Do Not Sign Jon Garland

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 26, 2008 12:00 PM EST Comment 43 comments

Some general manager is about to make a critical mistake.

Last season Jon Garland had a tRA of 5.74, or 0.01 runs better than a replacement level starter's ERA (0.36 better tRA), over 196.7 innings pitched. That works out to about eight runs (non-leveraged), making Garland a 0.8 WAR pitcher, worth less than 4.4 million last season, and nearing 30 years old. Since 2003, Garland hasn't posted a single tRA* under 4.75, and only one tRA under 4.75, that came in 2006. Despite this, he finished sixth in the 2005 Cy Young voting, largely due to 18 wins.

It appears Garland is a 5 run pitcher at absolute best, and that's barely over replacement level. Anything more than 4.4 annually is overpaying for him, but the odds are he'll get double that this off-season, and possibly a deal similar to Kyle Lohse's 4/41. That's simply unacceptable for any team, even the Red Sox (who are smart enough to not even call) or the Yankees (who probably won't consider him.)

If you assume Garland is a 0.8 WAR pitcher in 2009, and slips to 0.3 in 2010, then perhaps -0.2 in 2011, you're looking at the makings of a 3 year 4.5 million dollar deal. If I had 4.5 million, I would bet he makes more than that in the first year of his new contract.

So, which team steps on this landmine?

0 recs | Comment 43 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Garland just flat out sucks

He’s a bit like Vazquez, where he looks even worse than his stats. If Theo even calls him he needs to be fired.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 26, 2008 12:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Do you mean Javy Vasquez?

When you say even worse than his stats, you make it seem like Vasquez’s stats are pretty bad, which couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s true that Javy has made a habit of being worse than his peripherals would indicate, but he is still a pretty good pitcher.

by dakoose on Nov 26, 2008 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He's in a really nasty park too.

by Graham on Nov 26, 2008 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, Vazquez is a good pitcher

But I meant it in the way that both actually are worse than their peripherals, not that Vazquez is a bad pitcher. Garland is, however.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 26, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Math?

Jon Garland had a tRA of 5.74, or 0.01 runs better than a replacement level starter, over 196.7 innings pitched.

You mean 0.01 + 0.35, because you’re comparing tRA and ERA? If he’s only 0.01 runs better per nine innings, that comes out to 0.22 WAR.

by antimatter on Nov 26, 2008 12:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I meant to say replacement level ERA.

So, yes,0.36 better than replacement tRA.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 26, 2008 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

this one's got ed wade written all over it.

colin's getz interview = dr. dre's detox

by larry on Nov 26, 2008 1:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Getting Cabrera for Garland was an excellent move.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 26, 2008 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah,

I had never considered Cabrera a good player until this year when my team needs a shortstop and he’s a free agent. He’s too old, and will probably be too expensive, but he’s been good to very good for a while now.

Space.

It's a problem we face.

So we never go anywhere.

We just stay in one place.

by hazel on Nov 26, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

if there's one positive about KW that we can all agree upon,

well, outside of marykate, is that williams knows when to dump a starting pitcher.

colin's getz interview = dr. dre's detox

by larry on Nov 26, 2008 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Omar Minaya

He has Johan Santana, who’s awesome, and Mike Pelfrey, who’s coming into his own. With Oliver Perez (another FA gascan), probably walking, and the Mets having other holes to fill in the bullpen/OF (and almost definitely signing K-Rod), I could see Omar picking up Garland.

Although, I’d prefer him to stay an Angel. But that’s really unlikely.

I know that's a pisser, baby.

by Blicks on Nov 26, 2008 1:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

But Garland's got a ring!

And clutch playoff experience!

So that + 0.8 WAR = $12M a year right?

by VictorW on Nov 26, 2008 1:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

And he's like a total inning eater and stuff

for sure

by Harry Pavlidis on Nov 26, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I actually suggested him for the Sox, but then looked at more detailed stats, and completely reversed.

Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 26, 2008 1:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

This has Phillies written all over it… See Eaton, Adam and Garcia, Freddy

World F*ckin' Champions, indeed...

by foos05 on Nov 26, 2008 2:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Thank jeeebus Bavasi is gone.

Furcal

by JI on Nov 26, 2008 2:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm praying he re-ups with the Angels... but they seem to be looking elsewhere

Oh well.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 26, 2008 2:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Eh... it isn't that he's terrible, it's just the money it could take to get him.

He had one really bad year recently, whereas he could regain the qualities that made him useful with the White Sox, and he’s still relatively young. If I can get him for what Lohse made last year, I’d be all over it. Which could feasibly happen, given the market. A team like the Brewers could make use of him if that’s the case. Whatever he does, it should better than Jeff Suppan, Kevin Millwood, or Carlos Silva, at any rate. Now that I think about it, though, if Jason Marquis can get a 20+ mil contract over three years…

by Daniel Berlyn on Nov 26, 2008 4:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He didn't even make their playoff rotation

I’m not even sure he made their roster. I just don’t see them bringing him back. Ed Wade may be the correct answer.

by chuckb on Nov 26, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He made playoff roster, he just never pitched in the playoffs.

Speier, on the other hand, didn’t make the playoff roster.

