On The Jon Garland-To-Texas Idea
Joey Matschulat
Jon Garland delivers a first-inning pitch against the Mets on Sunday, August 2nd.After a four-day stretch as exciting as that which comprised baseball's winter meetings, it's only natural that the late-December cessation in hot stove activity would create some restlessness -- the sort of restlessness that can trigger significant discussion around even the vaguest of rumors, such as the one relayed by the Boston Globe's Nick Cafardo which holds that Texas is the "early leader" for the services of free agent right-hander Jon Garland.
It's an odd rumor on the surface, one that doesn't at all conform with the notion that general manager Jon Daniels is actively building towards a higher-strikeout, higher-upside starting rotation with less emphasis placed on the pitch-to-contact philosophy; indeed, Garland is the antithesis of a strikeout pitcher, with remarkably -- and consistently -- low strikeout rates balanced by his ground ball-inducing abilities and above-average control. In no way, shape or form does Garland resemble the sort of pitcher that I thought the Rangers would be targeting at this stage in the off-season. And therein lies the intrigue.
If you operate off the assumption that Garland will ultimately bank $4-5 million during the course of a one-year contract (and given his $7.5 million salary with the Diamondbacks/Dodgers in 2009, it's entirely possible that he'll command an even greater sum), understand that Garland is likely not an improvement over any prospective Rangers starting pitcher on a per-inning basis. No, the real motivation behind such a gambit concerns pitching depth -- something which the Rangers do actually possess, but not in overabundance. And this is where popular opinion begins to split.
Every major league team has limited resources (e.g. money, roster spots and outs) at its disposal with which it can generate wins above replacement level; this reality explains why a pair of three-win players are not commensurate in value with a single six-win player, since the latter will generally create and/or save as many runs in just half as many plate appearances and/or innings. In other words, the more value you can compress into a single player/roster spot, the better off you're going to be. Additionally, acquiring a three-win player in order to supplant a two-win player obviously isn't going to have the same effect as a three-win player supplanting a zero-win (replacement level) player.
Keeping these tenets of marginal value in mind, one could reasonably conclude that signing Garland simply wouldn't make much sense for Texas. Even if you characterize, say, Brandon McCarthy as somebody who's good for a maximum of 100 innings, the difference in value between (a) 100 innings from McCarthy and 100 innings from the No. 6-9 starters and (b) 200 innings of Garland is probably rather underwhelming. In that sense, throwing a substantial percentage of the ballclub's remaining resources at a pitcher offering a probable one-win improvement (if that) doesn't seem terribly appealing, and might well be downright inefficient.
And yet, there's some degree of logic in this approach to roster construction. Garland's fairly well-equipped to handle this ballpark and pitch in front of this defense by virtue of his grounder-inducing tendencies, and is about the closest thing to a true low-risk, low-variance pitcher currently going in the league, acting as a potential hedge against riskier arms such as Rich Harden. Obtaining Garland could be about securing some additional peace of mind; it could also be about divesting some of the back-end pitching talent in exchange for the mythical right-handed bat, in which case the hypothetical signing of Garland couldn't really be evaluated in isolation.
Frankly, it's a little disturbing that I've resorted to analyzing a single nebulous rumor in paragraph form, but that's the great thing about the hot stove season -- the opportunity to drill down into the thought processes behind transactions that may or may not ever happen and try to figure out what manuever your favorite team is plotting next.
Reader Comments (33)
well done Joey, but it really dosent excite me. we really need to find out who are ML players, and who to trade off, no way we can keep all these guys around, rule 5 keeps coming around.......
who do you think are real ML material and who would you part with????
that should keep you busy..
Rather throw Garlands $4-5 million, plus a few at Ben Sheets and go for a 2010 post season chance.
Sheets is a bigger reward but also a bigger risk. Garland is the kind of guy you need to get you through the long summer, especially if you don't want to wear out the young arms. And if you consider the guys slated for the rotation, one thing definitely lacking is a veteran presence.
So this makes total sense to me. Would have liked it to have been Wolf, but oh well.
yes, garland would make sense. if we're being perfectly and brutally honest here, holland and feliz could use at least a half season, if not more, in AAA as starters refining secondary pitches and command. the biggest drawback to the org's tendency to rush its pitchers is that they do not develop their breaking pitches enough. but sooner or later, you're gonna have to put these guys in the big league rotation and let them take their lumps.
