Levine: Garland reups for 3 yrs, 29 mill.

[The Voice of Reason]

Just broke on ESPN Radio.

 

$7M in 2006

$10M in 2007

$12M in 2008

 

With Contreras, Buerhle, Vazquez, Garland, Garcia and McCarthy, it gives KW the flexibility to shop one for a bat. My guess: Garcia.

 

 

The Sox are way over budget and must trade one of their pitchers without assuming a large contract (e.g, Tejada). If Hendry was smart (the jury is still out), he would trade enough prospects (ex-Hill) to the Sox to get Garcia or Vazquez or Garland and then flip him with Hill and Patterson to the Orioles for Tejada. Assuming the O's bite, that way the Cubs could get their man without giving up Prior.

 

If it made the Sox better, KW would cooperate with the Cubs and would love to rub it in their faces if one of the propects paid dividends later.

[RynoRules]

Just broke on ESPN Radio.

 

$7M in 2006

$10M in 2007

$12M in 2008

 

With Contreras, Buerhle, Vazquez, Garland, Garcia and McCarthy, it gives KW the flexibility to shop one for a bat. My guess: Garcia.

 

 

The Sox are way over budget and must trade one of their pitchers without assuming a large contract (e.g, Tejada). If Hendry was smart (the jury is still out), he would trade enough prospects (ex-Hill) to the Sox to get Garcia or Vazquez or Garland and then flip him with Hill and Patterson to the Orioles for Tejada. Assuming the O's bite, that way the Cubs could get their man without giving up Prior.

 

If it made the Sox better, KW would cooperate with the Cubs and would love to rub it in their faces if one of the propects paid dividends later.

 

That is an interesting idea.

[Lefty]

I think we underestimate how much extra revenue the White Sox got from the six post-season games.

[The Voice of Reason]

I think we underestimate how much extra revenue the White Sox got from the six post-season games.

 

 

According to the Sox beat writer (name?) at the Daily Herald while interviewed on the Score after the Vazquez deal (and before the Garland deal), the Sox were at $95 million with a budget of $90 million. At the time, he predicted the Sox would trade Garland and that the Sox couldn't afford Tejada.

[bc2k]

I wouldn't want Garland at that contract.

 

Me either. And I've been perhaps his strongest supporter as far as Garland turning the corner.

 

Then you're nuts. Look at what the AJ Burnetts and Kevin Millwoods of the world are getting. It's a below market value contract, especially given that it is only a three year deal.

 

average $10m a year is not below market for a mid-tier pitcher who hasn't even hit free agency.

 

 

Garland was one year away from free agency and would have earned ~7 million had he gone to arbitration. Hoops's post says Garland's contract gives him $7 in 2006, so there's no difference in 2006 salary in this deal. Garland's 2007 and 2008 salary averages $11 per year. I think that is below market value for Jon Garland.

 

Garland's averaged over 205 IP over the past 4 years (not including playoffs and World Series), is only 26-years-old, and had a 3.50 era in the AL last year.

 

It's a safe signing when you consider that Kenny Williams didn't have to give him a 4- or 5-year deal, and JG's floor is a .500 pitcher with 200 IP. His 2005 season doesn't appear to be a fluke considering his age and projection.

Edited December 28, 2005 by bc2k

[da bears]

Does this means McCarthy or Contreras is out the door? Could a Tedaja deal be in the works?

 

Man I just don't understand why the Orioles would want Contreras. They are much more than just Contreras away from competing. If I was the White Sox, however, I'd do that deal in a second.

[cubweiser03]

I wouldn't want Garland at that contract.

 

Me either. And I've been perhaps his strongest supporter as far as Garland turning the corner.

 

Then you're nuts. Look at what the AJ Burnetts and Kevin Millwoods of the world are getting. It's a below market value contract, especially given that it is only a three year deal.

 

average $10m a year is not below market for a mid-tier pitcher who hasn't even hit free agency.

