Uncommon Prespective

[mwolfson]

Hey guys, this is my first post in a while as I am still "hoovering" 2 feet above ground due to the White Sox World Series championship. I rarely post but check the site many times a day to read what people have to say and I have come to a conclusion especially after the trade for Javier Vazquez that everyones thinking we should trade Jon Garland immediately. I agree that trading him, now with his contract situation at where it is would be the most beneficial but why not hold on to him and go with a five man rotation made up everyone but McCarthy (but have him get in some games whether starting or as a reliever) especially because as of now Mark Buehrle and Freddy Garcia will be pitching in the World Baseball Classic and our starters arms were used a lot last year (regular season wear and tare along with the postseason performances) and then trade Garland at trading deadline when some sucker-GM will give up two-three very good prospects for him. I know this could be helping another team but I think we could find a team in the National League to trade him to that might be willing to part with two pretty good pitching prospects or an everyday center fielder if Brian Anderson doesn't work or relief pitching help, etc.

 

Thanks...

 

- Mike

Edited December 17, 2005 by mwolfson

[JoeBatterz]

I am with you on this one.

[timotime]

dont count a your gift horses in the mouth...or something

[mwolfson]

dont count a your gift horses in the mouth...or something

 

Ummm... What does this mean?

Edited December 17, 2005 by mwolfson

[sayitaintso]

Hey guys, this is my first post in a while as I am still "hoovering" 2 feet above ground due to the White Sox World Series championship. I rarely post but check the site many times a day to read what people have to say and I have come to a conclusion especially after the trade for Javier Vazquez that everyones thinking we should trade Jon Garland immediately. I agree that trading him, now with his contract situation at where it is would be the most beneficial but why not hold on to him and go with a five man rotation made up everyone but McCarthy (but have him get in some games whether starting or as a reliever) especially because as of now Mark Buehrle and Freddy Garcia will be pitching in the World Baseball Classic and our starters arms were used a lot last year (regular season wear and tare along with the postseason performances) and then trade Garland at trading deadline when some sucker-GM will give up two-three very good prospects for him. I know this could be helping another team but I think we could find a team in the National League to trade him to that might be willing to part with two pretty good pitching prospects or an everyday center fielder if Brian Anderson doesn't work or relief pitching help, etc.

 

Thanks...

 

- Mike

Very good post and i do agree with you.

[greg775]

I don't want to trade Jon. I want to keep him.

He was awesome last year and it's

good to have some guys around

who are starting to blossom after

being in our own organization several years.

[knightni]

Don't look for chickens looking for your horses to hatch while counting their mouths.

[Felix]

My problem with doing this is that Garland's stock is at an all-time high right now. If he has a bad first half, we might not be able to get nearly as much as we can if we just trade him now.

 

I'm not worried about stamina with the WBC.. I think its a silly thing to worry about.

[YASNY]

My problem with doing this is that Garland's stock is at an all-time high right now.  If he has a bad first half, we might not be able to get nearly as much as we can if we just trade him now.

 

I'm not worried about stamina with the WBC.. I think its a silly thing to worry about.

 

That's an unknown at this point, but I tend to agree with you. Every year, there are dozens that play winter ball, then come to ST and perform throught the season without any problems.

[Texsox]

My problem with doing this is that Garland's stock is at an all-time high right now.  If he has a bad first half, we might not be able to get nearly as much as we can if we just trade him now.

 

I'm not worried about stamina with the WBC.. I think its a silly thing to worry about.

 

Don't you win Championships with guys playing well and "at their all-time high"?

[Felix]

Don't you win Championships with guys playing well and "at their all-time high"?

Yes, but since Garland's performance is a question mark (to me at least), and since we have 6 starters, trading Garland, who is just as likely to go back to pre-2005 form as he is to repeat his 2005 performance, makes the most sense. Brandon McCarthy proved that he's a starter last year, and if he starts this year off in the bullpen, its a real shame.

[SSH2005]

My problem with doing this is that Garland's stock is at an all-time high right now.  If he has a bad first half, we might not be able to get nearly as much as we can if we just trade him now.

