It was 2.25

 

Dont insult G Money with that 2.5 non-sense

lol, my mistake. Just throwing out numbers off the top of my head.

Hmm good point, I guess I didn't think of how deep into the season we are. I dunno, I guess I am suffering from the "only one stat matters" viewpoint, and we are 6-4 in Jon starts, which paces us at 18-12 in the first 30 starts from our #5 starter. And with that in mind, Jon can and probably will pitch at least a little better eventually, which could improve that record.

The funny thing is Garland is doing exactly what we were looking for in a 5th starter from 2001-2004. He's hasn't been good, but he hasn't been incompetent either.

 

10 games in with his ERA as poor as it is, you just have to chalk it up to a lost season already. Hope he returns to at least pre-05 form and keeps winning games. Like you said, at this point, you're better off just watching the W-L column than ERA, because ERA is going to take a Cy Young second half for it to get back to the high expectations that some have attached to the high price tag.

His BAA was at .333 a couple of weeks ago, and now, it's down to .322.

 

Hey, it's a step in the right direction.

His BAA was at .333 a couple of weeks ago, and now, it's down to .322.

 

Hey, it's a step in the right direction.

 

Home: 1-0 2.75 ERA

Away: 3-2 7.83 ERA

 

 

I didnt know those numbers.. anyways, what I wanted to say here was the only real problem with Garland is that he has just been gettin hit around, at least hes not walking a ton of guys. I really dont see how he wont be better throughout the season, hopefully he gets his head straight..

 

Best thing is, he could be 7-2 right now but the "Offense" that is carrying him didnt score enough runs those games (He didnt get a loss in any of those either)

Home: 1-0 2.75 ERA

Away: 3-2 7.83 ERA

 

This can be explained. There are three home starts, 2 against Kansas City and 1 against Oakland.

Now on paper, you see that and say "how the f*** is that worth 3 and 29"....but if your 26 and throw 200 innings, while having a slightly below league average or so ERA, it's worth it....especially on a team like this where he is the #5.

 

So, it's OK for the Sox to spend $10 and $12 million over the next two years for a guy whose ERA will likely be in the mid/upper 4's and WHIP will be somewhere around 1.3-1.4? Maybe in the Bronx, where the owner has more money than God, but not in Chicago. The Sox can't afford to overpay for mediocre pitching. KW's going to need to unload some salary in the offseason to supplement the 'pen. Right now, it looks like either Garland or Freddy will be the odd man out.

If it was a contract year fluke, we could just sign him to one year contracts every year.

This can be explained. There are three home starts, 2 against Kansas City and 1 against Oakland.

 

And? Those are still games we need to win

 

Why does everyone care what were paying him anyways, its not like its your money

So, it's OK for the Sox to spend $10 and $12 million over the next two years for a guy whose ERA will likely be in the mid/upper 4's and WHIP will be somewhere around 1.3-1.4? Maybe in the Bronx, where the owner has more money than God, but not in Chicago. The Sox can't afford to overpay for mediocre pitching. KW's going to need to unload some salary in the offseason to supplement the 'pen. Right now, it looks like either Garland or Freddy will be the odd man out.

What is the magical value for a player of his age and those statistics?

And? Those are still games we need to win

 

Why does everyone care what were paying him anyways, its not like its your money

If we pay him too much, it prevents the Sox from signing/trading for other players. His earning 29 million over 3 years might prevent the Sox from getting bullpen help, because the teams payroll is already too high.

If we pay him too much, it prevents the Sox from signing/trading for other players. His earning 29 million over 3 years might prevent the Sox from getting bullpen help, because the teams payroll is already too high.

 

If the payroll was really an issue we wouldnt have been throwing around money to Garland and Contreras like happened.. weve already got the 3rd highest payroll, somehow I am not seeing it as a big deal

What is his career record minus the 8-0 start last season?

 

I believe, including this season, it is 68-63.

 

There is your answer.

If the payroll was really an issue we wouldnt have been throwing around money to Garland and Contreras like happened.. weve already got the 3rd highest payroll, somehow I am not seeing it as a big deal

 

Our payroll is over $20 million higher than last year (~$30 million higher if you don't count the money that we got back in the Contreras and Thome trades). If the Sox go deep into the playoffs again this year, the extra revenue from the postseason (not to mention the people who became season-ticket holders just to get WS tickets) and the associated merchandise sales probably won't be there. The Sox will need to retain their 20,000+ season-ticket-holder base to be able to support a payroll like this over the long run.

Jon Garland is a very good pitcher. There is no question in my mind that he will be our best pitcher for the rest of the season. He's a keeper.

