I'm just curious to see what you guys are thinking beyond this season with regards

to our starting rotation.

 

I believe contract status is as follows:

MB = Team option for '07

JC = Signed through '08

FG = Signed through '07

JG = Signed through '08

JV = Team control through '08

IMO, the guys who have to stay are mark and jose. I guess I'll say Garland, but at this rate what are you gonna get for him in a trade? I think he'll turn it around, but right now it doesn't look like it was a good idea to give him that contract.

It's really too early to tell, anything number of things could happen over the course of the season that would make someone a clear cut candidate to head out.

I think we all know that Freddy's not going anywhere. If Buehrle makes it known that he won't be extending his deal until he hits his free agency period, he could very well be on the market.

Personally, I'd just like them to use McCarthy more in the bullpen if they're going to have him in there. Like yesterday, you had him warming up, f***ing use him as the bridge to Jenks.

Something has to give. I believe almost everyone on the team is due for a decent increase in pay, right? Jon's $10 million seems like the obvious choice to ditch...

Deal Garland while people still have '05 fresh in their minds.

Something has to give. I believe almost everyone on the team is due for a decent increase in pay, right? Jon's $10 million seems like the obvious choice to ditch...

 

^^^

 

After Jon's three-year deal, I thought that it would be Garcia. But Freddy's done well overall so far this season and, unlike Jon, has more than one really good regular season under his belt. I wouldn't be surprised if Freddy got a three-year extension this winter.

^^^

 

After Jon's three-year deal, I thought that it would be Garcia. But Freddy's done well overall so far this season and, unlike Jon, has more than one really good regular season under his belt. I wouldn't be surprised if Freddy got a three-year extension this winter.

 

By the end of that 3-yr extension, Garcia might be topping off at 80 mph

 

BTW....in 3 years, I think Garland will be a much better pitcher than Garcia. People seem to forget that it's very possible that Buehrle will only be with the Sox for one more season (lets just hope that the Cards have some very good prospects we can trade for this offseason, if needed).

The thing about Garland is this: the Sox have been patient as saints with him, he put up one good year in '05, and is again struggling. I'm not optimistic that he will have the career success as Freddy Garcia.

 

I hope he works out of it, but he is historically a better first-half pitcher.

I think it's incredible that Garcia's lowered his ERA from s***tastic to 3.92 this season, and so soon.

 

Ultimately, I think whoever gets more for us in a trade, Garcia or Garland, is a better choice to deal.

 

I don't think Vazquez, Contreras or Buehrle are going anywhere.

By the end of that 3-yr extension, Garcia might be topping off at 80 mph

 

BTW....in 3 years, I think Garland will be a much better pitcher than Garcia.

 

If Garland isn't a better pitcher than Garcia now (age 27, entering his prime), he won't ever be. I'd rather take my chances with three more years of a proven vet that can locate and get hitters out than a potential one-season wonder. Plus, we're trying to win now, not three years down the road.

 

That said, it's not even June yet. There's still plenty of time for Jon to dig himself out of his hole or Freddy to dig himself into one.

Great thread idea BTW. I voted for Freddy based on age mostly, but also that we could trade him, and for a nice price as well.

Priority #1 in my book is resigning Mark Buehrle. For that, it might not hurt to have Garland around either. Given that keeping Freddy Garcia and Keeping Jon Garland are our 2 options, and neither one of them is a bad option, unless someone gives us a vastly better offer for Garland than Garcia, my vote is that JG stays.

Freddy isn't going anywhere because of the Ozzie connection, and if Mark goes anywhere, I'll be pissed off at KW (just like if BMac gets traded, I'd flip a s***). BMac should be in the rotation this year, but since Garland was signed to a rather bloated (read: stupid) 3 year deal with a no-trade clause for this year, he's stuck in the pen. Get rid of Garland in the offseason (assuming the no-trade clause is only for this season), and stick BMac into the rotation then.

Great thread idea BTW. I voted for Freddy based on age mostly, but also that we could trade him, and for a nice price as well.

 

Thanks Rock.

I agree that I'd rather keep Jon than Freddy past this year. Don't get me wrong, I love Freddy, but I think Jon will bounce back to being a great pitcher (maybe not '05 pre-ASG quality, but very solid).

 

Then again, keeping all 6 and being greedy isn't horrible either.

I wanted to deal Jon after 05......right now, we can't afford to put BMac in the rotation after this year if we still haven't gotten solid BP help.

I wanted to deal Jon after 05......right now, we can't afford to put BMac in the rotation after this year if we still haven't gotten solid BP help.

KW basically said one way or another McCarthy will be in the rotation in 2007. I'm quite sure KW will pay a lot more attention to the bullpen the rest of this season and next off season, than he did last off season.

