Garland and D'Backs come to terms
by angelskid2210 on Jan 28, 2009 9:41 AM PST
Email
Print
Thank you to Jon Garland for his one year for us, but he has now reached an agreement with the D'Backs for 1 year between 6-8 Million. So we now receive another supplamental pick from them. So now that gives us 4 picks in the first two rounds?
Since our #5 from last year is now gone for good lets hope somebody can step up whether it is Moseley or Adenhart or Ortega. We need at least 5 innings and under 4 runs from whoever fills the spot.
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
draft picks
Actually, we now have 6 picks in the first 2 rounds! Picks #25 and 26 in the first round (for Frankie and Tex). Picks #39, 40 and 44 in the supplemental round (for Frankie, Tex and Garland). And then our normal (inverse order of 2008 record) pick in the 2nd round (I don’t know the exact #).
Talk about restocking the farm!!!
by V-Hawk Angelorum on Jan 28, 2009 10:04 AM PST reply actions
It'll be more like #s 42, 43 & 49
Once the remaining free agents are signed, or not. Either way, 5 of the first 50 is something else.
adios Johnny G...........thanks for the memories.......
and your help in another AL WEST title……good luck against the dodgers.
12/19/08 - Thank you KLJ for coming into my life.
by norcaliangelsfan on Jan 28, 2009 10:57 AM PST reply actions
DBacks got a great bargain
1 year at $6m is a really good deal for Arizona. Garland has to be kicking himself over declining the arbitration offer…..
sure
Except they probably could have re-signed the Big Unit for about the same. Although I guess when you consider health risks, maybe its about an even trade off. Bet you he wishes he accepted arbitration, eh?
Overall I think it was a nice trade for us. While Cabrera technically did better in Chi town than Judy did here, Tony traded from depth to fill a need. Lets see if he can do it again…
you think?
Andy traded $10MM guaranteed for $5.5MM guaranteed and $4.5MM in incentives. oops!
GA GA he's the man, if he can't do it, no one can
Garland also turned down a larger one year deal.
I guess I already used my Manny bomb for the month?
He's going to do real well in the national league.
Especially in the NL West. I’d bet his ERA will be in the low 4.00 range, might even creep into the 3’s.
I was uncool before uncool was cool.
No way his ERA drops a run per 9.
He is going to an extremely favorable hitters park and he was downright awful at the end of 2008. His K-rate dropped to 4.12 K’s per 9 innings, etc.
He is a 50% chance to implode if you ask me – but he’ll probably post 170 innings with an ERA+ of 92-98 or so…
Better than an average pitcher, but not by much and the chance he falls off a cliff is not insignificant.
Jim Scully
No, I disagree
You’re right about his new home field, but I think he’s a better pitcher than he showed last season. Plus he’ll be in the NL, that always helps.
I was uncool before uncool was cool.
What a god-awful deal.
They could have signed Randy Johnson for less.
Hell, Braden Looper’s peripherals look awfully similar to Garland’s, and he should cost half of what Garland tookk.
replacement level analysis
Garland
he pitched something like 200IP. he pitched and gave our team better chance at a win then a loss. the bottom line is that he pitched well enough to give our team a chance to win. did his individual stats suck, yeah from what i’m seeing and reading but for some reason he gave our team more opp. at winning then losing. there are alot of pitchers in this league that have similar stats and end up with a worse W/L record and worse W/L record for each start given. i don’t think you’d want him on your fantasy baseball team but i don’t think he’s as bad as his stats showed last year.
He wasn't a bad pitcher, per se
It’s just that (1) there were similar, if not better (Unit) options on the market which could probably be signed for less, and (2) his stats point to him being mediocre at best in the future that make this a bad contract.
replacement level analysis
1 year deal
its not a killer. While the unit would have been a better signing, they still got him on the cheap
Lets go angels
by anaheim angels on Jan 29, 2009 8:00 PM PST up reply actions
Big difference
…is in the durability. Garland is has been a lock to throw 190-220 IP each year. He might not be Clemens when he steps to the mound, but the D’Backs (and the Angels) weren’t seeking an ace. They were seeking a Paul Byrd-type, and Garland will do nicely. When he pitched, the bullpen got a day off most of his starts.
