If we go by this 33% paycut theory, Garland would be at $8 million next season, Orlando Cabrera at $6,666.667 and Bobby Abreu at $10.7 million. We'll have to wait and see how close that is.

 

Besides Garland, would anyone take either Cabrera or Abreu at those salaries for 2009?

If we go by this 33% paycut theory, Garland would be at $8 million next season, Orlando Cabrera at $6,666.667 and Bobby Abreu at $10.7 million. We'll have to wait and see how close that is.

 

Besides Garland, would anyone take either Cabrera or Abreu at those salaries for 2009?

 

Sounds like bargain deals, but it's hard to say, no one really knows what kind of budget we have. I believe KW said we're at the upper limits, despite our cost cutting moves.

I would like to see Garland come back.

Sooo, I noticed that no one brought up the possible showdown over jersey #20 between Carlos and Jon. CQ seems like the most serious man on earth and Jon is a pretty passive guy. I wonder how the conversation about Jon getting his number back would go? I could totally see Carlos pulling any number of MK II fatalies. This one most closely resembles what I see happening:

 

 

Edited December 19, 200817 yr by IamtheHBOMB

My god, some people can't be pleased unless the names we bring up are minor leaguers who have never pitched an inning but have potential.

Baseball is full of mediocre pitchers. I'd like to bring in a mediocre VETERAN pitcher like Garland.

 

Garland is an inning eater. Yes he gets rocked sometimes. So does everybody in baseball. Wasn't Sabathia sucking just two seasons ago?

Didn't Cliff Lee suck 2 or 3 seasons ago? He had a bad year in there.

 

We need an inning eater with the potential of throwing 8 innings once in a blue moon.

 

Garland is good enough. Bring him back.

 

 

Or just sign a bunch of young guys we've never heard of and let them each pitch 3 innings

per outing. Because second time through the order young pitchers GET ROCKED.

Edited December 19, 200817 yr by greg775

Sooo, I noticed that no one brought up the possible showdown over jersey #20 between Carlos and Jon. CQ seems like the most serious man on earth and Jon is a pretty passive guy. I wonder how the conversation about Jon getting his number back would go? I could totally see Carlos pulling any number of MK II fatalies. This one most closely resembles what I see happening:

 

 

 

I was actually thinking the same thing earlier...

Garland could get his old number back.

 

52

No to JG. I was never a fan of his!

Well, if the numbers are around $8 million, I'm okay with it.

 

If you get anywhere close to or north of $10 million, not so much.

 

We do have a huge weakness in our system in terms of pitching prospects above Winston-Salem. Ely might be the best of the bunch, but most don't project him as anything more than a 4/5 type as well. If we had Daniel Cortes, it might be another story. Poreda's really the only one with the ability to be a 3 starter or above. So, signing a FA does make sense, Garland wouldn't cost us a high draft pick like signing Juan Cruz or Brandon Lyon would at least.

 

The best option is probably to package the best of the position prospects that KW doesn't view as future starters (maybe Fields, maybe Richard, Poreda if he will be in the pen and that's agreed upon as his only plausible role, Flowers, Brandon Allen, Shelby, Lillibridge or Getz, Anderson/Owens) and we package 2-3 of these guys together for a legit starter that has 1-3 level ability. The young prospects would be able to compile enough of a package to get almost anyone but the Top 5-10 starters in MLB. The problem is that we have to find someone in years 2-5, not someone making Jake Peavy money.

Edited December 19, 200817 yr by caulfield12

Pass. Jon will always have a special place in my little White Sox heart. But I'd rather give the young guys a chance. If we're going to upgrade the rotation, let it be a legitimate upgrade.

fwiw, Mark Buehrle is not an ace

I have no interest whatsoever in Jon Garland. With his shoulder issues, his season last year, and a continuing decline in his stirkeout ability, he deserves a one year deal around six million. Anything more than that, and we'd be crazy.

 

It's obvious we don't have a great deal of money right now, and Garland at his price would be a detriment.

I have no interest whatsoever in Jon Garland. With his shoulder issues, his season last year, and a continuing decline in his stirkeout ability, he deserves a one year deal around six million. Anything more than that, and we'd be crazy.