I AM FOR TAKING A RISK ON BEN SHEETS AND KEEPING WHAT WE HAVE WITH OUR YOUNG PITCHERS. HE IS A HIGH RISK I KNOW BUT COULD BE THE KEY TO THE PUZZLE IF HE COMES AROUND AS EXPECTED. TO ME HE FITS A LOT BETTER THAN GARLAND AND IS WORTH THE GAMBLE.
Although I like the idea of adding Jon Garland, I think the Rangers are in a good position to sign guys that are higher risk/reward such as Sheets or Bedard (I've heard Bedard is a cancer in the clubhouse... if true, then I want no part of him).
I feel like we already have 3 or 4 Jon Garland type pitchers fighting for the 5th spot in the rotation; why not take a swing at another potential #1 or #2 starter like Bedard (or Sheets)? Imagine an opening day rotation like this:
Harden
Feldman
Holland
Hunter
Bedard/Sheets
I have no idea what Bedard is looking for in terms of $$$... and if it's a ridiculous amount like what Sheets is reportedly asking, then no way...
Do you think JD is stock piling pitching becase a) he doesn't want to rely only on the youngsters? b) he's building a block buster trade to bring in a middle of the order bat? c) he knows that Feldman and Hunter had career years (in 09) and won't likely pitch as well in 2010? or d) he simply wants a veteran, innings eater type to bring stability and wisdom to his stable of young studs?
Lastly, have any of you (at BBTIA or frequent visitors) looked at all MLB team rosters and pieced together a trade where we can move the excess pitching for a potent bat?
Tall order, I know... but there has to be someone out there that's a perfect fit and would be a win/win (similar to the Hammy deal) for both teams.
I have a head-ache
OK, let's look at it this way--without Garland, who do you project as the starting rotation for the Rangers in '10:? The sure things are Harden, Feldman, and Hunter (I don't think that Feldman and Hunter have come anywhere near their career years yet!). Although the Rangers have several other possibilities for the other two starter spots, we really don't know if any of them (McCarthy, Holland, Feliz, Wilson) will be successful this year.
I think the Rangers would have been less likely to be looking at Garland if Seattle had not picked up Cliff Lee. What do you all think?
Joey - I agree with you completely. Given the variables you have mentioned, Jon Garland does not make much sense as a first option. I propose they are looking at him as an alternate option (2 or 3 option).
With one BIG assumption, let me layout a scenario.
IF THE RANGERS THINK THEY ARE TRUE CONTENDERS IN 2010...
SPs:
1. Rich Harden - given (I hope he’s healthy).
2. Ben Sheets - Most people are looking at Scott Feldman as our #2. However, Scott still lacks experience as a front of rotation starter on a contenting team. Could the Rangers be thinking of Scott for the #3 SP slot? If the Rangers truly feel they are contenders this year, #2 needs to be a high upside experienced stud, like Ben Sheets. This move would better match us up for the playoffs against the Yankees or Red Sox. Yes, this gets very risky when combining Ben's with Richie’s health histories. However, the Rangers have good young depth as insurance. If we lose our front two SPs, it won't matter anyway. We should then just roll up our young kids up and let them get ML experience for a 2011 run. High risk, high reward strategy.
3. Scott Feldman - To me, this slot make more sense for him and the Rangers. He would match up better with the other contending #3s. The SP I would have liked here is Kevin Millwood. Experienced stud workhorse with great work ethic and a clubhouse leader. Oh well.
4. Derek Holland - The Rangers have been very careful in his development. He’s now ready to go to the next level, giving the team 160-180 competitive innings from the left side. If the Rangers want to push him up to #3, then MAYBE Garland works here. However, with limited $ resources, I agree this doesn’t make much sense. Use our limited $ to get Sheets and/or that power RH bat.
5. Neftali Feliz - The Rangers were also very careful with him last year, limiting his innings while breaking him into the ML environment. They want to increase his innings this year, but limit them during his learning curve. Put him in #5 and see what happens. We’ll likely see him struggle a bit, much like Derek experienced last year. This is where our depth at long relief comes into play. Dustin Nippert, Doug Mathis and Brandon McCarthy will be critical here.
