DBAHO Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 From the Fort - Worth Star Telegram, A large number of pitchers being put through waivers are being claimed, according to major league officials. The gamut runs from Arizona's Randy Johnson to Detroit's Nate Robertson. Once a claim is made, a team can pull the player back. A few are getting through, however, including Kris Benson of the New York Mets, Jon Garland of the Chicago White Sox and Kansas City's Darrell May and Brian Anderson. After the July 31 deadline, players must pass through waivers before being traded. But clubs, especially the Royals, are still asking for outfielder Kevin Mench when they talk trade with the Rangers. The Colorado Rockies still have Shawn Estes, but the Rangers rejected a July 31 deal for shortstop Ian Kinsler and pitcher Frankie Francisco. The Rangers aren't likely to give much for a pitcher who will likely make just six-seven starts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastime Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Hell, we don't want his sorry ass, so why would anyone else? Believe me, scouts around the league must be laughing hysterically whenever he takes the mound. But besides the one bad inning he has every game (3-4-5-6 runs given up), he's a true stud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 It's smart thinking by the Sox. They can gauge interest in Garland and if are overwhelmed by a deal [which could happen, as teams are desperate for pitching and Jon could be arb. eligible in 2005], why not test the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 If you put Jon Garland on the block, there would be 29 teams calling KW about him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
He_Gawn Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Yasny, you are exactly right. Garland is a few corrections away from being a stud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I'm just shocked he got through... I know that there is some GM who was taking a nap that is getting chewed out right now. Honestly I like Garland as a 4th stater. I don't want to give him up right now. Especially with the uncertainty about Garcia and the 5th starter. I don't want to have to purchase 3 solid pitchers instead of just one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Yasny, you are exactly right. Garland is a few corrections away from being a stud. How long has he been here? 4 years? Isin't that enough time to work through mechanical problems or learning when to make a certain pitch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Guys, this is a common thing. Entire teams get placed on waivers to guage interest for offseason deals. I'd be willing to bet everyone got placed on waivers. The surprise is that he made it through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Guys, this is a common thing. Entire teams get placed on waivers to guage interest for offseason deals. I'd be willing to bet everyone got placed on waivers. The surprise is that he made it through. Mike do you think they'll move Garland, either now or offseason? My take is, they're frustrated with him but they feel for now he'd be a damn good #5. If he finally shows growth, great. If not, you've got a good #5. This thought process is of course predicated on the Sox signing a FA starter, which I think they will. Williams keeps saying they want to get the pitching fixed, and go from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Mike do you think they'll move Garland, either now or offseason? My take is, they're frustrated with him but they feel for now he'd be a damn good #5. If he finally shows growth, great. If not, you've got a good #5. This thought process is of course predicated on the Sox signing a FA starter, which I think they will. Williams keeps saying they want to get the pitching fixed, and go from there. I like Garland as the permanent answer to the no.5 question. Now all we need to do is sign one more starter in the off season and we'll be set in our rotation next season. With all the new cash that should be available with the albatross contracts of Billy Botch and Jose Valentin soon to be gone added to the increased attendance this season we should be in good shape to do just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I like Garland as the permanent answer to the no.5 question. Now all we need to do is sign one more starter in the off season and we'll be set in our rotation next season. With all the new cash that should be available with the albatross contracts of Billy Botch and Jose Valentin soon to be gone added to the increased attendance this season we should be in good shape to do just that. You got that right, that's exactly what KW says they want to do. They need another starter but not a #5 type guy, get somebody good who pushes everyone else down. And while they're at it, two good bullpen arms please. I think Marte will bounce back, Takatsu will help in whatever role ... but we should launch Politte and Mike Jackson. Cotts and Adkins I'm on the fence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Mike do you think they'll move Garland, either now or offseason? My take is, they're frustrated with him but they feel for now he'd be a damn good #5. If he finally shows growth, great. If not, you've got a good #5. This thought process is of course predicated on the Sox signing a FA starter, which I think they will. Williams keeps saying they want to get the pitching fixed, and go from there. I certianly think it is a big