 

 

Garland was one year away from free agency and would have earned ~7 million had he gone to arbitration. Hoops's post says Garland's contract gives him $7 in 2006, so there's no difference in 2006 salary. Garland's 2007 and 2008 salary averages $11 per year. I think that is below market value for Jon Garland.

 

Garland's averaged over 205 IP over the past 4 years (not including playoffs and World Series), is only 26-years-old, and had a 3.50 era in the AL last year.

 

It's a safe signing when you consider that Kenny Williams didn't have to give him a 4- or 5-year deal, and JG's floor is a .500 pitcher with 200 IP. His 2005 season doesn't appear to be a fluke considering his age and projection.

 

Garland year 3 is too much. I would compare Garland to a Washburn. Washburn just got a 4 year $36M. His career ERA is 3.15. John's best year was last year and his ERA was 3.50. 1st year is good, 2 and 3 are reaches.

 

So what does Zambrano ask for the year before free agency. OY!

[goonys evil twin]

It's a safe signing when you consider that Kenny Williams didn't have to give him a 4- or 5-year deal, and JG's floor is a .500 pitcher with 200 IP. His 2005 season doesn't appear to be a fluke considering his age and projection.

 

No pitcher has a floor of 200 IP. I'd say his floor is a 4.50 ERA, 4.6 k/9, 1.5 k/bb, 760 OPS against. No telling what that will mean in terms of record, since that is team dependent. The only things Garland did differently in 2005 was walk fewer people and give up a few less HR. He really doesn't have much of a shot of being an elite pitcher. He should be a pretty decent pitcher, but any small slip and he's back to being highly mediocre.

[bc2k]

Just broke on ESPN Radio.

 

$7M in 2006

$10M in 2007

$12M in 2008

 

With Contreras, Buerhle, Vazquez, Garland, Garcia and McCarthy, it gives KW the flexibility to shop one for a bat. My guess: Garcia.

 

 

The Sox are way over budget and must trade one of their pitchers without assuming a large contract (e.g, Tejada). If Hendry was smart (the jury is still out), he would trade enough prospects (ex-Hill) to the Sox to get Garcia or Vazquez or Garland and then flip him with Hill and Patterson to the Orioles for Tejada. Assuming the O's bite, that way the Cubs could get their man without giving up Prior.

 

If it made the Sox better, KW would cooperate with the Cubs and would love to rub it in their faces if one of the propects paid dividends later.

 

I can see that happening. Hendry should offer CPatt (to compete with the Sox's rookie CF), Ohman (because the Sox need left-handed bullpen help) and a prospect like Hill for Freddy Garcia or Garland.

[bc2k]

I wouldn't want Garland at that contract.

 

Me either. And I've been perhaps his strongest supporter as far as Garland turning the corner.

 

Then you're nuts. Look at what the AJ Burnetts and Kevin Millwoods of the world are getting. It's a below market value contract, especially given that it is only a three year deal.

 

average $10m a year is not below market for a mid-tier pitcher who hasn't even hit free agency.

 

 

Garland was one year away from free agency and would have earned ~7 million had he gone to arbitration. Hoops's post says Garland's contract gives him $7 in 2006, so there's no difference in 2006 salary. Garland's 2007 and 2008 salary averages $11 per year. I think that is below market value for Jon Garland.

 

Garland's averaged over 205 IP over the past 4 years (not including playoffs and World Series), is only 26-years-old, and had a 3.50 era in the AL last year.

 

It's a safe signing when you consider that Kenny Williams didn't have to give him a 4- or 5-year deal, and JG's floor is a .500 pitcher with 200 IP. His 2005 season doesn't appear to be a fluke considering his age and projection.

 

Garland year 3 is too much. I would compare Garland to a Washburn. Washburn just got a 4 year $36M. His career ERA is 3.15. John's best year was last year and his ERA was 3.50. 1st year is good, 2 and 3 are reaches.

 

So what does Zambrano ask for the year before free agency. OY!