Johnson, on the other hand, is a decade older than Garland and more brittle physically, and has become much more hittable over the last few years. Even if Garland cost the D’Backs $2M more than they would have paid for Johnson, they’ll get more miles out of Garland with less stress on the bullpen.
Randy Johnson is a lock for the HoF, but Garland is the better signing for the team.
by George Kaplan on Jan 30, 2009 7:32 AM PST up reply actions
Fair enough
I’m just a big fan of upside.
replacement level analysis
Were the Angels not allowed to negotiate?
Why not a 2yr-$16M deal? The guy had 14 wins last year, I believe.
Blew some pretty big ones
Remember that 14-run loss to the A’s in April last year? Bootcheck was to blame, too, but when Garland was pulled I think the Halos were down something like 8-1, if that. In less than four innings of work.
I went to the stadium in late June to see Garland try again against the A’s, thinking “there’s no way he does that again.”
He did. Not quite as bad, but he did.
The only great to fantastic start I remember from Garland last year was his 1-2 hit shutout (I think?) in his first start in a Halos uniform. Beyond that, meh. Not completely awful, but meh. Granted, his ERA+ last year at 91 was a full thirteen points lower than that for his career at 104, so he could rebound…but again, meh.
Light Up That Halo!
Thank god they didn't...
Here’s the deal with Garland. He is durable and has been predictable over the last 7 years. Roughly 200 innings with an ERA+ of about 105 (give or take). That is valuable. Walt on BTF noted that there were only 47 peeps that threw 360 innings over the last 2 years and Garland was in the bottom 1/3 of that group from an ERA standpoint, but nonetheless, he can be counted on and he is in the top 1/2 of starters because of his ability to take the ball every 5th day without injury concern.
However, he had an ERA of 6 after the All-Star break in 2008 and he only K’s a little over 4 people per 9 innings – an insanely low figure. Those signs point to him maybe falling off a cliff when he declines. If he looked like he might gradually decline like a lot of guys a 2-year deal would be fine for a lot of teams, but I think it’s even money that he gets hammered in 2009. The BOB is a big-time hitters park and nothing from the second half last year makes me think he’ll be able to throw 200 innings of anything more than an ERA+ of 90.
Jim Scully
understand
your point about not wanting to sign Garland to deal like that. i wouldn’t either but it seems like alot of posters in here think he’s this horrible pitcher. bottom line is a team win. it doesn’t really matter about the individual stat as long as he helps the team get a W at the end of the day. what he’s worth and what the market gives him is totally out of our control. i don’t think he’ll have a big bounce back year but i don’t think he was as bad as he pitched last season for us especially in the 2nd half. he still helped our team win 14 games.
Well...
I looked at the game logs and the Halos won 20 of his 32 starts.
He provided 18 Quality Starts in those 32 starts.
He was better than I am giving him credit for last year – but in eight of his starts he gave up as many (or more) runs than he had innings pitched. Translation, in 25% of his starts he posted an in-game ERA of just about 9.00. That’s not good.
If he keeps it to 25% of his starts – that’s tolerable – but what if 35% of his starts are like that in 2009? Or 40%? Remember, he is moving to the BOB in Arizona…
Jim Scully
I forgot to mention...
one of those 20 wins in Garland starts, three of them were in his awful games. So, the offense bailed him out a bit in those games.
But, the team also lost one of his starts 2-0 and another of his starts 1-0.
In the end, stuff seems to even out.
Jim Scully
14 wins
Does anyone know Garland’s runs support last year? It had to be way up there.
I have been critical of Regins, but I give him credit for passing on this guy and getting the draft pick.
Later Judy...
best game you pitched was against the nationals. Whoa, way to show off your talent.
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Jan 28, 2009 8:00 PM PST reply actions
Some of you may know
that I am a Dodgers fan and if you don’t know, well now you do. That being said, I’ll look forward to rooting against him in 2009.
To be fair, the Garland-for-Cabrera swap in hindsight was a good deal. Garland wasn’t that great, but he gave us a lot of innings and 14 wins and solidified the roation while the Aybar/Izturis duo made us forget about Cabrera rather quickly.
by Chzburger Jones on Jan 30, 2009 1:05 AM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
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.
