Uncommon Prespective

[Texsox]

Brandon McCarthy proved that he's a starter last year, and if he starts this year off in the bullpen, its a real shame.

 

Yes, you said he was proven. At what level? Above or below Garland?

 

And if we trade Garland now, would we get a player who is also at an All-time high, or someone whose value has dropped off?

[Felix]

Yes, you said he was proven.

I said in that quote that he proved that he was a starter rather than a reliever. I didn't say he was a proven starter.

 

And if we trade Garland now, would we get a player who is also at an All-time high, or someone whose value has dropped off?

As I've said before, since trading Garland would likely be for prospects, we would get prospects which a team would give up for a #1 or #2 pitcher, which Garland is not IMO (until he does what he did last season consistantly). According to various quotes, KW has been asking for a lot in exchange for Garland, which is very encouraging.

[Texsox]

I said in that quote that he proved that he was a starter rather than a reliever.  I didn't say he was a proven starter.

As I've said before, since trading Garland would likely be for prospects, we would get prospects which a team would give up for a #1 or #2 pitcher, which Garland is not IMO (until he does what he did last season consistantly).  According to various quotes, KW has been asking for a lot in exchange for Garland, which is very encouraging.

 

Would that help or hurt the teams chances in 2006 to repeat?

[Felix]

Would that help or hurt the teams chances in 2006 to repeat?

Wouldn't make a difference since we have 5 other starters, all of which are either on the same level or are better than Garland. It would just help rebuild our farm system which was taken apart this offseason, and get the most value out of Garland, who isn't going to resign after the 2006 season anyway.

[BamaDoc]

We are in a win now mode. To trade Garland strengthens a competitor, and if all we get are prospects, does nothing for the short term goal of repeating. I understand that the farm is weakened but Garland probably would bring a type A ranking and two high picks. I don't have a problem with McCarthy being eased in as the long man and spot starter. For those that state Garland has had only one good year and is likely to revert to previous numbers that is exactly my concern with Contreras. We couldn't have done it without Contreras's performance after the break, but prior to that many were calling for his head. I would keep all and if a trade is needed to fill a spot to help us repeat okay. I see no need to dump now and potentially get caught short.

[Texsox]

Wouldn't make a difference since we have 5 other starters, all of which are either on the same level or are better than Garland.  It would just help rebuild our farm system which was taken apart this offseason, and get the most value out of Garland, who isn't going to resign after the 2006 season anyway.

 

I disagree that BMac is on the same level as Garland. We've seen Garland develop into a major league pitcher. I think he is far more likely to win 15 games than 10. I watched as this staff went into season after season with 3 or 4 solid starters and a prayer. Far better to have 6 or 7, Cotts may be ready as well, is much better for winning today.

 

If the reason to trade Garland is to avoid losing him with zero compensation, then reluctantly I could see the logic. With the improvements in the offense this offseason, I would prefer not to take a step back in the cornerstone area of pitching.

[TLAK]

I do?

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?

 

Thats an interesting take. I pulled the daily records of the guys you mentioned from Baseball Musings and added the White Sox rotation. All these guys are pretty successful so I also added 7-16 Nate Robertson for comparison. I calc'd the pitcher's ERA for that day and if he got a decision. You're looking at ERA here not raw runs and the ERA is based on that day only. At the bottom I totaled them by excellent, meh and horrible outings.

 

 