possibility. The rumblings about Garland and his listening skills have begun, and under the KW era, that means he gawn. Plus he is getting into his arbit years and is going to start getting more and more money almost exponentially. I think we could see him go in a package for a RF and RP. I think they will make a splash for a big time starter, and go with a prayer for a 5th starter again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winninguglyin83 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Garland is arbitration eligible after the season. I like him as a 4 or 5 starter OK. But reading between the lines, it's obvious the Sox are starting to doubt if he has the right stuff to be a winning pitcher. Manuel never trusted him. Ozzie started out in his corner, but even he has gotten exasperated by what he has seen. And Ozzie is an optimist. I would not be surprised to see the Sox trade him because the guy has value. He's got a decent arm and a ton of experience for somebody his age. I could see Garland going to Atlanta, working with Leo Mazzone and becoming a really good pitcher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I cant see us trading him and I hope it doesnt happen... Garland has been a solid pitcher like him or not, just look at his numbers... His numbers are not much worse than Dontrelle Willis this year, would you trade him too if he was here?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 To be fair, I am not advocating a trade of Jon Garland. I want him here, and feel that the switch will click soon. (maybe not soon enough...) But I am speculating on what the Sox will do with him... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Randy Johnson. Curt Schilling. Carl Pavano. Pedro Martinez. Nolan Ryan. Kerry Wood. Even Sandy Koufax. Look at their numbers after 4 years in the bigs. We need to keep Jon Garland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyb Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Hell, we don't want his sorry ass, so why would anyone else? Exclude me from the much-celebrated "we" group. I most certainly want Judy back....as a 5th starter. Imagine having a 5-guy who goes 14-7 with a 4.00 ERA - I wouldn't be suprised if she could do that as early as next year, Coors Field East or not. Then contrast that with the 5-guy composite (Wright-Cotts-Diaz-Porzio-Stewart-Munoz-Rauch) from 2003-2004. Remember how Sox were 2 games up on the Twins in mid-September 2003? How would you have liked if that lead was 6-7 games instead courtesy of a good 5th starter? I reckon even the Sox would be hard-pressed to choke away a 6-7 game lead with only 2 weeks to go.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I'm right with ya, if we keep Jonny and move him to #5 and we get a big time stud to head the rotation watch out, cuz that will be one helluva pitching staff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 If we trade Jon Garland, than again in 2005, we're going to go through the same s*** we've gone through the past four years, the meri-go-round of 5th starters. We have a guy in Garland who, we KNOW will give us good innings, we KNOW will provide a sub-5 ERA. Plus - the potential, IMHO, for this kid, could spring him up to about a 4.00 ERA. With this offense, if the fifth starter has a four ERA - hell, even a 4.50 ERA - we're going to be in business. If some team wants to overpay and give us a very good position player as well as a solid relief pitcher, then I'll do it. But only if the other team is clearly overpaying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastime Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 If you put Jon Garland on the block, there would be 29 teams calling KW about him. Does that include a chopping block? I shouldn't be so hard on the guy, but I get frustrated sometimes. I'm human, you know. But so is he, so I'll just chill and give him the benefit of the doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 Don't talk too much, I think I'll make the next Soxtalk Soundoff on Garland and we can all discuss him As far as waivers go, I'm shocked that he would of passed through . Sometimes I wonder where writers get this info, but maybe it is true, but part of me really doubts it. Unless of course their is some unwritten rule where the bad teams don't make claims, but I don't know why they would do that, cause they are just letting the better teams get better, while they roughly sit their. Then again, if they make the claim, then other bad teams could claim their guys to break up one of their prospective deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedoctor Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 i think we need to push garland back to the fifth starter spot by signing or trading for someone in front of him in the rotation. given the rumblings about the sox wanting to improve their pitching, i just can not foresee a scenario where we go into the season wondering who's going to fill the fifth starter role. give garland a shot there, and see if he can emerge. if the same s*** persists with him, i'd deal him next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 hell yeah he went through nobody wants his worthless ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 How long has he been here? 4 years? Isin't that enough time to work through mechanical problems or learning when to make a certain pitch? --No. Only because he's 24 years old. He'll be a great No. 4 as you all have said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.