Levine: Garland To Be Traded

[beck72]

No, they aren't unrealistic.  This isn't a #3 or #4 pitcher, this is a guy that teams would be paying #1/#2 money next year and that on many teams last season he would have been a #1 or #2 and I think you can make a case that he was our best pither over the full season last year (Buehrle had that large stretch where he was struggling and Contreras had that amazing 2nd half, but was mediocre to poor in the 1st half). 

 

We give up a 26 year old whose entering his prime, we get some damn good talent in return.  No exceptions.

 

Your deal for Broxton, Jackson and Ebert was about right IMO. It's a damn good deal. Just most people were expecting and talking about a deal like Broxton and Billingsley/ Guzman and others. If the sox want to "strike it rich" they'll have to accept A level prospects, not all guys who can start in AAA or make the sox 25 man roster. Some combination of prospects should be expected

 

OTOH, a lot of people are expecting a Mulder /Hudson deal as well. Those two had more success than Jon had before they were traded.

[Rowand44]

Your deal for Broxton, Jackson and Ebert was about right IMO. It's a damn good deal. Just most people were expecting and talking about a deal like Broxton and Billingsley/ Guzman and others. If the sox want to "strike it rich" they'll have to accept A level prospects, not all guys who can start in AAA or make the sox 25 man roster. Some combination of prospects should be expected

 

OTOH, a lot of people are expecting a Mulder /Hudson deal as well. Those two had more success than Jon had before they were traded.

No Hudson deal, that deal was horrendous for the A's. You're thinking of just the Mulder deal.

[RockRaines]

Your deal for Broxton, Jackson and Ebert was about right IMO. It's a damn good deal. Just most people were expecting and talking about a deal like Broxton and Billingsley/ Guzman and others. If the sox want to "strike it rich" they'll have to accept A level prospects, not all guys who can start in AAA or make the sox 25 man roster. Some combination of prospects should be expected

 

OTOH, a lot of people are expecting a Mulder /Hudson deal as well. Those two had more success than Jon had before they were traded.

I think that is a damn good deal and I wouldnt blink an eye. It would stock our system again, and allow us to deal or develop. I like it.

[AddisonStSox]

Am I the only one who thinks the board asking price is a bit too unrealistic?! The Dodgers won't do it and few other teams will trade their top minor league pitching prospects, as those arms will be close to helping in the bigs very soon. Seeing how the sox need young arms [and the reports are that's what's being asked for Garland, it's

 

I think you might be in the minority. Have you seen the market for starting pitching this off-season? Have you seen what quality pitchers are getting? Have you seen what bad pitchers are getting? It's insane. Chalk it up to Burnett's contract, the Sox proving you win championships with pitching and defense, or whatever else you want, but pitching...especially young, cheap, effective pitching...you are going to have to pay for it.

 

Look no further than a trade completed yesterday for Christ's sake. If Adam Eaton and a bullpen arm are worth an organization's number one prospect--HANDS DOWN--an MLB-ready young arm, and another prospect or two, why are you telling me the Sox can't ask, or can't expect an organization's number one prospect in return.

 

If you trade Garland to a West Coast team, his value also increases as he has been known to want to sign on the west coast when he hits free agency.

 

Put it all together. Kenny should expect a number one prospect in return for a guy that has finally put it all together and found himself amongst the best in baseball last year. Garland was a f***ing all-star. I don't care if he is in his walk year. You find a team that will pay for a healthy, effective, cheap #2 starter. Period.

 

I'm just not buying it.

[Chisoxfn]

Your deal for Broxton, Jackson and Ebert was about right IMO. It's a damn good deal. Just most people were expecting and talking about a deal like Broxton and Billingsley/ Guzman and others. If the sox want to "strike it rich" they'll have to accept A level prospects, not all guys who can start in AAA or make the sox 25 man roster. Some combination of prospects should be expected

 

OTOH, a lot of people are expecting a Mulder /Hudson deal as well. Those two had more success than Jon had before they were traded.

I think if you put the Dodgers on the burner and had some leverage from another team (say the Rangers) you could press Billingsley or Guzman, Broxton and a lower level guy or one of there not so good players (however, this guy could be Jackson simply because the Dodgers brass is frustrated with him). I don't think the odds are great of that deal, but I think there is potential and I do think if you had leverage you could work something along those lines out.

 

However, I think the other deal I suggested: Elbert, Broxton and Jackson would be a very fair deal as well. We would be getting 3 very talented arms, two of which are right at the major league ready cusp while the other is 1-2 yrs away.