 

I'm not worried about stamina with the WBC.. I think its a silly thing to worry about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you. Trade Garland now and get max value for him. He obviously wants to get a monster contract after 2006 and McCarthy is ready for the rotation anyways. We can just re-sign Contreras to a modest 3-year deal and still have a solid rotation for the next couple years:

 

Buehrle

Garcia

Contreras

Vazquez

McCarthy

 

Still looks damn good to me. Get max value for Garland now.

[Texsox]

Yes, but since Garland's performance is a question mark (to me at least), and since we have 6 starters, trading Garland, who is just as likely to go back to pre-2005 form as he is to repeat his 2005 performance, makes the most sense.  Brandon McCarthy proved that he's a starter last year, and if he starts this year off in the bullpen, its a real shame.

 

This is where some people have confused me. Question marks about a young guy that has 4 seasons of .500 or better baseball vs. a guy with a handful of starts. One is a question mark and one has "proven" it.

 

Sorry, in my book, Garland has proven it, BMac is more of a question mark.

[mwolfson]

The thing is I know that Kenny says he's looking for two very good pitching prospects in return but I don't know if that's what we really need or want. I know that our farm system definitely needs improvement after all these recent trades but I think giving up on Garland at this point for two good prospects is not the answer.

[Felix]

Question marks about a young guy that has 4 seasons of .500 or better baseball vs. a guy with a handful of starts. One is a question mark and one has "proven" it.

Well, you are looking at record, which is team dependant. Look at Garland's other numbers. Last year, Garland had an ERA ~1.00 less than his career average, a WHIP .2 less than his career average, 30 less walks, 5 more strikeouts, 20 more innings, 2 more complete games, 3 more shutouts, etc. etc.

All of that shouts one year wonder, and he'd have to do it again to prove to me that he's that great of a starter. Is he a good #4 or #5 guy? Yea, but right now, if we traded him, we could get something teams give up for a #1 or #2 guy.

 

Sorry, in my book, Garland has proven it, BMac is more of a question mark.

McCarthy was 21 last year in his first major league season (I guess you can call it a season, even though he only threw 67 innings). He had a rough first stint in the majors, but when he came back, he dominated the Rangers (in Texas IIRC) and the Red Sox (in Boston). He showed that he could dominate in the majors, and this was in his first major league starts. Yea, he hasn't proven anything, but if I'm going to trade someone out of this rotation, am I going to trade the second year starter who just showed that he could dominate, or am I going to trade the 5th year starter who has dominated one season, and been average the rest? Or would you rather see McCarthy's talent go to waste in the bullpen? Its a no brainer in my book.

Edited December 17, 2005 by Felix

[Texsox]

Well, you are looking at record, which is team dependant.  Look at Garland's other numbers.  Last year, Garland had an ERA ~1.00 less than his career average, a WHIP .2 less than his career average, 30 less walks, 5 more strikeouts, 20 more innings, 2 more complete games, 3 more shutouts, etc. etc.

All of that shouts one year wonder, and he'd have to do it again to prove to me that he's that great of a starter.  Is he a good #4 or #5 guy?  Yea, but right now, if we traded him, we could get something teams give up for a #1 or #2 guy.

McCarthy was 21 last year in his first major league season (I guess you can call it a season, even though he only threw 67 innings).  He had a rough first stint in the majors, but when he came back, he dominated the Rangers (in Texas IIRC) and the Red Sox (in Boston).  He showed that he could dominate in the majors, and this was in his first major league starts.  Yea, he hasn't proven anything, but if I'm going to trade someone out of this rotation, am I going to trade the second year starter who just showed that he could dominate, or am I going to trade the 5th year starter who has dominated one season, and been average the rest?  Or would you rather see McCarthy's talent go to waste in the bullpen?  Its a no brainer in my book.

 

Starting pitchers who can pitch 6 seasons in the majors and compile a winning record, are well above average. And yes, I will take a guy who has proven over six seasons he can win more games than he loses, over a guy who has started 10 games in his life at the mlb level when I want to win now. If you want to build a team for 2007 or 2008, then we can look at potential and other variables, and BMac may be the smarter choice. But for 2006 and the opportunity to repeat, I'll take a guy who was close to to a Cy Young award over a guy with 10 starts.