 

It's obvious we don't have a great deal of money right now, and Garland at his price would be a detriment.

 

You can't decline in something you've never excelled in.

Garland could get his old number back.

 

52

Man, you've been trying to get rid of Contreras for 3 years. Have you finally found a plan?

No No No...Garland is on the decline and has no place on this team. I'd rather see what Marquez/Richard/Poreda could do. Garland thanks for the memories in 2005!

No No No...Garland is on the decline and has no place on this team. I'd rather see what Marquez/Richard/Poreda could do. Garland thanks for the memories in 2005!

What? We're currently with only 3 proven starters on the ML level, one of which, Floyd, very well could regress. I'm all for a little battle for the #5 spot, but a team that has ANY aspirations of repeating as AL Central Champs sure as hell had better have another major league arm ready.

fwiw, Mark Buehrle is not an ace

Johnny Danks is though.

fwiw, Mark Buehrle is not an ace

Nor is Garland, but yes, Danks'll be our #1 starter in two to three years.

If we're over budget with the team as currently constructed, then we really can't afford to add a guy who ought to be solid and suck up innings in the FA market unless they are really cheap for some reason.

 

If someone offers Garland a fair contract, fact is we'd be priced out of that market.

Nor is Garland, but yes, Danks'll be our #1 starter in two to three years.

nah. he will develop into our Ace in 2009. As triple h would say 'he is that damn goodd'

nah. he will develop into our Ace in 2009. As triple h would say 'he is that damn goodd'

He was our Ace in 2008 anyway.

If we're over budget with the team as currently constructed, then we really can't afford to add a guy who ought to be solid and suck up innings in the FA market unless they are really cheap for some reason.

 

If someone offers Garland a fair contract, fact is we'd be priced out of that market.

It didn't take us all long to buy into the over-budget talks.

 

Sure, season ticket prices keep going up and attendance has been through the roof, the White Sox have every reason to scale back. This is Reinsdorf at his best/worst.

What? We're currently with only 3 proven starters on the ML level, one of which, Floyd, very well could regress. I'm all for a little battle for the #5 spot, but a team that has ANY aspirations of repeating as AL Central Champs sure as hell had better have another major league arm ready.

 

Jon Garland SUCKED last year. He wasn't just bad. He was terrible. And he's pretty much regressed every season since his career 2005. But he's "proven" because he's been in the league a number of years? I guess scrubs like Jason Marquis are proven because they've been in the league 6-7 years. Some of you guys are going to have to get over this chronic fear of giving young guys a shot. You don't throw money at garbage just because "Well, at least he's been around a while. And he can eat some innings. Anything is better than giving a scrub like Marquez, a guy I've never seen before, a shot."

Jon Garland SUCKED last year. He wasn't just bad. He was terrible. And he's pretty much regressed every season since his career 2005. But he's "proven" because he's been in the league a number of years? I guess scrubs like Jason Marquis are proven because they've been in the league 6-7 years. Some of you guys are going to have to get over this chronic fear of giving young guys a shot. You don't throw money at garbage just because "Well, at least he's been around a while. And he can eat some innings. Anything is better than giving a scrub like Marquez, a guy I've never seen before, a shot."

The problem with you theory there is that the young guys arent used to pitching over 200 innings which means that our pen and the rest of our staff would be more taxed thus really hurting our rotation and the team as a whole. There is alot of value in a player like Garland that can help the younger guys (Danks, Floyd, 5th starter) keep their innings reasonable and also keep our pen which is somewhat injury prone, from being over worked. You cannot just inject young guys into a rotation because you want to see if they work, there are many other factors to consider.

The problem with you theory there is that the young guys arent used to pitching over 200 innings which means that our pen and the rest of our staff would be more taxed thus really hurting our rotation and the team as a whole. There is alot of value in a player like Garland that can help the younger guys (Danks, Floyd, 5th starter) keep their innings reasonable and also keep our pen which is somewhat injury prone, from being over worked. You cannot just inject young guys into a rotation because you want to see if they work, there are many other factors to consider.

That.