Phil Watch: Adjusting w/o...Garland?

Maybe Phil's going in spurts.

Maybe this two months spent making trite observations about the White Sox will be mirrored by two months spent on the Cubs.

And in all that is holy, please make it soon.

With the hopes that this is the last one of this ilk, here we go:

Mark Buehrle worried that he would be followed around spring training by a ghost this spring. He figured he would be haunted by Jon Garland wherever he went, from the remote practice fields to the big-league clubhouse and at the restaurants where they had shared meals for eight years together.

Is it possible to be haunted by Jon Garland? Really. C'mon. It's Jon Garland.

I'm an Angels fan. When I heard of the trade, my initial reaction was "Um...what?" After a few minutes, it became obvious that the Angels were more worried about the bullpen's second half collapse than I thought. The Garland move for the Angels was done for one reason. Garland eats innings. That's it. That's all. End of discussion.

And the White Sox were not going to sign him. He was going west after this year no matter what. For the Sox, getting Cabrera and $1.5 million was an absolute coup.

With that established, in Phil's eyes, apparently Jon Garland is Col. Kurtz.

I wonder if he'll cherry-pick Garland's career statistics (turn head to the sky ponderously)?

Yet Garland's absence—after 92 victories, 223 starts and 1,428 innings in a White Sox uniform—is as notable this spring as the arrival of any of the newcomers designed to erase the bad memories of 2007.

Ah, consistency in life is important.

When Kenny Williams takes a crap, do you think Phil's there to criticize the technique?

And is there a White Sox fan out there that's going to lament the loss of Garland at any time during this season? Really. At any one point during this season, is anyone going to curse Kenny for trading...Jon Garland?

And Phil, grown-ups make decisions not to erase bad memories of the past. They make decisions to improve their current situation. There's a difference.

Oh, and Garland's career ERA is 4.41. His career WHIP is 1.38. Hits/9? 9.1. That's bad. All those aren't particularly good.

Those two 18-win seasons were a lark. Looks good, but anyone who watched those starts knows they were a bit of a illusion.

Innings. Eater. That's all he is.

And the Sox got arguably the best defensive shortstop in the game for him.

Might want to talk about that.

"There are not many guys around who are able to take their turn every fifth day and give you 200 innings every year," said Buehrle, who is one of those guys himself. "He's definitely going to be missed. But you have to give up something to get something. We got an outstanding shortstop in Orlando Cabrera."

Hey, this seems like a good opportunity for Phil to discuss Cabrera w/r/t flow and progression of the column.

Will he take this opportunity?

Garland twice won 18 games for the White Sox. He was an All-Star in 2005, finishing sixth in Cy Young voting that season.

Nope.

And let me be clear here because I prefer not to mention it again. All-Star. Voting. Means. Absolutely. Nothing. In. This. World. Or. Any. Theoretical. Temporal. Plane.

Okay, got that out. And if it is important, how does a guy who has been in the league eight years only make the team once?

Cy Young voting? Tied for sixth that year?

Look closer at the voting and how it's configured! Garland receives exactly one point in the voting, meaning one sportswriter, probably Phil, gave him one third-place vote.

It's not a comprehensive points total system extending out 20 spots. Writers vote for first, second and third with first getting five points, second getting three points and third getting one point. Garland had one guy vote him third. That. Is. All.

Oh, BTW, Garland was 5-6 in the second half of 2005. Just a thought.

To recap. All-Star? Stupid. And one time in eight years. Cy Young? One third-place vote.

Jon Garland is just a guy. He's Livan Hernandez. Not a ghost.

Maybe so, but where the White Sox knew what they were going to get from Garland they will have to cross their fingers without him. You worry that he will be one of those guys who is appreciated best when he's not around, especially given that in-house candidates John Danks, Gavin Floyd and Lance Broadway have 15 career victories between them.

And Gio Gonzalez and Fautino de los Santos have exactly no major-league victories between them.

Consider what happened when the Cubs allowed Matt Clement to leave as a free agent after the 2004 season. The right-hander with the billy-goat beard had started 30-plus games each season for Don Baylor and Dusty Baker in 2002-04, helping the Cubs win a division title in '03 and come close in '04.

His departure wasn't considered big news. But the Cubs' victory total dropped from 89 to 79 in 2005, in part because Glendon Rusch, Jerome Williams and Sergio Mitre made a mess of the No. 4 spot in the rotation.

I love the use of 'in part'. It's so noncommittal and used to avoid complete ownership of the greater point. 'In part' says I'm too lazy to do a larger analysis.

It took me 22 seconds to find this and compare it to this.

The Cubs scored 789 runs in 2004 and 703 runs in 2005. That's a half-run less per game, roughly translating statistically into a much badder baseball team that was bad at baseball-type things.

It had nothing to do with the fact the Neifi Perez was the shortstop, Ramirez missed 35 games, Todd fuckin' Hollandsworth was the left fielder, Jeromy Burnitz was the right fielder and their center fielder in Corey Patterson hit .215 (and led off for the first half of the year with a .254 OBP).

Really. Check it out.

Nope. It was because Matt Clement wasn't the fourth starter.

Dope.