Levine: Garland reups for 3 yrs, 29 mill.

[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:

 

So are you serious or what?

 

I am serious. Nobody is to be called names. But I was joking about the last part.

[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?

 

I am serious. Nobody is to be called names. But I was joking about the last part.

 

That's fine. Just wanted to know if there were two sets of rules.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

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.

 

Is the market surging after a few years of a bear market? Sure. However the real question is when do you expect another market crash? If you think it's next year fine. However, if you think it's in 5 years well then you have a problem.

 

edit - what makes burrentt's deal just as nuts because he can't be insured for more than 3 years.

[brinoch]

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?

 

I am serious. Nobody is to be called names. But I was joking about the last part.

 

That's fine. Just wanted to know if there were two sets of rules.

 

There aren't. There's one set of rules for everyone -- and there always has been. Attack the post, not the poster. In this situation, it's just a particularly bad idea to call a mod nuts for one obvious reason: they are much more likely to see that post than a similar one elsewhere. Like everyone else, the mods have jobs and lives. We can't be in every thread in every forum all the time, so we rely on the rest of the board's help to alert us to potential problems. If you see such a problem, PM a mod to get their attention and the situation will be dealt with quickly. Generally speaking, we'll see the post eventually and the situation will be dealt with, but it might be a couple of hours or much later in the day.

 

If you see a questionable post, let a mod know!

[CardsFanInChiTown]

If you see a questionable post, let a mod know!

 

How about this for a questionable post...

 

"Dusty Baker is a skilled field tactician!"

 

:lol:

[Ding Dong Johnson]

If you see a questionable post, let a mod know!

 

How about this for a questionable post...

 

"Dusty Baker is a skilled field tactician!"

 

:lol:

 

Is it OK to call Cards fans nuts when they say things like this? :lol:

[cubweiser03]

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.

 

No. I was born yesterday so thanks for being so smart by pointing that out. I know how old he is and his perceived updside (and yes i think hes a good pitcher) but it doesnt change my opinion on the sox #s for the 2 and 3rd year. It aint greedy if they will give it you.

[Jon]

Just glancing over his stats, one of the only things he did differently last year was he cut his walks by nearly 40%. Hits and HRs were right around his career average as a starter, although SLG% and fly balls were a bit down, as well. His .270 BABIP in 2005 was also right around his career average, so I guess it just comes down to turning a lot more of his walks into outs on balls in play. No idea what the odds are of him being able to repeat his control, but my current impression of the contract is that it's kinda down the middle for KW. I wouldn't call it a good extension, but not a bad one, either.

 

By the way, how many years until Beuhrle is a free agent and signs with the Cardinals?

[CardsFanInChiTown]

By the way, how many years until Beuhrle is a free agent and signs with the Cardinals?

 

The Sox have a option $9.5 million in 07. All true Cards fans have that one memorized. :D