That leaves our other young SPs at OKC to get more experience/innings and be in reserve if Harden or Sheets goes down. Can you see Harrison, Hurley, and Hunter heading the OKC rotation? This straegy makes too much sense.
IF THE RANGERS DO NOT FEEL THEY ARE TRUE CONTENDERS IN 2010... then Garland makes more sense.
You gotta keep in the back of your mind the brutal fact that Harden for 180 IP is no sure thing. It's a pretty fair chance he will only give you 50-100, if you consider his history. Same thing goes with McCarthy. And for all anyone knows about Sheets, he may not be ready to do anything until the ASB. So they do need another guy they can rely on, and if there isn't anything out there on the market, Garland is about the best you can do right now for the money.
If that's the case, I might opt for Wang then. Garland just isn't good.
After additional thought, I still believe Ben Sheets should be our #1 target now. IF the Rangers see themselves as '10 contenders, then focus our remaining $ on getting an front end SP like Ben. Here's why.
We may already have our #4 RH hitter. In '08, Milton Bradley provide the protection for a heathy Josh Hamilton. Nobody thought of Milton as a power hitter. However, no pitcher wanted to pitch around Hammy to face a tough out like Milton. They were a perfect combination. Let me propose a '10 variation of this combo. MICHAEL YOUNG. MY is an established clutch hitter ( 200 hits/yr.) that would be a menace to pitching. Would you pitch around Hammy to get to MY?
Our lineup would then look like this.
1. Borbon
2. Kinsler
3. Hamilton
4. Young
5. Davis
6. Cruz
7. Murphy (DH)
8. Salty/Tea
9. Elvis
The big IF here is Davis. Will he return to his '08 form? If so, then this lineup can produce runs. Then we could focus our remianing limited dollars on rolling the dice on Ben Sheets.
IF THE RANGERS THINK THEY ARE CONTENDERS IN '10.
god, Joey i just love reading your stuff. truly some great sports writing which doesnt exist much anymore. you're fit for the NY Times or Wash Post!
i would be for bringing Jon Garland in that $4-5million region. Why? i really dont know, but other than agreeing w/ your assessment of: why not?!
he's a guy that's had some good success, that price range isnt too indigestible (lest we forget Milly at $12million!), to fatten up the rotation, if on a 1-yr contract he'd be a guy w/ something to prove and the chance to work w/ Maddux. this obviously gives you flexibility during the season w/ injuries, Texas heat and whatnot but also gives you flexibility at the trade deadline.
I disagree with the idea of if we are wanting to contend you don't bring in Garland. To compete you need some low variance middle of the road pitching from some where. Right now the Rangers don't have that player. Ben Sheets would provide more upside, but also much more down side. Sheets is likely either a #1 or #2 or on the DL all, or at least most, of the year.
Having a guy who will go 6+ in 75% or more of his outings is very helpful to a playoff contending team because it saves the bullpen. Right now we don't have anyone on our team I would expect to go out there and go 6+ consistently. Feldman is the closest and he has had one year of doing something close to that.
It all depends on the contract. If he is more then 5 million he is a no go. If he is less then we should be in on him, unless we have decided that this is another building year and then the move for Harden doesn't make much sense over all, as you have really just signed a 1 year deal with him.
Jay K. - "Having a guy who will go 6+ in 75% or more of his outings is very helpful to a playoff contending team" -
Not if his ERA is 5.00 +. And are the Rangers truly playoff contenders? I'd like to think so but JD must stick to "the plan". He shouldn't sacrifice quality with quantity... and I would much rather use the money on a bat than on a guy who may not be any better than Harrison, Hurley, McCarthy, etc...
Now if the Garland money is disposable cash and we still have payroll flexibility to grab a bat, then what the heck, i'm all for it because all that we're out is some cash... and it ain't my cash!!!!
Supposedly Sheets is looking for 9-11 million. I would assume that Garland would be around the 5-7 million range. My feeling is that you have to go after Garland, especially for all of those who disagreed with the Millwood trade. Interesting stats below, especially when you place a 50% discount on Garland's price tag.
