 |
|
|
| |
« Padres In Search Of Left-Handed Bat | Main | Rockies Rumors: Beimel, Fogg, Benson »
D'Backs Closing In On Deal With Garland?
11:20pm: MLB.com's Steve Gilbert has a source saying the D'Backs and Garland are closing in on a deal.
4:56pm: According to Nick Piecoro of the Arizona Republic, the Diamondbacks have resumed contract discussions with free agent starter Jon Garland. Piecoro says Garland initially turned down an Arizona offer in the two-year, $13-14MM range. It's unclear which side restarted talks, but maybe that offer is starting to look better to Garland.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e2010536f2dfb2970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference D'Backs Closing In On Deal With Garland?:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
Garland for 2/13-14? What???
Jon Garland is not even close to worth that amount.
His K rate is quite poor, and has been declining for three straight years. His walk rate is also poor now, and has declined for three straight years as well.
He doesn't keep the ball on the ground that much, and guys can square up on his stuff pretty well.
Anything more than 1/5, and someone is overpaying.
Posted by: scribbletone | January 27, 2009 at 05:23 PM
Still, you can't help but imagine his stats would go back up traveling to the NL, and the NL West nonetheless.
Posted by: MrBlake14 | January 27, 2009 at 05:37 PM
His statistics might get better superficially, but he'll still be the same decent 4/5 starter. He'll be able to get his 12+ wins because he eats innings, and he can probably keep his ERA down in the 4's if he can maintain the unusually high GB% he posted in Los Angeles.
There's a ton of risk in giving Garland that much money though, when you can see the clear decline in his performance.
The only positive indicators I could find in his 2008 performance was the improved groundball rate, as well as a spike in his velocity.
The average velocity of all four of his pitches (FB, SL, CB, CH) all increased for the first time since 2005, reflecting a potential improvement in his raw stuff.
I'm not sure what to take from it, but Garland is still a very poor idea to me.
Posted by: scribbletone | January 27, 2009 at 05:52 PM
They can't really want him for two years, can they? How about we send ol' Jarrod Washburn over with 3 million bucks stuffed down the front of his shirt? You get the same guy for the same price with half the commitment. Wattayasay?
Posted by: rudolf | January 27, 2009 at 06:09 PM
I still think the addition of hi would be a decent rotation.
Webb
Haren
Davis
Garland
Scherzer
Posted by: Carl | January 27, 2009 at 06:46 PM
They might as well just sign Braden Looper for substantially less, and get similar production, though.
Posted by: scribbletone | January 27, 2009 at 06:56 PM
Anyone that keeps the bullpen off the mound is an improvement
Posted by: Serg Rush | January 27, 2009 at 07:26 PM
I still think the addition of hi would be a decent rotation.
Webb
Haren
Davis
Garland
Scherzer
Posted by: Carl | January 27, 2009 at 06:46 PM
If Doug Davis can throw strikes, that is probably the best rotation in the NL West. Imho Matt Cain is overrated making San Fran worse.
Posted by: Serg Rush | January 27, 2009 at 07:29 PM
They can't afford Johnson at 1 year for 5 million but they can offer Garland 2 years at 14 million...seriously? Weak sauce.
Posted by: Jude22 | January 27, 2009 at 07:53 PM
"If Doug Davis can throw strikes, that is probably the best rotation in the NL West."
Probably not. On paper, the Giants have the best rotation now with the addition of Johnson. If, however, Kershaw steps up his game this year and McDonald is in the rotation, the Dodgers will have the best rotation.
"Imho Matt Cain is overrated making San Fran worse."
If by overrated you mean weak Ace/Strong 2 with a great health history, youth and a contract WAY below market, I guess you would be right. And I am a Dodger fan.
Posted by: AA | January 27, 2009 at 09:37 PM
Garland is a good # 3 or 4 starter, but for his price, he better be the Ace of the staff. I think he will wind up in LA for some reason..
Posted by: TripleHHH | January 27, 2009 at 10:22 PM
What is the status on Jason Schimdt, if he can return to form the dodgers could have quite the rotation.
Posted by: manny24 | January 27, 2009 at 10:41 PM
"They can't afford Johnson at 1 year for 5 million but they can offer Garland 2 years at 14 million...seriously? Weak sauce."
