Tinsel and Garland
by The Cheat on Dec 23, 2005 4:14 PM CST
in White Sox News
Email
Print
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That isn't bad
It'd be nice to have a credible arm in the bullpen to spot start should arms go dead for a period.
Loewen has a nice strikeout rate, but his control worries me. McCarthy's kinda thrown my gauge off, but a 21-year-old in high-A ball -- is that normal for a top prospect?
24 cracking the majors
I shouldn't be so standoffish on this deal. It would be a nice return, and the Orioles would never do it, which should tell you how lopsided it is in terms of talent. I'm just not a fan of Loewen like I am of some of the other prospects I've been naming. He has a dynamite arm, but has struggled with control. Which shouldn't be unexpected as he didn't really play HS baseball because his HS in Canada didn't field a team. -- His "stuff" would rate probably better than anyone in the Sox system, but I could easily see failing to tap that potential.
[BA Scouting report from 2003]
Strengths: With two plus pitches and the possibility of two more, Loewen has legitimate No. 1 starter potential. His fastball usually ranges from 90-95 mph, though it was a bit lower at the end of the season as he tired. His curveball, a big 12-to-6 breaker, is his best pitch. He has a good feel for a changeup and has dabbled with a slider as well. He's athletic with smooth mechanics, effortless arm action and good extension. Loewen would have been drafted early as a power-hitting outfielder if he wasn't such a promising pitcher. His low-key demeanor on the mound earns comparisons to Tom Glavine. The Orioles praise his makeup and maturity as much as his physical ability.
Weaknesses: Because he needed little other than his fastball and curveball as an amateur, Loewen still needs work on his changeup. His fastball command also can improve, and he's still learning to command his offspeed stuff. He'll have to build up his durability and get accustomed to pitching from February through October.
The Future: Though they played it safe with Loewen last year, the Orioles expect him to move quickly to the big leagues. He's motivated to get there, calling the team in November to see if he could come to the minor league complex in Sarasota, Fla., to work out. The Orioles told him to wait until January, and after spring training they'll send him to low Class A Delmarva. He'll probably spend half the season there before moving up to high Class A Frederick.
and what, exactly, does that mean?
by Lprof on Dec 23, 2005 6:19 PM CST up reply actions
Just because...
The best pitcher in the AFL last year was some guy named Houston Street. I don't know if you've heard of him, but he's pretty good. The best hitter was some guy named Chris Shelton.
Here are some AFL alums Nomar Garciaparra, Mike Piazza, Derek Jeter, Jason Giambi, Shawn Green, Garret Anderson, Todd Helton, Mark Teixeira, & Albert Pujols. Maybe you've heard of them.
Here is some more info on the AFL for you. The league is almost always considered a hitters league. 1) because it's in Arizona. The ball flies there and curveballs don't bite as much. 2) Teams often don't send their top starting pitching prospects for fear of over work. (Example: Brandon McCarthy was originally tabbed to pitch in the 2004 AFL, but was replaced at the last minute when the Sox decided not to push his innings pitched total for the year.) 3) Pitchers are generally facing what could be considered and All-Star type lineup.
What does this all mean for Loewen? Well, this was his first exposure to higher level competition, pitching in a hitters league, and in the thin Arizona air, he passed with flying colors. That doesn't mean he's a sure thing, but it certainly makes me feel better that he can succeed at the higher levels.
getting pretty snippy
by Lprof on Dec 23, 2005 10:50 PM CST up reply actions
trading an 18 game winner?
by Lprof on Dec 23, 2005 11:00 PM CST up reply actions
Silly is repeating the phrase
He's still the same pitcher with a career 4.42 ERA who wasn't able to crack 4.50 in any of his 3 full seasons prior to '05.
Tossing around the term 18 game winner implies that it's something that Garland has done repeatedly, and can do repeatedly in the future. That's simply not the case. He can't control his wins & loss totals; No pitcher can.
It's no coincidence that Garland's #1 comp and BB-Ref is Carl Pavano. They're not bad pitchers, but their not starters who should be counted on to win you more than 14 games a season. They're not strikeout pitchers, and thus will be more prone to random year-to-year fluctuations in ERA, due to the sheer randomness of a ball-in-play, rather than a player with a high K rate.
There are things I like about Garland too. He appears to have a slight ability to control BABIP, as evidenced by his above average mark there every year. He has improved his walk rate in each year. I know what I'm getting with him. However, 2005 is almost assuredly a peak for Garland.