Millwood (H/9, K/9, WHIP) since 2003 (total IP 1309:
2003- 8.5, 2.8, 1.252
2004- 9.9, 3.3, 1.461
2005- 8.5, 2.4, 1.219
2006- 9.5, 2.2, 1.307
2007- 11.1, 3.5, 1.622
2008- 11.7, 2.6, 1.595
2009- 8.8, 3.2, 1.339
Garland (H/9, K/9, WHIP) since 2003 (total IP 1449:
2003- 8.8, 3.5, 1.367
2004- 9.2, 3.2, 1.378
2005- 8.6, 1.9, 1.172
2006- 10.5, 1.7, 1.363
2007- 9.5, 2.5, 1.325
2008- 10.8, 2.7, 1.505
2009- 9.9, 1.7, 1.402
I imagine the idea would be to sign Garland and try to get that bat in a trade (McCarthy?).
Ben Sheets asking price is $12M+ per season....this from a guy who hasn't pitched since 2008 and then didn't log many innings before going down! Nobody is even sure this guy is healthy...his agent is only saying he will be fine by Spring training! With Harden's past health issues and with Sheets constant health issues it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to look at these guys as our two top starters. John Garland is a winner, he is a workhorse, he is a veteran (good for the younger guys), and he is probably very affordable (4-5M). Plus the big thing is he has been through the "fire"....he pitched under Ozzie Guillen!! Bring him on for 2010 and forget about Sheets. then go out and sign Vlad for that RH bat!!
Wood1378 - Good Lord! Those are pathetic stats that scream MEDIOCRITY. A guy that gives up a ton of hits with few K's is going to get killed in Arlington... regardless of our defensive improvements. As I said earlier, is Garland really IMPROVING the ball club over the likes of Harrison, McCarthy, etc...? Based on the stats you put up (BTW, thanks for the info), I don't think so...
Pablo - the WHIP numbers indicate that Garland has been able to put together some really good seasons (and he pitched in Chicago - just as much of a hitter's park as Arlington, some would say). The problem with his numbers is that his worst 2 years are the last 2 - and so the real question about Garland has to be IS HE FINISHED? Is that downward spiral what we can expect, or can someone like Maddux get him back on track? For 5 mil - he definitely seems worth the gamble to me.
I kind of agree that a work horse would be a good addition. I don't think Garland is that guy. Numbers wise and stuff wise, I'd rather (Gulp) go after Padilla. Surely there is a someone better than that out there. I'd even think about rolling through several prospects. Let five guys make 6 starts each. By the time the scouting reports caught up to them then the Rangers would be on the next guy
""I imagine the idea would be to sign Garland and try to get that bat in a trade (McCarthy?)."
I've arrived at the conclusion that the outcome of a McCarthy trade -- at least in terms of public perception -- is probably not going to be favorable. His trade value is inherently limited, so unless you package him with something else you're probably not going to get a legitimately well-rounded hitter, and if you do end up trading him straight up for a platoon bat, the chances are still more than reasonable that he goes elsewhere and reels off a nice fat chunk of league-average or better innings, which Texas might ultimately end up needing more so than a one-dimensional bat. I don't know. I just generally don't have a good feeling about it.
"The problem with his numbers is that his worst 2 years are the last 2 - and so the real question about Garland has to be IS HE FINISHED? Is that downward spiral what we can expect, or can someone like Maddux get him back on track?"
The funny thing is that Garland might be moving AWAY from (and not towards) a "downward spiral." Yeah, his WHIP moderately spiked in '08-'09, but his other component stats largely remained static (e.g. K/BB, batted ball rates, and so on), and glancing at his plate discipline stats, it seems that he's inducing more swings at pitches outside of the strike zone over these last two seasons than at any previous point in his career, signifying that he's doing SOMETHING better in terms of his pitch sequences, control, movement or pitching style in order to fool hitters a greater percentage of the time.
Granted, I'm not sure how beneficial that actually is for a demonstrated pitch-to-contact guy like Garland, but even pitchers cut from that cloth need to be able to miss bats every now and then. In that sense, Garland's improving rather than regressing, and while I definitely have my fair share of reservations about him, I doubt that he's going to stop being what he is right now anytime soon.
Pabloesque
The point that I was trying to make was the comparison between Millwood and Garland, I agree the are mediocre but the price of mediocrity from Garland costs us half as much as Millwood. Why not sign Garland to chew some innings if we're not for sure that our young arms are ready to compete for 162 games? We can always dump him before the deadline for a decent bat or relief guy. Thanks for the feedback.
Wood1378 - Ah, gotcha... that makes sense.