Didnt he ask for 8 or 9 million and they said they couldnt give more than 5? So actually they did offer 1 year and 5 to Johnson. Plus at least Garland will give you solid innings which Johnson is a question mark.
Posted by: chicubs25 | January 27, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Well, let's put it this way, he'll put up numbers number than Carlos Silva for a cheaper price tag... but still, one has to think they could have waited him out for something like 2 yrs at $5M per. In the NL he could be a solid #4 man.
"Imho Matt Cain is overrated making San Fran worse."
Cain has incredible stuff and is far from overrated. The reason some many people consider him overrated is because they look at his W/L record first. The rest of his stats make him a solid number 3 on any team in the majors and he's still young. He could still be a solid number 2 pitcher.
Posted by: start_wearing_purple | January 27, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Garland should be much better in the NL. AZ is a pretty good pitchers park too if i remember correctly.
As a braves fan, i know about how great Webb is. Haren is a solid #2. Davis is the guy coming back from cancer right? If so, he was a pretty good pitcher when healthy. Garland is a good 3/4 option. And Sherzer could be a star one day...or a bust.
If davis is any good and sherzer improves, it could be an interesting year in the NL west.
But...
GO BRAVES.
Posted by: bravesfansc | January 27, 2009 at 11:46 PM
WOW the Bums just keep striking out on their key free agents. Again leaving them with Randy Wolf. This is going to be a BAAAD season for the Dodgers even with Manny. If they miss out on him you're looking at a 60 win team next year.
Posted by: Joe505 | January 27, 2009 at 11:46 PM
I remember reading that Johnson was willing to drop his contract to at least half, to around 5 or 6 million for a year. But the Dbacks would only offer him 2-3 million because they claimed to have no money, which has obviously changed...
Posted by: Jude22 | January 27, 2009 at 11:51 PM
joe, calm down. they'll be fine.
Posted by: metzfan22 | January 27, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Garland's got a ring, he's a big game pitcher, won't strike out a lot of people but he finds ways to win and to get himself out of jams. Above average defense and a genuinely nice guy. The move to the NL will help a lot. Nice move by the D-Backs.
Posted by: astralpanda | January 27, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Garland numbers from last year:
196.2 innings, only 90 strikeouts
237 hits allowed
23 HR allowed
BAA: .303
WHIP: 1.51
Away: .332/.890
This guy is not a 3/4 starter, Arizona's getting fool's gold..
Posted by: Hyro | January 28, 2009 at 12:02 AM
I remember reading that Johnson was willing to drop his contract to at least half, to around 5 or 6 million for a year. But the Dbacks would only offer him 2-3 million because they claimed to have no money, which has obviously changed...
Posted by: Jude22 | January 27, 2009 at 11:51 PM
I think half puts him around 8MM per. hence there was no way they could get him for 5.
I hope this gets done, it would eliminate the chance of him signing with the mets.
Posted by: Fish&Mets | January 28, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Solid move by DBacks, Garland will take advantage of the easier lineups he will face in the joke hhat is NL west, good move for him he will look good again like everyone else who tries a couple years in the "minors".
Posted by: slashieboy | January 28, 2009 at 12:40 AM
"Garland's got a ring, he's a big game pitcher"
Who's been going steadily downhill since he earned that ring. Don't get me wrong, even for the price tag it's not a bad move for the D-backs and if Garland can return to being a solid pitcher (even a solid #4 pitcher), he's in the right division. It's just he's not the big game pitcher he was in 2005.
Posted by: start_wearing_purple | January 28, 2009 at 01:08 AM
No, Chase field is not a pitchers park... Actually it's in the top 5 hitters park on NL.
Aces. I'm sorry but, Lincecum may have got the CY last year, but the guy is coming of his first full season, on wich he was a little overused...and even knowing that he can shine again, he can be a bust too, he's just too young and should be used more carefully. You take out those 3 games in a row that Webb struggled badly (after being hit by a line drive on his chest) and he could have 25W and the CY... not to mention his numbers are top, not over last year, but over the last half decade. Aces: Lincecum vs Webb? Webb, cause hes a proven Ace.