Viewed this way, Clemens was indeed fantastic and the qualitative difference between Smoltz and Lopez is striking, even greater than your stats show. Smoltz had 20 excellent outings and got 11 wins out of them, Lopez had only 15 excellent ones and still got 11 wins out of them. But Smoltz only had 2 horrible outings while Lopez buried his team 12 times. The pitcher who gives his team a good chance to win every start is the better pitcher, which is a very long winded way to say I agree with you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D_ERA	Group	Buerhle	Clemens	Contreras	Garcia	Garland	Hernandez	Lieber	Lopez	Robertson	Smoltz	Vazquez
0	47 ( 30-1)	7 (5- 0)	11 (5- 0)	4 (3- 0)	3 (2- 0)	5 (4- 0)	3 (1- 0)	2 (1- 0)	4 (3- 1)	3 (2- 0)	2 (1- 0)	3 (3- 0)
0+-3	132 ( 79-20)	10 (8- 1)	15 (7- 4)	12 (8- 0)	12 (9- 1)	13 (9- 2)	5 (3- 1)	13 (8- 2)	11 (8- 1)	10 (3- 3)	18 (10- 2)	13 (6- 3)
3+-6	95 ( 34-32)	11 (3- 4)	2 (0- 1)	10 (4- 3)	11 (2- 3)	6 (3- 2)	10 (5- 3)	12 (7- 4)	8 (3- 3)	7 (2- 3)	11 (3- 3)	7 (2- 3)
6+-10	39 ( 6-26)	3 (0- 2)	3 (1- 2)	4 (0- 2)	4 (1- 2)	4 (2- 2)	2 (0- 2)	3 (1- 2)	5 (1- 3)	5 (0- 4)	1 (0- 1)	5 (0- 4)
10+	40 ( 0-34)	2 (0- 1)	1 (0- 1)	2 (0- 2)	3 (0- 2)	4 (0- 4)	4 (0- 3)	5 (0- 5)	7 (0- 4)	6 (0- 6)	1 (0- 1)	5 (0- 5)
Excellent	179 ( 109-21)	17 (13- 1)	26 (12- 4)	16 (11- 0)	15 (11- 1)	18 (13- 2)	8 (4- 1)	15 (9- 2)	15 (11- 2)	13 (5- 3)	20 (11- 2)	16 (9- 3)
Meh	95 ( 34-32)	11 (3- 4)	2 (0- 1)	10 (4- 3)	11 (2- 3)	6 (3- 2)	10 (5- 3)	12 (7- 4)	8 (3- 3)	7 (2- 3)	11 (3- 3)	7 (2- 3)
Horrible	79 ( 6-60)	5 (0- 3)	4 (1- 3)	6 (0- 4)	7 (1- 4)	8 (2- 6)	6 (0- 5)	8 (1- 7)	12 (1- 7)	11 (0- 10)	2 (0- 2)	10 (0- 9)

[Felix]

I disagree that BMac is on the same level as Garland. We've seen Garland develop into a major league pitcher. I think he is far more likely to win 15 games than 10. I watched as this staff went into season after season with 3 or 4 solid starters and a prayer. Far better to have 6 or 7, Cotts may be ready as well, is much better for winning today.

McCarthy is far from a prayer, but if you want to consider him one, have fun doing so. I think, as do a lot of other people, McCarthy is ready for the majors, and it would be a real shame to leave him on the bench..

 

If the reason to trade Garland is to avoid losing him with zero compensation, then reluctantly I could see the logic. With the improvements in the offense this offseason, I would prefer not to take a step back in the cornerstone area of pitching.

Thats basically my reasoning for trading him. Garland is the most expendable out of our staff simply because he won't be back in 2007. If we trade him now, we can get a good package in exchange. If we trade him at the trading deadline, he might have already sucked in the first half of the year, and we wouldn't get nearly as much as we would get if we traded him now.

 

Thats an interesting take.  I pulled the daily records of the guys you mentioned  from Baseball Musings and added the White Sox rotation.  All these guys are pretty successful so I also added 7-16 Nate Robertson for comparison.  I calc'd the pitcher's ERA for that day and if he got a decision.  You're looking at ERA here not raw runs and the ERA is based on that day only.  At the bottom I totaled them by excellent, meh and horrible outings.

 

Viewed this way, Clemens was indeed fantastic and the qualitative difference between Smoltz and Lopez is striking, even greater than your stats show.  Smoltz had 20 excellent outings and got 11 wins out of them, Lopez had only 15 excellent ones and still got 11 wins out of them.  But Smoltz only had 2 horrible outings while Lopez buried his team 12 times.  The pitcher who gives his team a good chance to win every start is the better pitcher, which is a very long winded way to say I agree with you.

I like your way of looking at it. Nice job

Edited December 18, 2005 by Felix

[Texsox]

People were saying the same thing about Konerko up until he signed his contract. I am not convinced that Garland will not sign. By trading him, he are getting rid of a player who is entering his prime and could be part of a tremendous pitching staff that would rival the Braves of the 90s.

 

[TLAK]

People were saying the same thing about Konerko up until he signed his contract. I am not convinced that Garland will not sign. By trading him, he are getting rid of a player who is entering his prime and could be part of a tremendous pitching staff that would rival the Braves of the 90s.

 

Didn't the White Sox do this same dance with Mark Buerhle? I think half the board had him St. Louis.

[TaylorStSox]

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.

 

 

I agree. I think it's both unfair and unrealistic to expect anything more than 10-12 4.50 ERA out of Bmac.