 

And that is why Garland is at an "all time high in value". The rest of MLB thinks the same way.

[Felix]

Starting pitchers who can pitch 6 seasons in the majors and compile a winning record, are well above average.

Did you just ignore everything I said about wins being team dependant? Pitchers can win games because they get tons of run support, but will still be average pitchers. Garland is an average pitcher unless he proves that last year was not a fluke.

[ThomeOnTheRange]

dont count a your gift horses in the mouth...or something

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is "Don't look a gifthorse in the mouth" meaning if someone gives you a gift don't complain about it, accept it for what its worth.

[YASNY]

I don't believe Garland had what will be called a "career year". I think he just had the first of many stellar seasons. Still, I don't think he'll be with the Sox. Since he has expressed a desire to go on the free agent market, it's in the best interests of the Sox to trade him.

[KWs OK for Me]

I don't believe Garland had what will be called a "career year".  I think he just had the first of many stellar seasons.  Still, I don't think he'll be with the Sox.  Since he has expressed a desire to go on the free agent market, it's in the best interests of the Sox to trade him.

Going on from that point, I believe that he could very well start off slow, like he had in years past. And at the deadline if he is something 9-11 or 7-11 his value has drastically gone down. And seeing how it seems extremely unlikely that he will resign or even be in our price range after this season it makes sense to me to trade him while his value is the highest. I don't know enough about minor league prospects to know who to want none the less expect, but if we could get some near major league ready talent with high ceilings I would call that a successful trade.

[Texsox]

Did you just ignore everything I said about wins being team dependant?  Pitchers can win games because they get tons of run support, but will still be average pitchers.  Garland is an average pitcher unless he proves that last year was not a fluke.

 

How many starts does Bmac need until his starts aren't a fluke? Or has he already reached that level? You claim BMac is proven, proven at what level above Garland?

 

Are you stating Garland is less likely to win 12-15 games than BMac next season?

 

And finally, how much influence does the pitcher have on his win/loss record?

[Dam8610]

And at the deadline if he is something 9-11 or 7-11 his value has drastically gone down.

 

If Garland's record is 9-11 or 7-11 on July 31, either he's had a decision in nearly all of his starts, or he's been drastically overworked.

Edited December 18, 2005 by Dam8610

[KWs OK for Me]

If Garland's record is 9-11 or 7-11 on July 31, either he's had a decision in nearly all of his starts, or he's been drastically overworked.

Hey why don't we split hairs here, you know what I mean. If he has a losing record with an era hovering a little above 4 his value will have gone greatly down. And didn't Jon figure in 28 of his 33 starts, i think he figured in something like his first 15 or 16, so not that outrageous for an inning eating groundball pitcher like he is.

[Texsox]

So if we traded him now, would we be getting someone whose value is also at an all-time high, or would we trade him for someone whose value isn't at an all-time high for some reason? And why is that better for repeating in 2006?

[Felix]

You claim BMac is proven, proven at what level above Garland?

I do?

(talking about Brandon McCarthy) Yea, he hasn't proven anything

 

And finally, how much influence does the pitcher have on his win/loss record?

A pitcher has just about the same influence as his teams offense. Look at Roger Clemens last year. Amazing season, and should have won the Cy Young, but he didn't have a lot of wins. Look at Jon Lieber last year. He won 17 games, but had a 4+ ERA and 1.2+ WHIP. Would you say that Lieber was a better pitcher because he won more games?

 

Hell, lets put it this way. Again looking at last years stats, Rodrigo Lopez and John Smoltz (or Roger Clemens if you want, its the same result). Lopez won 15 games, while Smoltz won 14. Lopez had a 4.90 ERA, while Smoltz had a 3.06 ERA. Lopez had a 1.41 WHIP, while Smoltz had a 1.15 WHIP. Are you going to tell me Lopez was a better pitcher last year because he won more games?