DBAHO Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 What if we trade him for someone who is talented and can fill one of our other holes? That's the problem. By himself, Garland probably won't bring back that type of player. Plus what's the point of trading Garland, when we can just sign some FA's to fill some holes instead. We get to keep Garland around for another season, and if he can live up to his potential finally, it's a bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 garland is young and if it wasnt for our home park is era would be in the 4's and dont look now but both mulder and zito have an era in the 4's so i think everyone needs to get off his back he is only 24 he has plenty of time to improve i mean he is fuken 24 there are a lot of people who dont even reach the majors at 24 so wait till he is at least 26-28 b4 we start ripping on how he sucks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 garland is young and if it wasnt for our home park is era would be in the 4's and dont look now but both mulder and zito have an era in the 4's so i think everyone needs to get off his back he is only 24 he has plenty of time to improve i mean he is fuken 24 there are a lot of people who dont even reach the majors at 24 so wait till he is at least 26-28 b4 we start ripping on how he sucks... AMEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 garland is young and if it wasnt for our home park is era would be in the 4's and dont look now but both mulder and zito have an era in the 4's so i think everyone needs to get off his back he is only 24 he has plenty of time to improve i mean he is fuken 24 there are a lot of people who dont even reach the majors at 24 so wait till he is at least 26-28 b4 we start ripping on how he sucks... 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 (edited) 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? It could have something to do with the 117IP on the road, compared to just 94 at home....His HR rate on the road is about 1.53/9IP @ home its about 1.7/9IP....    ------------------------------------------------   AL average for pitchers is 4.65.  JG has pretty much been exactly in line(park adjusted) with league ERA every year in the bigs.  Edit: Using ESPN's park factor stats -- Garlands park adjusted home ERA is 4.64 -- exactly in line with league average... Edited September 27, 2004 by The Cheat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 If only 5 small market teams have a better no. 3 then i say keep Jon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 If only 5 small market teams have a better no. 3 then i say keep Jon. Sad thing is we should never be a small market team. Being in chicago and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3E8 Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 What is the cutoff for 'small market'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 It could have something to do with the 117IP on the road, compared to just 94 at home....His HR rate on the road is about 1.53/9IP @ home its about 1.7/9IP....   ------------------------------------------------   AL average for pitchers is 4.65.  JG has pretty much been exactly in line(park adjusted) with league ERA every year in the bigs. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 contreras has nastier stuff then garland does go b**** about him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 I can't tolerate that from someone who is suppose to have a breakout season every year, and supposedly has #1 stuff. I always hear people saying that but where the hell did they get that from? His sinker hardly sinks his fastball is straight the majority of the time and he hangs a s*** load of breaking balls. Sure sounds like an ace in the making to me. :rolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 If only 5 small market teams have a better no. 3 then i say keep Jon. ROTFL!!! Â And how many teams are considered to be small markets? Â 14. Colorado 68,610,403 15. Chicago Sox 68,262,500 16. San Diego 63,689,503 17. Texas 59,845,973 18. Oakland 59,825,167 19. Minnesota 53,585,000 20. Toronto 50,017,000 21. Detroit 49,828,554 22. Baltimore 49,212,653 23. Kansas City 47,609,000 24. Montreal 43,197,500 25. Cincinnati 42,722,858 26. Florida 42,118,042 27. Pittsburgh 40,227,929 28. Cleveland 34,569,300 29. Tampa Bay 28,706,667 30. Milwaukee 27,518 Â Â I thought SD's payroll was higher than that, so you could argue that 6 small market teams have a better#3. 6/17=35.3% That's pretty high considering you said 15% of ALL mlb teams have a better #3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 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. This is what gets me... when I here guys talk about "stuff" -- WTF is stuff???  What have you ever seen from JG that made you say DAMN that's some nasty stuff???  Who the heck is projecting this guy as #1??? Quit listening to them whoever it is. It's probably the same person who's still trying to sell you Scott Ruffcorn...  Accept him for what he is, an average pitcher, who'll eat innings from you an keep you in just about every game... believe it or not those aren't growing on trees.  Don't let broadcasters and the Front office sell you a Ford and tell you it's a BMW.... There's nothing wrong with a ford, just don't pay for a BMW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 ROTFL!!! And how many teams are considered to be small markets?  14. Colorado 68,610,403 15. Chicago Sox 68,262,500 16. San Diego 63,689,503 17. Texas 59,845,973 18. Oakland 59,825,167 19. Minnesota 53,585,000 20. Toronto 50,017,000 21. Detroit 49,828,554 22. Baltimore 49,212,653 23. Kansas City 47,609,000 24. Montreal 43,197,500 25. Cincinnati 42,722,858 26. Florida 42,118,042 27. Pittsburgh 40,227,929 28. Cleveland 34,569,300 29. Tampa Bay 28,706,667 30. Milwaukee 27,518   I thought SD's payroll was higher than that, so you could argue that 6 small market teams have a better#3. 