 |
|
|
| |
« Odds & Ends: Cubs, Podsednik, Giants | Main | Igarashi To Pursue MLB Next Season »
Discussion: Jon Garland
Earlier this week, the Dodgers, as expected, declined to pick up their side of a $10MM mutual option for Jon Garland. However, one has to think that Ned Colletti & Co. would like to hang on to the 6'6 righty after surrendering Tony Abreu for him.
In 2009, Garland turned in an ERA of 4.01 in 200+ IP. The 30-year-old shined in his limited time in Dodger Blue, recording a 2.72 ERA with a 2.89 SO/BB ratio in six regular season games. While he would be a fairly attractive option in any free agent class, this winter's weak crop of starting pitchers may make Garland an even hotter commodity.
With Randy Wolf and Vicente Padilla also entering free agency, should the Dodgers look to hang on to Garland? What kind of an offer would you extend to him?
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
All depends on the ownership situation obviously. Ideally, the Dodgers wouldn't touch Garland or Padilla and instead re-sign Wolf and either sign John Lackey or trade for Roy Halladay.
Halladay/Lackey
Kershaw
Wolf
Billingsley
Kuroda
That's a championship caliber rotation.
Kershaw
Billingsley
Kuroda
Padilla
Garland/McDonald
THAT..is not. It's up to the McCourts.
Posted by: vtadave | November 08, 2009 at 10:43 PM
2 years, 8 mill per
Posted by: johan is GOD | November 08, 2009 at 10:45 PM
I think Garland is a great back of the rotation guy for the Dodgers to have that could really eat up some innings. He could pitch in playoffs with a strong season. but all depends on his asking price
Posted by: Shocka | November 09, 2009 at 12:43 AM
$8m per is an awfully steep price for a guy who is at best LA. His only asset is durability. Anything more than $4m is overpaying.
Posted by: bjsguess | November 09, 2009 at 01:24 AM
How come when people talk about "innings-eaters" they rarely mention "pitch well" in those same sentences?
Posted by: GScott | November 09, 2009 at 01:43 AM
"2 years, 8 mill per"
Why would they do that when they could have had him for 1/$7.5M?
Posted by: jwb | November 09, 2009 at 02:52 AM
jwb
It would have been 1/$10.
DBacks were only paying the buyout.
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2004/06/free-agent-pitchers.html
I would have thought very hard about picking up the option. He's a two-win pitcher. $10 is close to his value. The Dodgers had a hard time getting all of their starts covered last year.
As a Dodger fan I'm very scared this off season. With all the young dudes coming of age, the time to strike is now. But The Divorce is going to get in the way, I fear
Posted by: filihok | November 09, 2009 at 04:02 AM
I'm not sure I'd go arfter Garland, specifically, but they're going to need a decent starter or two this off-season.
I'm thinking sign Berdard to an incentive laden deal. Then basically just sign any solid mid/back of rotation guy. That could be any number of pitchers, including Garland. Maybe re-sign Padilla, too, as insurance for an injury (Berdard), and stash him in the bullpen. Even after his solid stint with LA I can't imagine the market on him will be too hot.
We don't get the ideal ace we were looking for, but there'd be a decent chance an ace would emerge between the Kershaw/Billingsley/Berdard trio..........right???
DeWitt and/or DeJesus takes over 2B and there you go......how to build a pennant contender on a budget.
Posted by: pavilionbum | November 09, 2009 at 04:28 AM
I think they should have picked up his option. Yes, it was a little expensive, but Garland plugs a hole in the middle of the rotation that nobody else is set to fill. The Dodgers could well have to pay more to get less in the free agent market, so letting him go was a big gamble IMO. The other alternative is to concentrate on rehabs in spring training and hope one works out.
Posted by: BlueSky | November 09, 2009 at 10:19 AM
I'd rather offer Bedard or Sheets $10 million and keep my fingers crossed all season than sign Garland. The best he would be for their rotation would be 4th or 5th starter, and you shouldn't be paying $10 million for that.
I don't think the divorce affects the Dodgers like it did the Padres. Because of their young players, even with arbitration, their payroll projects to be around $100 million, which is high for San Diego, but quite honestly low for the Dodgers and their fan and revenue base. Jamie's not going to get $480K per month, I think the highest award in California has been $100K per month.
If the Dodgers have to be sold, I'd compare them more to the Cubs than the Padres. Wasn't the Cubs payroll around $124 million while they were for sale?
Posted by: neoncactus | November 09, 2009 at 12:05 PM
I would offer Garland two years at $10 million.
I am still hoping that the Dodgers can package Juan Pierre (who is one of my favorite players) and George Sherrill for the Cubs Carlos Zambrano.
Otherwise, I am hoping that the Dodgers will pick up starting pitchers Harden or Bedard and offer a cheap one year second base contract to Placido Polanco or Orlando Cabrera until Devaris Gordon, Ivan DeJesus or Blake DeWitt is ready.
Here is my starting rotation:
1) Zambrano/Harden/Bedard
2) Kershaw
3) Billingsley
4) Kuroda
5) Garland/Elbert/TBD
Posted by: Dodgersin2009 | November 09, 2009 at 12:34 PM
filihok, From what I remember, the additional $2.5M was the Dodgers' money whether they bought out Garland's option or not, therefore $7.5M. I may be wrong.
Of course, the only cites I can find now are a few 200 byte Twitters, (I have more content on T-shirts), a Fox/Rosenthal blurb, and an LA Times/Plaschke "404 - File not found" (which probably contains exactly as much useful information as the original column). Piecoro should have had something to say about this, but I can't find it.
Posted by: jwb | November 09, 2009 at 12:58 PM
"I am still hoping that the Dodgers can package Juan Pierre (who is one of my favorite players) and George Sherrill for the Cubs Carlos Zambrano. "
Sign Bedard and Padilla, throw in Zambrano.....I think season ticket holders should have exclusive rights to those twice-a-week support group meetings for pitchers with emotional issues.
Posted by: abcrazy4dodgers | November 09, 2009 at 01:25 PM
"I am still hoping that the Dodgers can package Juan Pierre (who is one of my favorite players) and George Sherrill for the Cubs Carlos Zambrano. "
Sign Bedard and Padilla, throw in Zambrano.....I think season ticket holders should have exclusive rights to those twice-a-week support group meetings for pitchers with emotional issues.
Posted by: abcrazy4dodgers | November 09, 2009 at 01:25 PM"
We wouldn't make the playoffs, the LA Dodgers would become gross Reality show.
But in all seriousness, the Dodgers would never take on his contract and hes not a ACE right now.
Oh and I rather throw money at the Bedard/Harden group than Garland.
Garland around 5 million would be nice.
Posted by: 661dodgerblue | November 09, 2009 at 02:56 PM
I think Garland is a perfect fit for the Dodgers. Garland is never a swing and miss guy, but at Dodger Stadium, he'd probably put up a decent season with over 200 IP.
Something around 4 or 5 mil, with incentives would be a good deal. They could use the innings eater as Kershaw and Billingsly continue to develop.
Posted by: R y a n | November 09, 2009 at 09:13 PM