Our payroll is over $20 million higher than last year (~$30 million higher if you don't count the money that we got back in the Contreras and Thome trades). If the Sox go deep into the playoffs again this year, the extra revenue from the postseason (not to mention the people who became season-ticket holders just to get WS tickets) and the associated merchandise sales probably won't be there. The Sox will need to retain their 20,000+ season-ticket-holder base to be able to support a payroll like this over the long run.

Did you write off Contreras off at the beginning of last year?

 

The market for good young starting pitching is alot higher than what we are paying Garland. We secured him for lower than market value, what more do you want?

Did you write off Contreras off at the beginning of last year?

 

The market for good young starting pitching is alot higher than what we are paying Garland. We secured him for lower than market value, what more do you want?

I fail to see how giving an average starter $10 million in 2007 and $12 million in 2008 is lower than market value.

I fail to see how giving an average starter $10 million in 2007 and $12 million in 2008 is lower than market value.

AJ Burnett moved to the 60 day DL from the 15 day DL.

AJ Burnett moved to the 60 day DL from the 15 day DL.

^^^^

 

Kerry Wood anyone?

 

Hold on, call waiting. Jeff Weaver is on the phone. Hello, Jeff, yes. Oh Livan Hernandez is having a BBQ? Who is invited? Oh Pavano is coming, nice is Loaiza bringing the food? Great. Kevin Brown is bringing the beers, he has alot of time and money on his hands these days.

^^^^

 

Kerry Wood anyone?

 

Hold on, call waiting. Jeff Weaver is on the phone. Hello, Jeff, yes. Oh Livan Hernandez is having a BBQ? Who is invited? Oh Pavano is coming, nice is Loaiza bringing the food? Great. Kevin Brown is bringing the beers, he has alot of time and money on his hands these days.

perfection.

AJ Burnett moved to the 60 day DL from the 15 day DL.

Except Burnett is an above average pitcher, he's just injury prone.

 

Kerry Wood anyone?

Again, above average pitcher, just injury prone.

 

Hold on, call waiting. Jeff Weaver is on the phone. Hello, Jeff, yes.

Hold on, Scott Boras is on the phone.

 

Oh Livan Hernandez is having a BBQ?

For the last 3 years, his ERA has been below 4.

 

Oh Pavano is coming

He was signed by the Yankees.. of course his contract will be bloated.

 

nice is Loaiza bringing the food?

Can't defend that one, idiotic contract given out by Beane... a rarity.

 

Kevin Brown is bringing the beers

Again, the Yankees, injury prone, and a VERY good pitcher when fully healthy.

Edited May 30, 200619 yr by Felix

Again, the Yankees, injury prone, and a VERY good pitcher when fully healthy.

The Dodgers signed that contract, the Yankees only traded for him.

The Dodgers signed that contract, the Yankees only traded for him.

My mistake, but that doesn't stop the fact that he is (actually, more like was, but still..) a damn good pitcher when healthy. He's far from being an average starter.

Edited May 30, 200619 yr by Felix

Except Burnett is an above average pitcher, he's just injury prone.

Again, above average pitcher, just injury prone.

 

How can you be considered above average when you know that they aren't going to contribute for a part of almost every season, if not longer. At the end of the day their numbers are going to be comparable to an average pitcher who is around every start.

How can you be considered above average when you know that they aren't going to contribute for a part of almost every season, if not longer. At the end of the day their numbers are going to be comparable to an average pitcher who is around every start.

Well, last year, A.J. Burnett did have 32 starts (doesn't stop him from being injury prone, but it could have been a reason why the contract was so high), and did look pretty damn good in them (3.44 ERA, 117 ERA+).

 

As for Kerry Wood (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not the best at Cubs lore), he was an amazing pitcher, and wasn't really thought to be injury prone until he blew out his shoulder. By then, his contract was already signed, and he had already had his amazing MLB debut.

Well, last year, A.J. Burnett did have 32 starts (doesn't stop him from being injury prone, but it could have been a reason why the contract was so high), and did look pretty damn good in them (3.44 ERA, 117 ERA+).

 

As for Kerry Wood (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not the best at Cubs lore), he was an amazing pitcher, and wasn't really thought to be injury prone until he blew out his shoulder. By then, his contract was already signed, and he had already had his amazing MLB debut.

So we are now evaluating pitchers based on one year? I would take Garland of last year over both of those "above average but injury prone pitchers."

 

Your Garland hate makes you look foolish when trying to defend these other jokers.

 

Garland is ALOT like Brad Radke, especially through this point in his career. Radke has been paid 9, 10.75, 8.75, 8.75, 7.75 million over his last 5 years. Is Garland, at a younger age and with today's ridiculous contracts for SP worth as much? I believe so.

Edited May 30, 200619 yr by RockRaines