 

Washburn's career era is 3.93, not 3.15, according to baseballreference.com

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/washbja01.shtml

[VVMattVV]

Just broke on ESPN Radio.

 

$7M in 2006

$10M in 2007

$12M in 2008

 

With Contreras, Buerhle, Vazquez, Garland, Garcia and McCarthy, it gives KW the flexibility to shop one for a bat. My guess: Garcia.

 

 

The Sox are way over budget and must trade one of their pitchers without assuming a large contract (e.g, Tejada). If Hendry was smart (the jury is still out), he would trade enough prospects (ex-Hill) to the Sox to get Garcia or Vazquez or Garland and then flip him with Hill and Patterson to the Orioles for Tejada. Assuming the O's bite, that way the Cubs could get their man without giving up Prior.

 

If it made the Sox better, KW would cooperate with the Cubs and would love to rub it in their faces if one of the propects paid dividends later.

 

I can see that happening. Hendry should offer CPatt (to compete with the Sox's rookie CF), Ohman (because the Sox need left-handed bullpen help) and a prospect like Hill for Freddy Garcia or Garland.

 

CPatt, Ohman, and Hill for Garcia/Garland is overpaying. I think we could get a lot more than that if we were going to trade those three. Bruce Miles told us that Hill wouldn't be traded for Dunn straight up, thats how much Hendry values him.

[LeftCoastCubFan]

I wouldn't want Garland at that contract.

 

Me either. And I've been perhaps his strongest supporter as far as Garland turning the corner.

 

Then you're nuts. Look at what the AJ Burnetts and Kevin Millwoods of the world are getting. It's a below market value contract, especially given that it is only a three year deal.

 

average $10m a year is not below market for a mid-tier pitcher who hasn't even hit free agency.

 

 

Garland was one year away from free agency and would have earned ~7 million had he gone to arbitration. Hoops's post says Garland's contract gives him $7 in 2006, so there's no difference in 2006 salary. Garland's 2007 and 2008 salary averages $11 per year. I think that is below market value for Jon Garland.

 

Garland's averaged over 205 IP over the past 4 years (not including playoffs and World Series), is only 26-years-old, and had a 3.50 era in the AL last year.

 

It's a safe signing when you consider that Kenny Williams didn't have to give him a 4- or 5-year deal, and JG's floor is a .500 pitcher with 200 IP. His 2005 season doesn't appear to be a fluke considering his age and projection.

 

Garland year 3 is too much. I would compare Garland to a Washburn. Washburn just got a 4 year $36M. His career ERA is 3.15. John's best year was last year and his ERA was 3.50. 1st year is good, 2 and 3 are reaches.

 

So what does Zambrano ask for the year before free agency. OY!

Do you realize that Jon piched most of the year at age 25? There is plenty of upside to him.

 

I think Garland was just using common sense in accepting the deal. A good year in 2006 and he could command a Millwood-esque deal in Souther California near home. But if he regressed or is injured he would be leaving 20 mil on the table. So he grabbed the security and will be a free agen again at 29. Sounds like a smart, not greedy decision.

[bc2k]

Just broke on ESPN Radio.

 

$7M in 2006

$10M in 2007

$12M in 2008

 

With Contreras, Buerhle, Vazquez, Garland, Garcia and McCarthy, it gives KW the flexibility to shop one for a bat. My guess: Garcia.

 

 

The Sox are way over budget and must trade one of their pitchers without assuming a large contract (e.g, Tejada). If Hendry was smart (the jury is still out), he would trade enough prospects (ex-Hill) to the Sox to get Garcia or Vazquez or Garland and then flip him with Hill and Patterson to the Orioles for Tejada. Assuming the O's bite, that way the Cubs could get their man without giving up Prior.

 

If it made the Sox better, KW would cooperate with the Cubs and would love to rub it in their faces if one of the propects paid dividends later.

 

I can see that happening. Hendry should offer CPatt (to compete with the Sox's rookie CF), Ohman (because the Sox need left-handed bullpen help) and a prospect like Hill for Freddy Garcia or Garland.