#2. If you have Cain over Haren, I don't know what da hell are u watching, but it's not baseball. I won't blame Cain losses (only one 30+ starts winning season = 13-12 in 06), lets just look at the overall numbers between the two over the last 4 years... Haren's K/BB is insane, hes pitched more innings, K'd more batters and got a better ERA, not to mention that last year he got his best overall numbers even after pitching on a hitters enviroment half of his games. If you take Webb off the rotation, Haren is the Ace. Do the same with Cain over Lincecum? I have doubts. | Cain vs Haren? Haren.
3# Johnson vs Davis. Not much to say. If Randy can stay healthy he's a stud, but hes 45+ y/o guy, u never know. Davis is mostly an inning eater, who pitches with runners on, and somehow manages to get out of trouble to win/lose 12+ games a year, and thats it. Randy vs Davis? Randy.
4# Scherzer and Zito. The first is getting ready for his first full season, has a 95+ fastball, a good slider and an improving changeup. The second is a former CY winner, who lost velocity on his fastball, and the timing of his best pitch, the curve. Not to mention that in SF Zito always waits until he's 0-9 to figure out whats wrong... but hes a veteran guy, and that acounts. Result? Zito for a little margin.
5#. If Garland signs, he can help the bullpen pitching as an inning eater. What else do you want for a 5th man than Innings? If he can post a sub 5.00 ERA, that's the best u can have for an end of rotation starter.
Best rotation without garland? DBacks.
Best with Garland? DBacks.
Posted by: mwozn | January 28, 2009 at 05:19 AM
Thank you Jesus, thank you Lord!!!
This prevents Colletti from adding this mediocrity to the Dodgers...
Garland is Putrid!
Posted by: MikeClarke | January 28, 2009 at 06:49 AM
Webb v. Lincecum is a wash.
Matt Cain is very good, but Haren is better. Haren is a co-ace; Cain is a high 2. This is the only one which really probably has the least possiblity of swinging b/w the sides.
Johnson v. Davis is strongly dependent whether The Unit stays healthy. If he's healthy, he wins.
Scherzer v. Sanchez is a wild card. Both guys have tons of untapped potential but who taps more of that potential in '09. This one is a draw.
Zito v. Garland. I have to go to Zito on this one. Both are below average pitchers right now and have in the past, but Zito has pitched well more recently.
So right now, edge to the Giants rotation.
Posted by: melonis rex | January 28, 2009 at 08:49 AM
"This prevents Colletti from adding this mediocrity to the Dodgers... "
There's always Looper and Wolf for the Dodgers.
Posted by: melonis rex | January 28, 2009 at 08:58 AM
I promise you that anyone who thinks that Garland is a solid 3/4 doesn't have a good understanding of metric and peripheral statistics.
Garland posts good records because he pitches on good teams, it's that simple.
Posted by: scribbletone | January 28, 2009 at 09:01 AM
I'd go Lincecum over Webb and Haren over Cain, but the differences offset each other.
I'd probably go Sanchez over Scherzer, just because Sanchez has more ML experience and seems more likely to tap his potential next year. I like Scherzer more long term though.
Johnson and Davis are really close, but I agree with melonis that if the Big Unit is healthy, he wins.
As for Zito and Garland, I really have trouble picking Zito, although he definitely has more upside. Garland just seems more likely to post a 4.50ish ERA and not crumble.
Posted by: scribbletone | January 28, 2009 at 09:06 AM
Yes the giants rotation has talent. But they cant win if they dont score runs. And pending a few huge pick ups the Dbacks offense will be a lot better. Remember April last year with Byrnes doing horrible NO DUNN and Hudson doing ok Upton Reynolds and Jackson lead this team to the top of the league, now with a full year down for most of them, they may be able to keep that going.
Posted by: Eric | January 28, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Dbacks offer him 7 to 8 mil a year. Garlands not bad but forget that for two reasons. 1. Hes not worth that much, especially for a team that needs to sign webb for long term still.
2. Sheets doesnt want much mor that this! while its a small risk, the reward is much higher. So offer him a back end heavy contract. 2009 8mil; 2010 11mil; 2011 12 to 13 mil why not try before you sign Garland. And yes they will have that money next year because Davis will have to resign now he makes over 7mil and he will sign for half of that.
Posted by: Eric | January 28, 2009 at 10:35 AM