don't find you talking down to me to be all that funny especially when I'm trying to actually discuss the topic with another poster and it's not like you're a stranger to the condescending remark. I'm also wound pretty tight right now, this has been a pretty long week.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 05:20 PM) Well, you listed s***ty hitters as if to say he was a s***ty pitcher for giving up those home runs. Danks gave up a home run to Guillermo freakin' Quiroz. Who he gave it up to means nothing to me. And a little bit more for the sake of comparison, Garland pitched 1.2 more innings than Danks in 1 less start. Am I saying that Garland is better than Danks? Absolutely not. Am I saying that 2008 was clearly an outlier for Garland, probably. Am I saying I'd love Garland as our 4th starter, absolutely. That's not what I was saying at all. When you mentioned the 5 HRs he allowed to the Rangers, you were implying that a good chunk of his HR allowed last year really were excusable because they came against a great offense, which really wasn't the case at all. That's all, he's not a s***ty pitcher, he just tends to give up a good amount of inexcusable homeruns (unlike Danks) for a groundball pitcher. He thew more innings in 1 less start than John Danks, the 23 year old who had trouble getting out of the 6th inning last season and rarely went deep into games. I don't agree at all that 2008 was clearly an outlier, there's just too many red flags there to rule it out. Could it have been an outlier? Sure, there is reason to believe that he was just throwing too damn hard last year and it led to a major decrease in control. Would I be willing to give him $30M in hopes that it was just a fluky season? f*** no. however . . . QUOTE (Kalapse @ Oct 21, 2008 -> 01:42 AM) I just love this stat. Last year 48 major league pitchers threw at least 190 innings, of them, Jon Garland was the worst (according to VORP). 67 pitchers threw at least 175 innings, Garland was the 7th worst out of the group, the 6 pitchers behind him: Zach Duke, Daniel Cabrera, Tim Redding, Jeff Suppan, Barry Zito and Brian Bannister. That being said, if he were somehow interested I'd still give Garland a Jason Marquis type deal (assuming he's healthy, if that shoulder is f***ed I'm not interested); 3 years, $21M-$24M with incentives for All Star appearances, Cy Young voting and ~210 IP that could raise the deal to say $30M. I stand by this.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 05:14 PM) It's "paid". Oh, and Coop'll fix 'im. Record is all that matters. Good pitchers find ways to win games. This is exactly what I'm talking about, instead of discussing the topic at hand you have to get all personal and correct grammatical errors. Indicators of a person who doesn't know how to conduct himself in an argument. And no, a pitcher's W/L record is not a good way of proving his worth as a player.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 05:04 PM) Ryan Garko, Guillermo Quiroz, Ben Francisco, Kelly Shoppach, Miguel Olivo, Rich Aurilia, Marco Scutaro...just some of the names John Danks gave up HR to in 2008. You said he'll keep the ball in the park. I disagreed. You said he allowed 5 HRs to a potent Rangers offense and that most of those HRs allowed came on the road. I listed a few of the s***ty hitters he allowed HRs to in pitchers parks (on the road), see if you hadn't mentioned that Rangers offense I never would have listed the s***ty hitters he allowed homeruns to (2 of which played for the Rangers). This has nothing to do with a 23 year old allowing 15 HRs in his 2nd full season in the bigs (incredibly impressive) it has to do with the fact that for a ground ball pitcher, Garland gives up a good amount of HRs even while pitching in pitchers parks.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 05:00 PM) You'll just stifle the convo with stats we can all pull up with our computers. We get it. It's cool, man. Garland wasn't phenomenal last year, but 14-8 out of your 4th starter isn't exactly going to kill a team, and I'm sure it's better than having 2 of Poreda, Marquez, or Richard in the rotation. Then why even discuss the topic if everyone can just pull up the numbers themselves? Why do we even bother posting stats? We should all just agree. Did you know Garland was probably overthrowing last year? His velocity was up, his control was down and he payed dearly for it. Was he overcompensating? Was he all amped up pitching in a contract year? Why not make an argument like that? Garland > a bunch of unproven youngsters. Fun, what an enthralling discussion we've got going here. It's almost impossible to get some good convo going here now a days. At least Slav humored me for a while. Oh and I don't give a s*** what his record was, it's f***ing meaningless.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 04:54 PM) Thank you Mr. Scout. I'd trust Garland could get back near his career averages. Congrats to you, I'm sure your hunches serve you well in life. I'll just continue discussing the topic at hand rather than stifling the conversation with condescending remarks.

Gerald Laird (@ home), Ben Broussard (@ home), Richie Sexson (in SEA), Daric Barton (at home), Jack Hannahan (@ home), Rod Barajas (@ home & in TOR), Travis Buck (in OAK), Wily Mo Pena (in WAS), Elijah Dukes (in WAS) That's just a few of the HR he allowed out of his first 12 last season. Those are some awful hitters coming in (mostly) pitchers parks.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 04:40 PM) 18 Home Starts, 11 HR 14 Road Starts, 12 HR He had to face the Texas offense 3 times (5 HR in those 3 starts), and was a hole 3.1 IP from reaching 200. Like I said, I'd welcome him back as 4th starter. So it's ok if he allows homeruns to Ben Broussard and Gerald Laird at home because they play for the Rangers. Garland was incredibly wild last season with only 48% of his total pitches finding the strike zone leading to a joke of a WHIP that will lead to a s*** load of runs crossing the plate with a bad White Sox defense behind him.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 04:26 PM) 2 more red flags for Garland; AWAY - 5.94 ERA, .332 BAA Post ASB - 5.99 ERA, .322 BAA 2008 was the worst year of his career statistically. 3rd highest WHIP (1.50) of any starter with at least 180 IP last season. The only starter to allow more hits than Garland last season was Buehrle and that was in 22 more innings pitched. If the Sox are going to have a rotation that includes both Buehrle and Garland then they better make sure the team defense is some of the best in the game.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 04:18 PM) Sign me up for the Bring Back Garland group, as long as it's not for a ridiculous amount of money. He didn't necessarily leave on bad terms, and I was always a pretty big fan of him. I think he's just what we need in that 4th starter spot, someone who's going to do a good job of keeping the ball in the park and eat up a ton of innings. He gave up 23 homeruns last season in a pitcher's park and failed to throw 200 innings. There's also that knot in his shoulder.

QUOTE (GLOAD is GOD @ Dec 18, 2008 -> 03:51 PM) What would we lose as far as compensation goes? Our Cabrera pick? Garland is a type B free agent so we'd lose nothing.