Serious Interest in Jon Garland

[Mackus]

DAMN. That bad huh? Why is my question? I understand the money argument, but that's baseball. Is A.J Burnett worth 16$ million a year?? HELL NO.

The fact is we're running out of options, and Garland is exactly what we are looking for.

Are we looking for miserable options that have next to no hope of working out positively?

I'd rather sign Burnett for 5/$70M than Garland for 4/$40M.

[Sports Guy]

AJ Burnett is a hell of a lot closer to being worth 16M per year than Jon Garland is to being worth 10M per year.

Absolutely...If you are willing to go 10-12 million a year on Garland and you are willing to go 13 a year on Burnett, then you should be willing to go 15 a year for AJ.

This team needs to learn that.

[Dirtyburnie]

I would rather have Garland the two injury prone pitchers any day.

[Hank Scorpio]

Absolutely...If you are willing to go 10-12 million a year on Garland and you are willing to go 13 a year on Burnett, then you should be willing to go 15 a year for AJ.

This team needs to learn that.

Not for five years.

No.

[UMDTerrapins]

Honestly, if we are considering contracts for Burnett or Garland at these salaries, we are acting desperately. This doesn't fit into a good master plan of building around young pitching. If we're going to sign a FA it had better be a top of the rotation guy who is durable, or a one year deal to a guy coming off injury or a down year.

[YardBirds13]

I would rather have Garland the two injury prone pitchers any day.

People need to stop just babbling about this and realize that Burnett has thrown 200 IP 2 of the last 3 years.

He is no more injury prone than any other pitcher, and is WAY WAY better than Garland.

[33rdst]

Are we looking for miserable options that have next to no hope of working out positively?

I'd rather sign Burnett for 5/$70M than Garland for 4/$40M.

This is a perfect example of how the O's waste money. Garland made 12 million last year so he is not going to be cheap. To fork out 40-50 million on Garland and let Burnett slide exemplifies the O's formula for losing the past ten years.

[Sports Guy]

Not for five years.

No.

Doesn't look like we have to go 5 years though.

And I would rather sign AJ for 5 years than Garland for 3 or 4 years(and I hate 5 year deals for pitchers).

[YardBirds13]

This is a perfect example of how the O's waste money. Garland made 12 million last year so he is not going to be cheap. To fork out 40-50 million on Garland and let Burnett slide exemplifies the O's formula for losing the past ten years.

Bingo.

I could see not spending money on a FA pitcher because you dont want to have dollars tied into big deals for guys when you are rebuilding. Dont agree, but I can see why you wouldnt do it.

Spending lots of money on mediocre FA's is how you get stuck in the middle, and has been our problem forever.

Either pay the 15 or 16M for Burnett, or go to cheap, one year deals. Spending 40 M on Garland or someone of his ilk is about the worst way to go about it.

[eddie83]

People need to stop just babbling about this and realize that Burnett has thrown 200 IP 2 of the last 3 years.

He is no more injury prone than any other pitcher, and is WAY WAY better than Garland.

How can you say that? He has thrown 200 IP 3 times in 8 seasons. He has started 30 times or more only twice. He hasn't pitched 200 innings in 2 of the last 3 years.

[Hank Scorpio]

Doesn't look like we have to go 5 years though.

And I would rather sign AJ for 5 years than Garland for 3 or 4 years(and I hate 5 year deals for pitchers).

If it comes to that, I'd pass on them and take a chance on the Olson's, Liz', Penn's and Bergesens of the world... maybe add a guy like Wolf if you can get him for 2 or 3 years.

There's a very fine line to walk here, IMO.

[DrungoHazewood]

This is a perfect example of how the O's waste money. Garland made 12 million last year so he is not going to be cheap. To fork out 40-50 million on Garland and let Burnett slide exemplifies the O's formula for losing the past ten years.

This is kind of a test. Past Oriole management would sign Garland to a deal that was 80% of Burnett's, and expect 80% of the production. In reality, he'll likely deliver less than 50%. $10M a year is average production from a regular. If it's a stretch that a guy will live up to $10M a year you've just overpaid for a disaster waiting to happen.

[Mackus]

Doesn't look like we have to go 5 years though.

And I would rather sign AJ for 5 years than Garland for 3 or 4 years(and I hate 5 year deals for pitchers).

Yeah, if Garland costs 4/$40M and Burnett is 4/$60M, you've gotta prefer Burnett.

Maybe Garland will be less than we expect, but he's gonna get at least 3/$24M, and thats way more than I'd consider paying him.

[Hank Scorpio]

Yeah, if Garland costs 4/$40M and Burnett is 4/$60M, you've gotta prefer Burnett.

Maybe Garland will be less than we expect, but he's gonna get at least 3/$24M, and thats way more than I'd consider paying him.

I'm not as bearish on Garland as everyone else, but yeah... you obviously go for Burnett in that situation.

[YardBirds13]

How can you say that? He has thrown 200 IP 3 times in 8 seasons. He has started 30 times or more only twice. He hasn't pitched 200 innings in 2 of the last 3 years.

My bad then, 2 of the last 4, and one of those he threw 168.

He has only had one serious arm injury and that was forever ago.

To just brush him off as some bum because he hasn't been injury free is a mistake.

Just because Garland doesnt get hurt doesnt make him suck any less.