6/17=35.3% That's pretty high considering you said 15% of ALL mlb teams have a better #3. calm down check the #4/#5 starters and then let me know what you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 calm down check the #4/#5 starters and then let me know what you think. Thing is people like jeckle constantly mention how good he has been for us this year. But he has been our third starter all year long and we can't live with our third starter having an era hover around 5. Third starters can't just keep you in the game they have to win you more than they lose. I am not considering contreras anything more than a four until he starts throwing more fastballs. Which does not seem to likely to happen any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 way i look at it is.... garland isnt the reason we lost... the reasons we lost go as follows  1. injuries to frank and maggz 2. loaiza being so s***ty 3. Dan Wright sucking because he was in need of surgery 4. Santana winning every game for the twins 5. Oakland A's owning us so bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 2. loaiza being so s***ty Did anyone really ever expect loaiza to duplicate or or get near what he did last year? I know i was thinking more along the lines of a 4 era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Did anyone really ever expect loaiza to duplicate or or get near what he did last year? I know i was thinking more along the lines of a 4 era. me to but not in the mid-high 5's like he is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 way i look at it is.... garland isnt the reason we lost... the reasons we lost go as follows 1. injuries to frank and maggz 2. loaiza being so s***ty 3. Dan Wright sucking because he was in need of surgery 4. Santana winning every game for the twins 5. Oakland A's owning us so bad I won't get into every reason why the Sox aren't goin to the playoffs. But here are the top two reasons.  1.A total collapse by the pitching staff in the second half  2. The injuries to Frank and Maggs.  That's right. I'm sick of people acting like we would be in the playoffs had Frank and Maggs been healthy. Our pitching has been flat out brutal since the all-star break. We have a 5.49 team era since the break. We went from 3rd in the al in era in mid June to our current rate of 13th. That's right, Only the Royals have a worse era then we do. No amount of Frank and Maggs would've saved our pitching staff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 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. Have you looked at Kevin Brown's first few full seasons in the big leagues. He had 3 Garlandesque years, broke out in year 4 with 21 wins, then three more like JG. It wasn't until Brown's eighth full season that he learned how to become a consistant winner, at age 30. At the end of the 1996 season, at age 29, Curt Schilling's career record was 48-52 though he made his debut in 1988. Randy Johnson was 39-38 at the end of his 6th season, age 29. So here we got Garland at 45-51 at age 24. Hell yes Jon Garland is worth 3-4 million a year as a number 5 starter. It has taken a lot of damn good pitchers several years to learn how to become a consistant winner. Garland is that type of pitcher. If we go into next season with Garland expected to be our number 5 starter and he does have that elusive breakout year, where does that put us? In the playoffs. I'd rather have a pitcher in that slot that has a chance to break out than a guy the has peaked and is on his way downhill or than what we've seen at number the past two seasons. Honestly, I can't believe people want to give up on this guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Thing is people like jeckle constantly mention how good he has been for us this year. But he has been our third starter all year long and we can't live with our third starter having an era hover around 5. Third starters can't just keep you in the game they have to win you more than they lose. I am not considering contreras anything more than a four until he starts throwing more fastballs. Which does not seem to likely to happen any time soon. No what i've been saying is that he has been consistant about keeping us in games. Do I want to see him as our #3 next year? Hell No Would I take him as a #4,#5 starter at 3 Mil a year? In a heart beat. Hell Kris Benson is going to command 8 Mil a year without any real reason for it. He hasn't done s*** either. No I don't think he's been doing great but I think he's been doing his job as 4th Starter. Maybe i'm the only one who doesn't want to see us having to depend on a rotation that has both Grilli and Diaz in it next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Did anyone really ever expect loaiza to duplicate or or get near what he did last year? I know i was thinking more along the lines of a 4 era. So what are you saying? We were supposed to just accept the fact that our 20 game winner was gonna suck and that should be ok? Â I didnt think he was gonna duplicate, but I expected better than what he did, thats why his ass is not in Chicago anymore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 So what are you saying? We were supposed to just accept the fact that our 20 game winner was gonna suck and that should be ok? I didnt think he was gonna duplicate, but I expected better than what he did, thats why his ass is not in Chicago anymore Never said it should be o.k. butwe all basically knew he would be a one year wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Hell Kris Benson is going to command 8 Mil a year without any real reason for it. He hasn't done s*** either. How do you figure? There are plenty of free agent pitchers out there that are better than him that will only be getting arounf 8 million. Morris, perez, radke and clement are all better and they will be lucky to get on average 8 a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Have you looked at Kevin Brown's first few full seasons in the big leagues. He had 3 Garlandesque years, broke out in year 4 with 21 wins, then three more like JG. It wasn't until Brown's eighth full season that he learned how to become a consistant winner, at age 30. At the end of the 1996 season, at age 29, Curt Schilling's career record was 48-52 though he made his debut in 1988. Randy Johnson was 39-38 at the end of his 6th season, age 29. So here we got Garland at 45-51 at age 24. Hell yes Jon Garland is worth 3-4 million a year as a number 5 starter. It has taken a lot of damn good pitchers several years to learn how to become a consistant winner. Garland is that type of pitcher. If we go into next season with Garland expected to be our number 5 starter and he does have that elusive breakout year, where does that put us? In the playoffs. I'd rather have a pitcher in that slot that has a chance to break out than a guy the has peaked and is on his way downhill or than what we've seen at number the past two seasons. Honestly, I can't believe people want to give up on this guy. 1989 Brown's first full season. Era- 3.35 not exactly a garland type year. 1990 Era- 3.60 not exactly a garland type of year. 1991- Era of 4.40 getting closer to a garland type of year but not quite there. 1992- Era of 3.32 not exactly a garland type of year. 1993- Era of 3.59 not exactly a garland type of year. 1994 Era of 4.82 garland type of year. 1995- Era of 1.89 Pedro type of year. And the beat rolls. Don't know why you would compare brown to garland but they are nothing alike at all. 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.