Egg Nog Hangover

by The Cheat on Dec 23, 2005 11:45 AM CST in White Sox News

For now, the Orioles' talks with the Cubs are more advanced than with anyone else, though sources on both sides said nothing was imminent last night. There has been talk, as there is wont to be in these matters, of various three- or four-team scenarios, the most ambitious rumor one in which the Orioles would wind up with Ramírez and White Sox pitcher Jon Garland, the Cubs would get Tejada, the White Sox would get Bedard, and the Red Sox would receive Prior. That sounds like it belongs in the ho, ho, ho category, however.

There is some truth to the Garland for Bedard rumors, but I can't see a four-way deal that involved both Sox, the Cubs and included four All-Stars.

[Baltimore Sun]

The Orioles are interested in White Sox right-hander Jon Garland, who is a free agent after this season, and had some talks with Chicago last week in a deal that didn't include Tejada, according to industry sources. However, the White Sox wanted Bedard, instead of pitching prospects in the deal, and the Orioles balked.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Bedard...

I don't want any deal involving Garland that nets us nothing but Bedard. Bedard is okay, but is not the most we can get for Garland right now.

AIM: BrentBrookhouse

by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 23, 2005 12:11 PM CST reply actions

best we can get?

My instinct is to agree wholeheartedly, but judging by a lot of the comments I have seen on this blog, all we can expect for an 18 game winner are prospects who may or may not help us in the future. A hell of a way to try to win a championship. Having watched Bedard really stuff us down the toilet last year, at least he is someone I know will be in the majors. I think it is unbelievable how everyone's expectations as to what we can get for Garland are so low.

by Lprof on Dec 23, 2005 1:42 PM CST up reply actions

Sounds like

teams are kicking some tires and the sox are asking for the highest possible return.

by cfisk72 on Dec 23, 2005 12:58 PM CST reply actions

I would want more then just Bedard.

Bedard is good, but he is not proven, i would rather get Bedard and some bullpen help along with maybe some cash. Of course i still water over the Tejada deal.

AIM: JoeCoolMan24 www.2ksports.com/forums Thats where i spend most of my day

by JoeCoolMan24 on Dec 23, 2005 1:31 PM CST reply actions

A tag day for Reinsdorf?

screw the cash; we are giving up an $8 million salary in Garland, and ticket sales for next year are, I gather, really strong. If they really want to compete with the Cubs in this town, the only way to do it is to win again--at least a pennant. I am appalled by this talk about "the Sox can't afford it," etc. If you can't get something back for Garland who can help us win this year, then keep him, and worry about it after next year's parade.

by Lprof on Dec 23, 2005 1:45 PM CST up reply actions

i agree...

I've been reading all these comments about trading Garland, and I have to say, you seem to be the one making the most sense. I can't see trading Garland for either prospects or middle of the road bullpen help. I understand the logic behind trading Garland, but I don't understand trading him for prospects when you're trying to win now. If he's going to be traded, it needs to be for a player or players who will make an impact this year.

by brianekst on Dec 23, 2005 1:54 PM CST up reply actions

I disagree

Kenny's job is to build a team that will contend now AND in the future. He has traded away much of our minor league talent and rightfully so given the return he has gotten. He presently has a surplus of starting pitching. So he should trade some of that to make us better now and in the future. Ironically, if we followed your advice of not trading for minor league talent we would never have gotten Garland in the first place. I don't think trading Garland will weaken us because I think that McCarthy would out-perform Garland next year if given the chance to start. The only real benefit to holding onto garland would be allowing McCarthy to be insurance in case one of the starters gets injured.

If he can acquire premeir talent then he should do so. But I would insist on prospects that are in the top 20 in all of baseball. I would actually prefer IF prospects to pitching prospects. Someone like Howie Kendrick or Joel Guzman. Guys that are as close to sure things as you can get and are at positions of future weakness. Now if you can't get that kind of return then you hold onto Garland.

by bhoov on Dec 23, 2005 2:56 PM CST up reply actions

get it right....

If we followed my advice we never would have gotten Garland? I never once said we shouldn't trade for minor league talent. I said we shouldn't trade Jon Garland for minor league talent. I would trade a bum middle reliever such as Matt Karchner 100 times out of 100 to get a top pitching prospect like Garland was.

by brianekst on Dec 23, 2005 4:21 PM CST up reply actions

That's why they got Vasquez though

If you look at the Vasquez trade in conjunction with a potential Garland trade, the Sox have already picked up players that will help them repeat in '06, with or without JG. But if they're stuck after the '06 victory parade with nothing in return for Garland's departure, then they sacrifice '07. They can't get into the free agent merry-go-round the way the Yankees can, so the farm system is crucial to maintain. You are correct though that at least one of the players in return for JG needs to already be a big-leaguer. What are the odds the Dodgers are willing to part with Duaner Sanchez on top of the aforementioned prospects?

Turning the Chicago Baseball Tide - One Championship at a Time

by WestSideSoxFan on Dec 23, 2005 2:41 PM CST reply actions

major fallacy

This idea that if we don't trade Garland we are giving him up for nothing is a major fallacy that ignores the realities of modern day free agency. We are NOT getting "nothing back" for Garland; we are getting back $8 million to put into the free agent market or to pay a player acquired in trade from a team dumping salaray. Anyway, would you rather get something back for him, or have the victory parade in 06? Who knows if it would come down to that, but it might.The way I see it, if the Sox won every championship for the rest of my life, it wouldn't make up for the crap I have endured for all these years. At least let's take our best shot at winning one more. Vasquez is a good pick up for a back of the rotation guy, but Garland was a number 1-2-3;Vasquez as a replacement for that is going backwards.

by Lprof on Dec 23, 2005 4:23 PM CST up reply actions

If you wanna cite fallacies

quit linking Garland's presence to a 2006 World Series title.

These two are not mutually exclusive. Only one team in the history of baseball has won a title with Garland. His presence does not ensure another title. Nobody's presence does. This is a bigger fallacy than anyone you've argued with has presented, and yet you keep beating it into the ground.

We can win another World Series with Garland. And just as likely we can win one without him. You need to acknowledge that while we may be the favorites (at least according to some of the talking heads on ESPN) right now, the favorite for the World Series hasn't won since 2000. We are much more likely to not win the '06 series than we are to repeat.

Saying Garland is a clear 1-2-3, but Vazquez is a back of the rotation pitcher is just funny, and demeans the rest of your argument.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Dec 23, 2005 5:07 PM CST up reply actions

In addition,

they get a sandwich pick between the first and second rounds if Garland walks after next year. Wouldn't this help to replenish the farm system?

by brianekst on Dec 23, 2005 6:35 PM CST up reply actions

Also on Bedard...

he's a sub-.500 pitcher after enough starts to make that number significant, so even though he has big-league experience, I consider him a worse option than a top prospect. Sorry, need more than that for JG.

Turning the Chicago Baseball Tide - One Championship at a Time

by WestSideSoxFan on Dec 23, 2005 2:45 PM CST reply actions

Bedard < prospect due to W/L %? Please.

Let's not use wins and losses as our main evaluation tool of pitcher's abilities. Try using a combination of ERA+, K:BB, and WHIP instead. Look at Randy Johnson's '04 stats and tell me with a straight face that they are indicative of a pitcher who should be two games over .500 for the season.

Bedard's ability to stay healthy worries me, but I wouldn't mind a package of him and a prospect for Garland at all. He'd be under our control for another three, maybe four years. But getting another starting pitcher for Jon doesn't make much sense to me unless we are thinking of trading Contreras as well.

How far apart are these groups?