 

CPatt, Ohman, and Hill for Garcia/Garland is overpaying. I think we could get a lot more than that if we were going to trade those three. Bruce Miles told us that Hill wouldn't be traded for Dunn straight up, thats how much Hendry values him.

 

Perhaps it's overpaying, but I still like the trade. As much as I like what I saw from Hill last season, he is unproven and needs another pitch. Garcia and Garland are proven, and we need another SP. CPatt doesn't have a starting position here because of the signings of Pierre and Jones, so he's expendable. Ohman will be missed, and Hill could turn into a solid pitcher, but I like the rotation of:

 

Z

Prior

Garcia/Garland

Williams

Maddux

 

with Wood taking Williams's or Maddux's spot once 100% healthy.

[JC]

In a related story, Matt Karcher recently signed a new three year contract with Sprint for wireless service using some of the money he stole from the Cubs. Edited December 28, 2005 by JC

[LeftCoastCubFan]

In a related story, Matt Karcher recently signed a new three year contract with Sprint for wireless service usage some of the money he stole from the Cubs.

:)

[goonys evil twin]

Do you realize that Jon piched most of the year at age 25? There is plenty of upside to him.

 

I think Garland was just using common sense in accepting the deal. A good year in 2006 and he could command a Millwood-esque deal in Souther California near home. But if he regressed or is injured he would be leaving 20 mil on the table. So he grabbed the security and will be a free agen again at 29. Sounds like a smart, not greedy decision.

 

I think he's got some upside. But he's been remarkably consistent in his less than spectaculiar performances in his career. He was the same in 2005 accept for reduced walks and a few less HR. I don't really see any part of his game that is likely to get better. If he started striking out 7 or 8 per 9 IP, he could become excellent.

 

I think this signing was very smart by him. He gets his first big guaranteed contract that sets him up for life, and is young enough to sign another one later on. But for the Sox, I might have waited to see what 2006 brings. If he reverts to the same pitcher he's been his whole career, I wouldn't want him for 2/22. It's not a terrible signing by them, assuming an increased payroll. It's relatively short in duration, and he should at least be decent next season. If I was the White Sox, I wouldn't hesitate to deal Garland this offseason.

[rawaction]

1. it's not a good idea to call a mod, "nuts". Consider this a warning.

 

2. Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean it should be done. What Burnett, Morris and others got is irrelavant, because I wouldn't have given them those deals either. It's not a good idea to give anyone with 1 good year, that much money. Like I said, I have been one of Garland's strongest supporters, but he was bad until last year. He's gonna be decent for a while, but he doesn't have the peripheral stats to be a guy that consistently posts a 3.50 ERA. He'll probably be anywhere between there and 4 during his peak, which should be starting now. That's solid, but I wouldn't give him that type of contract.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

2. Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean it should be done. What Burnett, Morris and others got is irrelavant, because I wouldn't have given them those deals either. It's not a good idea to give anyone with 1 good year, that much money. Like I said, I have been one of Garland's strongest supporters, but he was bad until last year. He's gonna be decent for a while, but he doesn't have the peripheral stats to be a guy that consistently posts a 3.50 ERA. He'll probably be anywhere between there and 4 during his peak, which should be starting now. That's solid, but I wouldn't give him that type of contract.

 

I can understand you not liking the deal however what Burrnett and Morris got are relavant because those deals set the market. If every deal is "overpaying" when do you stop considering it overpaying? In context of the other deals handed out this offseason I don't think this is an unreasonable deal.

[brfahey]

1. it's not a good idea to call a mod, "nuts". Consider this a warning.

 

2. Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean it should be done. What Burnett, Morris and others got is irrelavant, because I wouldn't have given them those deals either. It's not a good idea to give anyone with 1 good year, that much money. Like I said, I have been one of Garland's strongest supporters, but he was bad until last year. He's gonna be decent for a while, but he doesn't have the peripheral stats to be a guy that consistently posts a 3.50 ERA. He'll probably be anywhere between there and 4 during his peak, which should be starting now. That's solid, but I wouldn't give him that type of contract.