I have 2 issues with bringing in Garland; 1) he's not an upgrade and 2) assuming JD has only $5M-$6M to play with, I'd much rather he look for a FA bat (or a trade where we assume salay).
Though unrealistic, I really like Cliff's idea of rolling out 4 or 5 different guys (for the #5 spot in the rotation)with each making approx .6 starts. And Cliff is spot on in that guys like Harrison, McCarthy, maybe Hurley, etc... would likely not have extensive scouting reports detailing their flaws... or rather exposing negative trends/tendencies.
Here's another thought... and one that I don't understand is not common place amongst MLB teams, especially in the era of SPs not throwing more than 200 innings; why not have a 6 man rotation? Even if you only used it after the ASB to combat heat fatigue, etc... and especially to protect and manage these young pitchers work load.
1 day of additional rest (in between starts) would result in each SP pitching in approx. 27 games (vs. 32)... take those 5 games X approx. 6 IP per game = 30 IP less than it would be using a 5 man rotation.
I understand that pitchers may be too well rested, etc... but c'mon, I'm sure a guy like Maddux could come up with a daily routine so that his guys aren't over-throwing or too strong on day 6...
And this Rangers team, with all of it's potential #5 SP's, would likely be in a better position to have a 6 man rotation than 90% of MLB teams... just a thought!
SAMAGS - You left T. Hunter off your projected rotation.
First, why would you want your #1 & #2 pitcher making only 27 starts, rather than 32-33, and having those 'extra starts' be made by a #5 or #6 guy? I'd alomost rather see it the other way around.....because 6 innings is considered a 'quality start' nowadays, why not a 4 man rotation? Most guys average around 5+ innings a start (at best) so 40 starts would barely get them over 200 innings. I think it could be especially effective for a team with as much bullpen depth & quality as the Rangers.
On the surface, I don't see how Garland makes sense. The Rangers have plenty of young starting pitcher depth; Garland is not a clear, immediate upgrade and he lacks the upside of our current youngsters. IMO, Daniels might be looking to leverage someone like Hunter/Harrison/McCarthy in a trade.
geez, i had heard/read that Sheets was starting out by asking $12million, but seriously?! no one knows if he's even healthy.
maybe they're just asking for this crazy money to raise what he would actually get from say $3-4million for a pitcher 1+yr removed from pitching to $7-8million? asking a lot like $12M will give the illusion to teams that he is ready to go and be a top pitcher once again...
he may know that this could be the last payday of his professional life if he isnt 100% fit to be a big leaguer again. i dont know, but it's head scratching/
I have always liked Garland and thought he would be a good target for us. I also think that if we can get him for 4 or 5 we should. I think Harden is pretty great but I am not counting on him being healthy all year. Also we need an innings eater because I don't know that Holland, Feldman, Harden, Feliz, and Hunter are going to go much over 6 a game. 6 innings from your rotation is alot for a pen to take up, we need another guy who is a low risk high innings guy to come in and help out. Also if we aren't in contention by July and Garland or Harden is pitching really well thats a trade chip to improve us in another area and also gives us a blank spot for next years FAs
"First, why would you want your #1 & #2 pitcher making only 27 starts, rather than 32-33, and having those 'extra starts' be made by a #5 or #6 guy?" - That's a great point and one I did not consider.
While we are thinking outside the box:
Why not have a 11 man staff of 9 middle relievers one other relief pitcher and a closer? Pitcher them in three groups alternating right and left handed.
Group #1
RHP 3 or 4 innings - LHP 3 innings - RHP 2 or 3 innings
Group #2
LHP 3 innings - RHP 3 or 4 innings - LHP 2 innings
Group #3
RHP 3 innings - LHP 3 innings - RHP 2 or 3 innings
There seem to be lots of middle relievers who can work 2 or three quality innings this would require them to work about 6 innings a week in two three inning stints which is not bad for a reliever. It would make it difficult to pinch hit because the match ups will be reversed and then reversed again in each game.
If one of the guys falters you have an alternate reliever plus a closer for the 9th. This would mean you have completely redefine what a start is. Under this scheme a Quality start would would be 3 innings and 1 earned run.
Lol... that is defintely thinking outside the box...
That is actually a fantasy baseball trick. You can often pick up decent relievers for the minimum cost and win the league with no starting pitchers