[Chisoxfn]

I think that is a damn good deal and I wouldnt blink an eye.  It would stock our system again, and allow us to deal or develop.  I like it.

Plus if you look at it from the Dodgers perspective, they keep Billingsley/Guzman/Laroche so I think they'd be happy. I must admit, if I could get Billingsley over Elbert in that deal I would (but I think the only way you do that is if the Dodgers are desperate and you have another suitor offering up a good amount).

[AddisonStSox]

I think if you put the Dodgers on the burner and had some leverage from another team (say the Rangers) you could press Billingsley or Guzman, Broxton and a lower level guy or one of there not so good players (however, this guy could be Jackson simply because the Dodgers brass is frustrated with him).  I don't think the odds are great of that deal, but I think there is potential and I do think if you had leverage you could work something along those lines out.

 

However, I think the other deal I suggested: Elbert, Broxton and Jackson would be a very fair deal as well.  We would be getting 3 very talented arms, two of which are right at the major league ready cusp while the other is 1-2 yrs away.

 

I like where you're going with this.

 

As posted on page one, I'm sticking to my guns in asking for Billingsley, either Broxton or Edwin Jackson and another mid-level prospect.

 

I think it's very fair to look at what Freddy Garcia netted at the trade deadline two years ago and think Garland can get the same.

 

You want: a) an MLB-ready ballplayer--in our case, it would be Broxton answering a big need in the bullpen v. Seattle's need for Miguel Olivo

 

b ) an upper-tier prospect--in our case, it would be Billingsley v. Seattle's Jeremy Reed

 

c) another prospect--in our case, Edwin Jackson, or the like v. Mike Morse

 

I really hope that's the direction Kenny wants to go when trading Garland. Anything less, and he's undervalued his own player once again.

[RockRaines]

Plus if you look at it from the Dodgers perspective, they keep Billingsley/Guzman/Laroche so I think they'd be happy.  I must admit, if I could get Billingsley over Elbert in that deal I would (but I think the only way you do that is if the Dodgers are desperate and you have another suitor offering up a good amount).

Yeah, I dont see Billingsly going anywhere though, dodgers fans are inserting his name into the rotation as soon as this year.

[quickman]

I think you might be in the minority.  Have you seen the market for starting pitching this off-season?  Have you seen what quality pitchers are getting?  Have you seen what bad pitchers are getting?  It's insane.  Chalk it up to Burnett's contract, the Sox proving you win championships with pitching and defense, or whatever else you want, but pitching...especially young, cheap, effective pitching...you are going to have to pay for it.

 

Look no further than a trade completed yesterday for Christ's sake.  If Adam Eaton and a bullpen arm are worth an organization's number one prospect--HANDS DOWN--an MLB-ready young arm, and another prospect or two, why are you telling me the Sox can't ask, or can't expect an organization's number one prospect in return.

 

If you trade Garland to a West Coast team, his value also increases as he has been known to want to sign on the west coast when he hits free agency.

 

Put it all together.  Kenny should expect a number one prospect in return for a guy that has finally put it all together and found himself amongst the best in baseball last year.  Garland was a f***ing all-star.  I don't care if he is in his walk year.  You find a team that will pay for a healthy, effective, cheap #2 starter.  Period.

 

I'm just not buying it.

 

 

how do you know he wants to play on the west coast? VA FAN Impersonation

[Chisoxfn]

I like where you're going with this.

 

As posted on page one, I'm sticking to my guns in asking for Billingsley, either Broxton or Edwin Jackson and another mid-level prospect. 

 

I think it's very fair to look at what Freddy Garcia netted at the trade deadline two years ago and think Garland can get the same.

 

You want: a) an MLB-ready ballplayer--in our case, it would be Broxton answering a big need in the bullpen v. Seattle's need for Miguel Olivo

 

b ) an upper-tier prospect--in our case, it would be Billingsley v. Seattle's Jeremy Reed

 

c) another prospect--in our case, Edwin Jackson, or the like v. Mike Morse

 

I really hope that's the direction Kenny wants to go when trading Garland.  Anything less, and he's undervalued his own player once again.

Edwin Jackson can't be the main part of any deal with the Dodgers. He is not the highly touted prospect he once was. He still has the arm, but arm troubles and struggles at the major league level have ruined that hype. Consider him Juan Cruz when the Cubs finally gave up on him (ie, still had the great arm but had struggled too much at the major league level to be considered the type of prospect he once was). However, Jackson is still just 21 (plenty of time left).