 

This is a serious question. Is it a warning only when a mod is called nuts or when any poster is called nuts?

[goonys evil twin]

I can understand you not liking the deal however what Burrnett and Morris got are relavant because those deals set the market. If every deal is "overpaying" when do you stop considering it overpaying? In context of the other deals handed out this offseason I don't think this is an unreasonable deal.

 

Welcome to NASDAQ circa January 2000.

 

The difference is those guys were free agents, and have better resumes than Garland. Prior to 2005, nobody would have thought Garland had a chance for 3/30. When value spikes that quickly I'd be concerned. Matt Mo's 3/27 mirrors all the 3/27m deals signed by that mediocre crop of last year. While Burnett's $11m per year is in line with what a lot of top arms get, even if he isn't really a top pitcher.

[rawaction]

1. it's not a good idea to call a mod, "nuts". Consider this a warning.

 

2. Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean it should be done. What Burnett, Morris and others got is irrelavant, because I wouldn't have given them those deals either. It's not a good idea to give anyone with 1 good year, that much money. Like I said, I have been one of Garland's strongest supporters, but he was bad until last year. He's gonna be decent for a while, but he doesn't have the peripheral stats to be a guy that consistently posts a 3.50 ERA. He'll probably be anywhere between there and 4 during his peak, which should be starting now. That's solid, but I wouldn't give him that type of contract.

 

This is a serious question. Is it a warning only when a mod is called nuts or when any poster is called nuts?

 

When anyone is called nuts. But I have banning power! :w00t: :assault:

[brfahey]

1. it's not a good idea to call a mod, "nuts". Consider this a warning.

 

2. Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean it should be done. What Burnett, Morris and others got is irrelavant, because I wouldn't have given them those deals either. It's not a good idea to give anyone with 1 good year, that much money. Like I said, I have been one of Garland's strongest supporters, but he was bad until last year. He's gonna be decent for a while, but he doesn't have the peripheral stats to be a guy that consistently posts a 3.50 ERA. He'll probably be anywhere between there and 4 during his peak, which should be starting now. That's solid, but I wouldn't give him that type of contract.

 

This is a serious question. Is it a warning only when a mod is called nuts or when any poster is called nuts?

 

When anyone is called nuts. But I have banning power! :w00t: :assault:

 

So are you serious or what?

[goonys evil twin]

1. it's not a good idea to call a mod, "nuts". Consider this a warning.

 

2. Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean it should be done. What Burnett, Morris and others got is irrelavant, because I wouldn't have given them those deals either. It's not a good idea to give anyone with 1 good year, that much money. Like I said, I have been one of Garland's strongest supporters, but he was bad until last year. He's gonna be decent for a while, but he doesn't have the peripheral stats to be a guy that consistently posts a 3.50 ERA. He'll probably be anywhere between there and 4 during his peak, which should be starting now. That's solid, but I wouldn't give him that type of contract.

 

This is a serious question. Is it a warning only when a mod is called nuts or when any poster is called nuts?

 

You can only call Jeff Reardon nuts.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

1. it's not a good idea to call a mod, "nuts". Consider this a warning.

 

2. Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean it should be done. What Burnett, Morris and others got is irrelavant, because I wouldn't have given them those deals either. It's not a good idea to give anyone with 1 good year, that much money. Like I said, I have been one of Garland's strongest supporters, but he was bad until last year. He's gonna be decent for a while, but he doesn't have the peripheral stats to be a guy that consistently posts a 3.50 ERA. He'll probably be anywhere between there and 4 during his peak, which should be starting now. That's solid, but I wouldn't give him that type of contract.

 

This is a serious question. Is it a warning only when a mod is called nuts or when any poster is called nuts?

 

You can only call Jeff Reardon nuts.

 

I had to re-read that -- I thought this thread got a little to perverted for my liking...

[SAMMYWHO]

Or Milton Bradley