Freddy isn't going anywhere because of the Ozzie connection, and if Mark goes anywhere, I'll be pissed off at KW (just like if BMac gets traded, I'd flip a s***). BMac should be in the rotation this year, but since Garland was signed to a rather bloated (read: stupid) 3 year deal with a no-trade clause for this year, he's stuck in the pen. Get rid of Garland in the offseason (assuming the no-trade clause is only for this season), and stick BMac into the rotation then.

Yes, im sure when KW is making business decisions for trying to improve his team, and keep it good for years to come, the personal relationship between a player and the manager would kill all reasons to get rid of a player. Please. Your blatant Garland hatred has blurred your vision.

Yes, im sure when KW is making business decisions for trying to improve his team, and keep it good for years to come, the personal relationship between a player and the manager would kill all reasons to get rid of a player. Please. Your blatant Garland hatred has blurred your vision.

And keeping Buehrle is good for the team, as is replacing Garland with a much better starter in McCarthy. I don't see where you are coming from.

 

Unless you are talking about Garcia, which is true. I highly doubt he's going anywhere, and he still happens to be a pretty damn good pitcher (extremely underrated in the Sox rotation).

Yes, im sure when KW is making business decisions for trying to improve his team, and keep it good for years to come, the personal relationship between a player and the manager would kill all reasons to get rid of a player. Please. Your blatant Garland hatred has blurred your vision.

Freddy's 7-1, and Ozzie and Freddy are very close. I'm sure if the Sox trade one of their starters, Ozzie will have a say in who it is. While I think its possible Freddy could go, it probably would take an unbelievable package for Ozzie to give his endorsement. Garland, on the other hand, may be more attractive to deal to get out of the $22 million total obligation for 2007-8. The White Sox tried to deal Ordonez when backloaded contract went to the payoff year. Garland, unless he really turns it around, will be overpriced next season, and ridiculously priced in 2008. I really think the Sox have no intention of paying that contract, at least the final $12 million.

Freddy's 7-1, and Ozzie and Freddy are very close. I'm sure if the Sox trade one of their starters, Ozzie will have a say in who it is. While I think its possible Freddy could go, it probably would take an unbelievable package for Ozzie to give his endorsement. Garland, on the other hand, may be more attractive to deal to get out of the $22 million total obligation for 2007-8. The White Sox tried to deal Ordonez when backloaded contract went to the payoff year. Garland, unless he really turns it around, will be overpriced next season, and ridiculously priced in 2008. I really think the Sox have no intention of paying that contract, at least the final $12 million.

From a baseball perspective, keeping a good 27 year old starter who is just now figuring himself out, is better than re-signing an aging pitcher, who is only going to lose more MPH off of his fastball, no matter who he is close to. It makes more sense to keep Garland, bar none.

From a baseball perspective, keeping a good 27 year old starter who is just now figuring himself out, is better than re-signing an aging pitcher, who is only going to lose more MPH off of his fastball, no matter who he is close to. It makes more sense to keep Garland, bar none.

Depends on who you ask

 

And no, it doesn't make more sense to keep Garland. Garcia has had much more consistancy, and is a much better pitcher than Garland, while only being 2 years older, and being the same price in 2007, but not on contract for 2008.

From a baseball perspective, keeping a good 27 year old starter who is just now figuring himself out, is better than re-signing an aging pitcher, who is only going to lose more MPH off of his fastball, no matter who he is close to. It makes more sense to keep Garland, bar none.

A good starter if he pitches like he did in 2005. A mediocre starter if he pitches like he has at any other point in his career. If he turns it around this year, then I see your point. At least up until now, it seems everything he supposedly figured out last season, he's forgotten. If his numbers are pretty much in line with his pre-2005 numbers, then I would bet anything he would be very available. Having Freddy pitching in his walk year is not that bad of a thing.

If any starting pitcher from the rotation is traded, it's Garcia. Regardless of his relationship with Guillen.

 

Garcia has one year remaining on his contract, and will likely finish this season with totals approaching last season. He'll have a higher ERA, lower K's, but his win totals will exceed 14; and for that, some team will consider him a worthy gamble. Just rape an organization for the next Liriano and I'll be happy.

 

From my perspective, trading Garland would certaintly be more appropriate--but you couldn't expect much in return. Does anyone believe the White Sox would pay for a sizable amount of Garland's contract to send him out of town? Does that sound like an option they've regularily persued? Eating a contract is the only way we'd receive halfway decent prospects. I doubt they venture down that road, considering recent trades we've had other clubs pay a large portion of salaries.

Edited May 22, 200619 yr by Flash Tizzle