Next year - Mac in Rotation?

[SSH2005]

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.

Agreed, Garcia is the guy to trade. He could end up with the highest win total with an ERA in the high 3's but he will only be under contract for one more season. His velocity has been on the decline over the years and he smokes too much dope. Use the money dumped to help lock up Buehrle. Then we have...

 

Contreras

Buehrle

Vazquez

Garland

McCarthy

Edited May 22, 2006 by SSH2005

[Dick Allen]

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.

Most teams are desperate for starting pitching. Garland's 2005 could act as a nice tease for some team. Considering what guys like Pavano and Burnett were paid, really with not much results-wise more than Garland, maybe even less, some team might think Garland for $22 million and 2 years is a good gamble to take. What they would be willing to give up is another matter.

[greasywheels121]

This is probably a first, but I agree with both Flash and Jabroni.

[SSH2005]

This is probably a first, but I agree with both Flash and Jabroni.

 

By the way, I'd rather have Garcia than Garland but Garcia makes the most sense to trade.

[WCSox]

From a baseball perspective, keeping a good 27 year old starter who is just now figuring himself out

 

He already has over 1000 innings of major-league pitching under his belt. How much longer does he need to "figure himself out"?

 

I like Jon and hope that he gets back on track soon. But the Sox have been ridiculously patient with him and showed him the money this past winter. If Jon can't turn it around and pitch like a $9 million/year starter, he won't be in a Sox uniform throughout the duration of his contract.

[Dick Allen]

It all may be a mute point anyway if a Sox starter blows out his arm this year. I also think the rest of this season is huge for this team. If for some reason the Sox don't make the playoffs, the rate of seasonticket renewals will play a huge role in the make-up of the roster.

Edited May 22, 2006 by Dick Allen

[WHarris1]

Should be gone, IMO: Garland

Will be gone: Garcia

[fathom]

It all may be a mute point anyway if a Sox starter blows out his arm this year. I also think the rest of this season is huge for this team. If for some reason the Sox don't make the playoffs, the rate of seasonticket renewals will play a huge role in the make-up of the roster.

 

Here's the thing...it was vitally important that this team get off to a good start this season. We definitely have done that, and that should assure that we're drawing 30k fan for almost all of our home games this season. Even if the Sox don't make the playoffs this year, I think we'll be competitive enough that the fans will come this season, as well as next year. There's already advertisements for the 2007 season ticket waiting list. I'm fairly confident that our payroll will be over 90 million next season.

[RockRaines]

This is probably a first, but I agree with both Flash and Jabroni.

But not me?

 

Most teams are desperate for starting pitching. Garland's 2005 could act as a nice tease for some team. Considering what guys like Pavano and Burnett were paid, really with not much results-wise more than Garland, maybe even less, some team might think Garland for $22 million and 2 years is a good gamble to take. What they would be willing to give up is another matter.

You are looking at it from a what could we get for someone you dont like. Garland makes more sense with his age with peak years still ahead of him, while Garcia is aging and losing his velocity year by year. From a baseball what is best for the sox perspective, Garcia is the one to go.

 

He already has over 1000 innings of major-league pitching under his belt. How much longer does he need to "figure himself out"?

 

I like Jon and hope that he gets back on track soon. But the Sox have been ridiculously patient with him and showed him the money this past winter. If Jon can't turn it around and pitch like a $9 million/year starter, he won't be in a Sox uniform throughout the duration of his contract.

Ridiculously patient huh? They have been patient with him for every year Ozzie has been here, and we were rewarded with a great pitcher last year, and a good one this year. He will come around, you all were calling for Garcia's head with his first few starts, and now since he has turned it around, you are all over his jock. Jon is a good pitcher, and I expect him to keep improving throughout the season. He is 27 for god sakes, he will be prone to spells of bad games.

[greasywheels121]

But not me?

You are looking at it from a what could we get for someone you dont like. Garland makes more sense with his age with peak years still ahead of him, while Garcia is aging and losing his velocity year by year. From a baseball what is best for the sox perspective, Garcia is the one to go.

Ridiculously patient huh? They have been patient with him for every year Ozzie has been here, and we were rewarded with a great pitcher last year, and a good one this year. He will come around, you all were calling for Garcia's head with his first few starts, and now since he has turned it around, you are all over his jock. Jon is a good pitcher, and I expect him to keep improving throughout the season. He is 27 for god sakes, he will be prone to spells of bad games.

 

Haha, I agree with you also. I just tuned into the thread as my two favorite posters chimed in. But I do agree that Garcia's on the decline, and I don't know if we want to put up with that.

[Soxbadger]

My vote is to stay with the veteran starting staff and let B-Mac stay in the pen like Shields.

 

Only reason I would trade even Garland or Garcia is if the offer was to good to refuse.

[NYSox35]

My vote is to stay with the veteran starting staff and let B-Mac stay in the pen like Shields.

 

Only reason I would trade even Garland or Garcia is if the offer was to good to refuse.

 

Yeah, I can definitely see that too. I like having tons of pitching. However, you have to think

about salary increases (Crede) and our bullpen.

 

It's a good problem to have I guess

[Flash Tizzle]

It all may be a mute point anyway if a Sox starter blows out his arm this year. I also think the rest of this season is huge for this team. If for some reason the Sox don't make the playoffs, the rate of seasonticket renewals will play a huge role in the make-up of the roster.