It would be foolish to expect another 3.50 ERA (125 ERA+)season from Garland. He's much more likely to post a 4.00 (110 ERA+). And there's plenty of past data to suggest we could see the 4.50 ERA (100 ERA+) Garland rear his ugly head in '06. Let me assure you, if he shows up again, he won't be an 18 game winner.
look, dude, you started it
as to baseball players who have played in the american football league, the link has been posted. look it up yourself.
sorry
by Lprof on Dec 23, 2005 11:22 PM CST up reply actions
A lot of good points
so why not keep Garland?
by Lprof on Dec 23, 2005 4:36 PM CST reply actions
That's not enough for garland
We need a potential future star that has a high likelihood of being successful. Someone who has dominated at AA or higher. Top 20 prospect in all of baseball types. People like Billingsley, Brandon Wood, Howie kendrick, Joel Guzman, Russ Martin, Andy Laroche. If we can't get these kind of guys then we should just keep Garland.
Working from a position of strength
Garland is all but gone after 2006 if he stays on the Sox. The Sox currently have 6 legit starters and since they only pitch 5 on a regular basis, one is excess. So you take that excess and try to get some value for it before it is gone.
Getting Bedard and a top prospect would be well worth it in many ways. Bedard was lights out before an injury last year, so he has a huge upside (more than Jon). He is dirt cheap compared to what Garland is going to receive. This frees up money to resign other key players. Bedard is a Lefty, who could come out of the pen, be used in long relief, or even spot start as needed. If there is an injury to one of the starting 5, then you can plug him right in. You also have him locked up for a couple of years.
These type of moves will make the Sox perennial contenders.
don't you want another parade?
by Lprof on Dec 23, 2005 6:15 PM CST up reply actions
Who the hell is saying...
No one is saying that one bit, and you're making yourself look extremely foolish by even implying that.
"How can you possibly say that keeping Garland in 2006 isn't worth it because then we can't get something for him? Maybe what we can get is another championship."
Jon Garland is not going to guarantee us anything. You don't seem to be realizing that up until this year, he was a LEAGUE AVERAGE PITCHER! Nothing special. You throw the term "18 game winner" around like he's friggin Johan Santana. Oh, wait -- he must be better, cause Johan only won 16 last year -- right?
"How do we know which McCarthy will show up, the one from the end of the year or the one from the middle of the year?"
How do we know which Garland will show up? The one year All-Star, or the middle of the pack innings eater that has pitched for most of his career? I'd guess a whole lot of regression from Garland next year.
A guy like Garland is helped a lot by the Sox' defense. Actually, I should say, he's helped especially because hitters put the ball in play so much against him. If he goes to pretty much any other team, he's going to have a worse defense behind, and in some cases, a MUCH worse defense.
"And who the hell knows who or what Vasquez is."
Well, he's been just about as good as Jon Garland over his career. Both are career 105 ERA+s. Oh, and Vazquez is locked up for three-five more years, while Garland is gone after 2006. Vazquez, unlike Garland, hasn't ever had as good of defense as JG had in 2005 with the White Sox.
Putting a bow on all this, as I'm tired as hell, I'm willing to be with you that the Sox' 2006 rotation of Buehrle - Garcia - Contreras - Vazquez - McCarthy will be BETTER than the 2005 rotation of Buehrle - Garcia - Garland - El Duque - Contreras.
Oh, and, since you don't seem to be understanding this -- I believe that Bedard + Loewen + Another Prospect will be marginally worse for the Sox than Garland in 2006 (marginally, meaning very very small), while very good for the Sox in 2007 and beyond.
Vasquez
If I read that deal correctly,
by cfisk72 on Dec 23, 2005 7:13 PM CST reply actions
Oh, and...
LaRoche or Guzman + Brazoban + Scott Elbert for Garland. Bullpen help (I'm lukewarm on Braz), but a solid left-side of the IF prospect in LaRoche/Guzman, and a nice lefty with good stuff in Scott Elbert.
another bullpen arm from the O's
If the sox could land another stellar LHP for the pen this yr and a possible future closer, along with a guy with upside like Loewen, those two could be enough for Jon.
Here's a report on Ray ['04]:
#13--'He throws it [fastball] at 93-95 and it was clocked as high as 98 in college. He also has a hard slider w/ late bite. His splitter is effective but Baltimore isn't sure he should use it extensively, and his changeup needs work. Ray has a loose arm but is inconsistent w/ his mechanics, sometimes rushing his lower half or showing effort in his delivery....He'll remain a starter for now but could become a power reliever.'
by cfisk72 on Dec 24, 2005 2:15 PM CST reply actions
here are some numbers
by cfisk72 on Dec 24, 2005 2:19 PM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