 

If you get Billingsley, be prepared for maybe at best a Billingsley/Jackson package (which gives you two killer arms, one has issues though). I think thats the most the Dodgers would give up, but I really can't see Bill going unless they get a 72 Hr window and sign him long term. If thats the case, I go back to getting at minimum Bill and Broxton together. Unless of course the Sox prefer to get themselves a bat (ie Guzman or LaRoche) plus a pitcher like Broxton.

 

Still most fair deal: Elbert, Broxton, Jackson

[nitetrain8601]

I think you might be in the minority.  Have you seen the market for starting pitching this off-season?  Have you seen what quality pitchers are getting?  Have you seen what bad pitchers are getting?  It's insane.  Chalk it up to Burnett's contract, the Sox proving you win championships with pitching and defense, or whatever else you want, but pitching...especially young, cheap, effective pitching...you are going to have to pay for it.

 

Look no further than a trade completed yesterday for Christ's sake.  If Adam Eaton and a bullpen arm are worth an organization's number one prospect--HANDS DOWN--an MLB-ready young arm, and another prospect or two, why are you telling me the Sox can't ask, or can't expect an organization's number one prospect in return.

 

If you trade Garland to a West Coast team, his value also increases as he has been known to want to sign on the west coast when he hits free agency.

 

Put it all together.  Kenny should expect a number one prospect in return for a guy that has finally put it all together and found himself amongst the best in baseball last year.  Garland was a f***ing all-star.  I don't care if he is in his walk year.  You find a team that will pay for a healthy, effective, cheap #2 starter.  Period.

 

I'm just not buying it.

 

[RockRaines]

how do you know he wants to play on the west coast? VA FAN Impersonation

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

3 years $24 million is a joke for Jon Garland, and I am not surprised at all that it pissed him off to the point where he wants to be a free agent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Garland's had one good year, and he was 5-6 after the Break in 05!

 

[southsider2k5]

Garland's had one good year, and he was 5-6 after the Break in 05!

 

 

Take a look at what the pitchers on the free agent market are getting and get back to me.

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Take a look at what the pitchers on the free agent market are getting and get back to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ESTABLISHED Pitchers!!!

 

1 good year does not an established pitcher make!

[AnthraxFan93]

ESTABLISHED Pitchers!!!

 

1 good year does not an established pitcher make!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

BUrnett is established?

[Balta1701]

ESTABLISHED Pitchers!!!

 

1 good year does not an established pitcher make!

AJ Burnett: (wins and losses)

 

2001 11 12

2002 12 9

2003 0 2

2004 7 6

2005 12 12

 

In the last 5 years, Burnett is 1 game over .500. He has 1 serious arm injury. He has thrown 200+ innings 2 times since he entered baseball. His lowest ERA is 3.30 in his 2002 season.

 

He will be making $55 million over the next 5 years.

[Adam G]

Garland's had one good year, and he was 5-6 after the Break in 05!

 

1-0 in the playoffs, 2.25 ERA, 16 IP, 4 ER, 11 K/3 BB. You know, the games that really matter.

 

ESTABLISHED Pitchers!!!

 

1 good year does not an established pitcher make!

The guy has thrown 190 innings or more 4 years in a row.

Edited December 21, 2005 by Adam G

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

BUrnett is established?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No...but he was a free agent! "Apples and oranges"

[Gene Honda Civic]

No...but he was a free agent! "Apples and oranges"

Congratulations. Your baseball I.Q. now qualifies you to ride the short bus.

[Balta1701]

No...but he was a free agent! "Apples and oranges"

And at the end of 2006...Jon Garland is...what?

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

If I was JG, I'd ask for a 2 year $16 million contract...when that ends he's only 28, THEN...MONSTER DOLLARS!!!

[qwerty]

If I was JG, I'd ask for a 2 year $16 million contract...when that ends he's only 28, THEN...MONSTER DOLLARS!!!

 

...

 

Or he will likely get a monster contract if he does anything worthwhile next season.

[SoxFan1]

And at the end of 2006...Jon Garland is...what?

1 year more experienced.........duh!

[AddisonStSox]

If I was JG, I'd ask for a 2 year $16 million contract...when that ends he's only 28, THEN...MONSTER DOLLARS!!!

 

Precisely.

 

No use in pitching through this year and obtaining your "monster dollars" contract next. off-season while the starting pitching market is completely absurd. No use in obtaining that contract while you have your health and teams are willing to overpay for your then, young pitching talent. No use in putting two more years to chance because you feel you will make "monster dollars" at the age of 28 instead of 26.

 

No.

 

I'd say you pretty much nailed it.