Our success obviously affects the payroll, but whether we fall short of the playoffs or not it doesn't change the status of our rotation. World Series or not, McCarthy will be in the rotation and Garcia will be gone. Atleast, that's what I believe.

 

Far as injuries (knock on wood), we're not always going to have such reinforcements in future seasons. Are we supposed to let McCarthy remain in the bullpen until a suitable 6th starter replacement takes his place? It's not practical to always have a solid 5 man rotation with a 6th starter in the bullpen. What we can hope is perhaps Tracey, Lumsden, or someone else can be available to take Mac's long-man spot next season.

Edited May 22, 2006 by Flash Tizzle

[WCSox]

Ridiculously patient huh? They have been patient with him for every year Ozzie has been here, and we were rewarded with a great pitcher last year, and a good one this year.

 

Way to ignore the Jerry Manual years where he was extremely mediocre. :rolly

 

He will come around, you all were calling for Garcia's head with his first few starts, and now since he has turned it around, you are all over his jock. Jon is a good pitcher, and I expect him to keep improving throughout the season. He is 27 for god sakes, he will be prone to spells of bad games.

 

Unlike Jon, Freddy has actually pitched well for more than one season. BTW, 27 isn't exactly young.

Edited May 22, 2006 by WCSox

[Chisoxfn]

I know Garland has the No-Trade clause in his contract for this year, but I assume that is just for theseason? I guess what im asking is, if the Sox win the World Series this year, the day after its over, can they trade Garland??

 

I guess its pretty easy to say Garland or Freddy should go next year, get whatever help we need from that deal, and move Mac into the rotation, but like Kal said, ALOT can happen from now until then.

I'm sure someone answered this somewhere in this thread, but yes, they could deal him right after the season ends.

[Guest JimH]

For the record Garland is 26, he turns 27 late September.

[SSH2005]

Unlike Jon, Freddy has actually pitched well for more than one season. BTW, 27 isn't exactly young.

For a starting pitcher, 27 is young.

Edited May 22, 2006 by SSH2005

[Gene Honda Civic]

For a starting pitcher, 27 is young.

If you're on the Cubs, you're still a prospect.

[WHarris1]

Garcia is not even over 30, it's not like hes an old man.

[Gene Honda Civic]

Garcia is not even over 30, it's not like hes an old man.

Garcia isn't an old man, but he's starting to throw like one.

 

Garland hasn't had much success this year, but his stuff is still there. Because of Jon's poor start, he'll probably finish the season with a higher ERA and less W's than Freddy this season, but I think he's a better bet to be successful long term.

[WHarris1]

Garcia isn't an old man, but he's starting to throw like one.

Perhaps, but since the first 3 starts when he really was an old man he has been pretty damn effective, no?

[WCSox]

For the record Garland is 26, he turns 27 late September.

 

My mistake. Either way, Garland will have over 1,200 innings of major-league pitching on his arm at the end of this season, so the "he's still inexperienced" argument doesn't fly.

 

I'll say this: If Jon ends this season with an ERA over 5, I'd rather trade him and go with one more productive year of Freddy. I don't think that paying $10 million/year for the 2002-2004 Garland is a smart thing to do, especially with Buehrle's free agency looming. Hopefully Jon will turn it around and this will become a moot point.

Edited May 22, 2006 by WCSox

[Dick Allen]

Here's the thing...it was vitally important that this team get off to a good start this season. We definitely have done that, and that should assure that we're drawing 30k fan for almost all of our home games this season. Even if the Sox don't make the playoffs this year, I think we'll be competitive enough that the fans will come this season, as well as next year. There's already advertisements for the 2007 season ticket waiting list. I'm fairly confident that our payroll will be over 90 million next season.

The problem is the number of full season ticketholders that purchased a full plan for a shot at WS tickets last season. If , for some reason the Sox fall out of contention or don't make the playoffs, a lot of these people are gone IMO. Hopefully the Sox will be more like the Bulls when they don't make the playoffs and still continue to draw. I hope it doesn't turn into Cleveland who sold out 5 1/2 years straight, then go bad and now after a 93 win season, only draw 17,000 in a home game against the world champion division rivals. This year they are fine, but if a lot of those full plans don't renew, Garland and Garcia being off the books after 2007 may be exactly what the White Sox want.

[SSH2005]

Garcia's ERA (3.92) is now back down to his career ERA (3.93) and he has a 7-1 record. He could be a #1 pitcher on some teams and would be a #2 pitcher on most teams. He should definately net us some goodies if the Sox decide to trade him in the offseason and he does make the most sense to trade.

 

If you're on the Cubs, you're still a prospect.

Do you mean "The Untouchable" Rich Hill? The guy that Jim Hendry wouldn't trade for Adam Dunn?

Edited May 22, 2006 by SSH2005

[RockRaines]

My mistake. Either way, Garland will have over 1,200 innings of major-league pitching on his arm at the end of this season, so the "he's still inexperienced" argument doesn't fly.

 

I'll say this: If Jon ends this season with an ERA over 5, I'd rather trade him and go with one more productive year of Freddy. I don't think that paying $10 million/year for the 2002-2004 Garland is a smart thing to do, especially with Buehrle's free agency looming. Hopefully Jon will turn it around and this will become a moot point.

Its obvious you dont make business decisions on a daily basis. You have a young pitcher who has 5+ years of quality baseball left in his arm, and still hasnt hit his prime. And you have a pitcher who is just on the downswing of his prime years, and should enjoy one of his last productive years. Which one do you deal? The one at peak worth, or the one whose peak is still in the future?