I know that's a pisser, baby.

by Blicks on Nov 26, 2008 7:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You people are all stupid ! You have no idea of good talent Jon Garland is so good I would love to have him on my team ! He won the World Series in 2005 If it were not for him The White Sox would of never made it. Big deal he had a bad Year in 2008 everyone has a bad year , Mark Buehrle even had a bad year in 2006 everyone wanted him gone ,and he bounced back in 2007 & 2008 I think Jon Garland just did not like playing on the Angels so he did not do so good it was probably the catchers fault not Jon Garland s fault he is the best sinker ball pitcher in baseball he has a good change up as well. You all have no idea of good pitching Jon is way way better than Javy Vazquez!!!!!! Just wait untill next year when he gets on a team that fits him well > I love Jon Garland and wish he could come back to Chicago to the White Sox, to bad Kenny is dumb.

by marykate on Nov 26, 2008 6:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ummm

Brad Ziegler had a scoreless inning streak. Brad Ziegler had not met BJ Upton.

by P Brady on Nov 26, 2008 7:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Can you please step the intelligence level up a bit?

Look, I’m all for different opinions, but there’s almost zero factual evidence for 99% of your claims.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 26, 2008 7:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he's just screwing with you

regards

by Daniel Berlyn on Nov 26, 2008 9:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

jon is way way cuter than javy

visit http://www.southsidesox.com/pages/superspecial to become a member of the exclusive SSS forum to which WTGTD will never be admitted.

by larry on Nov 26, 2008 10:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

not to mention that nonchalant surfer dude attitude

gives me shudders

then again javy has a great smile and personally lol but idk he’s too shy for big games

by Daniel Berlyn on Nov 27, 2008 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Happy thanksgiving for you too

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 27, 2008 10:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One of the more obvious trolls

Dude, you typically have to say something other than straight BS. I’m shocked and dismayed that anyone bit.

by SkipT on Nov 30, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jon Garland

Jon Garland is way better looking and a better pitcher than Javy !!!!!!

by marykate on Nov 26, 2008 11:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

On the other hand

hasn’t he pretty consistently outpreformed his TRA?

he’s not very good, but he’s also worth something. as long as your giving him something closer to Kyle Lohse 08 contract instead of Carlos Silva 08 or Lohse 09 contract. it should be alright. particularly for lighter hitting divisions

by RollingWave on Nov 27, 2008 3:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

A terrible pitcher made to look less terrible by his defense is still terrible

even if your defense is good too. Better to spend the money on someone who’s actually any good, and then have your defense make him look ridiculous.

"He almost has to start. Do you believe in miracles?"

by Torgen on Nov 27, 2008 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i'm saying that

TRA is a very nice stat, but there is still some things we don’t know for sure when it comes to pitching, if someone is pretty consistently better than his TRA, it might be more of a skill than a really really prolonged luck , AFAIK the pale hose’s defense has hardly been the envy of other teams in recent years.

by RollingWave on Nov 29, 2008 3:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree here.

But let’s make sure we have the requisite amount of data. Five years of full-time pitching should be enough. Two years shouldn’t. And remember, Even if there’s only a 10% chance Garland consistently beating his tERAs is luck, one out of ten guys we talk about like this is a fluke, even over five years of data.

The probabilities of instances of things like this should be looked at by people more qualified than me.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 29, 2008 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I think Garland should be alright with the Dodgers or with the Padres

He’d be overpayed wherever he goes, but he could bring something to teams with gigantic ballparks.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 27, 2008 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

His ERA will be better, but why will he be any more valuable?

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 27, 2008 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't say he'd be more valuable

I said he might not be such a waste of money playing in pitcher friendly ballparks.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 28, 2008 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

wouldn't something that isn't such a waste of money necessarily be more valuable?

visit http://www.southsidesox.com/pages/superspecial to become a member of the exclusive SSS forum to which WTGTD will never be admitted.

by larry on Nov 28, 2008 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 28, 2008 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He WOULD be a waste of money anywhere he goes

I didn’t say otherwise. I just said he would be better with the Padres than with, don’t know, the Reds or something…

I’m not disagreeing with you guys. Garland has nothing.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 28, 2008 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You said he would be less of a waste of money with the Padres. Why?

His ERA would be lower, but so would any pitcher’s ERA. Why is there any more benefit to the Padres for signing Garland than to the Reds for signing him?

This is an important point, I’m not just trying to pick on you. Garland has the same skills and talent no matter where he pitches. So if he’s going to be any more valuable to any team, there has to be something about his skills that a team can leverage. A team with a good infield wants groundball pitchers. A team with a crappy defense wants strikeout pitchers. A team with a park that kills outfield flies wants flyball pitchers. All relative, of course. Is there anything in Garland’s skillset that says he’s a better match for one team over another. A lower ERA is a superficial difference.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 28, 2008 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Garland was average for awhile in one of the(if not the most) HR hitter beneficial park there is

and I think the Angels had a pretty good one too. If anything, I would be more willing to take a flyer on him if I was starved for ground balls, which Garland induces tolerably well. Of course, it would be nothing big, but more like Lohse’s contract last year, like I said before; no more Silva contracts, please. If you can get 200 moderate innings for a bargain price, I don’t see what the harm is.

by Daniel Berlyn on Nov 29, 2008 11:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ned Colletti wants to drop 15 million a year on him

I know it’s coming.

by kensai on Nov 27, 2008 11:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

jon garland

I would sign Jon Garland he is very good he is a Ace in my mind . He had a bad year with the Angels , well he did good in the start of the year but torwards the end he let his era get out of hand I just think he did not fit good with the Angels he needs to come back to the AL Central he was so good when he was a White Sox I would love to see him back in the Black and White. but i do not think that is possible. And Jon Garland is better than Javy Vazquez he can play in big games and he is about 1o years younger at least 6 years younger . I would much rather have Jon than javy .

by kate20 on Nov 28, 2008 10:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs